What's At Stake: How the 2006 House Race Could Effect the 2008 Presidential Race

In the event of a tie in the Electoral College, the House has the right to choose the President. However, they do not vote as individuals; each state's delegation has one vote. So, in addition to the importance of taking the House, it is important to take a majority of the state delegations. One should realize that there is another House election in 2008, so what happens in 2006 will not be totally set in stone. One should also realize that there will be considerable pressure for representatives to vote for the candidate who won their state/district. However, 2006 will set a strong foundation for 2008. Plus, it would be easier to take the House delegations in what appears to be a Democratic year and defend them in 2008 than it would be to take them in 2008. Below is a run-down of all 50 state delegations, with the current make-up, seats we have to defend, and seats we can take. Be advised that I am listing only races mentioned in the Cook Report, Larry Sabato's Crystalball, and Congressional Quarterly's Website. Therefore, I will not count seats like TX-21 as they are not accepted to be comeptitive.

There's more...

Gov. Mark Warner and Net Neutrality

I was very pleased to see Gov. Warner's stance on internet neutrality. As Governor, Warner initiated laying over 700 miles of broadband connecting nearly 700,000 citizens and more than 19,000 businesses.

He also was involved in high-tech venture capitalist investments before he took office.

Comments by the Gov. below the fold....

There's more...

To Pravin: Regarding "Debate: Do you want Al Gore to run in 2008?


Your diary, "Gore's time is coming soon" simply called my attention to what could very well be the most important presidential election of our lifetime in 2008. I don't understand your uproar and anger directed to me as a result of my diary of 5/17: Debate: Do you want Al Gore to run in 2008?
There were 35 replies with most against Gore and a few for him.
But that's not the issue here! What's important is you called me down for not responding directly to you. Well, I did with the very same article, without title.
I feel sorry for you if you thought this was a personal attack and have a hard time believing this myself. You have a right to your opinion as well as I do. There's no room here for hostility or making personal attacks.
First, I did not attack you or your opinions. Matter of fact, I never mentioned you or your diary! Second, I am sure you know hoow important this election will be. You accuse me of rehashing
old ideas. Well, just refer to my earlier diary oof several months ago , Can the Republicans be defeated in 2006 and 2008?
I strongly urge you to do so.

There's more...

Gore's Time is Coming Soon

Go to Crooks and Liars Link to Gore on SNL
and watch Gore's performance on SNL. As I watched it, I realized that there was something different in Gore's aura from the last time we saw him on SNL. His last appearance as a host was mostly camp and was a good natured self parody but nothing that would compel someone to suggest him to run for President. This time, as the opening skit performer, he had this aura of the leader whose time has come. The reaction he got from the crowd seemed to confirm that.

Gore should definitely run for President in 2008. While  Feingold is my first choice among possible candidates, I am afraid he would be given the Dean treatment and it would be harder for him to overcome.  I do understand Gore's reluctance to run again and he would be well advised to continue to do his good deeds without announcing a run until early 2007. He has the right combination of establishment contacts and newfound credibility with the base. He doesn't seem beholden to the Liebermans of the party. And with the way Bush has gutted the EPA, we need a strong pro-environment candidate like Gore. Plus, unlike Hillary, Gore seems to have learned from his mistakes in the past.

For the record, I am the same guy who bashed Gore and his supporters for whining about the Nader voters. And I still have the same sentiment that no candidate should feel entitled to get a third party's vote even if you are on the same side of the ideological divide just to win an election. I did not vote for either major candidate in 2000 not because I thought Gore was as bad as Bush, but because I didn't think he was good enough to be President. While I was not hoping for a democratic loss, I was hoping that, in the event of a loss, the democrats will learn a lesson to go for votes, instead of hoping people will vote for you just because they can't stand the other guy. Unfortunately, the establishment did not learn its lesson. And for a while, I was pissed at Gore and his supporters because they kept whining about nader voters instead of worrying about the many potential Democrats who did not vote for Nader or Gore. Well, if people like me can change their minds about him, you gotta think he is for real.

We know Gore will be the best candidate for revamping the EPA.
We know Gore will be better at budget control.
We know Gore won't dismiss the other half of the country the way the Republicans dismiss NY and CA.
We know Gore will appoint better people to deal with foreign leaders.
We know Joe Lieberman will not be his VP candidate.

Gore just needs to steer clear from the likes of Bob Shrum. He can come to MYDD and we can come up with ads for a fraction of the cost he gets charged by the Shrums and we have better ideas.

There's more...

Bush's Approval Slips Into The 20s

The new Harris poll gives George Bush a 29% approval rating with 71% having a negative view of how the President handles his job.

How would you rate the overall job President George W. Bush is doing as president?
                            All Rep Ind Dem
Positive                    29% 67% 19% 10%
Negative                    71  33  81  90

There's more...


Advertise Blogads