Well I was a member of DU until Skinner banned me three years ago. While part of me misses DU, I like MyDD and DKos better because there are more rational people there. Green influence is kept to a mininimum, as opposed to DU, where it is rampant.
Well I think Chaffee is likely headed toward defeat, as is the Govenror, Don Carcieri. They both are in trouble because they are Republicans in very heavily Democratic states in a year when the sitting Republican president is horribly unpopular. They are simply the victims of being in the wrong state at the wrong time. Bush is extremely unpopular in the Ocean State. These factors will most likely bring them both to defeat, although Cariceri is probably less vulnerable than Chaffee.
Chaffee is the Connie Morella of this cycle. Morella was a popular Republican representing Montgomery County, MD in Congress. She was first elected in 1986 and had no problem winning re-election until 1998, routinely drawing 70% in a 60%+ Democratic district. She then fell to 60% in 1998 and then 52% in 2000. Basically the partisan tilt of her district, coupled with her partisan affliation, led to her defeat.
Chaffee is facing similiar dynamics. The GOP base there is disaffected with him. Whitehouse is a former AG and he has the money and the support. So he is in deep trouble. I don't think he wins this year.
Santorum is most likely also headed toward defeat. While Casey has lost some of his lead admittedly, Santorum hasn't gained any support. Frankly their aggressive indirect push for Romanelli indicates to me that they most likely (private) have come to conclusion that without a Green, they have a slim chance of winning. The 39% in suburban Philadelphia is not good for them. For without suburban Philadelphia, in the rest of the state's populous areas, such as Philadelphia county, Alleghany County (Pittsburgh), Lackawana County (Scranton, which is Casey's base), and Erie County , Casey will dominate. That leaves them places like Lancaster, York, Harrisburg, Altoona, Williamsport, and other towns in the center of the state. There just aren't enough votes in the "Alabama part of PA" to overcome what Casey will poll in the cities. The only hope for Santorum was to win the suburbs of Philadelphia, like he did in 1994 and 2000. Without Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery County solidly behind him, I don't see Santorum winning.
Santorum's other hope was probably pro-life Catholic blue collar Democrats in places like Erie, Johnstown, Wilkes-Barre, and Scranton. Desptie the protests of the pro-choice community, by nomnating Casey, the Democrats have also been able to neurtalize whatever appeal Santorum might have to these voters. Also, because Casey is pro-gun, Santorum can use gun control against the Democrats either. Without those issues those voters have no incentive to vote for Santorum again, for they do not share his economic positions.
Santorum's two hopes were thus: suburban voters in Philadelphia and white, blue-collar, Catholic Reagan Democrats. Even if Santorum mirrors Mike Fisher and George W. Bush's numbers in ancestrally Democratic parts of Western PA, where Kerry and Rendell did not fare as well as previous Democratic candidates have, suburban Philadelphia won't support him either. Casey has sucessfully taken away whatever appeal that Santorum might have had for those voters. If Casey alone mirrors Rendell and Kerry's performance in metropolitan Philadelphia, then Santorum will not have enought votes to win.
To sum up, when I look at hard voting blocks within PA, I don't see how Santorum wins. The numbers are just too impossible. He will close the gap and may even end up with 47-49% of the vote, but it won't be enough to win. The math just isn't there.
As for Missouri that is the least favorite of the five that are most vulnerable. However, from what I have read, McCaskill is campaigning in rural parts of the state. What might be the issue is the stringent voter ID law, though. She does have a good chance, though; and in a year where GOP fortunes seem to be lagging, I think McCaskill will win if there is a national mood against the GOP. She has won statewide before. And Talent lost once before winning. So losers can win second on their second attempts.
If the election were to be held today I would say that Santorum, Chaffee, Burns, Talent, and DeWine lose. The five of them are extremely vulnerable, but circumstances could still change. Right now, though, Democrats are faring very well in Senate contests.
I know of a couple "non-profit," supposedly "progressive public interest organizations". And a lot of them treat their employees like dirt and pay them horribly. The biggest mistake of my life was taking a job with one, moving to another state, and trying the position. After three weeks I quit because of various issues. I ended up losing thousands of dollars and a year of my professional life that I could have spent pursuing a real career.
These groups are good for the type of person who wants to work for a year or so before going to law school, graduate school, or some other form of post-graduate education. Otherwise it is all but impossible to make a living on these salaries.
Read what I said about PIRG above. I would NEVER work for them. And like anything connect to Nader people at that organization end up working long hours in crappy conditions for shitty pay.
Well I live in the DC media market. Here in DC the Macaca comment is still dominating the news. My instinct is that the comment has hurt Allen in Fairfax County significantly, where there are a ton of racial minorities and immigrants. I think that Allen may very well have suffered tremendous loss in Northern Virginia.
For Webb to win he will need to dominate Fairfax County, carry Richmond, and then far well in Hampton Roads/Tidewater. If he can win those votes then, whatever rural VA does, it won't be enough for Allen to win.
See the link above. I posted about the PA Senate race.
Here was the key excerpt from that link:
"A Quinnipiac University poll released last week showed his challenger, Democratic state Treasurer Bob Casey,leading 49 percent to 39 percent in those four [suburban Philadelphia] counties."
If Casey can dominate Philadelphia and mirror Rendell's 2002 and Kerry's 2004 performance in the Phialdelphia suburbs, then before any other precincts report in the state, he will have won. While Chester still leans Republican, if Casey wins Bucks, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia counties, then Santorum losees.
That Santorum is at 39% in suburban Philadelphia is not good for him. For him to have any chance of wining he needs to fare very well in those counties surrounding Philadelphia. Should Casey come out with strong leads in Erie, Scranton, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh, coupled with strong suburban Philadelphia support, then this race is over. Santorum can't find enough votes in the center of the state.
