Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Morning Plum

* Outside cash from the right drowning the midterms: The must-read of the morning is T.W. Farnam's and Dan Eggen's overview of the post-Citizens United spending by outside groups, which is now up to $80 million with the right outspending the left by seven to one.

Key points: Spending is five times higher this year than in 2006; and the outside groups are "more secretive than ever about where that money is coming from."

* And: Don't miss the Post's nifty chart detailing the spending from outside groups.

* Dems cautiously optimistic...about not getting absolutely wiped out: Jonathan Martin offers the most comprehensive look I've seen at all the reasons Dems think there's been an uptick in their fortunes.

* Enthusiasm gap closing? And: The DNC will report raising a very high $16 million last month, which Dems will present as a sign the enthusiasm gap is closing as voters begin focusing on the choice before them.

"More than 80 percent of the more than 16 million we raised in September came from low dollar donors online and in the mail," a DNC spox emails. "We've found that our supporters are now focused on the election, are responding to the president's message laying out the choice and understand the stakes."

* And: The White House is now pushing the message that Dems are gaining ground in energizing voters, and you should expect to hear more and more leading Dems pushing back against the "enthusiasm gap" process-story narrative in the days ahead.

* If Dems don't get absolutely crushed in the elections, there will be a lot of egg on a lot of faces: What if the electorate is so volatile right now that professional prognosticators really have no idea what's coming?

* Sharron Angle, Tea Partyer to the end: Jon Ralston obtains audio of Angle showing real disdain for the GOP: "The Republicans have lost their standards, they've lost their principles."

This underscores, again, the schism between Angle's local handlers and her Beltway ones, and the degree to which the Tea Party candidates for Senate are unpredictable and unmanagable for national Republicans.

* What if the Tea Party's anti-Obama rage isn't the norm? Joe Klein, traveling the country, finds that there isn't the "fist-shaking anger" among voters we've been led to believe, another sign that the media's Tea Party obsession may be creating a distorted picture of the electorate.

* Yes, some Dems are campaigning on health care: No matter how many times people insist that no Dems are campaiging on the health reform law, it just isn't so.

* Tea Party-ism of the day: Alaska's Joe Miller wants to abolish the Federal minimum wage, because "that is not within the scope of the powers that are given to the federal government."

* Special bonus Tea Party-ism of the day: I wonder how many GOP/Tea Party candidates agree with Jim DeMint that homosexuals and single women who are having sex with theri boyfriends shouldn't teach in public schools.

* Chris Wallace fact-checks Rand Paul: In yesterday's Rand Paul-Jack Conway debate, the Kentucky Republican repeats the canard about illegal immigrants being covered under Obamacare, forcing the Fox host to say: "No, no, that's not true, sir."

And: Conway reiterates his support for extending the Bush tax cuts, reminding us of a trend I noted here recently: The surprising number of Dem Senate candidates who hold the GOP position on taxes.

* And today's award for mindless "pox on both houses" punditry goes to... Tom Friedman, who wishes Obama passed a more ambitious health care and stimulus package, and blames this failure on both parties and on the two-party system.

What else is going on?

By Greg Sargent  | October 4, 2010; 8:36 AM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, Health reform, House Dems, House GOPers, Morning Plum, Political media, Senate Republicans, Tea Party  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Sunday Open Thread
Next: Does Joe Miller think child labor laws are unconstitutional?

Comments

A third party candidate isn't going to win in a general election. He/she may be able syphon some of the "anti-Obama" votes but that would just mean that Obama wins re-election.

Posted by: maritza1 | October 4, 2010 8:48 AM | Report abuse

That Angle piece is absolutely priceless. Thge most important aspect imho is not just that she talks about the GOP leadership, but that she actually appears to be offering Ashjian a deal if he drops out and endorses her and she wins. She mentions that she has DeMint's "juice" as if to say she's ready to cut some kind of deal with Ashjian. One commenter on the article link put it best, she is not even waiting for Day 1 to break her promises about ending back room dealing, she's guilty of that and already and the election's not even over yet!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 4, 2010 8:55 AM | Report abuse

That Angle piece is absolutely priceless. Thge most important aspect imho is not just that she talks about the GOP leadership, but that she actually appears to be offering Ashjian a deal if he drops out and endorses her and she wins. She mentions that she has DeMint's "juice" as if to say she's ready to cut some kind of deal with Ashjian. One commenter on the article link put it best, she is not even waiting for Day 1 to break her promises about ending back room dealing, she's guilty of that and already and the election's not even over yet!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 4, 2010 8:55 AM | Report abuse

Note as well Krugman's column this morning. Here's the first graph:

"A note to Tea Party activists: This is not the movie you think it is. You probably imagine that you’re starring in “The Birth of a Nation,” but you’re actually just extras in a remake of “Citizen Kane.”"
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/opinion/04krugman.html?_r=1&hp

Posted by: bernielatham | October 4, 2010 8:57 AM | Report abuse

The LA Times reports that the SCotUS is the most conservative since about forever. This is possible and it proves something that I have said for years. America is a mostly conservative nation and the SCotUS merely reflects that fact.

In fact, Barack H. Obama is the first president to have run as a lib/prog and won. He managed to convince enough people that he was somehow different. He fooled 'em. It looks like Obama may be a one act play right now but he could pull a Clinton on us and fool 'em again.

Is he that clever and flexible??

Time will tell.

Posted by: battleground51 | October 4, 2010 8:57 AM | Report abuse

I think Benen is wrong. He makes the mistake of putting all the blame on the GOP when the Democrats are nearly as dysfunctional. We don't even DISCUSS our serious problems in our national political discourse, never mind solve them. This, from Friedman, is exactly correct:

"Obama probably did the best he could do, and that's the point. The best our current two parties can produce today -- in the wake of the worst existential crisis in our economy and environment in a century -- is suboptimal, even when one party had a huge majority. Suboptimal is O.K. for ordinary times, but these are not ordinary times. We need to stop waiting for Superman and start building a superconsensus to do the superhard stuff we must do now. Pretty good is not even close to good enough today."

Third Party Now!

Don't think it won't happen just because it hasn't happened yet. (Jackson Browne).

Later.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 4, 2010 8:58 AM | Report abuse

ON the complaints from the left on the Citizens United money -


Was the left complaining when Obama pulled out of the Federal Campaign Finance system - and secured a financial advantage for himself in 2008 ? Were Obama's credit card transactions with his campaign ever put under scrutiny? That was secretive.

And were all those credit card contributions coming from inside the United State? There were reports that the controls on the website credit card operations - which could stop credit cards from outside the US - were turned off?

Was that ever looked at? All that appeared pretty secretive.

And the money which went through Acorn - were their proper dividing lines between government contract money and political activities???


The American People see all this going on with the democrats - and they just can't take any complaints seriously.

