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.

9:57 AM PT: Pres-by-CD: We added one state (Colorado) and one county today (San Diego CA), for a total of another 12 districts complete.



The swing in Colorado was more uniform than in most, which each district having given Obama between 1 and 3 points lesser than it did in 2008. (Obama carried CO-06 by about 5, further evidence that Coffman will likely stay on Democratic target lists.) Obama's wild improvement in minority-heavy districts continues, having raised his share by several points in the heavily Hispanic CA-51.

In addition, the Washington SoS office graced us with its own spreadsheet of pres-by-CD calculations, saving us the trouble. Much as with Colorado, the movement was a uniform swing of 1-2 points in Romney's direction in each CD. (The one slightly-worse outlier was Vancouver-based WA-03, dropping from 51-47 to 48-50.)

10:40 AM PT: MO-Sen: Busted! After all its loud pronouncements that it wouldn't give one penny more to Todd Akin after his "legitimate rape" implosion, now it turns out that the NRSC did, in fact, slip a fair amount of last-minute money to Akin in the campaign's waning weeks. Records released on Thursday reveal that the NRSC sent $760K to the Missouri state Republican Party in early November, as the state party was trying to salvage the race with a flight of pro-Akin ads.

Not only does this open up the NRSC to all sorts of charges of hypocrisy, though (and it has to leave future GOP candidates wondering even more than before how much they can trust them), it doesn't even make much sense from a tactical standpoint. Sure, the NRSC was in a pickle at that point watching various races slip away from them, but this one had (unless you wanted to go by Mason-Dixon and Wenzel polling) already fallen off the chart long before, and another $760K wasn't going to make a difference. Think how much more damage that money could have done in North Dakota or Montana, where the races were much closer (and the airtime cheaper). (Of course, the airwaves in all the more competitive states may have already been booked solid by that point, but just banking the money toward 2014 may have been a more sound tactical decision by then.)

10:57 AM PT: MA-Sen: It's not as big as the $25 million that Mitt Romney has found left over, but Scott Brown finds himself with a fair amount of money still in his pockets after his losing effort: $464,000, though he says after remaining bills are settled up, it'll be more like $150-$200K. Bear in mind, though, that that money could be applied toward his next Senate run, if John Kerry's seat becomes vacant and there's another special election. (Of course, $200K is barely a down payment on a Senate race, and some of the current or former Democratic House members he might run against are sitting on more than that.) The more interesting question, though (and one I haven't found an answer for yet), is whether Massachusetts law would allow him to transfer those federal dollars over to a 2014 gubernatorial race?

11:10 AM PT: GA-Gov: The Georgia governor's race in 2014 is getting short shrift with most of the attention going to the Senate race (which could involve a cat fud-flavored primary on the Republican side), but Public Policy Polling finds that Dems shouldn't necessarily write it off. First-time GOP incumbent Nathan Deal has only middling popularity -- 37/40 approvals -- and he leads potential Democratic challengers by only single digits. That includes Rep. John Barrow at 44-40, Atlanta mayor Kasim Reed at 47-40, and state Sen. Jason Carter at 46-38. Contrast that with the Senate race, which would require a bank shot (the loss of Saxby Chambliss to a more conservative Republican in the primary) to be competitive.

11:25 AM PT: PA-Gov: I'd kind of mentally ruled-out PA-13 Rep. Allyson Schwartz from a gubernatorial run; if she were to go for a promotion, it's always seemed like it'd be on the Senate side, especially with Pat Toomey offering a huge target in 2016. We have some ancedotal evidence that she's gearing up for something bigger -- she just hired key insider Aubrey Montgomery, who has headed fundraising for the state party, for her own operation. I still would have thought that meant prepping for '16, but the article contains off-the-record quotes from unnamed Democrats that she's "considering" a gubernatorial run. Given how hard Corbett's approvals have dropped in the wake of his education cuts, it's not unreasonable; he might actually be more vulnerable than Toomey.

11:31 AM PT: NJ-Gov: I still can't see Newark mayor Cory Booker getting into the New Jersey gubernatorial race, when the 2014 Senate race (which seems likely to be an open seat) presents a more tempting target. But he isn't explicitly ruling it out yet; he says he'll make a formal decision by mid-December (which, presumably, would be the next couple weeks).

11:38 AM PT: MA-Gov: This is well short of formally passing the torch to her or even throwing some elbows to clear a path, but it sounds like Deval Patrick may have a successor in mind as Massachusetts governor; he's been talking up US Attorney Carmen Ortiz with legislative insiders for the job. It's not the first time we've seen her name mentioned for the job, but this indicates she may be something more than a dark horse.

11:42 AM PT: SC-Sen-B: If you were worried that the race to find a replacement for the recently-resigned Jim DeMint might not be as hilarious as it could be, don't worry. Ex-Gov. Mark Sanford -- thanks to whom we'll never be able to look at the "Appalachian Trail" the same way again -- has just expressed his sort-of interest in the job (saying "it's not a 'no,' but it's not a 'yes').


11:51 AM PT: KS redistricting: Yes, you read that right, and no, we're not getting an early start on the 2020 cycle. Kansas, you might recall, had its redistricting process fall into disarray despite having a Republican trifecta because of infighting between moderates and conservatives, and wound up having a federal court draw its map. Well, now that conservatives have firmer control over the state Senate after last year's primaries, they're interested in going back and drawing their own map, and are currently researching as to whether state law would let them do so. (It's not clear what more they feel they need to do, at least at the Congressional level; they already have a 4-0 GOP delegation and their only swing district member, Kevin Yoder in KS-03, had an easy race in 2012.)

12:05 PM PT: OR-Sen, OR-Gov: Public Policy Polling's new look at Oregon indicates that the 2014 Senate and gubernatorial races aren't on track to become competitive, unless the GOP can scrape up either of the state's two top-tier options: ex-Sen. Gordon Smith or Rep. Greg Walden. (And they won't: Smith is ensconced on K Street, while Walden is currently running the NRCC and won't give that up.) Freshman Sen. Jeff Merkley and three-term Gov. John Kitzhaber both have solid approvals (44/29 and 50/41 respectively), though the state's most popular politician remains Ron Wyden (at 57/24). Here are the head-to-heads:

Jeff Merkley 47, Gordon Smith 43
Jeff Merkley 47, Greg Walden 42
Jeff Merkley 53, (state GOP chair, loser of '10 gubernatorial primary) Allen Alley 36
Jeff Merkley 52, (state House co-speaker) Bruce Hanna 34
Jeff Merkley 52, (state Sen., loser of '12 Labor Comm. race) Bruce Starr 32

John Kitzhaber 47, Gordon Smith 42
John Kitzhaber 49, Greg Walden 40
John Kitzhaber 52, Allen Alley 37
John Kitzhaber 52, Bruce Hanna 33
John Kitzhaber 53, Bruce Starr 31

Oregonians also looked poised to move forward on a potential initiative to approve same-sex marriage; they favor the idea 54-40, including 68-30 among voters under age 45. Perhaps the most shocking number from the sample is that Oregonians approve of the Oregon Ducks' new football uniforms -- which resemble an explosion at the Mountain Dew factory -- by a 43-13 margin.

12:31 PM PT: Demographics: In case you missed it, our own dreaminonempty is out with another deep dive into the exit polls, looking at how much different generations have comported with the old saw that voters get more conservative as they get older.

1:05 PM PT: CA-15: The defeat of twenty-term veteran Pete Stark by 31-year-old Eric Swalwell in California's 15th tends to get left off the year's "biggets upset" lists (probably because the seat stayed in Democratic hands), but you may be left wondering how he did it. New Republic has a good profile of the new Congressman, looking back at his flair for showmanship while in college student government, and his low-budget but nimble campaign.

1:16 PM PT: PACs: You're probably well aware of the now-resigned Jim DeMint's track record as "kingmaker" in the Senate, thanks to his Senate Conservatives Fund PAC and its meddling in GOP primaries, but just how successful was he at moving the numbers? NBC's First Read calculated up the damage, and it shows that he may have been most successful at moving numbers for... the Democrats. They found that of the 20 races where his PAC spent money, his preferred candidate won the primary election 15 times... but his preferred candidate won the general election only 7 times. His success stories were Ron Johnson, Mike Lee, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Pat Toomey, Ted Cruz, and Jeff Flake, but on the other side of the balance sheet are Sharron Angle, Ken Buck, Joe Miller, Christine O'Donnell, John Raese, Dino Rossi, Josh Mandel, and Richard Mourdock.

That may still be a better bang-for-the-buck record, though, than Marco Rubio's comparable Reclaim America PAC (a "leadership PAC," separate from his own campaign fund). Recent data suggests it's mostly just a slush fund, with only 4.6% of the money its spends being spent on other candidates (the industry-wide average on leadership PACs is 46% spent on other candidates). Only $75K of the fund's $1.6 million spent went to other candidates; by contrast, $478K went to consultants.

3:17 PM PT: Ads: The troika of the AFSCME, SEIU, and NEA is back with another round of ads warning four congresscritters to keep their hands off Medicare and Medicaid benefits. Targeting is, well, kind of weird: on the Senate side, they're targeting two centrist Dems, Claire McCaskill and Mark Warner. On the House side, they're targeting two conservative-but-not-steeped-in-tea Republicans, including one who won't even be around starting next month: Pat Tiberi and Denny Rehberg.

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

  •  Hello from Thailand! (7+ / 0-)

    A lot of Europeans here, but not a lot of Americans.

  •  You know the election is over when... (20+ / 0-)

    ...the monthly release of job creation completely slipped my mind.

    "What do you mean "conspiracy"? Does that mean it's someone's imaginings and that the actual polls hovered right around the result?" - petral

    by conspiracy on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 06:24:02 AM PST

  •  It's a list of 2016 Presidential candidates (7+ / 0-)

    who will be helped by the December 2012 unemployment report.

    I hope; therefore, I can live.

    by tietack on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 06:25:37 AM PST

    •  Looks more like a list of potential Democratic (8+ / 0-)

      Senate candidates in South Carolina. I know it'll be tough and probably unlikely but can we at least try?

      "What do you mean "conspiracy"? Does that mean it's someone's imaginings and that the actual polls hovered right around the result?" - petral

      by conspiracy on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 06:28:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  How about Bob Massie or Lori Compas? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JBraden, MichaelNY
      •  I bet Jim Clyburn has a long time staffer (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        who would be well-qualified for a run.

