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.

9:00 AM PT: NC-07: Put it in the books! After a recount which altered the final tally by exactly one vote, Republican David Rouzer conceded to Dem Rep. Mike McIntyre in North Carolina's 7th District. McIntyre's 654-vote victory is one of the narrowest (if not the narrowest) in the nation, and it's testament to his remarkable ability to survive in incredibly adverse circumstances—as well as the fact that he got a lot of outside financial help. But so did Rouzer, since Republicans were eager to knock off the conservative Blue Dog McIntyre, particularly since his district was deliberately redrawn to go from 52-47 McCain all the way to an almost impossible 58-42 McCain. (The Romney numbers are not yet available.) McIntyre will remain a target as long as he's in office, but as constituents in the new part of his district become familiar with him, he may wind up better-positioned in 2014 than he was this year.

This also wraps up the final uncalled House race in the nation, which means the 113th Congress will contain 234 Republicans and 201 Democrats (once Jesse Jackson, Jr.'s safe blue seat is filled). That represents a gain of eight seats for Team Blue compared to the 193 they held in January of 2011. There's still a long way to go until 218, but this is a good start.

9:30 AM PT: SD-Sen: Republicans picked up their second heavyweight Senate recruit in a week, though this one had been telegraphed for a while: Former Gov. Mike Rounds, who had previously formed what he dubbed an exploratory committee, formally announced on Thursday morning that he'd take on Dem Sen. Tim Johnson in South Dakota. Rounds was a surprise victory in the GOP gubernatorial primary in 2002, sneaking through after the two main contenders bashed each other to death. He went on to win two terms and generally had high approval ratings, except for a time in 2006 following his attempt to enact legislation banning nearly all abortions. (It was overturned at the ballot box that fall.) Presumably, Rounds' entry will clear the field, though given movement conservative anger, you never want to say never.

As for Johnson, the big question is will he or won't he (seek re-election, that is). In 2006, Johnson suffered a very scary and dangerous stroke-like episode involving bleeding in the brain which required emergency surgery and extensive rehabilitation. The incident still affects his mobility and speech, but reports over the years indicate he has improved markedly, and his mental acuity never suffered, though he sometimes still uses a wheelchair.

Johnson did avoid a serious challenge in 2008, since his long recovery made top-tier Republicans wary of jumping in and running an aggressive race lest they look callous. But he had a couple of pretty remarkable wins under his belt prior to that. His first victory in 1996 came against GOP Sen. Larry Pressler, and let's just say that unseating a Republican incumbent (who isn't under indictment) in a red state in a presidential year is truly a hell of a thing. In 2002, Johnson was a top GOP target but managed to win narrowly against John Thune—the same John Thune who went on to beat Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle just two years later.

So his physical condition may not be tops, but Johnson is quite the politician. And he's sounding more enthused about the possibility of another run than, say, Jay Rockefeller is in West Virginia:

"As in past campaigns, I will make my formal announcement later next year," he said in the statement. "But I feel great, still have work to do, and I fully intend to put together a winning campaign in the weeks and months ahead."
I wouldn't take that one to the bank just yet—after all, he could dispel any retirement talk with the snap of his fingers if he chose to— but I'm pleasantly surprised to hear Johnson sounding so game. While Democrats do have some possible replacement options (such as ex-Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin) if Johnson does call it quits, I'm quite convinced he's our best hope of holding this seat and I certainly hope he runs again.

9:34 AM PT: Guys, I see that some folks have unwisely launched into a huge policy debate in the comments today. You all know better than to do this. I'd really like to head into a peaceful December, and I don't want to have to police policy brushfires. Daily Kos is a huge site, and there are many other places you can discuss the "fiscal cliff" or climate change or any other topic you like. But the Live Digest remains a strictly horse-race only zone, and always will.

10:03 AM PT: NJ-Sen: PPP is out with their first in-house post-election poll, and while the 2013 New Jersey governor's race is on everyone's mind, they're leading off with a look at the state's Senate contest the following year. PPP didn't exactly conduct a standard test of the Democrat primary, but if Newark Mayor Cory Booker would prefer to take on Sen. Frank Lautenberg rather than Gov. Chris Christie, it looks like he'd be in strong shape. Though Lautenberg retains good approval ratings among Dems, only 36 percent say he should seek re-election versus 45 who want him to retire.

More importantly, by a 59-22 margin, Democratic primary voters say they prefer Booker over Lautenberg as the party's nominee. Booker also handily beats out two other possibilities in a quasi-head-to-head ("who would you most like to see as the Democratic candidate for Senate"), taking 48 percent to just 17 for Rep. Rob Andrews (who primaried Lautenberg once before, in 2008) and 13 for Rep. Frank Pallone.

As for the general election, Tom Jensen tested just one Republican, Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno. Given that she's been Christie's no. 2 for years now, she's still almost comically unknown, with 73 percent of voters having no opinion of her. Booker's overall 48-20 favorability rating, plus New Jersey's implacably blue lean on the federal level, thus power him to a 52-29 lead over Guadagno. (Pallone and Andrew are both basically tied with Guadagno in the low 30s.) Of course, those name rec numbers would change in a real campaign, but it's not even clear if Guadagno is interested, and in any event, Booker would still be the heavy favorite.

11:06 AM PT: Pres-by-CD: It's candy time! We have a bunch more presidential results by congressional districts for you:

California (7 of 53)

Connecticut (quasi-official)

Florida (three more: FL-05, -10, -11)

Minnesota

Rhode Island

A note regarding Connecticut: Unlike nearly all other states, CT actually breaks down presidential results by CD itself, which is nice. However, it's not clear exactly how "final" the numbers are. According to this news article, the secretary of state has "officially certified" the results, but a "full Statement of the Vote including final vote tallies" will not be available until January—and bonncaruso says that in 2008, the numbers did change "between the announcement of the certified results and the final canvass." So please consider the CT results preliminary.

Some thoughts on the numbers themselves: In California, the most interesting district we've tabulated so far is CA-41, an open seat technically held by Republicans that was picked up by Democrat Mark Takano. Takano wound up performing very well, winning by over a dozen points—in part because he had some serious help at the top of the ticket. Obama's performance improved from 59-38 in 2008 to 62-36 this year, all but ensuring this seat won't make any GOP target lists in the future.

Three of Connecticut's districts saw drops of 5-6 points for the POTUS, except for the already heavily-blue 3rd, which was unchanged, and the wealthy 4th, where Obama dropped from a 20-point edge to just 11. The 4th is home to Greenwich and a lot of other gold-plated New York City suburbs filled with Wall Street types who probably found more appeal in Romney's platform than other folks in the Nutmeg State. Fortunately, Dem Rep. Jim Himes ran well ahead of the ticket, winning by 20 points.

FL-10 confirms further how Obama's narrow victory statewide really was powered by his tremendous showing in South Florida. In this Orlando-area district, his performance fell a couple of points (from -5 to -7), which probably held back Democrat Val Demings a bit. But it probably wasn't the difference-maker, as she lost by four to GOP Rep. Daniel Webster.

In Minnesota, we'd previously had unofficial numbers. Nothing's really changed, but if you click through, you can now drill down to the county level. Want to know how Obama did in the portion of Beltrami County contained in the 8th District? Have at it! Oh, and as for Rhode Island? Almost no change at all.

11:44 AM PT: NY-19: I thought this was pretty hilarious. Freshman GOP Rep. Chris Gibson, who just fended off a tough re-election challenge from Democrat Julian Schreibman, is trying to get out from under his pledge to anti-tax zealot Grover Norquist—a pledge he made readily when he first ran for Congress in 2010. But Gibson doesn't want to look like he's going back on his word, so he's come up with a truly comical "rationale" as to why his promise no longer applies to him:

The Congressman signed the pledge as a candidate in 2010 for the 20th Congressional District. [...]

Regarding the pledge moving forward, Congressman Gibson doesn’t plan to resign it for the 19th Congressional District, which he now represents (the pledge is to your constituents of a numbered district).

I'm pretty sure Gibson is trying to say that because his district number got changed, the pledge no longer applies! That's some amazing chutzpah. I mean, what if the number had happened to stay the same? And even forgetting that nonsense, how about the fact that many of the constituents in the new 19th were previously represented by Gibson in the old 20th? This is so ridiculous I can scarcely believe it. It doesn't matter what I think, though: The real question, though, will be whether Norquist buys it. Somehow, I have a feeling he won't.

11:52 AM PT: OH Redistricting: By a 4-3 vote, the Ohio Supreme Court has rejected a challenge to the state's new legislative maps, which were drawn by Republicans earlier this year and used in November's elections. Plaintiffs had argued that the maps violated a provision of the state constitution which (as in many other states) required county splits to be minimized. The court rejected this claim on the grounds that the commission which drew the new map was obligated to make the new boundaries similar to the prior lines.

But a very vocal dissent accused the majority opinion of "fail[ing] the tests of logic and fairness" and said the burden of proof the majority demanded was far too high. What's more, said the dissent, the requirement that the maps mostly stand pat is "absurd"; since the prior maps themselves were flawed, it equates to saying "because we have already violated the constitution, we can continue to violate the constitution." A very frustrating outcome, but quite predictable, seeing as the court is dominated 6-1 by Republicans. I suppose we should be happy that two GOP judges crossed over to the minority, though.

12:19 PM PT: IL-Gov: Dem Gov. Pat Quinn's had some terrible ratings for a long time, but these latest numbers from PPP are just disastrously bad. Thanks in part to presiding over an income tax hike necessary to pay for state government services, Quinn's worked his way down to a 25-64 job approval score, and predictably, his numbers in hypothetical 2014 matchups with Republicans are just awful:

37-44 vs. state Sen. Kirk Dillard
39-43 vs. Treasurer Dan Rutherford
40-39 vs. Rep. Aaron Schock

Obviously, lots of Democrats are thinking about replacing Quinn, so Tom Jensen tested Attorney General Lisa Madigan (who has high name rec) and former White House chief of staff Bill Daley (who doesn't) as well. Madigan leads Dillard and Rutherford 46-37 and Schock 46-38, while Daley trails Dillard (34-36) and Rutherford (37-38) but edges Schock 40-35.

Madigan has long been mentioned as potential gubernatorial candidate and has a good 48-32 favorability rating overall and a 68-16 score among Democratic primary voters. In a direct head-to-head with Quinn, she trounces him 64-20. Even Daley comes out ahead, too, though, 37-34, which really should give Quinn second thoughts about seeking re-election. But Daley also probably wants to think twice about setting himself on a potential collision course with Madigan, who looks very strong.

