Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Senate Democrats claim momentum in four states

1. Senate Democrats will argue today that their electoral prospects have improved in four states -- Kentucky, Louisiana, Illinois and Nevada -- over recent weeks, developments that will limit their losses in the fall.

"Despite the headwinds of history, Democratic Senate candidates in these states -- two of which would be pick-up opportunities -- have becoming increasingly competitive," writes Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee executive director J.B. Poersch in a memo set to be distributed today.

Democrats' strongest argument is in Nevada where the struggles of former state Assemblywoman Sharron Angle since her Republican primary victory on June 8 have coincided with a drop in her standing in a head to head matchup with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D).

A recent Las Vegas Review Journal poll showed Reid with a seven-point edge -- a margin unthinkable even a few weeks ago.

In Illinois, too, Democratic prospects have improved thanks to the foibles of the Republican nominee. Rep. Mark Kirk has been beset by questions about his resume following revelations that he has misstated elements of his past military service. Poersch writes that Kirk is in "freefall" -- perhaps something of an overstatement although even Republicans acknowledge a race that was once theirs to lose has faded back to toss up status.

(Worth noting in Illinois: State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, the Democratic nominee, has plenty of his own baggage, including the recent failure of his family bank; Kirk also outraised him in the second quarter by $1.4 million.)

Louisiana and Kentucky represent genuine Democratic pickup chances, argues Poersch thanks in large part to the fact that Sen. David Vitter (La.) and ophthalmologist Rand Paul are flawed candidates. Poersch derided Vitter's "scandal-ridden campaign" (an aide to the Senator was let go after revelations that he had attacked a former girlfriend) and described Paul as a "fringe candidate".

Both states are, however, tough sledding demographically for Democrats. President Barack Obama won just 40 percent in Louisiana and 41 percent in Kentucky in the 2008 race.

Regarded broadly, the point Poersch aims to make in the memo is that while the national environment is not a beneficial one for Democrats and while history suggests losses are coming their way, candidates and the campaigns they run matter. "These midterm elections will be a contrast between the two Senate candidates on each ballot," he concludes.

Most neutral political handicappers -- from Charlie Cook to Stu Rothenberg -- now see Senate Democrats headed for losses between five and eight seats this fall.

2. President Barack Obama has added Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Wisconsin gubernatorial candidate Tom Barrett (D) to his August fundraising tour.

Obama will go to Milwaukee on Aug. 16 to highlight economic efforts and raise money for Barrett, the mayor of the Cream City, the lone major candidate for governor on the Democratic side. The following day, President Obama will head to Washington for the same dual purpose, benefiting Murray.

Barrett was a top White House recruit in the race to replace retiring Gov. Jim Doyle (D). He will face the winner of the GOP primary between Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker and former Rep. Mark Neumann where Walker is favored.

Obama's visit to Washington happens to fall on primary day, when Murray and another candidate former state Sen. Dino Rossi (R) are likely to win berths in the general election.

Rossi's entry into the race catapulted Murray into the ranks of vulnerable incumbents. It should be noted that Washington, more than a lot of other states, remains rather fond of the president a year and half after he was inaugurated.

3. New Hampshire state Attorney General and Republican frontrunner Kelly Ayotte has seen her lead over Rep. Paul Hodes (D) shrink since April although she remains ahead by eight points, according to a new University of New Hampshire poll.

Ayotte leads Hodes 45 percent to 37 percent among likely voters in a general election match-up -- a slimmer margin than the 15-point edge she held in April.

Democrats immediately seized on the numbers to prove that Ayotte, who faces two wealthy businessmen and 1996 gubernatorial nominee Ovide LaMontagne in a Sept. 14 primary, is struggling in the wake of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's endorsement of her campaign.

The best evidence? Ayotte's unfavorability rating has more than doubled from 13 percent to 27 percent over the past three months. That said, her standing is still stronger than that of Hodes who has a 32 percent favorable/31 unfavorable score.

The UNH poll did not release any Republican primary numbers although Ayotte is considered a clear favorite. Both Jim Bender and Bill Binnie are spending heavily from their own bank accounts while LaMontagne is trying to appeal directly to conservative voters.

The seat is open because Sen. Judd Gregg (R) is not seeking re-election.

4. Two weeks after his campaign manager's abrupt departure, billionaire real estate developer Jeff Greene is making more staffing changes in his bid for the Democratic Senate nomination in Florida.

Greene, who is battling Rep. Kendrick Meek in the Aug. 24 primary, has added media consultants Tad Devine and Julian Mulvey to his team. (Greene's camp confirmed that current media consultant Joe Trippi will be staying on with the campaign.)

The firm has worked with on Boston Celtics co-owner Stephen Pagliuca's (D) unsuccessful bid in the Massachusetts Senate special election as well as former Rep. Ed Case's (D) losing run in Hawaii's 1st district special election in May. They've also been working on Massachusetts Treasurer Tim Cahill's independent bid for governor.

Meanwhile, the already nasty fight took another interesting turn when Meek said in a conference call with reporters that he's not sure whether he'd support Greene as the Democratic nominee.

