Skip to main content

Daily Kos Elections Morning Digest banner
Want the scoop on hot races around the country? Get the digest emailed to you each weekday morning. Sign up here.
Leading Off:

MA-Sen: Nice to see this. Elizabeth Warren is wasting no time in responding to attack ads from Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS and is going up on the air herself. In the minute-long bio spot, Warren speaks directly to the camera and first highlights her humble upbringing, then talks about her fight to curb Wall Street excesses. No word on the size of the buy, though a Warren campaign email says they've already raised $300K "to fight back" against the Crossroads ads.

Incidentally, Warren hosted a volunteer rally in Boston on Sunday—an event which drew over 1,000 people. You can check out a few pics here.


KY-Sen, KY-Gov: Outgoing Democratic Auditor Crit Luallen, who couldn't seek re-election this year due to term limits, says she nevertheless plans to run for office again. She says she's "looking at all her options," which include a run against Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in 2014 or a run for governor the year after, when the seat will be open. Luallen, who seems to be a favorite of many local commenters, had been discussed as a possible candidate for the state's last two Senate races (in 2008 and 2010), but evidently she preferred to stay on as auditor. Now, of course, she's got nothing to hold her back.

ME-Sen: Dem state Rep. Jon Hinck, who has been looking at the race at least since July, has gone ahead and officially launched a bid to unseat Sen. Olympia Snowe. He joins former SoS Matt Dunlap in the Democratic primary. A recent PPP poll showed Snowe with huge leads, though both Hinck and Dunlap have little name recognition, so a primary might do them good.

MN-Sen: This strikes me as a positive development for Dem Sen. Amy Klobuchar: Minnesota's Independence Party, which often runs candidates in major elections, says they have no plans to compete in next year's Senate race. Typically, the IP tends to draw more votes from the left than the right, though Democrats won narrow pluralities in the last two statewide races, which both featured non-trivial IP candidacies (Mark Dayton for governor last year and Al Franken for senator in 2008.)

MT-Sen: Dem Sen. Jon Tester has succeeded in getting at least one local TV station to yank a new attack ad from Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS. The ad says Tester "voted against preventing Obama's EPA from being able to regulate Montana farmers' dust," but according to the AP: "The ad bases its claim on a procedural vote to stop amendments on an unrelated bill, which Republicans later wanted to amend with a ban on farm dust regulations."

NJ-Sen: Former Highlands Mayor Anna Little is now saying (via a spokesman) that she's "leaning" toward a run against Dem Sen. Bob Menendez. In February, Little reiterated her election night desire to seek a rematch against Dem Rep. Frank Pallone (who beat her by 12% last year), but just a few weeks later, she started talking up the possibility of a Senate bid. New Jersey Republicans have yet to find an actual candidate, and as Max Pizarro at Politicker points out, the GOP hasn't won a Senate race in the Garden State since 1972.

TX-Sen: I am pretty unimpressed with the production values of GOP Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst's first ad. Am I wrong? The shots of him talking to the camera (about how we need to "choke down government") look remarkably low-budget. Anyhow, The Hotline says it's a "six-figure" buy running on cable and DirecTV. See for yourself:


WA-Gov: Washington's monthly fundraising numbers are out, and they're not too different from what we've seen in the past: Republican AG Rob McKenna pulled in $600K while Dem Rep. Jay Inslee took in $400K, though Inslee still has the cash-on-hand edge, $1.7 mil to $1.5. But that gap will soon grow, because as PubliCola notes, McKenna (as a state official) is forbidden from raising money while the legislature is in session—for four long months starting Nov. 28. Inslee faces no such restrictions, though I suspect the RGA will help McKenna make up the difference.

WI-Gov: Wisconsin Democrats will officially kick off their drive to recall GOP Gov. Scott Walker today. They need to file over 540,000 signatures by Jan. 17, 2012 to trigger a recall election. Relatedly, DGA chair (and Maryland Gov.) Martin O'Malley says that his organization will jump into the fray "with both feet" if organizers succeed in putting Walker on the ballot.


CA-03: Another Republican has joined the field of hopefuls seeking to unseat Dem Rep. John Garamendi: Sutter County deputy district attorney Tony Carlos. Colusa County Supervisor Kim Dolbow Vann still looks like the frontrunner for the GOP nod, though.

CO-04, CO-06: Even though Colorado's new court-drawn map gives state Senate President Brandon Shaffer the shaft, he insists he's still running against GOP freshman Cory Gardner. It's a bold plan, to say the least, seeing as the district went from 49% Obama to 42% Obama, a huge drop. (And recall that it was just 41% Kerry under the old lines. Can't imagine how awful it is now.) Ironically, Republicans have howled all year that Democrats were trying to custom-draw a district for Shaffer. Clearly, not so much.

Meanwhile, over in the 6th, the hitherto non-existent Democratic primary could be heating up, as a consequence of the seat becoming a lot bluer. State Rep. Joe Miklosi has long been the only Dem candidate looking to take on GOP Rep. Mike Coffman, and he certainly lucked out in redistricting. But he may not luck out in terms of actually securing the nomination, seeing as former state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff is reportedly looking at the race now. Romanoff, you'll recall, lost a 2010 primary to Sen. Michael Bennet, and his message never seemed to add up to anything beyond "it's my turn." So Miklosi might be able to make a more compelling case if Romanoff gets in and is once again seen as an opportunist. One potential candidate isn't joining the Democratic field, though: State Sen. Morgan Carroll says she won't run.

And speaking of the new map, Colorado Pols flags a line in Cameron Joseph's piece in The Hill in which he says some unnamed (and unquoted) Republicans "are nervous the court could alter the map to make it even worse for them" if they appeal the Denver district court's ruling. I could believe it, and it explains why the state GOP is saying they haven't decided what their next step is, and won't until later this week.

CT-04: Steve Obsitnik, CEO of a consulting company, Navy vet, and Republican town committeeman, says he will seek the GOP nomination to challenge Dem Rep. Jim Himes. He joins another Republican businessman and Navy veteran, David Orner, in the race. (Orner got in in early October.)

MD-06: John Delaney, the chair of a commercial lending firm, is the latest Democrat to consider running against GOP Rep. Roscoe Bartlett in the redrawn (and bluer) 6th Congressional District.

