So Bill Clinton urged Kendrick Meek to quit the Florida senate race in order to possibly swing the race to nominally-independent moderate Republican Charlie Crist over Tea Party-backed conservative Republican candidate Marco Rubio. I first read about this story last night, and the thing that caught my attention was not so much the backroom dealmaking as the presumption that Marco Rubio is on "the cusp of national stardom." I think they may be right. All other Tea Party candidates with high profiles (Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle, Rand Paul, Ken Buck, and others) have made some extreme statements about certain things. I have not yet heard of Marco Rubio saying something dumb. An ascendant conservative known having a fiery personality and not known for saying stupid things could definitely gain a higher profile before 2012 or 2016, especially since he will be known in January as Senator Marco Rubio.
Oklahoma's gubernatorial candidates had a debate last night, only five days before the election. The headline I read in the Norman Transcript is "Governor Opponents Boast Right Leanings." Well, just great. It's a race to the right, apparently. Ironically it was the Democrat (Jari Askins) calling out the Republican (Mary Fallin) about her "yes" vote for the TARP bank bailout (signed into law by George W. Bush, but supported by Barack Obama). Jari Askins reinforced her self-imposed "conservative Democrat" label by pointing out how fiscally conservative she was in comparison. The candidates also got asked about Sarah Palin, for some reason. Jari Askins called Sarah Palin a "strong communicator". As soon as Palin is able to communicate her favorite newspapers and her geographic knowledge of the location of Russia, Jari Askins will apparently let us know, presumably while she's "hunting grizzly bears" with her in Alaska. Needless to say, this run for the right favors Mary Fallin, who is against abortion, gun restrictions and health care, and for Arizona's immigration law.
Jim Priest, Democratic candidate for Oklahoma Attorney General, pointed out that his opponent Scott Pruitt has taken $62,000 (7% of his total donations) from poultry companies, which is an issue because of current Oklahoma AG Drew Edmondson's lawsuit against poultry companies in Arkansas for their pollution of Oklahoma waterways. Sure, $62,000 is chicken feed (ha) when it comes to buying influence, but Priest was trying to use it as a way to say that Scott Pruitt is someone who is opposed to clean water regulations from the EPA, and therefore, if elected, Scott Pruitt would be bad for Oklahoma rivers. At least, that's what I think he's trying to say.
Showing posts with label Tea Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tea Party. Show all posts
Friday, October 29, 2010
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
2010 Election Senate Rundown (as in, the Republicans are Running Down the Democrats)
It's my favorite season of the year, when a chill forms in the air to compensate for all the heated rhetoric coming from campaign commercials. It's election season, and it's not going to be pretty for Democrats.
The conventional wisdom (as of September 28, 2010) is that the Republicans will probably take control of the House of Representatives but that Democrats will hold on to power in the Senate. But since all politics, even Republican-wave elections, are local, a closer inspection of the polls and the trends is warranted. And, shit, it's not like any other site on the internet is doing this.
Every seat in the House of Representatives is up for reelection, of course, and while the premise that the Republicans will easily take the chamber over may be overblown, I'm not going to question it for now. But the Senate is analyzable, so I shall analyze it.
There are 37 seats up for reelection (20 Democrat-held and 17 Republican-held). Subtracting these from the current configuration of the Senate gives us our baseline:
Now let's add in safe seats. For Republicans, there are an awful lot of safe seats.
RED STATE INCUMBENTS
Coburn-OK
Thune-SD
Crapo-ID
Grassley-IA
Isakson-GA
DeMint-SC
Burr-NC
Shelby-AL
McCain-AZ
Vitter-LA
All are incumbents who will breeze through to another term, even scandal-plagued David Vitter of Louisiana.
There are fewer safe Democrats
BLUE STATE INCUMBENTS
Wyden-OR
Inouye-HI
Schumer-NY
Leahy-VT
Mikulski-MD
Gillibrand-NY
Oh, but there are more safe seats for Republicans.
RED STATE NEWBIES.
Lee-UT
Hoeven-ND
Moran-KS
Coats-IN
In these four states, relatively unknown candidates face each other in the general election. In red states like Utah, North Dakota, Kansas and Indiana, this generally favors the Republican, and polls back this assumption up.
FAILED MONKEY WRENCHES
Miller-AK
Rubio-FL
In both of these states, the Tea Party overthrew the establishment Republican, and the establishment Republican decided to go it alone with an independent candidacy (Crist of Florida) or a write-in campaign (Murkowski of Alaska). The typical result of intra-party squabbling is that the other party comes in (Democrats in this case) and sweeps up the vote. That won't happen this time: both Rubio and Miller are leading handily in the polls despite the monkey-wrench candidacies of Murkowski and Crist.
DEMOCRATS FADING FAST
Ayotte-NH
Portman-OH
Both of these purple states had open seat races that were considered to be close at one point. The Republican in each case has now opened up a lead in the polls consistently greater than 10 percentage points.