"I don't like to live in the world of hypotheticals and I really, I'm not even prepared to answer that question," Meek said, adding: " I do see Mr. Greene as a Republican versus a Democrat." Greene, who ran for Congress as a Republican in California in the early 1980s, said earlier this month that he would back Meek as the nominee.

Greene's camp accused Meek of applying a double standard. "It's hypocritical of Kendrick Meek to say he's the 'Real Democrat' when he won't even commit to supporting the Democratic nominee for US Senate," Greene spokesperson Luiz Vizcaino said.

Both candidate are bashing one another on TV. Meek went up with his first ad this week, while Greene is hitting back with an ad of his own charging that Meek is corrupt.

5. Self-funding businessman Rick Snyder (R) has spent about twice as much as his nearest competitor this year in the Michigan governor's race, as he and three other candidates battle it out in advance of the primary next Tuesday.

Snyder, a former executive at Gateway computers, has spent $4.6 million between Jan. 1 and July 18, compared to $2.4 million for state Attorney General Mike Cox and $1 million for Rep. Pete Hoekstra. That trio is neck and neck in polling while Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard, who spent $813,000 during the same time period, isn't far behind.

On the Democratic side, state House Speaker Andy Dillon is outraising and outspending Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero by a two-to-one margin. Dillon raised $1.4 million this year compared to Bernero's $743,000.

Pre-primary reports in other Aug. 3 primary states -- Missouri and Kansas -- provided few surprises.

In Missouri, Rep. Roy Blunt's (R) Senate campaign has also spent heavily in advance of the primary -- although the vast majority of that cash went into television ads bashing Secretary of State Robin Carnahan (D), Blunt's likely general election opponent. All told, Blunt spent $572,000 in the first two weeks of July.

Thanks to Blunt's spending, Carnahan, who is not yet on television, cut the cash gap in half since the start of the month. She now trails Blunt just $4 million to $3.6 million in available cash.

In the Kansas GOP Senate primary, Rep. Jerry Moran has spent twice as much as Rep. Todd Tiahrt during the campaign -- $4.5 million to $2.2 million. Tiahrt has slightly more cash left, $889,000 to $795,000 for the final push, however. Whoever wins the primary will be a heavy favorite in November.

With Aaron Blake and Felicia Sonmez

By Chris Cillizza  |  July 29, 2010; 7:37 AM ET
Categories:  Morning Fix  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: DNC transfers $2.5 million to party committees
Next: 'Worst Week in Washington': The nominations

Comments

Are you people serious???
The GOP sucks. Paul's a freakin racist, He's stated multiple times that he says that the civil rights laws were unconstitutional? Plus he's an eye surgen, what does he know about government? It seems like old Randy wants to be like dady, so he drops the y and figures everone will vote for him because of ron. While I think Paul's better than trey, he's not that much better, he has the same lame "trickel down" theories. Paul's just a moran

Posted by: Will17 | August 1, 2010 11:55 PM | Report abuse

All I need to know Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) is an avid pro-amnesty incumbent, which to me means billions more dollars to support these illegal people. FAIRS analysis offers a figure of 113 billion dollars annually are drained from public treasuries. According to the banking committee 60 billion dollars are forwarded in remittances to foreign countries from illegal labor. THROW OUT HARRY REID AND THE REST OF THE LEADERSHIP, WHO WOULD FORCE THROUGH ANOTHER DEVASTATING AMNESTY. Angle is not the greatest, but she is not pro-illegal alien and she will be shaped by the propagating TEA PARTY and Independents. BE--VERY--AWARE--THAT--ILLEGAL ALIENS--HAVE--VIOLATED--FEDERAL-- LAW--AND-- VOTED. BE--ON--GUARD--IN--BORDER--STATES--WITH--MILLIONS--OF--ILLEGAL--HOUSEHOLDS.

Posted by: infinity555 | July 31, 2010 5:23 PM | Report abuse

1. Louisiana is not competitive. David Vitter will win reelection handily. In Kentucky & Nevada, those races are competitive mainly due to the GOP nominees. In Ill., it's a terrible thing for Democrats that this one is competitive as Ill. is a very blue state. Kirk is actually the slight favorite to beat out Giannoulias at this point in time. Kirk is in the lead in fundraising and polling is virtually tied at around 40% for each with a Green party candidate running as well. This one should go to Kirk for R pick up. My bets are that Kentucky will be won by Paul & Nevada, at this point, is a true toss up that may not be determined until election day. That is a major plus for Democrats, as Lowden or Tankarian would have demolished Reid easily.

2. Those are the types of appearances Obama needs to make. Wisconsin and Washington are both states won by Obama and he is a great fundraiser. This certainly helps both Murray and Barrett.

3. This race is still very much Ayotte's to lose. I got news for ya, she isn't losing it. She is now way ahead in the R primary according to all the polls and is still well ahead of Hodes in a GE. So, what exactly is looking so badly for Ayotte? This is a non story the democrats would like to make true.

4. This primary is way more than Meek bargained for. Meek is fighting for his political life in the D Senate primary, something I don't think he ever expected. Greene has spent so much money bashing Meek. Meek saying he won't support Greene as the Democratic nominee must be music to the ears of Charlie Crist. Crist must hope Greene wins the Democratic nomination so he can siphon off alot more Democratic votes. On the other hand, Rubio must hope Meek wins the D nomination. If Greene wins then the GE advantage goes to Crist, but if Meek wins the GE advantage goes to Rubio. Either way, neither Democrat has much of a shot of winning this seat. It's a Rubio vs. Crist race, with the winner of the D nomination as an also ran.

