I hear you. Apart from perhaps the Bennet/Romanoff contest in Colorado, the Deal/Handel run-off was the race that I cared about most. I was clearly rooting for Deal. Can't stand Handel. Not that I care for Deal but Handel should know better. Her comments on gay marriage were reprehensible. But ultimately political considerations mattered. I want to Sarah Palin impaled politically-speaking. I want to see her humiliated so anything that hurts Palin politically is fine by me right now. Mind you, I'd love to see her run just so she can implode.
I also caught this:
"This is the best possible outcome for Democrats," said Nathan Daschle, who heads the Democratic Governors Association. "Even after a vicious run-off, Georgia Republicans couldn’t decide between two bad options: a corrupt Congressman or a Capitol insider."
I'll run against a corruption politician any day. Go Roy!
He's made a number of personnel mistakes but by far the grossest miscalculation he has made was his assumption that he could change the tone in Washington. His belief that the GOP could be reasoned with has derailed his Presidency thus far.
No doubt there are accomplishment, significant ones but the Republicans are largely shaping the debate and he doesn't really have an answer.
I hear what you are saying but the tactics, essentially a threat, seem deplorable. I understand the frustration that Western states have with the BLM but the Governor admits in the interview that Wyoming is "not short of revenue."
His whole approach at times is baffling and maddening. He always wants to settle for half a loaf. Sometimes that may be the right approach but when it comes to minority rights half a loaf ain't gonna cut it.
The die is cast. Either you're on board now or you're just another obstacle.
The main argument against a national primary is really cost. It's expensive to run a coast-to-coast campaign. It's a fair point but given the number of debates now that levels the playing field somewhat.
The other argument made is that the small states will lose their influence but that's the point, the small states have an outsized influence.
If we can't go to a national primary then I'd like to see a rotating system where the states & territories are divided into five groups. Group 1 goes in February, group 2 goes in March, group 3 goes in April etc. Then in the next cycle, group 1 goes to back of the line and the other groups move up a month. That way every state gets a chance at some point to be in the first group. The other caveat is that groups would have to be geographically balanced.
The caucuses have to go. Other than Iowa, no caucus state gets more than a 10 percent participation rate. Some get a 1 percent participation rate. They discriminate against the elderly, the infirm, those with children. I hate them though I've only been to one in Nevada. It was chaos.
I still think the electoral calendar is too long. We are already in the early stages of the 2012 cycle with Iowa visits and all. And, of course, the money is insane. But the US is a large country. The other countries that hold national primaries are much smaller not just in population but geographically.
Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) said on Thursday that he will vote against confirming Elena Kagan as a Supreme Court justice.
Brown announced early this afternoon that he will vote against Kagan, whose confirmation is all but certain after the vast majority of Democrats and a handful of Republicans have said they would support her.
Brown chalked up his decision to Kagan's lack of experience as a judge.
"I believe nominees to the Supreme Court should have previously served on the bench. Lacking that, I look for many years of practical courtroom experience to compensate for the absence of prior judicial experience," he said. "In Elena Kagan’s case, she is missing both."
As I've noted before, I think that the bigger problem with the Senate is the over-representation of the smaller less populated states that tend to be more rural and conservative. Moreover at the nation's founding, the largest state, Virginia, was just 12.7 times larger than the smallest, Delaware. Today, that difference is much wider and getting wider. The largest state, California, is now 67.9 times larger than the smallest, Wyoming.
I agree with Zach above: the Senate is a leftover from that earlier period, an anachronism in contemporary America. The question is how to change it?
A few options exist but all require a Constitutional amendment and the small states will never give up their power so the only option thus is an internal reform of the rules that govern the Senate.