Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Tumultuous Tuesday: Winners and Losers

Forty-eight hours removed from one of the wildest days in politics in recent memory -- we have taken to calling it "Tumultuous Tuesday", it seemed like the right time to look back on what transpired and pick a few winners and losers from the day.

As always, we try to avoid picking the most obvious winners and losers, preferring instead to choice some of the best and worst that you might not have thought of (we hope!).

Our picks -- developed through conversations with roughly a dozen strategists in the two parties -- are below. Your thoughts are welcome in the comments section.

WINNERS

Joe Lieberman: With state Attorney General Dick Blumenthal running for Senate in 2010, Lieberman's strongest potential challenger is off the board -- unless, of course, Blumenthal loses this fall. As we have written before, it is hard to see how Lieberman can win the Democratic nomination but Blumenthal's candidacy raises the possibility that the Independent Senator will be able to co-opt at least some Democratic votes in the general election.

White House Political Operation: Say what you will about the White House's involvement in 2010 races -- it has been at times heavy handed -- it is clear that this Administration has decided to be an active player in key contests rather than a passive presence. And, when all the calculations are made about Tuesday, the White House operation comes out ahead. While the White House didn't push Sen. Chris Dodd (D) out of the race, they moved quickly to replace him with Blumenthal who is clearly the stronger candidate. In Colorado and Michigan, the White House maneuvered to preserve the party's fading chances of holding the governorships -- a not inconsequential move given redistricting on the horizon in 2011 and the fact that both states are likely to be competitive at the presidential level in 2012. Sen. Byron Dorgan's retirement is clearly a blow but the White House clearly came out ahead in the up/down measurements of Tuesday's events.

John Hoeven: It may be somewhat obvious to include the North Dakota governor on this list but Dorgan's retirement proved that Hoeven is among the luckiest politicians in the country. Hoeven had privately voiced a desire to serve in the Senate but clearly didn't want the fight that running against Dorgan or Sen. Kent Conrad (D) would entail. And now, assuming he runs, he is likely to waltz into the Senate -- a rare occurrence saved for the likes of Evan Bayh in 1998 among others.

Chris Murphy: The second-term Congressman from Connecticut had a problem. He wants to be in the Senate but there was no obvious path open to him until Dodd decided not to seek re-election. Now, with Blumenthal running in 2010, the path is cleared for Murphy to consolidate support as the leading Democratic candidate to challenge Lieberman in 2012. He's not likely to have the nomination to himself but he is now at the front of the line -- a remarkable ascent in just three years time.

Political Reporters/Junkies: The 2010 midterms were already an embarrassment of riches for anyone who loves campaigns. But, the flurry of retirements on Tuesday suggest that we are headed for a very unpredictable next ten months. Rejoice!

Linda McMahon: With Blumenthal now installed as the clear favorite to retain Dodd's seat for Democrats, look for Republicans to be more open to the possibility of nominating McMahon and her VERY deep pockets. While former Rep. Rob Simmons (R) is likely to run stronger against Blumenthal in initial trial heats, it's hard to see how a candidate with his profile -- former Member of Congress during the Bush Administration -- winds up beating the Democrat. McMahon's candidacy has always represented more of a risk for Republicans but it now be a risk they are willing to take.

LOSERS

Scott McInnis: The former Republican Congressman in Colorado was an even-money bet (at worst) to oust Gov. Bill Ritter (D). But, with Ritter out and popular Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper very likely to run, McInnis' chances are reduced considerably. The political environment in Colorado remains volatile and Hickenlooper has never been exposed on a statewide level so all is not lost for McInnis, however.

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee/Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee : The chairs of the DCCC and DSCC -- Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.) and Sen. Bob Menendez (N.J.) -- saw their jobs get much more difficult on Tuesday. While the race-by-race level stuff hasn't changed, the big picture isn't good for the campaign chiefs trying to raise money, recruit candidates and convince wavering incumbents to stay put.

Harry Reid: With Dodd gone, the Nevada Democrat is in the crosshairs -- even more than he was before his colleague from Connecticut stepped aside. National Republicans will go all out -- and then some -- to beat Reid and now their time and money will be less distracted. Also, even if Reid manages to win in November, he will almost certainly lose the 60 seat, filibuster-proof majority that he enjoyed in this Congress, making it far more difficult to pass the Administration's legislative priorities.

Chet Culver/Ted Strickland: A cold chill almost certainly went down the spines of the governors of Iowa and Ohio when they heard about Ritter's retirement. Both Culver, in Iowa, and Strickland, in Ohio, find themselves in positions similar to Ritter -- once considered unbeatable they have seen their state's faltering economies (and their responses to it) erode their popular support. Do one or both men reconsider their re-election plans as a result?

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 7, 2010; 4:18 PM ET
Categories:  Governors , Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Salazar out in Colorado Governor's race
Next: Sarah Palin and the first 2012 Republican proving ground

Comments

Distractions, distractions (it doesn't help that there were actually MORE than 58 times he referred to his (bi)sexuality -- I am already up to 73 -- gotta eat dinner now and watch Jeopardy, but I will be back ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 8, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

While I am putting together that list -- much longer, of course -- with all of his posts referring to his (bi)sexual partner(s):

"Razorback - If telling it like it is about those Wal-Mart clodhoppers makes someone unhappy, so be it! That inbred crowd of BREEDING and eating machines provides the best excuse I have ever heard of for a literacy test for voting. Before leaping to these sows defense, please, head down to your local Wal-Mart and check out some of these "babes". The notion that they have anything to do with this country makes one shudder. That some like minded sow like Palin will get them off their lumpy chocolate smeared couch to vote ought to frighten the devil out of everyone! They may succeed in electing Palin. What's next, though? Lifetime welfare for them and their brood of many fathered brats? Free Bon-Bons for life? 24-7 Soap's, and NASCAR races and "cage fighting" for the slobbering fools that compose the "males" of that crowd? Maybe government subsidized 50 caliber rifles for deer hunting? How about stripping U.S. citizenship from anyone "brown"? The crowd you hold up for public display and worship are the ill bred failures of life, the genetic dead ends that parasites like Dobson and the rest of the Fundimentalist crowd could not exist without, the brain dead cannon fodder that allow for the folly of war, the mob that storms a jail and hangs an innocent man, burns a woman at the stake because she is different, the brats that bully our brightest and best children in schools. These are your Wal-Mart moms or the broods or BREEDERS of them. And you, with a straight face, can sit there and defend them, warn us about somehow offending these drooling oafs?"

