Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Winners and Losers from the May 18 primaries

The primaries last night in Pennsylvania, Oregon, Arkansas and Kentucky -- not to mention a special election in the Keystone State! -- provided political junkies (like us) with weeks worth of data points through which to sift in search of clues about the coming midterm elections.

But, we like to play the long game AND the short game. And so, our initial impressions -- based on conversations with smart strategists in both parties -- about who won and who lost in last night's balloting are below.

As always, the goal of our winners and losers post is to pick some of the less obvious bests and worsts of the day that was. So, you won't find Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) as a winner -- even though his ouster of Sen. Arlen Specter (D) in yesterday's Pennsylvania primary was clearly a major victory.

Given that we slept five hours last night -- thank you Fix Jr.! -- we reserve the right to revise and extend this list. And, if you have suggestions for winners and losers of your own, we'd love to hear them in the comments section below.

WINNERS

Democratic Congressional Congressional Committee: One of the most remarkable records in politics is the six special election winning streak that the House Democratic campaign arm has reeled off over the last two plus years. Rep.-elect Mark Critz's (D) surprisingly wide margin in the Pennsylvania 12th district special election last night is a testament to the fact that the DCCC -- from Chairman Chris Van Hollen (Md.) to executive director Jon Vogel, communications director Jennifer Crider and the entire independent expenditure operation -- knows how to win close races in tough districts. While the hundreds of thousands of dollars the DCCC spent on ads drew most of the attention, it was the field program that drew kudos from strategists close to the race; the committee helped organized nearly 124,000 volunteer phone calls and nearly 112,000 door knocks in the district. While the DCCC special election streak will almost certainly end this weekend in Hawaii's 1st district, it is still a remarkable testament to the fact that candidates and the campaign they -- and their affiliated organizations -- run still matter.

Ken Buck/J.D. Hayworth/Sharron Angle: Buck, Hayworth and Angle -- running in Republican Senate primaries in Colorado, Arizona and Nevada, respectively -- are all making a direct pitch to supporters of the tea party movement. Ophthalmologist Rand Paul's surprisingly strong victory on Tuesday night and his crediting of the tea party for that victory will almost certainly embolden those who see themselves as part of the cause in other parts of the country. The tea party to date has been somewhat haphazard in the primary races it chooses to target -- yes to Florida Senate, no to Illinois Senate -- and so it's not likely that all of the trio mentioned above will benefit from the increased intensity. But, now that the tea party movement has the taste of winning in its collective mouth, there will almost certainly be a push to find the next Kentucky Senate race.

The Campaign Group: No race is ever decided by a single moment but it's hard not to watch the 30-second Sestak ad that hammers Specter for his past Republican associations and not see it as THE turning point in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary. That ad, which has installed the phrase "my change in party will enable me to be re-elected" in the political vernacular for years to come, was produced by Doc Schweitzer and Neil Oxman -- the Democratic consulting firm known as The Campaign Group. So effective was the ad that Gov. Ed Rendell (Pa.), a Specter supporter, acknowledged Doc and Neil by name in an interview on "TopLine" -- the joint ABC News/Washington Post web video show on Monday. (Campaign Group did the media for Rendell during his successful gubernatorial races.)

Labor: National unions made a decision a few months ago that they wanted to make Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), who had opposed the inclusion of a public option in the health care bill and the Employee Free Choice Act, the poster child for what happens when a Democrat crosses organized labor one too many times. Unions spent upwards of $3 million on ads touting Lt. Gov. Bill Halter and attacking Lincoln -- not to mention an untold amount on a vast turnout program that should be credited with Halter's surprisingly strong showing Tuesday night. With Lincoln and Halter headed to a June 8 runoff, expect labor to double down on their investment -- believing that a Lincoln loss would send a very strong signal to other wavering Democrats in future elections. (Worth noting: There was some grumbling within the Democratic operative world that labor was doing far more against Lincoln than they were doing for Specter in Pennsylvania.)

Bill Clinton: Say what you will about the former President -- and, yes, we know people say all sorts of things -- but he proved in the Pennsylvania special election that he still has the campaign mojo. Clinton stumped through the southwestern Pennsylvania seat over the weekend and delivered a classic populist stemwinder about which candidate would do a better job of looking out for the voters of the district. In so doing, Clinton established himself as the number one surrogate for Democrats running in the sort of culturally conservative congressional districts that will be the central front of the battle for the House in the fall. And, Clinton's performance over the weekend should serve as a reminder to anyone who had forgotten that he can still give a speech like almost no one else in politics. Ever.

Quirkiness: With apologies to NBC's Chuck Todd, who first made this point, the common thread that ties Sestak to Paul -- the night's two biggest winners -- is a quirkiness that voters clearly found appealing. Both Paul and Sestak looked like change and ran their campaigns with that image in mind. Paul openly disavowed the typical trappings of a campaign while Sestak, as he always does, relied on himself and several family members as the strategic core of his campaign. While campaign structures like those might have been dismissed in years past, they actually served to affirm the outsidery-ness -- with apologies to Stephen Colbert -- of each of the men.

Dick Blumenthal/Mark Souder: On almost any other day, the attention of the national news media would have been focused on the allegations that the Connecticut Attorney General badly exaggerated the extent of his service in Vietnam or the planned resignation of the Indiana Republican Congressman following his admission of an affair with a staffer. But, the large number of competitive races on Tuesday served as a massive distraction -- the Fix only has ten fingers after all! -- that, temporarily, took the spotlight off of Blumenthal and Souder. That doesn't mean either man will dodge scrutiny in the coming days but they avoided being the lead story of every hour of cable news for at least a day -- a small victory but a victory nonetheless.

LOSERS

Mitch McConnell: The Senate Minority Leader was personally responsible for driving Sen. Jim Bunning (R) into retirement and recruiting Secretary of State Trey Grayson into the open seat contest. While McConnell only formally endorsed Grayson a few weeks ago, it was clear from the very start that he was behind the Secretary of State. McConnell has built a well-deserved reputation over the past decade or so as the godfather of Kentucky Republican politics but his -- at times -- heavy-handed involvement in intraparty squabbles clearly didn't sit well with a significant segment of GOP primary voters. That the most powerful Republican Senator in Washington wasn't able to drag his favored nominee across the finish line in his home state speaks to the level of discontent toward the establishment at work the country.