The democrats can't do whatever they want in 2008 - go outside the Federal Campaign System which worked so well in Presidential elections for decades - and then start to claim foul two years later. It just doesn't work that way.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 4, 2010 8:59 AM | Report abuse

@maritza1 Agreed!

The party's have just accumulated too much power to be taken down very easily. From how districts are drawn, qualifications to get on ballots and of course the single most important fact...MONEY.

IMHO we can debate how to solve certain problems facing our nation. The increasing disparity in wealth is certainly one of those problems. But underlying that problem as well as most of the others is our political system. I think Friedman has identified a problem but not a solution.

It's beyond me how anybody cannot look at Gregs post on spending and not be very, very concerned. I wouldn't care if it was the Dems getting enough OUTSIDE money to outspend the R's 7-1...that's a problem. For spending to increase 5X the levels of just four years ago IMHO is a problem. And one of the worst problems is the combination of this MASSIVE spending and SECRECY. It's simply frightening to not be able to even determine who is pulling the strings of our political puppets...in EITHER party!

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 4, 2010 8:59 AM | Report abuse

Greg Sargent:

Were you upset when LIBERAL Republican Mike Castle out-spent Christine O'Donnell 6 to 1?

battleground51:

More "conservative" than upholding slaves counting as 3/5ths persons or internment of Japanese-Americans?

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 4, 2010 9:02 AM | Report abuse

jesushfriggingchrist! How do people manage to become this incredibly stuooopid?

"A Hug Too Far: Obama-Emanuel Embrace Is a Sign of Weakness
by Larry Kudlow
Am I the only one who saw weakness when President Obama and his departing chief of staff Rahm Emanuel gave each other big, fat, full-bore hug following their speeches at the resignation event in the White House’s East Room on Friday?"
http://biggovernment.com/lkudlow/2010/10/03/a-hug-too-far-obama-emanuel-embrace-is-the-tip-of-the-weakness-iceburg/
h/t Josh

Posted by: bernielatham | October 4, 2010 9:07 AM | Report abuse

Speaking of homosexual teachers, I was in the class of a homosexual, French teacher in high school. That is, he taught the French language, not that he was French, himself.

Anyway, the guy was very conservative and I remember he hated John F. Kennedy. That is odd. Maybe he was one of the founding members of the LOG CABIN gays. Who knows?

Now for the rest of the story: The local cops raided a homosexual,gathering place down by the river park, late at night and busted the whole lot. I guess it was a crazy, Keystone Kops thing with homosexuals running riot and cops trying to round 'em up.

The homosexual, French teacher was not present for class the next day and I never saw or heard of him again.

Posted by: battleground51 | October 4, 2010 9:13 AM | Report abuse

SaveTheRainforest:

You and I are going to get banned for pointing out the hypocrisy here.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 4, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

Here is the "JUICE" quote:

Angle: Says the grass roots movement “gives me juice. That’s really all I can offer to you (Ashjian) is whatever juice I have, you have as well…You want to see DeMint, I have juice with him….I go to Washington, DC and want to see Jim DeMint, he’s right there for me. I want to see Tom Coburn, he’s right there for me. I want to see Mitch McConnell, he’s there.”

What a total hypocrite and fraud, exposed.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 4, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

Here is the "JUICE" quote:

Angle: Says the grass roots movement “gives me juice. That’s really all I can offer to you (Ashjian) is whatever juice I have, you have as well…You want to see DeMint, I have juice with him….I go to Washington, DC and want to see Jim DeMint, he’s right there for me. I want to see Tom Coburn, he’s right there for me. I want to see Mitch McConnell, he’s there.”

What a total hypocrite and fraud, exposed.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 4, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

battleground51 at 8:57 AM and Jake


Jane Hamsch from Fire Dog Lake was on this morning - she has been portrayed as to the left of Obama.

HOWEVER - this morning she said that she - Rahm and her crew - was telling the administration last spring that they wanted a health care bill which was scaled down and much less expensive.

This is a far cry from the left which has been complaining that they did not get the public option.


The left seems to be confused about its own positions - as much as any other protrayal of where they stand.


__________________________


The problem is clear: Obama campaigned with the theme of being post-partisan and bipartisan - which the nation believed meant he was going to negotiate with the Republicans and arrive at CENTRIST policies.


Obama has NO MANDATE to do anything other than that. The liberals are just lying if they say "Obama was elected as a liberal" Even in the primaries, Obama said his policy positions were virtually the same as Hillary - NEVER did Obama come out and tell the nation he wanted a far-left agenda.


The nation is correct to be upset about this - any other person HIRED to do one thing - and goes in and does something significantly differt - gets FIRED right away.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 4, 2010 9:22 AM | Report abuse

"The LA Times reports that the SCotUS is the most conservative since about forever."

Which is balderdash. It has four conservatives, four hard leftists, and one conflicted Hamlet liberal.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 4, 2010 9:26 AM | Report abuse

@bernie, quoting Krugman: "A note to Tea Party activists: This is not the movie you think it is."

Not to Tea Party activists: I'm smart, you're stupid. Where's your Nobel Prize in Economics, you backwoods hayseeds?

Besides which, Citizen Cane is orders of magnitude a better movie that anything D.W. Griffith ever committed to celluloid, including Birthers of the Nation.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 4, 2010 9:27 AM | Report abuse

I expressed this prediction previously but given the Greg's lead item, it's maybe time to express it again.

Whatever spending we are going to see for this cycle will be, I think certainly, dwarfed by what will happen next cycle. It isn't merely that the WH is at stake but that whatever funding mechanisms and coalitions are presently being developed (ie Rove/Gillespie) will be expanded and made more efficient through experience.

A really serious component problem here is that media ad-buys are proving, and will continue to prove, very very profitable for TV, radio, print press and all else. So one of the key institutions which we have counted on to held protect us from a subversion of democracy will be increasingly incentivized to join in the corruption.

It ain't good.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 4, 2010 9:28 AM | Report abuse

Rick Perry's Hypocrisy about refusing federal dollars. We have seen these double standards throughout the nation by Rs accepting federal dollars at the exact same time they are lashing out at federal largese. But using federal funds to rebuilt our state house where Rick thinks he may live in a few more months, is laughable. Steering federal tax dollars to his largest contributors is offensive. Apparently he thinks it cute to use federal funds as his piggy bank something to brag about.

"Now here's something that strikes me as deserving of putting Texas Gov. Rick Perry's bust in the lobby of the American Hypocrisy Museum, with Rick Perry coffee mugs available in the museum gift shop.

About half of that $22 million to be used to restore the Governor's Mansion? It came from the feds in a roundabout sort of way.