Meanwhile, on the GOP side, Rutherford noses Schock 27-26 in a hypothetical three-way primary, with Dillard at 17. He also takes the top spot in PPP's kitchen-sink scenario:

Dan Rutherford: 19
Aaron Schock: 18
Bill Brady: 14
Kirk Dillard: 12
Joe Walsh: 8
Bruce Rauner: 7
Someone else: 7
Not sure: 15

As for the additional names there: Bill Brady was the GOP's 2010 nominee, who barely beat Dillard for the nod and then barely lost to Quinn; Joe Walsh is the infamous loudmouth and soon-to-be-former congressman; and Bruce Rauner is a wealthy private equity titan. As always, these "let's toss everybody into the hopper" polls don't reflect any kind of prediction as to what the primary field will look like, but they do offer a way to judge the initial standing of potential players.

1:20 PM PT: IL-02: State Sen. Toi Hutchinson is now the fifth candidate to join the Democratic primary for the Jesse Jackson, Jr. special election—an interesting moving, because it will pit her against her former boss, Debbie Halvorson. Hutchinson was Halvorson's chief of staff when Halvorson served as a state senator before winning election to Congress in 2008 and then wound up taking Halvorson's Senate seat.

Meanwhile, as expected, legislation to move the general election from March to April is moving through the Illinois legislature and will undoubtedly be signed into law soon.

1:33 PM PT: WV-02, WV-Sen: Dave Catanese reports that Kanawha County Prosecutor Mark Plants says he's interested in a possible bid for Rep. Shelley Moore Capito's open seat and that he's not going to challenge her for the GOP Senate nomination. Probably the biggest name who hasn't shut the door to a primary tumble with Capito is 1st District Rep. David McKinley, but I'll bet the Club for Growth is hard at work trying to find someone (anyone!) willing to take her on.

1:36 PM PT: Oh, and... whoops!

1:42 PM PT: House: Leave it to Greg Giroux to come up with a number like this: When the 113th Congress convenes in January, California's House delegation will lose 212 years of combined seniority. Thanks to the retirements of several veteran members (like 17-term GOP Rep. Jerry Lewis) and the losses of some other senior congressmen (such as 20-term Dem Rep. Pete Stark), the Golden State's new delegation will have a 536.5 total years in office, versus 748.8 for the outgoing gang.

1:49 PM PT: DCCC: Politico's Alex Isenstadt has a good piece on Steve Israel and the DCCC's plans for 2014, filled with lots of interesting details. The overall message is that Democrats are already hitting the ground running, but I encourage you to read the whole thing, and here are a few noteworthy tidbits:

• President Obama has already called Israel twice since the election to offer to help with recruiting, and it sounds like the POTUS might finally play a more active role downballot now that his own re-election is not on the line.

• Israel's reached out to several 2012 candidates who lost narrowly (or got otherwise punked) about possible repeat bids, including FL-10's Val Demings, IN-02's Brendan Mullen, and CA-31's Pete Aguilar. He's also spoken to two potential WV-02 candidates: ex-Sen. Carte Goodwin and 2008 nominee Anne Barth.

• Israel identified four interesting GOP targets as being the most vulnerable: OH-14's David Joyce, IL-13's Rodney Davis, FL-13's Bill Young, and CA-31's Gary Miller.

• Rep.-elects Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09) and Brad Schneider (IL-10) are already assisting with candidate recruitment, along with Blue Dog Rep. John Barrow (GA-12) and Rep. Xavier Becerra (CA-34), the highest-ranking Hispanic member of the House.

2:04 PM PT: NYC Redistricting: When the commission responsible for drawing new city council lines for New York issued their final maps, there was every reason to believe that the new plans would just sail through the council—after all, most of the members of this supposedly independent panel were hand-picked by the council itself. But politics has a way of proving unpredictable, and now we've reached a very unexpected juncture: Council Speaker Christine Quinn, the frontrunner for next year's mayoral race, is now asking the commission to go back to the drawing board. So you might rightly ask, "Whu?"

Well, here's whu, as Politicker's Colin Campbell explains. Some 11th-hour changes to the maps appear to have been made for the benefit of disgraced Assemblyman Vito Lopez, who turned himself into a pariah earlier this year after details emerged about a taxpayer-funded six-figure settlement given to two former female staffers who alleged he had sexually harassed them. Because New York politics is so venal, that somehow didn't end Lopez's career, though he now seems eager to get out of Albany and is reportedly consider a run for council.

But Quinn doesn't want a map that would give Vito a boost in seeking an open council seat (term limits, delayed four years ago by Bloombergian fiat, are finally kicking in), especially since it looks like some of Vito's remaining allies went out of their way to do a favor for him. (After all, it wouldn't look good for her mayoral bid.) So now she's reportedly begging the council to vote down its own map and has specifically asked the panel to edit the lines for the putative Lopez district.

Of course, this all shows what a sham NYC independent-in-name-only redistricting process is (and the rest of the map, predictably, is almost all about incumbent protection). What's more—not that I'm defending Lopez, who is a scumbag—isn't there something a bit unseemly about the head of the city council going to extraordinary lengths to amend a map that might help someone she dislikes, who might run for office (and still could even if the map does get changed)? But either way, Quinn is squeezed, since if the "pro-Vito" lines were to get enacted, they'd be a black eye for her. And given that Quinn has sold herself as the next coming of Mike Bloomberg, I can't say I'm unhappy about that.

2:17 PM PT (David Jarman): Hey: Got your attention, right? Business Week has an interesting look at those ubiquitous Obama campaign fundraising e-mails and how they, like everything else about the campaign, weren't spontaneous but were meticulously tested, quantitatively researched, and re-written. Did it work? $690 million in online fundraising says yes. Simplicity was often best, as in the aforementioned "Hey;" also successful were the frightening ones, like "I will be outspent" and "Some scary numbers."

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

  •  CA-$$ (13+ / 0-)

    Former campaign treasurer-to-everyone Kinde Durkee sentenced to over eight years in federal prison for embezzling at least $7.5M from candidate accounts, following a plea bargain, and ordered to pay restitution of more than $10.5 million that 77 victims claim to have lost, including expenses incurred in establishing the losses.

    •  Durdee should have no involvement... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Zack from the SFV, MichaelNY

      ...in a political campaign ever again. That kind of conduct is absolutely unacceptable, and Durdee should spend time behind bars for that.

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

      by DownstateDemocrat on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 06:38:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

        •  and is an appropriate sentence (6+ / 0-)

              Not all the campaigns that she defrauded were for big money candidates like Sen. Feinstein. Durkee and Associates did a lot of work for local party organizations like the L.A. County Democratic Party and many Democratic clubs. They charged low rates for their services to the "little guys" so it was affordable to use them as treasurer. Apparently they didn't charge enough to meet their bills so she started skimming off the top and "borrowing"  from campaigns to meet payroll. This is not to justify her actions; but for a long time she was seen as a great asset to local Democratic groups. It turned out to be too good a deal to be true.

                I went over to Durkee's Burbank office a few times to deliver checks from the Sherman Oaks Democratic Club (now known as the Kennedy Democrats of the San Fernando Valley). It was not a fancy place but it was busier than I expected, with maybe twenty people working there on a typical day. The person I reported to was always helpful and seemed competent. Now with hindsight it all seems too weird and creepy, but everything seemed OK at the time.  Live and learn...

          Diehard Swingnut, disgruntled Democrat, age 54, new CA-30

          by Zack from the SFV on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 10:20:14 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I was in New Zealand for a semester... (6+ / 0-)

            When I was still in school. I may have mentioned it before, but I took a course (or a paper, as they call them there) on the sociology of incarceration. We were having a discussion in one of the tutorial classes for the course, and the T.A. brought up Bernie Madoff, who had recently received a life sentence in prison.

            I was both the only American in the room and the only person who said I thought it was completely justified for Madoff to get a life sentence. Everyone else there (most of them Kiwi students) thought it was just outrageous to punish someone with that many years, especially for a white-collar crime.

            It didn't change my mind about Madoff, but it was an eye-opening experience to realize how unique the American attitude toward criminal justice is in the Western world. I think about that sometimes.

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

            by SaoMagnifico on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 10:28:39 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  A white collar crime (3+ / 0-)

              that financially destroyed thousands.

              •  Indeed (6+ / 0-)

                I think we Americans are much more moralistic than most other European-influenced and European nationalities, partially a product of our Puritan heritage. A candidate for office in the US who campaigned on reducing sentences for murder to 8 years or less would be tarred and feathered and thrown out of town, yet that's a common sentence for murder in some European countries that don't seem to have exceedingly high rates of either murder or recidivism. I believe that American voters want tough penalties for really injurious crimes not only for their deterrent value, which is sometimes slight if any, but because we believe that evildoers deserve punishment. And that's what makes us different from many other electorates.

                Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                by MichaelNY on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 05:46:11 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  Another look at Senate-'14 (5+ / 0-)

    which seems unrelated to the title of the article -- http://www.theatlantic.com/...

    Notes 6 seats in states where the President lost by between 11 and 27 points (WV, AR, LA, AK, MT, SD) -- but also notes:

    Republicans will still face the same obstacles they have had to contend with in the last two cycles: first, getting high-quality and electable candidates to run, and second, getting them through primaries. Their challenge, in part, is that too many traditionally Republican voters -- both of the moderate and the "mainstream" variety -- seem to have pulled back from active roles in GOP politics and even participation in primaries, allowing the more conservative wing of the party to become dominant.
    I was thinking, ah, the Atlantic, despite the good nuggets, it's a remarkably sloppily written article for that publication, but then I noticed the name of the author.

    I hope; therefore, I can live.

    by tietack on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 06:22:33 AM PST

    •  It's amusing (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SaoMagnifico, lordpet8, MichaelNY

      to see people like Stuart Rothenberg claim we could realistically expect a supermajority after the 2016 elections. My, how one good cycle changes everything!

      He's right, of course, but I tink he actually downplays the situation. If the Democrats don't do badly in 2014, losing no more than one seat, they could conceivably get above 60 without much of a sweat. Start at 54, and in 2016 knock off Toomey, Johnson, and Kirk, and we are at 57.

       If it's a very good cycle, they could inch close to 67. Hell, if they run the table, flipping everything obvious (Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) and everything marginal (Indiana) and perhaps even the very marginal (South Dakota), they could get to 67.

      No, that's probably not going to happen. But if we are able to field strong candidates and have a good cycle, all bets are off. It'd help if the Republicans want to destroy their chances via their primaries yet again.

