• comment on a post DCCC Going into KS-02? over 7 years ago

    Even if it is just a headfake, it's a good one.

    The GOP is really looking at a near complete geograpic explosion.  

    Their few moderates left in the northeast are sinking fast, several of the few GOP majority districts in California are breaking the wrong way, the mountain west is imploding (and you could argue marching back towards the Pacific into inland WA and OR), between 3 states all but lost in IN and the corruption in OH (not to mention several competitive seats up in MN)...well that's the midwest, between this race, Kleeb in NE - we're moving across the plains, popular Dem govs and at least 3 seats in play in the SW....

    What's left?   The solid south -- even there, VA turns purpler every day, KY and TN are starting to crack, and we could see 1-3 seats come out of FL.  Hell, we've even got the inside track on a TX seat.

    The map is looking increasingly hopeless for the GOP -- forget wave, it looks like a true seismic shift...

  • comment on a post Ok, Time for the Hurt over 7 years ago

    heh-heh

    It's funny, because the animosity within the party has created a kind of angry melody, where we all compete with each other and are both more effective.

    Never thought about it like that, but it's true.  I know on at least 3 occasions, I've hit ActBlue for so-called 'non-competitive' districts (well... they were so-called when I visited)solely due to a quote or story about Rahm bashing the 50 state strategy.  I'm also planning on doing some GOTV, phonebanking, etc for Seals and Laesch, rather heading back to Indiana for Joe Donnelly strictly because IN-02 is a "DCCC" district and the IL-14 and IL-10 are more "DNC" type districts.

    Maybe having Rahm and company around isn't such a bad thing!

    Hell, the A's dynasty in the 70s weren't all the fastest of friends.

  • That's a bit insulting, dontcha think?

    Granted, I don't have a lengthy comment history here (though I do elsewhere... same username) - and like I said, it's your house, so your rules...

    But that said, believe I'm a concern troll or not - let me state a few things.

    I've been a Lamont supporter from the get-go - no I haven't donated to him (I don't have much powder and simply preferred to spend the little I do in other races).  Living about 1000 miles from CT, neither have I volunteered for Ned.  If those two facts alone make me part of the problem, so be it...

    But I - I think along with the other commenters - simply thought it was a bit of stretch to apply "evil" and "sociopath" to Lieberman.

    Narcissistic?  Absoultely.

    Self-Serving?  You bet.

    A back-stabber Vichy Dem?  I don't see how one can say otherwise.

    Deserve to be booted from office?  Yup.

    Add them all up, though -- and I just don't see sociopath or evil.   Maybe my bar is higher than it should be, but fer chrissakes...  that makes me a concern troll?

  • I agree -- and I'm very much pro-Lamont.

    It's waaayyy  past time for Joe to go, but "evil" and "sociopath" are a bit too heavy on the hyperbole for my taste.   I don't think I've ever disliked a politician more than Dubya, but I don't think I would honestly even use those terms to describe him (Rove on the other hand...).

    I understand the stakes in CT-SEN, and of course, I'm just a guest here, like everyone else not named Matt Stoller, Chris Bowers, Jerome Armstrong, et al... but that's the kind of rhetoric I would expect from other places, but not MyDD.   I'm not saying I won't be continuing to visit DD every day - it's still one of my favorite e-visits each day - but it's a little disappointing to see such rhetoric so casually tossed about from a site that I think rightly prides itself on cool, calm, rational Democratic advocacy and analysis.

  • on a comment on K Street Cash Flows to the Dems over 7 years ago

    I agree... fine, take the cash.  I hope no one taking that cash thinks we won't be watching starting Nov. 8.

    A forewarning to the Dems... I'd like to think that when you consider Lamont, Burner, McNerny, Webb, Tester -- and likely many others I'm forgetting -- we've gotten pretty good at taking out the beltway folks in primaries.  

    Eyes on the prize for three more weeks -- but I don't think any of us will be spending the next 2 years dancing the happy dance and blindly support someone with nothing more than a D to their name.

    Get in bed with K street -- and you sleep in the yard.

  • comment on a post House Forecast Update: Entering the Stretch Run over 7 years ago

    I disagree with the IL-08 flip...

    Bean's on the air with good ads (for her district) and the local buzz is that the race is trending in her direction (even better news for an incumbent).