Perry, who is constantly yapping about the evils of Washington control and has even turned away hundreds of millions of dollars in federal money for education, is allowing bucks from Washington to help fix up the mansion in downtown Austin"

"Thanks to the kind of money shuffling that bureaucrats do best, about half of the money for the mansion project originated as money that the feds provided to Texas to reimburse the state for its upfront emergency expenses for Hurricane Ike. Follow the money: $11 million from the feds was shuffled from the Department of Public Safety to the State Preservation Board to help pay for the $22 million mansion remodel"


Meanwhile tens of millions are flowing directly from federal high tech tax dollars directly into the pockets of jis 20 largest contributors according to today's story in the Dallas Morning News:

"White hits Perry over tech-fund allegations
Gubernatorial debate held in Houston without the governor's participation
By JOE HOLLEY
HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Oct. 4, 2010, 12:09AM
"In the fall campaign season's first debate open to all candidates for governor, Democrat Bill White waited until his closing statement to attack the candidate who wasn't there, incumbent Rick Perry, regarding allegations that he has used taxpayer funds to reward high-dollar campaign donors.

The debate was co-sponsored by the Harris County Board of Education and the Houston-area League of Women Voters, and most of the questions directed to White and the other two candidates, the Green Party's Deb Shafto and Kathie Glass of the Libertarian Party, had to do with education."

"White reprised now-familiar positions on education during the hourlong event, actually a series of questions addressed to each candidate, before mentioning a Sunday Dallas Morning News report that claimed more than $16 million from the Emerging Technology Fund has been awarded to companies with investors or officers who are large campaign donors to Perry."

Houston Chronicle and Dallas Moening News

Posted by: leichtman1 | October 4, 2010 9:29 AM | Report abuse

To be clear, the point I was trying to make above is Jane Hamsher from Fire Dog Lake was saying this morning that Obama's health care plan is really to the LEFT OF HER.

And she and Fire Dog Lake are considered toward the far left.


The point is Obama and his people can't even be honest about where their positions are in relation to other democrats - Obama portrays himself as toward the center, but now his own LEFT is complaining that Obama's positions are to the LEFT OF HER.

There is a fundamental stream of deceptions which constantly come from Obama - and the American People don't like it at all.

After running around the nation for years complaining that "Bush Lied" - the country is in no mood to hear lies from Obama - it is that simple. The democrats have set the bar on this - and Obama finds himself in real trouble with the perceptions that he lied in 2008.

The Afghanistan issue is not going to show up in the polls - however it just re-enforces the idea that Obama's 2008 campaign was a bunch of deceptions and lies - TRANSLATION: Obama just digs his own hole deeper.

Ever since the Scott Brown election, everyone, right and left - has been wondering how Obama is going to dig himself out - and the answer is becoming clear - he isn't.


Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 4, 2010 9:33 AM | Report abuse

@STRF: "Was the left complaining when Obama pulled out of the Federal Campaign Finance system - and secured a financial advantage for himself in 2008 ? Were Obama's credit card transactions with his campaign ever put under scrutiny? That was secretive."

While this is certainly true (and transparent hypocrisy), it is also true that many who complained about Obama's laundered credit card contributions and his unambiguous commitment to go the public route, only to opt out the minute it looked like he'd raise more money by avoiding public financing . . . many of those folks have no trouble with Citizens United, or the allowance of secrecy regarding the funding, which could end up protecting money laundered from foreign contributors or even criminal organizations, just to give two far out examples.

That having been said, liberals could be outspending conservatives 10-to-1 about all sorts of progressive causes, and the amount of cash spent is not likely to change my mind. They could even keep the funding secret--when they tell me they're going to blow up school children unless they commit to reducing green house gases, I'll know it's not The Heritage Foundation behind the ads. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 4, 2010 9:36 AM | Report abuse

"It has four conservatives, four hard leftists, and one conflicted Hamlet liberal."

Do even you take you seriously?

Posted by: wbgonne | October 4, 2010 9:37 AM | Report abuse

Krugman again soils himself and his already soiled reputation.

And liberals happily roll in it like dogs roll in . . . .

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 4, 2010 9:37 AM | Report abuse

"Birthers of the Nation"

Very adroit! Love it.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 4, 2010 9:38 AM | Report abuse

Quarterback

How can Obama add two liberals - and the Court is suddenly more conservative?

The country just can't get a straight answer out of anyone on the left-

We constantly hear how moderate and bipartisan they are - AND then they go off and do something far left - and they immediately start to lie and say they were "elected as liberals."


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 4, 2010 9:39 AM | Report abuse

Jake

It is fair to say that much of Obama's remaining support is people who are still waiting for Obama to do what he originally said he was going to do.

There are people who there who CLING TO THE LIES.

They want the lies to be true so badly - they will stick around. Sort of like abused spouses.

Obama has no intention of being centrist.

Obama's claim of being "post-racial" ended when he did not speeak out against the False Charges of Racism - leading everyone to believe that his message machine was behind those unfounded attacks.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 4, 2010 9:44 AM | Report abuse

"How can Obama add two liberals - and the Court is suddenly more conservative?"

"Add" and "replace" are not synonymous.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 4, 2010 9:44 AM | Report abuse

'Not to Tea Party activists: I'm smart, you're stupid."

It's not the stupidity; it's the pride in stupidity that is the problem. Here's a flash: some people ARE stupid. And some people are ignorant. And it's nothing to be proud of. You've already witnessed what these geniuses have done to our Constitution. Defiantly ignorant is no way to run a great country.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 4, 2010 9:46 AM | Report abuse

"Do even you take you seriously?"

I don't take myself seriously the way you leftists take yourselves seriously. I take what I say seriously, because it has a basis in reality. So basically I'm the opposite of you, who take yourselves seriously while spouting hare-brained nonsense.

But why not try to answer with an actual argument instead of dodging it with childish put downs? How many "conservatives" and "liberals" do you count?

And why not try to answer any part of my critique from the previous thread?

How many of the judges on the Third Circuit ATT panel were "radical right wingers"?

What are the full consequences of the sort of constitutional amendment you propose, stripping corporations of all rights, privileges, protections, and personhood? What happens when they have no due process, just compensation, jury trial, free speech or other protections? What happens when they have no standing in federal court -- and if you have your way in state courts?

It's quite a brave new world, isn't it?

But don't worry, we know why you don't ever try to respond.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 4, 2010 9:48 AM | Report abuse

Also, wb, whenever you summon the courage to address reality, please tell us how you think the stock market would react to an amendment delcaring that corporations are nonpersons who have no rights, privileges or protections?

How long would it take for you to pull all your money out?

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 4, 2010 9:52 AM | Report abuse

I can just imagine the new corporate disclosures and SEC filings of every public corporation.

Just the litigation disclosures would be priceless:

John Doe v. Acme Corp., et al.

This is a class action for alleged consumer fraud seeking damages in excess of $500 billion.

Under the 27th Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Company no longer has due process or other rights to defend itself in this or other actions against the company.*


*Please see Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements and Statement of Auditor regarding the Company's ability to continue operating as a going concern.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 4, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse

"What if the electorate is so volatile right now that professional prognosticators really have no idea what's coming?"