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

      by bjssp on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 08:49:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  This is how I see it: (8+ / 0-)

        If 2014 is a decent year, we lose, say, two of SD, MT, AK, WV, LA, and AR and no others. Then, this is how I see our 2016 pickups, from most to least likely:

        IL (Kirk)- D+8. Kirk should be a goner.
        WI (Johnson)- D+3. Johnson is distant and too conservative.
        PA (Toomey)- D+1.
        NH (Ayotte)- D+1. Rated below Toomey due to her lower toxicity
        IA (Grassley)- D+1
        ---We'd need to win everything above this line plus 2---
        FL (Rubio)- R+2.
        NC (Burr)- R+3. Hopefully NC gets sick of the R trifecta.
        -----60 Senators---------
        OH (Portman)- R+1. Purple seat but strong incumbent
        IN (Coats)- R+5
        MO (Blunt)- R+5
        AZ (McCain)- R+7. We'd need a retirement here.
        SC (DeMint)- R+7
        GA (Isakson)- R+6
        KY (Paul)- R+12.
        AK (Murkowski)- R+11. We'd need a teabagging here.
        SD (Thune)- R+10. Also need a retirement here.

        I simply can't see us picking up any of the other seats.

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

        by fearlessfred14 on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 09:28:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think that's a fair assessment. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lordpet8, MichaelNY, JBraden

          I just want to be ready with strong candidates in all of those races. We have a pretty wide set of options, with several of those marginal states possibly becoming bluer overall by 2016, as opposed to next cycle, when it looks kind of bleak. It's not at all unpossible (as Ralph Wiggum would say) for these guys to be primaried, foul up on the campaign trail, or simply retire.

          As for 2014, our path to 60-plus seats gets quite a bit easier if we actually gain seats that year. That could easily not happen, but there's a perfectly plausible case for keeping all of the seats we now hold, or at least staying at 55 net. And if we can manage to see all of our incumbents win, does it seem that far fetched to think that we might win in just one of Georgia, Kentucky, Maine, or South Carolina if a few things go our way? As always, let's be serious about contesting all seats, but these in particular.

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

          by bjssp on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 09:37:03 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  yes, it does seem far fetched. (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bjssp, Chachy, askew, MichaelNY, Anonyman

            In all likelihood we will lose seats.  I'm not conceding them without a fight, though.

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

            by James Allen on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 09:39:06 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

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

              Collins, Graham, or Chambliss loses a primary, or if Collins retires, our chances improve dramatically.

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

              by bjssp on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 09:43:28 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  This is a bit of a fantasy (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jncca, MichaelNY

                that we have much of a chance to pick up seats in SC or GA in the event of a teabagging. Those states are still reliably republican (give GA until 2020) and socially conservative. Remember that to win the MO and IN races this year, we had to have nutbags win the primary and they had to inexplicably start babbling about rate. No guarantee that will happen again. And even if it does, no guarantee that that would make a state like GA or SC winnable.

                I think we're kidding ourselves if we think we're going to get like two bonus senate seats every two years from now on just thanks to Republican teabaggings.

                •  They are reliably Republican... (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  bjssp, Chachy, MichaelNY

                  But they're not unwinnable. Jim Martin, who was a weak candidate, came awfully close to unseating Sen. Chambliss in 2008. Even in 2010, Vincent Sheheen nearly beat now-Gov. Haley in South Carolina.

                  If Chambliss is primaried (or retires) and someone like Erick Erickson or Rep. Paul Broun wins the nomination -- or even someone like Rep. Tom Price or Karen Handel, if they really stick their feet in their mouth, and Handel has a bit of a propensity for that -- and Democrats field someone like Thurbert Baker (who was reelected by a wide margin three times until 2006, by the way), Leah Ward Sears (reelected by a wide margin in 2004, despite Georgia passing a law essentially politicizing judicial elections), or Mayor Kasim Reed (a distinctly business-friendly executive), then we have a shot in Georgia.

                  South Carolina is trickier, but I don't know how Rep. Tim Scott would play with parts of the GOP base if he were the nominee. Sheheen will probably go for a rematch against Haley, but he would be our top recruit there no matter who the Republicans nominate. John Spratt will be 72, but if he wants to run, I'd be all for that, too. I don't know if he could win, but he's probably one of my favorite members of Congress ever.

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

                  by SaoMagnifico on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 10:36:31 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yeah, but... (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Chachy, jncca, MichaelNY

                    Shaheen came close against an Asian woman who had some controversy about her, and that was a state election not a federal. Tim Scott doesn't have any of those liabilities.

                    Jim Martin was running in a year when black turnout was at a high, and Republicans were a bit demoralized. He got creamed in the runoff.

                    Put me down on the "far-fetched" category, unless Erik Erickson gets the nomination in Georgia, in which case Dems may even start out as the favorite.

                    I think the only Republican seat that's in play right now is Collins, and that's pretty doubtful unless she retires.

                    On the other hand, to bj's point, I can definitely see a scenario where we hold all of our seats. That's where the tea party really becomes a factor.

                •  I don't think it's a fantasy. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MichaelNY

                  It's an opportunity, should a few things go right in some of these states, not a guarantee--far from it, in fact.

                  I'm not trying to say we are heavily favored if this or that happens, only that we have a stronger base in some of these states than people realize, or so I think. If we have good candidates, we might be competitive regardless of what happens. But we'll certainly be more competitive if, as now looks increasingly likely, the incumbents are primaried from the right.

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

                  by bjssp on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 10:42:41 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It's neither (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    MichaelNY

                    It's not a complete fantasy, because who knows what could happen. But it's certainly not an opportunity either, at this point. We have to see 1). How the primaries shake out and 2). if it turns out to be a neutral year. If there's a bad turn in the wind like in 2010, it's just as possible we will lose the Senate (likely for only two years though).

          •  even the odds are better for us in 2016 (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY

            I believe the Republicans will have to defend one more seat (24 total) compared to just the 23 we had to defend back in this cycle!

            "If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democratic administrations you had $3.9M at the end" -Forbes Magazine

            by lordpet8 on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 11:03:34 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  those look about right (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SaoMagnifico, MichaelNY, JBraden

          I think Grassley is unlikely to lose the general, but he may retire as he'll be 83. He also might get a primary challenge as Lugar and Hatch did.

          Coats might get sick of DC again, but if he runs again he should win.

          I'd give Nixon 50-50 or better to beat Blunt, but anyone else would be an underdog.

          McCain might also have to worry about a primary challenge. Dems would probably have a better chance if he's primaried than if he retires, as they would likely be facing a nutter like Franks instead of a mainstreamer like Schweikert.

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

          by sacman701 on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 09:54:16 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  A primary challenge to Grassley? (0+ / 0-)

            Isn't he a bit right-wing for that, especially in a purple state?

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

            by fearlessfred14 on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 10:17:33 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  no (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bjssp, MichaelNY, James Allen, R30A

              I think his basic mentality is pragmatic conservative, and his first impulse is often to try to work with Dems at least until McConnell cracks down on him. That's usually the point at which he starts babbling like he's on Fox. I think the true believers would see him as an old-school Republican like Lugar or Hatch, not as "one of us".

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

              by sacman701 on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 10:35:55 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  And even if someone like him (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY

                doesn't lose a primary, they could slowly but surely destroy what credibility they have with the electorate.

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

                by bjssp on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 10:44:10 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  That's basically right, I think (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                James Allen, R30A, MichaelNY

                He's not what I would define as a moderate but he's an old-school conservative who would probably have been to the right of his party about three decades ago but now -given how crazy his party has become -he is a moderate in comparison. He voted against Gulf War I in 1991 (although he was silly enough to vote for IWR but he probably had less freedom to dissent that time around). He has a tendency to engage in right wing babble and nonsense from time to time but I think essentially in terms of ideology he's probably a lot like Lugar and look what happened to him

          •  Grassley would survive a primary challenge. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bumiputera, MichaelNY

            Apparently, he has phenomenal constituent service. My diehard Dem uncle raves about how great Grassley is.

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

            by askew on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 10:51:46 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  that wouldn't help him in a primary. (0+ / 0-)

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

              by James Allen on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 12:14:08 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  He's survive (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                bumiputera, MichaelNY

                Grassley's extreme anti-Obama positioning during the last few years and especially during the health bill era alone will carry him through.

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

                by wwmiv on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 12:20:27 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I just meant that askew's uncle, (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  wwmiv, bumiputera, jncca, MichaelNY

                  and any other Dems who like him, won't help him in the primary.

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

                  by James Allen on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 12:28:05 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That's true. But, my uncle isn't the only one (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    MichaelNY

                    who has been helped by Grassley. I think he has enough goodwill to survive a primary. But, then again, Iowa Republicans have gotten pretty extreme.

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

                    by askew on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 01:33:21 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  It'd be pretty cool if (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            James Allen, MichaelNY

            Jay Nixon took out Roy Blunt for senator after--indirectly--taking out Roy's son Matt for the governorship (Matt Blunt chose not to run for re-election rather than face Nixon).

        •  AR - Senate (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bumiputera, MichaelNY, JBraden

          Seems to me that Pryor has enough personal popularity with that "Hate the National Dems, but local are okay" crowd to hang on.

          •  I think the same about LA (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            newdem1960, bumiputera, MichaelNY, JBraden

            but surprises are always possible. I don't think any seat up in 2014 is a guaranteed loss like NE was this time around. That said, candidate quality is a big issue.

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

            by fearlessfred14 on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 11:10:52 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It wasn't clear at this point in the cycle (0+ / 0-)

              that NE was a guaranteed loss.

              Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

              by MichaelNY on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 06:02:47 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  IIRC, Mary Landrieu has the (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY

              highest approvals of any statewide politician in LA.

              She might not be my favorite Dem, but I think she'll be okay.  Despite always being considered vulnerable, she's actually improved her vote share in each of her elections (50.2% in 1996, 51.7% in 2002, 52.1% in 2008).  The latter result was especially remarkable given that a large part of her base had been displaced by Katrina.

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

            Plus, Mark Pryor has the benefit--like fellow red-state Dems Landrieu and Begich--of coming from a political legacy family.

            He's no Blanche Lincoln.  In hindsight, it's amazing that she got elected to the Senate twice--even setting policy positions aside, she's an utterly awful politician.

    •  I think those people who've "pulled back" (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tietack, JBraden, Zack from the SFV

      from "active roles in GOP politics" are now called former Republicans. And the remaining ones could be active but are in the minority of their party's membership.

      Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

      by MichaelNY on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 05:51:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Rep. Mike McIntyre has won in NC-07 (12+ / 0-)
    RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — Democratic U.S. Rep. Mike McIntyre reclaimed his longtime southeastern North Carolina congressional seat on Wednesday night, earning a razor-thin victory over his Republican challenger after a machine recount produced hardly any change in the margin.

    Republican rival David Rouzer conceded defeat after the recount in the 12th and final county in the 7th Congressional District showed McIntyre keeping a 654-vote lead over Rouzer. McIntyre had a 655-vote lead out of more than 336,000 votes cast before Rouzer requested the recount that began Monday.

    Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/...

    •  Well, that's a wrap on house races (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      itskevin, MichaelNY

      expect for the LA runoff, but that's two reupublicans.

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

        How many seats did the Dems flip, and how many did the Republicans flip?

        •  Not as clear-cut this time around (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, JBraden, Zack from the SFV

          because of redistricting. Dems picked up a net 8 seats, but hat exactly qualifies as a flip in each direction is a bit harder to judge.

        •  The net change is +8 Dem (10+ / 0-)

          but I assume you want to know the full results.  This is what I have...first off, we lost eight due to reapportionment between states, in each case a Dem seat was vaporized in the following: MA (Olver), MI (Clarke), MO (Carnahan), NJ (Rothman), NY (Hinchey), OH (Kucinich), OH (Sutton, drawn in with Renacci) and PA (Altmire).  However, we also gained five due to reapportionment between states creating a new seat for us in the following: AZ (Sinema), NV (Horsford), FL (Grayson), TX (Veasey), and WA (Heck).  So we're down 3 already.

          The GOP equivalently gained 3 due to this reapportionment churn.  They lost four seats, one each vaporized in the following: LA (Landry), IL (Manzullo), NY (Turner), and IA (Latham, who moved to challenge Boswell).  And they gained a total of seven: SC (Rice), GA (Collins), FL (DeSantis), UT (Stewart), and three in TX (Stockman, Williams, and the one that Farenthold shifted in to).

          So now on to the general elections:

          Dem gains: 22 total
          AZ-01 (Kirkpatrick takes Gosar's old seat)
          CA-07 (Bera beats Lungren)
          CA-26 (Brownley takes Gallegly's open seat)
          CA-36 (Ruiz beats Bono Mack)
          CA-41 (Takano takes a reconfigured version of Dreier's seat)
          CA-52 (Peters beats Bilbray)
          FL-26 (Garcia beats Rivera)
          FL-18 (Murphy beats West)
          FL-22 (Frankel, taking West's old seat)
          IL-08 (Duckworth beats Walsh)
          IL-10 (Schneider beats Dold)
          IL-11 (Foster beats Biggert)
          IL-17 (Bustos beats Schilling)
          MD-06 (Delaney beats Bartlett)
          MN-08 (Nolan beats Cravaack)
          NH-01 (Shea-Porter beats Guinta)
          NH-02 (Kuster beats Bass)
          NY-18 (Maloney beats Hayworth)
          NY-24 (Maffei beats Buerkle)
          OH-03 (Beatty, taking a vote-sunk version of Austria's seat)
          TX-23 (Gallego beats Canseco)
          TX-34 (Vela, takes Farenthold's old district)

          GOP gains: 11 total
          AR-04 (Cotton takes Ross' open seat)
          CA-21 (Valadao takes Costa's old seat)
          IA-03 (Latham beats Boswell)
          IN-02 (Walorski takes Donnelly's open seat)
          KY-06 (Barr beats Chandler)
          NC-08 (Hudson beats Kissell)
          NC-11 (Meadows takes Shuler's open seat)
          NC-13 (Holding takes Miller's open seat)
          OK-02 (Mullin takes Boren's open seat)
          PA-12 (Rothfus beats Critz)
          NY-27 (Collins beats Hochul)

          So 22 minus 11 minus 3 gives us +8 Dem.  You can view certain seats differently if you want.  For instance, I looked at the new IA-03 as being Latham's seat disappearing, then him shifting in to fight Boswell and beating him.  But you can see this instead as Boswell seeing his seat vaporized instead.  It doesn't change the math.  Same goes for Ohio, you can see it instead as Austra's seat vaporized, and Beatty "getting" Sutton's seat.  In Texas, you can see it as Dems getting a new seat in South Texas, and Farenthold simply holding his old seat.  Florida is also interesting, in that West moved into Rooney's seat, Rooney moved into some new blob carved somewhat out of Posey's seat, Posey shifted north and Mica shifted south squeezing Sandy Adams out of her seat, considering the new Dem vote sink in Orlando.  So you could see it as Grayson taking Adams' open seat (a pickup), and instead see the GOP drawing both new seats for themselves, DeSantis and the one that Rooney scooted in to.  The musical chairs gets confusing, but in the end, the FL delegation went from 19-6 to 17-10.  I chose to count that as one new Dem seat, one new GOP seat, and three GOP-to-Dem changeovers.

  •  VA- Gov -Will Bolling go moderate? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BeloitDem, dc1000, lordpet8, MichaelNY

    If Bolling is so pissed at the Republican party for denying him the chance to be governor, could he possibly vote against the Republicans in some tie votes in the VA state senate? If he's considering running as an independent, what do you think he could do as Lt. Gov to bolster his independent streak? Does the Lt Gov. have any other powers in the Senate other than breaking tie votes?

  •  A thought on Susan Collins reelection for 2014: (11+ / 0-)

    She's also taking the same something out of nothing stance on Susan Rice.  While there is the obvious incentive to try and force Obama to pick Kerry so they can try to win MA-Sen, (While there is no guarantee Scott Brown would run for the other MA seat).  But it could also be to ward off a primary challenge.  If she is running for re-election, she probably sees herself weaker in the primary than in the general and is using the same strategy as Graham is to cover his right flank.  

  •  Romney supporter to get Romney logo tattoo removed (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    itskevin, lordpet8, MichaelNY

    Link to story from POLITICO

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

    by DownstateDemocrat on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 07:07:05 AM PST

  •  Jeff Zucker is the new head at CNN (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, MichaelNY

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

    by DownstateDemocrat on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 07:14:48 AM PST

  •  politico on fiscal cliff framework (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    itskevin

    the authors say that a framework for a fiscal cliff resolution is coming together. It would involve a combination of increased revenue and spending cuts totalling approx 4 trillion. This breaks down as:

    - 1 - 1.2 trillion in increased revenue, very likely involving increased tax rates on income over 250k

    - 1.2 trillion in spending cuts and "war savings"

    - 400+ billion in entitlement (i.e. Medicare) cuts: some combination of means-testing, raising retirement age, and other "efficiencies"; Democrats want any cuts to kick in 10-20 years from now, not immediately

    - 1.2-1.4 trillion: ? (not discussed in the article, but needed to make the math add up to 4 trillion)

    My take: Revenue numbers greater than 1 trillion is a win for Obama, especially since it will almost certainly involve higher tax rates on income over 250k (and it's higher than the proposed grand bargain of 2011); being able to delay any medicare cuts to the future would be a win for Obama; however, raising the retirement age would be a big win for the GOP imo.

    If the eventual deal involves 1+ trillion of new revenue (including higher tax rates on income over 250k) and delayed medicare cuts, I think this will be very hard to sell to GOP base. It would almost certaintly be portrayed as a win for Obama; the msm would also give the GOP some credit for being willing to compromise, but the right-wing media would probably portray it as a huge sell-out. This could lead many demoralized teabaggers to stay home in 2014 (especially if comprehensive immigration reform is also passed).

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

    •  Riasing retirement age is a dealbreaker IMO.... (4+ / 0-)

      ...and I'm going to raise holy hell with the WH.  It's a complete betrayal.  They should be lowering the medicare age, not raising it!  It doesn't save money, and it's simply cruel to sick people.  It's not what I voted for!!

      The GOP base can shove it.  They win big with this deal.  It guts the new deal significantly, which is what they want.

      GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

      by LordMike on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 08:04:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agree, but I don't think that will happen (3+ / 0-)

        And I certainly hope it won't.  Raising Medicare eligibility from 65 to 67 will create millions of older uninsured.  When we're supposed to be going in the direction of insuring everyone.

        Let all the Bush tax cuts expire

        by Paleo on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 08:17:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think it very well might happen... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jj32

          The comments from Durbin are not reassuring on that one, and Obama did offer it up last year.

          GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

          by LordMike on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 08:22:13 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Raising it 20 years from now? (0+ / 0-)

          I won't get too worked up about it.  Hell I expect single player by then, or in the very least a drastically different set-up than exists now.  What exists now is wholly unsustainable even and the ACA will make it even moreso.  

          They have the billionaires, We have the Big Dog!

          by Jacoby Jonze on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 08:28:18 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Umm... how old are you? (4+ / 0-)

            Raiding it 20 years from now would fuck over a lot of 45 year olds, who would be the very first to get the shaft.

            the very principle of REDUCING health coverage should be anathema to any Democrat, period.  If you want to save medicare, let people of any age purchase into it.  The money would come flowing in without a dime of benefit cuts.

            GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

            by LordMike on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 08:46:19 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm not too worked up about -anything- slated (0+ / 0-)

              "20 years from now."

              Entitlement cuts 20 years from now are a fig leaf for Republicans and they know it -- by 2032 many of the people involved in the current deal will be retired from politics, and the Congress and White House in place won't give two shits about a deal made in 2012.

              •  I don't know about that.. (0+ / 0-)

                Many in the GOP are still whining about a budget deal from 1990--22 years ago.  For their benefit, I'd like to dedicate to them a song:

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

                by Mike in MD on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 09:21:57 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Heh (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Christopher Walker

                  My point is, though, that today's Congress certainly wouldn't feel bound to accept any tax increases or what have you slated for today by the Budget Deal of 1990.

                  Hell, this whole "fiscal cliff" nonsense is basically about Congress not wanting to be bound by the deal it made last year.

          •  Single Payer is a fantasy... (0+ / 0-)

            It may happen a hundred years from now, but not anytime sooner than that.

            GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

            by LordMike on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 08:47:02 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's happening in Vermont... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Woody, JBraden

              In 2017, and I'll bet anything it will happen in 5-10 more states in the 2020s.  

              Once a critical mass of states have single payer, and see health care costs drop, it's going to put incentives on the remainder to reform their health systems - otherwise they will see a loss of jobs to lower-cost, single-payer states.  This means probably all of the "blue states" (whatever they are 20 years from now) will have something like Single Payer, and eventually the "red states" will beg the federal government to set up a national playing field so they become competitive again.  

            •  It might IF (0+ / 0-)

              insurance companies can't help themselves, and try to "get around" the ACA as much as possible by exploiting loopholes, and (continuing) harassing subscribers over technicalities.

      •  I am willing to listen (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jj32

        Republican base voters see taxes as a betrayal, and Democratic base voters see raising retirement age as a betrayal. To me that seems like a shared sacrifice agreement that I would be willing to listen to. Look, Republicans have a seat at this table, so we cant expect complete capituation.

        •  "Shared" sacrifice (7+ / 0-)

          So the rich will have to be pay more in taxes while many 65 and 66 year olds will go without decent health insurance?  

          It may be shared, but it's not equal.

          Let all the Bush tax cuts expire

          by Paleo on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 08:36:52 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  The thing is, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tietack

          the government already collects too little revenue if we want to continue to do anything close to what we've been doing in the past. Raising the retirement age sounds plausible in theory, but it's not clear if it's going to make much of a difference in the short term. This link suggests raising it to 67, with no phase in, would save $5.7 billion in 2014, which given the size of the deficit is next to nothing. There's also the issue of how much costs are simply shifted on to the enrollees and states and how many people are uninsured as a result.

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

          by bjssp on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 08:58:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I'll agree to raising the retirement age (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Paleo, LordMike

        if it's raised by, say, two years and begins in, say, 2085. :]

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

        by bjssp on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 08:33:36 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're joking, but isnt that kind of how it (0+ / 0-)

          would work? Maybe not as late as 2085, but I think the two years increase would be phased in over at least a couple of decades.

          •  Perhaps. (0+ / 0-)

            I'm sure there are some who would be willing to raise it fairly soon, so that people who are ten years or less away from retirement would be affected. Maybe those people are few and far in between, but if not, I wouldn't agree to something like that. The Kaiser report I linked to above shows that more immediate retirement age increases won't save the government all that much money. If there were a chance of saving some serious money, it might be defensible in pure monetary terms (emphasis on might be), but if I understand the situation correctly, we make life far more stressful for a significant number of people and don't save all that much money by doing it quickly. So then, what's the point?

            And if it's over the long term, as in decades long, it doesn't seem like it would matter all that much aside from being a face saving move.

            It's really annoying, by the way, that we are having this debate over how to increase employment. If we are really serious about getting the deficit down, let's get more people back to work.

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

            by bjssp on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 09:06:36 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  There's a belief that (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Woody, MichaelNY

        the next Treasury Secretrary will be Jack Lew, who is currently Chief of Staff and who knows this process in and our from his time at OMB, who has an excellent relationship with Obama, and who was supposedly criticized for being too liberal by the Republicans. He also refused to cave in during previous negotiations on stuff like this.

        I mention this because he's certainly involved the process now and, if he was more of a hardliner (in a good way) back then, when we had less leverage, I don't see why he would be so willing to change his mind now.

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

        by bjssp on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 08:37:49 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I can understand the rationale... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        WisJohn, Woody, MichaelNY

        I believe in 10-20 years, the state exchanges will be working properly.  Public options will probably be offered in many of them, and besides Vermont, a few more states will have access to statewide single-payer.  

        Thus, it's not going to be the end of the world for 65-66 year old retirees.  They'll certainly have access to insurance, and it will probably be comparably affordable.  

        A more difficult question is how the shrinking of the medicare pool, and the elimination of the healthiest seniors, is going to affect Medicare rates in the long run.  I actually wonder if it will save much money for that reason.  

    •  Tom Cole's comments were very interesting (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      James Allen, MichaelNY

      He is not a moderate, by any standard. Makes me think something like this could pass.

      Liberals will hate raising the retirement age. But I think the GOP is going to want something if they are going to agree to rate hikes.  

    •  Considering something like (0+ / 0-)

      70-80 percent of the proposed Simpson-Bowles cuts are in the sequestration legislation, what's really left to cut?

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

      by bjssp on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 08:34:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Guys (15+ / 0-)

      Whoa, whoa, whoa. Please do not do this here. This is a straight up, clear-cut policy discussion. Benny, I know your last graf tries to shoehorn some electoral considerations into this, but as the ensuing conversation shows, this has turned into a pure policy debate.

      I really, really don't want to have to spend what should hopefully be a nice, peaceful December on the horserace front policing policy debate brushfires, so I say this to everyone involved: If you want to have these kinds of discussions, you all know you have to do it elsewhere. Daily Kos is a huge site and you can definitely find a place to talk about policy. You can even write your own diaries.

      But do not, not, not have these discussions in the Live Digest, of all places.

      Political Director, Daily Kos

      by David Nir on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 09:32:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Does Susan Collins fear a primary challenge? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jj32, OGGoldy, terjeanderson, MichaelNY

    If not, why else is she attaching herself to the Susan Rice/Benghazi nonsense, offering up truly ridiculous criticismsagainst Rice.

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

    by bjssp on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 08:32:34 AM PST

  •  SD-Sen - Looks like Tim Johnson (18+ / 0-)

    is up for the Mike Rounds challenge.

    http://www.rollcall.com/...

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

    by spiderdem on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 08:58:25 AM PST

  •  MI State Rep. Rick Jones (R): "Dissolve Detroit" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BeloitDem, wu ming, MichaelNY

    This racist idiot wants to eliminate Detroit's city government and make Detroit part of unincorporated Wayne County, effectively putting the Wayne County government in control of Detroit.

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

    by DownstateDemocrat on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 08:59:54 AM PST

    •  I notice he wants to keep the other municipalities (6+ / 0-)

      The only way to make anything like he suggests even conceivably workable is to eliminate all (or nearly all) of the local governments in Wayne County and establish a metropolitan government like Nashville has. That way, people in other parts of Wayne County would have incentive to vote for millages that Detroit needs.

      Unfortunately, Wayne County is too segregated for this to be an option, as it would severely dilute the power of both the black establishment in Detroit and the conservative suburbanites in favor of liberal suburbanites and New Coalition-type black politicians.

      Even the proposed move has enough potential for backlash to likely make Wayne County Republicans uneasy, as black Detroiters would flock to the polls at the next county election to elect a county government that would provide the services they demand. They constitute 40% of the county population and would be a formidable force if antagonized in such a manner.

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

      by fearlessfred14 on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 10:15:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  A few things wrong with that (3+ / 0-)

      First thing, while Michigan technically has "unincorporated" areas within counties, townships are so powerful, here, that no area is truly unincorporated in the sense that is understood elsewhere.  

      And, that brings me to my second point.  If Detroit was to unincorporate, legally, I think it goes back to the township level since every square inch of Michigan has local government.  Now, a township can contract services out to a county or city, but a local government still has to exist.  In the case of Detroit, parts of it would have to revert to multiple different townships, which would mean an even larger bureaucracy.  Detroit would revert back to Greenfield, Hamtramck, Redford, Ecorse, etc...townships, some of which are bodies that haven't existed in many decades and even centuries since all of their land was incorporated.

      Just to be clear, nowhere in Michigan is without a local government below the county level, and thus nowhere in Michigan is a county government the local government of unincorporated land.  In that respect, Michigan's government is a lot like in parts of New England.  "Township" is just another name for "Town" there.

      BTW, Rick Jones is in a district abutting mine.  This guy is a media whore; I mean just a straight-out, shameless media whore.

  •  Very encouraging words from Sen. Johnson (D. SD) (8+ / 0-)

    I knew the old dog had some fight left in him and he sounds optimistic about his chances in 2014 which is good.  I thought he would pull a Byron Dorgan and call it quits as soon as a popular governor announced his run.  I agree Johnson is our best shot and I have complete faith in him beating Rounds however I wonder if Kristi Noem might be crazy enough to run.

  •  Paul Ryan (5+ / 0-)

    After his underwhelming 2012 win will he finally be seriously targeted by the DSCC?
    I think picking up his seat will be essential if the Democrats want to reclaim their House majority.

    •  DCCC is NOT going to target Paul Ryan... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Woody, JBraden

      ...as long as Steve Israel is DCCC chair. Israel kowtows to many of the same Wall Street donors that Ryan does.

      Once again, we're probably going to need a Rob Zerban-type candidate (if not Zerban himself) who can draw money from small donors and make a race of it.

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

      by DownstateDemocrat on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 01:05:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sen. John Lehman will be looking for another job. (9+ / 0-)

        Unless he does a suicide-run in the new SD-21.

        Farm boy, 20, who hit the city to go to college, WI-03 (home, voting), WI-02 (college), -6.75, -3.18, "Everyone's better when everyone's better"- Paul Wellstone

        by WisJohn on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 01:12:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  WI-SD-21/WI-SD-22 (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JBraden, bumiputera

          WI-SD-21/WI-SD-22 is the most blatant example of partisan gerrymandering of state legislative districts that I have ever seen. WI-SD-21 was drawn to remove vast majority of the heavily-Democratic City of Racine out of the district and add heavily-Republican areas of Kenosha County to the district, keeping heavily-Republican areas of Racine County in the process. WI-SD-22 lost the heavily-Republican areas of Kenosha County, kept the City of Kenosha, and was drawn northward to take in most of the City of Racine. Obviously, the objective was to pack as many Democratic voters in Racine and Kenosha counties as possible into one state senate district (WI-SD-22), leaving the other (WI-SD-21) heavily-Republican.

          John Lehman has virtually zero chance of winning WI-SD-21 in 2014. The only way he can continue his political career is to either run statewide or run for Congress in WI-1.

          Here's a map of the new WI-SD-21, WI-SD-22 is the gray area along Lake Michigan extending from Kenosha to Racine.

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

          by DownstateDemocrat on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 03:30:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think that will stop him (7+ / 0-)

        Anyone in Wall Street who donates to the DCCC knows that some of that money will target Republican incumbents, and I doubt Ryan is any sort of sacred cow among said donors. If he's vulnerable, he'll be targeted.

        What we do not need is an otherwise viable candidate like Rob Zerban running to the left to get donations from progressives. Our candidate has to have a moderate profile on at least some issues.

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

        by fearlessfred14 on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 01:35:39 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  That's a really outrageous accusation n/t (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tietack, bfen, bjssp, skibum59, nycyoungin

        Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

        by MichaelNY on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 06:27:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Enough resources were wasted on this in 2012 (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fearlessfred14, skibum59, tietack

      Picking up the House majority will never happen if significant resources continue to be wasted on useless pipedreams.

      The 8th and the 7th are genuine targets in WI.  If the money flsuhed down the toilet in the 1st were spent in the 8th, we might have had a fighting chance.

      The road to the House majority does not pass through the shiny objects.

      Mr. Gorbachev, establish an Electoral College!

      by tommypaine on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 02:01:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  A ton of money (6+ / 0-)

        was spent on all three districts in Wisconsin.  Now I'm not about to jump on the "Ryan is beatable" train just yet, but you can't argue with the fact that of all three races, Ryan's turned out to be the closest.  Shifting a few hundred thousand dollars here or there wouldn't have turned our double digit losses in WI-07 and WI-08 into wins.  Furthermore (and I've said this before), there is no way to just funnel money from campaign to campaign like that.  People donated to Zerban because they really hated Ryan.  Had Ryan gone unopposed in the general election, those people would not have opened their wallets equivalently for Kreitlow and Wall.