    Paul Green, Chicago area politico and poli-sci professor, mentioned this morning on WGN that Bean is looking increasingly safe (he mentioned in the context of the Big Dog supposedly coming to town soon for a fundraiser for Duckworth, then tangentally mentioned it would be helping other collar county dems... and then after mentioning Bean, backtracked and said 'maybe not Bean' who's looking increasingly safe).

    Like most, I'm more a fan of keeping Bean's seat in Dem hands than I am of Bean herself -- but I think the seat's going in the other direction.

  • comment on a post End Game on Weldon: Local Realignment over 7 years ago

    Have to disagree with:
    When people say that you have to act like you are ten points down even when you are ahead in the polls, I say hogwash. Instead, you have to act like you know you can achieve something that will last far beyond this election, and that will change the country for a long time to come.

    It's not that I don't buy it - but I don't think the environment is there (yet) to lay the groundwork for this tectonic shift.

    To wit -

    I know he's just trying to play it (somewhat) even, but as much TDS and CR happily bash away at Republican corruption, they still play the Democratic ineptitude card.... to say nothing of every other late night talk show, newspaper columnist, and talking head on TV.

    Just last weekend - talking politics with a friend who'll certainly be voting democratic, but (despite my best efforts) hasn't jumped into the whole grassroots/netroots bin, lamented about 'wishing she was voting for someone rather than against someone'.   These conversations are commonplace.

    The national voice of the democratic party -- for better or worse - is still Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden... it's still the DC club.

    Now... both you and I know that the new voice will be folks like Schweitzer, Tester, Sestak, Dean, Murphy(s), etc --- the candidates that have gotten all of us excited to volunteer and donate.  It'll be folks like Louise Slaughter and Tim Ryan - the sitting members that have given us reason to hope.

    But the national parlor doesn't seem ready to listen.

    I think the nation will welcome the shift if the second class of folks are the ones entrusted with its stewardship (once they start hearing them)... but won't if they perceive the first as its standard bearers.  

    We need to get our candidates the microphone and let them start winning over the rest of America before we start talking about seismic shifts.

    Right now - we have a chance to win some races that would have been acid dreams 6 months ago - talk of broad scale shifts isn't likely to help us in those districts.... and yes, yes - I understand the difference between winning a seat we can hold for decades and one that'll likely be up for grabs the very next cycle - but right now, I think we're best focused on winning votes.  We'll then have two years to focus on ideological converts, or at least, conservative ideological deserters.

  • Still -

    I'll not trade one set of corporate masters for another (even if the new set prides itself on slogans like 'Don't be evil').

    The Fords, the Aetnas, the Glaxo-Smiths, the Merks -- they were once the new kids on the block, too.

    Please don't write me off as some socialist wannabe -- I'm most certainly not -- but corporate interests generally have far too much power in our nation.   The answer isn't changing which corporate interests, rather -- it's changing the limits of their power across the board.

    I readily concede it's nice to have big money players like Google and MS on 'our' side when it comes to something like net neutrality... but I just don't want to make the mistake of thinking we're now "allies"... it ain't UK/US in WWII... it's more like allies/USSR in WWII.

  • A couple points...

    First - I worry a lot less about K Street "finding its sea legs" than simply finding a new home.

    While there's little doubt to me that the corporate brothel would prefer to wed itself it to their champions in the Republican party, I think their close knit ties were at least partially a marriage of convenience, as well.  Dollars to donuts they'll be just as happy to latch their fortunes to the Biden wing of the Democratic party, which sadly -- even with some great progressives likely to be part of the 110th congress -- still has more than their fair share of power.   You can talk about the Norquist gang uniting to stop the early 90s health initiatives - but more than 10 years on, that game has changed.   Corporate interests, I think, would by and large welcome a move towards universal coverage... especially if the cost burden falls squarely on "people taxes" rather than corporate taxes.

    Setting that aside -- I look at my own little corner of the world, Illinois -- and am hopeful that we'll see a long term Republican crack-up.   Years after the party imploded around George Ryan (and keep in mind -- before Blago, despite federal successes, the state assemblies and governor mansion were fairly red... moderate red, but still red) - they're still lost in the woods.   The few hardcore conservatives got their way with the disaster that was Alan Keyes, the moderates got their way with the disaster that is Judy Barr Topinka -- and nothing's working.   If Hastert gets picked off (and I think it's becoming a 1 in 3 shot he will) - the IL GOP looks like it's going to plumb some truly unseen-before depths of irrelevance.

  • And just in general -- if there's one meme I wish would die an ugly, violent death -- it's any discussion about "not electable".