This happens now and again. The result inevitably is a lot of useless navel gazing by the MSM that leads to no useful outcome.

Posted by: akaoddjob | October 4, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

The current Supreme Court is the most Radically Right of any since Justice Taney decided that the property rights of slaveowners were superior to the rights of the slaves as human beings. And I have no doubt -- zero -- that your heroes Scalia, Roberts and Alito would join Taney's opinion. Thomas? Well, he might dissent on that one but, of course, he'd be chained in some shack somewhere anyway. The modern application of Taney's property-above-all view is in this Radical Right Court's determination to transform business corporations into human beings.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 4, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Nice paragraph from Yglesias. Underline that last sentence...

"Now that said, though I know many people who disagree, in my opinion The Road to Serfdom is basically a crank political pamphlet. And certainly Beck and others are putting it forward in a crank context. But to make a long story short, not only is the Obama administration’s policy agenda much more Hayekian than the policy agenda of the British Labour Party in the mid-1940s, the implementation of the Labour Party platform clearly did not lead to serfdom."
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/10/the-road-to-hayek/

And of course, one could make many similar observations re the alarums from Beck or NRO or whomever over SOCIALISM! versus a drive down any Canadian city street or a boat ride along a northern European canal or a shopping trip in Amsterdam ("two of the minty magic muffins, please")

Posted by: bernielatham | October 4, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

"If Dems don't get absolutely crushed in the elections, there will be a lot of egg on a lot of faces: What if the electorate is so volatile right now that professional prognosticators really have no idea what's coming?"

I think it's a very real possibility that prognosticators will end up with egg on their faces.

I think prognosticators, for all their talk about "historical trends" have been loath to fully take one aspect of polling into account: favorability ratings.

In every "wave election" the party leading the wave had net positive favorability ratings, and their favorability was often markedly positive.

That's simply not the case this year.

It seems that the thinking is that the Democrats' similarly net negative rating (though it is less negative than that of Republicans) will render the favorability aspect moot, allowing the more-disdained Republicans to waltz to victory. But, I think that's a fallacious assumption.

For one, people don't simply vote for someone they don't like just because they're the "other guy." Instead, I think, because Republicans' favorability is so dismal, people are more inclined to sit on their hands until the last minute. They will "shop around" and give the other guy a chance. But, ultimately, they will be reminded of why they didn't initially like the alternative, and will break against a party for which they maintain the most ill sentiments.

Additionally, the low favorability of the opposition party makes it easier to rile up one's base to oppose their "wave." When Republicans and Democrats enjoyed their waves, they sat at net positive favorability ratings of about +9% or greater. Those positive ratings likely blunted an aversion to their ascension. [Those positive ratings also served to insulate them, at least partially, against negative attacks from the party seeking to hold on to power. Negative attacks are more salient when the opposition has a net negative rating.]

In the end, the abysmal favorability ratings of the Republicans will severely blunt their gains in ways that most prognosticators don't seem to be fully anticipating now.

Posted by: associate20 | October 4, 2010 10:04 AM | Report abuse

@qb: "I don't take myself seriously the way you leftists take yourselves seriously."

Parry, thrust, dodge, spin--touché!

Excellent verbal fencing, in other words. You could have stopped right there. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 4, 2010 10:05 AM | Report abuse

That's what is so persuasive about wb's rants -- they are so well-grounded in facts. /s/

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 4, 2010 10:06 AM | Report abuse

The money goes where the political trend tilts. You can tell which party is perceived as having the winning hand by the way the bets fall. The big money people believe the Republicans are going to win two thirds of the triple crown in November so they are going with the odds-on favorites. In other words, the Obama express is rolling boxcars and the Obamacrats have crapped out.

The only poll better than the one on election day is the money poll.

Another bit of dark, cloudy weather for Democrats.

Attention WSJ, BotW: metaphor alert!!

Posted by: battleground51 | October 4, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

"Excellent verbal fencing, in other words. You could have stopped right there. ;)"

My prolixity runneth over. : )

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 4, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Greg,

One thing that you should take note of re the 7:1 spending of right wing secret cash -- this includes the $10 million spent on the Blanche Lincoln Democratic Party primary.

If you adjust for this single, large external spend from the left (which was fighting an interparty battle) you get 2 million "dem" spending vs 70 million "gop" spending.

This changes it from a 7:1 spend for the GOP to around 35:1. This is a very different story -- and the one that won't get much play in the MSM.

35 to 1.

Posted by: grooft | October 4, 2010 10:10 AM | Report abuse

Please get a mute button soon. The troll chants are way too loud and they are drowning out any meaningful conversation.

Reminder to others: don't feed the trolls.

Posted by: grooft | October 4, 2010 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Obamian = Hayekian????

I need that icon showing the finger circling the ear. Typical Yglesias stupidity and ignorance.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 4, 2010 10:14 AM | Report abuse

For anyone who wishes to turn to some worthwhile opinion on the modern SC and on the Citizens United case, here's three essays...

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/may/13/decision-threatens-democracy/

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/aug/19/roberts-court-vs-free-speech/

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/jun/10/supreme-difference/

If you've only time to read one, take the first. Print it out.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 4, 2010 10:14 AM | Report abuse

@grooft: "This changes it from a 7:1 spend for the GOP to around 35:1. This is a very different story -- and the one that won't get much play in the MSM."

So the right is 35x better at coming up with the cash and "showing the money", but although theyDemocrats apparently can't manage to come up with much money in the real world, they're going to manage the government into an unparalleled technocratic economic largesse for all (but especially the less fortunate among us)?

In setting up their victim status (and, no doubt, the need for a judicial remedy) they are painting a less than flattering portrait of themselves.

I would think--if they're so good with finances they can micro-manage the leviathan U.S. economy into unparalleled success (and defeat the business cycle)--they should be able to spend *a little* more money on their campaigns.

Unless, like true plutocrats, they stuff their spare cash in the mattress and use the remainders to light their cigars. And though that may explain why Democrats are spending less money on their campaigns, but doesn't begin to explain the reasoning for it. /snark

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 4, 2010 10:16 AM | Report abuse

QB says: "typical Yglesias stupidity and ignorance"

There's a tale from West African folklore of a mouse challenging an elephant. It doesn't go the way QB might hope.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 4, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Jake

do you have a throw-away email you can put up?

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 4, 2010 10:23 AM | Report abuse

@associate20: "I think prognosticators, for all their talk about 'historical trends' have been loath to fully take one aspect of polling into account: favorability ratings."

That's probably because, historically, they aren't as important to midterms as likely voters, the unemployment rate, and the amount of ground the incumbent party has to defend from the opposition. Historically, the Republicans are almost guaranteed to make significant strides, and at least nearly take back the house, even if they don't in reality. But they are right that it could potentially be a bloodbath--but, such a outcome is (historically) hardly guaranteed.