5. In Michigan, Snyder vs. Cox vs. Hoekstra is one of the best primaries in the nation. It's going to come down to election day and either 3 of them could win it. Bouchard is running strong, but has no real shot to win. Watch the Kansas R primary race, as Moran is the favorite but Tiahrt is coming on strong and could pull it out on election day. Good stuff.

Posted by: reason5 | July 29, 2010 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Mark: Try Politics one. Lots of candidates and almost all have something on the internet to identify themselves.

Posted by: ceflynline | July 29, 2010 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Well, he thinks I'm part of the reason he's never gotten anywhere in life, so hopefully we can build bridges over Snooki.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 29, 2010 2:56 PM
-----------------------------------------
Oooooooooooooh, I'm looking into my crystal ball. I predict that 37th will continue to blame you even though you are Snooki-aware. I also predict that 37th will continue to go nowhere in life.

Of course, I could be wrong.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 29, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Until earlier today, I was totally unaware of who Snooki is, other than a nickname Lisa De Morales uses in her chat.

I take that as mark of pride.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | July 29, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse

"Sorry, ddawd, for grouping you into the unawares-of-snooki. I guess that 37th will respect you now.

Posted by: 12BarBlues"

Well, he thinks I'm part of the reason he's never gotten anywhere in life, so hopefully we can build bridges over Snooki.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 29, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, ddawd, for grouping you into the unawares-of-snooki. I guess that 37th will respect you now.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 29, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

When we were kids on the farm, my sis and I listened to C&W and black stations where we heard singer-songwriters.

Our parents listened to the "Lucky Strike Hit Parade" with Dorothy Collins and Snooki Lanson. They covered the week's Tin Pan Alley hits, and they disappeared from the American scene when TPA finally died. I never missed them.

I give you Snooki.

http://s0.ilike.com/play#Snooky+Lanson:It's+Almost+Tomorrow:14903224:m24869155

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 29, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

I actually know who Snooki is. Jersey Shore could easily take place on the New Orleans Westbank. You just take away the guidos and replace them with rednecks. Otherwise it's about the same.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 29, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

I just went on a four mile run and came across the largest rattlesnake I have ever seen, sunning itself on the trail. Lets see what I missed...nothing, nothing at all. Back to work.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 29, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

I've got a hunch that ddawd, bsimon and I are not the only ones who didn't know about Snooki.

Maybe the truth of the matter is that only 37th watches Snooki. How about it, 37th? Are you a Snooki groupie?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 29, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

I still don't know who Snooki is, but I've heard of the Mel Gibson tapes, although I don't care about Mel Gibson. Does that me me half-clued?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 29, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

I, for one, didn't know who Snookie was until Sen McCain exchanged 'tweets' with her. Boy, if only the election had turned out different.

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 29, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

What Mel Gibson tapes? I haven't been to the supermarket in a while. The only way I get celeb gossip is by looking at the magazine covers.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 29, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

37th,

So, your premise is that you would respect the President if he knows who Snooki is and if he was closely following the Mel Gibson tapes.

Is it possible that the President is a LOT busier than you are, possibly does not spend time watching television, possibly spends his time on governing and national security issues? You don't have to spend time on those issues, so you can know all about Snooki.

But, since you see the President as clueless, I'm sure this is just another important piece of evidence--Obama's lack of Snookiness.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 29, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Why is Obama calling blacks a "mongrel people"


Seems like that is racist.

Why would Obama say that ???

This is highly questionable language - and Obama should not be going down that road.

MONGREL ? Who says that ???

.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 29, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Should a President know the basics of pop culture - or should he be completely clueless ?


Obama was certainly unprepared today for his appearance.

.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 29, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Mark


Do you really want a President who hasn't heard at least a part of the Mel Gibson tapes ???


Do you really want a President who doesn't know who Snooki is ???

It tells you how Obama is out of touch - and he doesn't talk to people -


If Obama talked to his advisors, and had some banter - he would know who Snooki is

There is a cultural thing going on here - Obama is not really in there with the rest of us.

.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 29, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

SENATE


I think a firm commitment to the basics is important for any predictions - meaning red states are red states, blue states are blue states, and swing states are swing states.

That is why Kentucky, Nevada and Louisiana are not in play.


Illinois - the democrats do have a chance - but this year Kirk is going to win.


Washington State and Wisconsin - swing states that are going to go red this year.


Florida - the traditional basics of a three-way race are still going to come into play - Rubio and Crist are STILL spliting the Republican vote - that helps the democrat.


The democrat in Florida has a solid chance - rally the base on the ground while the other two go after each other.

Florida may be the ONLY pick-up for the democrats. And if Crist wins, who knows where he will fall

.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 29, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

URGENT TO ATTY. GEN. ERIC HOLDER, DEPUTY A.G. TOM PEREZ:

Homeland-run fusion centers nationwide are using a classified U.S. government microwave laser radio frequency directed energy weapon system, mounted on cell towers everywhere, to TORTURE, IMPAIR AND INJURE extrajudicially targeted American citizens. Exhibit A: U.S. Patent No. 7629918, held by Raytheon Corp.

