Please. It's almost like you want Casey and Duckworth to lose because your picks in the primary didn't win. Casey is the Democratic nominee in PA because more than 80% of PA Democrats picked him over Chuck Pennachio. Duckworth won her primary, albe it much more narrowly.
Not every far-left candidate is going to win every primary. As hard as it is for some of you to realize it, sometimes the candidates beloved on this and other "liberal/progressive blogs" aren't as well-liked by those out there in mainstream society. Maybe ordinary Democrats may not have the same enthusiasm that people here did for Chuck Pennachio and Christine Cegelis.
Did it ever occur that some of you may be out of touch with ordinary Democrats, who may not be as liberal as you are on all issues? After all it is ultimately the voters who rejected these candidates, not the much-maligned "establishment".
Look at the district that she's running in. She's runnning in the home of Henry Hyde, which is historically heavily Republican. She's not running in a heavily Hispanic district or in district based in downtown Chicago. She's running in a district centered on suburban Cook and eastern DuPage county, hardly a place supportive of amnesty for illegal immigrants.
I don't know the issues of this race. But maybe Roskam might be attacking Duckworth for not supporting "tort reform". Maybe she might be trying to expose his hypocrisy.
Like Chuck Pennachio in PA, who lost to Casey decsiviely, I know that Cegelis was a favorite of the far left here. But honestly there was a primary. Your candidate didn't win.
I even stated that the DCCC was wrong to meddle in this primary. I don't know what their reasons were. I didn't think they were right to endorse Duckworth, as, unlike Chuck Pennachio, Cegelis had support and had run before. That being said, though, she had the primary to prove her level of support.
Cegelis lost. The voters wanted Duckworth. Some of you are just bitter that she didn't win. Like with Casey it seems to me that some of you actualy want Bean, Duckworth, and other "less than perfect Democrats" to lose. Why else do you bash these candidates at every opportunity you get?
If it is pissing the far left on this board, then maybe her ad is effective. For frankly the people on this board aren't the audience she's trying to reach. She is running in a historically Republican district, where sympathy for illegal immigrants is quite low.
I am against amnesty. I don't see why illegals who broke the rules should get preferential treatment. It's not fair to those who played by the rules and waited for years.
Yes, and by sending a pointless message in a district extremely hostile to labor, they are going to elect someone extremely unsupportive of their issues. Bean was probably the only Democrat who could win an election in a district like that: Home to CEOs, affluent voters, and other white collar employees not into the union stuff.
But of course labor doesn't realize that IL-8 is hardly a hotbed of support for the Teamsters and the AFL-CIO. And of course they want to get rid of her because of course they can't get Richard Gephardt.
I saw the debate. If it were purely on issues and command of them, I would have to give it to Santorum. However, debates encompass more than just issues and making points.
Although Casey didn't "win" the debate, Santorum lost it. Santorum was really rude throughout the whole debate. At some points he was yelling at Bob Casey and Tim Russert. I think that a real bad moment was when Russert showed previous statements that Santorum had made about social security and raising the retirement age. He also admitted to only spending "one month" per year in the house at Penn Hills.
Casey didn't win the debate, as much as Santorum lost it. He was rude, loud, and disrespectful. It probably solidified his base, but I don't think it helped him with swing voters.
With numbers like that, frankly, the NRSC is wasting money by sending all their staff to Rhode Island. Frankly, if Chaffee is that behind Laffey, then they are probably better off simply writing off the seat. Santorum, Burns, DeWine, and Talent are more viable. At this point their efforts at RI are probably going to waste.
Frankly, if I were the NRSC, I would sit and wait to see what happens after the primary. If Chaffee is still viable then I would throw money and resources. However, if Laffey is indeed ahead by 17 points, then Chaffee--and the seat--is probably gone.
At this point I'd probably throw the remaining assets at protecting PA, OH, MT, VA, TN, and MO. The job of the NRSC this cycle is to play defense. I would probably also try to keep funding for MD, MN, WA, and NJ.
So out of Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Harford, and Howard Counties, Sauerbrey had a lead of 85,516 votes. When you add in Glendening's Baltimore City's margin of 75,062, her lead out of the entire Baltimore area was 9,914 votes.
Between 1998 and 1994, it is clear that Glendening improved significantly by winning Howard county and losing Baltimore County by only 4,000 votes in 1998.
