What surprises me is that that ad is thought to be persuasive. It has about as much "there" as Oakland.
If I was running an ad like that, I'd cast it with people who looked like wholesome, trustworthy Norman Rockwell Americans. Mr. Hooper; an attractive mom with happy, attractive kids playing in the yard behind her; the sympathetic looking bartender that drunks all trust with their intimate stories. The people of color I cast would look like venerable family grandparents, and would be fanning themselves on front porches while they talked.
The people they did use remind me first of the people who come in pairs to knock on doors wanting to talk to you about God; second of the lady who comes to school board meetings trying to get Judy Blume removed from the school library; and third of the supporting cast of a zombie movie. They don't have the poise or vocal training of professional actors, and I suspect they're just people with an agenda who saved money by doing their own lines. And to top it off, they're using the same background Hollywood uses to introduce the supervillain, the "bad" wrestler, or the cast of "Twilight".
Seems to me the only people who would respond positively to that ad are already firmly in the anti-gay base.
Is THEIR assessment of the effectiveness of that message seriously wrong, or is mine?
Seems to me the big race is the quest to take out Charles Grassley, and to some extent, Latham. Grassley can be taken out, or even eased toward a decision to retire, if we get a decent challenger and make it a top tier priority, early. Seems to me he's exactly where gordon smith was, this time two years ago: in a state that has become too blue for him since the last election, pretending to be a moderate and no longer fooling people.
Culver's strengths are specific to him (his approval is 60%). The alleged weaknesses are across-the-board generalities (historically, off year elections are bad for the president's party). I'm betting on the specifics.
and gerrymander the living shit out of California's Congressional map.
Did you know Texas is going to gain four new districts? It's a safe bet they will all be drawn to favor John Cornyn Republicans. California will have the power to fight back against Texas by redrawing at least two new Dem districts in the LA area, one in San Diego, and one in Sacramento. It may be possible to redraw the central valley to get another Dem district out of what is now districts 17 through 22 (now a 3-3 split), but those would be vulnerable to flipping in a GOP wave year.
I think it's a leftward swing in California based on increasing latino presence in SoCal and the "white flight" of Republican racists out of Orange County, San Diego and inland. Those voters have moved to the South and to the upper Rockies where they have enough elbow room to hate people different from them freely.
Except that the map drawn in 1991, which was in effect in 2000, was a party-neutral map, drawn by a Dem legislature and a GOP Governor, that followed county and highway lines. It featured many LA-based 85% Dem districts and as many 53% GOP districts. Following the pro-Dem map from the 1980s, Republicans were crowing with victory over that one.
Democrats could have drawn a map that picked up five more seats. Instead they drew a new GOP seat in the central valley, and made the Matsui Sacramento district super-safe while gerrymandering the new 3rd district around it to maximize Republicans.
One scholar says we MUST seat Burris. The "opposing viewpoint" says we MAY seat him.
Either way, we SHOULD seat him. That much is obvious. He's duly appointed, he is not tied to Blago's scandal, and we will need his vote on crucial issues to break filibusters.
More to the point, the time to argue that bad executives can't make appointments was when Bush was making appointments. Having rubber stamped Bush appointments that make Blago's handling of the Senate vacancy look like Eagle Scout behavior, they just look silly complaining about Burris.
Seat him now, and wait for the voters to decide whether to keep him as soon as there's an election.
Reid has Stockholm syndrome. Someone ought to teach him that you play hardball agains the REPUBLICANS, not your own side.
First of all,it's only 59 votes when there's less than 100 Senators.
Second, the GOP cannot sustain filibusters unless every last one of them goes along with it. There's a lot of GOP Senators with potentially tough re-election fights who need to prop up their images as "moderates". I doubt they're gonna want to explain to the folks back home that they delayed Obama's economic plan in the name of lock-step partisanship, breaking the law to do so.
Look for Spectre to be the first one to break, followed by McCain and both of the Maine women. Once it's clear the filibuster won't hold, about a dozen more will fold to cover their asses.
Anyone want to take bets on how long Minnesota will have just 1 Senator?
A couple of days. The board is certifying Franken tomorrow, and they all get sworn in on the 6th.
The psychiatric wing of the Republican party can throw all the fits they want. It doesn't change the FACT that Franken is now Senator Elect. Byrd and Kennedy should designate a special fit-throwing room with padded walls and Gerber food, for the republican crybabies, and should then go about their business with their new Senator from Minnesota.