Not a fundraiser. But he did work (as an investment guy) for Phil Anschutz. Anschutz is one of the richest men in Colorado, owns the Avalanche and practically all of Major League Soccer. Right wing but not very aggressively so, and Bennet was purely on the financial side.
Bennet will single-handedly raise the average IQ of the Senate by 20 points. He's a brilliant (in a clever, Ivy-League-y sort of way), innovative, hard working sort without an ideological bone in his body. He's known as a "moderate" because I think ideological positions are boring to him. He's in his mid 40's but looks 12. Drives everyone crazy with his endless "let's try this!" ethic, but in his defense has done a lot of good at DPS. Has all the academic cred of -- just picking a name at random -- a Barack Obama, but not leavened with any gravitas to speak of. He looks like and sounds like an excited kid who's smarter than anyone in the room most of the time, except he also knows what he's talking about. Never run for a thing, but was Mayor Hickenlooper's primary strategist. As far as positions on major issues, I'd expect him to basically be progressive socially and on foreign affairs, conservative fiscally and on labor stuff, and to have a fair amount of inconsistency too, as he gets used to the whole "federal elected official" fishbowl thing.
He'll be OK and mostly ineffective at first, as he fights for his seat. If he wins in 2010 (and he'll definitely get a primary and a general) we'll know more, as he's never even been in a campaign before.
Wait until you hear whom we are going to have to defend in Colorado ... a guy with zero electoral experience who is currently superintendent of the Denver Schools. He was briefly under consideration for Secretary of Education, name is Michael Bennet. A great guy, very interesting and a non-stop worker. But he's going to be eaten alive in a high profile Senate race. Horrible choice politically, made because Ritter wanted to deter any strong R's from running against him for Governor in 2010. Yuck.
Worse than Gale Norton? Huh? Is your boss up for Interior Sec'y and you had your office picked out, or what?
Ken Salazar was a sterling DNR Director before he was AG, and is considered very solid on lands issues. He's lately been a local hero for fighting oil and gas development on federal lands on the West Slope. He's a rock solid pick.
Plus his replacement in the Senate is almost guaranteed to be more progressive on other issues. Great pick.
This was not a ideological battle at all, and has nothing to do with the caucus being "progressive." This was purely a generational and geographic thing. There are 70 some odd freshman or sophomore Dems, almost all of whom voted for "change" over anything Dingell or Waxman represents, and who are nowhere near seniority anyway so there's not much Dingell or his allies can do to them. Plus the California delegation is a sixth of the caucus by itself. And not insignificantly, Dingell looks awful these days. He's in a wheelchair and, although I hear he's fine in reality, really does seem like he's on his deathbed. He does not seem like a scary, powerful man at all.
Hmm ... I'm not sure this means all that much, unless I'm missing something. Nevada is a weird state, where 43% of voters being "new" isn't at all surprising. In fact, that's about the percentage you'd expect just from transiency in that state (about that many Nevada residents were not living there in 2004). I'd need to know how many were "new" and how many were "sporadic," and for that matter what "sporadic" means. If it just means people who don't vote in off years, then it means squat.
Moving on, how many of that 19% quoted from North Carolina are just people who have turned 18 or become citizens since 2004? And what was the corresponding number in past presidential elections? I bet it was close to the same.
And the Florida stat I don't even understand. Is that English?
This quote smells a lot like a VERY carefully worded bit of spin. I'm sure turnout will be very very high, but these factoids don't necessarily say that.
No, it's just an outlier. The Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll is very professional and has no record of shenanigans that I can remember. Remember, party ID is VERY different than party registration. Party ID is self-reported and a lot of low info voters just use it as a proxy for whomever they're voting for. In other words, the presidential preference drives the party ID, not the other way around. So this poll got too many McCain supporters by chance. That's all.
"There's real danger that a newly elected President Obama will face harsh criticism from a political press that expects centrism ..."
Earth to Josh: Obama IS a centrist, and a very cautious one at that. What policy or approach has he championed that is anywhere close to radical or game changing? I mean other than ending partisanship in DC and all that? Have you read his health care proposal, or is plan to get out of Iraq? Are you already preparing us for the inevitable disillusionment when we all discover that most people in the establisment, including Congress and the Obama administration, are really "establishment" and not interested in fundamental change?
