So I can definitely see, if the dems can't either get a handle on the jobs situation or at least make a case they're doing something for the unemployed, the sort of Creigh Deeds base deflation scenario happening on a large scale.
What I can't really see is the GOP (the Congressional GOP, at least) actively capitalizing on this. The problem is that even if people are dissatisfied with the dems on jobs it seems difficult to imagine how anyone could consider the Republicans any better. The Dems have been at least trying to do things on jobs, the Republicans have been fighting them every step of the way and successfully held them back from doing more. If this isn't already completely plain to voters it should be extremely easy for any Democratic candidate not actually voting with the Republicans to make that case. The jobs thing can hurt Democrats or hurt turnout, it can't help Republicans or flip votes.
The Republican case to voters right now relies on distractions, getting people to focus on socialism and Ameros. It's based around convincing people the government is their biggest problem, bigger than jobs. What do they have to offer someone for whom "jobs" actually is the biggest problem?
Fiorina doesn't seem like a serious candidate. I'm more interested in the question of Meg Whitman.
It seems like although "moderate republicans" would normally have as much of a statewide chance in California as they do anywhere else, Whitman at least is likely to to have problems just because of how much damage Schwarzenegger has done to the moderate Republican brand. It seems to me that most of the problems Schwarzenegger, and by extension the state, have had over the last few years have to do specifically with the fact Schwarzenegger is a moderate Republican. A Democrat might have been able to work with the Democrats and pass a budget, a "real" Republican would have been able to work with the Republicans and pass a budget. Schwarzenegger, being neither here nor there, could gather the support of neither party on any issue and couldn't seem to do much of anything.
Whitman and Schwarzenegger are really very similar candidates, they are from the same wing of the party and both come in with business rather than political experience. Whitman supports prop 8 where Schwarzenegger didn't but Whitman otherwise has shown no indications of having specific appeal to right-wing Christians. In order to sell herself to voters Whitman basically has to use the same approach and language that would be used for a third Schwarzenegger term. I doubt voters want a third Schwarzenegger term. It seems like it will be fairly easy for Democrats to frame the gubernatorial race in terms of "do you really want another four years of this?"
I... guess? I live in the south bay and spend a lot of time in and around SF. I don't feel like I'm qualified to speak on the subject of Newsom myself but if every bit of anecdotal information I get falls the same way I feel like this is reasonable grounds to be concerned.
It seems like if Nancy Pelosi can deliver a bill with Medicare+5 rates and nationwide coverage, and deliver it by November 6* as some sources have suggested may be possible, that becomes the new gold standard. Even if that's just marking the new leftmost position, that is a pretty darn good leftmost position. That is a position we can afford to compromise from a little. Maybe the most important step in this process should be making sure Pelosi can get every last one of those blue dog votes on board?
* I am certain I saw that exact same article on a reasonable news source earlier today, but now Google can only seem to find it on... the Helicopter Association International news page? WTF? Where did this article come from originally?
Sure. I wouldn't have expected you to have looked that up before posting your article-- it wasn't of course the focus of your post.
...John McCain, on the other hand, who broadcast this to an entire nation while suggesting this money was "wasteful", who speaks with the weight of a former Presidential nominee of a major political party, and who has an entire staff to research things like for him... yeah. Him I'd have expected to have looked it up first.
On August 24, 2007, the Kishwaukee River at DeKalb, Illinois crested at 15.27 feet (all time record 15.8 feet) causing major flooding. This was only the second time the river rose above 15 feet since the level of the river has been recorded.
DeKALB - The Federal Emergency Management Agency announced Friday that it released $868,521 to the city of DeKalb to buy properties in the floodplain.
The city received pre-disaster mitigation grant funds, which can be used for the acquisition and removal of up to six structures repeatedly damaged by floods, according to a written statement from FEMA. The area will become permanent open space.
Through the grant, FEMA will pay 75 percent of the project costs, with the remaining 25 percent of the cost being the city's share. The Illinois Emergency Management Agency requested and administered the grant...
Besides preventing future flood damages to homes, the acquisition helps reduce emergency repair costs and the financial obligations of federal, state and local governments, according to FEMA.
The article notes that there is more then one program working to relocate residents out of different flood-prone areas around DeKalb. The $130,000 McCain complains about is it seems to me likely separate from the $860,000 FEMA has already issued. Either way however overall it would appear "government waste" means "the government spending some money now to save more money later".