    Nothing ticks me off more (and see above... I'm certainly no fan of Hillary).

    I sure as hell wish people would start supporting the "right" candidate, rather than the candidate we think is "right" for everyone else.

    Look - none of us here (or almost none of us here) are getting paid for any of this.   So what say we leave the CW germination and broad-brush analysis on who's electable to the chattering classes and focus on the best candidate for America, not the one our amateur analysis says will play best in Peoria.

  • My problem with her is that -- and please take this solely as the political metaphor it's intended to be -- she doesn't.

    Sure - she's easily the most villified and attacked Dem possible of the 08 slate... and that alone go a great way towards causing me to pinch my nose and roll up my sleeves to help, were she the nominee.

    But I just absolutely, positively cannot stand triangulation.  From her sponsorship! of the flag burning bill to her Iraq stance (and please... save the 'secret CW' that she tells folks differently in private... that's EXACTLY what I'm talking about).

    It's why I'm 100% behind Russ and why I've also donated numerous times to Tester.  Russ was the sole vote against the Patriot Act and to me, Testers response to Burns on the Patriot Act (~damn right I'd repeal it) was the moment of the cycle for me.

    I look very, very poorly on candidate - Dem or Republican - who uses any issue of civil liberties to burnish their "centrist cred" and Iraq issues are a close second.  Hillary has crossed both those lines.

  • on a comment on House Forecast Update over 7 years ago

    S-O-H.  Period.

    There's a bit of prestige that definitely helps the incumbent.  It doesn't hurt that the usual machine suspects (I'm looking at Da' Mare here in Chicago) are providing their usual non-assistance whenever one of their own are threatened (see, Poshard v. Ryan among countless others).

    While this is a collar district outside the city - the Chicago media and machine can still exert tremendous influence in a race... but they're more than happy with their own little corrupt racket - 'you get the burbs, we get the city... now everyone get ready -- LOOT!'.

    Daley's long since lost whatever thin shred of hope he had keeping my vote.  Todd Stroger definitely won't - though I'm still undecided as to whether I'll be writing in Claypool or actually hold my nose and vote Peraica.

  • Gotta admit it...

    I've been trolling a bit myself.

    This is like a more rapid macaca.

    I remember the buzz just before the video's release, and I honestly thought -- well, 'racist' isn't a term I throw around lightly... then the Lizza TNR piece regains relevancy... then the noose... then the CCC... now it's 5 or 6 words to one that Sen. ALlen has a fondness for racial epitaphs.

    ...and my God - we've got a real scandal.

    I read the initial Foley story (TPMMuckraker, I think)- and Kos diary - a day or so ago.  I honestly figured it was Capital Blues stuff...  Then Foley resigns, and wow - he'll hopefully be going to jail, and we've now got THREE seats all but in the bag... Now - it's looking like a question of who goes down with him.  Hastert?  Reynolds?  Blunt?  

    I mean- AMerica, God luv ya', but please tell you've had enough...  Isn't there some point where blind partisanship has to give way to SOME kind of integrity?  Some point where making sure no one subpeonas Commander Codpiece is less important than booting criminals, scoundrels, liars, and their abettors from office?  

  • comment on a post GOP selects Minneapolis/St. Paul for '08 convention over 7 years ago

    See this Kos post from 2 weeks ago, with info via hotline...

    It's NOT the unions that stopping the DNC convention from coming to Denver -- it's the city's bid.

    From the post -


    The site selection committee had high hopes for Denver, located in a blinking-blue Mountain West state with a growing Hispanic population. But one Democrat briefed on the city's presentation and bid called it "disastrous." Others confirmed that the general impression among site selection members of Denver was not positive. The city also lacks a union hotel, and even though the city's labor leaders voted to table its outrage, it remains an obstacle.

    Doesn't look like the road is completely cleared of the non-union hotel issue -- but unless you have other info (and if so -- please provide a link), it would seem to me that it was the Denver presenation that's losing this bid, not union opposition.

  • I don't disagree on the larger point (the importance of unions - both in terms of Democratic victories, but more so -- because for their meta-place as the best place for worker rights to be fought for) --

    But I thought I had read recently that the major unions had consented to grit their teeth and not stand in the way of a DNC convention in Denver?

    My understanding was that Denver itself was having some issues getting its shit together for its bid -- not that the unions were blackballing Denver.

    Now... I won't get into whether or not they should -- but can someone clarify that it's actually the unions that are blocking Denver?

Diaries

Advertise Blogads