NV-01: Anjeanette Damon of the Las Vegas Sun reports that while Sen. Harry Reid is publicly neutral in the nascent Democratic primary battle between ex-Rep. Dina Titus and state Sen. Ruben Kihuen, behind the scenes, the latter is "clearly Reid’s favored candidate." Damon says that Reid's allies are subtly making his preferences known, but if that's too sub rosa for you, there's also the fact that three key advisors who worked for Reid's Senate campaign last year are helping Kihuen this cycle. Damon explains that Reid has a personal affinity for Kihuen, and also thinks that he'll be able to boost Hispanic turnout next year thanks to his background. That could provide crucial help for Rep. Shelley Berkley, who is running for Senate, and for President Obama.

TN-09: A second primary challenger is getting ready to enter the race against Dem Rep. Steve Cohen: Memphis City Court Clerk Thomas Long, who was just re-elected to his post last week. This is good news for Cohen, since Long is likely to split votes with Memphis City Schools Board member Tomeka Hart (both are African-American). Hart's raised very little money so far, though, and doesn't plan to formally enter the race until later this year—while Long is saving his official announcement for February. Given how handily Cohen's dispatched primary opponents in each of the last two cycles, these late-blooming candidacies don't seem to be a huge threat.

TX-35: This is an odd move on two levels. Former San Marcos (pop. 50K) Mayor Susan Narvaiz says she is running in Texas' new 35th District… except at the moment, there is no 35th District, since a San Antonio court is busy trying to come up with an interim map since the legislature's version was deemed illegal. That makes this a particularly extreme case of Schrödinger's Seat, but even if the existing lines were used, it still wouldn't make a lot of sense, since there's little hope of the 35th (as originally drawn) ever electing a Republican. So perhaps Narvaiz is thinking something else entirely will emerge once the new-new map is put in place.

Other Races:

WI Recall: In connection with their effort to recall Gov. Scott Walker (see WI-Gov item above), Wisconsin Democrats have also announced plans to target three Republican state Senators: Pam Galloway (SD-29), Terry Moulton (SD-23), and Van Wanggaard (SD-21). This trio was just elected in 2010, so they weren't eligible to be recalled this year, but now they can be targeted. For reference, you can check out our complete chart of Wisconsin presidential results by Senate district. Wanggaard and Moulton both sit in seats that are bluer than all of those where we attempted recalls this summer save for ex-Sen. Dan Kapanke's 32nd.

Redistricting Roundup:

CA Redistricting: Sunday was the deadline for Republicans to file some 504,000 signatures to put California's new state Senate map on the ballot for a referendum next year. If the petitions are found to be valid, the map will be suspended and courts will have to step in to provide an interim plan for the 2012 elections.

OH Redistricting: I don't want to get too excited, but this is tentatively good news. Republicans don't sound optimistic about their chances of passing a revised congressional map with a referendum-proof two-thirds majority, with the new plan's author saying they either need to move a new bill through this week or fall back on the original legislation. In the latter scenario, Democrats would then be able to place the map on the ballot for a vote next year.

SC Redistricting: A group of black voters has just filed a suit challenging South Carolina's new congressional map, arguing that it illegally packs African Americans into Dem Rep. Jim Clyburn's 6th CD, the only majority-minority district in the state. Interestingly, the plaintiffs are being represented by Democratic Party chair Dick Harpootlian, but the party itself is not involved with this lawsuit.

Originally posted to Daily Kos Elections on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 05:00 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  What a great ad. Her concern and passion come (17+ / 0-)

    through forcefully, but she's not abrasive or angry. The fundamental message is upbeat.

    I think she's gonna smash Scott Brown.

    Lea: "You're not going to fly into an asteroid field, are you?" Han Solo: "They'd be crazy to follow us, wouldn't they?"

    by Kimball Cross on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 05:10:15 AM PST

    •  I'm so glad the Karl Rove is targeting (10+ / 0-)

      Ms Warren -- she, better than anyone, can stand up to the scrutiny AND he is bringing this race to national prominence which is bringing even more attention to the "us vs them" (where Scott Brown is definitely a "them".)

      Ms Warren has made some of the clearest declarations yet on how Wall Stret is screwing Main Street, easy to understand, hard to argue against. (can't wait for the Brown Warren debate!) She is gaining national exposure with Rove's attacks, which I hope leaves her in position to become our first female President. Bring it on Karl!

      I totally agree with your assessment of her ad.

      “Our leaders know we’re turning into a giant ghetto and they are taking every last hubcap they can get their hands on before the rest of us wake up and realize what’s happened.” ― Matt Taibbi, Griftopia

      by theKgirls on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 05:25:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I especially like (6+ / 0-) she pointed to her success in getting the consumer watchdog agency without bringing up how the Republicans screwed her out of running it. Excellent job of pointing out the problem without sounding bitter about it.

        Certaines personnes disent qu'il y a une femme à blâmer, Mais je sais que c'est ma faute sacrément.

        by RamblinDave on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 05:34:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I glad Rove is attacking Warren, too. (8+ / 0-)

        Besides the fact that she's turning out to be very good at this, way better than most people might have thought (despite the fact that it's still early), and will likely be able to beat back the attacks easily, he's wasting his money. I'm sure the ads will have some effect, if he dumps enough money, but she's a credible figure in a staunchly Democratic state who is already competitive despite having relatively low name recognition. In the end, it's as if he's indirectly giving a donation to McCaskill, Tester, Kaine, Baldwin, and others.

        •  Yep, this is the point I try to make.. (6+ / 0-)

          When I say politics is a zero sum game. The more money Rove wastes on Warren, the less he has to spend on other races.

          And I agree it's a waste. I'm very confident about Warren's chances (see the Senate Diary I just posted)

          •  I think this applies more to him than to (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Kimball Cross, Setsuna Mudo

            other individuals or organizations that might be spending for the Republicans in 2012. After all, while he's very well connected and there is no limit on this type of spending, it's not as if contributors have unlimited budgets.

            Or is it the opposite, and do the relative limits apply to official organizations and candidates more than someone like Rove?