        I'm sure Republicans wish they could have spread a few million of Allen West's dollars on other races around the country.  Doesn't work like that.  West raised crazy money because Republicans are crazy about him.  That wouldn't have just flowed to endangered Reps like Hayworth, Bono Mack, or Dold instead, who don't exactly excite the partisan base the way West does.

        Long story short, people donating to the wrong campaigns does not even figure in the top reasons of why taking the House back is tough.  Some actual reasons, for your consideration: gerrymandering, recruitment, retirements, scandals, voting records, demographic change, turnout operations, ease of voting, and oh yeah: the national mood.

        •  Wall got 44.1% of the vote; Zerban 43.4% (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tietack, James Allen, JBraden

          While Zerban had twice the money.  Kreitlow also received a higher percentage than Zerban, and also raised about half the money.  The margins of 11.5, 11.8 and 12.2 are all asskickings of a similar nature, but from a monetary perspective, Zerban was an epic fail.

          People donated because they hated Ryan, and that's the point.  Democrats act stupidly.  They waste money on shiny object races instead of races where they have an outside chance.  As long as Democratic donors flush money down toilets we won't be able to win the House back given the asskicking we got in redistricting.

          In 2014, any money spent on Ryan's seat is a waste compared to the other two seats, or Walker's race, or any close assembly/senate seats.

          It's just fantasy to not understand that the shiny object donating to Ryan/Bachman/Grayson-type races isn't a cancerous weakness of Democrats and especially activist Democrats.  We can't force people to donate to Wall/Kreitlow/Hernadez2/etc, but we sure can try to discourage such tactically terrible ideas.

          Mr. Gorbachev, establish an Electoral College!

          by tommypaine on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 05:02:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  SD-SEN: That's good context for those (10+ / 0-)

    victories.

    I remember someone yesterday saying that Johnson had no chance because of those close victories in 96 and 02. But as you note, the political context actually makes them pretty impressive wins.

    The race next year will definitely be difficult, but I feel Johnson is being underestimated.

  •  PA-GOV Curtain Raising (13+ / 0-)

    Philadelphia Magazine profiles state treasurer Rob McCord, a likely frontrunner in the 2014 field, and since most of y'all don't know him, best start now:

    What makes this establishment enthusiasm for McCord so interesting is the fact that he in no way resembles gubernatorial candidates of the past. Pennsylvanians tend to be traditionalists when it comes to their elected leaders. Governors Corbett and Rendell are both redolent of the 20th century, with old-fashioned political résumés and brands (Rendell the charismatic operator, Corbett the sober uncle). So were Dan Onorato (a longtime lawyer and pol) and Lynn Swann (the ex-athlete trope).

    McCord, though, is a thoroughly modern politician. He’s run a think tank and a series of investment funds. He’s considered a critical early leader in the development of the region’s tech industry. He has an African-American wife. And he entered politics late in life, mea­ning he has ascended without the benefit—or b­aggage—of a machine to call his own.

    All of which makes him one of the most intriguing figures to appear on Pennsylvania’s political stage in some time. Can a candidate as novel and contemporary as McCord win in a state this conventional? He seems sure to test that question. But when?

  •  Booker v. Lautenberg (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BeloitDem, Woody, MichaelNY

    If it came to that, let's see the numbers after Lautenberg, with his personal resources, gets through eviscerating Booker with Bain, Christie and vouchers.

    And , Democrat [sic] primary?

    Let all the Bush tax cuts expire

    by Paleo on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 10:34:58 AM PST

  •  Who the DCCC is reaching out to for 2014 (10+ / 0-)

    And, what else is on the target list.

    Much of Israel’s focus has been on wooing back candidates who lost in 2012. Israel has spoken to Val Demings of Florida and Brendan Mullen of Indiana, both of whom ran last time. He’s also reached out to Pete Aguilar, a California Democrat who failed to advance to the general election in the state’s newly implemented “top two” primary system.

    Democrats plan to begin unveiling candidates by early spring, just as the new session of Congress gets under way.

    Party leaders say they are focusing on around 50 Republican seats in 2014 — particularly those in areas where Obama performed strongly in his two elections. Israel identified the four most vulnerable as Ohio Rep.-elect David Joyce, Illinois Rep.-elect Rodney Davis, Florida Rep. Bill Young and California Rep. Gary Miller.

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/...

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

    by DrPhillips on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 10:37:25 AM PST

  •  Has anyone heard anymore updates on Sen Kirk? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dc1000, WisJohn, MichaelNY

    With all of the talk of Johnson's health, there doesn't seem to be much discussion about Kirk. How long can he go without working and still be allowed to keep his seat? Johnson was out a year right?

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

    by askew on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 10:54:46 AM PST

  •  CA-47 (4+ / 0-)

    Holy Shit, Obama won the Orange county portion of CA-47?  That just blows my mind.  I mean, I know North county has become less republican over time, but the presence of Westminister in there made me think it would give Romney more of the vote.

    I'm pleasantly surprised.

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

    by Daman09 on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 11:12:31 AM PST

  •  CA-45 and CA-48 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    Both are  R+8 so it looks like Campbell and Rohrabacher will hang on for a while

    NY-7 in real life, @BobbyBigWheel on Twitter

    by Bobby Big Wheel on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 11:14:30 AM PST

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

      Kang was a top tier candidate in CA-45.  45 and 48 provided an extremely similar presidential result, which leads me to believe that Kang's name rec really only bumped him up 2.5% over the absolute nobody in CA-48, yet he still underperformed Obama by 1.5%.  Ugg.  I was at least hoping Kang would keep parity w/ Obama, but I knew he needed to outrun Obama by a good margin.  Hopefully this will be less red by the end of the decade.

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

      by Daman09 on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 11:20:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah (6+ / 0-)

      Campbell, Rohrabacher, and Calvert all seem pretty safe for now.  The real long-term targets are going to be Issa, McKeon, and Royce (as well as obvious targets Miller, Denham, and Valadao).

      •  I wouldn't be so sure on Royce (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY, bumiputera

        Dems up in Fullerton say that Ed Royce is well liked, and they will typically elect those that are well liked regardless of Ideology.  This may be the reason Sharon Quirk-Silva squeezed through in the assembly this year, she was very well liked on the City Council.  I would say this seat will be easier to take if he retired, but until then, I don't think we will be knocking this incumbent off soon, unless we get someone who is as equally well liked.

        What is more interesting to me is how Issa has suddenly became a target.  Sure wish some effort was put into my district in 2012.

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

        by Daman09 on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 02:51:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  that will erode with every election cycle (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      by the end of the decade, the GOP will have to run hard to stand still in safe districts.

      •  Obama actually did badly in CA-45 and CA-48 (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        relative to 2008, although still big improvements relative to 2004.  But it doesn't seem to be eroding with every election cycle--they went from R+6 to R+7/R+8 from 2008 to 2012.

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

        by Xenocrypt on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 06:12:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  if you watch the registration numbers (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          and demographic makeup of the area (especially the under-18 population), and then look at the margins these republicans have been winning by for over a decade or so, the trend is unmistakable.

          by the end of the decade, the GOP will be looking over their shoulder or in serious danger of getting dornaned. this isn't a stable electorate with swing voters moving back and forth with the tides, this is a long inexorable transformation of the electorate.

  •  Tom Davis. (8+ / 0-)

    He goes Romney and blames (credits?) the "underclass" for Obama's victory.

    Look ma! No moderates (in the GOP)!!!

    http://www.snappac.org/ Students for a New American Politics!

    by redrelic17 on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 11:34:42 AM PST

    •  Shit (8+ / 0-)

      I expected better from Davis.  That's pretty low.  You can just feel the frustration seeping from him over the fact that poor people and minorities are voting in high numbers.  Why are they voting?  Don't they know they're not our target voters?  Leave it to us rich white folk to choose your representation, we know better and vote based on the issues, you all are too dumb to know who to vote for.

      It's a disgusting sentiment.  I like the point the article makes near the middle:

      Because Republicans and the powers that be know one thing: If every eligible voter actually voted, we would live in a very different, much more just and more fair world. A world with less economic suffering and much more opportunity. Even allowing for the fact that some working class people don’t vote their own economic interests, whether because of culture or religion or race: If we made sure that lower-income people voted in the same proportion that upper income people do, the GOP would be on an even faster path to extinction than it is currently.
  •  Not to be crabby, but... (7+ / 0-)

    David, I love your column, but I wish you'd refrain from using phrases like "Democrat primary" instead of "Democratic Primary". The former sounds like crap you'd hear from Virginia Foxx or Marsha Blackburn. There's no such thing as the Democrat party.

  •  MA-Sen: Brown (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KingofSpades, MichaelNY

    So do you guys think this is going to be the basis on which Obama makes his decision for Secretary of State (or Defense)?  Scott Brown is pretty much threatening to run again; and while his image has been greatly hurt by his loss to Elizabeth Warren, let's not forget, he was leading every other possible Democratic candidate by large margins before she jumped into the race.  If Brown were smart he'd keep his mouth shut until after Obama picked Kerry (if he did).  But he's not smart.

    It's sounding less like it will be Kerry for State, I actually think Kerry would be a good choice for the position (on the merits - not looking at political ramifications).

  •  CA Census 2020. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lordpet8, MichaelNY

    I know it is 7+ years out and who knows what could happen in the mean time, but does anyone think that CA will gain or lose seats next time around, or will they stagnate, like they did last decade?

    Farm boy, 20, who hit the city to go to college, WI-03 (home, voting), WI-02 (college), -6.75, -3.18, "Everyone's better when everyone's better"- Paul Wellstone

    by WisJohn on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 12:38:42 PM PST

    •  more broadly (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WisJohn, MichaelNY

      I don't expect as much change this decade as in the last decade, on account of the housing boom last decade that now no longer exists.

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

      by James Allen on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 12:41:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

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

        Texas will still probably gain 3 or 4 seats again.

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

        by wwmiv on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 12:46:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Mostly or entirely Hispanic growth again? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          24, Practical Progressive Democrat (-4.75, -4.51), DKE Gay Caucus Majority Leader, IN-02; Swingnut. Defeat Wacky Jackie for 2014!

          by HoosierD42 on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 02:00:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Entirely (6+ / 0-)

            The white population is forecasted to start actually shrinking in Texas in about 2020, so almost all growth will be from minorities.

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

            by wwmiv on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 02:14:04 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Including blacks and Asians. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bumiputera, MichaelNY

              Don't leave them out! If Texas is to become a swing state ca. 2028, african american population growth in particular will be an essential part of the equation.

            •  Look to the GOP (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              BeloitDem

              to draw themselves a nice new bunch of white districts again that they only earned on the strength of minority growth.

              •  No (5+ / 0-)

                I don't think they'll be able to do so simply because of the numbers.