DEMOCRATS FADING SLOW
Blumenthal-CT
Richard Blumenthal, who once enjoyed a 30 point lead over all Republicans, is now just 5 points ahead of his Republican challenger for Chris Dodd's seat. Will the lead last? I kinda sorta think so in this blue state, but it's not like Blumenthal is the perfect candidate. All I know about him is that he claimed he served in active combat duty in the military when he didn't really. And that's not the kind of thing you want to be known for.
THE LEFT COAST
Boxer-CA
Murray-WA
Both of these blue state incumbents have challenging reelections ahead of them, and both have been surprisingly free of Tea Party turmoil. Both Democrats are leading in the polls, but not by all that much.
OZARK TH'OWDOWN
Blunt-MO
Boozeman-AR
Blanche Lincoln, Democrat Senator of Arkansas, will be the first Democratic incumbent to fall on election night. She has been consistently down in the polls despite her attempts to sever herself from the Democratic establishment. It's a little different in Missouri, where a well-known popular Republican will simply beat a less well-known less popular Democrat.
The rest of the races are tossups really.
THE SURPRISINGLY STRONG
Johnson-WI
Toomey-PA
Millionaire Ron Johnson is just an average guy from Wisconsin, he'll tell you in his campaign ads, but he's polling extremely well against "mavericky" Democratic senator Russ Feingold. Republican Pat Toomey hasn't trailed in a poll against Arlen Spector-beating Democrat Joe Sestak since May.
THE TEA PARTY EFFECT
Buck-CO
Angle-NV
Paul-KY
All three candidates have said crazy things. All three candidates are Tea Party insurgents. All three candidates were expected to be the easier opponent for Democrats than the Republican establisment candidates. And all three candidates are leading (just barely) in the polls. If all three get elected, it will be a bad night for Democrats. I'm predicting a bad night for Democrats.
THE WHY ISN'T THIS GUY LEADING BY MORE STATE
Manchin-WV
Extremely-popular Democratic governor Joe Manchin threw his hat into the ring for the seat of the deceased extremely-popular Democratic senator Robert C. Byrd, and it was expected to be a landslide for him. But he hasn't polled as well as expected against a perennial candidate named John Raese; Manchin is only up by about 5 points, and it's possible he may lose. I sort of doubt it though.
HOLD YOUR NOSE AND PULL THE LEVER
Kirk-IL
Two scandal plagued candidates go up against each other. The democrat is a sleazy banker named Alexi Giannoulias, and the Republican is a confirmed liar named Mark Kirk. They have been tied in the polls for months, but Kirk is slightly ahead in almost every poll.
The last senate seat left to be discussed is Delaware.
THE SARAH PALIN EFFECT
Christine O'Donnell looks like Sarah Palin, says ridiculous things like Sarah Palin, and is backed by Sarah Palin. She is skilled at playing the "look how the mainstream media persecutes me, the outsider" card. This is an excellent way of not having to explain yourself or the charges against you. It was thought that it would be a landslide for balding low-profile candidate Chris Coons, but since the primary, O'Donnell is closing in the polls, down by 9 points from 16 a couple of weeks ago. People love celebrity. So therefore my guess is:
Coons-DE
I mean, come on, she's ridiculous.
VP Biden will break all ties and keep the Senate in Democratic hands, at least until Joe Lieberman switches parties for good.
The conventional wisdom (as of September 28, 2010) is that the Republicans will probably take control of the House of Representatives but that Democrats will hold on to power in the Senate. But since all politics, even Republican-wave elections, are local, a closer inspection of the polls and the trends is warranted. And, shit, it's not like any other site on the internet is doing this.
Every seat in the House of Representatives is up for reelection, of course, and while the premise that the Republicans will easily take the chamber over may be overblown, I'm not going to question it for now. But the Senate is analyzable, so I shall analyze it.
There are 37 seats up for reelection (20 Democrat-held and 17 Republican-held). Subtracting these from the current configuration of the Senate gives us our baseline:
39 Dem
24 Rep
Now let's add in safe seats. For Republicans, there are an awful lot of safe seats.
RED STATE INCUMBENTS
Coburn-OK
Thune-SD
Crapo-ID
Grassley-IA
Isakson-GA
DeMint-SC
Burr-NC
Shelby-AL
McCain-AZ
Vitter-LA
All are incumbents who will breeze through to another term, even scandal-plagued David Vitter of Louisiana.
39 Dem
34 Rep
There are fewer safe Democrats
BLUE STATE INCUMBENTS
Wyden-OR
Inouye-HI
Schumer-NY
Leahy-VT
Mikulski-MD
Gillibrand-NY
45 Dem
34 Rep
Oh, but there are more safe seats for Republicans.
RED STATE NEWBIES.