        Or how about Mayor Joe Riley of Charleston?

        Filibuster reform now. No more Gentleman's agreements.

        by bear83 on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 06:55:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Thank you, conspiracy! (0+ / 0-)

        Am I wrong to think, as I suggested yesterday, that the fact that two Senate seats will be up in 2014 makes investment more worthwhile? People with direct field ops experience can tell me otherwise, but it seems like a large part of organizing is directed towards building a list that all candidates can use. How this list is built (i.e. helped by a historic candidacy, like Obama's in 2008) isn't always the same, but it's a process that should and often does happen by building upon previous efforts. Which is to say, what we do now could help us in the future. For a few reasons, I happen to think investment was wise before DeMint resigned, but now, it seems even more worthwhile. It is, to be simple, just a better deal, because we get the chance to try our luck at two races instead of one in addition to possibly building for the future.

        Even if we don't have great candidates, it's still a good move. But really, as long as we don't have Alvin Greene 2.0x2, what's the problem? We're not close to controlling the legislature, but in absolute terms, we've got a good chunk of current office holders. Then there are the mayors and even more small scale politicians listed here. Given that the biggest city in the state, Columbia, has about 130,000 people, it doesn't seem like a big stretch to imagine someone seemingly small to run. Then there are people who used to hold office but don't any more and those who aren't in politics but might want to be.

        As I said yesterday, if we get someone who isn't far out of the mainstream for the state and who is willing to work at it, I'm ready to go. We don't know if Graham will be primaried, let alone survive it if he is, but even if it doesn't come to that, we've got at least one seat where the person running won't be an incumbent--and that's assuming, however unlikely it might be, he or she isn't primaried.

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

        by bjssp on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 09:17:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Alvin Greene should be available (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Zack from the SFV, MichaelNY
  •  AP-Gfk: Obama job approval at 57% (12+ / 0-)

    http://www.miamiherald.com/...

    Not unusual for a re-elected president to get a re-election bounce.  We'll see how long it lasts.

    Let all the Bush tax cuts expire

    by Paleo on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 06:29:44 AM PST

  •  PA-GOV, PA-SEN-2016? (18+ / 0-)

    Allyson Schwartz makes just about the biggest hire she could:

    Democratic U.S. Rep. Allyson Y. Schwartz has hired the state party's finance director for her own political operation, an indication the longtime congresswoman is seriously thinking about a run for the nomination to take on Gov. Corbett in 2014.

    Aubrey Montgomery, whose fund-raising is credited with putting Pennsylvania Democrats on a sound fiscal footing, informed her colleagues she was leaving in an e-mail Wednesday night....

    Moreover, Schwartz had $3.1 million in her congressional campaign account as of October, according to federal records. That cash could be converted to a state campaign account should Schwartz decide to run for governor....

    "Aubrey was a key member of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party as we achieved historic success in 2012," party executive director Kevin Washo said in a statement. "Under her leadership, we grew our donor base while raising and spending more in 11 months than the last four years combined."

    The party raised about $7.5 million in 2008, the last presidential cycle, and $18.9 million for 2012 activity.

  •  Actually, there might have been some political (6+ / 0-)

    impact from today's jobs report if it had been bad, as expected. Especially if the rate had gone back to 8.0%. It might have given more leverage to House Republicans who want to extend all the Bush-era tax rates. Now, I dont know that this really has much effect, maybe it strengthens Obama's already strong position in negotiations a little bit more.

  •  Looks (14+ / 0-)

    like Todd Akin was right to call the NRSC's bluff. Glad the NRSC was willing to flush 760k down the drain instead of using it in other close senate races:

    The National Republican Senatorial Committee quietly sent $760,000 to the Missouri Republican Party in early November, just as the state GOP was mounting a last-minute TV ad blitz to boost Rep. Todd Akin’s sagging Senate campaign, according to records released Thursday.

    The NRSC funds appear to have helped pay for the pro-Akin TV ads as he was struggling to narrow Sen. Claire McCaskill’s lead at the polls. The disclosure is highly significant because the Senate GOP campaign committee promised to abandon Akin after failing to push the conservative congressman out of the race following his August declaration that “legitimate rape” rarely leads to pregnancies because female bodies often shut down.

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

    The Republican party is now an extreme right-wing party that is owned by their billionaire campaign contributors. - Bernie Sanders

    by ehstronghold on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 07:38:48 AM PST

    •  yeah (6+ / 0-)

      sending $760K to a guy who was on the verge of losing by 15% instead of spending it in Montana or Virginia or someplace where the Republican topped 40%

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

      by RBH on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 09:28:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  That's justice (8+ / 0-)

      spending money where you said you wouldn't only to have your candidate lose by 14 or so points.

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

      by KingofSpades on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 09:48:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  No he wasn't (7+ / 0-)

      It wasn't a bluff.  That sum of money at that stage was worthless.  "Bluff" would've meant they ponied up serious coin over several weeks.

      That is bizarre that they gave that money, it was just a bad decision on their part, but then the various parts and pieces of the national GOP made a shocking amount of bad campaign work all year, so no surprise.

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

      by DCCyclone on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 11:12:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, very boneheaded (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        giving 760K to a middle man only 4-5 days before election day.  

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

        by KingofSpades on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 11:14:25 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Agree they weren't bluffing (4+ / 0-)

        They gave this money at the very last minute. If they had bluffing they would have given it much much sooner.

        In truth, the NRSC never saw a path to victory after Akin's idiotic comments. There was a reason why every legitimate Republican called him to quit the race. Now if Akin had shown more signs of life, maybe they would have done this sooner. But Akin wasn't the type of a candidate who could make a comeback from this - he just doubled down on his dumb comments with more dumb comments. (remember how abortionists lie to women and tell them they are pregnant when they aren't?)

        The real mystery is why the did this at all. I don't think this is money that would have necessarily gone to another race - my guess is places like Montana and Indiana were saturated already. It may have been the Cornyn was facing increasing pressure from donors who believed Mason-Dixon and some of the other bad pollsters who showed Akin competitive and threw Akin some money just to get them off his back.

  •  Romney was sitting on $25 million... (7+ / 0-)

    When his campaign ended. What a putz! Story here.

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

    by SaoMagnifico on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 07:50:18 AM PST

  •  In honor of Jim DeMint, (8+ / 0-)

    I thought it might be a good time to repost his favorite Abba song:

  •  Here's to hoping SCOTUS announces SSM cases! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PassionateJus, bythesea
  •  Allyson Scwartz may run for Pa. Gov. in 2014. (6+ / 0-)

    Thomas Fitzgerald article in today's Philadelphia Inquirer suggests she may be considering a run for governor.

       It's believed Corbett (from sw Pa.) is vulnerable due to cuts in education and welfare programs (and more to come since Corbett is one of the fanatic "Read my lips. No new taxes" people. And also who knows what the new ag may uncover about Corbett and Penn State.
         As Fitzgerald notes, not only does Schwartz already have 3.1 million dollars in her congressional campaign account but: "Scwartz has a base in the southeast, [and that was the key to Ed Rendell's two gubernatorial victories] has had success solidifying her hold on a compewtitive suburban House district, and has feminist credentials [important with se pa. suburban women vote] . Corbett has angered supporters of abortion rights by supporting a proposal to require women to undergo ultrasounds before having an abortion."

    And Corbett may well face a primary himself.

    Other candidates have expressed interest. I wouldn't mind if scwartz (my rep.) runs for governor and perhaps Sestak does a rerun against Toomey (and should be favored in a presidential year).

    P. S. I'd like to post this as a diary but for a month or two DailyKos hasn't fully worked on my laptop. Can't do diaries or rec comments.

    "A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere ". C. S. Lewis

    by TofG on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 09:37:17 AM PST

  •  Questions About Unions and Elections (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Paleo, bumiputera, BKGyptian89, MichaelNY

    There's still a lot that might happen with the anti-union legislation in Michigan, but I figured I'd ask a few broader questions, with the focus still on elections as much as possible. I'm still trying to learn more about this myself, so forgive me if I ask some simple questions. In no particular order:

    1. Assuming Snyder signs it, our chances to reverse the RTW legislation are through an initiative process or taking back the legislature and governor's mansion in 2014, right?

    2. Does anyone have a good idea of how the intensity of the pro-union forces might hold up?

    3. Are there any states that have a very light union presence where we might be able to make gains in the future? if not, why not? I know the laws can vary greatly from state to state, but is it a matter of flipping the legislatures and/or the governor's mansions?

    4. Drawing on (3), I know there are some states that were historically controlled by Democrats but never had a big union presence--North Carolina, for instance. Is this because of the type of industries that were there around the time that the union movement really came to life, or was it some political reason?

    5. Where might we look to target? Nevada? Colorado? Virginia?

    6. Might this be an issue we draw back on--expanding the union movement to new industries and making it easier for all to join--even if we have to present it in some new light?

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

    by bjssp on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 10:38:23 AM PST

    •  Good questions (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KingofSpades, BKGyptian89, MichaelNY

      At the risk of violating the forum "rules," I'll just answer 1 and 2.  Those who know say that it will be difficult to win back both houses of the legislature in 2014 because of redistricting.  So the initiative process would be the way to go.

      I think the intensity of the pro-union forces will hold up fine against the anti-union DeVoss forces.  But no telling how those in the "middle" will go.

      Let all the Bush tax cuts expire

      by Paleo on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 10:50:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Can't overturn by referrendum (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      They made Right To Work an attachment to an appropriations bill and those cannot be overturned by referendum. Only way to overturn it is to some get complete control of the legislature which unfortunately won't happen any time soon.

      The rest I don't know.

    •  Virginia and North Carolina (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DCCyclone, BKGyptian89, MichaelNY

      both have small labor movements because of Right to Work.  Both are areas that as those states trend Democratic, assuming they continue to, and we are able to pass more favorable labor laws, unions would have a much better chance.  This is true of any other Southern state which might trend our way, as they're all Right to Work, and in addition, according to the map I'm looking at, Arizona, Nevada, and Iowa.

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

      by James Allen on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 10:51:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nevada is a RTW state (4+ / 0-)

        but has a bigger union presence than a majority of non-RTW states.  Maybe when Democrats get a governor elected, they can repeal that as turnabout.