            •  Nope, you're wrong... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Setsuna Mudo

              It applies to anyone who is spending for 2012 candidates, whether Democratic or Republican, unless that person is independently wealthy and funding their own candidacy. There is not unlimited money to spend. National committees and organizations such as Rove's especially (as well as the DSCC, for example) need to pick their battles carefully. Hence why we should all be happy he's wasting money on trying to prop up Scott Brown.

              •  I think you misunderstood what I meant. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Setsuna Mudo

                When I said "do the relative limits apply to official organizations and candidates more than someone like Rove..." I meant do the natural constraints, not legal limits, apply more to groups that aren't like Roves. In other words, Rove's not trolling the Internet for donations, but rather meting and greeting the well off, and there just aren't that many of them. In some ways, it's harder for a smaller group which is relying on small donations to rack up a total like Rove's group will, but in other ways, it's kind of easy. It's unlikely that you will get anything approaching the maximum donation from small donors, but there are plenty more of them.

                Also, where does the unlimited spending notion come from?

              •  the difference is for candidate campaigns. (0+ / 0-)

                There are people who would normally only give to a senate candidate in their state.  For contributors like them, it isn't zero sum.

                I changed by not changing at all, small town predicts my fate, perhaps that's what no one wants to see. -6.38, -4.15

                by James Allen on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 12:06:30 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  She will if people work for her (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Setsuna Mudo, jncca

      Unlike Coakley, she will fight, but don't underestimate Brown as a campaigner again. This will not be a walkover.

      The thing about quotes on the internet is you cannot confirm their validity. ~Abraham Lincoln

      by raboof on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 06:51:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Is Luallen (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TofG, Setsuna Mudo

    likely to have a good chance against Mitch McConnell?

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but State Auditor doesn't seem like a post with very much statewide exposure.

    •  Luallen (10+ / 0-)

      Was generally considered to be a better candidate than Bruce Lunsford, the man who ran against McConnell in 2008.  Lunsford ran pretty close, losing by a 52-47 margin in a state in which Obama got destroyed 58-42.  The underperformance from the top of the ticket by McConnell might say something about the state's locally voting for democrats more often than for president, but it also might suggest personal weakness.  

      Unless 2014 is a really ugly year, Luallen should have a decent shot at knocking off McConnell.

      •  Limb (Out On) (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        If Obama wins again, 2014 is likely to be just as bad as 2010.

        21, Nice Calm Burkean Post-Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Childhood), TX-23 (School), TX-10 (Home); SSP: wmayes

        by wwmiv on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 06:24:56 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not necessarily. (6+ / 0-)

          It could be largely a wash, like 1998. We have no way of knowing. But either way, it never hurts to field good candidates-- that's the only way we win, no matter what kind of year it is!

          28, chick, solid progressive, NY-14 currently, FL-22 native, went to school in IL-01.

          by The Caped Composer on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 06:38:38 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  1998 (0+ / 0-)

            1998 was a fluke. Midterm elections are normally extremely hard for the President's party, and usually they're more difficult for their party during the 6th year. There's a reason why those midterms are called the "6th year itch".

            21, Nice Calm Burkean Post-Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Childhood), TX-23 (School), TX-10 (Home); SSP: wmayes

            by wwmiv on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 06:52:53 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, that's incorrect (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sawolf, Setsuna Mudo, TofG, James Allen

              There was no fluke in 1998, that result was because 1994 was so bad that there was hardly any fruit left to pick, and then combine with impeachment backlash and that produced small Dem gains.

              Midterms are consistently bad for a President's party only when midterm losses are modest.  If there's a massive wave, then that's followed up by status quo unless and until another big shift has happened somewhere along the way.

              If we don't make big gains in the House in 2012 but Obama wins, then 2014 will be status quo, no serious losses.

              43, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and a boy, Democrat, VA-10

              by DCCyclone on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 07:08:30 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  well in the House at least (0+ / 0-)

                The Senate map is pretty brutal in 2014. I'd be shocked if we didn't lose at least AR, AK, and LA and think it'd be very uphill to hold WV and MT and SD. Moreover, our only real pick-up opportunity will be in GA and ME.

                25, originally OK-1, currently NY-8. Former swingnut.

                by okiedem on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 07:27:07 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Why are you so negative on all of those? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  TofG, James Allen

                  With the exception of Landrieu, Begich, and perhaps Bauchus, none of them appear to be in exceptionally difficult spots.

                  •  It's hard to know this far out but... (0+ / 0-)

                    Our only disagreement seems to be over WV, SD and AR. AR is trending very very strongly against us and I'd feel nervous about holding to seat in light of our general decline of support among rural Southern whites over the last few years. Ditto for WV except for the fact that I feel a little bit better here because Rockefeller is a reasonably popular incumbent. There are doubts about whether Tim Johnson would run for reelection and it'd be a tough open seat hold (though I'd feel pretty good about our chances with Herseth at least).

                    Basically my concern is that even if we hold the Senate in 2010 we'll have a very thin margin. I'm just concerned that we'll be able to hold the body even if the political winds are neutral or favorable.

                    25, originally OK-1, currently NY-8. Former swingnut.

                    by okiedem on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 07:48:56 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  But even the ones that we agree will be tough (0+ / 0-)

                      aren't impossible. I'm struggling to think of any recent polling that shows, well, anything at all for our candidates in those states. The same can be said for the others, too. I don't mean to sound like a dick, but people seem to be basing these feelings on little more than preconceived notions of what might be difficult. No doubt they will have tougher reelection campaigns than a lot of other Democrats, but until we see consistent polling that shows them down in approvals and/or badly trailing, I can't help but believe they are favored. Incumbents just don't lose all that often, short of being in a wave and/or being caught up in a big scandal.

                      Of course, they could lose, no argument about that. But that's why it's so damn important to try to hold on to a seat like North Dakota or flip Indiana. Let's say we lose Nebraska, North Dakota, and one more out of Missouri, Montana, and Virginia, even as we gain Massachusetts and Nevada. That's a net lose of one, which isn't all that bad. But let's say in 2014, we lose in at least three, if not four, out of any of the ones you mentioned above. That'd either put us at a tie, or give the Republicans narrow control, unless of course, we managed to hold on to North Dakota. And obviously, any net gains in 2012 help us in 2014.