By this time, you are aware -- as is every security, intel and law enforcement agency in the government. And yet this heinous electromagnetic torture matrix remains franchised out to a broad array of agencies and commands, and contractors.

EVERY DAY YOU ALLOW THIS SYSTEM TO FUNCTION IS ANOTHER DAY THAT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION COUNTENANCES CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.

This heinous electromagnetic torture and "entrainment" regimen denies human beings their inalienable right to free will and freedom from external manipulation of their physical and neurological functioning. It did not begin on your watch. But now you own it -- and YOU MUST STOP IT. NOW.

http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-silently-tortures-americans-cell-tower-microwaves
http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america
OR NowPublic.com/scrivener (lede articles and links therein)

Posted by: scrivener50 | July 29, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

StreetCorner, this is the funniest post I have read in weeks! I choked on my lunch!
====================================
Obama appeared to not know anything about the Mel Gibson tapes -

And Obama said that he didn't know who Snooki was

The man is out of touch -


He wanted to talk about Afghanistan and the women on the View wanted his views on Anger Management - about Mel Gibson.

Obama was just clueless.

.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 29, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse
========================

I hope your tongue was buried deep in your cheek, young'un.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 29, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

"And Obama said that he didn't know who Snooki was
The man is out of touch -"

ROFLOL -- I never read the methhead's post but this caught my eye -- funniest thing I've read all day.

Gee, the president of the US would rather talk about a war we happen to be in, than a TV show about morons watched by morons.

Clearly methedrine place takes your head to strange and very stupid places.

Posted by: drindl | July 29, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

leapin, I am right there with you, we can agree Democratic hypocrisy is plain as day. Both parties have all four of their piggy hooves in the trough. It will always be a which is worse question, not which is better.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 29, 2010 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Democrats claim momentum? I think Michael Steele should call on Harry Reid to resign again, it seemed like such a grand(iose) idea six months ago. My how time flies.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 29, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

the rich are still making tons of money

Yes and sadly the rich getting richer was supposed to cure unemployment. They were supposed to "create" jobs with all that money. Turns out, they can make more money without creating jobs than they can creating jobs. Doh! indeed.

Posted by: shrink2
------------------------------------------
Yes, John Kerry should have bought a US yacht instead of exporting those jobs overseas. The rich appear to be selfish. What does Chelsea's hubby-to-be need a 4 million dollar apartment for anyway?

Posted by: leapin | July 29, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Obama appeared to not know anything about the Mel Gibson tapes -
And Obama said that he didn't know who Snooki was
The man is out of touch -

He wanted to talk about Afghanistan and the women on the View wanted his views on Anger Management - about Mel Gibson.
Obama was just clueless.
.
Posted by: YouCanPostThis
-------------------------------------------
He doesn’t know these things? He specifically went on the View (blowing off the Boy Scouts) to appeal to the ignorant, vapid base of his party. He sure is clueless. He’s gotta start knowing about this stuff or talk about freebies if he wants to energize his D base.

Posted by: leapin | July 29, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

At Arlington - let's be clear - the maps are wrong - or the maps have been drawn up incorrectly.

The graves and the markers themselves are NOT mismarked.


Usually a family knows where the grave it - they don't go check the maps everytime they go - they know where the grave is from the first time.

So, one can read the stones on the ground and correct the maps.

I would guess, there is some numbering system or grid system which has been translated onto the maps incorrectly.

I would guess: that all the markers are on the maps in the right order - so all one would have to do is start matching the grave stones on the ground with the names on the maps - and QUICKLY the mis-characterization in the grid system will emerge.


So row A might actually be row 1 - or row Z could be marked as row A and it is backwards on the maps -


The problem is on the maps - NOT on the gravemarkers themselves.

.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 29, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Obama appeared to not know anything about the Mel Gibson tapes -

And Obama said that he didn't know who Snooki was

The man is out of touch -


He wanted to talk about Afghanistan and the women on the View wanted his views on Anger Management - about Mel Gibson.

Obama was just clueless.

.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 29, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

the rich are still making tons of money

Yes and sadly the rich getting richer was supposed to cure unemployment. They were supposed to "create" jobs with all that money. Turns out, they can make more money without creating jobs than they can creating jobs. Doh! indeed.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 29, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

"The Dems and their Supporters, including the Post, remain delusional - they will get wiped out in the midterms, including Harry Reid who has no chance to be re-elected.

Posted by: Realist201 | July 29, 2010 10:13 AM | Report abuse"

Really, brainiac, no chance? LOL You gotta love the teabagggers. Comedy gold!

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | July 29, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

"Get ready to bend over tax payers (ALL tax payers in ALL tax brackets)...New taxes on the horizon (2011) are extremely onerous."

What a joke. These allegedly onerous taxes were in place the last time the middle class saw any regular growth in income - the 90s. Since the Bush tax cuts went into effect, wages for the majority of Americans have been flat. But, hey, look at the bright side - the rich are still making tons of money and one day the tooth fairy & easter bunny will help that trickle down to the middle class. Yay Reaganomics!