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

        by KingofSpades on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 10:55:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Why the disparity? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          Or are unions there just very, very, very active compared to those in other states, even if they aren't that much of a greater percentage of the work force?

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

          by bjssp on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 10:58:14 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nevada has an extremely big service sector (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            James Allen, JBraden, MichaelNY

            Even dealers have a union, under the umbrella of the UAW (at least that's the way it is in Atlantic City).

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

            by KingofSpades on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 10:59:53 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Right, but if it's a RTW state, how are they (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gabjoh, MichaelNY

              able to maintain membership? The trend in other states seems to be that after RTW comes, it gets harder and harder to collect dues.

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

              by bjssp on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 11:06:04 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  That I do not know (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                James Allen, MichaelNY

                I assume they just work harder to organize and encourage as many as people as possible to join so they can pay dues AND reap the benefits, so that it's not a drain on the union resources.

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

                by KingofSpades on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 11:08:43 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Good internal organization. (7+ / 0-)

                Right-to-work doesn't make operating a union impossible.  My union has a manufacturing shop in Staunton Virginia, and despite many of the members being reactionaries, we usually have 70%-90% signup.  On the other hand, we have some school districts in western Iowa where only a dozen people actually pay into the union, and there is a perpetual mess as a result.  

                What open shop means is that unless you have people active in the shop and promoting the union, the union will weaken and die.  It was originally put in place in many states more to stop unions from organizing than anything, as if a union can choose to focus organizing on a state where 100% of the people will pay in some manner, versus another where it's an unknown amount (and resources must be spent to constantly re-organize the workplace).  

                Also, it deprives unions of a lot of PAC money, which is why I think Republicans are pushing it now, rather than merely employers wanting it.  

          •  There's a UNITE-HERE (6+ / 0-)

            Local in Las Vegas (popularly called "the culinary" for historic purposes) which has the casino industry organized wall-to-wall.  They are a potent force in local and state politics.  So much so they can get their members to re-register as Republicans to defeat conservative Republicans in primaries.  

      •  What I'm wondering is, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BKGyptian89

        why hasn't this happened in the past? Was there just never a chance to do so, because of Republican interference? Or was it because the labor movements in other states were just too powerful, making it less important for other states to have a union presence?

        Also, and more importantly, what are the chances of this happening? In a raw political sense, would Democrats interpret this as a way to increase their power? If so, perhaps there's a chance of them simply passing it without really mentioning it during the campaign--essentially, the reverse of what Walker did. I'm not saying I'd necessarily like that, but if it happens, what are the draw backs?

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

        by bjssp on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 11:04:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  the old Democrats in those states (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lordpet8, BKGyptian89, JBraden, MichaelNY

          the Demosaurs, were generally not pro-union, (Bill Clinton was okay as president, but not very union-friendly as governor, for example), and both at the federal and state levels have held us back.  If we'd had a solid Democratic front in 2009, for example, and passed EFCA, RTW would not have been enough to keep labor down in those states, and the South would have seen a surge in organizing.  Unfortunately, we did not have a solid front because of a couple Democratic senators from Right to Work states.

          As the Democrats in the South become more liberal, they will likely become more pro-labor, and if we return to power in Noth Carolina, Virginia, or elsewhere, I think labor laws will be reformed in a serious way.

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

          by James Allen on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 11:15:15 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  A lot of democrats are still squishes... (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            James Allen, LordMike, JBraden, MichaelNY

            Chet Culver said he would support an end to right-to-work in Iowa, and then abandoned his position.  

            State workers were originally supposed to get comprehensive bargaining rights in Colorado when Bill Ritter was governor, and he ended up signing some half-assed executive order instead which only provided for limited rights.

            On the other hand, Democrats in several states have passed card-check legislation (largely for public workers) in recent years.  I'm not saying all Democrats are anti-labor, but there still are enough bad apples that a simple majority in both houses of the legislature and a Democratic governor isn't enough.  

            •  depends on the state (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bumiputera, MichaelNY

              a lot of people assume that Oregon and Washington are similar politically, but as you said, here in Oregon we have passed pro-labor reforms in 2007 (card check for public workers) and 2009 (ban on captive audience meetings).  In Washington the latter legislation we passed was being pushed at the same time by labor groups there, but couldn't even get a hearing from the Democrats in control, both Gregoire and the state legislative Dems.

              In Iowa, Vilsack did more for labor than Culver.  Culver was an all-around disappointment.  Same with Ritter.  Do you know how Hickenlooper is?

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

              by James Allen on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 11:34:54 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  This seems like a very odd and stupid move. (0+ / 0-)

            What did these Democratic senators fear in response to voting for EFCA? It seems like they weren't thinking about the long-term and how this might strengthen the party's base and give them some particularly important support, which might come if they were known as the ones that supported it. I know, as telephasic said, that not all unions are great friends of Democrats, but if we made it clear who was for them and who wasn't, might that change?

            I have to ask, can you calculate the effect of Democrats passing EFCA? And why would RTW not have been enough to hold them down? Again, this seems like such a boneheaded move by Democrats.

            You seem to be kind of hopeful that changes might come in the South. I am, too. You also seem to know quite a bit about this. Can you point me to some good information on these topics?

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

            by bjssp on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 11:44:23 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  it's incalculable. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bjssp, MichaelNY

              From a partisan Democratic perspective it seems stupid, but they are truly anti-labor Democrats.

              I don't know any particular resources, and I'm trying (and somewhat failing as it is) to study for finals so I shouldn't go looking right now.

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

              by James Allen on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 11:51:11 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  I'm not so sure about NC (0+ / 0-)

            Cause if it was such a big deal democrats would have passed some kind of union legislation before they lost power. Thy never did, and i don't see what would make them change their minds.

            21, Male, NC-02 home, SC-04 School. Majoring in Piano Performance.

            by aggou on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 01:16:50 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  well actually it makes sense (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              James Allen, bjssp, MichaelNY

              the two parties are both moving away fromt he center. There probably quite a few conservative Democrats in the NC legislature that were defeated. Now if the Dems were to take back control  of NC legislature they have a more liberal ideolody for their majority.

              Its the same way House of Reps today under Republican control(2011-present)  is way more conservative in ideology than during their previous rule of the chamber(1995-2007)

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

              by lordpet8 on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 02:03:18 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Perhaps, but (0+ / 0-)

                NC really never has had unions. WI, MI, OH, etc have had them for a long long time. It's slightly different for NC, imo, just because we never have had them. So in a sense, the Democrats down here might not see a need to make NC unionized, since it never has been, and they sort of, if you will, don't know what it's like to have them, whereas MI, OH, WI haven't known what it's like not to have them.

                21, Male, NC-02 home, SC-04 School. Majoring in Piano Performance.

                by aggou on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 03:21:12 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  states aren't unionized (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MichaelNY

                  individual workplaces are.  Getting rid of Right to Work, or simply giving public employees collective bargaining rights, wouldn't "unionize" a state.  It would just make it easier for people to form effective unions.

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

                  by James Allen on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 03:30:37 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Perhaps, I am still unsure if (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    MichaelNY

                    given the chance to gain power again, Democrats in NC would get rid of Right to work. Perhaps they will, but I'm still not fully sure they would.

                    That's my main point.

                    21, Male, NC-02 home, SC-04 School. Majoring in Piano Performance.

                    by aggou on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 03:43:40 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I'm not sure they would (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      MichaelNY

                      but I think when Democrats come back in North Carolina, they won't be the same Democrats that have been in power for the last few decades.

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

                      by James Allen on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 08:35:59 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

            •  Well, think of it this way, aggou: (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY

              if the Republicans try to do away with unions in states like Wisconsin to cement power, why couldn't Democrats do the opposite in states like North Carolina? They'd have to gain power back, but giving unions new life in the state might be a way to quickly expand their coalition and mobilizing powers, particularly since they'd probably be the only ones who would be courting them.

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

              by bjssp on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 02:26:29 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  isn't NC the least-unionized state in the union? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY

              It used to brag about that in past years.

    •  for #4 (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bjssp, MichaelNY

      Industry is definitely a big part of it.  Historically, union jobs have been blue-collar manufacturing/extraction jobs: steel/auto in the Midwest, coal in Appalachia, mining in Alaska, for example.  Even now, the most union heavy metro areas I don't believe the textile industry, which was North Carolina's only real industry besides agriculture until the last few decades, was ever very unionized.

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

      by jncca on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 10:52:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I know you've said you're (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        very pro-private labor, so do you think any industries in particular might be more open to organizing?

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

        by bjssp on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 11:07:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm no expert (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          I think private sector unions are one of the best ways to help the middle class, but that doesn't mean I know a lot on the topic.  I think the other posters on this thread have given much better responses than I'd be able to do.

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

          by jncca on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 12:29:29 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  however, interesting data I found (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bjssp, MichaelNY

            Heavily unionized industries:

            Metal ore mining: 34%
            Coal mining: 20%
            (oil/gas is only 5%)

            utility workers: ~30%

            animal processing: 20%
            beverage manufacturing: 19%
            paper mills: 32%
            iron/steel: 25%
            cars: 23%
            aircraft: 22%
            boats: 26%

            grocery stores: 18%

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

            by jncca on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 01:11:41 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  My degree is in Industrial and Labor Relations (4+ / 0-)

          So I have a a lot of knowledge around this issue so if someone wants to PM me further questions feel free.  The long and short of it is that trying to organize new industries such as hospitality, food service, and retail is much harder than the organizing that went on in manufacturing in the 30s and 40s.  The workers are much more dispersed, turnover is high, and employer opposition is intense.  Even before a union fields a petition to have an election the anti-union campaign begins.  A whole matter of crap happens such as firing pro-union organizers, threatening to leave or close down the place, hold one-on-one sessions where they interrogate workers about their support.  Additionally, the NLRB process is so slow, taking years and years to get through with basically the strongest punishment is backpay and a posting in the workplace.

          Social Democrat, WI-05

          by glame on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 03:45:06 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I'll bite. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KingofSpades, LordMike, MichaelNY

      1.  It's unclear if an initiative will be kosher, given Republicans attached it to an existing appropriations bill, and in theory bills which have appropriations cannot be overturned via initiative.  That said, they tried a similar tactic with the Emergency Manager law, and the court threw out the complaint it wasn't subject to initiative.  Still, I'm operating under the assumption the 2014 midterms will need to be swept in Michigan.  