                Look for them to draw two minority districts and a white one.

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

                by wwmiv on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 03:05:02 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  And 3-1 if a 4-seat gain? (0+ / 0-)

                  24, Practical Progressive Democrat (-4.75, -4.51), DKE Gay Caucus Majority Leader, IN-02; Swingnut. Defeat Wacky Jackie for 2014!

                  by HoosierD42 on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 07:16:21 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    MichaelNY, HoosierD42, bumiputera

                    Probably 2-2 again, and if they try to go 1-3 or 0-4 (I.E. outrageous like this cycle) they'll be taken to court and be forced to draw all of them for Democrats because at that point you probably could draw all of them for minorities.

                    In a 3 new seat map, the 29th in Houston will be split in two halves each being majority Hispanic and the 28th will be split in half with Laredo anchoring a district and the Valley portions anchoring another. The white district will probably end up being  in Houston suburbs.

                    In a 4 new seat map, same thing as above with a new seat in the Dallas area - though that new seat could end up as a Democratic one by splitting the AA areas and the Hispanic areas in Veasay's seat to give him an AA seat to run in and Rafael Anchia (or something of that nature) a Hispanic seat OR it could be drawn for a white conservative.

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

                    by wwmiv on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 07:50:41 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

    •  Gain (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      aamail6, MichaelNY

      It looks like a +1 gain next cycle according to the most recent analysis by RCP, though I'd be willing to take an updated look on this if you want gaming out a few different assumptions/paths.

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

      by wwmiv on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 12:44:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  According to the census (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jj32, lordpet8, MichaelNY

      they had decent population growth from 2010-2011 - 1.2%, compared to 0.9% for the US as a whole. If they keep that up for the decade, I would imagine they'd gain a seat.

    •  Strange thing about California (11+ / 0-)

      because it's so big, relatively small population changes by percentage can gain or lose them seats.  This past redistricting, California was on the cusp of losing a seat.  Strangely, it was also on the cusp of gaining a seat.  Redistricting is weird.

      •  Also because of the formula (0+ / 0-)

        California might gain more than the average and lose a seat so that a state like NE or WV doesn't.

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

        by fearlessfred14 on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 12:50:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Reapportionment (4+ / 0-)

        Not redistricting, but your point is definitely true.

        Because California is so large, it is entitled to every x seat along the ordered chain created by the method of apportionment. Because it has a much more frequent appearance on that chain, it will always be close to gaining or losing a seat, for instance:

        Hypothetical:

        430: Utah
        431: California
        432: Texas
        433: Florida
        434: Arizona
        435: Minnesota

        -------------------

        436: North Carolina
        437: California
        438: New York
        439: Ohio
        440: Texas

        See? Any slight change in the growth of California will give it perceptible shifts in how many seats that it loses or gains. This is the same reason why Texas's very large percentage growth allow it to gain many seats every cycle (and why the same was true fo California decades ago). It also explains why it takes insane levels of growth for smaller states to gain (Utah) or, in some cases, simply not lose.

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

        by wwmiv on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 12:55:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  well at the start of the decade (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wwmiv, MichaelNY, Zack from the SFV

        It really looked like we were going to gain a seat or two, then the recession hit and I guess it sorta cancelled it out.

        The heavy population growth in the Inland Empire probably saved us from losing a seat this year.

        "If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democratic administrations you had $3.9M at the end" -Forbes Magazine

        by lordpet8 on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 02:13:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  When you start with 37+ million (0+ / 0-)

      it's tough to grow at the same percentage rate as other states that are also growing, even as the article linked below suggests a population increase of about one congressional district every two years ("about 1% annually for years to come"), or greater than the population of North Dakota.  So it seems likely that +/- 1 one seat is the very likely scenario.

      http://articles.latimes.com/...

      Mr. Gorbachev, establish an Electoral College!

      by tommypaine on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 12:54:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  thinking we may either gain one seat (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MBishop1, MichaelNY

      or stay at the same level.

      I really depends of the Inland Empire. If the population keeps growing at current pace and the economy rebounds, I could see us gaining 1-2 seats

      "If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democratic administrations you had $3.9M at the end" -Forbes Magazine

      by lordpet8 on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 02:11:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  impossible to say (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MBishop1, MichaelNY

      it will depend a lot on whether CA's economy gets into another boom cycle, and how immigration goes during the next 8 years.

  •  2014 Senate (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jj32, BeloitDem, James Allen

    Roll Call already has some preliminary rating up
    http://atr.rollcall.com/...

    "If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democratic administrations you had $3.9M at the end" -Forbes Magazine

    by lordpet8 on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 12:49:47 PM PST

  •  IL-Gov (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WisJohn, JGibson, MichaelNY

    The reason Pat Quinn's approval rating is horrible is that he simply can't be trusted (one minute, he's standing with striking workers in a picket line, and the next minute, he's terminating union contracts, for example), and he's effectively governing Illinois as if downstate doesn't even exist (blocking a proposed casino in Danville, for example). The tax hike increase was something I support, however, Quinn turned around and gave two large corporations, Sears and CME Group, special tax breaks several months later! That REALLY rubbed me the wrong way.

    Jack Franks, a Democratic state representative from the Collar Counties, has been VERY outspoken against Quinn, most recently, because Quinn started a ridiculously lame ad campaign to try to build grassroots support for pension reform, so he may try to primary Quinn if Quinn runs for re-election and neither Lisa Madigan nor Bill Daley doesn't attempt a primary challenge.

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

    by DownstateDemocrat on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 12:50:28 PM PST

  •  Presidential results by CD. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sacman701, Skaje, MBishop1, itskevin, MichaelNY

    Checking what's there now with Wessa's R thing, the overall correlation between 2008 and 2012 still rounds to 0.99.  Don't overthink the election.

    The best-fit line is:

    Obama12= 1.05*Obama08 - 3.53.
    Obama dropped by at least two points (or 1.9) beyond that in:
    CA-45    Campbell, John
    CA-48    Rohrabacher, Dana
    CT-01    Larson, John
    CT-02    Courtney, Joe
    CT-04    Himes, Jim
    CT-05    Esty, Elizabeth
    DE-AL    Carney, John
    FL-06    DeSantis, Ron
    FL-16    Buchanan, Vern
    FL-18    Murphy, Patrick
    FL-19    Radel, Trey
    FL-21    Deutch, Ted
    HI-02    Gabbard, Tulsi
    ID-02    Simpson, Mike
    IN-07    Carson, Andre
    MN-07    Peterson, Collin
    ND-AL    Cramer, Kevin
    SD-AL    Noem, Kristi

    VA-09    Griffith, Morgan
    WY-AL    Lummis, Cynthia
    Of those, only the ones in bold were under-performances beyond three points.

    On the flipside, Obama over-performed by at least two points (or, more than 1.6) in:

    CA-41    Takano, Mark
    CA-46    Sanchez, Loretta
    FL-09    Grayson, Alan
    FL-25    Diaz-Balart, Mario
    FL-26    Garcia, Joe
    FL-27    Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana

    GA-13    Scott, David
    LA-01    Scalise, Steve
    LA-02    Richmond, Cedric
    LA-05    Alexander, Rodney
    LA-06    Cassidy, Bill
    with only the bolded ones above three points.  Interestingly, FL-22 is something of an under-performance here as well.  The Miami area and the rest of coastal Florida should, perhaps, be considered separately.

    Anyway, uniform swing doesn't seem to work as well as this line that somewhat captures increased polarization, but again, this seems to have been a national trend.  

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

    by Xenocrypt on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 01:00:32 PM PST

    •  The split in the O.C. is interesting as well. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY, Zack from the SFV

      Isn't that whole area diversifying?  I don't suppose anyone has Census 2000 numbers for the new district lines.

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

      by Xenocrypt on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 01:02:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I also think this cements (4+ / 0-)

      what a good candidate Murphy was, since he doesn't seem to have had any particular wind at his back from Obama (relative to last time).

      But pretty much any way you slice it--uniform swing or otherwise--Obama's performance in the Miami area continues to be one of the big stories of the election.

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

      by Xenocrypt on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 01:19:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Or what a lousy candidate West was. (6+ / 0-)

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

        by Xenocrypt on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 01:22:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  2 of the 3 Cuban Miami seats (7+ / 0-)

        went for Obama by more than he won the national vote (a lot more).  Don't think anyone saw that coming.  Obama definitely made huge improvements among Cuban voters in Florida, and that should have the GOP really worried.  They can't have Democrats getting 60% out of Miami-Dade and still feel comfortable about their statewide prospects.  The fact that Obama also managed to just about hold his 2008 numbers in Orlando and Jacksonville (the big story of FL 2008, compared to the Bush years) is impressive as well.

        •  But. (4+ / 0-)

          Using Cook's data, 2008 Obama actually did worse in FL-21 and FL-22 than did Kerry, and held steady in FL-23, though he improved by 2 in FL-18 (still relatively weak) and by 5 in FL-19.  So it's not a great sign that some of those districts are also weak by one standard or another in 2012.  (And note that some of those districts are surely getting less white, as well.  Not just a demographics story, although I don't have the numbers.)

          The Miami stuff might well cancel that out--but let's try to look at all the potential trends, good and bad.

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

          by Xenocrypt on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 02:07:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  To be clearer. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          Even if the Miami stuff more than cancels that out, we should consider it.

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

          by Xenocrypt on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 02:09:53 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  FL-22, for example (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Skaje, MichaelNY

          went from 56% for Kerry, to 57.1% for Obama (my bad--that's not a drop but it's not too impressive), and before you say it's "inelastic", it went down to 54.7% Obama now.  That's like D+7 to D+3.5 to D+3.  Although the current FL-22 was comically inelastic from 2000-2008, giving the Democrats (maybe plus Nader in 2000) 52% in all three elections.

          FL-21, I made the same mistake, it was 63% for Kerry, 64% for Obama in 2008, and now 61% for Obama.  That's D+14.3 to D+10.4 to D+9.3.  

          FL-18 went something like 49% for Kerry, 51/52% for Obama, and now 48% for Obama.  That's about Even/D+0 to R+2 to R+3 or even R+4.

          FL-17 went something like 40% for Kerry, 43% or 44% for Obama, and now 39% for Obama.  That's R+8/R+9 to R+9/R+10 to R+12 or so.

          FL-16 went from R+3.7 to R+4.6 to R+6.4.  (Although it's not really in the same area.)

          I'd be interested to know what people thought the story was in this area.  Is it an Obama thing?  A broader trend?  Was Kerry unusually strong here?

          Meanwhile, the new FL-23 might take the inelasticity prize, since it gave 62% to Kerry, Obama, and Obama again.