The same historical trends (as I have mentioned before) tend to suggest that no matter what kind of drubbing the Democrats take in 2010, 2012 will see Obama re-elected (unless he faces a primary challenger, or declines to run). Based not on how much I like or don't like Obama or whoever might run against him, but based on the historical trends.

One thing is for sure, some of the prognosticators are predicting things that are, historically, very much at the outer-tail. They are almost certainly going to have egg on their face, because there's only a poor chance of the Republicans taking over the house and senate (a very poor chance), and almost no chance of the Democrats gaining ground in 2010.

Democrats have a lot of ground to defend in a still relatively sour economy. Favorability ratings not withstanding, the incumbent party will lose seats in that scenario. Because they have the great majority of at risk seats.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 4, 2010 10:23 AM | Report abuse

wbgonne:

Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944) was an opinion by Hugo Black, joined by Chief Justice Stone, as well as Justices Reed, Douglas, Rutledge, and Frankfurter. Only Justice Murphy wrote a dissent citing to the inherent racism.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 4, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Kevin seems to be quite the proponent of the best politicians money can buy.

Which is about all one can take away from his "the right is 35 times better at selling themselves to the highest bidder" comment above. Well, duh. People with deep pockets will throw money at whoever promises to let them do whatever they want. The Democrats only let them do MOST of what they want, so clearly this proves that Republicans are the best at governing.

Dumb argument, Kev.

Posted by: JennOfArk | October 4, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

@Kevin

Fund-raising equals fiscal prudence equals excellence in democratic governance? Are you sure you want to stick with that formulation?

Hell's Angels equals bulging bank accounts equals model leadership.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 4, 2010 10:30 AM | Report abuse

SaveTheRainforest:

jaked832@gmail.com

I have nothing to hide.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 4, 2010 10:31 AM | Report abuse

"There's a tale from West African folklore of a mouse challenging an elephant. It doesn't go the way QB might hope."

Hahahaha

You know, bernie, I'm really glad you lodged this put down in defense of that transparently illogical and foolish statement by Yglesias, because it's such a great example of the bankruptcy of your phony intellectual act.

If this were 1890, you might be reclining is some salon for the effete, trading inanities in knowing and precious rhetoric. As it is, you are stuck with the intertubes. Same ****, differnt century.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 4, 2010 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Kevin_Willis at 9:36 AM

Fine, I agree with everything you said.

However, the ONE part of campaign finance that has worked over the past 3 decades - was shattered by a democrat - Obama.

____________________________

Kevin - let me try to make an objective point.

One can view entire poltical system as a balance between the parties - and a balance between the special interests.

Certain special interests are on one side - certain interests are traditionally on the other side - there is a balance - and the PUBLIC GOOD hangs on that balance - on those FORCES PROVIDING A CHECK ON EACH OTHER.

So - I see it - when that CHECK is removed, that is when the American People get it the worst - One side sells out to the other side - BALANCE is removed - and we all end up suffering.


That is why I was so upset with the Free Trade deals - one side sold us all out - the check was removed, balance was lost - and millions of jobs were lost overseas.


When Glass Steagall was repealed, and deriviatives were de-regulated - all of a sudden, the democrats were on the side of Wall Street - all of a sudden the check was removed - the balance was thrown off - the public got sold out.


It works both ways.


But when you see one side or the other all of a sudden taking money from one interest group which is not traditionally in their camp - and decades of law gets over-turned - then the American People are SURE to get it - hard.


Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 4, 2010 10:33 AM | Report abuse

The joke is that the LAT, has opined that the SCotUS is the most conservative SC in memory. Now think about this.

LAT stands for "LIBERAL ALLAH TIME" and apparently it has a selectively short memory.

But, the SCotUS is more conservative than it has been since FDR packed it with liberals about 75 years ago and since the long lived, Roosevelt coalition disintegrated many years later.

It is because American conservatives became aware what was happening to them in the late 1960s.

Ever since then conservatives have been steadily moving forward. Barack H. Obama is merely a speed bump on the long road to "Taking America Back".

Pretty hard bump, too.

Posted by: battleground51 | October 4, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Must run but one last quick thing for fun. On NPR yesterday there was a little radio-play performed of Hamlet on Facebook.

"Hamlet and Rosencrantz and Gildenstern are now friends"

Quite brilliant.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 4, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse

The Supreme Court has taken a series of decisions to give corporations and the wealthy unlimited control of the political system. And so just as the way the country is supposed to work is failing, the political system is getting farther and farther from being able to deal with it. Face it, the congress now regularly does things that massive majorities of the public support, but majorities of both parties oppose. Taxing the hedge fund crybabies the same as everyone else would be an obvious start, but it won't happen because America isn't really a functioning democracy anymore. Neither the will of the majority nor the rights of the minority are sacrosant anymore. Money is the only thing America stands for anymore, plus bombing.

Posted by: Bullsmith1 | October 4, 2010 10:39 AM | Report abuse

@bernie: "If you've only time to read one, take the first."

Okee-dokee. One thing struck me:

"Many of the shareholders who will actually pay for the ads, who in many cases are members of pension and union funds, will hate the opinions they pay to advertise."

Couldn't that be an argument against the use of union dues to pay for political advertising?

Beyond that, I don't see the argument that entities that can be (and are) taxed and regulated and user-fee'd by the government (as these "legal fictions" of corporations) should not be able to lobby on their own behalf. The argument that it's shareholder money, in the case of publicly owned companies, makes some sense--but, if I'm not mistaken, publicly held companies do have to disclose such spending to their shareholders, do they not?

And, in the interest of protecting their shareholders, corporations may have a vested interesting in influencing certain legislation.

I suppose the argument would be that outsized corporate influences will end up favoring one class of entity (the corporations) over another (individual citizens). This seems like a reasonable objection, but I'm not sure that it's as cut-and-dried as opponents to the Citizen's United decision want to make it.

Finally, I don't expect you're worried that record levels of corporate spending are going to change your mind on the issues, are you?

I suppose Citizen's United may be the end of civilization as we know it, but I remain dubious until I see some evidence of that.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 4, 2010 10:40 AM | Report abuse

grooft at 10:13 AM


What exactly are these "troll chants" that you find so horrible and terrible - and out of bounds speech ???


I would just like to know - and I would to know how you distinquish those from what is coming from the left - which is a constant stream of the same attacks and mocking every hour of everyday?


If you have a complaint - let's be specific - but let's also be clear that the rules should apply equally to both sides.


Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 4, 2010 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Interesting how the right is insulted and offended when their ignorant and contradictory positions are displayed but they are downright giddy when one of their own makes a ridiculous claim they mistakenly believe demonstrates stupidity on the left.

Posted by: pragmaticstill | October 4, 2010 10:43 AM | Report abuse

@bernielatham: "There's a tale from West African folklore of a mouse challenging an elephant. It doesn't go the way QB might hope."