      2.  Despite being a die-hard union guy, I don't have any confidence in the UAW's ability to lead the fightback.  They are pathetic when it comes to taking a stand of any sort.  

      3.  In 2009, there was an attempt to revoke Iowa's right-to-work law, but it failed because the Democrats (including Chet Culver) backed out of supporting it.  Discounting Iowa (and fixing Michigan), Nevada would probably make the most sense, as it has a strong union presence (due to the gaming industry) and one Sandoval is out of office, presumably the state will have a Democratic trifecta.  

      4.  Right-to-work was not really a Republican versus Democratic issue to begin with.  It was championed in the South because Dixiecrats hated unions.  They were worried black workers would organize, or even worse, white and black workers would make common cause.  Although it also had a lot of popularity out west, it was never an issue in the upland South where there were few blacks.  Witness KY and WV still having unionization.  Oklahoma didn't become right-to-work until the late 1990s, IIRC.  

      5.  Already partially answered.  Colorado isn't right to work (although public workers don't have full bargaining rights there), and Virginia will be a long and hard slog, probably a decade or more away.  

      6.  No.  I don't think this can be dealt with on a state-by-state case.  New federal law is needed.

      This isn't the place to get into this of course, but the problem is unions are not an ally of the Democrats - they just aren't an outright enemy of the Democrats like the Republicans are these days.  It is rare that any pro-labor legislation is put in place on the state level even when Democrats have the trifecta.

      If there isn't a major fightback, I'd expect right-to-work is going to pass in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Alaska this year.  Missouri's days are probably numbered once Nixon is term-limited as well.  

      The problem is it used to be a corporate issue first, but now it's become a political issue - Republicans think they can destroy labor's ability to GOTV and swing elections in close states by passing these laws.  

      •  In answer to 1 (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        I found out they actually didn't attach appropriations to the EFM law, but were merely considering it (I misread some articles way back then).  However, they can do a ballot initiative to alter statutory law, as someone said.  

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

        by KingofSpades on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 11:03:36 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'd rather discuss (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          the possibility of an initiative, which they will undertake if they're smart (also taking it to court like they did in WI where they got a few salient parts thrown out).  I want to know if and how they can fix what's happening.

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

          by KingofSpades on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 11:06:57 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  an initiative should be fine (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KingofSpades, Paleo, MichaelNY

        a referendum would not, I think, but an initiative should be fine.  They could either use it to gut and stuff the law or just pass a new superseding law.

        I think the AFSCME Int'l will send a lot of resources to fight this battle.  They just had a lot of victories and will be pumped.  UAW will not be alone in this.

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

        by James Allen on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 11:08:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

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

        3. Why was Culver not in full support of it?

        In a very broad sense, I figure that we need to have the same intensity as the Republicans: just do it when we can, consequences be damned. I mean, the worst that can happen is that we lose in the next round of elections, right?

        4. Very interesting.

        5. I learned last night that Colorado made some very minor progress there, but what I read didn't go into much detail. What was the issue?

        6. You reminded me of another question I forgot to ask, which was why this not taken up in any great push at the federal level. It's one thing if it's done in a very shady, underhanded way or something, but if it's just general, pro-labor legislation that makes it easier for unions to grow, what are the draw backs, really?

        And while my impression is that federal changes would help, I wouldn't necessarily discount the power to make changes at the state level. It's probably a much slower slog, but if we can make gains, however slowly, it might make it easier to make sweeping changes at the national level.

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

        by bjssp on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 11:23:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

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

          As to Culver:  Remember that in one sense, Governor's are the bosses of state employees.  How many bosses willingly give more power to their employees?  He probably was also getting pushback from private industry not to do so.  Many Democrats waffle on labor issues when push comes to shove, because they don't really want labor to gain power, they just want unions to give them money for their campaigns.  

          For Colorado, I don't remember all of the details, because it happened years ago, and we don't have members in that state.  But the unions were pressing for comprehensive bargaining rights through statute, and instead they got minor consultation rights on select issues.  Worse, it was through executive order, and we know from past experience in Missouri and Indiana that as soon as a Republican governor comes into power, they rescind the executive order.  

          It was taken up on the federal level, in part, with EFCA.  Keep in mind EFCA passed the house when it didn't have a shot in 2007, and then it was never taken up again officially once Obama was president.  I suppose you could say it was because it was sure to die in the Senate, but I think part of it was at least some Democrats were willing to support it when they knew it couldn't pass, but wouldn't actually go on record supporting it if it would end up on the desk of a president who would sign it.  

          •  Good detail, thanks. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY

            You'd probably have a better sense of this than me, but assuming Democrats are able to regain power in states like Wisconsin and Indiana (a big if, especially in the case of the latter state), do you think they can reverse what's been done so far?

            It seems odd to think that the better solution might be exploiting demographic trends in emerging Democratic states rather than trying to reverse them in the Rust Belt states.

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

            by bjssp on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 12:01:26 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  This is getting way off topic. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bjssp, MichaelNY

              1.  We won't get back control of Indiana in 20 years.

              2.  We should be able to get back control of Wisconsin some time in the next decade, even if we don't defeat Walker in 2014.  That said, while I expect collective bargaining will come back, I am guessing it will be more limited by then.  For example, I don't think they will restore the right for unions to bargain over health care or pensions.  

      •  What's so bad about the UAW's messaging? n/t (0+ / 0-)

        Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

        by MichaelNY on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 10:01:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  specifically on Virginia (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DCCyclone, Woody, MichaelNY

      we were close to getting collective bargaining rights under Kaine.  McAuliffe would probably be a very good governor for labor in Virginia.

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

      by James Allen on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 11:02:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  My union... (4+ / 0-)

        Has a statewide local of public-sector workers in Virginia, which operates via dues deduction and uses the state grievance system, even if it can't bargain.  I've never heard we were exceptionally close there, although we were moving along in North Carolina to getting state workers collective bargaining rights up until the Republicans swept in, and we remain active in West Virginia (where I hope we can get it done before Republicans take over the state in the next decade).  

      •  Can you go into this more? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        I thought of Virginia earlier because someone asked Kaine about this stuff in regards to Wisconsin when he was the DNC chairman and I believe the reason given was that Virginia Republicans controlled one half of the legislature.

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

        by bjssp on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 11:25:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think that's right (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          but its also a matter of Democrats there still being very centrist and business friendly in general.  McAuliffe is the same, but he's also a guy from national politics who knows the importance of labor.

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

          by James Allen on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 11:37:05 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Which raises the question, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY

            are these people willing to take a risk? I mean, I'm sure there are some moves that would be outrageous, but would a basic bill that expands abilities to unionize be that against their beliefs? And perhaps more importantly, while these states are trending our way, but they aren't deep blue now and they might never be. Are they going to turn down a chance to cement support like that?

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

            by bjssp on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 11:55:28 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Looking at it... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              James Allen, LordMike, MichaelNY

              Just from a cold-hearted political standpoint, they'd probably weigh out gaining union ground support versus losing corporate money.  

              One thing should be clear after 2012 - corporate money doesn't trump ground game.  Therefore, I think it's an easy gimmie.  But some of these guys cut their teeth in a different political era, so it may not be so clear.  

              •  Are state legislators really getting corporate (0+ / 0-)

                money?

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

                by bjssp on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 12:19:40 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Probably so, at least from local corporations (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MichaelNY

                  and I'd think that corporations and their executives would be big donors to outside groups that run ads in legislative elections as well. Here in Wisconsin, that's mainly Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce and pro-voucher groups.

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

                  by fearlessfred14 on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 12:32:37 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  is the sky blue? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  James Allen, 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 Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 01:00:35 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

    •  Thank you for posing this question (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      because I too my self am not that knowledgeable of labor.

      Out of all the states in the rustbelt, union has the deepest roots in Michigan which long has a Democrat prestigue. So I don't think it will do a tremendous turn to the right. Particulary in the federal elections like the Presidential level. But also Michigan has a huge gaming industry like Nevada wihich is also a RTW state. Im optimistic that Nevada will be able to change once Sandoval is out after '18    

      They could also have intiative in Michigan to limit the expected passage of the bill.

      But there have to be a workers legislation at the federal level, where RTW wont be that much of a burden.
       

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

      by BKGyptian89 on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 02:17:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Is Raising the Medicare Retirement Age Okay? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bfen

    That is, is it okay if we get many other things in return?

    Just to establish this but not turn this into a policy discussion, this doesn't seem to do a lot to really improve the finances of the program and in fact might raise costs for those in their mid-60s. That said, as Jon Chait points out in his post arguing that this might not be the worst thing to cede in the negotiations, this suddenly makes a lot of people very dependent on the Affordable Care Act. From a political stand point, that might be a good thing at all levels.

    I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, I'm against it, because it doesn't save a lot of money and might make things a lot harder for a lot of people. Somewhat less importantly, it gives the right-wing notion that entitlements need big, right-wing changes more credibility. On the other hand, it's not as if this would mean an unheard of level of suffering. There are options for these people to get/maintain coverage, and if it does mean there's a new and powerful group of people that will support the A.C.A., that's a good thing in a political and policy sense. It also depends on what, exactly, we could get in return.

    If I had to pick a side now, I'd probably still be against it.

    What do you guys think?

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

    by bjssp on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 10:47:28 AM PST

    •  My response: (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      James Allen, Woody, Skaje, LordMike, MichaelNY

      "nuts."

      There are certain lines you don't cross as a Democrat, and this is one of them.

      Ok, so I read the polls.

      by andgarden on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 10:50:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not really for the Daily Digest (9+ / 0-)

      I think this conversation is better suited elsewhere on Daily Kos.  I know it's an important discussion but this section is really for horse race comments only.

      NY-7 in real life, @BobbyBigWheel on Twitter

      by Bobby Big Wheel on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 10:54:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bringing the issue back to elections (0+ / 0-)

        If this happens, and Democrats don't want to suffer disastrously low base turnout in 2014, they better get a lot in exchange for it.  It was OK to give a lot in 2011 when after the midterms Obama really was repudiated and had his back to the wall.  But after a big win, you better negotiate for most of what you want, and if you surrender anything your base cares about, you better get a lot in exchange for it.

