...is that Kendrick Meek can't beat EITHER Crist or Rubio. He's trailing Rubio in a general election poll worse than Crist is in a GOP primary.
So what we really have here is two likely outcomes:
Sen. Charlie Crist (D-FL) or Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), and what won't be happening is Sen. Kendrick Meek (D-FL).
Which is objectively worse, the bluedog or the teabagger?
It's a tough call... we would probably have a better chance of dumping the teabagger in 2016 is the environment is more favorable to our side that year, but then again, incumbents generally have a little bit of a built-in advantage going into an election year most of the time.
I hate to say it, but I think the best outcome for Democrats is for Crist to either switch over to the Democrats or run as an Independent, because while he may not be able to beat Rubio in a closed GOP primary, it appears that he is the ONLY candidate who can beat him in a general election in 2010's hostile electoral environment.
I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say "Obama's victory", but I assure you that wasn't the result of the 2008 Presidential Election. Obama won the presidency by a little over 7% (52.9 to 45.7), not 16% as those numbers suggest.
Yes, Landrieu is a lousy Democrat and a huge thorn in our side. That said, she did vote for HCR in the end - something that no true teabagger would ever do.
We can't stand the Landrieus and Lincolns and Bayhs of the Senate, but there is no great love for them coming from the teabagger crowd either. Which is why their actions literally make no sense whatsoever - not only do they piss off progressives, they aren't winning over anybody from the other side, either.
My guess as to why Landrieu specifically was targetted - she got a sweet $300 Million package for a critical HCR vote in November, and I'm thinking that O'Keefe was fishing to try to prove that something shady was going on.
It is accurate. Within minutes of this hitting the wires, Jared Bernstein (VP Biden's Economic Advisor) appeared on The Rachel Maddow Show and she asked him point blank if the report was true, and he confirmed it.
This is stupidity of the highest order. And yes, if President Obama actually follows through with this, there's a pretty good chance Mitt Romney will be sworn in as our 45th POTUS on January 20, 2013.
Not good news. Deleware AG Beau Biden (Joe's son) will not be running for the open U.S. Senate seat in Deleware this year, which I think automatically moves the race from toss-up to "Leans Republican"... Mike Castle is very popular there, and he's exactly the sort of GOP candidate that can win in that state. Biden was our best hope for keeping it in Democratic hands. I'm afraid there's a good chance we'll lose that seat now.
Look I understand including Virginia and New Jersey in your analysis, but it's ludicrous to see NYC as a big loss for us. Mike Bloomberg spent literally $100 Million campaigning for that seat - he was never gonna lose. Actually, if anything, I think we should be happy that the race was even close at all.
No, I don't consider the NYC mayor's race some big loss for us, because it wasn't ever a fair fight to begin with. And besides, while Bloomberg isn't the best choice, he's not really a wingnut conservative. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure he's not even a Republican anymore - I think he now runs as an Independent.
So, to Mr. Rahm "git er done" Emmanuel...
How did that work out for you when you decided to throw a gazillion dollars into the pointless Duckworth Congressional Campaign back in 2006?
Cat got your tongue, buddy?
Fuck Rahm Emmanuel. After the way he's treated the most successful DNC Party Chairman we've had in my lifetime he can go fuck himself.
You forgot one: Missouri
I think the Dems still have good odds here, but it could be one of the tightest races in the nation for Bond's old seat.
Two longtime Missouri political families are expected to get the party nominations: Carnahan and Blunt.
And the Blunt name is shit in Missouri after the idiot son of the idiot Congressman trashed Medicaid from the governor's mansion.
I like Robin Carnahan for a Democratic pickup in MO. And we'll become just the 3rd state in U.S. history to be represented simultaneously by two female Democratic senators.
Health "coverage" for 30 Million does not necessarily equate to health "care" for 30 Million Americans.
Do you want to know what this bill DOESN'T do, aside from not including a Medicare buy-in or a public option?
It puts no cap on premiums... subsidies may offset costs, but they do nothing to prevent premiums from being raised frequently. And if the answer is to keep increasing the amount of subsidies to keep up with rising premium costs, well, goodbye deficit neutrality and hello "They're bankrupting America!!" GOP attack ads.
And while it may provide regulations to address pre-existing conditions and rescissions, it does not limit the health insurance companies ability to continue to deny claims. Sure, it says that claims denials have to be based on "fraud" or "misrepresentation", but guess who gets to arbitrate what constitutes those things? The insurance companies.