                      Along the same lines, this is why I want us to be as aggressive as possible. I'll be the first to admit that as bad as our pick up opportunities in 2012 are, they are far worse in 2014, and that while trying to win an open seat in Tennessee or Mississippi would be hard, trying to knock off an incumbent is close to impossible. Still, why not get started early and see what happens? We certainly need to defend what we already have, but it's not as if we are sacrificing better pick up opportunities in blue states.

                      I decided late last night to start a series of diaries trying to see what realistic targets would look like in red states for presidential candidates and other statewide candidates. I've got a long-promised Texas diary, but I'm going to start over with that state, mostly because I have decided to not round numbers as much. I started noodling around with some numbers from Tennessee, at least for the biggest counties, and it's not nearly as bad as you'd think. I hope to have at least one ready to go by this weekend.

                      •  I don't disagree with anything you said there (0+ / 0-)

                        I certainly think it will be possible to hold the Senate through 2012 and 2014 but it will be a difficult needle to thread. The upside of course is that 2016 should be very very good for us in the Senate so long as it's not a strongly Republican year.

                        25, originally OK-1, currently NY-8. Former swingnut.

                        by okiedem on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 08:21:29 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  I've pretty much conceded (4+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        bumiputera, TofG, James Allen, jncca

                        That the Democrats are likely to lose the Senate in 2014 because of the races that will be up for grabs in what is likely to be either a neutral year at best or a bad year at worst.  

                        However, just think about 2016.  We could be looking at picking up WI, IL, IA (if Grassley calls it quits), PA, NH, KY (Rand will always be vulnerable), maybe NC & FL, maybe even AZ if Gabby wants to go for it at that point.  

                        The republicans better have at least a 54 or 55 seat majority following 2014, or they're going to give the Senate right back in 2016 unless their presidential nominee romps.  Kirk in particular is DOA.

                        •  Well, if Romney is president... (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:

                          I'm not predicting the Dems will lose the Senate. I think we could see a wave year in favor of the Dems if that happens.

                          But I'd still rather have the presidency than anything else.

                          •  Oh the Presidency is much more important. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            Supreme Court appointment should be Democrats top priority.

                            20, Dude, Chairman DKE Gay Caucus! (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09) Tammy Baldwin and Elizabeth Warren for Senate!

                            by ndrwmls10 on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 08:48:13 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  You shouldn't concede anything. (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          TofG, James Allen

                          The goal is obviously more to hold water than to advance, since we already have all of the low hanging fruit, but it's still way, way too early to give up. I mean, in 2003 and 2004, did it look like Mike DeWine and Conrad Burns would be defeated? Hell, in most of 2006, did it look like George Allen would even be vulnerable?

                          The possibilities in 2016 are certainly better than in 2012 or 2016, but if I can be the eternal optimist, the goal should be to at least hold the Senate but possibly make small gains in the next two cycles. Then, in 2016, we can try to get at least 60 or above.

                          I'd like to believe someone like Kirk is already gone, but I'd caution against thinking that. After all, who is better than us Democrats ate snatching defeat from the jaws of victory? (But yeah, I think he will lose.)

                          •  We just need to run someone (0+ / 0-)

                            who is a sure thing....

                            20, Dude, Chairman DKE Gay Caucus! (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09) Tammy Baldwin and Elizabeth Warren for Senate!

                            by ndrwmls10 on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 10:33:19 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Like I said, I think Kirk will lose. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            The thing is, if a five weeks is a long time in politics, what is five years? He's got quite a bit of time to make himself a fixture in the state. The leadership isn't stupid, and they want to retain the seat, so they will give him some leeway. And even if they don't, he's probably not an idiot and wants to be reelected, so he will do what it takes to get to a strong spot.

                            None of this means he's impossible to defeat. It just means that, if he works at it, he can probably give himself a good shot at being reelected, or at least a better one; he is the incumbent, after all. That's why it's important to prevent people like him from being elected in the first place.

                          •  So far he hasn't developed moderate cred (0+ / 0-)

                            as a Senator. I think he knows that he isn't going to be reelected in a Presidential year.

                            20, Dude, Chairman DKE Gay Caucus! (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09) Tammy Baldwin and Elizabeth Warren for Senate!

                            by ndrwmls10 on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 10:51:29 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  The Calculus Seems Simple On Most of Them..... (0+ / 0-)

                    If Obama loses in 2012, the Democrats are odds-on to hold West Virginia, Arkansas, and South Dakota in 2014.  If Obama wins in 2012, those seats will be comfortably red in 2014.  I'd be amazed if it played out any other way.

                    •  Also Minnesota.... (0+ / 0-)

                      Franken's only pathway to a second term is if voters are rebelling against unified Tea Party control.

                    •  But if Obama wins in 2012, what are the odds (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      that we've stalled out, if not started falling backwards economically yet again? I understand the relationship where one party that controls the White House is blamed by voters for what was happening, but have you considered the notion that an Obama win will mean things are better, and that they will continue to get better leading into 2014? If so, wouldn't the incumbents be favored?

                      •  Not neccesarily.... (0+ / 0-)

                        If 1986 is any indication. In that election the economy was well on it's way to recovery, and Republicans still got killed.

                        •  True, but can you chalk any of those (0+ / 0-)

                          losses up to local factors? Two of those seat were from North and South Dakota, and wasn't that area of the country undergoing some hard times with agriculture? Another was the seat in North Carolina, where the incumbent was appointed. Yet another was a pick up in Maryland.

                          On another note, it's kind of odd how close some of the margins from that year were. The incumbent Republican in Idaho, of all places, winning by less than five?

                      •  I Speculated Downthread That That Seems Unlikely.. (0+ / 0-)

                        ....the fundamentals of our economy show little signs of self-correcting and the painful parts of the PPACA will kick in in 2014.  I struggle to see how anything works to Obama's favor in his second term if he's re-elected next year.