National Republican Congressional Committee: The NRCC invested heavily -- $958,000 -- in ads and polling in Pennsylvania's 12th district. And, at the end of the day, they didn't even come close. National Republicans insisted that internal polling suggested that making the race a referendum on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and President Barack Obama was the winning message not just on Tuesday in Pennsylvania but in districts across the country in the fall. Yesterday, they were proven wrong. Now have to go back to the drawing board to figure out a message that can take advantage of what remains a volatile political environment that should lead to gains for their side in the fall. Make no mistake, however: this is a VERY difficult pill for House Republicans to swallow and makes their expected victory in Hawaii somewhat anti-climactic.

Parker Griffith: The Alabama party switcher -- Democrat to Republican -- has to be fretting about his political future after seeing what happened to Specter. Griffith will make his first race as a Republican in the June 1 primary and, already, there are some political strategists who believe Griffith might not win 50 percent -- forcing a one-on-one runoff that could pose major problems for him. Switching parties, as Specter's loss reminds us, is extremely perilous politically. Your new party is deeply skeptical about your commitment to their causes and, in Specter's case, has spent close to a generation trying to beat you. And, in an election cycle like this where voters have their authenticity meters turned WAY up, a party switch typifies many of the traits that voters detest in politicians.

Washington Wizards: In one of the few positive development for the beleaguered NBA franchise, the Wiz surprisingly won the NBA lottery and, with it, the right to pick University of Kentucky freshman John Wall. (Or Georgetown star Greg Monroe. Come on, please....) Why, then, are the Wizards losers? Because official Washington was totally distracted by the primaries and, as a result, the team didn't get anywhere near the full bounce that the lottery win should have granted them.

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 19, 2010; 2:19 PM ET
Categories:  House , Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: "Worst Week in Washington": The Nominations!
Next: DNC Chair Tim Kaine casts the Tea Party as "corrosive and divisive"

Comments

"As for Griffith, he didn't get elected on Obama's coattails. McCain got over 60% of the vote inthat seat. The Dem tradition in North Alabama pulled Griffith through."

He got elected because extremely high African-American turnout in the district due to Obama's running on top of the ticket pushed him over the top (52%).

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 20, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Yes, by all means. Nominate a left wing loon in Arkansas and see how he does in the general.

Posted by: Brigade

==========================================

uhm, you do know that Halter has already won a State-wide general election in Arkansas, right ???

just anpther teabagger terrorist pipe dream

I didn't hear the teabagger terrorists talking about PA 12 being a heavily Democratic district last week

last week, PA 12 was a SURE THING pickup for the teabagger terrorists

now, the teabagger terrorists say that Kritz had a Democratic majority, Kritz is a right wing moderate Democrat, and Kritz is a republican in Democratic clothing

Kritz os a DEMOCRAT

Kritz will vote for NANCY PELOSI for Speaker of the House

Kritz will work with the Democratic Party in Congress

how you teabagger terrorists think that is a win for the republican party is unfathomable

friends don't let friends vote republican

Posted by: nada85484 | May 20, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler wrote,
"there's not enough bourbon in the whole state to get this guy (Paul) elected."

Wanna bet?

Posted by: Brigade

============================================

I'll take your money, goober

how much you got to lose ???

rand paul is the stupidest person to win a primary in years

rand paul says he abhors racial discrimination, but he supports a business' right to discriminate

maybe rand paul doesn't know the meaning of the word abhor

maybe he's a liar

but there is NO WAY you could abhor discrimination and still support a business discriminating against people

rand paul might be that stupid

most Americans are not that stupid

bye bye rand paul

flamed out in less than 24 hours

that's got to be some kind of record

Posted by: nada85484 | May 20, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

In the leadup to 1994, the parties split the special elections 3-3. Republicans picked up KY-2 (Lewis) and OK-6 (Lucas) and held onto MI-3 (Ehlers). Dems held MS-2 (Thompson), CA-17 (Farr), and WI-1 (Barca).

As for Griffith, he didn't get elected on Obama's coattails. McCain got over 60% of the vote inthat seat. The Dem tradition in North Alabama pulled Griffith through.

Posted by: joeyjoejoe | May 20, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Boehner is surprisingly absent lately...

..he must have a lot of very important golfing to do.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | May 20, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

"I do not understand why virtually all of the Washington pundits persist in a strained effort to draw national implications from a hyper-local election."

Because this race WAS nationalized, both parties poured money into it, it was an open seat with a party insider running, it is a seat Murtha himself didn't hold onto by much in a major Democratic year, and it was a seat McCain won. This is exactly the type of seat Republicans need to win to take the House. 25 or so are low hanging fruit, but this is the dynamic they need to win 90% of the time in order to pick up those extra 15 to take control. If they couldn't do it in PA-12, at this point in the electoral cycle, and if the Republican candidate running against Pelosi can be defeated by a Democratic candidate running on local issues, there likely is no wave.

Remember, in 1994, Republicans won pretty much every special election in the run-up. This time, the Dems have held every seat and picked up the one Republican. this will probably be offset by the Hawaii-01 due to the split Democratic vote, but still, on the ground, the signs of a tidal wave election simply aren't materializing in the House.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_elections_to_the_111th_United_States_Congress#House_of_Representatives

It seems that most people are venting their frustration at the Senate, and while Republicans may do quite well there (I'd say six), in order to take control they'll need to run the table (including beating Boxer in California and ane from the Pacific Northwest) and not lose any of their own vulnerable seats (Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, and now Florida with an independent Crist who may or may not caucus with the Dems) in order just to get to 50, where they still wouldn't control the house but would likely get the 2001-2002 split decision organization.

"Party switching is dangerous, but not if a district is clearly trending towards the party you are switching to."