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

        by DCCyclone on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 11:19:47 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It isn't any different (0+ / 0-)

          To lower conservative turnout should Republicans allow tax increases. The nature of any deal is both sides giving something up. It may not be this but if there is agreement before New Years there will certainly be elements Democrats hate. But the other side will likely hate the package even more.

          "What do you mean "conspiracy"? Does that mean it's someone's imaginings and that the actual polls hovered right around the result?" - petral

          by conspiracy on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 11:46:18 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't think that's quite right (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY

            If you look at polling, it's very consistent that rank-and-file Republicans are divided on taxes, and rank-and-file Democrats are united in opposing entitlement benefit cuts.

            So it's not the same political impact, it's not the same at all.  Our side will oppose benefit cuts far more strongly than Republicans will oppose tax hikes on the rich.  Yes the teabaggers are among the fierce opponents, but they're only as powerful as their ability to get their party's masses to follow them.

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

            by DCCyclone on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 12:00:18 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  If that was the deal (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DCCyclone

              I think more Republicans would lose primaries as a result of their vote than Democrats. Anyway, my main point remains that both sides will have to suck it up to some degree should there be a deal. I agree with you Democrats should be in position to get the better of it.

              "What do you mean "conspiracy"? Does that mean it's someone's imaginings and that the actual polls hovered right around the result?" - petral

              by conspiracy on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 12:36:24 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not trying to discuss (0+ / 0-)

        the policy ends. I was trying to discuss the political ends. In regards to those who would be on Medicare but might not be because of the change in the retirement age, this might make them good political allies for us when it comes to making the sure the ACA is strengthened and protected. That's what I wanted to discuss, along with comments like DCC's in regards to base turnout in 2014.

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

        by bjssp on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 11:27:39 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Um, you are aware this is the DKE page right? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      James Allen

      Not that these aren't important issues but this section is all about pure horse racing prognostications. While your question about Michigan does go into whether we can somehow galvanize an electoral response to fight this.

      This one though seems to be a clear violation of David's rules for this page. Just letting you know unless I am wrong, then I apologize in advance.

    •  This idea that we can lose to help us win in the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      future is nonsense.  President Bush & 2010.  Winds change too fast.  

    •  It would be terrible politics (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      if we are complicit in raising the eligibility age, Republicans will run ads against us on it next time.

  •  Special elections accumulating (5+ / 0-)

    Georgia:
    SD11 (SW Georgia, 60/38 Romney district): the incumbent Republican is resigning due to a battle with meningitis
    SD21 (The Sprawl of Suburban Atlanta): Chip Rogers resigned to take a job with Georgia Public Broadcasting, where he'll work with Roddy Piper to find the mind control beams used by Obama
    HD21 (Sprawl): Seat opened up by the state rep running for SD21 (Georgia has a resign to run law)

    Alabama
    SD35 (South Mobile County): Republican resigning to become a judge. Democrat held this seat from 2002 to 2006.
    HD11 (Northern Alabama): Incumbent Republican resigning to become a PSCommissioner (replacing the PSCommish who resigned after winning the Chair job from Lucy Baxley, yes we had an incumbent Dem lose on 11/6)

    Mississippi
    HD59 (Rankin County): Incumbent R resigning due to ethics problems.
    SD16 (Elaborately drawn majority-minority district around Starkville and Columbus): Incumbent Dem died.
    SD28 (Jackson): Incumbent Dem died.

    Not expecting any of these districts to switch parties.

    Georgia is holding their elections on January 8th, with runoffs on February 5th if no candidate wins a majority.

    Mississippi may be holding elections on January 8th or 15th for various seats.

    Alabama has a longer schedule with separate primaries which may expand or contract depending on the existence of runoff elections.

    Considering a lack of competitive elections in some parts of the South, it's surprising more states haven't went the GA/LA/MS route and have all the candidates on one ballot with a majority required.

    Also in California, Assemblymembers are announcing to replace McLeod and Vargas in the Senate, which means musical chairs may occur there

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

    by RBH on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 11:07:21 AM PST

    •  Boring, we need more competitive special elections (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      James Allen, Xenocrypt, gabjoh

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

      by KingofSpades on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 11:11:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  the closest to competitive are (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KingofSpades, Christopher Walker

        either SD35 in Alabama, where the Dem lost in 2006. Or SD11 in Georgia where the Dems were at 46% in 2004 (a post-re-redistricting election in Georgia). But as people have noticed, deepest SW Georgia has went a bit more red. The rumored R candidate in SD11 is Mike Keown, who was last seen losing to Sanford Bishop in 2010.

        There's a special election in Iowa's House District 52 where the Dem took a job as the general manager of the New Hampton Municipal Light Plant. But from what I can see, Obama won all the counties in that district.

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

        by RBH on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 11:20:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  There's probably good reason to expect (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KingofSpades, James Allen

        fewer of them--legislators might be less reluctant to take an outside gig if their seat might flip.  (Which isn't the sole cause of special elections, of course, but it is a cause.)

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

        by Xenocrypt on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 11:22:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  California special elections (0+ / 0-)

      California will have several special elections to fill State senate seats vacant because their incumbnts won Congressional elections.  Then Assembly seats to be filled because they won State senate seats.

      This series of vacancies could stall, in practice, the 2/3 majority Dems just got in both houses of the legislature.

      One special election is already schedule for

  •  New seats... (6+ / 0-)

    Coffman's seat (CO-06) is now the third most Obama seat held by a Republican (after CA-31 and FL-27).  Reichert's (WA-08) is the sixth.  The former is D+1, and the latter R+1.  

    I see word on Twitter Obama lost PA-08 by a few hundred votes (the only Kerry-Obama-Romney district in the country!), which leads me to think Obama didn't win any of the Republican districts in PA this cycle (although PA-06 is still possible).    

    This means the last remaining Republican districts I expect that Obama may have carried are:

    CA-21
    NJ-02
    NJ-03 (Obama improved statewide)
    NY-11 (Republican turnout in Staten Island sucked)
    NY-19

  •  CA-49: pres results (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lordpet8, MichaelNY

    A little disappointing, Romney won 52/46. Don't think we will be able to get a winning congressional candidate in there unless we recruit someone with a good profile, and Issa keeps the bad press coming.

    Could be a pickup in 2016 though, otherwise, I think this should a third tier seat in 2014.

    Swingnut since 2009, 21, Male, Democrat, CA-49 (home) CA-12 (college)

    by Daman09 on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 11:26:29 AM PST

    •  2008 was sorta high watermark for us (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      James Allen, ArkDem14, MichaelNY

      in this seat. I think its best we focus our energies on CA 10, 21, and 31 first.

      With some massive voter reg drives(including same-day registration) in 2016, who knows we might have a great shot at taking down Issa, McKeon, and a many more

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

      by lordpet8 on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 12:23:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

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

    As sapelcovits reminded me to do, I've updated my sig now that my dude's in Boro Park.

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

    by Xenocrypt on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 11:35:13 AM PST

  •  CA GOP redistricting adviser from '71 and '81 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    uclabruin18

    on some of the upsets there this year:
    http://www.calitics.com/...
    http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/...

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

    by KingofSpades on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 11:42:54 AM PST

  •  Anyone know where I can find SD statement of votes (0+ / 0-)

    The SD registrar website is pretty awful, and I want to see what the divergence is between CA-49 by presidential vote and US Senate vote.

    I think perhaps the senate should be a better barometer for US house races, as they are top two primary, whereas US pres are not.

    Swingnut since 2009, 21, Male, Democrat, CA-49 (home) CA-12 (college)

    by Daman09 on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 11:44:28 AM PST

  •  Random Congressional results notes (4+ / 0-)

    1) Doug Lamborn's 2012 percentage was lower than his 2010 percentage. He wasn't facing a Democrat in 2012.

    2) The Travis County trail of TX17 gave a Libertarian 43% v. Bill Flores in a one-on-one match. Which was good for almost 33K votes total. I'm guessing that when the Rs redraw the districts for 2014, they won't chop off the tail, and put it in TX31 while putting parts of Bell in TX17. After all, putting Travis County in TX31 might give Williamson and Bell Counties wild ideas.

    2b) There's a part of Bell County in TX25 instead of TX31. It overwhelmingly voted Dem

    2c) Starr County was amazingly Dem on the local levels. It went 10260-1547 for Obama (86.3-13). But on lower levels?

    U. S. Representative District 28
    William R. Hayward (R) 843 (7.44%)
    Henry Cuellar (D) 10,371 (91.58%)

    State Senator, District 21   
    Grant Rostig (R) 854 (7.48%)
    Judith Zaffirini (D) 10,391 (91.13%)
    Joseph Morse (Lbt) 157 (1.37%)

    State Representative District 31
    Ann Matthews (R) 902 (7.85%)
    Ryan Guillen (D) 10,586 (92.14%)

    2d) Rockwall County cast the most votes in the TX4 election, which is good news to any Rockwall Countians who may seek the seat when Ralph Hall retires in 2022.

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

    by RBH on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 11:45:24 AM PST

    •  2022? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bumiputera, lordpet8, jncca, MichaelNY

      If Hall hangs on that long he'll be 99, the oldest House member in history.

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

      by Mike in MD on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 12:01:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  well he already is the record holder (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        as the oldest house member to cast a vote.

        I'm still a little bitter over his party switch in 2004. He held on as Dem for like 2 decades. I mean he didn't get along with the Dem leadership and voted "present" rather than vote for Tip O'neill in the 1980's. He got passed over for chairmanships. When the 1994 wave happened he still stayed as Dem, when the rest of his conservative boll-wevills bolted the party.
        I guess he was worried about what Delay would do to his district, that and he knew would what would happen to the rest of his fellow white Texan Dems congressmen (only Edwards and Doggett survived)
        His own wife and much of staff were pretty irked by his last minute party switch.

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

        by lordpet8 on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 12:32:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'm joking, slightly (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        since apparently Hall hinted at retirement multiple times in the last 10 years, while still running until he turned 88.

        I think Hall is one of the Congressmen who'll try his best to stay in office until he passes. Then Texarkana gets a shot at trying to win TX4 back from Rockwall.