                        •  The painful parts being higher taxes? (0+ / 0-)
                          •  Along With..... (0+ / 0-)

                            ....the individual mandate and the establishment of the bureaucracies for the exchanges, all of which seem ripe for demagoguery by those feeding off of people's fears.  I suspect in today's polarized political culture, there will be far less patience for the early hiccups that were worked through with Social Security and Medicare in their early years.  The blowback will be instant and fierce to every aspect of the PPACA that doesn't play out exactly as advertised in 2010.  The fact that they're already scrapping CLASS as unworkable does not fill one with confidence about the eventual ease of implementation.

                          •  A lot of this stuff is already happening. (0+ / 0-)

                            As far as CLASS goes, it's good in general that this was scrapped, but it's even better from the implementation stand point, as one of the bigger potential landmines has already been dealt with.

                            This stuff seems to be more of a potential political problem than an economic one.

                    •  Well you haven't paid attention to recent past (0+ / 0-)

                      I guess you've been amazed a lot the past few years.

                      Since Dubya won reelection, we picked up Senate seats in Montana and Alaska, and we lost one in Massachusetts.  Those are just ones that come to mind easily, there are bunches of others where 3 years out you never saw it comin'.

                      There are too many unknowables about 2014 to predict anything at all.  All we can know is that certain partisan biases will continue, and that peculiarly popular incumbents who run for reelection will survive.  But those are the broadest things, they can't be used to pinpoint specific seats unless you make a whole lotta assumptions.

                      43, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and a boy, Democrat, VA-10

                      by DCCyclone on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 08:47:47 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Alaskans don't turn out incumbents on a whim (0+ / 0-)

                    Stevens was a convicted felon and Begich still only on by 5,000 or so votes.

                    23, Solid Liberal Democrat (-4.75, -4.51), DKE Gay Caucus Majority Leader, IN-02; Swingnut

                    by HoosierD42 on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 02:28:05 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  that's because stevens (0+ / 0-)

                      was a republican.

                      i can't see begich holding on against parnell

                      18, D, new CA-18 (home) new CA-13 (college). Economic liberal, social libertarian, fiscal conservative. Put your age and CD here :) -.5.38, -3.23

                      by jncca on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 02:50:05 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

            •  Generally speaking, yes (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              But, you could easily see some Republican overreach even if they get their asses whipped in 2012. Their base will insist that they're not conservative enough. It will push the Republicans to some wacky positions, just like they were in 1998.

              •  That Didn't Matter Much in 2010.... (0+ / 0-)

                ....and won't matter much again in 2014 barring an unlikely economic growth spurt and an even more unlikely lethargic public response to the funding mechanisms of the PPACA coming online.

                •  In 2010... (0+ / 0-)

         in 1994, you had Republicans out of power in both House and Senate. People were looking for someone to blame for their trouble and that was the Democrats. In 1998, it was the Republicans in power who got blamed. It remains to be seen who will be in charge in 2014.

            •  I don't think it's midterms in general (0+ / 0-)

              I think it's only the first midterm that's historically bad for the party. 2002 was a fluke because of 9/11 and 2006 was a course-correction.

              23, Solid Liberal Democrat (-4.75, -4.51), DKE Gay Caucus Majority Leader, IN-02; Swingnut

              by HoosierD42 on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 02:26:43 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Depends On If The PPACA Stands..... (0+ / 0-)

            ....if it does, 2014 is the year the hard stuff comes online and at least in the beginning it will be incredibly unpopular.  If Obama wins in 2012, 2014 is gonna be a Democratic bloodbath of historic proportions.

            •  doubt it (0+ / 0-)

              People will adjust to the new law. If the economy is better they will do well. Plus right now the Republicans are holding a lot of seats that are not really red seats.
              Depends how democrats do in congressional elections next year.

              •  People May Adjust To It....But Will That Happen.. (0+ / 0-)

                ....before November 2014?  Seems unlikely, particularly with Karl Rove and the Koch Brothers reminding people on every commercial break of all the aspects of the PPACA that haven't lived up to the impossibly lofty expectations.  

                As for the economy, there's little to indicate measurable growth is coming again for the foreseeable future.  Since 2001, we've been a zero-growth economy, with our only statistical growth coming from a fantasy-world housing bubble.  To paraphrase John McCain, the fundamentals of our economy are extremely bad.  2011 is America's new economic normal, and that's if we can somehow avoid getting caught in the shitstorm in Europe which will plunge our standing still lower for years and years to come.

                •  You should really get into the market then (0+ / 0-)

                  If you truly have absolute confidence that the economy would stall for the forseeable future you could make a killing in the market by shorting the S&P SPDR.

                  25, originally OK-1, currently NY-8. Former swingnut.

                  by okiedem on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 07:31:51 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Geez... (0+ / 0-)

              That's a pretty bold prediction. I think it's pretty overconfident to project a "bloodbath of historic proportions" for an election that's still three years off.

              25, originally OK-1, currently NY-8. Former swingnut.

              by okiedem on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 07:28:43 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Why do you say that? (0+ / 0-)
        •  In 2010 (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Rich in PA, Setsuna Mudo

          We lost a lot of districts we were going to lose eventually (MS-04 for example). We're not going to get them back before 2014 so we can't lose them again. Even if the nationwide congressional vote is the same as 2010, I think realignment means the losses in numbers won't be as great.

          27, Male, MA-08 (hometown MI-06)

          by bumiputera on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 07:12:02 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well Yeah....We're Not Gonna Be Positioned To Lose (0+ / 0-)

            ....another 63 seats given what we've already hemorrhaged, but the meaningful metric here is how many seats the opposition party holds after the election, not how many it gains in the cycle.  If the GOP holds 275 House seats and 62 Senate seats after election night 2015, it'd be cold comfort that loss of existing Dem-held seats wasn't as severe as it was in 2010.  Of course all this depends on if Obama is re-elected in 2012.  If he isn't, then the Dems would be poised for a massive gain in 2014 based on inevitable GOP overreach of the highest order.

            •  GOP is never going to win 275 House seats. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Setsuna Mudo, TofG

              Are you fucking serious?

              •  At least that's more plausible than... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                ... 62 senate seats. I'd pose this question to Mark27, what seats would we lose in the GOP path to 62? We have a lot of seats up, yeah, but a lot of them are safe seats.