The problem for Parker Griffith, he was elected for the first time in 2008, riding Obama's coattails and after Pelosi had been speaker for a term. can he honestly say "I didn't change, the party did?" in those eight months?? This isn't the early 1990's when the second wave of the Southern exodus from the party took place. Both he and Specter were clearly just out to save their own skin and he doesn't have much cover. If he wins the primary, he'll probably hold the seat due to it's nature, but surviving the primary may be quite difficult.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 20, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

AZ has shown us we are rotting from within by their hate. It's all politcs to get white folks (I am white) whipped up to vote for the racist GOP in November.

Rand Paul, like most of his ilk, wants to destroy Social Security.

His message to Baby Boomers is: Drop Dead

Yet we see tea baggers who get government checks against getting them!!!!!

Are tea baggers really that dumb?

Posted by: DownriverDem | May 20, 2010 9:18 AM | Report abuse

Re: Parker Griffith

Party switching is dangerous, but not if a district is clearly trending towards the party you are switching to. Nathan Deal had no problems at all when he switched to the GOP in 1995. Mike Parker, Andy Ireland, and Ralph Hall are/were fine when they switched to the Republicans in districts that were trending GOP for a short or extended period of time. That's just a couple of examples. The only two examples I can think of (House) where someone switched parties and then lost the primary are Mike Forbes (NY-1) in 2000 and Greg Laughlin (TX-14) in 1996. In those cases, the members were definitely not ideologically suited to the party they switched to, and Republicans went after Forbes hard after he switched. Right after the switch, then-NRCC Chair Tom Davis said something along the lines of the NRCC's top priority (above keeping the House) was defeating Mike Forbes.

Posted by: joeyjoejoe | May 20, 2010 9:10 AM | Report abuse

Under Health Care Reform, Medical insurance is a must, but you can easily find medical insurance for you under $40 http://bit.ly/bYoNQH

Posted by: basemore20 | May 20, 2010 5:37 AM | Report abuse

Brigade just sounds so much like zouk, defending all his viewpoints--hmm. Must be a coincidence.

==

using insults and baiting as a first recourse is a zouk signature.

Remember when we thought we finally had a conservative who could debate? Wow was that ever wishful thinking. I don't think there are any.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 20, 2010 12:32 AM | Report abuse

Brigade just sounds so much like zouk, defending all his viewpoints--hmm. Must be a coincidence.

Posted by: drindl | May 19, 2010 10:54 PM | Report abuse

I just bought a "new era cap" for $15.
(free shipping)

This is a great web site.

Posted by: shrink2 | May 19, 2010 10:03 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler wrote,
"there's not enough bourbon in the whole state to get this guy (Paul) elected."

Wanna bet?

==

I prefer earning my money through honest labor to taking it from a feeble-minded person such as yourself.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 19, 2010 8:54 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler wrote,
"there's not enough bourbon in the whole state to get this guy (Paul) elected."

Wanna bet?

Posted by: Brigade | May 19, 2010 8:46 PM | Report abuse

austinrl,

I gotta disagree with you on the Souder situation (I used to live in that district, and still have lots of family in that district, so I know a bit about it):

The general election race begins, formally or not, as soon as the primary is concluded. Since Indiana's primaries were held on May 4 (two weeks ago), the general election race HAS begun.

Souder was the odds-on favorite to win the general in November, and that is in the face of falling winning margins in his latest elections:
2004 - 69% to 31% (against Maria Parra)
2006 - 54% to 46% (against Tom Hayhurst)
2008 - 55% to 40% (against Mike Montagano, an especially weak candidate) to 5% for the Libertarian candidate.

Indiana will hold a special election in the district to fill out the current term (date not yet set). Precinct captains in the district will decide the candidates - at this time, Hayhurst (who easily won the Democratic May 4 primary) is the expected Democratic nominee. The GOOPers will choose between Bob Thomas and Phil Troyer (who came in a far distant second and third to Souder in the May 4 GOOPer primary) and state Rep. Randy Borror, a complete unknown outside Fort Wayne.

Thus, IN-3 goes from a heavily lean-GOOPer district last week, to a toss-up, or even a Democratic-lean, district now.

GOOPer loss, in my book.

Posted by: critter69 | May 19, 2010 8:45 PM | Report abuse

Yes, by all means. Nominate a right wing loon in Kentucky and see how he does in the general.

Posted by: Brigade

==

Yes, we shall see. Six months of spewing unhinged libertarian junk, refusing to answer questions with specifics, hooting about freedm and guns and taxes, there's not enough bourbon in the whole state to get this guy elected.

Three victories for Democrats last night. Critz (who you don't seem to understand is going to caucus with the Democrats), Sestak (a 100% Democrat instead of a 51% Democrat), and Paul, who can't win anywhere in America.

And oh, that cute trick of putting words in other posters' mouths represents a new low for comments on here. Not even Jake or zouk did that.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 19, 2010 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Critz showed democrats the two steps necessary to win in November:

1. Pick a district that has a two to one democratic advantage and has been that way forever.

2. (most important) Run as a republican.

Good plan!

Posted by: SuzyCcup | May 19, 2010 8:27 PM | Report abuse

In an astonishing and unexpected turn of events, Brigade, you've missed the point again.

I didn't say I wanted to disarm people with legitimate needs to defend their homes. I keep a kukri near at hand and would cheerfully de-arm anyone threatening me and mind.

No, the ones I want to see disarmed are the ones with the "cold dead fingers" bumperstickers, the ones who're "pro-gun," the ones who make a fetish out of firearms. I think that's sick, and I think a lot of them have uh inadequacy issues.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 19, 2010 6:47 PM

-------

Deja vu. Didn't I just see this same post in another thread awhile back?

Posted by: Brigade | May 19, 2010 8:22 PM | Report abuse

I'm a moron.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | May 19, 2010 5:26 PM

No kidding? Who'd have guessed?

Posted by: Brigade | May 19, 2010 8:19 PM | Report abuse

Yesterday's wins were like a year of painful but successful dieting rewarded with a ncie banana split.

Zouk's frothing and foaming over it are like the cherry on top.

Go lick your wounds, phony, your side lost again.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 19, 2010 4:19 PM

-------

Still using the plural to describe one win. Well, I guess if one is all you're going to get, you might as well live it up.

Posted by: Brigade | May 19, 2010 8:15 PM | Report abuse

The biggest loser? Clearly, it's obama himself. He's batting zero for four - Deeds, Corzine, Coakley, Specter. He needs to be sent back to the minors.