So if you forgot to report having that wart removed from your toe when you were 7 years old and you need chemotherapy when you're 47 years old, guess what? DENIED!!!
And what are you gonna do when they deny a claim on absurd premises? Sue them? Yeah, good luck with that. Hopefully you can afford to get lawyered up, and if you're lucky, maybe you won't keel over and die before you can get a courtroom decision.
What this bill will do is give 30 Million people the opportunity to carry around a little card that says "health insurance". If you're lucky enough to always be healthy and never need complicated or expensive medical care, maybe you'll see some miniscule benefit from it. If you get really sick and require expensive healthcare, having that card will not be a guarantee that your healthcare costs will be covered, anymore than is the case now.
Believe it or not, a fairly significant number of medical bankruptcies happen to people who HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE!
We've constantly framed this issue as being a matter of needing to provide insurance for the uninsured, but the bigger problem is and always has been addressing the crappy and unreliable nature of health insurance.
This bill does not address the root problem - that health insurance companies exist for one reason, and one reason alone - to make money. They don't exist to provide healthcare or make the sick get better. They exist to make money. As long as your sickness isn't going to affect their bottom line, you'll be "covered". The second your illness proves to be a threat to their profit margins, they will weasel out of paying for your healthcare costs, as they ALWAYS HAVE!
And this bill does NOTHING to prevent them to continue their practice of routinely denying legitimate claims under the nebulous and difficult to disprove assertion that the insured misrepresented their situation to the insurer.
In short, the bill does absolutely zilch to guarantee that your "coverage" will actually cover anything they don't want it to cover.
But it will fine you $750 if you decide that you aren't willing to play ball with a scumbag industry that has given no reason to be trusted to do the right thing in life or death situations with those who have their "coverage".
I agree that the lesson from VA-Gov for Democrats should be "don't run milktoast moderates in statewide races", but I'm just not seeing NY-23 as fertile ground for a grassroots progressive.
If we win NY-23 tonight, it's precisely BECAUSE Owens is a milquetoast moderate, not in spite of it. It's a moderately conservative leaning district in terms of how they vote for their Congresspeople. Hoffman will lose partly because he's from the crazy far right, but also because he's a carpetbagging douche being funded by outsiders. If we had put up a Democrat who is as liberal as Hoffman is conservative, I'm not sure we win this race.
Blue Dogs suck, but in some districts, it's the only shot you have of getting a Democrat elected. Try to run a staunch liberal in places like NY-23, and the seat goes to the Republicans.
That said, did you know that the Nobel Committee is under no obligation to give the Prize every year?
Since the first Peace Prize was awarded in 1901, there have been 19 year in which NOBODY was given the award?
Obama may well have been the most deserving candidate among the 2009 nominees. But the Committee is under no obligation to give the award to anybody in 2009, or any year.
I'm happy for him, and I do get a little joyous over the prospect of all the Reichwing heads exploding all day.
But that said, it isn't baseless to believe that perhaps this was given a little too soon.
His nomination had to have been turned in by February 1, 2009 - the 12th day of his presidency. What significant achievement in the effort for global peace had he accomplished in the first 12 days of his presidency?
I think the answer is largely: "He wasn't Bush". This award was given both for the hope of what Obama might become, and as a staunch rejection from the global community towards the Bush Doctrine. But it wasn't given for achieving any truce in a war or forming a global peacekeeping body, because he hasn't done those things yet. It was given because of his potential, not his performance.
But that said... the only two other sitting presidents ever given the award - Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson - both had specific significant accomplishments to their names at the time they were given the Prize. Roosevelt brought about a truce in the Russo-Japanese War. Wilson was the architect of the League of Nations, the predecessor of the UN. Obama has no similar specific major global peace achievement... yet.
It appears the Nobel Committee isn't giving Obama the award so much for what he has done so far but rather for what they hope he will do. It's also nice little, "Fuck you, George W. Bush."
Obama now has an incredible weight on his shoulders. Sending 40,000 more troops into Afghanistan - if he chooses to do that - is gonna look awfully strange coming from a recent winner of the Nobel PEACE Prize.
Anyway, I do certainly hope that Obama can live up to the esteemed reputation of the Prize during his time in the Oval Office.