Obama, because of the vagueness of his rhetoric, has managed to give everyone the idea that THEIR personal idea of change is what he has in mind. When in fact he is a solid mainstream Democrat who has pledged to work with the other side in crafting compromise policy. All to his credit, imo.
Most of you know this, but it's important to remind everyone of the difference between party registration and party ID. Registration is just what it says: What the county clerk has you down as. ID is much more fluid, as it is only what people report to pollsters when they call. As such, it is (and has proven to be over the years) little more than a proxy for which candidate a voter choses at the top of the ticket. So since Obama is winning, "party ID" for Dems is up (specifically, the "extra" Dems are almost entirely registered R's and I's who voted for Bush last time but are voting for Obama now. Importantly, if they become disenchanted with President Obama at any point, the Dems' party ID will go down, regardless of what their overall view of the party might be.
"Bible believing" in the context of a Christian means someone who practices the faith in a, shall we say, spiritual manner. There are millions of people who self-identify as "Christian" who may go to Church once a year and don't believe the Bible. Same with Jews. "Christian" or "Jew" (or for that matter, "Muslim") can be used as more of a social or cultural identifier than a religious one.
Seriously, this is a juvenile, intellectually arrogant, silly little diary, and the author should be embarrassed by it. I don't know how many Republicans folks here know, but I know many, and they are mostly decent people who just happen to be wrong about politics, about which they don't think very much (like just about everyone). They're also emotionally tired, and deeply disappointed by Bush and the other newfangled "conservatives" (like Michelle Bachmann) they've been asked to support. They are decidely NOT all racists. In fact, very few are (probably about as many or more Democrats are, too). And as soon as the national party gets the message about the kinds of people they nominate, they will be winning a whole lot more.
I'm as liberal and Democratic as they come, but I gotta say, 3rd-grade stuff like this is really no better than Michelle Bachmann's style of division. We as a country are in no position to cast aspersions on any of our citizens. A house divided on itself still doesn't stand if the (temporarily) bigger half consists of the good guys.
I agree. Call me elitist, or a pointy-headed intellectual or whatever, but in this case I really don't see the value of any sort of pitchfork wielding mob demanding "transparency and democracy" and blah blah blah. The best political debates of all time, the Lincoln-Douglas debates, were as elite and high-falutin as they come. There needs to be some structure and a strong moderator or candidates just repeat talking points and try and seem "sympathetic", as opposed to answering questions. I also don't see a particularly strong imperative to release tapes to the public. Just leads to more trivial stuff like sighs and eye-rolls getting taken out of context and blown up.
The one major thing the Commission could do to improve debates is to insist that moderators ask follow-up questions to clarify answers and challenge candidates. My favorite debates include a panel of questioners, usually reporters, who know their stuff and are given the freedom to call bs on any answer they don't feel is accurate or clear.
This is just an expression of the so-called "enthusiasm gap," as well as partially an "embarrassment gap," i.e. the tendency of those voting for McCain (and Bush in 04) to not report who they voted for accurately. Don't pay any attention to these numbers. And PLEASE, people, when the race begins to tighten, as it will surely do, don't freak out. This is not going to be an 8 point blowout. It's going to be 3-4 points at most.
The "small donor base" is a myth. Not that they don't exist, but they're not a big part of the Obama fundraising totals. Obama relies just as much if not more on major (over $500) donors than any other Democratic candidate in recent memory, and less than George W. Bush.
Obama's incredible fundraising machine is thanks to his huge -- and passionately involved -- corps of large donor bundlers. Again, just like W. Sorry, the "little guys" don't add up to the big guys, never will, but that's OK.
Imagining Obama as some sort of populist, anti-elitist, "little guy" president is just going to produce a big wave of disillusionment in about a year. We can't afford that.
That's B.S. If Betsy has to go dark in 72 hours then she's SERIOUSLy mismanaged her campaign, which I know isn't true. Besides, why isn't the DCCC riding to the rescue, instead of us poor (and I mean that) grassroots types?
Impressed as I am with the Obama field operation, those numbers (ditto the McCain numbers) are literally impossible. There were 5.6 million voters in 2004, so that means the Obama campaign has contacted over 2 million voters, and McCain 1.5 million. That's just physically impossible. More likely the respondents are reporting whether they've seen TV ads or not.