You refer, of course, to Yglesias' challenge of Hayek. "in my opinion The Road to Serfdom is basically a crank political pamphlet"

In other news, Yglesias considers the works of William Shakespeare to be comparable to 'Penny Dreadfuls'. With the occasional bodice-ripper thrown in.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 4, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse

"I suppose the argument would be that outsized corporate influences will end up favoring one class of entity (the corporations) over another (individual citizens)."

Duh.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 4, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

pragmaticstill:

To which "claim" are you referring?

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 4, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

There's really good news for Obama from Gallup. He still gets 91% of blacks.

But!, didn't he get about 99% back in 2008?

Here's hidden indication of how much liberals control the Democrat party:

Democrats that still like Obama: 79%
Liberals that still like Obama: 75%

Add this: The percentage of people who claim to be Democrat and liberal is down significantly.

The number of people who identify themselve as Republican is up a little, while the number of people who claim to be conservative is up signifcantly.

It's a witches brew of political stirrings out here in the heartland folks.

And that's not an endorsement of O'Donnell either.

Posted by: battleground51 | October 4, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

Kevin_Willis at 10:40 AM

Let's take a step back - how do you think the campaign finance system should be run ?


Too many times, these rules are made by one side or the other which is trying to gain some advantage. These actions have often turned out to be short-sighted because the other side always seems to be able to come back and out-do what has been done by the other side.


___________________


The real issue is how to finance campaigns - and PROVIDE for the proper amount of public interest.

Too many special interests are funding the campaigns - and the interests of the people are getting trampled.

A regular person can not get a meeting with a Congressman - but give that Congressmen $2000 for his campaign - and all of a sudden the guy is buying you lunch in the Capitol Hill dinning room - asking you to RAISE more money.

The point of being reasonable - a balance between the public and special interest - is long past.

So, WHERE do you want to end up - a proper balance - one which the parties should believe doesn't give one side or the other an advantage.

This is why Obama's 2008 campaign was such a joke - he was talking one way - but shoveling in the cash and completely ignoring Campaign Finance Reform - which really is THE WAY to accomplish anything on so many fronts.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 4, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

battleground51:

Just don't believe all the lies about Christine O'Donnell.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 4, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

All, more on Joe Miller and the Federal minimum wage:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/10/does_joe_miller_think_child_la.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 4, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

@bernie: "Fund-raising equals fiscal prudence equals excellence in democratic governance? Are you sure you want to stick with that formulation?"

Given that I did not propose it, no.

What I expressed in a skepticism that an inability to raise cash--and we're not talking half as much, or a third as much, but a ratio proposed that suggests that Democrats were 35x worse at raising cash, when they are arguably purveyors of sounder economic policy that will result in an unambiguously superior economy for everybody--including big businesses, whom, at some level, depend on the lowly consumer having cash in hand (or government contracts, which are funded by tax payers and China) . . . what I expressed was a skepticism that a inability to raise more than 1/35th the cash that Republicans do is a ringing endorsement of their (the left's) economic savvy.

Either they are not nearly the economic wizards, collectively, that they imagine themselves to be, or they are horrible at communicating what benefits, if any, they bring to the table.

"Hell's Angels equals bulging bank accounts equals model leadership."

Now, dissing Hell's Angels. Have you no shame? ;)

@JennofArk: "Which is about all one can take away from his 'the right is 35 times better at selling themselves to the highest bidder" comment above."

I think you are confusing 'all that can be taken" with "all that you are interested in taking". While related, they are still very different things, rightly considered.

"People with deep pockets will throw money at whoever promises to let them do whatever they want. The Democrats only let them do MOST of what they want, so clearly this proves that Republicans are the best at governing."

So the Democrats prostitute themselves for pennies, become nearly as morally bankrupt as the Republicans they revile, and have nothing to show for it. I argue this does not recommend them as financial geniuses, or some collective prospective Nobel laureate in Economics.

"Dumb argument, Kev."

It certainly would have been, had I made that argument. Fortunately for me, I did not. Where that leaves your role in the discussion . . . well, I'll leave that up to your discretion. :)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 4, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

@Kevin_Willis:

"That's probably because, historically, they aren't as important to midterms as likely voters, the unemployment rate, and the amount of ground the incumbent party has to defend from the opposition."

I understand what you're saying, although with regard to likely voter assumptions, I didn't even note that I think that likely voter models are too aggressively conservative, and may be underestimating potential Democratic turnout. Likely voter models vary among pollsters, but most give heavy emphasis to historical trends and voter enthusiasm. Correspondingly, likely voter models are quite prone to error, because of their assumptions. So, I would take likely voter models with a grain of salt, and with some pollsters, one would need a whole shaker full of the stuff.

That being said, I'm not discounting other historical trends. I'm simply noting that I think the most fundamental trend -- whether or not one likes a party -- is being irresponsibly marginalized.

I understand that, historically speaking, Republicans are likely to make gains. But, historically speaking, they are unlikely to actually make those gains via a wave, considering that "wave elections" are less common in this nation's history. Furthermore, historically, rapid shifts back to a party that previously suffered wave-type losses is even more uncommon (actually, going back to FDR, it's unprecedented).

So, basically, my assertion is that too much consideration is being given to trends that overlook the most visceral, personal one. Regardless of how despondent, frustrated, angry one is, he or she does not vote for a party he/she doesn't like.

Now, the argument is probably that Republican candidates have been able to achieve some separation from the dismal ratings of the national party. I don't doubt that that may occur, to an extent.

That's why I contrasted the current negative ratings of Republicans with the ratings of Democrats and Republicans in previous wave elections, and noted the likelihood that Republicans' national negative ratings will make it easier to rile up one's base. As Democrats pound away on the national level at Republicans who are more disliked and distrusted, especially among the Democratic base, Democrats are likely to see their enthusiasm gap close, and some wavering, hand-sitting voters return to the fold.

Essentially, the separation that individual candidates may be able to achieve may be mitigated or overwhelmed by a negative national antipathy towards their return to power.

Posted by: associate20 | October 4, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Kevin_Willis at 10:57 AM

OK, but if the ratio is really 35X - then how is it that Obama - freshman Senator - was able to raise so much money


It had to come from somewhere. Also Hillary ran 3 campaigns in 10 years - all filled with cash. That money had to come from somewhere.


The democrats have been beating up the Republicans with a money advantage.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 4, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

@wbgonne: "'I suppose the argument would be that outsized corporate influences will end up favoring one class of entity (the corporations) over another (individual citizens).' -- Duh."

Well, wb, I wish I was as smart as you, and, rather engage in conversations with others, that I could just snipe at how stupid and ignorant people who disagree with me are. While I would never state, outright, how much smarter I am, in comparison, I would suspect it would obvious from the context. /snark

Alas, I am not as smart as you, so I may occasionally say (or write) things in an attempt (which may fail) to clarify my thinking, for myself or (if, for some reason, they should be interested) others that are obvious to you and should not be openly stated by anyone (or so you may believe), unless they wish to publicly advertise their ignorance.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 4, 2010 11:08 AM | Report abuse

To liberals/progressives who want to be comforted, exclusively, by like minded others in a closed setting, all who let vent of conservative opinion are, by definition, "trolls".