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 29, 2010 12:28 PM | Report abuse

"Rock beats everything - Bart Simpson (liberals)

Poor Bart, he always plays rock - Lisa, the Repubs"


Lisa is the intellectual & therefore is despised by Repubs as an elitist. Your simplistic attempt at an amusing metaphor is deeply flawed. Go back to the 'no taxes, ever' rock. Doh!

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 29, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Yes, Crist wins, this has become more clear as each week passes...a man The Fix had buried alive...CC had Rubio ranked #7 in his list of top Republicans back in February.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 29, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Get ready to bend over tax payers (ALL tax payers in ALL tax brackets)...New taxes on the horizon (2011) are extremely onerous. Beware business owners...you are screwed. You can thank the DemocRAT party for this in November.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=541131

Posted by: NO-bama | July 29, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

This election will be about Obama - and yes the polls are moving in 4 states in the races for the Senate.


But voters in those states will vote against Obama - and Obama is not on the ballot - so they will take out their anger on the democrats on the ballot.

Simple.


.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 29, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

"MiA, I think you are wrong about Meek being obligated to support Greene.

Greene is an outsider to the party who is buying his way to the Senate. He hasn't worked for the Democratic party or been elected to previous positions as a Democrat or even been active in Democratic causes. He's a bored rich man who used to be a Republican but finds it more convenient to run as a Democrat. If Meek refuses to endorse him (if Greene wins the primary) I'd say Meek was standing up for the party against a man who is only interested in himself. Greene is scum, and if he wins a primary he doesn't instantly become not scum.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | July 29, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse"

OK. I am EZ. Meek loses nothing by not supporting Greene if he is perceived by D voters as "scum". I retract my previous post, except for the suggestion that this is all to Crist's advantage, which I favor.


Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 29, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Electoral College


How are they going to hold a recount if the election is close ?


That is a really serious question - at this point, the States control their own elections - and recounts are handled under State law - so immediately there is the problem of unequal recount procedures.

But there deeper question - if half the States are on this system - how do the Courts in ONE state order the recounts in the OTHER states ???


Especially since only half the states may be part of this system - the situation may arise that a Court IN the system may be ordering a recount OUTSIDE the system.


Those states may say they dont want to PAY for a recount because the situation does not fall under their triggers for a recount - a serious problem indeed.

WHAT if Chicago reports 20 Million votes for Obama - and everyone knows there are not 20 Million people in Chicago, yet those votes are certified ???


________________________


The bottom line the Electoral College is great not because it maximizes anything - it is great because it minimizes the potential problems.

People cheat - it is a fact of life - and under the Electoral College cheating is minimized.

In addition - under the Electoral College, problems are isolated, the problems are in certain states - and recounts do not have to be nation-wide.


Except for 1876, there have not been multiple states in dispute.

There are too many problems with the popular vote - in Minnesota felons were allowed to vote - whether it was legal or not.


In San Francisco they want illegal aliens to be allowed to vote - do they count nationwide ? Who is checking this if the San Francisco people are reporting ALL the votes together - and not separating the citizen vote from the non-citizen vote ?

One must remember that it was anticipated that more than 2 people would run for President - before the national parties emerged to nominate one person each.

The problems with the system are NOW in the nomination process - with the election of delegates - Michigan Florida South Carolina Nevada who goes first who gets to go third and fourth ?

That's the real problem - Hillary got more popular votes last time but the democrats nominated Obama - why don't you all complain about that ???

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 29, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Libs claim they're not losing as bad as everyone thinks they are. It's bad, it's just not THAT bad.

this is what the Libs have been reduced to. We're not despised, we're just hated a little.

do you think the lackeys in the LSM will ever conduct any naval gazing to try to figure out how they could have gone so wrong so fast?

Nope!

Rock beats everything - Bart Simpson (liberals)

Poor Bart, he always plays rock - Lisa, the Repubs

Posted by: Dead_and_Barryd | July 29, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

"Liberal states are moving to circumvent the electoral college to ensure they are the large (liberal) states determine future elections but retaining the illusion that your vote in a small state counts. The very thing the founders were concerned about happening and, therefore, one rreason that they established the electoral college.

Posted by: leapin"

Well, maybe once in a while, we could seeing our way to enacting policies that most Americans support. It's pretty ridiculous that 40 Senators representing about 25% of the US population can hold up any and all pieces of legislation.

First of all, this would only come into play in elections where the electoral winner is not the popular vote winner. This happens almost never, I don't believe it happened once in the 1900s.

And second, the laws only kick in when 270EV worth of states join in. Right now, I think it's only six states with EV total of 73. Given that the average state has about 11 EV, that's not much higher than average. They are definitely blue, though.

But the point is that we are nowhere close to getting to 270. The only states that really have any incentive to do this are highly partisan states and there aren't enough EVs among partisan states to do so. The three largest partisan states, NY, CA, and TX give us another 120. Illinois is probably the next largest partisan state, but I think it's already in the pact. Then we have Ohio, PA, Florida as the next biggest states. And they have absolutely zero incentive to join the pact since they get so much attention.