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

          by Xenocrypt on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 02:25:42 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  FL-19, probably nothing going on. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY

            R+11, R+10, R+12.  FL-17 is similarly bouncing around R+9 or R+10 to no apparent trend.  

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

            by Xenocrypt on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 02:33:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah I have noticed as well (4+ / 0-)

            Obama stagnated in Palm Beach in 2008 compared to Kerry and actually did worse this year in Palm Beach than Kerry.  Broward also hasn't been very impressive in its trends.  There might be something to say about Democrats slowly losing some ground with elderly Jewish voters (not to jump on the "Jewish voters moving to GOP!" train that so many Republicans are desperate to promote, but it is notable that Obama seems tapped out in these districts).  The trends are even worse if looking at 2000, although of course Lieberman was on the ticket that year and seemed to contribute to Gore nearly winning Florida under a very different combination of voters (compare the 2000 Florida map to 2012).

            Or it's possible that it's just the non-Jewish white voters in those districts becoming more uniformly Republican, which wouldn't be such a radical hypothesis.

    •  Explanation for Obama improvement in LA? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      Obama outperformed 2008 in pretty much everywhere in LA (except in the SW parishes).  Obama saw big shifts in Jefferson Parish, Plaquemines Parish, and most of all St. Bernard Parish.  He also improved in a lot of the inland (not as affected by the hurricane of 2008) parishes like Caddo, Red River, and so on.

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

      by KingofSpades on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 02:43:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Premier League of Punditry (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jacques Kallis, MichaelNY

    Get it wrong, get sent down

    http://www.recordonline.com/...

    Mr. Gorbachev, establish an Electoral College!

    by tommypaine on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 01:16:48 PM PST

  •  IL-GOV: Quinn's win in 2010 was pretty lucky (9+ / 0-)

    Lucky that the GOP nominated a very conservative nominee. I mean, Quinn doesnt seem like a bad person, like so many other IL governors, but he really had no business winning in a year like 2010. Dillard probably would have won easily if he were the nominee.

    For 2014, I do hope Durbin runs for re-election and Madigan for governor. Madigan apparently wanted to run for Senate in 2010, but declined. Axelrod made a comment about how he regrets not recruiting her into the Senate race.

    If Durbin retires, I worry Madigan runs for Senate and we dont have much of a bench for the governor's race.

    Does Madigan's dad being House speaker work against or for her? My understanding is that Mike Madigan isnt very popular statewide, but Lisa seems to be.

  •  Final resulta Madera CA (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KingofSpades, MBishop1, lordpet8

    final results for Madera County CA are available at

    http://www.madera-county.com/...

    "official Statement of vote, to theupper right of the page.
                                         Obama    Romney      Other
    4th Congressional        4470       8915           373
    16th Congressional     11548      13937         518
    exclusive of writins

  •  Obama to 50.91% for reals this time (6+ / 0-)
    Dave Wasserman @Redistrict  2m  
    CA: Mendocino Co. reports 11,324 new votes for @BarackObama, 4,529 @MittRomney. Obama up to 50.91% nationally
    Wasserman had a typo yesterday when it was still 50.90.  Now that he's updating again, let's see how much closer to 51 it gets tonight.
  •  Minnesota Legislature (4+ / 0-)

    Representative Mary Franson (R-Crazytown) has won her second term after a recount. I am not terribly saddened by this, as it would have clearly been 1 2-year rental (It's an R+12 district in a non-ancestrally-Farmer-Labor outstate district), and I am glad that it won't be a distraction and a drain on resources in 2014. Now, we get to be entertained by this psychotic woman ramble for another two years, which certainly has some entertainment value.

    http://www.twincities.com/...

  •  when I'm too tired of schoolwork and (0+ / 0-)

    not doing something like Skyrim, I'm starting to look at legislative PVIs in Oregon.  Thank god unlike last time I don't have to try to split precincts and compare maps and stuff, I can just work off of precinct lists.

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

    by James Allen on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 05:05:05 PM PST

  •  MI: Right-to-Work (4+ / 0-)

    Surprise that this hasn't gotten more news, but the House GOP is threatening to spring Right-to-Work legislation in the lame-duck session, and there has been a stand-off of sorts the past few days.  Unions are already threatening recalls and protests if they try it.  This has the potential to make what happened in Wisconsin look like a walk in the park if they push this and Snyder is stupid enough to sign it.  This is the only thing I could see possibly wiping out Republicans in the Senate (and Snyder along with them) if they try this bull.

  •  US Obama margin currently 4.535m (5+ / 0-)

    California margin, 134 votes short of 2.9m

    3m remains very unlikely but 2.9m now a lock.

    Mr. Gorbachev, establish an Electoral College!

    by tommypaine on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 06:23:20 PM PST

  •  Ventura County posted final results (7+ / 0-)

    http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/...

    DEM - BARACK OBAMA   
        52.16%    170,929
    REP - MITT ROMNEY   
        45.15%    147,958

    Not bad at all for a former Republican stronghold.

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

    by DrPhillips on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 07:37:29 PM PST

  •  interesting fact about Massachusetts (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    I'm doing a study about past ADA ratings and ideology of house members. The house delegation in Massachusetts in the 1960s was mostly democrat but all the democrats in the state were what I call Dingell-crats. None of them were really hardcore lefties.

    It wasn't until the 1970s that there was in influx of very liberal democrats such as Mike Harrington in the Essex area, Fr Drinan in western Middlesex, Gerry Studds in the Plymouth area and Ed Markey in southern middlesex.

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

    by demographicarmageddon on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 07:38:14 PM PST

    •  What about the western part of the state (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      before John Olver, it was represented by Republican Silvio Conte from 1959-1991.  Nowadays, that region is too blue for any Republican.

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

      by KingofSpades on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 07:44:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Western MA (5+ / 0-)

        is like the only part of the state outside of the Boston sphere which is legitimately liberal as opposed to just Democratic.

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

        by sapelcovits on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 07:49:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  One of those "low density" Democratic areas (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          like a lot of upstate NY, Vermont, much of Maine, and ...

          I hope; therefore, I can live.

          by tietack on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 07:55:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Here in the Upper Midwest (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            James Allen, MichaelNY, bumiputera

            the Driftless Area and the counties bordering Lake Superior (with the exception of some UP areas) certainly count. Like western MA, the Driftless Area used to elect moderate to liberal Republicans but has a Democratic trend, while the Lake Superior area is ancestrally very Democratic, but with a mild Republican trend.

            Of course, if you're not limiting it to white areas, the Mississippi Delta and greater Black Belt are moderately low density and very blue. South Texas is agricultural and blue, but is as dense as many exurbs.

            Finally, if we're talking about the 33% of low-density counties that went for Obama, many of those are Midwestern counties where a heavily Democratic city is surrounded by rural areas that bring the county population density below 800 but aren't red enough to cancel the city out even though Obama didn't carry them. Jackson County, MI is a good example of this.

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

            by fearlessfred14 on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 09:09:32 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I've heard the Berkshires (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY, bumiputera

            referred to as Baja Vermont. So I could easily see them being represented by a Jim Jeffords type Republican for a while. Where was Conte ideologically?

            •  more moderate than Richard Hanna (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY

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

              by jncca on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 09:41:59 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  well here is the ideology of some of the house (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        members during that time (1960s). I haven't done all of them, since I only recently started working on Republicans.
        Of the two I haven't calculated, my guess is that Heckler's ADA scores averaged around 55 and Phillip Bates and Hastings Keith probably averaged around 30-35 (they were considered conservatives).

        Tip O'Neill 79.1
        Edward Boland; 78
        Harold Donohue; 76.1
        Philip Philbin; 75.8
        Torbert Macdonald; 73.1
        James Burke; 72.3
        Sil Conte (R) 69
        Bradford Morse (R) 67.2

        It wasn't until the 1970s when the very liberal members started coming in. Harrington (lifetime score 92.4) replaced Bates in a 1969 Special Election. Robert Drinan defeated Philbin in the 1970 Primary. When Keith retired in 1972, the seat was won by Gerry Studds (lifetime score 95.9). And when Torbert MacDonald died in 1976, he was replaced by Ed Markey (lifetime average of 95.1).

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

        by demographicarmageddon on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 08:01:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  question about Ramsey Clark (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    okiedem

    does anyone know why he won the nomination for senate in 1974 in New York? From what I know he had ties to a lot of Anti-American groups and was considered incredibly out of the mainstream. Since it was 1974 and a good democratic year nationwide, couldn't someone else have ran?

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

    by demographicarmageddon on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 08:36:00 PM PST

    •  Not sure but a good guess: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      (1) He didn't move to the far left until later on especially in the 1980s and 1990s. In the early 1970s he was still considered a mainstream, if left-wing former Attorney General.

      (2) the early the mid 1970s were the heyday of the Democratic Left -- most notably seen in the nomination of McGovern.

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

      by okiedem on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 10:42:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  1974 (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tietack, MichaelNY

      The party's designated nominee was Syracuse Mayor Lee Alexander, a pretty bland candidate.  Clark was not as "out of the mainstream" as he came to be perceived later on.

      Let all the Bush tax cuts expire

      by Paleo on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 05:19:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  PVIs and Such (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    I'm putting together a spreadsheet in order to easily calculate PVIs without having to do a bunch of math for each district. I.E. just plug in the numbers as the team releases them and boom! there we are.

    Who among us would like this to be imported into a google document for the DKE community's use?

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

    by wwmiv on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 10:12:33 PM PST

  •  California Congressional (0+ / 0-)

    Does anyone have vote totals from 2008 Prez for California Congressional Districts? Not percentages, but actual totals.

    Either that or does anyone know which columns from this DKE spreadsheet are Obama votes and which are McCain votes?:

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

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

    by wwmiv on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 11:55:47 PM PST

  •  Just posted a diary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    Looking at the "partisan" balances of the federal court system. The first part covers SCOTUS and the Circuit Courts of Appeals

    I went back and forth about posting the diary at all, because courts aren't related to the horserace on their face. But the courts are increasingly (or so it seems to me) becoming involved in the electoral process, so I thought it would be nice to have a pocket guide, so to speak, to the courts.

    I'll post the next two in the coming days (though making sure to only have one in the sidebar at a time), and then I'll link to them in my signature. Thanks! Hope you read it.

    Here it is

    24, Practical Progressive Democrat (-4.75, -4.51), DKE Gay Caucus Majority Leader, IN-02; Swingnut. Defeat Wacky Jackie for 2014!

    by HoosierD42 on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 12:15:27 AM PST

  •  Testing (0+ / 0-)

    Signature.

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

    by wwmiv on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 02:06:45 AM PST

  •  Discharge Petition Here is the link (0+ / 0-)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site