Showing posts with label Election 2010. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Election 2010. Show all posts
October 02, 2009
Owned!
Chicago eliminated in first round of Olympic 2016 voting. Obama's reputation as being unable to get things done will be solidified by the time you go to bed tonight. Happy 2010 elections! (Oh, and good luck on Iran!)
March 04, 2009
Variations on the theme "Limbaugh Hurts the Nation"
I haven't been posting so much so here's one in the old vain.
To say that what Rush Limbaugh has been doing recently is hurting the country is a rather timeless statement. You could have said it in the early 90's (when Limbaugh was still on the junk and in his prime!), or yesterday, or any time in between.
But now it's a little different. As you probably know, Rush and RNC Chair Michael Steele have had a bit of a skirmish (I love that word) in the media recently, and as a result, Steele is just the latest on a long list of Republicans who have had to apologize to Rush (as Jon Stewart put it, the apology is for "determining that Rush's language is incindiary and ugly," also known as "being familiar with Rush's show").
But this isn't good for anyone. It's certainly not good for Republicans. Cliché as it may be, the Republicans as a party are suffering an identity crisis. They clearly need to move to the center, but most of their centrist Congressman were unseated in November. Add Rush to the mix, and you see the party is clearly on track to lose even more seats in 2010 (you might be able to argue that it's too late to turn this fate around) and is severly hurting their chances for a comeback in 2012, with the White House virtually guaranteed for Obama.**
(Update: I want to clarify: if they keep doing what they're doing, they virtually guarantee the White House for Obama. I am making no prediction about the 2012 presidential race.)
None of this should be particularly suprising, but I would like to argue that this is bad for the nation. The reason is that Democrats are already riding a pretty powerful wave of power that, as I said, will probably only strengthen through 2010. So with our foreign affairs in crisis mode and our economy an order of magnitude worse than that, we've already basically guaranteed that Democrats will retain the White House and both house of Congress through the 2012 elections, meaning Republicans won't have a chance until 2014.
And look: if you have any doubts about how much power the Democrats have right now, just imagine what you'd think and how you'd feel if a newly elected Republican Congress was passing legislation of John McCain's that was of the same magnitude - but a very different direction - than what Obama and the Democrats are doing. And then it becomes clear that, in times like these, weakening the standing of the opposition party is just bad for America.
But then again, Rush has been a specialist in "Bad for America" for quite some time.
To say that what Rush Limbaugh has been doing recently is hurting the country is a rather timeless statement. You could have said it in the early 90's (when Limbaugh was still on the junk and in his prime!), or yesterday, or any time in between.
But now it's a little different. As you probably know, Rush and RNC Chair Michael Steele have had a bit of a skirmish (I love that word) in the media recently, and as a result, Steele is just the latest on a long list of Republicans who have had to apologize to Rush (as Jon Stewart put it, the apology is for "determining that Rush's language is incindiary and ugly," also known as "being familiar with Rush's show").
But this isn't good for anyone. It's certainly not good for Republicans. Cliché as it may be, the Republicans as a party are suffering an identity crisis. They clearly need to move to the center, but most of their centrist Congressman were unseated in November. Add Rush to the mix, and you see the party is clearly on track to lose even more seats in 2010 (you might be able to argue that it's too late to turn this fate around) and is severly hurting their chances for a comeback in 2012, with the White House virtually guaranteed for Obama.**
(Update: I want to clarify: if they keep doing what they're doing, they virtually guarantee the White House for Obama. I am making no prediction about the 2012 presidential race.)
None of this should be particularly suprising, but I would like to argue that this is bad for the nation. The reason is that Democrats are already riding a pretty powerful wave of power that, as I said, will probably only strengthen through 2010. So with our foreign affairs in crisis mode and our economy an order of magnitude worse than that, we've already basically guaranteed that Democrats will retain the White House and both house of Congress through the 2012 elections, meaning Republicans won't have a chance until 2014.
And look: if you have any doubts about how much power the Democrats have right now, just imagine what you'd think and how you'd feel if a newly elected Republican Congress was passing legislation of John McCain's that was of the same magnitude - but a very different direction - than what Obama and the Democrats are doing. And then it becomes clear that, in times like these, weakening the standing of the opposition party is just bad for America.
But then again, Rush has been a specialist in "Bad for America" for quite some time.
February 04, 2009
Missouri Reddening?
Robin Carnahan has announced she will run for the Senate seat Kit Bond will be vacating in 2010. A victory would make her Missouri's second-most-attractive senator, behind Cruella Deville.
Missouri is reddening faster than almost any other state. WTF is going on here? In 2004 the Democratic governor was so weak he couldn't even win the primary, ousted by Claire McCaskill. McCaskill, though, still couldn't win the general election.
Two years later Missouri elected McCaskill to the Senate, and two years after that they put a Democrat back in the governor's mansion. With Nate Silver ranking Missouri as the senate seat most likely to flip in 2010, the state could go from 2 Republican senators and a Republican governor just before the 2006 election to having all those seats filled by Democrats after the 2010 election.
That said, President Obama should not focus too much energy on Missouri in his 2012 reelection campaign.
Missouri is reddening faster than almost any other state. WTF is going on here? In 2004 the Democratic governor was so weak he couldn't even win the primary, ousted by Claire McCaskill. McCaskill, though, still couldn't win the general election.
Two years later Missouri elected McCaskill to the Senate, and two years after that they put a Democrat back in the governor's mansion. With Nate Silver ranking Missouri as the senate seat most likely to flip in 2010, the state could go from 2 Republican senators and a Republican governor just before the 2006 election to having all those seats filled by Democrats after the 2010 election.
That said, President Obama should not focus too much energy on Missouri in his 2012 reelection campaign.