I am definitely in favor of bypassing the EC. I think it would increase voter turnout immensely since a vote in Louisiana would count the same as a vote in Ohio.

But Republicans usually benefit from low turnout elections, which means that Texas and the whole of middle America are out. So don't lose too much sleep, leapin.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 29, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

"The Democrats are going to lose BIG TIME - EVERYWHERE!"

I worry what is going to happen to this depleted jumble of neurons, the Republican Mind when not too much happens in November and Obama walks over whatever corporate spokesflak they put up in 2012?

Posted by: shrink2 | July 29, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe writes
"Our guess is he'll drop out of the Pres. race at some point with a view towards getting an appointment if the GOP nominee wins in 2012."

He's a long shot for winning the nomination, no doubt about that. I'm just saying he will do better than people expect. As Joe writes, he'd be in the pool of likely high-level appointees for a GOP admin, should they win in 2012. He's also got to think about his next job; the likelyhood of returning to law practice is rather small. The obvious next political steps are to get on the national ticket or run for the Senate. Klobuchar's up in 2012, but she has high approval ratings & will be tough to beat. Franken's not up until 2014.

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 29, 2010 10:56 AM | Report abuse

ddawd asks
"Do you think Pawlenty would have a shot at winning Minnesota if he were to win the nomination?"


No. Think Al Gore & Tennessee.

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 29, 2010 10:50 AM | Report abuse

In Kansas, I'd agree that if Moran wins the GOP primary he'd be heavily favored in November. Tiahart, not so much, as he is the poster boy for the extraordinarily right-wing faction that has wreaked havoc on the Kansas GOP and enabled the election of Kathleen Sebelius as governor.

Posted by: jeffersonian1 | July 29, 2010 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Pawlenty's approvals (outside FixWorld, that is) are in the cellar: no chance he could have won reelection in MN. Our guess is he'll drop out of the Pres. race at some point with a view towards getting an appointment if the GOP nominee wins in 2012.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 29, 2010 10:41 AM | Report abuse

And, yes, I am saying better Crist than Greene.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | July 29, 2010 10:39 AM | Report abuse

MiA, I think you are wrong about Meek being obligated to support Greene.

Greene is an outsider to the party who is buying his way to the Senate. He hasn't worked for the Democratic party or been elected to previous positions as a Democrat or even been active in Democratic causes. He's a bored rich man who used to be a Republican but finds it more convenient to run as a Democrat. If Meek refuses to endorse him (if Greene wins the primary) I'd say Meek was standing up for the party against a man who is only interested in himself. Greene is scum, and if he wins a primary he doesn't instantly become not scum.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | July 29, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse

"How are Pawlenty's approval ratings these days?"

Posted by: DDAWD |

______________________________________

Not even Republicans think he is a viable choice.

"I'm going to read a list of people who may be running for president in the Republican Party in 2012. Please tell me which one of these candidates you would be most likely to support for the Republican nomination for president in the year 2012 if you had to choose today." [Asked of Republicans and Republican leaners]

Huckabee, 19%

Romney, 18%

Palin, 14%

Gingrich, 12%

Bush (Jeb), 9%

Pawlenty, 3%

Daniels, 2%

Barbour, 1%

[Time Poll conducted by Abt SRBI. July 12-13, 2010]

Posted by: WhateverHeSaid | July 29, 2010 10:34 AM | Report abuse

All of this shows that it is anyone's race - but the stupid comments of the regular right wingers tell me they are running scared.

the American people are not stupid - they understand under Bush the jobs and economy were in a free fall - today we are in a very slow recovery - maybe too slow - but at least we are not in a free fall.

FACTS WHICH REPUBLICANS HATE

The Republican Party has become corporatists - in part this helped for the birth of the Tea Party which appears different on this issue.

What the nutjobs would call good capitalism and the solution communism

FHA, VA, SBA, Student Loans all programs which have corporate America making the profits and the taxpayers picking up the cost of the bad debt when the loans default. This the right calls good capitalism.

If we were to end the taxpayers having to guarantee these loans while allowing the banks to make all of the profits, we could expand the economy.

How, if the taxpayers have to pay for the defaulted loan, why not also allow the taxpayers to make the profit as a way to fund government, instead of taxes - no - the right calls the government funding government with business profits over taxes - communism

Bobby WC

Posted by: bobbywc | July 29, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Today’s Neocom Statist Party Update on the Dismantling of the Republic
-------------------------------------------
Liberal activist judge strikes down provisions of the AZ immigration law based on supposition instead of empirical evidence. After all that’s all there was to go on since the law hasn’t been in effect even 1 day.

Freedom of Information Act no longer applies to the Security Exchange Commission under Obamanism reform.

Liberal states are moving to circumvent the electoral college to ensure they are the large (liberal) states determine future elections but retaining the illusion that your vote in a small state counts. The very thing the founders were concerned about happening and, therefore, one rreason that they established the electoral college.

Posted by: leapin | July 29, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

The tea-baggers remain the key to the Democrats retaining control of Congress.

As long as the tea-baggers remain active and visible, the Democrats prospects improve.

The tea-baggers remain clueless as to why they lost New York's 23rd Congressional District for the Republicans -- for the first time since the Civil War.