                Yami Yugi: Wait a minute! Did you just summon a bunch of monsters in one turn? Seto Kaiba: Yeah. So? Yami: That's against the rules, isn't it? Kaiba: Screw the rules, I have money! — Episode 1, Yu-Gi-Oh! The Abridged Series

                by Setsuna Mudo on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 10:11:23 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Can I play? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Setsuna Mudo

                  Let's see. In 2012, we lose Montana, Missouri, Virginia Nebraska, North Dakota, and they keep Nevada but we pick up Massachusetts. That's a loss of four for us, bring them to 51. In 2014, they definitely pick up Alaska, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Montana. That brings them up to 55. They could also pick up, say, South Dakota, Colorado, and North Carolina. That brings them up to 58. In 2016, they pick up the other seat in Colorado and the seat in Nevada, bringing them to 60.

                  That's only two short of 62. Now, if they are having a run of luck like this, we are probably suffering in a lot of ways, in back to back elections. None of the states I mentioned above are so staunchly blue that they would never elect a Republican, so we can call them the relative low-hanging fruit. To get to a number like 62, they'd need to pick up a seat in, say, New Mexico (not THAT unlikely) or Oregon (less likely but still not THAT unlikely) or, say, Connecticut (pretty damn unlikely). But if they are having such good luck to not lose a single seat besides that in Massachusetts in three elections, is it that bizarre to think they pick off one random unlucky Democrat? Or maybe they finally do it in 2018.

                  •  Still hard to believe. (0+ / 0-)

                    But in case I misread Mark27 was suggesting they'd get to 62 in 2012.

                    Yami Yugi: Wait a minute! Did you just summon a bunch of monsters in one turn? Seto Kaiba: Yeah. So? Yami: That's against the rules, isn't it? Kaiba: Screw the rules, I have money! — Episode 1, Yu-Gi-Oh! The Abridged Series

                    by Setsuna Mudo on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 11:08:05 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Ah no I see. (0+ / 0-)

                      He said they'd have 62 by 2015. But that still makes your math invalid, even assuming 2010 level sweeps they can only get to 58, so my point holds.

                      Yami Yugi: Wait a minute! Did you just summon a bunch of monsters in one turn? Seto Kaiba: Yeah. So? Yami: That's against the rules, isn't it? Kaiba: Screw the rules, I have money! — Episode 1, Yu-Gi-Oh! The Abridged Series

                      by Setsuna Mudo on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 11:11:28 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Retirement in Iowa??? (0+ / 0-)

                    Tom Harkin has looked like an octogenarian for two decades now, even when he was comparatively young, and I could easily see him retiring in an ugly political environment.  And in such an ugly political climate the sky's the limit to what seats could emerge as vulnerable in 2014.  You mention New Mexico, but also consider Delaware (accidental Senator Coons), Michigan (Levin retirement possibility), and Oregon (Merkley could face a credible challenge).

                    And this all presumes that 2012 won't have unexpected casualties as well.  Everybody seems to think Joe Manchin is untouchable in WV, but he's been voting the party line more than many expected in a state where supporting Obama will be viewed as massively objectionable next year.   Even in an ideal political environment, I suspect his situation becomes precarious next November.  He may be odds-on to prevail, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised if he was toppled.

                    •  i'm going to start ignoring you now (0+ / 0-)

                      delaware is about D+7, I believe.

                      D+7 seats don't vote out their Democratic incumbents without a scandal.

                      18, D, new CA-18 (home) new CA-13 (college). Economic liberal, social libertarian, fiscal conservative. Put your age and CD here :) -.5.38, -3.23

                      by jncca on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 02:51:34 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Merkley could face a strong challenge, (0+ / 0-)

                      but only once in the last decade has a Republican won a statewide election in Oregon, and there's a good chance that we'll have an open governor's mansion in 2014, which may be a more tempting target.

                      I changed by not changing at all, small town predicts my fate, perhaps that's what no one wants to see. -6.38, -4.15

                      by James Allen on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 03:44:32 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  I wonder who (0+ / 0-)

                      is going to beat Coons. Castle is very unlikely to try again, and I don't see any other Republican in Delaware who can beat him. The Auditor Tom Wagner is ideologically similar to Castle, but he has been in that office since 1989 and has had plenty of chances, but never took them.

                      28 / F / Post-Modern / new CA-31 (hometown) / UT-01 (current) / SSP/RRH: californianintexas

                      by SoCalGal23 on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 06:48:59 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  You Can Get Down To 38 With Seats To Spare.... (0+ / 0-)

         2014 just based on seats that are modestly vulnerable in the next two cycles.

                  If in 2012, we lose Florida, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Virginia, and Wisconsin, we're down to 46.

                  If in 2014, we lose Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina, South Dakota, and West Virginia, we're down to 36...and that's just scratching the surface for what is possible if 2014 ends up being another 2010, which it easily could be if a weakened Obama limps into a second term with continued lousy economic indicators and the baggage of an unpopular health care reform bill.

                  •  That"down to 38" post is one of the most (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    James Allen

                    improbable, verging on fantasy, predictions I've seen on dailyKos.

                    If in 2012, we lose Florida, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Virginia, and Wisconsin, we're down to 46.

                    If in 2014, we lose Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina, South Dakota, and West Virginia

                    Losing all of Florida, Missouri, Virg., Wisc., Colorado, Iowa, Minn. New Hampshire, NC, and WV, while not picking up ANY states (How about Mass. and Nev. in 2012)?

                    I mean come on, perhaps you don't like Obama, but there's a stronger chance of the Mayan long count being disastrous then such scenarios.

                    •  My Hypotheticals Which You Listed..... (0+ / 0-)

             us down to 36, meaning we could pick up a couple of seats (like MA and NV) and still be at 38.

                      I like Obama just fine, but I'm trying to be practical about what a successful 2012 will likely translate to in 2014.

              •  I wouldn't say never. After all, after 2004, (0+ / 0-)

                would you have suspected the Democrats would have more House seats than the Republicans did during the Great and Glorious Gingrich Revolution of 1994? If there's enough control over the process that arch-conservatives aren't nominated in every district, I wouldn't be surprised to see the leadership support moderates competing in bluer areas. They'd need a wave to help them win, of course, but I don't think it's as impossible as you do.