Posted by: mibrooks27 | September 9, 2008 4:06 PM

(Emphasis Added)

Posted by: JakeD | January 8, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

dcgrasso1:

No. But I also have asked Moonbat to stay away, however, and in this very thread and you claimed that I “NEVER” have.

broadwayjoe (since you asked for the "evidence:, and I am the Devil’s Advocate here, this is like killing two parrots with one stone):

PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 1

(1) “I run a Yahoo group for parrot owners in this part of the country” (see also #6 below)

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 31, 2009 5:15 PM
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/fix-picks/fix-pick-gersons-sage-advice-o.html

(2) “Just replaced the keyboard on my partner's laptop, after my cockatoo tore up the one that it came with.”

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 12:11 AM

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/twitter-time/to-twitter-or-not-to-twitter.html

Posted by: JakeD | January 8, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

(3) “But if you think cats and dogs have it bad, you should see what it's like for parrots. Please consider a donation to The Oasis in Arizona.”

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 19, 2009 3:37 PM

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/the-line/friday-senate-line-stability-r.html

(4) “It's obvious none of you have ever owned a parrot, or you wouldn't be comparing them to zouk. Parrots are smart.”

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 23, 2009 2:33 PM

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/morning-fix/062209-morning-fix-the-politic.html

(5) “One of the reasons I like parrots is that they don't use euphemisms. “

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 26, 2009 4:56 PM

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/the-line/friday-line-primary-colors-1.html

Posted by: JakeD | January 8, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

(6) “I manage a yahoo mailing list for people in my area who own parrots.” (Similar to his 9:01 PM post on the instant thread)

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 29, 2009 5:42 PM

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/hall-of-fame/fix-political-hall-of-fame-the.html

(7) “Hey nodebris, I'll thank you to use mynahs for comparison. I'm the proud companion of nine of the colorful moochers and let me assure you that parrots are a lot brighter than any GOP troll.
I could play GOP talking points to my macaws and they could do a better job of recitation and invention than the goops on here.
One of my cockatoos can actually composes music. She understands scales. She can IMPROVISE. You won't see a GOP troll doing anything like that with words, not ever.”

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 20, 2009 11:39 PM

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/steele-borrow-a-page-from-the.html

(8) “I have parrots, birds with the intelligence of small children, and I've seen birds (African Greys) with the intelligence of five-year-olds. No law prevents their killing and there is no punishment for those who neglect them to death. Any argument based on human life being more valuable even before the awakening of self-awareness I hold as beneath contempt. Speciesism is just racism in more general terms.”

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 6, 2009 1:10 PM

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/morning-fix/080609-morning-fix.html

Posted by: JakeD | January 8, 2010 4:44 PM | Report abuse

(9) “Construction of my house in the city of Cần Thơ in the province of the same name in Việt name began on the numerologically felicitous date of 9/9/9. I'll be living in palatial luxury with my partner, our parrots, two servants, and lots of friends …” (BONUS “living with a man” reference)

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 24, 2009 4:28 PM

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/ma-senate-patrick-to-name-kirk.html

(10) “I had a Congo Grey once, the only bird I ever had who died. Wheezing late one afternoon, dead a few hours later. That's how it is with birds, they mask their illnesses until it's too late to save them. VERY smart bird, actually composed sentences. You should probably know about Irene Pepperberg and her Grey Alex, the book is "Alex and Me" and I had the honor of meeting her at a signing.
I have three macaws (Harlequin, Scarlet, Hyacinth), two cockatoos (both hybrids), two Caiques (google them), a Meyer's Parrot and a small conure. One of the cockatoos exhibits the intelligence of a four-year-old child, he's with me at the moment, refuses to talk but, well, I have less complicated relationships with most humans.
Import of parrots has been illegal since 1990, I think, the CITES treaty that gives me such headaches taking my parrots abroad. Last time I was there we headed straight to Hanoi to talk to the CITES administrator for the whole country, nice guy, scrupulously honest. Anyway wild-caught parrots aren't pets.”

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 2, 2009 11:29 PM

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/morning-fix/morning-fix-an-olympic-bounce.html

(11) “I'll thank you not to insult the intelligence of parrots by comparing them to that drooling nincompoop JakeD who thinks that a state with fewer people than Seattle is "the largest in the union."

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 7, 2009 2:20 PM

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/morning-fix/morning-fix-paging-doctors-and.html

Posted by: JakeD | January 8, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse

(speaking of liars, with honesty in short supply, cont.)

(12) "Bird brain" is hardly an insult to someone who has parrots.
My birds can let themselves out of their cages.”

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 7, 2009 2:47 PM
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/pawlenty-to-iowa.html

(13) “What babble! Elitism, spinelessness, hard work, free enterprise ... my cockatoos make more sense than that.”

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 7, 2009 3:51 PM

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/most-important-number/the-most-important-number-in-p-74.html

And my own personal favorite:

(14) “I have a counterexample for you: parrots. No arboreal bird has to worry about being tracked by their droppings, it falls from the canopy and to the ground, so defecation is all but insensible .. yet a parrot can learn not to poop in the car. I take my cockatoo on long drives, he holds his poop .. hold him out the window and plop! he's been saving it all along.
And, one data point: never knew a beast who voted Republican.”

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 16, 2009 5:23 PM

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/white-house/why-health-care-will-pass-and.html

Next up, all the posts where he claims to have lived with a man (not even including the instant thread where he posts about BOTH his parrots and his sexuality ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 8, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

I'd like to thank DDAWD for that refreshingly candid post on the whole "flaunting" thing.  On a forum where liars dominate and honesty is in increasingly short supply, a piece of candor like this is literally precious.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 8, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler, I will take your word for it that you did not use that term. I distinctly recall seeing it on this board, though, because I recall being upset that it would be used. Perhaps someone else asked if you use it. At any rate, as I said, I will take your word for it, and apologize for the accusation.

Posted by: dcgrasso1 | January 8, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Dgrasso: I have never once on my life referred to heterosexuals as breeders, not here, not elsewhere, not in print, nor aloud. Moreover I have excoriated other gay men who used that term or other expressions if bigotry. I figured you had mr confused with someone else, this confirms it.