This picture says it all:

http://public.blu.livefilestore.com/y1p4BfwSt2gMZ2oW1cWhl0WFTIjVKjS6ZZUhBo_LmFGideWIUPSne-ozODzIYStMgJLhWbt1n4RDpuPW9PrWXn9zQ/Gangway.jpg

Posted by: SuzyCcup | May 19, 2010 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Halter did well running to the left of Lincoln, a newcomer out of nowehre and almost beat her. . .

Try to face reality -- I know that's tough for wingers, but just come to grips with it.

Posted by: drindl | May 19, 2010 3:56 PM

-------

Yes, by all means. Nominate a left wing loon in Arkansas and see how he does in the general.

Posted by: Brigade | May 19, 2010 8:12 PM | Report abuse

But it's just amazing how Rs don't seem to be able to grasp this whole concept of running as a moderate given that the only Republicans that are winning any races are the ones who ran as moderates.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 19, 2010 3:45 PM

-------

It certainly helps to be moderate in places like NJ and MASS. Kentucky, not so much.

Posted by: Brigade | May 19, 2010 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Excellent post, Brigade.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 19, 2010 3:29 P

Thank you. I thought so.

Posted by: Brigade | May 19, 2010 8:07 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD wrote,
"I'm just curious why Dems can't claim Critz as a win if GOP can claim Scott Brown."

But you can. Of course you can. And may both of these fine gentlemen win re-election many times.

Posted by: Brigade | May 19, 2010 8:05 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler wrote,
"Come, let us face reality together.

Last night was a sweep for the Democratic Party. Critz and Sestak need no further comment."

I think you need another jolt of crack. There was one heavily Democratic congressional district decided. That's a sweep?

Posted by: Brigade | May 19, 2010 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Srivener50 wrote,
"There is no valid extrapolation that can be derived from the results of PA 12th that is applicable to the national political mood. Critz was Murtha's right hand man in charge of pork procurement, and he delivered. As other posters have noted, Critz holds views that could be described as right-wing, even Dixiecrat. Even then, he won the race by only a single-digit margin. I do not understand why virtually all of the Washington pundits persist in a strained effort to draw national implications from a hyper-local election."

I've not seen a better analysis of the situation. Unfortunately, most of these Dems would see a Pelosi win in San Francisco as a game-changer.

Posted by: Brigade | May 19, 2010 7:56 PM | Report abuse

ldsentinel wrote,
"Yes, congrats to Mark Critz who ran as Jessie Helms Republican. Critz, a Democrat, who is PRO-LIFE, PRO-GUN, PRO-IRAQ WAR, ANTI-CAP & TRADE and AGAINST OBAMACARE."


But don't you see? It's okay to be all those things if your a Democrat; it's only if you're a Republican that such positions are creepy.

Posted by: Brigade | May 19, 2010 7:51 PM | Report abuse

I'm skeptical of the alleged positive news for Buck/Hayworth/Angle. One important distinction between Paul and those three is Rand Paul's access to Ron Paul's nationwide donor list. Projecting those outcomes based on the KY results is bad analysis.


Posted by: bsimon1 | May 19, 2010 2:32 PM
-------

Shhhhhh. Hush now.

Posted by: Brigade | May 19, 2010 7:47 PM | Report abuse

And da winnah, with over five million dollars from the financial sector is ..

THE ENVELOPE PLEASE!!

.. Sen. Mitch McConnell, the "pro-business" Republican Senate Minority Leader.

When does this guy re-up?

Posted by: Noacoler | May 19, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

As always, you're the first place I look for shallow analysis.

Keep up the good work!

Posted by: flotsam3 | May 19, 2010 7:15 PM | Report abuse

The DCCC can't claim much of a victory with a candidate who is pro-gun, pro-life, pro-fiscal restraint - AND anti-Obamacare. AND Critz lost 13,000 democratic votes to Burns - in a district which was drawn a little differently would have led to a loss.

________________________________________


I don't know if I fully agree with the conventional wisdome that Critz is set for November

Critz could not hold 13,000 of his democratic faithful - who vote in the primaries.

So how will Critz do with the Independents in November?

Look at it another way - Burns needs to win the additional November voters by 10,000 or so votes - that is certainly within the possible if those are largely Indpendents.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 19, 2010 6:49 PM | Report abuse

In an astonishing and unexpected turn of events, Brigade, you've missed the point again.

I didn't say I wanted to disarm people with legitimate needs to defend their homes. I keep a kukri near at hand and would cheerfully de-arm anyone threatening me and mind.

No, the ones I want to see disarmed are the ones with the "cold dead fingers" bumperstickers, the ones who're "pro-gun," the ones who make a fetish out of firearms. I think that's sick, and I think a lot of them have uh inadequacy issues.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 19, 2010 6:47 PM | Report abuse

The 61 "No" votes to preserve "too big to fail"

