Around the Blogs

by Matt Stoller, Tue May 23, 2006 at 07:32:44 PM EST

Jennifer Nix has an important post on book publishing and How Would a Patriot Act?

The new SUSA rankings are out, with a lot of weird numbers.

Hillary Clinton crashes among independents.

Jon Kyl crashes among moderates.

Joementum stays in place.

And Rick Santorum gets even worse.  People in Pennsylvania just hate that guy.

Fun stuff.  What are you reading?




Tags: open thread (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 15 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: Around the Blogs (none / 0)

What do people think about Feingold's little drop? Is this to be expected with the Presidential candidacy talk?


by js noble on Tue May 23, 2006 at 07:47:27 PM EST

Re: Around the Blogs (none / 0)


While looking at the final numbers of the poll of independents about Hillary does make it look like she's tanked, the margins of error on these polls are pretty big (7.3% and 8.4%). I'd hold off until the next poll before worrying that the level of the fall is something real and/or lasting. There probably was some shift, but perhaps not the 14% jump it appears to be on first glance.
by joc on Tue May 23, 2006 at 08:03:29 PM EST

the amazing shrinking blogosphere (none / 0)

james wolcott's blog, after progressively shrinking (i kid you not!) over the last 24 hours, has completely vanished.

and i can no longer access raw story.


i'm glad you asked
by truth hurts on Tue May 23, 2006 at 08:27:59 PM EST

Re: Around the Blogs (none / 0)

I am happy to see Landrieu soar in the recent Survey USA poll.  She is now in the top fifty.


by illinois062006 on Tue May 23, 2006 at 09:19:30 PM EST

Re: Around the Blogs (none / 0)

Landrieu's tacking looks like quite the rollercoaster: http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrac k.aspx?g=90823025-0484-4c4f-945b-f4f257e b642b


by Ryan Anderson on Wed May 24, 2006 at 02:35:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Around the Blogs (none / 0)

Louisianans are rightfully tempermental at the moment.  But the dip is a response to her "No" vote on the nomination of Samuel Alito to the SCOTUS.


by illinois062006 on Wed May 24, 2006 at 04:12:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Around the Blogs (none / 0)

okay.  I'll admit to being an idiot.  Feel free to say that to me, but maybe answer this question:  With a 59% approval rating, how can Ned Lamont win the primary?  Are the approval ratings from only Dems much lower? I really want to see Joe gone, but what are the numbers behind Nedrenalin?  Or at least the projected numbers...


by ksh on Tue May 23, 2006 at 10:11:45 PM EST

He can win (3.00 / 2)

Because Joe is a Republican running in a Democratic primary.

And because it will be a low-turnout August election where only the most motivated voters will come out to the polls.


by tparty on Tue May 23, 2006 at 10:31:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks (none / 0)

I feel better now.


by ksh on Wed May 24, 2006 at 12:14:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

interesting how... (none / 0)

the only Republicans in the top 10 are the Maine women, and the only Democrats in the bottom 10 are Mark Dayton and Frank Lautenberg.


by johnny longtorso on Tue May 23, 2006 at 10:12:11 PM EST

Re: interesting how... (none / 0)

I know why Dayton is hated and I understand New Jersey hates all politicians, but why the consistant hate on Lautenberg?  Why him specifically?  Anyone?


by Trowaman on Tue May 23, 2006 at 10:24:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: interesting how... (none / 0)

New Jersey hates all its politicians.


by Matt Stoller on Tue May 23, 2006 at 10:31:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: interesting how... (none / 0)

Lautenberg was the Democratic Party standin for the unsavory Torricelli, who quite likely would have gone down to defeat in his reelection bid.  The NJ Republicans consider the Senate seat Lautenberg holds to be "their" seat, stolen by the Democratic Party subtrefuge of forcing a suspect member of their own party to abandon his reelection bid and allow a cleaner candidate to compete for the seat.     Their rage at losing the seat keeps Lautenberg's numbers low.    

Notice the difference between the two parties on how they handled purported corruption with one of their own.  The Democrats pressed Torricelli to retire from the race.  The Republicans allow their suspect candidates to run with full party support.

All Republicans can do this November is run negative campaigns.  They have nothing to show for their six years holding all the reins of power except a multi-trillion dollar deficit they've rung up and an albatross of a foreign policy disaster in the Middle East hung around the nation's neck.    They'll be running another negative campaign in  this year's US Senatorial race too, with a candidate whom NJ voters confuse with his father, a former NJ governor who left under a cloud.  Republicans sure do love their dynasties.    


by VizierVic on Tue May 23, 2006 at 10:42:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Around the Blogs (none / 0)

If Hillary Clinton's support among independents is ragged, her support among conservatives is imaginary, and her support in the progressive wing of her own party is non-existent, please tell me how she gets elected President.  Her going down to a crushing defeat in 2008 will not do the women's movement any favors, any more than the way she botched the handling of the Clinton health care program and cost her husband and her party their majority in the 2004 mid-term elections.  Her baggage train extends from New York to California and no locomotive big enough exists to move it fast enough to save her.  


by VizierVic on Tue May 23, 2006 at 10:31:00 PM EST

Re: Around the Blogs (none / 0)

Her healthcare proposal being the cause of the drubbing in 1994 is insurance company-inspired propaganda.  That's what the GOP and big business want you to think.  Cletus in the rural South did not start voting Republicans because Hillary and the Democrats wanted to give him health insurance.  

The Dems lost in 1994 because of gun control.  Passing that assault weapons ban in September of an election year was perhaps the most politically tone-deaf thing I have ever witnessed the Democratic Party do.


McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.
by jgarcia on Tue May 23, 2006 at 11:28:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: