Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

Primary Day Primer: Your Guide to Key Races in 8 States

For political junkies, June 6 has been circled on the political calendar for months. Eight states hold primary elections today. There are important races for gubernatorial nominations in California, Iowa and Alabama, a contested Senate primary in Montana and a number of competitive House primary battles.

2006 Campaign Map
Interactive Campaign Map: More Election Data and Analysis.

All in all, it's almost too much of a good thing. There are so many good races out there and not enough time to give each of them their due. In an attempt to bring readers the essential, need-to-know information about today's races, The Fix is providing the primer below. Remember: This is not an attempt to catalogue every race on the ballot today, rather a look at the best of the best.

GOVERNORS

Alabama: After much sound and fury on both sides, it looks like the early favorites will win their parties' respective nominations. For Republicans, that's Gov. Bob Riley, who has faced down the primary challenge from former State Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore much better than expected. A poll released over the weekend by the University of Alabama-Birmingham showed Riley with a commanding 69 percent to 26 percent lead over Moore. For Democrats. Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley, the preferred candidate of the party establishment, has pulled away from former Gov. Don Siegelman (who's currently on trial for corruption charges dating from his one term in the governor's mansion). That same UAB poll showed Baxley with a 49 percent to 31 percent edge. Once considered a real pick-up opportunity for Democrats, the race has fallen off the radar screen in recent months. A convincing Baxley victory might change that but don't count on it.

California: State Controller Steve Westly and state Treasurer Phil Angelides are in a dead heat for the Democratic nomination. A Field Poll released last week showed Westly with a 35 percent to 34 percent edge over Angelides, down from the 37 percent to 26 percent margin Westly enjoyed in April. But we've heard (and the poll shows) that Westly has bounced back and most strategists inside and outside the state see the race as a jump ball. If turnout (as expected) is low, Angelides's support from the Democratic party establishment and organized labor could put him over the top. Republicans make little secret that Angelides is their preferred opponent against Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in the fall as he can be more easily cast as a traditional liberal Democrat.

Iowa: Secretary of State Chet Culver looks like the nominee for Democrats, although former economic development director Mike Blouin is within shouting distance, according to a poll released Sunday by the Des Moines Register. Culver, the son of former Iowa Sen. John Culver, led with 36 percent to 28 percent for Blouin and 21 percent for state Sen. Ed Fallon. Culver has led wire to wire, but most Democrats are not particularly enthused about his chances against Rep. Jim Nussle (R) in the fall. (The Iowa governor's race is ranked as Republicans' best pick-up chance in The Fix's most recent Friday gubernatorial Line.)

SENATE

Montana: State Auditor John Morrison has gone from shoo-in to heel in his Democratic primary race against state Sen. John Tester. Morrison was riding high until a story hit the papers regarding an extramarital affair he had and an investigation his office had conducted into a company with ties to his one-time paramour. Morrison's momentum seemed to slip away in the weeks following as concerns were raised that Democrats needed a ethically pristine candidate to take on embattled Sen. Conrad Burns, who faces a semi-serious primary of his own today against state Sen. Bob Keenan. Enter Tester, who, although being outspent, has pulled into a statistical dead heat with Morrison, according to a Mason-Dixon poll conducted late last month. Roughly one-in-three primary voters said the revelations about Morrison made them less likely to support him, while the rest said it was not an issue for them. The identity of the Democratic nominee may not matter much as the Mason-Dixon poll showed both men ahead of Burns.

HOUSE

California's 11th District: National Democrats have touted their chances of ousting Rep. Richard Pombo (R) since the start of the 2006 cycle. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has endorsed Steve Filson, a United Airlines pilot, although 2004 Democratic nominee Jerry McNerney, who was endorsed by the California Democratic Party, could well win the primary. Pombo is being challenged by former Rep. Pete McCloskey (R), who has centered his somewhat quixotic campaign on allegations of ethics improprieties that continue to shadow Pombo.

California's 50th District: No race has drawn as much national attention as the special election to replace imprisoned ex-Rep. Duke Cunningham (R). Democrat Francine Busby has taken advantage of a favorable national environment and the fact that her opponent -- Brian Bilbray (R) -- is a former member of Congress and a lobbyist, keeping this race much closer than the district's registration numbers suggest it should be. Bilbray has raised little money but has been bailed out by the massive spending of the National Republican Congressional Committee (estimated at $4.5 million). The independent candidacy of William Griffith, who has been endorsed by the San Diego Minutemen, further complicates Bilbray's winning equation. Even so, Republicans are cautiously optimistic about their chances here.

Iowa's 1st District: For months, conventional wisdom dictated that the Democratic primary in this eastern Iowa district was a two-man race between former Iowa Trial Lawyer Association head Bruce Braley and former state legislator Rick Dickinson. But it now appears as though 2004 nominee Bill Gluba is running stronger than expected -- thanks to name identification built up over his past runs for office. Should Gluba shock the political establishment and win the nomination, this seat would likely disappear as a pick-up opportunity for Democrats. On the Republican side, the race appears to be between state Rep. Bill Dix and Mike Whalen, who owns a chain of restaurants in the state. Former state GOP chairman Brian Kennedy's only hope is that voters who are disgusted with the back and forth between Dix and Whalen will choose him. The seat is being vacated by Nussle and currently ranks as the second most likely district to change party control in the The Fix's most-recent Friday House line.

Mississippi's 2nd District: Rep. Bennie Thompson faces his most serious reelection challenge since winning this seat in a 1993 special election, a challenge that comes in the form of state Rep. Chuck Espy. Espy is the son of Clarksdale Mayor Henry Espy, who lost to Thompson in the 1993 race for the seat, and he is the nephew of former 2nd District congressman (and Clinton administration Agriculture Secretary) Mike Espy. Despite that political lineage, Chuck Espy has not fulfilled expectations in the race. Thompson has effectively shut down Espy's money, making it extremely difficult for the challenger to compete on an even playing field with the incumbent. As of May 17, Thompson had raised $781,000 for the race and had $590,000 still in the bank; Espy had collected $225,000 with a paltry $5,000 left on hand. Republicans have no chance here in the fall.

New Jersey's 13th District: The elevation of Robert Menendez to the Senate opened up this northern New Jersey seat. The frontrunner is state Assembly Speaker Emeritus Albio Sires, who started aggressively raising money for the race long before Menendez was formally named to the Senate by Gov. Jon Corzine (D). Sires has the support of the local party organization in the district -- a key component in this district -- and has raised $1.2 million for the contest. Assemblyman Joseph Vas released a poll last month, however, that showed him with a two-point lead over Sires. Whoever wins today's primary will be the next congressman due to the strong Democratic tilt of the seat.

Check The Fix tomorrow morning for analysis on today's winners and losers.

By Chris Cillizza  |  June 6, 2006; 7:45 AM ET
Categories:  Governors , House , Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Gore Joins Calif. Special Election Fight
Next: Romney Goes to Bat for Same-Sex Marriage Ban

Comments

Busby has a shot in November. Its 6 months away and Bilbray now has to put his convictions out on the house floor. On top of that Griffith may come on stronger, he really didn't get much of a campaign going before the SE.

Posted by: Rob Millette | June 7, 2006 7:53 PM | Report abuse

People- it is one race in a heavily Republican district- this means nothing for the November elections- although, if the dems put up somebody who was accomplished more than a school teacher- they could have won this seat- and it is pretty pathetic that a former congressman only won by 5% over a school teacher- so you republicans, I wouldn't be jumping for joy

Posted by: Anonymous | June 7, 2006 12:50 PM | Report abuse

SW-

I am from Texas.

Too bad about Busby. It would've made great political theatre had she won.

Posted by: Will | June 7, 2006 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Good morning-
CA- Busby loses, Angelides wins, Pombo wins.

There is still the November general for Busby to retake CA 50 but doubtful. She could never crack 45%.

Posted by: RMill | June 7, 2006 7:07 AM | Report abuse

FYI for all those who think I'm nuts staying up this late to do this I'm at work don't get out till 5 AM so I've got plenty of time on my hands.

Posted by: Rob Millette | June 7, 2006 4:21 AM | Report abuse

Braley wins

Braley 10,254
Dickinson 9,365
Gluba 7,081
Heath 887

Posted by: Rob Millette | June 7, 2006 4:19 AM | Report abuse

66.2 in Busby down 4.8 the final push in on gentlemen (and ladies)

Posted by: Rob Millette | June 7, 2006 4:08 AM | Report abuse

51% in and Busby's down just under 5 points. We've probably lost this one. Darn. I'm exhausted. Good night everyone.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 3:12 AM | Report abuse

46% in and Busby's down by 5. It's about time for something to start turning around, or we've lost.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 2:57 AM | Report abuse

In MT, Tester still beating Morrison by almost 2-1. Tester still has more votes than Burns, who is getting a larger share of his party's votes.

No news in IA-1.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 2:54 AM | Report abuse

So 42% in and we're down 4.85 points. Not sure about this...

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 2:46 AM | Report abuse

You're not the Will in Seattle? Where are you?

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 2:43 AM | Report abuse

<5%

Posted by: Will | June 7, 2006 2:37 AM | Report abuse

Yeah I know, it would be very key. I'm totally unfamiliar with the patterns in San Diego, and I think when the media know that stuff, they tend to guard it carefully. The BoE people are usually too busy frantically trying to get everything done.

Bilbray's lead has gone up from 5.15% to 5.4%. Not exactly major movement. I should have known better and gone to bed early to get up early. It kind of amazes me that we can't vote electronically and have them all counted in 30-45 minutes. It's been 3.5 hours since CA polls closed and we're dealing with 35% reporting?? Nuts.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 2:35 AM | Report abuse

rats thanks for the info Sandwich wish we had a way to track that it could give an idea of which precincts were likely to help Busby and if they were still left out there.

Posted by: Rob Millette | June 7, 2006 2:30 AM | Report abuse

Correction: it should be public knowledge and readily accessible what the registration is by precinct. Knowing which ones have reported is what I don't know that there's any way to ascertain.

I took my pills for the night, I'm starting to get pretty tired...

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 2:29 AM | Report abuse

I don't think there's any way to find that out unless you know someone in the Board of Elections, Rob. Or a very knowledgeable, well connected reporter in the area.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 2:28 AM | Report abuse

Thanks for that SD TV link. It;s slowing my computer down further but it's helpful.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 2:26 AM | Report abuse

anybody know how to find out which precincts have reported in and the registration levels of each precinct?

Posted by: Rob Millette | June 7, 2006 2:21 AM | Report abuse

35% in Busby down by 5 Bilbray actually pulled away a little bit

Posted by: Rob Millette | June 7, 2006 2:17 AM | Report abuse

Looks like Angelides' lead has swollen very slightly to 4 points with 35% in.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 2:17 AM | Report abuse

SR-

I have no confirming source on that absentee claim besides http://www.redstate.com/ (great picture of Al Gore by the way, with 666 on his forehead, very subtle) which claims:

Update [2006-6-6 22:9:21 by Moe Lane]: Constant Reader Ender gives us this link, which is unofficially listing Bilbray as ahead in absentee ballots.

Where the "link" goes here: http://www.sdvote.org/election/congress.xml

which is what we are slobbering over.

Posted by: Will | June 7, 2006 2:08 AM | Report abuse

This is trending in the right direction. If Busby gains 1% with every 5% of the vote that comes in, she'd end up winning by 9.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 2:08 AM | Report abuse

5%!!!!

Posted by: Will | June 7, 2006 2:06 AM | Report abuse

Busby down by 5 that is

Posted by: Rob Millette | June 7, 2006 2:05 AM | Report abuse

30.2% in down by 5

Posted by: Rob Millette | June 7, 2006 2:05 AM | Report abuse

We don't know which 25% of the district it is. It could just as easily be that Busby is 6 points up in the other 75% of the district. And absentees favour Rs as I said. I'd rather be ahead than behind, but this is hardly over.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 2:05 AM | Report abuse

Busby will need to close faster than this... 25% in and she is down by 6.

COME ON.

Posted by: Will | June 7, 2006 2:02 AM | Report abuse

MT SEN:

Tester 17,873 (65.9%)
Morrison 7957 (29.3%)

Burns 12,970 (76.0%)
Keenan 3177 (18.6%)

27,000 votes cast in the Dem primary, 17,000 in the Republican one. That's 61-39 in a straight 2 way race.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 1:58 AM | Report abuse

thats another .4% gain in 5% more precints. This race is going to be interesting.

Posted by: Rob Millette | June 7, 2006 1:55 AM | Report abuse

Lead down to 6%... CA-50 just updated.

Posted by: Will | June 7, 2006 1:51 AM | Report abuse

things looking good for Tester and Lindeen in Montana. Will be interesting to watch both races come November.

Westly seems to be slowly gaining on Angelides and Busby is gaining on Bilbray. Gained .7% in the last 10% grouping.

Posted by: Rob Millette | June 7, 2006 1:50 AM | Report abuse

Check out this link if you want to track it more closely:

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/videostream/9331444/detail.html

Posted by: Will | June 7, 2006 1:50 AM | Report abuse

Well, with 25% in, it's now 50-44 for Bilbray; his lead is down to 6 points. The momentum may be in the right direction.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 1:50 AM | Report abuse

I have no idea, but that would tend to be good news as absentee ballots tend to lean Republican. Bilbray's been steady at 50-51% so far while Busby has been consistent at 43%. It looks like the 3rd candidate has managed to siphon some votes from Bilbray, but I'm not sure Busby has enough...still it's early and 80% is left to come in.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 1:48 AM | Report abuse

Redstate is reporting that the lead for Bilbray, the unofficial one with 20% in, is absentee ballots. Is there anyway you can confirm this?

Posted by: Will | June 7, 2006 1:46 AM | Report abuse

I'm not sure if they've gotten out of the absentee ballots or not. I wouldn't expect that high a % of them in a general, but it might be higher in the primary...

I just tried to post new IA-1 figures but my post was held. Basically there are 29,400 votes in now and Braley is 3.0 points ahead of Dickinson still.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 1:44 AM | Report abuse

Isn't that absentee ballots, Sandwich?

Posted by: Will | June 7, 2006 1:41 AM | Report abuse

CA-50: 20% in and Bilbray's up 7.2 points.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 1:36 AM | Report abuse

That's 37% for Braley and 34% for Dickinson. Gluba is at 26%.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 1:33 AM | Report abuse

Ah, I see Braley up 900 votes now in IA-1.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 1:32 AM | Report abuse

CA GOV: 21% counted, Angelides still up 3.

Looks like about 8.5 million ballots were cast in CA.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 1:30 AM | Report abuse

With 18% in, Angelides still 3 points above Westly.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 1:28 AM | Report abuse

With 13% of the vote in, Bilbray's lead over Busby is down to 7 points.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 1:26 AM | Report abuse

Braley gained 900 votes in Blackhawk County? Wasn't he down by 2200? Sounds like Dickinson pulls it out.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 1:24 AM | Report abuse

New Mexico's votes are apparently delivered by Pony Express.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 1:22 AM | Report abuse

Black Hawk County comes in big for Braley.

Braley 10,254
Dickinson 9,365
Gluba 7,081
Heath 887

Only Clinton County out as of 12:16 AM report

Posted by: RMill | June 7, 2006 1:22 AM | Report abuse

From my calculations of Montana's crappy site, Burns has 76% in his primary race, while Tester has 73% in his. But interestingly, there have only been 14,000 votes counted so far in the R primary compared to 20,000 in the Democratic one. Could that spell disaster for Burns?? (and I don't mean Montgomery...)

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 1:20 AM | Report abuse

Looks like Tester is beating Morrison almost 3-1 in MT. Wow. That seems shocking. The protest vote against Burns seems significant but not too substantial.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 1:17 AM | Report abuse

Dickinson ahead in IA-1 by 2,200 votes but Black Hawk COunty still not reporting. Dickinson won Dubuque County big, by 2800 votes and that is why he is in the lead. Black Hawk County is the big fish so it could eveaporate quickly. Looks like a long night in Iowa too.

Posted by: RMill | June 7, 2006 1:15 AM | Report abuse

AL Gov: With 97% of precincts reporting, there have been 456,474 votes cast in the R primary. With 96% reporting on the D side, there have been 454,850 votes counted. I guess it's evened out. But I would've expected far more R than D votes cast. Does AL still have a Democratic registration advantage?

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 1:14 AM | Report abuse

Ok, CA-50 still only have 57/500 precincts counted more than 2 hours after the polls closed. Maybe they are worse than AL.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 1:09 AM | Report abuse

Angelides is still up 47-44 with 13% of the votes in.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 1:07 AM | Report abuse

Ok, now I see that the CA-50 results on the main CA SOS page is Primary results...that blows...we're screwed. Bilbray probably won. I'm going to bed.

Why would the SOS put this page on the same page as the live feeds for the returns in governor's race???

Posted by: Greg-G | June 7, 2006 12:55 AM | Report abuse

Ok, now I see that the CA-50 results on the main CA SOS page is Primary results...that blows...we're screwed. Bilbray probably won. I'm going to bed.

Posted by: Greg-G | June 7, 2006 12:54 AM | Report abuse

Two Republican incumbent state legislators, one in each house, lost their primaries in Iowa: http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060606/NEWS09/60606039

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 12:54 AM | Report abuse

Whalen wins R nomination in IA-1, D nomination very close: http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060606/NEWS09/60606014

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 12:49 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 12:46 AM | Report abuse

IA-1 looks like Dickinson v. Whalen.

Still Culver for Gov.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 12:43 AM | Report abuse

CA-50, the page on the Secretary of State's homepage clearly states that the page I referenced is the site for today's election, along with the other 50+ primaries going on today. It has been updated since the polls closed.

I have no idea what the site you referenced is, but given that there is absolutely no results posted at this late hour, I don't think it's valid

Posted by: Greg-G | June 7, 2006 12:42 AM | Report abuse

See CA 50's comment. The AP is right.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 12:37 AM | Report abuse

Has anyone read the AP report on CA-50...it's wrong. It says that with 12% of the vote in Bilbray is up by 8%. The CA SOS says that with 12% in BUSBY is up by 1K. What gives????? RMill???

Posted by: Greg-G | June 7, 2006 12:36 AM | Report abuse

The numbers of votes, except comparisons between the D and R totals, aren't too important. It's the proportions--percentage point differences--that matter.

Anyone remember which district is Pombo's?

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 12:33 AM | Report abuse

Greg-G, I hate to break it to you, but the page you are looking is at is the CA-50 primary, not the special.

The link for the CA-50 special on the state's website is http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/Special/cd50/elections_cd50_genresults.htm but as you will see they have no results posted.

Posted by: CA 50 | June 7, 2006 12:32 AM | Report abuse

Make that Angelides up 3 points with 9% in.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 12:31 AM | Report abuse

CA GOV (D): Angelides is up 5 points now with 8% in. Westly may be gaining.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 12:30 AM | Report abuse

Angelides is up by 23K votes over Westley, and the Dems are up 40K votes over Arnold...not good news for the Terminator so far...

Posted by: Greg-G | June 7, 2006 12:29 AM | Report abuse

Angelides extending lead to 26,000 votes with 4.3% reporting statewide.

Posted by: RMill | June 7, 2006 12:27 AM | Report abuse

Good to have you reporting, RMill...IMHO, you should run this blog over CC any day of the week...

Posted by: Greg-G | June 7, 2006 12:26 AM | Report abuse

The report I've seen is just the CA Sec of State, no additional precincts have reported in about an hour:

http://vote.ss.ca.gov/Returns/usrep/5000.htm

But with 12% in, Busby is up by 1K votes, but Arnold is beating both Dem candidates by a wide margin in the county

Anxiously awaiting further results...but doesn't look good for Busby

Posted by: Greg-G | June 7, 2006 12:24 AM | Report abuse

AP called the Mississippi race for Thompson. Espy losing big with 47% in , 64% to 35% (down almost 14,000 votes).

Posted by: RMill | June 7, 2006 12:22 AM | Report abuse

CA 50, thanks for the SD County link, I wasn't finding runoff results on the state's page either. I see Bilbray up 7 points with 11% of the vote in, and he's winning the primary for November with 52% or so. Absentee ballots tend to lean Republican...let's hope this turns around...

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 12:22 AM | Report abuse

What we're seeing in CA is probably just absentee ballots so far.

I do have to retract my frustrated comment on AL though; Baxley has more votes than Riley even while winning her primary with 60% instead of Riley's 64%. More people voted in the Dem than Rep primary there. Interesting.

Looks like Dickinson is winning the Dem primary in IA-1, and Culver leads for Gov.

Montana's result site is truly awful.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 12:18 AM | Report abuse

Culver with a 3,800 vote lead with 67% counted

IA-1
Dem
Braley with a 300 vote lead over Dickinson with 70% counted
Rep
Whaley over 56% in 3-way has this locked up with 4,500 vote lead with about 6,000 left to count.

Only 36% reporting but Riley beating Moore in AL 2 to 1 and Baxley leading by nearly as wide a margin 61%-35% over Siegelman.

Tester is crushing Morrison in MT to challenge Burns. 33% counted, Tester up 28,657 to 15,932.

NJ-13
No contest, Sires up 2 to 1 over Vas with 65% in.

Posted by: RMill | June 7, 2006 12:17 AM | Report abuse

Not sure where your figure is coming from Greg-G. I haven't found CA-50 special numbers on the state's website.

On the SD County website http://www.sdvote.org/election/primary.xml Bilbray is up 8 points. I would point out that CA-50 is entirely within SD County.

Posted by: CA 50 | June 7, 2006 12:16 AM | Report abuse

In San Diego County that is though, but early returns still show Busby up by 1,000 votes

Posted by: Greg-G | June 6, 2006 11:49 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, Arnold is up about 10K relative to Angelides and Westley combine...BAD sign for Busby

Posted by: Greg-G | June 6, 2006 11:45 PM | Report abuse

Bilbray is up almost by almost 8 points in early returns in the special.

Posted by: CA 50 | June 6, 2006 11:43 PM | Report abuse

Angelides up 23K...6% in LA and 5.5% in San Diego

His SD returns a good sign for Busby

Posted by: Greg-G | June 6, 2006 11:42 PM | Report abuse

11:37 Ahnuld has been declared the winner in the Repub primary...

Just wait till November

Posted by: Greg-G | June 6, 2006 11:38 PM | Report abuse

With 3% of the vote in, Angelides is up 13K votes, with a pretty wide margin in early LA precincts...

Posted by: Greg-G | June 6, 2006 11:32 PM | Report abuse

Andrew, it's the CA Sec of State site:

http://vote.ss.ca.gov/

Shout out to Sandwich Repairman

No more precincts in yet...

Posted by: Greg-G | June 6, 2006 11:29 PM | Report abuse

What is the site where you are seeing: "With 12% of the vote in, BUSBY up by 1K votes!"

Posted by: Andrew | June 6, 2006 11:25 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, I meant Angelides...

With 12% of the vote in, BUSBY up by 1K votes!

Posted by: Greg-G | June 6, 2006 11:23 PM | Report abuse

Angelis by 6 in early returns, leads by wide margin in LA....

Posted by: Greg-G | June 6, 2006 11:18 PM | Report abuse

The polls have been closed for 3 hours and Alabama has just over 1/3 of the votes counted! Good thing this state doesn't have contested elections.

and the @#$% Nationals dropped another game to Atlanta...at least the Reds won their 6th in a row.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 6, 2006 10:58 PM | Report abuse

Just tryin to be helpful to my fellow political junkies!!

Incompetent AL seems unable to count 10% of their votes more than 2 hours after their polls closed.

In NJ, it's telling that so far, there have been 15,000 more votes cast in the Democratic Senate primary than the Republican one. This would tend to bode well for Menendez in November (not that Democrats' registration advantage in NJ is any surprise).

The Dem nomination for SD Gov. seems irrelevant to me. I don't know enough about the statewide races in NM to make heads or tails of them. No surprises there for House, Senate, or Gov. that I know.

I can't find anything from Mississippi for the life of me. Maybe Haley Barbour's white-hooded henchmen are gumming everything up.

Iowa and Montana results should be coming soon...

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 6, 2006 10:13 PM | Report abuse

Wow, Sandwich Repairman is Mr. Info

Posted by: Wells | June 6, 2006 9:10 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, SR, for all of the websites...I was just going to search the internet for them!

Posted by: Greg-G | June 6, 2006 9:02 PM | Report abuse

Sires winning Robert Menendez' old NJ-13 seat: http://www.nj.com/elections/electioncoverage/index.ssf

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 6, 2006 9:00 PM | Report abuse

Alabama results just starting.

Amendments (marriage is straight, earth is flat): http://www.al.com/election/coverage/index.ssf?amendments

Governor: http://www.al.com/election/coverage/index.ssf?state

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 6, 2006 8:23 PM | Report abuse

South Dakota results (whatever might be going on there) available here at 9 ET: http://www.sdsos.gov/results/RESULTS.HTM

South Dakota--Great Faces, No Abortions.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 6, 2006 8:19 PM | Report abuse

New Mexico results site: http://72.32.91.185/county0.htm

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 6, 2006 8:16 PM | Report abuse

California's site, with cool scrolling Java viewer: http://vote.ss.ca.gov/

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 6, 2006 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Here's Iowa's page; polls there don't close until 10 Eastern either: http://www.sos.state.ia.us/iowavotes/default.html

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 6, 2006 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Montana results should be available here at 10 ET, 7 PT: http://sos.mt.gov/ELB/elections/June6Primary.htm

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 6, 2006 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Polls close in a few minutes in AL and NJ. Anyone have good election result sites to check?

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 6, 2006 7:52 PM | Report abuse

KZ, if the costs of a war are impossible to know ahead of time, why did the Bush administration tell us it would cost $10 billion? So far, it's cost over $286 billion. Fuzzy math if you ask me. I guess that's why we have the biggest deficits and debt in US history. What's most telling is that you could make every cut proposed, and it really wouldn't save taxpayers a dime. Defense and Homeland Security are where the money is going, and Social Security hides the real depth of our annual budget deficits.

Federal revenues as a % of GDP are already at their lowest levels in 50-60 years; before we had many of the programs we do now. If you want to reduce the deficit (which I suggest doing before cutting taxes any further), you need to cut the Pentagon, which was bloated before it got a 50% budget increase from George W. Bush.

Who do I sue when someone pollutes my air? Don't I need to hire a trial lawyer to do that? Will I be able to afford one with all the awards and punitive damage caps the right wants to pass? Methinks this is not a very effective way to clean our environment.

If churches and private charities are so effective at combatting poverty and other social ills, why did so many people suffer in the Great Depression? We needed New Deal programs for very good, practical reasons.

People pay 6.2% of their incomes to Social Security, not 12%. Unless you make over $90,000 a year, in which case your tax rate falls as your income rises. A redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich. Eliminate the cap on income taxed for the program, and the tax becomes flat, and the program is solvent for the foreseeable future (standard 75 year horizon). The program is extremely efficient, spending under 1% on administrative costs. Anything private would cost many times as much for administration, not to mention the lost benefits.

The tax code is really pretty simple unless you're rich or a moron. It should be made fairer first and simpler second.

Bush said we were going to Iraq to take out Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. In 2004 after the elections, he admitted there weren't any. What kind of basis is this for a war costing upwards of 2100 American lives, 286 billion American dollars, and 15,000 wounded soldiers (not to mention the much higher number who will be permanently traumatized)? Never in US history had we cut taxes while at or preparing for war until 2003. Shocking stupidity. The dollar keeps falling because the world knows this administration has no intention of getting the deficits or debt under control. When the Euro was first adopted in 1999, it was worth about $.85 US. Now it's about $1.30. I don't think that's because Europe has done anything particularly right, it's because the US has done so much wrong.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 6, 2006 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Moral victories sure can raise a lot of money!! Millions to be somewhat precise.

Andy, yes, I think the close gubernatorial primary, as well as the independent candidate challenging Bilbray, should help tilt things in Busby's favour.

Busby's tactic is not quite the same one used by the NRCC in OH-6. In OH-6, the NRCC ran TV ads attacking a hopeless Democrat who'd gotten the 50 signatures to make the ballot as being "too liberal". It was a disingenuous move to try and fool Democratic voters into thinking Bob Carr was the frontrunner to vote for and keep Charlie Wilson off the ballot. It failed, of course. Busby is highlighting the 3rd candidate's right-wing credentials in hopes that he'll peel votes away from Bilbray. It's not so disingenuous really; it's raising a question for Republican(-leaning) voters of whether they want the putatively more moderate Bilbray or his more conservative challenger. Immigration is a huge issue in that San Diego area district, and if the right wing wants to send a message to mainstream Republicans by throwing the seat to Busby, so be it. It would hardly be the first time.

I don't see how anyone could accuse Jon Stewart of taking himself seriously either.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 6, 2006 7:06 PM | Report abuse

king of zouk-

"forgot the tax thing. I read a very interesting article from a U of MD economist saying that the AMT is creeping up in such a way that it will become a flat tax before long."

I read the same article. Interesting premise, though the AMT is politically dead. Couldn't find it in the WaPo archives. I read Redstate, Powerline, Steyn, Malkin, and Captain's Quarters and I would wager that it was on one of them. I also read DailyKos, though I seriously doubt that's where I found any support for AMT-as-Flat-Tax.

Posted by: Will | June 6, 2006 6:28 PM | Report abuse

King of Zouk-

"so you advocate eliminating the military and keeping everything else."

Absolutely not. I have no idea what in my post could possibly have made you reach that conclusion but it is utterly ridiculous. Your reading comprehension is extremely poor.

"Guess what - all health care depends on the rich and healthy to pay for the sick and poor. How does this negate my point. I simply stated that the consumer should be reinserted into the decision loop. but I pay insurance every month and have not been to the doc in a long while. where is this money going."

You missed the point. Though YOU might decide to pay insurance even if you do not need it, many people would opt out if they had the chance. The government takes that choice away from them because their involuntary participation in Medicare/Medicaid is NECESSARY to fund the very poor and the very sick who would not otherwise be able to afford insurance. Why would anyone insure someone who is extremely old/poor? The poor and old are less healthy than the rich and young and are also far more likely to NEED health insurance which means insurers must charge them more to get a return. And since these are the people least capable of paying for insurance in the first place they are the least likely to be insured at all.

If we put the consumers back into the decision loop they will make the perfectly reasonable decision that the poor/old/unhealthy are not worth subsidizing and will opt out of participation with these people.

That's why taking them out of the loop is so crucial; we need their involuntary participation to save lives.

You-as-anecdote does not dictate how all people will behave.

"eliminating social security would stop pols from raiding the fund."

If this doesn't win boneheaded statement of the year award I don't know what would. It would also stop "people" from "raiding" the fund IE: receiving benefits that they paid for, many people for decades.

If you have a problem with the "raiding" of the fund (which actually goes towards servicing our debt, a noble cause, in my opinion and mandated by law since excess revenues from taxes MUST go towards servicing the debt) then the solution is not the total abolition of Social Security but rather a managable FICA tax rate that actually applies to the amount used.

Since the baby boomers are about to enter benefit age any lowering of FICA will be temporary; you'll have to raise it shortly just to cover the costs.

What I would do (but it won't happen because it is utterly reasonable) is take off the cap for SS tax at 90,000 (which is ludicrous) and tax all income. Obviously the rate could be lowered from 9% (I think?) because you are drawing from a much larger pool of money. And the taxes generated from FICA should reflect the amount needed to pay out SS beneficiaries.

That is reasonable.

"it is very much like vouchers which are off limits these days. why?"

I was under the impression that vouchers were a state issue. Anyways, besides the GI bill, what horrible federal education expenditures are you so against? Federal grants? Federal scholarships so we can compete with the Soviets/Chinese/Enemy of Tomorrow? Why don't you itemize your complaints instead of just saying "Federal government should not be in education". Well, as a matter of fact, it makes up less than 10% of education, so what exactly is grinding your gears so bad?

"Drinking age laws - a national concern? not in my book. I would gladly pay a toll to avoid traffic."

At least we can agree on something. I at least recognize the possibility that some people cannot afford tolls.

"you quote many hysterical lines like women are better off before. this is just silly. and if you don't know why we are there by now, I will not be able to enlighten you."