I am what libs/progs call right-wing. Some call me a "wingnut". I believe I am in the mainstream of American ideology. Most evidence points in that direction. Of course libs/progs are in complete denial of this.

But, a "TROLL" is in the eye of the beholder. Those who lie prostrate at Obama's feet and proclaim him their "ONE" look a lot like trolls to me.

They are Obamaton trolls.

Posted by: battleground51 | October 4, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

the money advantage is from millions of $50-$100 contributions not from hundreds of thousands undisclosed corp contributions that R buds on the SCT enabled, slight difference. I have personally given 5 separate $100 contributions to 5 different D Senate campaigns and to the DSCC like many of my friends to try and make up for the millions being funneled from corporations and unlike how Rick Perry is sucking up millions in cotributions from his buds who are simultaneously receiving state contracts with tax dollars. Slight difference which you certanly wouldn't comprehend.

Posted by: leichtman1 | October 4, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

@associate20: "But, historically speaking, they are unlikely to actually make those gains via a wave, "

Agreed. I think predictions of a wave should be heavily caveated. Often what is big and bright and loud in the heat of the moment--ala news coverage, protests--crumble under the weight of history.

November will tell the tale. I'm expecting both sides to be claiming victory, while both being disappointed that it didn't break their way more (although more than a few Democrats will be celebrating that it wasn't as dire as so many had predicted).

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 4, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

When the Obamaniacs were raising about a gazillion dollars to buy the election of 2008, the liberal media cheered him on. They claimed his money was clean and his donors pure of heart.

Now Republicans are outscoring the Obamacrats in the money game and it is a purely evil, conspiracy theory.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm!

Posted by: battleground51 | October 4, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

battleground that is a completely childish post. In otherwords the 45-50% of this nation who disagree with you and support the POTUS are trolls. Kind of egotistical of you don't you think. I don't call R apologists like you anything more than wrong and uninformed, like I would say of a R earning $25,000 a year who pays no federal income tax whining about how their taxes have gone up and how we need to provide more tax cuts for Paris and Lindsay.

Posted by: leichtman1 | October 4, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Obama and his main squeeze, Nancy Pelosi, are to blame for the deluge of cash donations into Tea Party/Republican coffers, 100%.

It is entirely the fault of Obama and his 'crats. They have made it happen.

In 2008, conservatives were down in the dumps. George Bush turned out to be a RINO, the media had the anti-Republican propaganda volume turned up to a deafening roar, Bush and that other famous RINO had teamed up with the evil rummy, Ted Kennedy, to push an AMNESTY for outlaw "immigrants" down our throats, gas prices were high, and then the Republican establishment tried to force the king RINO of all time, John McCain, off on us for president.

It's not that Obama won so much as it is how badly Republicans blew it. In retrospect, how could Obama have lost?? It was fate.

But, having the ObaPelosicrats in complete control was a godsend to conservatives. It was like a vitamin injection. It was like waking a slumbering giant and filling him with a terrible resolve.

You'll have to wait until November to see how this turns out.

Posted by: battleground51 | October 4, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

leichtman1; Read this carefully:

A "TROLL" is in the eye of the beholder.

This means anyone can define the word troll. Even you.

I'm probably looking pretty trollish to you right now.

Posted by: battleground51 | October 4, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

"If Dems don't get absolutely crushed in the elections, there will be a lot of egg on a lot of faces: What if the electorate is so volatile right now that professional prognosticators really have no idea what's coming?"
---------------------------------------------

That was certainly the case in 2006. I actually made a spreadsheet in '06 to average all the race ratings from Cook, Rothenberg, Sabato, et al and although the average of all their predictions did outperform any single analyst three weeks out from the election and produced a meta-tossup column that split cleanly down the middle on election day, they still ended up being significantly biased toward Republicans in that case, both individually and collectively.

I'm doing the same thing again this year BTW, but here again it's predictive value will be heavily dependent on just how wrong they are. There seems to be a bit of a herd mentality at work -- no doubt they read each others stuff -- so it wouldn't surprise me a bit if they were all off in the same direction again. The question is, which direction?

Based on what I was seeing right as of Saturday, if the pundits are more or less dead on the money this year -- and by that I mean Democrats and Republicans each win most of the races collectively leanded their way and the tossups split pretty evenly -- I'd expect Democrats to lose somewhere between 25 and 30 House seats. If they end up being off in Democrats' favor as they were biased toward Republicans in 06, we'd be talking Republican takeover with room to spare. But if they're off in Republicans' favor again, we could be talking net losses in the low teens.

Posted by: CalD | October 4, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

"Dems cautiously optimistic...about not getting absolutely wiped out: Jonathan Martin offers the most comprehensive look I've seen at all the reasons Dems think there's been an uptick in their fortunes."
-----------------------------------------------------------

I've been saying for months that reports of the Democrats' demise could very well end up being somewhat premature. And sure that's easy enough to write off as partisan bravado, but there was actually reasoning behind it and the reasoning was this:

- The Republican party has long since become hostage to its most extreme factions, who exercise control of their caucus with an iron fist and brook no dissent from any member.

- While the American electorate may still be a long way from ready to follow liberals and progressives to the gates of hell, we've also long since overshot the point past which they were really willing to follow the radical right.

- The political realignment that began in 2006 rightly should have begun circa 2002 but was artificially postponed by the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks, which had the effect of making right-wing crazy-talk sound a lot more reasonable for a while -- sure, they may be paranoid schizophrenic but people were really out to get us. Republicans of course took this as a mandate to behave even crazier still.

- With all the economic pain in the country right now and people looking for someone to blame, voting out all the bums in congress was bound to sound like a good idea in concept... right up until the bulk of the electorate started tuning into the election, which typically happens during a 4-5 week period between mid-September and mid-October, and finally taking a sober look at just how crazy some of the ~other~ party's bums are.

- So in much the same way that New Jersey always flirts with Republican presidential candidates in the spring before breaking their hearts once again in the fall, I've kind of been expecting the Republicans' bandwagon to start running out of steam right... about.. now.

Don't get me wrong, I still expect Democrats to get a spanking at the polls as the president's party does in virtually every mid-term. But candidates matter, campaigns matter, incumbency matters and Democrats generally have better candidates, many of whom are incumbents. They're in for some tough races for sure but if they run good campaigns there's no reason why a lot of them shouldn't get reelected.

Ans as always, if you're reading the Politico that's no one's fault but your own.

Posted by: CalD | October 4, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse


Double Posted: Ethan2010 | October 4, 2010 8:55 AM

...and WE still haven't got to the bottom of the Chitcago-Administration sewer as to who said what to whom, when, where trying to deliver favorable appointee to Senate seat! Wow the end of back-stage-underground-behind-the-scenes-dirty-dealin' wouldn't it be loverly?