Or why Sarah Palin is the toxic kiss-of-death for any candidate she supports.

Keep up the good work, tea-baggers.

America's success depends on your efforts.

Posted by: WhateverHeSaid | July 29, 2010 10:22 AM | Report abuse

The Dems and their Supporters, including the Post, remain delusional - they will get wiped out in the midterms, including Harry Reid who has no chance to be re-elected.

Posted by: Realist201 | July 29, 2010 10:13 AM | Report abuse

I asked about Pawlenty's ratings just because Romney sprung to mind. Both are/were governors in very blue states. Romney didn't really have a good approval rating, if I remember correctly when he left office and was never much of a threat to take MA if he were to have won the nomination. Do you think Pawlenty would have a shot at winning Minnesota if he were to win the nomination?

Posted by: DDAWD | July 29, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

The Democrats are going to lose BIG TIME - EVERYWHERE! Why? Americans, for the most part, do not care for COMMUNISTS, SOCIALISTS, ANTI-CAPITALISTS, FASCISTS, ANTI-AMERICANS, APOLOGISTS, etc., etc.

Posted by: georges2 | July 29, 2010 10:05 AM | Report abuse

"How are Pawlenty's approval ratings these days?"

As low as they've been for him; low 40s. Which doesn't matter - he's a lame duck. His eye is not on Minnesotans, it is on GOP party insiders. He's spending a lot of time travelling & fundraising - both for his PACs and for other candidates. The game for him right now is getting to know the key party members in early primary/caucus states & start to get his name out there. Obviously the rest of the field is well ahead of him in name recognition; his strategy will have to be one of establishing credibility as a two term governor who's not a lightning rod for controversy, not a quitter, who comes across as reasonable. He's all those things. He doesn't have the charisma to inspire, but he does know how to play the media & promote himself as something other than an idealogue (though he is; it's a neat trick & he's very good at it).


Posted by: bsimon1 | July 29, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

By rejecting the wackadoo nutbag "Right" Angle, the voters of Nevada are proving to be remarkably intelligent.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | July 29, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Montgomery Cnty, MD Voters - (D) Rep. Chris Van Hollen’s voting record reveals that he is Anti-American and PRO ILLEGAL/ PRO CRIMINAL…vote AGAINST Chris Van Hollens radicalism in the next election. Van Hollen is not interested in supporting America. His voting record clearly demonstrates this. See his record below.

Voted against allowing consideration of verification amendments to the health care reform bill in 2009 Rep. Hollen signaled his support of a health bill that creates rewards or incentives for illegal immigration.

Opposed an amendment to deter illegal immigration in 2009 Rep. Hollen opposed the King amendment (250) to H.R. 2892

Voted against punishing sanctuary cities in 2008
Rep. Hollen voted against a motion to H.R. 5719, the Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act.
Voted against an amendment to prohibit Social Security funds from being used administer benefits accrued from work performed in Mexico.
Voted against an amendment to increase funding for the construction of a border fence HR 2638.

Voted on House floor for against an amendment to fully fund the training of immigration enforcement officers H.R. 2638

Voted in favor of "sanctuary cities" for illegal aliens in 2007 Rep. Hollen voted against an amendment (H. Amdt. 294) to

Voted in favor of allowing illegal aliens to vote in union elections H.R. 800

Voted against bill to increase interior enforcement in 2006 H.R. 6095, the Immigration Law Enforcement Act of 2006 which would clarify state and local law enforcement’s inherent authority to enforce Federal immigration laws.

Voted against border fence in 2006 Rep. Hollen voted against H.R. 6061, the Secure Fence Act of 2006. H.R. 6061: requires the Department of Homeland Security to construct 700 miles of reinforced fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border;

Voted for sanctuary policies for illegal aliens in 2006 Rep. Hollen voted against the King Amendment to H.R. 5441. The amendment would deny federal homeland security funding to state and local governments who refuse to share information with Federal immigration authorities.

Voted on floor of the House against final passage of border security and enforcement bill in 2005 Rep. Hollen voted againstH.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005.

Voted on the floor of the House against amendment to require implementation of entry-exit system in 2005 …it requires the removal of unlawfully present aliens unless they fear persecution at home or are seeking asylum.

Voted on House floor against amendment to clarify local law enforcement's authority to enforce immigration laws in 2005. the Norwood Amendment to H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005. The Norwood amendment clarifies the existing authority of State and local law enforcement personnel to assist in the apprehension and detention of illegal aliens.

Posted by: NO-bama | July 29, 2010 9:54 AM | Report abuse

How are Pawlenty's approval ratings these days?

Posted by: DDAWD | July 29, 2010 9:52 AM | Report abuse

m in a .. isn't it funny how we never know where they stand on seemingly simple yes or no postions.. good questions, you may not know the answers until they vote on the floor..

Posted by: newbeeboy | July 29, 2010 9:50 AM | Report abuse

margaretmeyers writes
"The only thing lamer than the "Pawlenty is on the rise" line is the "Rossi is a contender" line."

Note that, unlike Rossi, Pawlenty has won statewide, twice, on a no-new-taxes program that is antithetical to most Minnesotans' belief system. He will surprise those that expect little from him.