Uhm, no. I quote perfectly available history of women in Iraq during Saddam and post-Saddam. Under Saddam there was no law forcing women to wear Burkas because Saddam was no friend to religious fundamentalism. Iraq was actually considered one of the more "western" middle eastern countries because of this fact.

Post-Saddam things have changed. Women now wear Burkas, not because it is law (yet) but because if they don't they might get kidnapped and have acid dripped on their faces. Ultimately Iraq will end up a Sectarian country under Shari'ah law, much like Iran and Saudi Arabia. If you think that's a good thing, explain why. If you think I'm making this up, read the following link from Kurdish Media (hardly friends of Saddam):

http://www.kurdmedia.com/news.asp?id=7197

Posted by: Will | June 6, 2006 6:19 PM | Report abuse

forgot the tax thing. I read a very interesting article from a U of MD economist saying that the AMT is creeping up in such a way that it will become a flat tax before long. I am willing to pay for my share of the services and then some since I am so well off. but I only want to provide for people who really need it. the churches and other like organizations do a very good job at making this distinction and charity is a good way to go. I don't begrudge an actual disadvantaged person getting help through the government (probably state not federal), but I think the bar for disadvantaged has fallen too low. I am very willing to pay for the military but not much else. And it would be nice if the people who got the help said thank you once in a while instead of more, more. I don't know enough about tax policy to say much more but I know I pay too much and they spend it on things I don't want. now you may not want the military but there is a thing called the common good and the Army certainly qualifies as this. not so much rock and roll museums and bridges to nowhere to pick out some funny cases.

TTFN

Posted by: king of zouk | June 6, 2006 5:42 PM | Report abuse

so you advocate eliminating the military and keeping everything else.
Guess what - all health care depends on the rich and healthy to pay for the sick and poor. How does this negate my point. I simply stated that the consumer should be reinserted into the decision loop. but I pay insurance every month and have not been to the doc in a long while. where is this money going. the insurance industry can figure out how to accomodate this problem. Very poor people can still get some coverage although it will not be as good. We just can't afford to cover everyone in a world class way. but cutting out alot of what doctors think is right and what the market will bear will help a lot. HMOs are often laughed at but they are a great step in the right direction for many people.
eliminating social security would stop pols from raiding the fund. you could still require participation but make the capital inheritable. a short term gap would be solved in the long run, instead of a long term gap getting worse and worse. I never said that I could get these passed. the GI bill is the only ed program with any record of success. it is very much like vouchers which are off limits these days. why?
Drinking age laws - a national concern? not in my book. I would gladly pay a toll to avoid traffic.
your stuff this far is valid for debate. your Iraq stuff is less so. you quote many hysterical lines like women are better off before. this is just silly. and if you don't know why we are there by now, I will not be able to enlighten you.

but it is a pleasure to encounter an honest debate for once on this site. Are any of my arguments convincing in the least? Is there anything I could have said that would have swayed you?

Posted by: king of zouk | June 6, 2006 5:28 PM | Report abuse

King of Zouk-

"How many casualties, how much will it cost - you must be joking to think these are available ahead of time."

I didn't say the numbers were available before hand, I said that's the kind of consideration that we should think about when preparing for war.

As for it being "unrealistic", you're just wrong. Military plans include casualty predictions. They also include contingency plans, based partly off casualty projections or unintended consequences. Our nuclear drops on Japan were predicated on an unwillingness to suffer predicted casualty rates.

Our current military project in Iraq is based off "forced protection" which essentially means every single soldier's life is the mission, as opposed to 200 years of American military tradition where an objective was the mission and soldier's lives were the means.

And that means every time we want to clear out insurgents we require overwhelming force... so as to reduce the amount of American casualties. Which means that is precisely the type of consideration that military minds are employing every single day in Iraq. Unrealistic? More like constant. You seem oblivious to that.

"It is actually much more simple than that - can we do it? Will it advance our global strategy (yes oil is important)? Is it worth it?"

My response to those: Can we do it? Unclear so far. The better question is, by the time all is said in done, will we have WANTED to? Saddam Hussein was a secular dictator in as much a fight against Islam as we were. By the time Iraq has a functioning government, women who would otherwise walk the streets Burka free will be covered head to toe -- or else they will get acid thrown in their faces. Iran will certainly benefit from this as the Suunis will be all but wiped out (in the political sense of non-participation, and in the real sense of being kidnapped in the middle of the night and executed) by a Shiite majority angry at years of minority Suuni rule.

Who does this benefit? Iran. Is that good for American interests? You tell me?

Will it advance our global interests (OIL)?

Well, as a matter of fact it doesn't. War in Iraq has driven the global price of oil. Iraqi production is still below pre-war levels. If this benefits anyone it is Iran (who we don't even get oil from) who can use Iraqi shortages to its own advantage. Politically this means bending us over backwards in the security council by stringing China and Russia along. A national embarrasment, if you ask me.

Even if i accept the premise that oil is a worthwhile cause for war, any objective mind would admit that it didn't work out in Iraq.

Is it worth it?

Not according to Americans. You are welcome to disagree. I'd love to hear you explain why it is worth it.

As for your cuts, looney they be!

"totally eliminate the Dept of Ed - a local concern."

Not remotely close to politically feasible. In any event federal education dollars account for 1/10th of the education budget; around 71 billion of the over 900 billion in education costs. The other 800+ billion is covered by state taxes. A local concern to anyone who is listening.

But let's talk about what really put the Education Department on the map. It was the GI Bill which ultimately paid for 8 million veterans to go to College, and the 1958 National Defense Education Act in response to the Soviet launch of Sputnik.

Now, I don't know about you, but I think sending 8 million American World War 2 veterans to college and combating the Soviet spacerace were worthwhile endeavors. You are welcome to disagree, sir.

Not that I should be arguing this with you, of all people, since your party has increased the ED appropriations by 30% since taking the executive branch in 2001. It's your President that is in love with Federal Expansion of the Education Department. Why?

"Privitize the retirement aspects of Social Security, turn over the insurance part to allstate."

Because we all love insurance companies. Politically unfeasible because it requires benefit cuts. Not to mention it's totally unworkable because the current system DEPENDS on the participation of people who have no "need" for social insurance. The socially secure subsidize the socially insecure. If you privatize it the socially secure have no incentive to participate and thus, the funding drops out. Have fun passing that one, guy.

"cut the guts out of the IRS and simplify the tax code."

In practice this means eliminating progressive taxation for a "simpler" solution but I want to hear it from your lips. Are you a flat taxer or "fair" taxer? I'd love to discuss the merits (or lackthereof) of both.

"Stop spending Federal money on local transportation, build toll roads and bridges."

But then how will the Federal Government force states to abide by drinking age laws? Pfft, I don't really care, actually. I support underage drinking and I love the luxury of toll roads. Be my guest on this one.

"reduce environmental regulations and let the tort system accomodate this."

The only "cut" would be the EPA presumably. Boy you'd really knock a dent in that 500 billion dollar Bush projected deficit by cutting the whopping 7.6 billion in total EPA annual requests.

I'm not going to get into the environmental regulation argument with you because it is unnecessary. I'll grant you the environment and the federal education budget and you are still well over 400 billion dollars away from a balanced budget.

"change health care to a portable system that is subject to individual decisions - not doctors and insurance companies."

See: Social Security. Health insurance is dependent on one section of the population (the healthy and rich) subsidizing another section of the population (the poor and unhealthy). Or, if you prefer generational conflict over class-warfare, the young vs. the old.

Once you eliminate the "incentive" of the rich/healthy/young from participating (by forcing them to participate through taxation) then they will simply stop. And the poor/unhealthy/old will be unable to cover the costs themselves and will... vote. Or die. Your proposal is implausible.

I eagerly await your response.

Posted by: Will | June 6, 2006 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Des Moines, IA -
"visit to www.chetnotstupid.blogspot.com to realize why Republicans would love a shot at Chet Culver. He is a less intelligent, even more politically tone deaf version of his father."

You should try visiting thomas.loc.gov to see why Democrats are eager to take on Nussle. I can't wait to hear him explain how he's going to bring the $400 billion yearly deficits to Iowa.