Double standards aren't my thing.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 8, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

I say: "Bring on the filibuster!" It will bring into the open that the GOP is interested in nothing but obstruction. It will also test the Dems: Will they allow the GOP to dig themselves into the ground, or will they cowtow to the GOP, just to shut them up?

Posted by: GordonsGirl | January 8, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Jake, I would respectfully request that you impose the same logic you've used to discover that "Noacoler" is the same person as ChisFox8, SeattleTop, and other monikers. Have you employed the same algorithm to see if "Moonbat" is the same person as King of Zouk, snowbama, etc.? Gosh, they sure sound like the same person is writing all those posts.

Could it be, maybe, a personal vendetta? Don't you think that for the sake of consistency you should try this, and if it is the same person, call for him to stay away/banned permanently too?

Otherwise, I'd say you'd be open to a valid charge of hypocrisy.

Posted by: dcgrasso1 | January 8, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Chris:

I wouldn't assume that Hoeven's path to the Senate is quite as clear as you evidently do. With Earl Pomeroy taking a pass (a good decision on his part, he can hold the House seat but wouldn't win the Senate seat against Hoeven), if Heidi Heitkamp gets in, the Senate race will not be a walk in the park for Hoeven.

Heitkamp is the strongest candidate the Democrats can put up, and it isn't difficult to imagine a very compelling campaign that portrays sending her to Washington and leaving Hoeven in Bismarck as a win-win for North Dakota voters.

Posted by: leuchtman | January 8, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Now, watch this drive ...

Posted by: JakeD | January 8, 2010 9:57 AM | Report abuse

dcgrasso1:

Please see my 11:04 PM post where I say that "ANYONE" who has been banned should kept away for good. Besides, we have no evidence that Mr. "Moonbat" is the alterego of any previously (and some would say wrongfully) banned posters. He should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

This is America. We're not communists, are we?

Posted by: JakeD | January 8, 2010 9:55 AM | Report abuse

There is one clear winner here that wasn't mentioned here is North Dakota Lt. Governor Jack Dalrymple. If Hoeven runs and wins this senate race, Dalrymple walks into the governorship for 2 years without winning that election, now that's a winner! John Hoeven, a popular governor with a 74% approval rating and no real top Democrat to run in Dorgan's stead gives Hoeven a waltz into the US Senate.

Also, Chris Murphy had better worry about 2010. Sam Caliguiri is going to run a very strong race and may just beat out Murphy in 2010. Now, if Caliguiri beats Murphy, he may well run against Lieberman in 2010. Rell would be a strong favorite if she decided to make that race. Think on it.

I agree that makes Linda McMahon a winner. I do not agree that Conn. will now automatically leave Democrats to spend less money in Conn. Linda has unlimited pockets and could make Blumenthal spend lots of money to win in Conn. If McMahon wins the nomination, Republicans will have more money to spend around the square though, as they won't have to put any money into Conn. and McMahon could spend $50-$100 million without blinking an eye. The Repblican party wins if McMahon is the Conn. nominee, and she should be.

Posted by: reason5 | January 8, 2010 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Noacoler, with respect, I also recall a few times when you referred to straight people as breeders. I can't bring up specific times, but I recall it at least twice. I do appreciate the fact that you responded to me with grace and dignity. And I do agree that it's certainly politically germane in some discussions, and I also agree that homosexuality has been used as a political weapon by the right (as has the funding of education and other programs for the disabled).

Ddawd, you made some extremely good points. Thank you.

AND JAKE: I find it rather interesting that you call over and over for one person who's been banned, to keep away for good. I notice that you have NEVER made the same statement in regard to another poster who repeatedly returns after being banned, who 98% of the regulars who post here (the 2% being you and 37th-- who I personally think is making a real effort to contribute constructively, even if I don't agree with his opinions, and occasionally Dottydo and Armpeg) agree is INFINITELY more offensive.

Posted by: dcgrasso1 | January 8, 2010 9:23 AM | Report abuse

Chris,
Will you please stop referring to the 60 vote majority as a "filibuster-proof majority." While technically accurate, it seems to me no matter what side of the isle it's on 65 or 70 is a more realistic "filibuster-proof majority" number. Further, there are 58 Democrats. The other 2 on which the Democrats rely are clearly free agents and they obviously have some free agents of their own.

Posted by: unchurch1 | January 8, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

Then, when faced with the exact number of times he has mentioned his sexuality instead of his birds, he denied yet again and called ME the liar.

Posted by: JakeD | January 8, 2010 9:09 AM | Report abuse

But, I'm not the one who "assert[ed] that anyone who presents personal information online must be presumed a liar or fool or both. I have noted that I've administered online forums in the past and that's as personal as I get". Nor did I (falsely) claim if one were to go "through the old posts you would see that I really barely ever mentioned this".

Posted by: JakeD | January 8, 2010 8:35 AM | Report abuse

margaret: well played, madame.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 8, 2010 8:08 AM | Report abuse

What if your hypothetical homosexual said "My boyfriend and I are moving to Connecticut to vote for McMahon."

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 8, 2010 7:32 AM | Report abuse

Well, let's not have a double standard here. It's easy for even well intentioned people to fall into that trap. MIA, I'm sure you've mentioned a wife, I'm pretty sure I've mentioned a gf, plenty of people have made mention of a hetero relationship. CF8 has mentioned a gay relationship. Nothing wrong with that. Zook has probably brought this up at least a hundred times more than CF8 has.

I do think there is some level of latent discomfort in a lot of people towards homosexuals. Which is the sort of thing that may lead to an applied double standard. I'm a lot younger than Mark and I think I had some of that feeling myself earlier on in my life. Yeah, I was always in favor of gay marriage, but I was also one of those "it's ok to be gay, but don't flaunt it" people; even though "flaunting" it meant talking about a date or mentioning a same sex partner or so forth, things we accept from heterosexuals without a second thought. A guy might say "my wife and I were out shopping for a new couch..." or he might say "my boyfriend and I were out shopping for a new couch..." A lot of people would consider the second phrase flaunting homosexuality. I know I did at one point. I had a good professor in college who was openly gay and talked about some of these issues. And moving to New Orleans, which has a vibrant LGBT community really opened my eyes to a lot of these issues.

Not really sure where I'm going with this, but CF8's disclosure of homosexuality has not been a source of disruption on this board, not even close. The issue is with racists like zook and jaked who find homosexuality as a source of scorn and are content to pound away at this so called point.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 8, 2010 6:17 AM | Report abuse

So much for skipping my posts ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 8, 2010 1:22 AM | Report abuse

July 1 and July 7, no more. All the rest are same-page google hits, moslly Kirk rumors.

Thought you were the big google guru, Jake.

(slaps forehead)

Oh, you're lying. Of course!

Posted by: Noacoler | January 8, 2010 12:59 AM | Report abuse

Getting him banned again = priceless

Posted by: JakeD | January 8, 2010 12:57 AM | Report abuse

From Google search:

CF8's "parrot" references = 14
CF8's references to his sexuality = 58

Posted by: JakeD | January 8, 2010 12:41 AM | Report abuse

Thanks for clarifying, Mark. Apologies fir my presumption but I think if you went back and "cruised" through the old posts you would see that I really barely ever mentioned this. Fact of the matter us that it's not something I relate strongly to or passionately identify with, quitevthe opposite. Hell, I identify more with owning parrots than living with a man. Oh dear another revelation (take note, zouk).

Posted by: Noacoler | January 8, 2010 12:34 AM | Report abuse

dcgrasso1, thank you - your note appeared after I had finished posting mine.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 8, 2010 12:26 AM | Report abuse

I do not think sexuality, yours or anyone's, is shameful. I do not think it is my business, either. I also think there are times when disclosing one's sexual preference is politically relevant; for instance as it relates to a discussion of homosexual marriage and adoption and the personal experiences of those affected directly by discrimination. And then there are the other times.

Cast that as you will. My homosexual friends, and first cousin, have never had cause to doubt my friendship or loyalty, nor I theirs. When I was a teenager and even into my early twenties I talked about my heterosexual life unbidden. There came a time in my twenties when it occurred to me this was too much information to inject into unrelated discourse, or as an ice-breaker with complete strangers. Perhaps that is just my age showing. It certainly has been the lesson of my experience.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 8, 2010 12:24 AM | Report abuse

I don't recall how the subject came up save that it had to be in some political context, but it was a passing remark and unrepeated.  The only "over and over" was from he who obsesses over it.  Of course it's politically germane, what with one party using bigotry to enhance voter identification.  And I would consider bringing in a child's disability to be a much more intimate confidence than the personally trivial but politically salient fact of being gay.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 8, 2010 12:23 AM | Report abuse

Noacoler,

Re your post at 11:12 to Mark_in_Austin, I strongly doubt that Mark is either elderly or living a sheltered life. Nor do I believe he thinks that being gay (or lesbian) is something to be ashamed of, or something to hide.

Rather, it's that someone's sexual orientation is neither pertinent to the point of the blog, OR of interest to anyone else. (Except those who make a point of using nasty implications in their posts-- I don't need to name anyone here.)

If there is a given point to be made by mentioning your status, such as if we were discussing same-sex marriage laws in the various states, fine. I mention my own personal situation on occasion when posting to make a point (such as my daughter's mental disability, which I've mentioned in the past). But if personal status has nothing to do with the subject under discussion, then it doesn't need to be dragged into the conversation over and over.

I wish you much happiness in your private life. However, I really don't have much interest in the sex lives of ANY other person posting on this blog. And I think Mark was trying to say pretty much the same thing.

Posted by: dcgrasso1 | January 8, 2010 12:05 AM | Report abuse

Come to think of it, how many people on this blog do we know:

travel plans
menu preferences
workout routine
reading list
retirement view
sexual preference
race bigotry
etc.

Get the picture?

Posted by: Moonbat | January 7, 2010 11:51 PM | Report abuse

even if Reid manages to win in November, he will almost certainly lose the 60 seat, filibuster-proof majority that he enjoyed in this Congress, making it far more difficult to pass the Administration's legislative priorities.

==

And to think someone gets paid by a major newspaper to write this pap.

The Democrats have only had a filibuster-proof majority by salving the narcissistic needs of Sen. Lieberman (listed above as a "winner" and the fact that his career is over is added as a parenthetical afterthought) and the DINO me-too conservatism of Nelson.  They haven't had a useful majority.  And they still have plenty of time to overturn the filibuster rule and rule by fiat.  How's minority veto working for California?

Besides, Republicans have so overused the filibuster that and Democrat can point out that his opponent is a member of the hold-breath-till-blue party and gain lots of votes on that alone.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 7, 2010 11:49 PM | Report abuse

Has one single person on this blog revealed their sexual preferences other than cf? Do you like them blond? Skinny ? Well dressed? A little heavy? Big hair? Etc?

Nope. Not a person.

The dude has no sense of what to share and what is yours. Typical.

Prattle on loser. Why do you think banning was invented just for you?

Posted by: Moonbat | January 7, 2010 11:29 PM | Report abuse

I am not a PC wimpering sop like most of you.

==

No you're an intrepid freedom fighter in a Gundam powered exoskeleton, administering frontier justice, defeating the villains and getting the girl.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 7, 2010 11:19 PM | Report abuse

In case you forget.

This blog is all about cf and drivl.

Dance with the one that brung ya.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 7, 2010 11:19 PM | Report abuse

Jake has a point. One day he and 37 were the only ones posting here--something like 23 straight Jake/37 posts, a record for sure. If that isn't blog ownership, what is?

I'm going to check out whether Texas can catch up. Out.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 7, 2010 11:17 PM | Report abuse

Texas coming back!

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 11:14 PM | Report abuse

Mark_in_austin, if you think that revealing oneself to be gay is divulging some sort of intimate personal confidence, you must not only be elderly but have led a shockingly sheltered life.  And if you think it's something to be ashamed of, I honestly feel sorry for you.  That's not an elegant put-down, it's a sincere statement.  Haven't you ever been to a gym?  Probably half the men around you were gay.

Get to know some young people.  Attitudes have changed a lot.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 7, 2010 11:12 PM | Report abuse

I am not a PC wimpering sop like most of you.

Today Barry realized for the first time that a bunch of loons want to kill us. Duh. Where have you been Barry? Fight back wus.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 7, 2010 11:07 PM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade:

ANYONE who has been banned should not be allowed to re-post again. It's "my" blog after all ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 11:04 PM | Report abuse

@Joe - That's right, it was Russert. He was correct. The race was effectively over at that point. I was delighted when I first heard HRC proposed as SoS and feel she has been a fresh breath of air in the position. Anyway...