January 09, 2009
Kit Bond retiring
Missouri's senior senator, a man who inexplicably took the perfectly fine first name of "Christopher" and decided to abbreviate it as "Kit," will not seek reelection when his term expires in 2010.
Kit Bond is one of those senators you never hear about, which leads me to believe he's probably super corrupt, though I don't know this for sure. I do know he sucks, and he won't be missed, at least by me. Hell, even some group called "Republicans for Environmental Protection" hates him so much they gave him a rating of "-2."
Electoral-vote.com is mostly correct in asserting that Secretary of State Robin Carnahan would have a huge leg up in the race if she decided to run for the seat. Even though Missouri is undoubtedly tinting redder these days, the Democrat is quite popular. And if the name rings any bells, it may be because in 2000 her father, Governor Mel Carnahan, won his bid for election to the US Senate against John Ashcroft - three weeks after he died (wife Jean was appointed to a two-year term. Jim Talent, who is mentioned in 538's assessment of the situation, won the election for the remaining four years in 2002. He was then narrowly defeated in 2006 by Claire McCaskill, who herself was narrowly defeated in the gubernatorial race in 2004).
538's analysis is intriguing but premature (an example of precision over accuracy). Despite his analysis, I'd have to say that the best two Republicans on that list are Todd Akin and Roy Blunt. William Lacy Clay might not be a bad candidate for the Democrats - he represents most of St. Louis and doesn't even run against opposition anymore.
All-in-all, given the climate and the candidates available, it's quite possible that despite the fact that Missouri is quickly going red, the state could go from having two Republican senators going into the 2006 election to having two Democratic senators coming out of the 2010 election.
Kit Bond is one of those senators you never hear about, which leads me to believe he's probably super corrupt, though I don't know this for sure. I do know he sucks, and he won't be missed, at least by me. Hell, even some group called "Republicans for Environmental Protection" hates him so much they gave him a rating of "-2."
Electoral-vote.com is mostly correct in asserting that Secretary of State Robin Carnahan would have a huge leg up in the race if she decided to run for the seat. Even though Missouri is undoubtedly tinting redder these days, the Democrat is quite popular. And if the name rings any bells, it may be because in 2000 her father, Governor Mel Carnahan, won his bid for election to the US Senate against John Ashcroft - three weeks after he died (wife Jean was appointed to a two-year term. Jim Talent, who is mentioned in 538's assessment of the situation, won the election for the remaining four years in 2002. He was then narrowly defeated in 2006 by Claire McCaskill, who herself was narrowly defeated in the gubernatorial race in 2004).
538's analysis is intriguing but premature (an example of precision over accuracy). Despite his analysis, I'd have to say that the best two Republicans on that list are Todd Akin and Roy Blunt. William Lacy Clay might not be a bad candidate for the Democrats - he represents most of St. Louis and doesn't even run against opposition anymore.
All-in-all, given the climate and the candidates available, it's quite possible that despite the fact that Missouri is quickly going red, the state could go from having two Republican senators going into the 2006 election to having two Democratic senators coming out of the 2010 election.
December 26, 2008
News Flash: Elections 2010 and 2012 possibly still too close to call
Continuing my series on "Hey, the Republicans aren't going to lose forever," I present this WSJ article about the last time the Democrats won over 360 EVs, 58 Senate seats, and 257 House seats.
Two years afterward the Republicans took the Congress for the first time in 50 years.
Two years afterward the Republicans took the Congress for the first time in 50 years.
December 12, 2008
Cynical Politics?
OK, so it's possible I'm just being overly political here, but do you think it stands to reason that Barack Obama appointed Janet Napolitano to DHS as an olive branch to John McCain, as it removes a very large (and really the only) challenger to his Senate seat in 2010? Just a thought ...
December 10, 2008
What is the Republican Party to do? (Part 47)
If you remember my superboring lecture way back in the day, I compared the left-right spectrum of politics to ice cream stands along a beach.
Looking at the senate, let's start from the left. First off, there's a lot of Democrats. Secondly, there's quite a spectrum of them. There's your Schumers and Kennedys, sure, but there are also Landrieus and Byrds. So let's imagine that the Democrats start at the far left (say point 0) and extend halfway over (point 50).
The Republicans? Well, there's not very many, as you know, and you may also know that the Republican senators who lost were pretty moderate. The ones left are much more often the DeMints and the Chamblisses of the world. So if you start at the far right (point 100) and extend left, you'd probably only go, say, 30 points over (to point 70).
This leaves a 20-pt gap (again, everything is obviously quite arbitrary) from points 50-70 that is up for grabs. I'm not sure if I've presented this in a manner that makes any sense, but if so, you'll see that the Republicans have the option of moving to the right (and into obscurity) or taking up some of that middle, at least for now. If they don't move at least in the short run, there's gonna be a long night in store for them in November 2010.
Looking at the senate, let's start from the left. First off, there's a lot of Democrats. Secondly, there's quite a spectrum of them. There's your Schumers and Kennedys, sure, but there are also Landrieus and Byrds. So let's imagine that the Democrats start at the far left (say point 0) and extend halfway over (point 50).
The Republicans? Well, there's not very many, as you know, and you may also know that the Republican senators who lost were pretty moderate. The ones left are much more often the DeMints and the Chamblisses of the world. So if you start at the far right (point 100) and extend left, you'd probably only go, say, 30 points over (to point 70).
This leaves a 20-pt gap (again, everything is obviously quite arbitrary) from points 50-70 that is up for grabs. I'm not sure if I've presented this in a manner that makes any sense, but if so, you'll see that the Republicans have the option of moving to the right (and into obscurity) or taking up some of that middle, at least for now. If they don't move at least in the short run, there's gonna be a long night in store for them in November 2010.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