        •  Presidents usually have one bad midterm (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Republicans lost a lot of Senate seats in the last midterm under Reagan, but that was because his coattails in his initial election brought so many Republicans in.

          25, Male, CA-24, DK Elections Black Caucus Chair.

          by DrPhillips on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 09:16:35 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Remind me, at what point was this considered (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        competitive in 2008? Was it early on, or later in the game?

        McConnell ended up winning by the same sort of margin than Reid won by, yet Kentucky is far more of a red state than Nevada a blue state. Is Lunsford's performance, relatively speaking, better than Angle's? I kind of think so.

        I like the idea of Luallen getting started early. There's only so much that can be done before she repeats herself, of course. I'd like to see us be aggressive everywhere, yet the fact that trying to knock of the minority leader is considered one of our better options for 2014 should tell us something our options.

    •  Claire McCaskill . . . (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      itskevin, Setsuna Mudo, jncca

      . . . was the State Auditor of Missouri before she won her Senate seat.

      28, chick, solid progressive, NY-14 currently, FL-22 native, went to school in IL-01.

      by The Caped Composer on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 06:39:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Dems should use Rove too woo Indies (0+ / 0-)

    Indies are no fans of the Citizens United decision.  (Even Republican rank and file opposed it I think.  Nor are Indies fans of lying.  Democrats have to incorporate into their messaging the Rightwing and Karl Rove are lying to you because the facts support the Democrats.

    •  It'd be wonderful if we could campaign (0+ / 0-)

      on trying to reverse this decision, but the problem is, we are opening ourselves up to (not particularly off) charges of hypocrisy since we will be benefitting from the decision as well.

  •  Elizabeth Warren is a BAMF, Karl Rove is a MF (0+ / 0-)

    If the Democrats are up for re-election or are trying to get (R) seats they'd be smart to follow in her footsteps.
    But Alas, the Dem's have never really been good about getting out the right message when it matters most.

  •  I realize this is off topic (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Setsuna Mudo

    and totally not PC, but she is hot.

    -7.5 -7.28, I refuse to believe corporations are people until Texas executes one.

    by Blueslide on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 06:44:48 AM PST

    •  Yeah. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Totally not PC, but I agree. Plus it's worth remarking upon, because, like it or not, looks do play a part in politics and she is damn good looking.

      Yami Yugi: Wait a minute! Did you just summon a bunch of monsters in one turn? Seto Kaiba: Yeah. So? Yami: That's against the rules, isn't it? Kaiba: Screw the rules, I have money! — Episode 1, Yu-Gi-Oh! The Abridged Series

      by Setsuna Mudo on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 10:16:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  i'm assuming you're quite a bit (0+ / 0-)

      older than me

      18, D, new CA-18 (home) new CA-13 (college). Economic liberal, social libertarian, fiscal conservative. Put your age and CD here :) -.5.38, -3.23

      by jncca on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 02:52:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Can we just clone Warren? (0+ / 0-)


    •  She's following an excellent textbook strategy (4+ / 0-)

      on how to manage a good political messaging campaign.  Never let the opposition define you, tell your own story instead.

      I actually attended a class about 12 yrs ago presented by the AAUW on teaching women how to run for pubic office.  The session on messaging was presented by a woman's consulting firm who groomed GOP candidates, so it was very instructive.  They emphasized simplicity, clarity, focus, controlling your own message, rapid response, inoculation and above all repetition, repetition, repetition.  Their advice on the latter was "when people start complaining about your repetitive messaging they are just beginning to listen. So keep repeating it."  Simple, yet very effective.

      Considering the class was during the pre- Tea Party, radical right days of GOP messaging, it was very sound advice.  At that time, Dem politicians were still struggling and stumbling along on their own political messaging.

      Warren seems to be following a similar strategy and I hope she stays with it.

      "When will our consciences grow so tender that we will act to prevent human misery rather than avenge it?" Eleanor Roosevelt

      by Betty Pinson on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 07:14:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hey Karl.....Scott Brown was a fluke......Liz (5+ / 0-)

    Warren is not a fluke......Keep throwing your money away.

  •  Elizabeth Warren just needs to show excerpts (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Setsuna Mudo, TofG

    from this lecture a few years back to show her bonafides in championing the middle class and in being the godmother of the Occupy consciousness/awakening.

  •  I'm so glad that Warren is counterpunching (5+ / 0-)

    Too many Dems just sit and take it and it ends up costing them the election.

  •  Armond Budish is right (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, Setsuna Mudo

    From your link above re Ohio redistricting:

    "This is still an ugly map," said House Minority Leader Armond Budish, a Democrat from the Cleveland area. "It is still a partisan, gerrymandered map."

    The GOP in Ohio is not going to negotiate anything on redistricting and they continue to use their lackeys in the Ohio news media to defend their actions.

    A referendum on the ballot is the only real solution available for fair redistricting.

    "When will our consciences grow so tender that we will act to prevent human misery rather than avenge it?" Eleanor Roosevelt

    by Betty Pinson on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 06:59:06 AM PST

  •  OH: So no revised map? (0+ / 0-)

    Then what? Filing Dec 7, then those get tossed, unless there's a referendum on the split primary bill..

    What happens to those who file to run?  The Primaries?


  •  What a wonderful woman! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Setsuna Mudo

    Maybe she could be our first femail President!  Wouldn't that be special?

    "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke

    by CyberDem on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 07:03:47 AM PST

  •  "Romanoff, you'll recall, lost a 2010 primary" (0+ / 0-)

    "Romanoff, you'll recall, lost a 2010 primary to Sen. Michael Bennet, and his message never seemed to add up to anything beyond 'it's my turn.'

    In the 2010 battle between the two, Romanoff was distinctly the more progressive candidate. Bennet was the corporatist and establishment candidate.

    •  Yeah, I didn't understand where that (0+ / 0-)

      "it's my turn" stuff came from either.  Romanoff cosistently polled much better over Buck than Bennett did,and polled better than Bennett himself, until Obama and the DNC stuck their big feet in and walked all over us.  Recall that Romanoff won the caucuses.
      Personally, I think we've got a pretty good Progressive candidate in Miklosi for CD6, I'm hoping that Romanoff will run for Governor.  Hickenlooper is useless, unless you like the chamber of commerce.