I assume that Zouk will keep returning and need to be banned. It reminds me of every spring when ants discover there's food in my place. No solution but pesticide.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 7, 2010 10:58 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_Austin:

One of those 27 times had to be when Congress was still in session. If I can track that down, I will let you know.

It looks like Alabama's going to be the winner tonight : (

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 10:44 PM | Report abuse

M-I-A, more or less co-sign. I think folks are frustrated but the sociopaths who actually show up at these teabagger events seem to be the same ones who attend Hannity's freedom concerts. We also saw them in 2008 at the "PUMA" rallies...and the gun shows off the interstate. I have to rely on those at ground zero who report on the baggers like Janeane Garofalo. When the Baggers are actually interviewed they rarely discuss "tax protesting," which they insist is their organizing principle.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 7, 2010 10:43 PM | Report abuse

"I recognize that one has to do serial banning, but Zouk just stepped over the line again. What a sorry joke of a person.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 7, 2010 10:19 PM | Report abuse"

I agree. See Moonbat at 10:13PM. The desire of Chris Fox to tell us more than we want to hear about his personal life does not excuse the demeaning name calling and slur.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 7, 2010 10:39 PM | Report abuse

Late last night I suggested that the solutions posed by the tea people were ludicrous but their frustration was understandable. Chris Fox disagreed and suggested their motivation was essentially a combination of no taxes and white supremacy. BWJ, after seeing your link, I am far more inclined to believe this, at least of the so called leadership cadre. I do not run into many racists in my personal and professional life - only one that I know of. I do run into many folks who are frustrated and disheartened, of course. So I may have attributed less base motives to teapeople than fits the facts.

Jake, I read your responses on the issue of whether a Prez can call a special session during a lawful called session. I cannot tell if we agree. Obviously, Congress can set it's own sessions under the Constitution AND the Prez can call a Special. To me, the proper construction would require that the Prez can call a Special to convene only when a lawful general session is in recess or adjournment, but we agree that there has never been an occasion to decide such a conflict.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 7, 2010 10:32 PM | Report abuse

Blade, I may not have it quite right but I do recall that it got real silly and Tim Russett had to call a halt to it, declaring BHO the winner. But that's water over the dam. HRC has turned out to be a fine Secretary of State despite what this blog's previous "video" suggested.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 7, 2010 10:31 PM | Report abuse

All I ask us we remove drivl and ped and get back to an intellectual blog, not an overtly feminist simpering emotional one.

You know. Like before the common era.

Common meaning base and anti intellectual. Like drivl and cf.

How hard is that?

Posted by: Moonbat | January 7, 2010 10:27 PM | Report abuse

CF8 reminds one of herpes. No matter what measures you take, it keeps coming back. Ever more virulant.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 7, 2010 10:20 PM | Report abuse

I recognize that one has to do serial banning, but Zouk just stepped over the line again. What a sorry joke of a person.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 7, 2010 10:19 PM | Report abuse

Reminds us of the Dem primary when the media kept telling us BHO and HRC were running neck and neck months after BHO had, for all practical purposes, won mathematically. There's little factual basis for the Dems-in-trouble narrative.

===

That's a fiction, Joe. The primary narrative was that even before the TX and PA primaries, that Clinton had lost and should just gracefully depart the race. One must note that Hillary won a string of primaries after Wisconsin, but a comeback was improbable by then. Of course, Obama's candidacy was improbable as well. In particular, I recall Obama having been declared the nominee once the results of the Indiana primary were known.

With regards to the winners, the list is good with one big fat exception. Lieberman is almost universally reviled by now. Republicans and Democrats finally have one thing to agree on this year. They don't heart Lieberman.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 7, 2010 10:18 PM | Report abuse

This blog has turned into some warped perversion on Groundhogs day. It is the same 8 or 10 libs dumping the same tired story day after day with no influx of reality or CHANGE.

I am pleased that it intersts this little fiefdom, but the appeal to the general public is sinking like a rock.

Cilizza. Look at your unique visits count since you let drivl and chrissuxcox takeover. They have run off just about every
sentient being.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 7, 2010 10:13 PM | Report abuse

The answer is...Allen Iverson.

Seriously, if everyone expressing opposition to racism, intolerance, and teabagism posted here is to be banned on the pretext they are a reincarnation of a poster (CF8) banned a year ago, that's pretty sad.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 7, 2010 10:12 PM | Report abuse


"broadwayjoe:

Now, you are not answering my questions to you?"

Oh no, it's robojake!

Posted by: drindl | January 7, 2010 10:05 PM | Report abuse

What was the question?

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 7, 2010 10:01 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe:

Now, you are not answering my questions to you?

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 9:59 PM | Report abuse

One poster baled out Tea Party President Robertson regarding his spellin' error:

"He didn’t spell it [the slur] wrong. That’s how you spell it with a Texas accent." LOL.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 7, 2010 9:57 PM | Report abuse

Really wish I hadn't read the comments in that article.

What a beer-drinkin' fool

Posted by: Noacoler | January 7, 2010 9:46 PM | Report abuse

No surprise that you list political reporters as "winners"!! It's just a game to you. I used to support the media but you have all gotten so awful and pathetic that I am disgusted.

Posted by: bowmanrand1 | January 7, 2010 9:34 PM
____________

Reminds us of the Dem primary when the media kept telling us BHO and HRC were running neck and neck months after BHO had, for all practical purposes, won mathematically. There's little factual basis for the Dems-in-trouble narrative.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 7, 2010 9:45 PM | Report abuse

d, re the teabaggers I'll see you Glenn Beck and raise you...Dale Robertson, the President and Founder of the Tea Party.

Multiple outlets this week posted pictures of this "tax protester" with his iconic sign. Only problem is he misspelled his favorite racial slur. Used "ar" instead "er." Oh well.

So much for the tired narrative that the tea baggers aren't raci-. Well, you know. :)

Robertson in all his glory:

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2010/01/04/racist-idiot-top-tea-bagger-cant-spell-even-spell-n-word/

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 7, 2010 9:38 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, a nightmare.

He'd be crying sans Vaporub.