PA Democratic strength comes from the four corners: Scranton, Erie, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh. If Santorum totally craters in the four corners then he cannot win.
This explains why his campaign was indirectly helping to put Romanelii on the ballot. Their aggressive efforts indicate that they (privately) may believe that they can't win a two-man race. They might perceive having Romanelli on the ballot, which leaves the potential for Casey to be Naderized, as one of the only ways that they can win.
The polling has shown Casey losing support, but Santorum not necessarily gaining either. He continues to be mired in the 39%-42% range. He can still come back, mind you; but, given these trends, it is going to be hard for him to win.
VA an TN should move up now. In VA a polling report just released on Channel 9/WUSA TV news here in DC shows Webb within three points. Apparenlty the Macaca comment has hurt Allen in the suburbs of DC, especially within Fairfax County.
TN should move because of the land deal. That miscue on Corker's part gives Ford an opening to go on the offensive.
I once interviewed there during my senior year of college, and I wasn't impressed. They only offered to pay $18500. On top of that, during the day of my "interivew", they had me on the streets of DC "postcarding". I thought the organization was extremely ineffective.
They did offer to pay back student loans, but really the organization seemed to be a joke. Their pay was really, really crappy. And ultimately I was glad that they didn't offer me a job.
I'm surprised how anyone can make ends on a PIRG salary. I wonder how people in DC could make such money and still pay the rent. I guess that a lot of probably got assistance from their praents.
All in all I don't have a good impression of PIRG. You have to be a specific type of person--someone who can endure crappy pay, shitty working conditions, long hours, and futile tasks like "postcarding". It probably works well for someone interested in social policy, who is willing to endure a year or two of shitty pay, before going to graduate and/or law school. For the rest of the people, especially for those without parents to financially support them, it's a job to avoid.
But this is par for the course in regard to any organization associated with Nader. Anyone working for anything connected to Nader has had to endure long working hours with crappy pay and horrible working conditions. So this doesn't suprise me.
Well what bothers me is the blatant dishonesty of many Green Party supporters. Nader has been dishonest. Frankly I resent his hypocrisy and blatant manipulations. That is what bothers me the most about the Greens: they love to talk about their "noble intentions", when their actions are much more sinister.
Frankly what do the Democrats gain by chasing the Greens and adopting their radical agenda? If the Democrats were to adopt the Green they'd probably lose 10-15% of the most conservative voters within the party. And that would mean less support. So why on Earth should the Democrats rush and adopt all of the Green agenda?
Secondly Nader is dishonest. This is the same man who has called for the "destruction of the Democratic Party'. Why should the Democrats negotiate with someone who basically wants to destroy the party? That's akin to asking Israel to get on it knees and beg Hizbollah terrorists to stop engaging in violence.
Finally, after debating Greens on this and other online forums for years, I've come conclusion that many are unreachable. To be blunt many Greens are assholes. They would rather be "high and mighty" and self-righteous, preaching to the "unwashed masses" than actually accomplishing anything. They take perverse pride in their marginalization and self-righteousness.
Spare me. Nader purposely has even called for "the destruction of the Democratic Party. Why should they get on their knees and try to make peace with someone who openly has called for the destruction of their party?
Nader is a dishonest liar and hypocrite. So, too, are most Greens. They are extremely dishonest. A lot of them are downright self-righteous assholes. They are so "high and mighty" when they preach down to the "unwashed masses".
Whenever Greens campaign they attack Democrats more than the Republicans. That indicates where their real priorities. They seem to be hell-bent on undermining Democrats than defeating Republicans.
There aren't enough Greens for it to make sense. For if Democrats were to embrace the Greens, they would probably lose 10-15% of the most conservative Democrats. In the process they would end up with a much smaller electtorate. The Democrats would be dumb to give into the Greens and absorb their radical agenda.
I am sick of the Greens. Frankly the Democrats need to treat them the way they treat the Republicans--as the opposition. They aren't frineds of the Democrats. Notice that they hate the Democrats more. Whenever they campaign the Greens campaign aggressively against Democrats more than the GOP. To me that indicates their priorties.
Finally most Greens are assholes. I say this based on long discussions with Greens here, at DU, and DKos. All too many Greens are morally smug and self-righteous. They take pride in their marginalization so that they can be "high and mighty" to the rest of "unwashed masses."
There was a primary. If there was a significant issue with Casey, why did he fare so well? Could it be that you are a just bitter Pennachio who is angry that mainstrea PA Democrats rejected such a radical candidate?
It's almost like people like you want Casey to lose because you couldn't get Chuck Pennachio. If Casey was such a "horrible" choice, where was the "massive opposition"? Why did Casey win the primary with more than 80% of the vote? For him to have fared so well he had to have gotten the support of many "progressives", pro-choice, and anti-war voters.
Could it be that simply most PA Democrats aren't as liberal as you are? Take it up with them, who gave Casey more than 80% of the vote.
I think you are just bitter because the voters rejected Chuck Pennachio soundly.
Slightly off somewhat. Arizona was Republican presidentially from 1952 through 1992. After Truman the next Democrat to win Arizona was Clinton.
However, in Senate and Gubernatorial races, the Democrats were somewhat competetive. Carl Hayden (D) stayed in office until 1968. Raul Castro (D) and Bruce Babitt (D) were able to be elected Governor. Dennis DeConcini (D) served from 1976 until 1994. So Democrats were able to win statewide races.
Arizona was Democratic until the 1950s. Then it started to become Republican because Phoenix grew. Outside of Phoenix the state is more balanced politically. Maricopa County is still heavily Republican and why the Democrats haven't made inroads in the state.