        And no, Paul Sadler doesn't live in TX4, he lives in TX1 (where the ideal Dem would be from Marshall (different TV market, Gohmert did 6% worse in HarrisonCo than in SmithCo), and where the ideal Dem would still lose 70/30)

        But Ralph Hall's going nowhere and the Rs don't really have any reason to primary him. And Hall's 2012 opponent ran worse in her home county than she did in the entire district.

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

        by RBH on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 12:33:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  and if he's in office at 99 (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        he'll stay til he's 100, just for kicks.

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

        by jncca on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 01:04:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  at that point (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          he'd want to break Thurmond's record

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

          by lordpet8 on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 01:16:05 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  They seem to be only talking of the KS state leg. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    re-redistricting, it it's allowable under constitution.

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

    by KingofSpades on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 11:53:12 AM PST

    •  UGH (0+ / 0-)

      I know we have to be better than Republicans but we can't unilaterally disarm. If KS state leg is going to redistrict, Dems should redistrict the legislatures in OR, CO, and MN. Might be illegal in OR and CO (pretty sure it is in CO) but come on.....this is crazy

      •  pretty sure its fine here (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KingofSpades, MichaelNY

        but we're too Minnesota nice to do it.

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

        by James Allen on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 12:19:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  head vs heart (0+ / 0-)

          CO can't do, and MN and OR are too nice. great. I have to think the Republicans in MN would do this in a heartbeat here if they suddenly gained the trifecta. Sure, there'd be backlash and they'd lose seats in the subsequent election but they'd have a firm map for themselves in place....like in WI. Republicans did the unimaginable there, there was backlash and they lost the senate, now they have the senate back and a decent chance of keeping it until 2022. And shored up their congressional districts.

          I can't speak for Oregon Republicans, who on the whole are probably more moderate than Minnesota Republicans, but geez Republicans for decades have wielded power much more effectively in power than Dems ever will, and that's why we can only rely on demographics to eventually gain a lasting majority

          •  no, Oregon Republicans are more partisan (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lordpet8

            than the Democrats here.  They'd probably have no qualms, and call the compromise maps "temporary" or "interim" maps required by split control.

            The thing is they would probably get a lot of bad press, it would poison their relationships with the legislative Republicans, and in most districts it would probably change the partisan make up of most districts by like 0.1%.  And it would more likely just secure the districts we gained  and held than try to open up any more in the house, though they'd surely try to make the senate seats up in 2014 better.  I mean, I can think of a good number of districts were we could make minor adjustments to net a few votes here and there, but I don't think the Democrats in the house would be open to bigger changes that could open up more seats for us.  It would have to be a significant redrawing, as the two closest losses of ours were by about 4 points.  Both of them could be redrawn to be slightly more favorable, but it'd take a lot to make them significantly more Democratic, and I don't think they're willing to go that far.

            They probably see the bad press and damage to their relationship with the Rs as outweighing the marginal benefits it would provide.

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

            by James Allen on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 12:37:04 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Colorado doesn't allow that. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        Republicans tried to gerrymander in 2003-4, but the CO Supreme Court said it violated the state constitution to redo redistricting.

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

        by KingofSpades on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 02:19:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Are there even that many moderate Repubs left (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      to topple?  I thought the conservatives damn near had a clean sweep.  Is redrawing actually necessary to protect themselves?  The track record of moderate primary challengers to conservative incumbents is pretty non-existent for the modern Republican party, so it's not like they have to worry about moderates primarying themselves back in.

      •  I think moderates are still around the party (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bumiputera, James Allen, MichaelNY

        They just usually don't get much traction.

        CA 41: John Tavaglione was surprisingly not attacked by the right despite his pro-choice views and opposition to parts of the Ryan plan. Though I'm sure conservatives realized that he was the best shot in the Dem friendly seat.

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

        by lordpet8 on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 01:09:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  which may be a bit hard to pull off (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      James Allen

      without screwing over a few of the Rs in the process. Presumably the goal would involve solidifying various districts were Rs might be challenged sometime before 2022.

      And if we're talking retaliation, the WV Dems could look into re-redistricting. Splitting the Capito district. Trying to nuke as many of the new Republicans as possible. And so on.

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

      by RBH on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 12:38:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I doubt WV Dems dare touch that map (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lordpet8, jncca, bumiputera, JBraden, MichaelNY

        since giving their incumbents new territory might be too much of a risk. They're just too reliant on incumbent advantage to hold what they've got.

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

        by fearlessfred14 on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 12:44:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  they could hit Rs without hitting their side (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sawolf

          they have a bunch of multi-member districts in West Virginia (100 members, 67 districts)

          So they could split some of the districts where Republicans swept to put some of the Republicans in a harder to win district. Or they could split a district which elected a D and an R to give the D a much better shot to win re-election.

          For example, the 35th district (St. Albans/South Charleston/Charleston) went 3-1 Republican, tossing two incumbent Democrats. So a district could keep that Democrat secure while making it harder for a few of those Republicans to win. Something like one seat for St. Alban, in a new district (giving Raines a seat), then a more D 35th would exist for the 2R incumbents and 1D incumbent.

          There's also a 5-member 51st District (Morgantown) that went 3-2 Democratic.

          Not sure the 3-member Princeton/Bluefield district can be sliced to elect at least 1 Dem out of that area.

          There's a few ways to "redraw" the districts without doing all that much redrawing. Although for the sake of sanity, just start numbering the new districts at 68 instead of changing everybodys numbers.

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

          by RBH on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 01:26:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  If WV Dems refused to actually gerrymander in 2011 (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bjssp, MichaelNY

        then they're not going to do mid-decade redistricting.

        That's why we need OR and MN Dems to act. But they also won't. And I understand why, and can't say I don't blame them. Still, it's terrible the way Republicans use their power in ways that Dems never would, which is why it will still take a long time to have a lasting majority

  •  1990s political trends, presented lazily. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KingofSpades

    Here is a chart of 1990s Congressional Districts, by Presidential results.  The x-axis is an average of Dukakis and Clinton's 1992 two-party share, the y-axis is the non-Bush percentage in 2000.  "Presented lazily" because there were innumerable re-drawings, mostly of Southern states, throughout the decade, and a lot of the big changes are influenced by that, and I'm just flat-out ignoring it.  (For example, GA-04 wasn't the same district at all.)

    Still, some interesting things.  New Jersey districts pop out as D-trending (of course, Gore/Lieberman did particularly well throughout the area).  As does MI-11, which was the Oakland County district at the time.  As does CA-46, which was Loretta Sanchez's district, and which continues to trend D.

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

    by Xenocrypt on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 12:11:05 PM PST

    •  All of those (0+ / 0-)

      political graphs and no pictures of cute puppies?

      Anyway, GA-11 and LA-04 are really far out from other districts. Were they always so very Republican?

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

      by bjssp on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 12:18:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, they were just re-drawn. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jncca

        Cynthia McKinney's seat was called GA-11 before 1997, and then it was called GA-04.  As I said, I was lazy.

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

        by Xenocrypt on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 12:21:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  the better thing to do would be to plug in the old (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KingofSpades

          boundaries on DRA. For instance I have the 1984-1990 CA districts done.

          District 1 (Bosco/Riggs) 66.3% White; Population 783986; D+17
          District 2 (Chappie/Herger) 70.8% White; Population 788650; R+9.1
          District 3 (Matsui) 45.6% White, 21.8% Hispanic, 16.8% Asian; Population 769218; D+9.4
          District 4 (Fazio) 50.2% White; Population 1148336; District 4 D+5.1
          District 5 (Burton/Pelosi) 38.9% White, 34.8% Asian, 16.9% Hispanic; Population 640981; D+31.6
          District 6 (Boxer) 59.2% White; Population 646181; D+26.8
          District 7 (Miller); 43.9% White, 27.2% Hispanic, 14.5% Asian; Population 897249; D+15.8
          District 8 (Dellums); 45.9% White, 19.7% Asian, 15.3% Hispanic; Population 678273; D+31.4
          District 9 (Stark); 34% White, 28.1% Hispanic, 22.1% Asian; Population 694724; D+19.1
          District 10 (Edwards); 42% Asian, 32.3% Hispanic; Population 848631; D+18.9
          District 11 (Lantos); 39.2% White, 27.2% Asian, 26.9% Hispanic; Population 652557; D+20.9
          District 12 (Zschau/Konnyu/Campbell); 50.2% White; Population 686380; D+17.2
          District 13 (Mineta); 43.4% White, 26.9% Asian, 23.1% Hispanic; Population 651576 D+15.6
          District 14 (Shumway/Doolittle); 64.8% White; Population 1169214; R+6.6
          District 15 (Coelho/Condit); 50.3% Hispanic, 38.2% White; Population 1002903; R+1.7
          District 16 (Panetta); 45.7% Hispanic, 43.9% White; Population 777018; D+18.6
          District 17 (Pashayan/Dooley); 52.3% Hispanic, 36.3% White; Population 1073205; R+10.1
          District 18 (Lehman); 48% Hispanic, 32.5% White; Population 893125; D+3.1
          District 19 (Lagomarsino); 50.5% Hispanic 40.5% White; Population 762773; D+9.3
          District 20 (Thomas); 48.5% Hispanic 37.9% White; Population 1093214; R+11.2
          District 21 (Fiedler/Gallegly); 58.6% White; Population 922428; D+0.6
          District 22 (Moorhead); 49.3% White, 23.1% Hispanic, 21.2% Asian; Population 783272; D+5.2
          District 23 (Beilenson); 53.2% White; Population 659836; D+17.7
          District 24 (Waxman); 38.3% Hispanic, 37% White; Population 636939; D+27.4
          District 25 (Roybal); 67.7% Hispanic; Population 621880; D+27.6
          District 26 (Berman); 56.2% Hispanic; Population 718360; D+20.2
          District 27 (Levine); 49.5% White, 24.2% Hispanic, 12.7% Asian; Population 570796; D+19.2
          District 28 (Dixon); 49.1% Hispanic, 23.6% Black, 15.5% White; Population 605332; D+31.9
          District 29 (Hawkins/Waters); 77.5% Hispanic; Population 720029; D+35.1
          District 30 (Martinez); 62.8% Hispanic; Population 656228; D+18.4
          District 31 (Dymally); 58% Hispanic; Population 684545; D+27.9
          District 32 (Anderson); 50.5% Hispanic; Population 671749; D+15.2
          District 33 (Dreier); 45.5% Hispanic, 29.7% White, 18.8% Asian; Population 709985; D+2.9
          District 34 (Torres); 72.8% Hispanic; Population 672665; D+16.6
          District 35 (Lewis); 42.2% White, 39.4% Hispanic; Population 1362669; R+5
          District 36 (Brown); 66.2% Hispanic; Population 1022807; D+12.8
          District 37 (McCandless); 43.6% Hispanic, 41.5% White; Population 1950316; R+3.2
          District 38 (Dornan); 54.8% Hispanic; Population 750273; D+2.6
          District 39 (Dannemeyer); 42.2% White, 37.7% Hispanic; Population 757396; R+8.2
          District 40 (Badham/Cox); 54.1% White; Population 909976; R+2.5
          District 41 (Lowery); 61.2% White; Population 811598; D+6.5
          District 42 (Lungren/Rohrabacher); 54.3% White; Population 577788; R+2.6
          District 43 (Packard); 58.8% White; Population 1175972; R+6.4
          District 44 (Bates/Cunningham); 54.3% Hispanic; Population 730662; D+14.8
          District 45 (Hunter); 47.2% White, 38.5% Hispanic; Population 912261; R+5.7

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

          by demographicarmageddon on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 03:25:42 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't have the contemporary Pres. numbers there. (0+ / 0-)

            But that's interesting.