I wouldn't classify that as "Safe Republican". Mark Sanford was named the most ineffective governor by Time Magazine. He has been polling under 50%. The last poll had Sanford ahead of his challenger, Democratic state senator Tommy Moore, 47%-38%. So he might be the Craig Benson of 2006.
Well this is my analysis of the MD Governor's race. It is crossposted from a message I wrote on DKos.
MD politics divides along the following lines: The Democratic base is Baltimore City, Montgomery, and PG counties. The Republican base are the Baltimore/Washington exurbs, the Western Panhandle, Southern Maryland, and the Eastern Shore.
The battleground basically falls down to these four counties surrounding Baltimore: Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Harford, and Howard. Beneath the fold I analyze their role in the 1998 and the 2002 elections.
It is insightful to compare how Glendening fared in 1998 to KKT's miserable showing in 2002.
Here are the exact numbers from 1998 through 2002
Parris Glendening (D) 846,972 55.14%
Ellen Sauerbrey (R) 688,357 44.82%
In 1998 Sauerbrey carried the Baltimore suburbs, but still lost.
Here is how it broke down:
Anne Arundel County:
Sauerbrey 87,216 56.6%
Glendening 66,428 43.1%
Glendening 125,686 80.6%
Sauerbrey 30,140 19.3%
Sauerbrey 122,140 50.7%
Glendeing 118,832 49.3%
Sauerbrey 44,300 60.9%
Glendening 28,428 39.1%
Glendening 44,378 53.3%
Sauerbrey 38,855 46.7%
So, in the 1998 election, Glending basically ran even with Sauerbrey in Baltimore County. He was able to get 43.1% in Anne Arundel County. He carried Howard with 53% of the vote, but lost Harford County by 20% roughly.
However, out of the Baltimore suburbs, Sauerbrey won Baltimore County around 4,000 votes and Anne Arundel County by 21,000 votes. Her Harford County
margin was 16,000 votes. Altogether, out of those three counties, she managed a 41,000 margin. As Glendening carried Howard County by 6,000 votes and Baltimore City by 95,000 votes, he ended up with a 111,000 votes. When you subtract Sauebrey's totals from Anne Arundel, Baltimore, and Howard counties, Glendening had a ballot box lead in the area of 70,000 votes. When these votes were connected to Montgomery and PG Counties, he had an insurmountable lead.
Now let's contrast to the 2002 election:
Robert Ehrlich Jr. (R) 879,592 51.55%
KKT (D) 813,422 47.68%
Anne Arundel County:
Ehrlich 113,968 64.7%
Townsend 60,753 34.5%
Townsend 120,070 75.0%
Ehrlich 38,838 24.3%
Ehrlich 170,920 61.2%
Townsend 106,195 38.2%
Ehrlich 63,553 74.3%
Townsend 21,246 24.8%
Ehrlich 53,260 55.2%
Townsend 42,438 44.0%
In the 2002 election, when the returns came in, Ehrlich won by roughly 66,000 votes. And the numbers were brutal in the Balitmore suburbs. Whereas Glendening came within 4,000 votes of winning Baltimore County, KKT was 64,000 votes short. Thus, between the 1998 and 2002 election, shelost ground by 60,000 votes In Anne Arundel County the margin was around 53,000 votes. Out of those two counties alone, Ehrlich's margin was 117,000 votes. When you add in Harford and Howard counties, Ehrlich's margin over KKT was roughly a combined total of 53,000 votes. So out of the Baltimore suburbs, Ehrlich prevailed by roughly 170,000 votes. KKT won Baltimore city by 82,000 votes, less than Glendening by 8,000 votes. So, in the entire Baltimore metroplitan region, Ehrlich had a lead of roughly 88,000 votes.
So, in eseence, KKT blew the race in suburban Baltimore. She ran behind Glendening in Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Harford, and Howard counties. Ehrlich also did a better job of getting out his base than KKT did, for KKT even ran behind Glendening in Baltimore City.
For O'Malley to win he is going to have to pick up a lot more votes in Anne Arundel and Baltimore counties. If he can cut Ehrlich's 2002 margin in half there, he can win this election.
Good post. We chatted over email about an experience I had with a similiar non-profit organization. These stories are unfortunate. It is horrible how these organizations use and abuse idealistic young people.