Senator
Career $ From Finance
Senator
Career $ From Finance
Sen. Daniel Akaka [D-HI]
$556,295
Sen. Mike Johanns [R-NE]
$697,621
Sen. Lamar Alexander [R-TN]
$4,940,775
Sen. Tim Johnson [D-SD]
$3,143,865
Sen. John Barrasso [R-WY]
$295,932
Sen. John Kerry [D-MA]
$18,112,577
Sen. Max Baucus [D-MT]
$4,790,487
Sen. Amy Klobuchar [D-MN]
$734,117
Sen. Evan Bayh [D-IN]
$4,393,347
Sen. Herbert Kohl [D-WI]
$73,950
Sen. Michael Bennet [D-CO]
$835,796
Sen. Jon Kyl [R-AZ]
$3,741,994
Sen. Kit Bond [R-MO]
$3,255,538
Sen. Mary Landrieu [D-LA]
$2,500,584
Sen. Scott Brown [R-MA]
$1,015,364
Sen. Frank Lautenberg [D-NJ]
$3,478,817
Sen. Samuel Brownback [R-KS]
$1,336,269
Sen. George LeMieux [R-FL]
$0
Sen. Richard Burr [R-NC]
$2,988,952
Sen. Joe Lieberman [I, CT]
$10,084,996
Sen. Thomas Carper [D-DE]
$2,311,778
Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]
$33,474,029
Sen. Saxby Chambliss [R-GA]
$3,483,860
Sen. Claire McCaskill [D-MO]
$863,393
Sen. Thad Cochran [R-MS]
$662,234
Sen. Mitch McConnell [R-KY]
$5,247,103
Sen. Susan Collins [R-ME]
$2,273,113
Sen. Robert Menéndez [D-NJ]
$4,151,772
Sen. Kent Conrad [D-ND]
$2,507,437
Sen. Lisa Murkowski [R-AK]
$875,690
Sen. Bob Corker [R-TN]
$3,150,750
Sen. Bill Nelson [D-FL]
$3,213,078
Sen. John Cornyn [R-TX]
$4,597,492
Sen. Ben Nelson [D-NE]
$2,844,056
Sen. Michael Crapo [R-ID]
$1,779,063
Sen. Jack Reed [D-RI]
$2,897,782
Sen. Chris Dodd [D-CT]
$14,367,412
Sen. James Risch [R-ID]
$228,711
Sen. Michael Enzi [R-WY]
$1,087,043
Sen. Pat Roberts [R-KS]
$1,647,286
Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D-CA]
$3,657,556
Sen. Charles Schumer [D-NY]
$15,918,336
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand [D-NY]
$2,334,456
Sen. Jeff Sessions [R-AL]
$2,158,535
Sen. Lindsey Graham [R-SC]
$1,951,429
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen [D-NH]
$1,046,765
Sen. Chuck Grassley [R-IA]
$2,605,399
Sen. Olympia Snowe [R-ME]
$1,700,184
Sen. Judd Gregg [R-NH]
$1,070,249
Sen. Jon Tester [D-MT]
$603,993
Sen. Kay Hagan [D-NC]
$585,694
Sen. John Thune [R-SD]
$3,636,776
Sen. Orrin Hatch [R-UT]
$2,481,543
Sen. Mark Udall [D-CO]
$1,781,168
Sen. Kay Hutchison [R-TX]
$4,694,038
Sen. George Voinovich [R-OH]
$2,770,340
Sen. James Inhofe [R-OK]
$1,477,202
Sen. Mark Warner [D-VA]
$2,632,766
Sen. Daniel Inouye [D-HI]
$1,453,487
Sen. Roger Wicker [R-MS]
$1,263,098
Sen. John Isakson [R-GA]
$3,849,408
TOTAL
$218,312,780
As one senator recently noted, "banks ... frankly own this place."

Posted by: Impeachbush99 | May 19, 2010 6:35 PM | Report abuse

"McConnell has built a well-deserved reputation over the past decade or so as the godfather of Kentucky Republican politics but his -- at times -- heavy-handed involvement in intraparty squabbles clearly didn't sit well with a significant segment of GOP primary voters."

$$$$$$$

I sometimes wonder how much "outsiders" can affect a state's elections. I'm now reminded. But then again McConnell is such a creepy water boy for Big Corp that almost any outsider would have gained ground.

Posted by: Kelly14 | May 19, 2010 5:47 PM | Report abuse

As a former Philadelphia, I have to say that I’m kinda sorry to see Specter go. Maybe it’s time (he’s 80), but he was for a long time a relatively sane voice (A Rockefeller Republican with a sense of perspective and balance) in an increasingly strident, neofascist and downright insane Republican Party. He was a consistent pro-choice voice when the rest of the Rs were lining up behind that harpy Schafly.

And the R national committee p’ing away a million bucks with absolutely nothing to show for it—it wasn’t even a statewide race! They blew a cool mill in one southcentral mountain district. It’s nowhere near any of the major PA media markets, so there’s no media spill over to other districts or the main population centers. Not even into MD. These guys are inept. Their purity campaign is going to destroy them in 2010 and 2012. Look for major changes in the R “leadership,” as when the Newt failed to take out Clinton and the other stumblers fell on their faces one after another (remember Livingston?). The real R rulers are perfectly happy to drop these guys like rusty old tools.

And as for Rand Paul being an R win—it isn’t the D Party that’s been riven by splinter groups. Their philosophy is relatively intact. It’s the RNC that’s the real target of the TPs. And they’ll eat each other alive.

It’s gonna be quite a show this summer.

Somebody pass the popcorn.

Posted by: Ichristian | May 19, 2010 5:38 PM | Report abuse

It’s what they do best. Lie,

==

It's the only thing they do well

Posted by: Noacoler | May 19, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Austerity is coming to America and I'd rather not have Republicans controlling the process of deciding how that is going to work.

So I feel like a winner. Things went ok yesterday. More people might start paying attention.

The Republican Rising! is in deep trouble,
Democrats who should be in trouble are too.

We can stop crony capitalism and other forms of corruption, but not if we elect right wing Republicans and not if we hang on to Democrats who are corrupt, just because they are called Democrats.


Posted by: shrink2 | May 19, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Hey tea tards, I'm sure the Democrats will let you count Mark Critz as a Republican if you let them count the pro-choice Scott Brown as a Democrat in the Senate.

Morons.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | May 19, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Someone said: “…the wingers trying to spin this big Democratic victory today as a win for Rs are hilariously pathetic….”

It’s what they do best. Lie, and then lie that they lied.

Reminds me of how yesterday on CNBC, they blamed the Wall Street meltdown on the SEC and the Fed, and Russssshhhhhh is now blaming the oil spill and the destruction of the entire Gulf of Mexico on (drumroll, please) THE SIERRA CLUB!

Can it get any better?

Posted by: Ichristian | May 19, 2010 5:18 PM | Report abuse

hehe, thanks, guys. The elections have made me a good bit optimistic. The Democrats have really suffered through the worst of it. It's looking better now.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 19, 2010 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Someone said: “…Oh, and Critz said he hates Obama and doesn't want him anywhere near PA-12…”

And how long do you think that attitude will last once Critz is seated? Think he’ll bring home any bacon if he mouths off in Obama’s Washington? And Obama’s Dem majority House?

He’ll learn to love Barack. The House leaders will see to his necessary training.