Posted by: bawbie in CR | June 6, 2006 4:48 PM | Report abuse

I advocated letting the tort system handle any problems. If you pollute my river upstream of my farm, I sue you for damages. I didn't say we should let corporations run wild and do whatever they want with no downside. I don't have all the answers but more regulations does not seem to work very well. Remember this was a way to cut government costs. We shift the burden onto the private sector. the trial lawyers will love it. I don't believe that factories pollute on purpose, they do it because it is the cheapest way to do their business. Adding in potential lawsuits adds to the cost and will effect the risk posture taken. Of course these methods already exist and the effectiveness may be questionable, but it is an idea that may pay off. a good case in point is logging. Privately owned land is handeled completely different than leased land.

Posted by: king of zouk | June 6, 2006 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, sorry if those last two sarcastic posts came out sounding snide. You've actually been arguing with me quite civilly. I just get amazed sometimes at the naive notion that corporations will do something that costs them money just because it is the right thing to do. The only exception I see is when it is in their PR interests to do so - and even in that case they are protecting their bottom line (from lost sales/boycotts, etc.).

George Bush asking industry nicely to cut down on their greenhouse gas emissions has exactly the same effect as me asking Bill Gates nicely to buy me a new car.

Posted by: B2O | June 6, 2006 4:10 PM | Report abuse

As an example, we've seen how wonderfully Bush's imaginary "voluntary" decreases in carbon emissions is working. Shockingly, a soulless corporation will only respond when prodded to by law. (not a surprise to most of us, yet some still imagine, or pretend to, that these "voluntary" safeguards will have any effect)

Posted by: B2O | June 6, 2006 4:04 PM | Report abuse

visit to www.chetnotstupid.blogspot.com to realize why Republicans would love a shot at Chet Culver. He is a less intelligent, even more politically tone deaf version of his father.

Posted by: Des Moines, IA | June 6, 2006 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Zouk:

"But you fail to mention that the environment is the cleanest it has been in 50 years. this trend continues. you talk about the process but not the results. It is not the regulation that is working, it is the technology advances."

And we all know that industry would have made the investment and implemented these technology advances spontaneously, out of their overriding social consciousness, right? The environmental regulations passed at the encouragement of the eco-lobby (which represents a fair portion of the American public BTW) were not the reason. Industry was "just about to do that on our own" every time they were mandated to, I'm sure.

Posted by: B2O | June 6, 2006 4:02 PM | Report abuse

I just read an article about how much money republicans have spent on CA-50. Wow

Oh, yeah Chris comment that Bilbray has not raised that much - is about the stupid comment I have seen Chris write so far. Bilbray has raised and spent 1.5 million dollars as a candidate. 1.5 million for a individual candidate in a house race is alot of money . The figures I have recently seen and these are the just officially disclosed dollars as of last week is that republicans have spent a total of 11 million dollars from multiple organizations. I am sure this total will rise on Thursday when more organization disclose last minute spending. Now compare this to a total of about 4 million dollars that dems have spent. Republican are spending 3 times what democrats are spending to save a republican in a district that has a built in 15 point advantage for republicans. When you look at how much money is being spent to save Bilbray it becomes obvious that republican are scared to death. Come November republicans will not have the luxury to spend 11 million dollars on 36 individual house seats that are at risk.

Posted by: Wells | June 6, 2006 3:49 PM | Report abuse

But you fail to mention that the environment is the cleanest it has been in 50 years. this trend continues. you talk about the process but not the results. It is not the regulation that is working, it is the technology advances. I am not disputing the goals, I am offering an alternative way to reach them. Can you admit that the eco-lobby has overreached and now needs to be reconsidered in light of current needs and desires.

Stealing - deposit 12% of your money into a fake account. If you live to 65, you get some back. If you die when you are 66, too bad, you get nothing.
Drindl, it is hard to take anything you write seriously since you love to sprinkle your opinions with "nazi", "facist" etc. I will not be responding to you in the future until you get a grip. It is not because I have nothing to say, it is because you have nothing to offer. your tantrums do the leftists with conviction a disservice. there are many leftists ideas with merit but you do them no justice.

Posted by: king of zouk | June 6, 2006 2:46 PM | Report abuse

B20, the republican dupe was insulting your childhood. You know, the guy who wants to have a serious debate. He can't stand the fact that you insulted his hero Allen, the psychotic nutbag who would be president. He's probably no stupider or more psychotic than the Boy on a Bike who runs the country now, though.

Unfortunately, as PT Barnum said, there's one born every minute. And that's why we'll always have dictators and charlatans and thieves in positions of power.

Posted by: Drindl | June 6, 2006 2:45 PM | Report abuse

"I had a large family and this is not that unusual."

Wow. This explains much of what I've read in your posts. I understand now. Sorry to hear about it.

Posted by: B2O | June 6, 2006 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Drindl, you forgot the biggest one of all: convincing their flock that the Estate Tax is their enemy, when it is actually what keeps the budget balanced, and only hits the top 1 or 2%.

Ask the average clueless FauxNews viewer, and they'll assure you that the GOP is saving them from getting hit with this when they die. Of course, they still think Saddam attacked us on 9/11, that the earth is 6,000 years old, and that the current global warming is natural. Is it any wonder the country's in so much trouble when there's this huge block of gullible types whom the GOP can use for their swindles?

Posted by: B2O | June 6, 2006 2:36 PM | Report abuse

B20 - are you an only child? I had a large family and this is not that unusual. I don't think 50 year old childhood incidents are going to play that well. nice try though. Easier than talking about the issues of course. If you think the WaPo is carrying water for Sen Allen you need to adjust your tin-foil cap a little.

Posted by: king of zouk | June 6, 2006 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Zouk:

"... reduce environmental regulations..."

Are you really unaware that the last six years have already seen a near total rollback of every environmental safeguard enacted in the last three decades? To such an extreme extent that the group Republicans for Environmental Responsibility actually declined to endorse anyone for president in 2004. That should tell you something, I would think.

http://www.rep.org/news/GEvol8/ge8.2_WhiteHouse.html

Posted by: B2O | June 6, 2006 2:31 PM | Report abuse

'I have found that hating your opponent and spewing conspiracies and insults is the least convincing of methods.'

But it's been working so well for republicans and nazis and stalnists and others for so many years. I think it's pretty damn convincing myself. If so-called 'conservatives' [and I'd really like to know what's conservative about them] didn't hate liberals, I don't think they'd be spending every minute of their waking lives attacking them.

Debate? Oh yeah, privatize social security. Just go ahead and steal all the money that hardworking people have been depositing in the fund their entire working lives and funnel it straight into the pockets of bush's good friends in the investment business. Brilliant.

Simplify [which means in republicanese 'shift it to the middle class'] taxes and eliminate all taxes on everyone born wealthy.

Eliminate the restrictions on political donations so the entire country becomes one big auction block where politicians are bought and sold.

Sorry, these are not 'ideas' or 'solutions' -- just good old-fashioned class warfare.

Posted by: Drindl | June 6, 2006 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone know how much the Post is being paid by the George Allen re-election campaign to pretend that his sister did not recently write a book called "The Fifth Quarter"? In it she describes his violent and abusive treatment of her and her siblings growing up. He threw one brother through a glass door, broke another's collarbone, rammed a pool cue into her boyfriend's head, and dragged her upstairs by the hair.

All family values, of course. Can't touch those Republicans. Gotta keep pretending like their empty "moral values" phrase actually means something. Wouldn't be polite not to.

Posted by: B2O | June 6, 2006 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Will, your demands for warmaking are totally unrealistic. How many casualties, how much will it cost - you must be joking to think these are available ahead of time. It is actually much more simple than that - can we do it? Will it advance our global strategy (yes oil is important)? Is it worth it?
My cuts - since you asked.
totally eliminate the Dept of Ed - a local concern. eliminate the Dept of energy - a private matter. Privitize the retirement aspects of Social Security, turn over the insurance part to allstate. cut the guts out of the IRS and simplify the tax code. Stop spending Federal money on local transportation, build toll roads and bridges. reduce environmental regulations and let the tort system accomodate this. eliminate the restrictions on political donations. change health care to a portable system that is subject to individual decisions - not doctors and insurance companies. I don't need all those tests every time.

this should give you plenty of ammo to call me all sorts of names, but it would be better if you took on the debate.