Racists belong in prison.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 7, 2010 9:35 PM | Report abuse

"Tumultuous Tuesday"?? Really?? Chris, you are such a Tool!! Three Dems retire, and two of them result in a net plus for the Dems and the media goes insane, echoing the bogus story that the Dems are dropping like flies, in deep doo-doo, running for the exits, etc. The retirements of Republicans outnumber Democrats but that just gets mentioned in passing in all the stories if at all.

No surprise that you list political reporters as "winners"!! It's just a game to you. I used to support the media but you have all gotten so awful and pathetic that I am disgusted.

Posted by: bowmanrand1 | January 7, 2010 9:34 PM | Report abuse

Her's your teabag leader:

'Today on his radio show, Glenn Beck wanted to discuss the census. “Apparently the census has come out,” he said. Beck’s co-host then chimed in, “Yeah and there’s a little confusion because there’s three boxes you can check if you’re a certain race. … I don’t know what the race is because there’s three different terms for them. Black, African-American, or Negro. Beck launched into a tirade against “African-American”:

BECK: African-American is a bogus, PC, made-up term. I mean, that’s not a race. Your ancestry is from Africa and now you live in America. Ok so you were brought over — either your family was brought over through the slave trade or you were born here and your family emigrated here or whatever but that is not a race.

Previously, Beck has said that he doesn’t have “a lot of African-American friends, and I think part of it is because I’m afraid that I would be in an open conversation, and I would say something that somebody would take wrong, and then it would be a nightmare.” And recently on his Fox News program, Beck hosted a group of black conservatives and complained that some of them refer to themselves as “African-American.”

sick and hateful.

Posted by: drindl | January 7, 2010 9:19 PM | Report abuse

'Added winner:
Jake--for taking ownership of a major newspaper's blog. Hall of Famer this year for sure.

Added loser:
Rasmussen polls (totally discredited by politico. com this week)'

yep. talk about a free ride...

Posted by: drindl | January 7, 2010 9:12 PM | Report abuse

Well, the "I" part of "we" are not Communists. Care to answer my question now?

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 9:09 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, broadwayjoe. I find myself in august company!

I wish we could get rid of Traitor Joe now instead of waiting for 2012.

The post before yours suggests that too much free time is more spiritually corrosive than too little could ever be.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 7, 2010 8:24 PM
_________

We Laminates won't forget that how Loserman snookered Ned last time. It won't happen again. Some of the states (I think Pa. is one) have "sore loser" rules to prevent what Loserman did (lose the primary to Lams and then comeback as a socalled independent in the general). Conn. should think about enacting something.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 7, 2010 9:03 PM | Report abuse

Broadwayjoe: there is little on this green earth more tiresome than the Dual Identity Mystery. I elect to shed no light, and further assert that anyone who presents personal information online must be presumed a liar or fool or both.

I have noted that I've administered online forums in the past and that's as personal as I get. I'm certain that if I revealed my employer that JakeD would start sending emails to my boss. I know his type, a classroom snitch who reflexively sucks up to authority. "our gracious host" (gag)

Pretty clear though that the trolls aren't content with free rein to troll, they want to be exempt from contradiction. I don't wonder.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 7, 2010 9:01 PM | Report abuse

"This is America. We're not communists, are we? Posted by: broadwayjoe"

Only because in 30 seconds you can only get in so many other attributes, like liberals and socialists and nazis and so on.

If they had a sixty second attention span they would probably remember and we would be.

Posted by: ceflynline | January 7, 2010 9:00 PM | Report abuse

@Jake (of Jake's Place):

We have no evidence that Mr. "Noacoler" is the alterego of any previously (and some would say wrongfully) banned posters. He should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

This is America. We're not communists, are we?

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 7, 2010 8:43 PM | Report abuse

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/retirement-paradox-whats-strategic-for.html

Interesting take on the pro-cyclical strategy for the individual politician vs the counter-cyclical one.

My friend is making me dinner, so I'm heading over to her place, so no more detail from me. I'm huuuungry.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 7, 2010 8:42 PM | Report abuse

Hi, broadwayjoe. Did you see Mr. Cillizza's admonitions re: banned posters?

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 8:27 PM | Report abuse

Your winner/loser list is interesting, but problematical. I've been hearing the sound of a big stampede toward 2010 in the last few days, but I think it's All Hat and No Cattle. Republicans? I don't think so. No positives to offer; remain very unpopular. "Tea Party?" You'd think so, listening to their right-wing conservative promoters, but they've done nothing, stand for nothing. Not very bright, scary. The Dems? Hmm. Well, Obama's about to get a big victory with the health care bill, he sounds tougher these days, the economy's getting better (could be our best summer and fall in years coming!) The next person elected to Congress, I bet, will Democrat Coakley from Mass. Dem seats in Congress at risk, yes (but they could win a bunch, too).
Big winner: actually, President Obama.

Posted by: dudh | January 7, 2010 8:24 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, broadwayjoe. I find myself in august company!

I wish we could get rid of Traitor Joe now instead of waiting for 2012.

The post before yours suggests that too much free time is more spiritually corrosive than too little could ever be.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 7, 2010 8:24 PM | Report abuse

Added winner:
Jake--for taking ownership of a major newspaper's blog. Hall of Famer this year for sure.

Added loser:
Rasmussen polls (totally discredited by politico. com this week)

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 7, 2010 8:20 PM | Report abuse

Winners

Noacoler
BHO
Sheldon Whitehouse
Janeane Garofalo
"The Situation" from Jersey
Legendary journalist Charley James

Losers
37
Joe Loserman
Teabaggers, birther, deathers, and tenthers
Von Brunn
The cast of MASH

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 7, 2010 8:03 PM | Report abuse

Here, you can add up "all the money in the world" (using today's conversion rates for ease of estimating) but it's a lot:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply#Money_supplies_around_the_world

Connecticut's General Fund budget for FY 2010 is $17.375 billion. So, I figure she wouldn't need more than $17 trillion to get all that done.

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 7:51 PM | Report abuse

37th:

I agree it is serious, and very a troubling indication of what's in store.

WhatHeSaid:

"All the money in the world won't save her from a 'smackdown.'"

So, what you are saying is that if she doubled the lanes on I-95, granted free tuition, room and board at State colleges for every 4.0+ GPA resident -- personally guaranteeing the entire Connecticut state and local budgets for four years -- promising to suspend all property, sales and income tax, she still wouldn't be elected?