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

            by Xenocrypt on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 03:28:54 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  All because you got the magic almanac. (0+ / 0-)

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

            by KingofSpades on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 04:51:10 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  well if you compare the politics of the districts (0+ / 0-)

              to back then with the 84/88 PVIs

              District 29 D+36
              District 28 D+27
              District 5 D+26
              District 8 D+25
              District 25 D+21
              District 31 D+19
              District 6 D+18
              District 24 D+17
              District 9 D+10
              District 11 D+10
              District 10 D+9
              District 1 D+8
              District 16 D+8
              District 18 D+8
              District 23 D+8
              District 27 D+8
              District 7 D+7
              District 26 D+7
              District 44 D+6
              District 30 D+5
              District 3 D+4
              District 12 D+3
              District 4 D+2
              District 13 D+2
              District 32 D+2
              District 34 D+2
              District 36 D+2
              District 15 D+1
              District 19 R+2
              District 2 R+5
              District 17 R+5
              District 41 R+5
              District 14 R+6
              District 37 R+7
              District 38 R+9
              District 33 R+10
              District 20 R+11
              District 22 R+12
              District 21 R+13
              District 35 R+13
              District 42 R+13
              District 45 R+13
              District 43 R+15
              District 40 R+16
              District 39 R+18

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

              by demographicarmageddon on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 05:04:04 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  Battle for tipping point state (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KingTag, MichaelNY

    Colorado is certified in the clubhouse at 5.37%.

    Pennsylvania still not certified is at 5.38%, which is a .2% drop from the start of the week.

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

    Mr. Gorbachev, establish an Electoral College!

    by tommypaine on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 12:13:09 PM PST

    •  At this point (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KingTag, MichaelNY

      I'm thinking Pennsylvania is a likely candidate for tipping point state in 2016, the way it has stagnated but Colorado has been trending Dem for decades now.  We should spend early and heavily in trying to lock down Pennsylvania in 2016.

      •  I dunno (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        itskevin, DCCyclone, MichaelNY

        Obama pulled out early for a reason. And Romney went in late for others. It'll never be a complete blowout but those last few percentage points are tough for any Republican nominee.

        "What do you mean "conspiracy"? Does that mean it's someone's imaginings and that the actual polls hovered right around the result?" - petral

        by conspiracy on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 12:50:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  CO didn't really trend blue (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Skaje, MichaelNY

        from 2008-2012.  I also disagree with the idea that early spending can "lock down" a state.

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

        by Xenocrypt on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 01:21:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Both your points are accurate (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          James Allen, MichaelNY

          My response to the former: I still expect Colorado to continue shifting leftwards in the coming years, even though it "stalled" from the past election, which I attribute to Obama's overperformance in 2008.  Consider this, Nevada's PVI shifted GOP compared to 2008, but no one seems to be arguing Nevada is getting redder as a state, that's more a function of Nevada's numbers coming back down to earth from Obama's unusually strong performance last time.  Nevada is still believed (by most I've seen) to have a long-term Dem trend that should continue in the future.  And I feel the same way about Colorado.  Of course, that's just a feeling, I can't know for sure how Colorado will behave in 2016, but I think a small increase in Dem PVI is likely.

          As for the early spending thing, I know that's a fallacy.  No one can "lock down" anything in an election.  I phrased it as trying to lock down, but I should have just said we should focus on it early, spend a lot of money so we don't get caught by surprise, and generally treat it as a critical state.

          •  Possible. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jncca, Skaje, Bobby Big Wheel, MichaelNY

            Two-party vote shares, CO was D+0.9 last time and D+0.7 this time.  It was R+1.2 in 2004.  Gore+Nader got about 51% nationally and about 48% in Colorado, so it was R+3.  Uh, 1996, Bill got a little less than half of the two-party vote, so call it R+5.  1992, who knows, but it was actually probably about even.  It was also quite close to even in 1988.  In 1984 it was perhaps R+5 or R+6.  In 1980 it was probably R+4 to R+10 depending on how you account for Anderson.  1976, R+6.  1972, R+2 or R+3.  It went 50/41/8 for Nixon/Humphrey/Wallace, compared to about 43/43/13 nationally.  Again, that's ambiguous.  It was about even in 1964, about R+5 in 1960, maybe R+2 in 1956, maybe R+5 in 1952, and vaguely even in 1948.

            What's my point?  Just that we should put these "decades-long" trends in context.  Colorado went R+5 to R+3 to R+1 to D+1 from 1996 to 2000 to 2004 to 2008.  I think it's hard to simultaneously believe in Colorado trending D and to believe that Obama over-performed in 2008.  But we also simply shouldn't expect these trends to last forever.  I don't think it's so unlikely that Colorado will settle in as a slightly D-leaning state.

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

            by Xenocrypt on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 01:57:32 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  that's definitely something to keep in context (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY

              we've seen a lot of standpat elections in recent years but that doesn't mean we won't see a lot more schizophrenic voting patterns in the future.

              Sean Trende is a hack but his book "The Lost Majority" is a pretty good read that talks about that kind of stuff.

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

              by demographicarmageddon on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 02:41:40 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  There ya go again (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Xenocrypt, MichaelNY

              bringing up actual numbers and contradicting my argument. :)

              I knew that Obama shot up significantly in Colorado compared to Kerry, but I hadn't considered that his "overperformance" was about the same level as Kerry's overperformance of Gore+Nader.  So I can't really argue Obama's 2008 numbers in Colorado were uncharacteristically high, as they simply continued the trend of the state gaining a couple points to PVI each election from 1996 on.  1992 is harder to quantify as you note...hard to read too much into a 40-36-24 result...Perot took from both sides heavily in the state.  Before that, Colorado seemed to fluctuate around R+5 going back to the 40s.  So I shouldn't have said decades without actually going back decades.

              You are correct that we cannot expect a trend to continue indefinitely simply because it is a trend.  But based on the changing demographics of Colorado, I suspect it will eventually be considered a bluer state than the midwest group (Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin) which have been better for Democrats than Colorado for decades...and I actually checked back decades for that one!

              •  And also there's 1988. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Skaje, MichaelNY

                Where Colorado was very close to the national results.  I actually wasn't meaning to contradict you per se--I think Colorado trended D for at least 1996-2008, which would fit with the usual use of "for decades" (i.e., it trended D in the 90s and 00s).

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

                by Xenocrypt on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 03:07:49 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  my only surprise about the PPP poll (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lordpet8, ArkDem14, MichaelNY

    is that Kitzhaber is only doing a couple points better than Merkley.

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

    by James Allen on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 12:16:54 PM PST

  •  CA03 and CA05 (0+ / 0-)

    Lake county Statement of vote not on Pres by CD list

    CD03
    CD05

    http://www.co.lake.ca.us/...

  •  Arizona Senate Results: LD-06. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ArkDem14

    This was another of the districts I had written about, covering Flagstaff, Sedona, and some of rural Gila and Navajo counties.  Republican Chester Crandell beat Democrat Tom Chabin by about 6 points, about the same margin the Democrat lost by in LD-18.  

    The difference here?  Romney absolutely crushed Obama in LD-06 by 14 points!  Obama got just 43.2% of the vote here.  LD-18 was far closer (about a two point loss).  

    Obama didn't even do that badly last time (while his 2008 and 2012 performances in LD-18 were very similar, thanks in part to the McCain home state effect).  Hell, even Kerry got 46.8% here.

    This district has a pretty significant Mormon population, I imagine (see the discussion with sacman701 in my diary--and Crandell is LDS).  But I don't think that's it, as things are quite correlated at the precinct level, and Chabin did better than Obama nearly everywhere  I will note that Chabin got about 1,400 votes more than Obama, while Romney got some 5,000 votes more than Crandell.

    So that was a pretty good performance by Chabin, and maybe Romney was a high-water mark.  But Kerry did better than Obama did last time (45.5% of the vote), so this district is almost certainly trending R.  And, with only 30 seats in the Arizona senate, that makes it much harder for Democrats to build a majority under this map.

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

    by Xenocrypt on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 01:04:01 PM PST

  •  question I don't have the answer to (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    In how many states did Obama lose the county with the lowest White percentage in the state?

    Clearly, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Utah.
    But how about Idaho/Wyoming/Nebraska/Washington, etc?

    Should be interesting.

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

    by jncca on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 01:07:15 PM PST

    •  Oregon too (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jncca, MichaelNY

      Malheur is the least white according to DRA (63.6%), though Obama probably did a bit better than the county's PVI.  It's also the most Mormon county in the state.

      He also lost the second least white county, Morrow County, which is 64.6% white.  Both it and Malheur are about 31-31.5% Hispanic.

      The third least white in the state is the first in this order that Obama won: Hood River County, at 65.8% white, 29.5% Hispanic.

      The fourth was another Romney win: Marion County, which is 68.7% white, 24.3% Hispanic.

      Fifth was another Romney win, Umatilla County, at 69.4% white, 23.9% Hispanic, 3.1% Native American.