Posted by: king of zouk | June 6, 2006 2:04 PM | Report abuse

( If you haven't read today's Washington Post article by Howard Kurtz, give it a read I thought it was well written. )

Timing and the Haditha Tragedy

What took the media so long to decide to move this story to the top of the hit parade?
-Howard Kurtz


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html

Posted by: Wells | June 6, 2006 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Tonight is going to interesting !

I will try to resist looking at the results at 8:00pm. Because the best races will be to close to call and will not have good results until 11:00pm. But it is just so hard not to peek at the results once the polls close and try to see what happened. I being on the east coast and the 4 hour difference with California might have to wait to Wednesday morning for California. It may take hours to call CA-50 if what they say about it being a squeaker is true.

Posted by: Wells | June 6, 2006 1:09 PM | Report abuse

NOT Will in Seattle,

KOZ-

"What justifies taking money from someone to give to someone else?"

Uhm, war? At the very least cutting taxes during a war is irresponsible, or do you disagree?

"what else do we need to know as Americans to warrant our inclusion in ending this behavior?"

Since we aren't at war with Sudan, or weren't at war with Rwanda, or don't engage in war in Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia, or Palestine, or any other countless places where horrible people do horrible things, it's a safe bet that "doing wrong" is not a SUFFICIENT reason to war with someone else.

So let me answer your unserious question with a substantive (but incomplete) list of things we should need to know as Americans before deciding whether the juice is worth the squeeze:

1) What will the casualties be?
2) What will the financial costs be?
3) Will it lead to a secular Democracy?
4) Will it make Americans safer from terrorists?
5) Will it aid us in the war on terror?
6) Will it impede our military engagements in Afghanistan?

So on and so forth. Merely that "the enemy kills children in buses" is not enough.

"And I don't mean a 5% across the board cut, I mean eliminate."

Why don't you suggest some so we can debate the various merits of the proposed cuts.

Posted by: Will | June 6, 2006 1:04 PM | Report abuse

KOZ,

I wish you were right about people not relying on cable pundit talking points as the basis of their political views, but, alas, I know way too many people who accept what they hear from O'Reilly (or Rush or Michael Moore) as gospel. Our collective suceptibilty to talking points has got to be the only reason why candidates and parties and special interests spend so much money on political ads.

It kills me to think that Alexander Hamilton et al. first published most of the The Federalist in NEWSPAPERS. And people read them. Poor Alex must be rolling in his grave.

Posted by: rkb | June 6, 2006 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Will, those are interesting issues. Let me take a run at the underlying philosophy. rather than approach this from the "is it easy" framework, let's approach it from the "is it proper" aspect. Is big G appropriate - the resounding response is NO, uttered by bill clinton in one of his pandering moments. Are tax cuts right? What justifies taking money from someone to give to someone else? I would state that there must be some underlying urgent need to justify this. We can't contine damnding services while simultaneoulsy insisting someone else pay. Yes Iraq is messy and expensive but is it the right thing to do? Look at who we are fighting - humans (I use the term loosly) who think it is OK to murder a bus full of children for political ends. what else do we need to know as Americans to warrant our inclusion in ending this behavior?
My conclusion is to approach all these important issues from a very basic level - let's do the things that are important and cut out the luxuries. what have we really cut in the last 50 years? And I don't mean a 5% across the board cut, I mean eliminate. surely every idea introduced was not a good one.

Posted by: king of zouk | June 6, 2006 12:30 PM | Report abuse

KOZ - I just have two points.

1. Air America isn't losing money. It's actually been steadily expanding ever since new ownership took over almost two years ago.; and

2. For someone who regularly sprinkes their comments with "stupid" "wacko" and other insulting statements, I wonder whether you view yourself as a "tin-foil hat" or a "methodical analyst."

Feel free to dismiss my comments as those of a "crazy" "liberal" "wacko" tin-foil hat wearing Democrat if you'd like. :)

Posted by: Colin | June 6, 2006 12:30 PM | Report abuse

actually, Al Franken wrote a fairly insightful book, albeit humorous. But whine if you must.

The fun thing this year is a lot of safe Red seats are mostly Blue-shifted, to the point where you have to dig in Utah and the four remaining red states to find any races that are really a good chance for a Red victory.

It's all about the Big Government, Big Spending, Big Debt, Big Trade Imbalance, Big Tax Cuts for Billionaires, and Big Pretend Iraq Ain't Happening.

Posted by: Will in Seattle | June 6, 2006 12:16 PM | Report abuse

RMill - I am in agreement with you, but the forces at work here are that they would like to avoid giving any ammunition to the talking heads who will have to talk for the whole summer about this event with nothing else to go on. how pitiful for our electorate that we need to have our minds made up in this way. but I wonder exactly how much people alter their behavior based on cable output. Are these the people that should be making up the congress through their votes? I always wondered about the last-minute undecided voters. what are they waiting for - some verbal slip of the tongue or maybe some inaccurate dirt produced just in time for no response.

No one takes Al Franken seriously, except maybe those guys over at air america who are still paying his salary, despite loosing money hand over fist.

I have found that hating your opponent and spewing conspiracies and insults is the least convincing of methods. Look over this blog and tell me who is the most convincing - the tin-foil hats or the methodical analysts?

Posted by: king of zouk | June 6, 2006 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Oh my god, 'Ann and Rush don't take themselves seriously'... what kind of incoherent babbling is that? Do you really think 9/11 was funny? Coz Ann sure does. She thinks women who lost their husbands then are having a great time. She also defends Nazis and says the Holocaust was the Jews' fault. You know, a lot of people beleive this filth and the media legitimizes it by having her as a guest.

I'm sorry if I take life seriously. I have a child who happens to be Jewish and I'd like to see her grow up. I don't think people who joke about the murder of Jews are really very funny, do you? Maybe you do.

Posted by: Drindl | June 6, 2006 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Bhoomes,
I would say Al Franken knows when to not take himself too seriously.

The other thing is the Republicans have alot to lose with a Bilbray loss then the Dems. If Busby losses by 2% lets say then they can spin that as a tightening of the electorate. The only way today will be a win for the Republicans is if Bilbray wins by 8% or more. However, I agree that this is a special circumstance and the parties that read too much into it do at thier own peril.

Posted by: Andy R | June 6, 2006 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Voting for Chet Culver.

Posted by: Vinton, IA | June 6, 2006 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Ann and Rush have a great sense of humor and don't take themselves seriously, it is one of their secrets to success. It is why a lot of liberals don't do well in this medium, they take themselve and life way to serioulsy. Lighten up and laugh at your own foibles, we are only here for a short time. They also don't hate you libs, the way you hate them.

Posted by: bhoomes | June 6, 2006 11:50 AM | Report abuse

It appears that the RNC is in disagreement with you King- to the tune of $4.5 M.

They are aware of how "nationalizing of the mid-terms" will make it difficult for them to retain control of the US House and possibly the Senate.

They are also aware of- and often make use of the fact themselves (1994) - the power of the media to "alter the national mood".

Five months of stories about how bad they are giong to get beat, "just like in CA 50", is a devestating scenario they are willing to pay through the nose to avoid.

Posted by: RMill | June 6, 2006 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Much as I admire Newt for his intelligence, he has way too much baggage to stand a chance in an election.
Regardless of the outcome of the CA election, pundits will talk this to death. they know nothing more than you or I do but they are paid by the minute and are required to fill. but the outcome is actually very simple, whoever wins gets the seat. you can't extend any trend from this to a national mood despite the strong desire to make these predictions. the previous guy is in jail and this creates a very special situation with unique motivations. most of the rest of the country is pretty happy with thier individual Member and will send them back in droves.
dittohead is a Rush L. fan. I am a parrothead instead.

Posted by: king of zouk | June 6, 2006 11:36 AM | Report abuse

CA Secretary of State is predicting only 38% turnout for todays primary, traditionally low for CA.

It does not appear that the contested Dem gubernatorial primary is generating enough excitement to have an impact. Low turnout is considered favorable for Angelides.

Posted by: RMill | June 6, 2006 11:36 AM | Report abuse

'Enlightened conservatives' -- you mean, like Ann Coulter? I have to admit she's right on so many things. Like how the Nazis weren't really bad at all, and how Joe McCarthy was a hero and everything...

She especially reveres McCarthy for his defense of the Nazis who tortured and murdered American POWs at Malmedy. You conservatives have such toching affection for sadists.

