What's the current MYDD take on the Senate? I can't see Republicans winning any more than 6-8 seats. A Democratic majority there is more important in some ways, because it'll make Obama court appointments easier.
I think enough Dems will come home. Clearly there is momentum on the other side, but this would be too much, too soon, imo. Of course, during the front part of the weekend, I told everybody that the Chargers are the hottest NFL team right now :)
So all I hear these days is that Obama is a "socialist" because he wants to reset the top tax brackets to what they were in the 90's. He's a "socialist" because he favors redistribution of income in this way.
But isn't this just redbaiting to the extreme?
1. Even if we do nothing, we already have a graduated code, supported by Republicans and Democrats. Even W left that in place.
2. ANY public expenditure requires some degree of "redistribution" -- the tax debate is merely about the most efficient way to cover those costs.
Against this definition of "socialism", we're all socialists, no? The bottom line is that we're a market-based economic system, so it's just fear mongering when folks throw out scary words come election time.
folks think Hillary dominated. She was supposed to finish it off yesterday (based on conventional thinking a few months back) and she didn't. And the delegates will be roughly even. Obama tends to do better over time, and he's got a ton of money. Plus, he's got some good states coming -- LA, Virginia, etc.
Pledged delegates consist of 1) district, 2) at-large, and 3) PLEO's. They're all obligated to support election winners.
A Are district delegates winner take all in a district? Or are even THOSE proportional?
B.Are at-large delegates proportional based on the STATE-wide percentage breakdown?
There are 10 delegates in district 1, and I win 80% of them to 20% for my opponent
There are 10 at-large delegates, and I win 80% of the statewide vote, while my opponent wins 20%
Do we know if his National Insurance Exchange is mandatory for all insurance plans? Or is it merely voluntary -- i.e., insurers don't have to take part, but if they do (taking advantage of the exposure), they'll have to follow certain guidelines?
My understanding is that it won't be mandatory for insurers to take part, which is fine. I just want to know.
Today on MTP, Hatch kept saying that there is "no shred of evidence" about anybody trying to influence an investigation in the attorney firings.
Russert gave Leahy the perfect opportunity to cite some of the substance, and he largely missed it, I think.
Leahy merely needed to cite last week's MTP, when Tim had Iglesias on the show:
MR. RUSSERT: You wrote an op-ed piece for The New York Times, and I want to share that with our viewers and come back and talk about it. "Politics entered my life with two phones calls that I received last fall, just before the November election. One came from" Republican "Representative and the other from Senator [Pete] Domenici, both Republicans from my state, New Mexico.
"Ms. Wilson asked me about sealed indictments pertaining to a politically charged corruption case widely reported in the news media involving local Democrats. Her question instantly put me on guard. Prosecutors may not legally talk about indictments, so I was evasive. Shortly after speaking to Ms. Wilson, I received a call from Senator Domenici at my home. The senator wanted to know whether I was going to file corruption charges--the cases Ms. Wilson had been asking about--before November. When I told him that I didn't think so, he said, `I am very sorry to hear that,' and the line went dead." He hung up on you?