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 29, 2010 9:48 AM | Report abuse

Angle's rapid decline in the polls shouldn't be a surprise. Remember, John McCain lost the '08 election the day he chose Sarah Palin as his V.P. As much we all like to stare, dumbfounded, at inane words and actions, they are both so far outside the mainstream that they can't get elected in a general election.

Let the rightwing noise machine and echo chamber have its time. In the quiet of the voting booth, the majority of Americans will say no!

Posted by: thebobbob | July 29, 2010 9:46 AM | Report abuse

CC wrote:

"...the already nasty fight took another interesting turn when Meek said in a conference call with reporters that he's not sure whether he'd support Greene as the Democratic nominee."

Infighting among Ds can only help Crist. For Meek the safe answer would have been that he would support his party's ticket.
No one but his committed supporters and Rs could have liked his stated position. In other words, he gained no votes from it.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 29, 2010 9:46 AM | Report abuse

I would want to know which MI Rs liked the GM reorganization and the stimulus package. I would like to know the D's positions on tariffs and on union check-off voting without secret ballot.

I would want to know if any of the Rs want to privatize SS or abolish various Cabinet offices. I want to know all their positions on public assistance for conservation of energy projects and all their positions on wind generators on the Great Lakes. If any Rs back Bachmann's nightmare pledge of endless subpoenas, let me know. I want to know if any of them have a realistic plan to balance the MI budget without closing the public schools, community colleges, and state universities.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 29, 2010 9:39 AM | Report abuse

This makes no sense:

"Rossi's entry into the race catapulted Murray into the ranks of vulnerable incumbents. It should be noted that Washington, more than a lot of other states, remains rather fond of the president..."

Here is something that makes sense:

"...Sen. David Vitter (La.) and ophthalmologist Rand Paul are flawed candidates."

Posted by: shrink2 | July 29, 2010 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Anything that Charlie Cook and Stu Rothenberg spout is meaningless. Their main purpose is to make as many races as possible seem close so that more people will subscribe to their services. Does Fat Charlie still have CT as tossup?

Posted by: CTJay | July 29, 2010 9:32 AM | Report abuse

Good comments.. esp. DD.. weird, yes.

I don't think it's going to matter as much as we believe now.. as the ObamaNation will be triangulating toward 2012 for the 18 months following this 'historic' election.. The GOP has shown that even with a their very weak quantitative disadvantage, the Dems are afraid to pull the trigger. The lobbyists seem, again, set to win this next couple of years.. they have shown great power in H.C., Cap/Trade, FinReg and even CardCheck.. it seems the money the PACs spend comes back in a great and bountiful harvest.

Maybe for two years: The Dems will act like GOP, The GOP will act like Tea Party and The Libs will being crying like little babies.

Posted by: newbeeboy | July 29, 2010 9:30 AM | Report abuse

Solid news and analysis today. Check.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 29, 2010 9:25 AM | Report abuse

I know a lot more about the four candidates for Senate in CO then I do about any of the candidates for Gov. of MI [except Hoekstra].

Would someone tell me about the MI candidates? From both parties? Thanx in advance.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 29, 2010 9:13 AM | Report abuse

Dino Rossi couldn't catapult a hamster across the room, let alone catpult himself into the Senate. He has shown this to be true... twice.

The only thing lamer than the "Pawlenty is on the rise" line is the "Rossi is a contender" line.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | July 29, 2010 8:58 AM | Report abuse

Sharron Angle lost her lead by just being Sharron Angle and let her mouth overload her eh, A, eh behind.

Posted by: ddoiron1 | July 29, 2010 8:55 AM | Report abuse

The least of Illinois State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulas worries are his Families mobbed up bank failure and the millions he made off of it, which is typical Chicago Style. But explaining to the people how on his watch Illinois is now listed on the Worlds Top Ten List as most likely to default on it's loans.

Posted by: johnsonmarc62 | July 29, 2010 8:54 AM | Report abuse

#1) Kentucky and Louisiana are weird white, southern Democrat type states. Especially Louisiana. Vitter is Louisiana's first Republican Senator in over 100 years and the first ever to actually be elected to the position.

Guys like Obama have no chance in states like Kentucky or Louisiana, but Conway and Melancon are nothing like Obama. Melancon is sitting in a district that went like 35% for Obama (LA-3), so he's definitely capable of winning in a state that didn't go for Obama.

Kentucky, I think is similar. It's also a state that went to Clinton twice and has a pretty high Dem identification. These states aren't South Carolina or Alabama. A white southern Dem can win. That being said, it's a relative longshot. I don't trust the Melancon poll since it seems too good to be true, but Conway has been running neck and neck with Paul for a while now. The two Republicans are pretty flawed and the Dems are pretty good. I'd say there's maybe a 40% chance Dems take one of the two seats which is pretty good considering the seats we're talking about here.

#3) Not much to add, but it looks like part of Ayotte's freefall is the Palin endorsement.
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/07/nh-looking-more-competitive.html
In short, 51% - Palin makes them less likely to vote for Ayotte; 26% - more likely. I'm curious as to why her favorability numbers have shrunk. Maybe it's just the bluish nature of NH.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 29, 2010 8:33 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company