Posted by: Drindl | June 6, 2006 11:35 AM | Report abuse

King Newt was talking about that on Hannity last night and misspoke- calling Busby an illegal immigrant - after asked whether this was just a typical campaign trail "mis-speak."

This should damage his chances should he choose to run for the 2008 Republican Presidential. nominiation. ;)

Posted by: RMill | June 6, 2006 11:09 AM | Report abuse

RMILL: I concur with you CA 50 will not necessary determine what happens in November, but if we(enlightened conservatives) lose this seat in a heavily republican district, I have to think we may be in trouble. I think the margin of victory by ethier candidate will give us a clue to the electorate's mood. BAWBIE: What's a dittohead mean?

Posted by: bhoomes | June 6, 2006 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Survey USA update
June 5
CA GOV DEM PRIMARY
Angelides 44%
Westly 36%

June 5
AL GOV DEM PRIMARY
Baxley 46%
Siegelman 41%

AL GOV REP PRIMARY
Riley* 64%
Moore 33%

Posted by: RMill | June 6, 2006 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Two races most important as I see it -- Alabama, as a test of the strength of Christian jihadists there, and CA-50, to see whether people actually care whether their representatives are outright, brazen criminals.

Bilbray is a sleazy lobbyist who, if elected, will have his hand in the public till from Day 1.

But because Busby made one casual comment [and if you look at in IN CONTEXT, which wingers seems unable to comprehend you can see she was not telling someone they can vote without 'papers' but rather that they could volunteer to help out] she may well lose, because of the successful campaign to ignite racism, bigotry and xenophobia that has been launched by republicans. This is their strategy every time.

Like other fascist idealogies, 'conservatives' use the most primitive human emotions -- hate and fear -- to manipulate. And it's very, very effective.

Posted by: Drindl | June 6, 2006 10:09 AM | Report abuse

The RNCC strategy here is similar to the one used in OH 6 in spending $1.5 M to try and keep Charlie Wilson from winning an uphill write-in primary.

In an interesting turning of the tables, the Busby campaign has copied a page from the GOP playbook from OH 6 in highlighting the credentials on immigration of Bilbrays independent opponent William Griffith. RNCC ads in OH 6 were used to boost Wilson's little known Democratic opponents in hopes of drawing off write in support for Wilson. Adding that she supports the McCain option, who bailed on a Bilbray fund raising appearance last week, was an nice bonus.

Posted by: RMill | June 6, 2006 10:07 AM | Report abuse

bhoomes, you idiot.

"If he was in any other district, he been a goner, but lucky for him his opponent is solicting illegal immigrants to vote for her."

That is clearly NOT what she said, but it is kind of you to identify your self as a dittohead so the rest of us know to ignore you.

Posted by: bawbie | June 6, 2006 10:05 AM | Report abuse

bhoomes

Not neccessarily. CA 50 will be an interesting indicator but by no means is a Dem loss going to mean they won't take control after November unless the RNC and NRCC is going to spend $4.5 M in every competitive seat they are defending (and they just don't have the cash to do that). It will just be likely a more modest Dem pick up (11-16 seats) in November rather than a seachange (20-30 seats) like we saw in 1994.

This wild spending spree is specifically to avoid months of damage control the RNC also cannot afford if they lose the seat. Having to face down media stories between June 7 and November 6 about how bad they are going to lose in the midterms is the only reason the GOP cares about this so much.

Posted by: RMill | June 6, 2006 10:01 AM | Report abuse

CC:

I left MS 2 out because the November race is not likely to be competitive. And I did not give much creedance to the internal poll done for Vas in NJ 13 but thanks for including CA 11. I totally dropped the ball on that one.

Posted by: RMill | June 6, 2006 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Mike Blouin is higly respected by the business community in Iowa. He will take a lot of that traditional support away from Nussle. Chet would be hard pressed to carry the Iowa First Congressional District against Nussle and will not have appeal to the business community. I believe Blouin has the last few days momentum and will win today and in November.

Posted by: Iowa BoBo | June 6, 2006 9:51 AM | Report abuse

"Gov. Bob Riley, who has faced down the primary challenge from former State Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore"

The Alabama race is the most interesting race from a national perspective - for all of the support the radical religious groups (I will not refer to them as the right because it insults the right and is really without philosophical justification) put behind Roy Moore they appear to not be able to reward him with the nomination.

Bush might want to take heed on this revelation while pushing his radical religious agenda against gays - if Moore can be rejected in Alabama then it is fair to say this group of christian Jihadists may rapidly be approaching the position of a mere footnote in history.

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes
www.balancingtheissues.com

I say teach those queers a lesson and start arresting grandma every time she tells her Bridge club her grandson is married to a man - that will solve all of our problems -

bring down the walls of division Mr. Bush - a divided nation is a weak nation - a united nation is a strong nation - your ignorant policies have even divided the family of your vice-president.

Posted by: Bobby Wightman-Cervantes | June 6, 2006 9:35 AM | Report abuse

To me, the race to watch is Brilbay/Busby, Bilbray is not a strong candidate and if the dems are going to win the house this fall, they will have to pick up this seat. My guess, Bilbray will win this by 5 0r 6% points. If he was in any other district, he been a goner, but lucky for him his opponent is solicting illegal immigrants to vote for her. No wonder DEMs don't want photo id's.

Posted by: bhoomes | June 6, 2006 9:21 AM | Report abuse

I wonder if the tight California democratic gubernatorial race will increase turnout for Busby? I have a bad feeling that this one will go past the wire. When you invest 4.5 mil on an election you want to win and they may mean a court battle if this one is close.

Posted by: Andy R | June 6, 2006 9:14 AM | Report abuse

If I was Ann Coulter in heaven, the first thing I'd ask God is why he made her look like a cheesy transvetite hooker.

Maybe that's why she has the disposition of a rabid squirrel.

Posted by: Drindl | June 6, 2006 8:58 AM | Report abuse

Culver will beat Nussle in the fall. Nobody wants to elect the head of the House Budget Committee as IA Gov, we can't afford deficits here.

Culver was leading Nussle in the latest KCCI poll 49 to 41. Go Chet.

Posted by: IOWA DEMOCRAT | June 6, 2006 8:57 AM | Report abuse

If I was Ann Coulter in heaven, the first thing I'd ask God is why he made her look like a cheesy transvetite hooker.

Maybe that's why she has the disposition of a rabid squirrel.

Posted by: Drindl | June 6, 2006 8:57 AM | Report abuse

I'm interested in the CA-50 seat. The Dems need to win this to show that they can win something. Remember the Ohio seat narrowly won by "Mean" Jean Schmidt? Another GOP seat that stayed in their hands despite a strong challenge from the other side.

Moral victories are meaningless. In fact, as Al Gore demonstrated by losing the presidency with more votes than his opponent, more victories are ultimately humiliating.

But back to CA-50, Busby stepped right in it by informing a Hispanic man (on microphone) that he didn't "need papers to vote." While the guy could well have been a legal citizen, it sounded terrible given today's environment. Sort of a Busby update on the Dean scream.

Why do I continue to hope...

On another note, Ann Coulter releases her latest screed today: "The Church of Liberalism: Godless." I would like to have introduced her to my late grandmother who was a liberal and the most "Godly" person I ever met. But Ann couldn't shine her shoes.

In that spirit, an EWM ode to Ann: "In Her Dreams: Coulter Converses with God."
http://www.eyewitnessmuse.com/musings.php?p=213

... I gotta tell you, I'm a kind and forgiving God, but I have a tough time taking in souls with a messiah complex-confuses the Angels you know."

Oh no God please, don't cast me into eternal damnation, I'll be good, I promise!

"Ann, it's not about the promises, it's about the deeds. It's not about who you put down, it's about who you lift up. Am I getting through to you?"

Yes God, yes. I'll change. I'll spread love. I'll stop gagging myself after eating. I'll...

Posted by: The Eyewitness Muse | June 6, 2006 8:34 AM | Report abuse

Interesting stuff but I'm focused on the special election in CA today that will determine Bilbary's fate and perhaps serve as a bellweather for this November.

http://www.intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

Posted by: Intrepid Liberal Journal | June 6, 2006 8:22 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company