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 7:37 PM | Report abuse

I find it extremely troubling that Obama initially did not want to say the Fort Hood shooting was terrorism - but now we know that the shooter was in contact with Al Queda in Yemen.

Then Obama called the Detroit Bomber an "isolated extremist"


NOW what is going on here ??


Is Obama INTENTIONALLY LYING TO US ???


OR does Obama just not have the story right?


Im not sure which is worse - but Obama appears desperate to downplay the terrorist threat.


That is really serious.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 7, 2010 7:31 PM | Report abuse

I find it extremely troubling that Obama initially did not want to say the Fort Hood shooting was terrorism - but now we know that the shooter was in contact with Al Queda in Yemen.

Then Obama called the Detroit Bomber an "isolated extremist"


NOW what is going on here ??


Is Obama INTENTIONALLY LYING TO US ???


OR does Obama just not have the story right?


Im not sure which is worse - but Obama appears desperate to downplay the terrorist threat.


That is really serious.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 7, 2010 7:31 PM | Report abuse

"Isn't picking winners and losers at this time a lot like picking the winner of a marathon a few steps after the gun goes off? It seems to me that there is quite a bit of race left to run before we get to winning and losing.

Posted by: amaranthpa"

That's why Chris C listed political junkies as winners here. We love this stuff. The losers being, of course, friends, boy/girlfriends, and spouses of said political junkies.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 7, 2010 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler is BANNED poster Seattle Top / GoldAndTanzanite / Chris Fox. Our gracious host, Mr. Cillizza, asked us (on the prior thread today) that we ignore or shame him for repeatedly coming back after being banned.

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Isn't picking winners and losers at this time a lot like picking the winner of a marathon a few steps after the gun goes off? It seems to me that there is quite a bit of race left to run before we get to winning and losing.

Posted by: amaranthpa | January 7, 2010 7:21 PM | Report abuse

At last one (1) real post

Posted by: Noacoler | January 7, 2010 7:19 PM | Report abuse

Linda McMahon a "winner"? In Connecticut?

All the money in the world won't save her from a 'smackdown.'

She calls herself a Republican, earns in excess of $500,000 a year, has a fortune in the hundreds of millions -- and takes corporate welfare from the taxpayers of Connecticut for WWE film and television production.

Commercials featuring her televised wrestling antics, plus mention of her financial contributions to Rahm Emanuel's Political Action Committee, should be enough to do the aging bimbo in.

Then there's the fact that she didn't even bother to vote in the 2006 Connecticut general election.

Posted by: WhatHeSaid | January 7, 2010 7:16 PM | Report abuse

Obama spent six months telling Al Queda that he was going to have a Surge in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Broadcast it - Speech at West Point.


So Al Queda went to Yemen, started recruiting in Africa - and organized the Fort Hood shooting and the Detroit Bomber - attacks both here in the United States.

Obama's John Brennen today said that Obama wants to stay one step ahead of Al Queda.

WILL SOMEONE PLEASE TELL OBAMA HE ISN'T ONE STEP AHEAD OF AL QUEDA, OBAMA IS 10 STEPS BEHIND..,,

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 7, 2010 7:06 PM | Report abuse

Why isn't he using a teleprompter any more? Maybe that's what the problem is.

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 7:03 PM | Report abuse

August 5, 2010 - Washington - Obama gave his 100th speech today on terrorism - still trying to get the speech right.


After the speech, given in the newly-named White Flag room of the White House, Obama admitted to CNN that he probably should have quit trying to get the speech right after 2 or 3 attempts.


Americans are still wondering if Obama believes anything he says, but the country is willing to listen to newer and newer versions of the terrorism speech.


Obama started off by calling the Detroit bomber an "isolated extremist," before admitting that the bomber was actually working with Al Queda AND the government KNEW before the failed attack that the bomber had had contacts with Al Queda.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 7, 2010 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Well, William Henry Harrison died only one (1) month after giving his Inaugural Address, but I'm not sure even that would be considered a "worse performance".

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Obama has really BLOWN IT


Obama spent the WHOLE YEAR thinking about how he was going to have CIVILIAN TRIALS and give the terrorists trials.


Somewhere, Obama took his eye off of the WAR WITH AL QUEDA


Obama was more concerned with RELEASING TERRORISTS FROM GITMO BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE WASN'T JUST RIGHT.

Obama's soft policy on terrorism is now in shreds.


The problem is - EVERYONE IN THE COUNTRY CAN SEE OBAMA'S SOFT POLICY ON TERRORISM IS IN SHREDS EXCEPT FOR OBAMA.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 7, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Obama spent half the year dithering on war policy in Afghanistan - and ended up with a war in Yemen, and Al Queda in Yemen sending off two attacks here in the US at Fort Hood and the Detroit plane.


Obama has tried to make the "right speech" on the latest attack - how many times?


Obama spent the whole year on the health care bill - taking his eye off the ECONOMY AND JOBS.


It's a complete disaster.


I can't think of a worse performance by any President in his first year outside of James Buchanan.


Obama is a mess.


Obama has actually hurt himself really badly by breaking many of his signature campaign promises - OBAMA HAS COMMITTED FRAUD AGAINST HIS OWN CAMPAIGN THEMES.


Can it be worse ? yes, it could be worse, but this is really, really bad.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 7, 2010 6:45 PM | Report abuse

The Truth about Politics in America: Political Education 101...Oct 29, 2009... Joe Lieberman's wife, who previously worked in communications & public for Pfizer Pharma & Hoffmann-LaRoch... This should spell the end of his connection with the Democratic caucus (with the pharmaceuutical co.,which will drive up costs ( This did not happen, Joe was able to get the public opt. dropped along with Sen Nelson.) for the Sen.heath care bill. Do we need friends like this in the Dem. caucus

Posted by: pace_coor | January 7, 2010 6:30 PM | Report abuse

The Truth about Politics in America: Political Education 101...Oct 29, 2009... Joe Lieberman's wife, who previously worked in communications & public for Pfizer Pharma & Hoffmann-LaRoch... This should spell the end of his connection with the Democratic caucus (with the pharmaceuutical co.,which will drive up costs ( This did not happen, Joe was able to get the public opt. dropped along with Sen Nelson.) for the Sen.heath care bill. Do we need friends like this in the Dem. caucus

Posted by: pace_coor | January 7, 2010 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Let's take a step back here :


This is what we have:


We have Obama getting a report last June from the Generals in Afghanistan telling him they need more troops.