Posted by: CalD | October 4, 2010 12:49 PM

...just a short trip to the wood-shed and a two minute time-out, eh cal? That'd be OK with you, wright? How about this, WE the People and US of America: Promise to gird up, activate OUR gravitas, and clean some clocks, some closets, and some yards in De noviembre...

Posted by: RichNomore | October 4, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

...yeh Cal, there are a lot of hostages at stake here, you are wright about that, but it isn't in the realm you are dreaming of.

Born to run...
The Fix is IN, DCNN Proves
Every day in every way...
the Demothugs are now running as fast as they can away from themselves...
Donna Bazaille (on CNN, Sunday Morning), Serial Global Groper (Al Goreleoni's) Campaign Advisoooor (2000), says the elections(2010, stupid) will hinge (or un-hinge) on which side can more successfully convince the voters it didn't listen to the people least. If you follow that, you understand why WE had 8 more years to prepare for the Mayhem now being waged on America by a apostate gang of invaders from Chitcago-Land now camped round-about OUR Hill and House, intent on bringing an end to the Engine of Prosperity that fueled a un-precedented rise to prominence in the world (whether one thinks this is a good or bad thing, pretty much frames the political landscape today). The side one takes on this single issue may decide not only your personal fortune and future, but the future and fortune of America for Generations to come. So what would the sultans of despair replace that Engine with? A pedal-powered, flatulence heated, GM-Yugo Hybrid, recycled from habitat for D**b*sses Jimmy Cartier's, tune-in, turn-down(or downturn) your thermostats, and enjoy hostage-land, while hugging a tree and kissing a rock, ears to the ground, shoulders to the wheel, noses to the grind-stone. Yeh, let's not turn back the clock, it's OUR economy and WE need recovery now, not promises and excuses for promises broken! Mr. First-Ever Obama can stay awile, but the rest of them must go...

Posted by: RichNomore | October 4, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

...yeh Cal, there are a lot of hostages at stake here, you are wright about that, but it isn't in the realm you are dreaming of.

Born to run...
The Fix is IN, DCNN Proves
Every day in every way...
the Demothugs are now running as fast as they can away from themselves...
Donna Bazaille (on CNN, Sunday Morning), Serial Global Groper (Al Goreleoni's) Campaign Advisoooor (2000), says the elections(2010, stupid) will hinge (or un-hinge) on which side can more successfully convince the voters it didn't listen to the people least. If you follow that, you understand why WE had 8 more years to prepare for the Mayhem now being waged on America by a apostate gang of invaders from Chitcago-Land now camped round-about OUR Hill and House, intent on bringing an end to the Engine of Prosperity that fueled a un-precedented rise to prominence in the world (whether one thinks this is a good or bad thing, pretty much frames the political landscape today). The side one takes on this single issue may decide not only your personal fortune and future, but the future and fortune of America for Generations to come. So what would the sultans of despair replace that Engine with? A pedal-powered, flatulence heated, GM-Yugo Hybrid, recycled from habitat for D**b*sses Jimmy Cartier's, tune-in, turn-down(or downturn) your thermostats, and enjoy hostage-land, while hugging a tree and kissing a rock, ears to the ground, shoulders to the wheel, noses to the grind-stone. Yeh, let's not turn back the clock, it's OUR economy and WE need recovery now, not promises and excuses for promises broken! Mr. First-Ever Obama can stay awile, but the rest of them must go...

Posted by: RichNomore | October 4, 2010 2:23 PM | Report abuse

...yeh Cal, there are a lot of hostages at stake here, you are wright about that, but it isn't in the realm you are dreaming of.

Born to run...
The Fix is IN, DCNN Proves
Every day in every way...
the Demothugs are now running as fast as they can away from themselves...
Donna Bazaille (on CNN, Sunday Morning), Serial Global Groper (Al Goreleoni's) Campaign Advisoooor (2000), says the elections(2010, stupid) will hinge (or un-hinge) on which side can more successfully convince the voters it didn't listen to the people least. If you follow that, you understand why WE had 8 more years to prepare for the Mayhem now being waged on America by a apostate gang of invaders from Chitcago-Land now camped round-about OUR Hill and House, intent on bringing an end to the Engine of Prosperity that fueled a un-precedented rise to prominence in the world (whether one thinks this is a good or bad thing, pretty much frames the political landscape today). The side one takes on this single issue may decide not only your personal fortune and future, but the future and fortune of America for Generations to come. So what would the sultans of despair replace that Engine with? A pedal-powered, flatulence heated, GM-Yugo Hybrid, recycled from habitat for D**b*sses Jimmy Cartier's, tune-in, turn-down(or downturn) your thermostats, and enjoy hostage-land, while hugging a tree and kissing a rock, ears to the ground, shoulders to the wheel, noses to the grind-stone. Yeh, let's not turn back the clock, it's OUR economy and WE need recovery now, not promises and excuses for promises broken! Mr. First-Ever Obama can stay awile, but the rest of them must go...

Posted by: RichNomore | October 4, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

...yeh Cal, there are a lot of hostages at stake here, you are wright about that, but it isn't in the realm you are dreaming of.

Born to run...
The Fix is IN, DCNN Proves
Every day in every way...
the Demothugs are now running as fast as they can away from themselves...
Donna Bazaille (on CNN, Sunday Morning), Serial Global Groper (Al Goreleoni's) Campaign Advisoooor (2000), says the elections(2010, stupid) will hinge (or un-hinge) on which side can more successfully convince the voters it didn't listen to the people least. If you follow that, you understand why WE had 8 more years to prepare for the Mayhem now being waged on America by a apostate gang of invaders from Chitcago-Land now camped round-about OUR Hill and House, intent on bringing an end to the Engine of Prosperity that fueled a un-precedented rise to prominence in the world (whether one thinks this is a good or bad thing, pretty much frames the political landscape today). The side one takes on this single issue may decide not only your personal fortune and future, but the future and fortune of America for Generations to come. So what would the sultans of despair replace that Engine with? A pedal-powered, flatulence heated, GM-Yugo Hybrid, recycled from habitat for D**b*sses Jimmy Cartier's, tune-in, turn-down(or downturn) your thermostats, and enjoy hostage-land, while hugging a tree and kissing a rock, ears to the ground, shoulders to the wheel, noses to the grind-stone. Yeh, let's not turn back the clock, it's OUR economy and WE need recovery now, not promises and excuses for promises broken! Mr. First-Ever Obama can stay awile, but the rest of them must go...

Posted by: RichNomore | October 4, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Double posts appear to be a server problem...

Posted by: RichNomore | October 4, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Yah. I've noticed that the server tends to do that when you hit submit button 4 times.

Posted by: CalD | October 4, 2010 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company