Posted by: Ichristian | May 19, 2010 5:11 PM | Report abuse

By the way, Burns was also running for the nomination to run in November. Did he win THAT race?

Posted by: ceflynline | May 19, 2010 5:08 PM | Report abuse

"Yesterday, they were proven wrong. Now have to go back to the drawing board to figure out a message that can take advantage of what remains a volatile political environment that should lead to gains for their side in the fall."

CC is still using the RNCC supplied outline for his blogs.

About the only really volitile factor in the November election will be the economy. The R's intend to tell the American people that the economy is just lousy and that only they can fix it. This will ignore, of course, that their previous fix was what caused the collapse in the first oplace, and the T's are really mad about TARP, which was onte of the things that kept the disaster from getting worse. Every premise that the R's have been working on is proving to be flat wrong, and the R's can't change narrative now, because that esentially cuts the platform out from all their true believers.

The T's will RINO enough electable R's that if the D's work at it they can actually gain seats in both the House AND the Senate. Currently Ohio, Kentucky, and Florida are in play, and Crist, the likely Florida victor is much more likely to vote with the D's on important votes, especially cloture, than with the R's. It is not unlikely that the D's could gain a cushion in the Senate sufficient that several defections on cloture votes won't be enough to stop bills coming to a vote.

Posted by: ceflynline | May 19, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

you forget the aryan children, dawd, but otherwise -- right on!

Posted by: drindl | May 19, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Hey DDAWD, congrats on a major achievement.

Alas, the lead paint won't get you to zoukdom, it's more effective in childhood, which is probably when zouk cultivated a diet of paint chips.

Also, to match zouk you'd need a fleet of yachts and a mansion in the Sea of Tranquility.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 19, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

ddawd posts comedy gold @ 4:16. Zing!

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 19, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

For people that say "Vote out the incumbent..", what is the point of just voting them out if you are going to get new people that are just as owned by the Big Pharma, Big Insurance, Big Military, Big Banks, etc. aka Wall Street Gang.

What we/you need to do is to Vote people in based on them NOT being OWNED by Big Pharma, Big Insurance, Big Military, Big Banks, etc. aka Wall Street Gang, but being real representative of the people. And to do this we need to elect people based on their positions which they will promise that they will abide by once in the office, some of which KEY positions to prove that they are agents of the People and not agents of Big Pharma, Big Insurance, Big Military, Big Banks, etc. aka Wall Street Gang are:
1- They are for Universal nationalized health care as they have in ALL European countries, Canada, Japan, China, Israel, etc
2- For really ENDING the Wars in Iraq & Afghanistan,
3- For cutting the size of the US Military budget to 50% of what it was when Soviet Union existed since the Soviet Union and its supposed threat do no exist anymore, this means cutting US Military budget to about $200Bill per year, still the largest in the world by far, and investing those SAVINGS in American people and cities.

With the above said I am glad to see that a more progressive liberal (aka thinking person) like Sestak in PA beat the fake Democrats like Specter. But unless they make a promise on above Key positions, it means very little since as soon as they get into office they will start again being agents of Big Pharma, Big Insurance, Big Military, Big Banks, etc. aka Wall Street Gang whom have access to 100s of Billions of Dollars vs the Middle class that has access ONLY to their Votes.

Much more here:
http://RealNewsPost.com?n=think.34034

Posted by: RealNews1 | May 19, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Yesterday's wins were like a year of painful but successful dieting rewarded with a ncie banana split.

Zouk's frothing and foaming over it are like the cherry on top.

Go lick your wounds, phony, your side lost again.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 19, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Labeling Dick Blumenthal and Mark Souder as winners is incorrect. Yes, they avoided some media scrutiny based on yesterday's primary elections, but their respective self-inflicted wounds ended Mr. Souder's political career and threaten to end Mr. Blumenthal's.

In the long run, Mr. Blumenthal is the bigger loser unless he withdraws from the Senate race. The Connecticut Senate race has been transformed almost overnight from a likely hold for the Democrats into a competitive contest.

On the other hand, Mr. Souder becomes more of a non-factor after Friday, and Indiana Republicans have a much better chance of holding onto his House seat than they would have if the news came out during the general election campaign.

Posted by: austinrl | May 19, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Hey, hey, take it easy on zook. I am becoming more like him every day. I've been seeing a (part time) model and am a few weeks away from a PhD.

Now all I have to do is multiply that one PhD by four, the one model by fifty, toss in a yacht, swallow a huge jug of turpentine and lead paint, and I'm there.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 19, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

"this stooge gives ignorance and envy new depths of deviance and depravity.
Posted by: bumblingberry "


He's always so perfect at self-description. And just sooo rabid and frothing and spewing today -- so very funny!

LOL. Along with our big win, makes my day.

Posted by: drindl | May 19, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Funny how KK and I came up with the Scott Brown thing at the same time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Indeed, it is becoming increasingly difficult to tell you loons apart. you four stooges give ignorance and envy new depths of deviance and depravity.

to be almost as stupid as Loud and Dumb or DDawd is certain to be a new baseline for liberal idiocy.

We could have the Lib olympics:

who has the most empty and angry life - former gold medalist drivl will have some competition from newcomer Ped. although it is rumored that Ped put in over 20 minutes of productive work just this month only.

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 19, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

oh, you're back -- did you collect enough empty bottles in your shopping car to buy a bag of cheetos and mountain dew for dinner?

Posted by: drindl | May 19, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

"Face it, the only way Dems can win this year is by running to the Right of Republicans, like Critz did with Burns."

I love the weasel wording. Running to the right of Republicans. Which Republicans? Scott Brown? Sure. Susan Collins? Definitely?

Tim Burns? No way. And that's what matters.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 19, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

"Face it, the only way Dems can win this year is by running to the Right of Republicans, like Critz did with Burns."

Face it yourself -- that was one vote and he will not be able to vote on repealing HCR because Rs are not going to even introduce a bill. That's over, get over it.

Halter did well running to the left of Lincoln, a newcomer out of nowehre and almost beat her. And Sestak ran to the left of Specter and beat him. And Sestak will be as good as Specter was to Labor, if not better.

Try to face reality -- I know that's tough for wingers, but just come to grips with it. We won, you lost.