What does Obama do?? He goes on a 5 month exercise in which the PREVAILING ATTITUDE IS OBAMA KNOWS BETTER THAN BUSH - THAT OBAMA IS SO SMART HE IS GOING TO COME UP WITH A BETTER MILITARY STRATEGY THAN BUSH.

But what happens?


First Obama comes up with a Surge which looks alot like Bush's Surge.


But MORE IMPORTANTLY - OBAMA SPENT THE ENTIRE SUMMER AND FALL BROADCASTING TO AL QUEDA WHAT WE WERE GOING TO DO IN THE WAR.

What did Al Queda do ???


Al Queda took the delay, took the time and came up with a STRATEGY TO DEAL WITH WHAT OBAMA WAS GOING TO DO, BEFORE OBAMA DID IT.


Obama even went to West Point to make a speech telling Al Queda his strategy.

Al Queda swung out of Afghanistan, swung out of Pakistan - and ended up in YEMEN - from whick they STARTED TO SHOOT AT US.


Fort Hood was NOVEMBER 5 - the Fort Hood shooter was in touch with Al Queda in Yemen.


The Detroit Bomber was in Yemen.


Obama's DELAY gave Al Queda the time to come up with a strategy to move to YEMEN -

Obama BROADCAST TO AL QUEDA WHAT WE WERE GOING TO DO.


The ENTIRE OBAMA SIX-MONTH REVIEW OF AFGHAN STRATEGY IS NOW IN SHREDS.


AL QUEDA HAS COUNTERED THE GREAT MILITARY STRATEGY OF OBAMA BY MOVING TO YEMEN.


And now the fight is here.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 7, 2010 6:14 PM | Report abuse

'While the race-by-race level stuff hasn't changed, the big picture isn't good for the campaign chiefs trying to raise money, recruit candidates and convince wavering incumbents to stay put.'

Another one that doesn't make sense - Rs are the ones having difficulty raising money and recruiting sane candidates. And wavering D incumbents? Would you care to name some?

Posted by: drindl | January 7, 2010 6:08 PM | Report abuse

'As we have written before, it is hard to see how Lieberman can win the Democratic nomination but Blumenthal's candidacy raises the possibility that the Independent Senator will be able to co-opt at least some Democratic votes in the general election.'

Not a chance. How you can put Loserman in the winner's column, when polls have just come out showing that he is universally despised by EVERY group in CT is beyond me. He has about a 15% favorability rating right now.

Posted by: drindl | January 7, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

I do not know what Dem. are worried about getting 60 Sen. in 2010 or 12, when we have Sen., like Lieberman , Nelson Baucus who have been bought & paid for by Pharma & Insurance Co.s. We would be better off with Filabusters 50 votes plus the vice president. We would not owe anything to any soon to be multi millionaire Sen.,s

Posted by: pace_coor | January 7, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Don't feel to sorry for Strickland. After the Republicans in the State Senate demonstrated a three year old's mentality ( I had started to use just three year old, but h..., they've had that mentality since Gilligan) Strickland can run on a friscal conservative's platform against Kasich, who, just to establish his bona-fides as asn unthinking Republican is talking about repealing the State income tax without finding replacement funding. Basically cutting the state's income by nearly half. Rhodes could get by with that nonsense because in his Day GM was still paying taxes.

Just being a democrat isn't enough to make you unelectable, the republicans have to actually find valid candidates, not just wives of WWF presidents.

Posted by: ceflynline | January 7, 2010 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Assuming that all these secret, back-room discussions were taking place for this time around, what would stop Sarah Palin from approaching Mitt Romney sometime this year and telling him that she's running in 2012 (and wants to pick him as her VP)? That way they don't shoot at each other and keep their powder dry for Obama-Biden. The downside is that he balks and spills the beans. That's not that bad, is it?

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Carroll Campbell is also a winner. He got Henry Brown to retire, and now probably has a seat in Congress next year. After Brown's weak showing last time, and his unhappiness in DC, it wsan't hard for a strong Republican to convince him to go.

Posted by: joeyjoejoe | January 7, 2010 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Hoeven's not lucky; he pretty clearly told Dorgan he was running, and Dorgan decided not to even bother defending the seat against him. They're friends, and don't want to compete with each other. Pomeroy not running is another sign that everyone knew Hoeven was planning to run ahead of time.

Posted by: joeyjoejoe | January 7, 2010 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Obama will not allow any finger pointing.

They all point to him.

Wake up Barry. We're at war. It is not some man caused overseas disaster contingency or whatever fake name you invented.

Now try to "rename" Open to cspan, pinOchiO.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 7, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA - TOOK A MAJOR HIT

Chris how could you leave Obama off the Loser list ????

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 7, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Linda McMahon is a winner?
Because Blumenthal is the opponent not Dodd?
What tha?

Connecticut is conservative as regards its Democrats (Dodd, Lieberman) and their tenure. Blumenthal's 20 years on the scene is a winner in a walkover.

Minnesota elected Jeese Ventura, but Connecticut will never elect Linda McMahon.
Not gonna happen.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 7, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Spelling and grammar and writing have never been Cilizzas strong suit.

Bobo Biden would not want to sully the family name with a probable loss. He will wait to run unopposed, the only path to victory for liberals in the Obama era.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 7, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

"Tumultous" -- should be "Tumultuous" in the headline.

Culver and Strickland don't seem to be in as much trouble as Ritter was. Even with Branstad now in the race for IA Gov., both races should be tight, but winnable for the incumbents.

Posted by: mnteng | January 7, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

I think the BIGGEST LOSER everyone is missing is Biden Jr. -- there's no Democrat running this year would be more of a referendum on Obama-BIDEN than Beau -- does he jump into this mess or play it safe and stick with his day job for now? Wasn't he supposed to be making his decision to run or not this month?

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

I can see why the CT GOP is pleased to let McMahon have the nomination. She'll lose, but she'll be self-funding and the GOP won't have ruined the prospects of any one with a legitimate future in CT government.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 7, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

The WHITE HOUSE moved quickly, or Blumenthal moved quickly, and they followed HIS lead?

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company