      You have to get to 6th on the list to get a county in the Portland area: Washington County at 69.7% white, 15.7% Hispanic, 9% Asian.

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

      by James Allen on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 02:21:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Prop 8: Let the games begin! (5+ / 0-)

    SCOTUS has agreed to take the case!

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

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

    by lordpet8 on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 01:13:48 PM PST

    •  Not just Prop 8 (5+ / 0-)

      They're hearing DOMA too.  This could get big.  Or they could punt the issue (from what people are saying, they left themselves wiggle room to basically issue non-decisions, or extremely limited decisions).

      I'm thinking Republican leaders will try to be silent on this, but it will be hard to ignore how riled up this is going to get Republican voters.  I think we'll see many more Republican candidates for office forced (by their base) to reaffirm their opposition to same-sex marriage in all cases, even as the country continues to shift.

      •  It's amazing how the GOP is on defense on this (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KingofSpades, MichaelNY, lordpet8

        On gay rights, women's issues, immigration, all of a sudden we're large and in charge, and the GOP is on the run, struggling to avoid these issues.

        I love it, it's a long time coming.

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

        by DCCyclone on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 08:42:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I think it's quite possible that it'll be a 5-4 (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lordpet8

        decision, with Kennedy voting with the Democratic appointees to annul both DOMA and Prop 8, on the grounds of individual rights and the "full faith and credit" clause from Section 1 of Article 4 of the constitution:

        Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.
        But what I wonder is whether Roberts might also vote to annul DOMA on the "full faith and credit" basis, thereby voting to at least modify Prop 8, necessarily, on the same basis, so that any same-sex marriage performed in another state must be respected by the State of California.

        What's interesting about these cases is that the idea of "states' rights" cuts both ways: Is it the right of a state to disrespect the contracts an individual signs with another state, or is it not a constitutional obligation for every state to respect the contracts any other state enters into with an individual under its own rights and powers?

        OK, maybe a response more appropriate to the open thread, but I thought of it and figured I'd post here.

        Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

        by MichaelNY on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 10:36:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Perfect, can't wait for the arguments. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lordpet8, MichaelNY

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

      by KingofSpades on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 02:22:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  PA-Gov, I would be down for having Schwartz be (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JBraden, MichaelNY

    the nominee.  I think she can win.  If she runs for Governor, her seat is safe and all we need to do is figure out who would be strong enough to go up against Toomey.

    Funny Stuff at http://www.funnyordie.com/oresmas

    by poopdogcomedy on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 01:24:37 PM PST

    •  Yeah I wouldnt mind her running for Gov either (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      poopdogcomedy, JBraden, MichaelNY

      although it would have been nice to see PA have it's first woman senator, but it would be equally great if PA elects it's first woman Gov. My only worry is that we have a crowded and bruising primary.

      We have a great bench to take on Toomey in '16.

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

      by BKGyptian89 on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 02:22:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  PA Democratic Party is trying avoid a messy (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JBraden, DCCyclone, MichaelNY

        primary.  They know how vulnerable Corbett is and they don't want to screw up this opportunity.

        Funny Stuff at http://www.funnyordie.com/oresmas

        by poopdogcomedy on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 02:35:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

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

          I hope it doesnt get messy. No more than two strong contenders in the primary.  But that joke Tom Knox is running and who knows what effect he'll have on the primary.

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

          by BKGyptian89 on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 02:47:27 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Easier said than done (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          Everyone is tempted to act in self-interest, and on our side it's usually harder to induce any discipline...although lately the teabaggers on the right have made Democrats in comparison look like the picture of lockstep unity.

          I do hope tacit agreements are worked out where everyone finds something that works for them.  There are plenty of opportunities going forward.

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

          by DCCyclone on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 08:41:41 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  not too hard to figure out (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      poopdogcomedy, MichaelNY

      Schwartz runs for governor and Doyle runs for senate. Even though he (Doyle) has been in the house for nearly 20 years, he's only 11th on E&C.

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

      by demographicarmageddon on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 02:39:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And where does that leave Rob McCord? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        James Allen, MichaelNY

        I heard they want him.

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

        by KingofSpades on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 02:54:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Mike Doyle is my home district congressman! I (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        would love to see that happen!

        Funny Stuff at http://www.funnyordie.com/oresmas

        by poopdogcomedy on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 03:00:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Doyle is my him district's congressman! I would (0+ / 0-)

        love to see that happen!

        Funny Stuff at http://www.funnyordie.com/oresmas

        by poopdogcomedy on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 03:01:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  isn't Doyle pro-life? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DCal, MichaelNY

        We should have at least one pro-choice senator from PA.

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

        by James Allen on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 03:28:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  He's also a member of (4+ / 0-)

          the creepy, shadowy Christian group The Family.

          •  As is Mike McIntyre (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY

            They don't feature prominently on Jeff Sharlet's expose book, and are mentioned merely as part of a list and brief description.  The book has some pretty startling insights into former Rep. Todd Tiahrt.  In the book, Jeff saw him talking to the Family's priest/leader about his "concerns" of Muslims outbreeding Christians (no joke; Tiahrt also wants to ban abortion because it would allow Christians to breed in greater numbers).  Dan Coats and Dan Quayle are also members (the former is so dim that he has Dan Quayle as his mentor).  Senator Bill Nelson is a member and his wife is Hillary Clinton's spiritual adviser.  Hillary even has friendly ties with the Family.  Sam Brownback was an alpha dog in the Family.

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

            by KingofSpades on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 04:49:20 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  he's also a selfish backstabber. n/t (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY, bumiputera

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

            by sapelcovits on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 06:41:06 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  I'm pretty strongly pro-choice (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JBraden

          (although i support the ban on birthday infanticide) but to me its all about messaging. If you frame it as a human rights thing in the same mold as civil rights, gay rights, labor rights etc then its ok. But if its the foaming at the mouth rubespeak of "abortion is a symptom of a nation in moral decline because we teach our kids to worship the un instead of god" then i ain't buying it.

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

          by demographicarmageddon on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 04:10:31 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm generally fine with pro-life Democrats, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DCCyclone

            I really like Casey, for example, and Tim Ryan, but one Senator Casey from PA is enough.

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

            by James Allen on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 08:33:43 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm fine as long as they bury it (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bjssp, MichaelNY, James Allen

              Be pro-life in name only, keeping it out of your active agenda and enough of your votes in that "gray area," e.g., on abortion coverage in the health care exchanges.  That Casey and Reid (also nominally pro-life) voted for the health care bill notwithstanding any abortion is an example of why I'm satisfied with them.  Oh, and confirm all Democratic judicial appointments.  Which they do.

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

              by DCCyclone on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 08:39:22 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  So you think it's all about framing (0+ / 0-)

            rather than real-world effects of policy. We shouldn't have policy arguments here, but we also shouldn't forget that government policies can actually hurt real people. And please don't bring up ridiculous red herrings. No-one supports "abortion" of babies who are in the process of being born. Though perhaps that was a joke on your part.

            Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

            by MichaelNY on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 10:39:56 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Post-mortem: poor GOP "brand" (link) (4+ / 0-)

    My standard disclaimer at times when I'm not able to take time to read everything that's posted on DKE, but my apologies if this has already been posted.

    Political and business marketing consultant Steve Lombardo shares a good take on how the Republican Party is hurt in recent elections (obviously 2010 excepted) by a poor "brand":  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

    This is a an aspect of why the GOP has suffered with voters that I think got a little, but not much, attention through the year, at least before the election.  I know the very smart NBC political crew led by Chuck Todd mentioned it at least once late in the cycle, perhaps in October, on the First Read blog.

    It really comes down very simply to "people just don't like Republicans."  The "R" next to so many candidates' names is just very, very disliked.  That's glib, and it's the sort of thing I normally would criticize as "too glib."  But after reading what I've read in recent weeks and months on this, I'm coming around to believing there's really something to it.  Lombardo doesn't get into the history of why the GOP is so unpopular, but I think it's as simple as "Bush."  That Democrats blame everything on him has, frankly, worked, and it worked even this year......because it's largely true.  Bush left Obama with failed wars and a bad recession.  Voters still remembered that heading into the voting booth, and realized the GOP was the same with Romney as it was with Bush.  In that vein, you almost could say Romney '12 was Mondale '84:  more of the same of what voters last resoundingly rejected.

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

    by DCCyclone on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 01:27:24 PM PST

  •  WI First Lady Tonette Walker... (6+ / 0-)

    ...is asking for $478,700 for a new kitchen in the Wisconsin Governor's Mansion!

    Taking collective bargaining rights away from public-sector workers and then spending nearly half of a million dollars on a new kitchen for the First Lady of Wisconsin is not what I call "fiscally responsible"!

    Elizabeth Warren on the Senate Banking Committee is a BFD!

    by DownstateDemocrat on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 02:22:52 PM PST

  •  Japan 2012 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KingofSpades, MichaelNY

    It proved too long for a comment, so here's a diary previewing the upcoming December 16 snap election in Japan: http://www.dailykos.com/...

    (-9.38, -7.49), Blood type "O", social anarchist, KY-01, "When smashing monuments, save the pedestals. They always come in handy." — Stanisław Lem

    by Setsuna Mudo on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 02:35:00 PM PST

  •  CO-02 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    Seems like redistricting has pushed it down towards the low end of safe Dem seats. Polis underperformed Obama's numbers, winning 55-38.

    •  Polis had a strong opponent this time (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ArkDem14, MichaelNY

      Lundberg was a state senator and had represented Larimer County for awhile (whereas Polis had not represented the area prior to redistricting shifted CO-02 into it).  So I'm not surprised Lundberg held down Polis' margins, but it's notable he still underperformed Romney (Obama won the district this time 58% to 39.5%).

  •  WA-03 (0+ / 0-)

    The Washington 3rd CD may have had a larger partisan swing than any other, but that is mostly due to the fact that it lost its liberal stronghold in Thurston County to the new 10th CD, and picked up libertarian Klickitat County in redistricting. The 3rd was never going to be an apples-to-apples comparison.

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

    that we wait until cory booker ends his SNAP Challenge before asking about his senate plans.  Let him get enough food to think coherently.

    Help, help, I'm in Connecticut!- Foamy the Squirrel.

    by DougTuttle on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 06:39:21 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site