Posted by: drindl | May 19, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse

No change in the couch today dingbat?

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 19, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

One must recall, who was the campaigner in chief for the turncoat Benedict Arlen? then it is proper to chalk up another loss for this loser.

In fact his fourth straight.

Campaigns in which Obumbler went big:

VA, NJ, MA, PA

Zero for Four from Chairman Zero. any wonder Lincoln hides under the table when berry calls.

to add to this losing portfolio we can just about include Joke Biden's seat, the VP, about to go R; Dingy Harry the Senate "leader" about to go R, and the juiciests morsel of all, the Present idents old Senate seat, about to go R.

If that doesn't add up to LOSER, what does?

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 19, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure Labor can be labeled a winner based on yesterday's results. Yes, they've managed to force Sen. Blanche Lincoln into a runoff, but Sen. Arlen Specter's primary loss is a significant blow to them. Labor will have some difficulty influencing the general election campaign for the now-open Pennsylvania Senate seat.

Posted by: austinrl | May 19, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, Noa. Funny how KK and I came up with the Scott Brown thing at the same time.

But it's just amazing how Rs don't seem to be able to grasp this whole concept of running as a moderate given that the only Republicans that are winning any races are the ones who ran as moderates.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 19, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

I like the list except I don't know if I would give Labor a win on this one. If they had taken Lincoln out completely then yes, but the next run-off will be even less people and Lincoln has the establishment on her side and a lot of money too. Also if the financial regulation bill passes with Lincoln's Derivatives amendment in it then she will have a huge victory that will give her a lot of free TV time right before the run-off. In the end I would give labor an incomplete at this point.

Posted by: AndyR3 | May 19, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Yesterday's outcome points to one thing, voters vote for who they think will best serve the people. All these activist groups are the noise that people with common sense ignore and sift through not listen too. We want good, solid representation, not elected officials who make decisions based upon their next political move or campaign. Take heed those of you who dare decide to be a politician. First, ditch that term, refer to yourself as a servant. Second, prove that you are a servant to the people. Third, once elected, ACT like you are a servant to the people. That will take care of your career as a "servant". Remember, the greatest servant of all time died for our sins and redeemed us to the Father! Amen!

Posted by: ajackson3 | May 19, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Chris,
Skipping the biggest winner is like leaving in the least important loser.

Posted by: BobSanderson | May 19, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Excellent post, DDAWD.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 19, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Critz winning in PA-12 running as a Strom Thurmond Republican.

Congrats to the Dems on electing another Zell Miller. LMAO.

Posted by: LdSentinal | May 19, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse

I'm just curious why Dems can't claim Critz as a win if GOP can claim Scott Brown. The guy is now the most liberal Republican in the Senate. Of course, I guess the GOP is just a step away from disowning him.

The GOP has their heads so far up their arses with this ideological purity that they don't seem to realize the other side of the aisle doesn't share the same stance. The reason the Dems have such large majorities in the House and Senate is because they will accept the blue dogs. It's not like all the D Congressmen are Nancy Pelosi clones. There are plenty of conservative Dems in congress. Critz is just another one. If that's a victory for Republicans, then they can claim it as one. The fact is that in these House special elections, Dems have been winning in liberal districts, they have been winning in conservative districts, and all points in between. And the Republicans have their excuses ready for all of them. Just like they had their excuses in 2006 and just like in 2008. And if things keep going this way for the GOP, they will have plenty of time to be writing excuses because they sure as hell won't be writing any policy.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 19, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

The tea tards are spinning their Tim Burns loss in PA-12 just like they're spinning their Doug "Green Teeth" Hoffman loss in NY-23.

I guess if Marc Critz isn't really a Democrat then Scott Brown isn't really a Republican because he's pro-choice.

It is to laugh.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | May 19, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

So when Djou wins on Saturday in Hawaii, the Dems won't spin it?

Face it, the only way Dems can win this year is by running to the Right of Republicans, like Critz did with Burns.

However, congrats to Critz, who says he will vote to overthrow Obamacare in a district that is gone next year. LOL.

Posted by: LdSentinal | May 19, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Chris-

To give credit where credit is due- yes the whole campaign group was involved in Sestak's ad production. But the ad maven there who's worked most closely with sestak over the years is JJ Balaban. He deserves as much credit as the more well known Schweitzer and Oxman.

Posted by: pollibido | May 19, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Come, let us face reality together.

Last night was a sweep for the Democratic Party. Critz and Sestak need no further comment. The nomination of Rand Paul underscores yet again, and with a double line of red magic marker, that the teabaggers are great for the Democrats. Rand Paul is unelectable as Doug Hoffman, probably even more so.

Give Mitch McConnell rare credit where due: he can see that nominating so extreme and bizarre a candidate as Paul Jr. is the same as conceding defeat before the election. There isn't enough bourbon in Kentucky to elect this guy, and he now has six months to spout unhinged libertarian rubbish and turn Kentucky as blue as a Union uniform in the Civil War.

There's a good reason the Libertarian will never break the 3% ceiling: we are not a nation of sociopaths.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 19, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

"Congrats to the Democrats for electing a conservative by just 7.6% in a district favoring Dems 2-1 in party registration and a district that will be eliminated next year after redistricting."

The Republicans all got their talking points, that's for sure as I've seen this one everywhere.

Nevermind that in 2008, probably the best environment possible for the Democrats, Murtha (established congressman with seniority) only got 58% and Obama LOST the district. If Republicans seriously hope to win the House, this is EXACTLY the kind of district they need to win. Obama's approval there is 35%. If party affiliation is what you seriously think is a determining factor, in 2004 there were 72 million Dems compared to 55 mil Republicans. You guys are hosed if that is the metric.

Charlie Cook said it best three weeks ago:

“Republicans have no excuse to lose this race. The fundamentals of this district, including voters' attitudes towards Obama and Pelosi, are awful for Democrats. And Democratic party registration advantages here are just as obsolete as GOP's advantages in Upstate New York were last year. Timing is no excuse for Republicans either. This special election, not the competitive statewide Democratic primaries held the same day, will be driving turnout on May 18th. With both candidates and party committees plus some outside groups likely to be up on air with full buys between now and the election, there will be far more dollars spent per vote on the PA-12 race than on the Senate or gubernatorial primaries.”