      •  Wrong (6+ / 0-)
        Romanoff cosistently polled much better over Buck than Bennett did

        First of all, Bob Bennett wasn't running in this race, he had been defeated at the convention in Utah :)

        Second of all, Bennet (one t) did not poll consistently worse than Romanoff. The last five polls before the primary:

        PPP (8/7-8/10): Bennet +3, Romanoff +1
        SUSA (7/27-7/29): Bennet Tie, Romanoff Tie
        Rasmussen (7/26): Bennet -6, Romanoff -6
        Rasmussen (7/8): Bennet -9, Romanoff -5
        SUSA (6/15-6/17): Bennet -3, Romanoff -9

        So out of those five polls, they did the same in two, Bennet did better in two, and Romanoff did better in one (Rasmussen, which isn't even a real pollster).

        21, male, RI-01 (voting) IL-01 (college), hopeless Swingnut

        by sapelcovits on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 08:57:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Romanoff is no progressive, plus hired Pat Caddell (6+ / 0-)

      His record screams opportunist. Decrying PAC contributions when he ran his own Wall Street backed PAC for years. Heck, his record in the Colorado legislature is very centrist and frankly doesn't suggest any radical shift from what Bennet has done in the Senate.

      But here's the kicker for me -- hiring Pat Caddell on his campaign. Why would ANY Democrat today hire Caddell when's been making a career bashing Democrats and nodding his head in agreement with Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. Yes Romanoff fired Caddell later after he referred to environmentalists as "terrorists" but honestly, any serious candidate would never take someone like Caddell. And let's not get started about Joe Trippi.

      Any Dem that affiliates their campaign with anyone like Caddell or Doug Schoen, Joe Trippi or Mark Penn is highly suspect to me.

    •  Of course Romanoff ran as the progressive outsider (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      That was the obvious play, as it is for basically any Democratic primary challenger these days (and he was a challenger, since Bennet was the unelected incumbent).  Doesn't mean Romanoff had or would have had (or didn't have or wouldn't have had) the more progressive policy record.  I'm just saying that policy records don't always align with campaign strategies--I don't know too much about Romanoff or Bennet.

      26, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-12(now)

      by Xenocrypt on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 11:00:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Liz got my vote (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ...the day she was born. I love this lady.

    JP in MA

    Defending bad taste and liberalism since 2005.

    by jurassicpork on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 07:21:30 AM PST

  •  Kentucky pols have the best names. n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Setsuna Mudo, James Allen

    But nobody's buying flowers from the flower lady.

    by Rich in PA on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 07:28:38 AM PST

  •  Wisconsin Recall (4+ / 0-)

    I got this email yesterday from United Wisconsin - the organization leading the recall effort.  More pathetic right wing dirty politics - "if we can't win, cheat!"

    Early this afternoon, United Wisconsin's website, was the victim of a cyber attack. It appears this attack may be ongoing. Our web team reports that this attack was coordinated and deliberate.

    The attack, which is known as a Distributed Denial of Service Attack, flooded our servers at approximately 2:00pm. At this time the source of this attack is not fully known. However, we are reporting this to the FBI and Wisconsin Attorney General, and taking all the steps we can to ensure this does not happen again.

    Clearly this was done to deny the people of Wisconsin access to the recall Walker materials United Wisconsin is trying to provide.

    Despite these efforts to again stifle the people's voice, United Wisconsin and its partners are not shaken. The efforts to recall Scott Walker and Rebecca Kleefisch are continuing as planned.

    It is our intention to continue as planned to provide you with a link to the recall petitions just after midnight tonight. Please bear with us as we attempt to fix this problem. Some external pages associated with our website are still up and running, and are not affected by this outage.  

    In the meantime, should you need to contact United Wisconsin please email

  •  MA-Sen: Good news! (3+ / 0-)
    A Massachusetts-based super PAC organized by unions and seasoned Democratic political veterans launched its first two ads of the cycle against Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.).

    20, Dude, Chairman DKE Gay Caucus! (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09) Tammy Baldwin and Elizabeth Warren for Senate!

    by ndrwmls10 on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 07:44:59 AM PST

  •  I have been waiting (0+ / 0-)

    for a long time for Crit Luallen to get into a Senate race, she's one of the few high profile credible Democrats in the state and she would give Paul or McConnell a run for the money.  I held my breath, both for McConnell's last election and Paul's recent election, hoping she'd get in.  I think if she'd have run against either, she'd have beat them.

    When McConnell was most recently reelected, I was hoping for anyone but the guy that got the nomination, perennial KY candidate Bruce Lunsford, who is a turncoat "Democrat," truly an opportunistic DINO.  At one point, he endorsed right-wing ideologue Anne Northup against her Democratic Challenger.  I think he also ran in a KY Republican primary at one point for governor.  At the time I supported Greg Fischer, a progressive who is now mayor of Louisville, but who lost the senate primary to Lunsford.  Fischer had less money and virtually no name recognition whereas Lunsford is a well-known name statewide.

    Luallen is a better-known and better-trusted name statewide than Lunsford and she could have beat him if she'd have run in 2008 against McConnell.  But better late than never; at this point there aren't many Republicans in KY with the stature to survive an election against Luallen.  She may be our ticket to the retirement of the odious Mitch McConnell.  I'm still holding my breath...

    Arrrr, the laws of science be a harsh mistress. -Bender B. Rodriguez

    by democracy inaction on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 08:26:15 AM PST

  •  I think Elizabeth Warren's 1-minute spot (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Setsuna Mudo, TofG, tosan1212

    is spot on! Usually when I watch political ads I end up saying "What were they thinking? They should have said this, or brought out that point". This was proactive, positive, honest, and hopeful. Yippee!! Maybe I'll move to Massachusetts so I can vote for her. Or maybe, just maybe.....I'll get to vote for her someday for a national elective office, hmmm? I'm just sayin.

    To keep our faces turned toward change, and behave as free spirits in the presence of fate, that is strength undefeatable--Helen Keller

    by kareylou on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 09:25:31 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site