Shockingly, though, I am in agreement with 37thandO (maybe his name was hijacked ??). It runs completely counter to what Thiessen is saying on the other page about a "Liberal Purge" of the Democratic Party. It's a selective purging of politicians the electorate is dissatisfied with. Lincoln was hit from both left and right, Mulholland was defeated from the right, Specter from the left, etc. It is specific issues in each case (corruption, being a primadonna, still being seen as a Republican-in-Democrat's clothing, etc), not a liberal purge.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 19, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

I'm curious for those who see the Critz win as a loss for the Dems, does that include if the Dems end up holding the house by 1 member - isn't just 1 member all it takes for the Dems to control all of the committees and votes?

Posted by: bobbywc | May 19, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

There is no valid extrapolation that can be derived from the results of PA 12th that is applicable to the national political mood. Critz was Murtha's right hand man in charge of pork procurement, and he delivered. As other posters have noted, Critz holds views that could be described as right-wing, even Dixiecrat. Even then, he won the race by only a single-digit margin. I do not understand why virtually all of the Washington pundits persist in a strained effort to draw national implications from a hyper-local election. Remember the words of TIp O'Neill...


HOW COVERT U.S. GOV'T WARRANTLESS SURVEILLANCE USES 'SPOOFED' (FAKED) WEBSITES TO IMPOSE IDEOLOGICAL CENSORSHIP ON THE INTERNET

• If you are "targeted" by a rogue fusion center program for your politics, your comment to a political blog may appear only on a "spoofed" page visible over your connection, not on anyone else's.

http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-govt-censors-net-political-speech-targeted-americans

AND WHAT WOULD PROMPT THIS DRACONIAN CENSORSHIP?

Perhaps, this article documenting Homeland Security's microwave cellular "torture tower" weapon system -- silently irradiating, impairing and harming extrajudicially "targeted" Americans:

http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-silently-tortures-americans-cell-tower-microwaves
OR NowPublic.com/scrivener re: "Obama: Take Down Fusion Center Gestapo..."

Posted by: scrivener50 | May 19, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

"Winner: spin. Anyone who can spin the defeat of the Republican candidate as a victory for Republicans deserves the Spin City award for demeritorious conduct."

Agree with you there -- the wingers trying to spin this big Democratic victory today as a win for Rs are hilariously pathetic.

Posted by: drindl | May 19, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure why the experts are down on John Wall as a weak #1 pick. He seems more polished than his Calipari predecessors Rose and Evans. The way that PGs are dominating the game, Wall could be a franchise changer the way that Chris Paul is doing in New Orleans.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 19, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

I basically agree with your choices for both winners and losers, although I do think Sestak's vanquishing of 'Snarlin' Arlen', venerable pol. though he is, deserves to place him amongst the winners.

Not, however, ahead of Mark Critz's victory, which I feel was not only well-deserved as the über-win of last night, but was somewhat unexpected--or at least counter to the prevailing narrative at least.

Posted by: sverigegrabb | May 19, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

A win is a win, but then we must ask at what cost? maybe Crtiz will be a thorn in Obama's side - he should be if he expects to win in November -

But, perception is everything and the Dems seem to be winning these special elections. This may be enough to get the vote out in November - so even if Critz was not the best win for the Dems - if it gets people energized for November then it is more than a win is a win - it is a win.

Posted by: bobbywc | May 19, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

November is the End Game, Winners and Losers will be decided by there District Tea Partiers, down and dirty on the streets.
The True measure of this comment for #Election2010 and how it will go down in the Record books in November...Bennett, 18 years career, GAME OVER ...

Posted by: ubuibiok | May 19, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

In the days and weeks leading up to last night, RNC Chair Mickey Steele openly scoffed at the suggestion his candidate might not prevail in the Pennsylvania special election. His laughably lame political prognostication skills (reminiscent of Rove in advance of the '06 and '08 gop congressional debacles) make him a big loser Tuesday night.

Posted by: ImaDem | May 19, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Winner: spin. Anyone who can spin the defeat of the Republican candidate as a victory for Republicans deserves the Spin City award for demeritorious conduct.

Jake in 3D

Posted by: JakeD3 | May 19, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Yes, congrats to Mark Critz who ran as Jessie Helms Republican. Critz, a Democrat, who is PRO-LIFE, PRO-GUN, PRO-IRAQ WAR, ANTI-CAP & TRADE and AGAINST OBAMACARE.

Oh, and Critz said he hates Obama and doesn't want him anywhere near PA-12.

Congrats to the Democrats for electing a conservative by just 7.6% in a district favoring Dems 2-1 in party registration and a district that will be eliminated next year after redistricting.

Posted by: LdSentinal | May 19, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Naaaa - little of this makes much sense.

The DCCC can't claim much of a victory with a candidate who is pro-gun, pro-life, pro-fiscal restraint - AND anti-Obamacare. AND Critz lost 13,000 democratic votes to Burns - in a district which was drawn a little differently would have led to a loss.

The other things aren't going to last very long.


THE only two things which will have medium term impact is Rand Paul - the democrats will have a relatively easier race in the fall now -


But it is a victory for the Tea Party - but ONLY in areas in which the Republican party is strong enough and conservative enough for the Tea Party to thrive.

Kentucky is not really representative of the whole country.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 19, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

I'm skeptical of the alleged positive news for Buck/Hayworth/Angle. One important distinction between Paul and those three is Rand Paul's access to Ron Paul's nationwide donor list. Projecting those outcomes based on the KY results is bad analysis.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 19, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

This would be a great time for Democrats to donate to the DCCC and DSCC. Even $5 sends a message.

The mythical Republican landslide of November 2010 isn't going to happen.

What's more, if Republican primary voters continue to nominate paleo-conservatives over mainstream candidates, the general electorate might well decide to let Democrats gain seats.

Posted by: paul65 | May 19, 2010 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Chris, agree with most of the above but the latest poll – came out yesterday – shows Hayworth falling further behind McCain. Looks like he's peaked and fading.

Posted by: drindl | May 19, 2010 2:23 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company