Lee-UT
Hoeven-ND
Moran-KS
Coats-IN
In these four states, relatively unknown candidates face each other in the general election. In red states like Utah, North Dakota, Kansas and Indiana, this generally favors the Republican, and polls back this assumption up.
45 Dem
38 Rep
FAILED MONKEY WRENCHES
Miller-AK
Rubio-FL
In both of these states, the Tea Party overthrew the establishment Republican, and the establishment Republican decided to go it alone with an independent candidacy (Crist of Florida) or a write-in campaign (Murkowski of Alaska). The typical result of intra-party squabbling is that the other party comes in (Democrats in this case) and sweeps up the vote. That won't happen this time: both Rubio and Miller are leading handily in the polls despite the monkey-wrench candidacies of Murkowski and Crist.
45 Dem
40 Rep
DEMOCRATS FADING FAST
Ayotte-NH
Portman-OH
Both of these purple states had open seat races that were considered to be close at one point. The Republican in each case has now opened up a lead in the polls consistently greater than 10 percentage points.
45 Dem
42 Rep
DEMOCRATS FADING SLOW
Blumenthal-CT
Richard Blumenthal, who once enjoyed a 30 point lead over all Republicans, is now just 5 points ahead of his Republican challenger for Chris Dodd's seat. Will the lead last? I kinda sorta think so in this blue state, but it's not like Blumenthal is the perfect candidate. All I know about him is that he claimed he served in active combat duty in the military when he didn't really. And that's not the kind of thing you want to be known for.
46 Dem
42 Rep
THE LEFT COAST
Boxer-CA
Murray-WA
Both of these blue state incumbents have challenging reelections ahead of them, and both have been surprisingly free of Tea Party turmoil. Both Democrats are leading in the polls, but not by all that much.
48 Dem
42 Rep
OZARK TH'OWDOWN
Blunt-MO
Boozeman-AR
Blanche Lincoln, Democrat Senator of Arkansas, will be the first Democratic incumbent to fall on election night. She has been consistently down in the polls despite her attempts to sever herself from the Democratic establishment. It's a little different in Missouri, where a well-known popular Republican will simply beat a less well-known less popular Democrat.
48 Dem
44 Rep
The rest of the races are tossups really.
THE SURPRISINGLY STRONG
Johnson-WI
Toomey-PA
Millionaire Ron Johnson is just an average guy from Wisconsin, he'll tell you in his campaign ads, but he's polling extremely well against "mavericky" Democratic senator Russ Feingold. Republican Pat Toomey hasn't trailed in a poll against Arlen Spector-beating Democrat Joe Sestak since May.
48 Dem
46 Rep
THE TEA PARTY EFFECT
Buck-CO
Angle-NV
Paul-KY
All three candidates have said crazy things. All three candidates are Tea Party insurgents. All three candidates were expected to be the easier opponent for Democrats than the Republican establisment candidates. And all three candidates are leading (just barely) in the polls. If all three get elected, it will be a bad night for Democrats. I'm predicting a bad night for Democrats.
48 Dem
49 Rep
THE WHY ISN'T THIS GUY LEADING BY MORE STATE
Manchin-WV
Extremely-popular Democratic governor Joe Manchin threw his hat into the ring for the seat of the deceased extremely-popular Democratic senator Robert C. Byrd, and it was expected to be a landslide for him. But he hasn't polled as well as expected against a perennial candidate named John Raese; Manchin is only up by about 5 points, and it's possible he may lose. I sort of doubt it though.
49 Dem
49 Rep
HOLD YOUR NOSE AND PULL THE LEVER
Kirk-IL
Two scandal plagued candidates go up against each other. The democrat is a sleazy banker named Alexi Giannoulias, and the Republican is a confirmed liar named Mark Kirk. They have been tied in the polls for months, but Kirk is slightly ahead in almost every poll.
49 Dem
50 Rep
The last senate seat left to be discussed is Delaware.
THE SARAH PALIN EFFECT
Christine O'Donnell looks like Sarah Palin, says ridiculous things like Sarah Palin, and is backed by Sarah Palin. She is skilled at playing the "look how the mainstream media persecutes me, the outsider" card. This is an excellent way of not having to explain yourself or the charges against you. It was thought that it would be a landslide for balding low-profile candidate Chris Coons, but since the primary, O'Donnell is closing in the polls, down by 9 points from 16 a couple of weeks ago. People love celebrity. So therefore my guess is:
Coons-DE
I mean, come on, she's ridiculous.
50 Dem
50 Rep
VP Biden will break all ties and keep the Senate in Democratic hands, at least until Joe Lieberman switches parties for good.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Memo to Tea Party: Stop Sucking
I want to understand Tea Party sentiment, because I think there are some morsels of good ideas hidden deep within their murky bowl of freedom chowder.
In the broadest sense, the Tea Party is a coalition of people who clamor for balanced budgets and elimination of wasteful government spending, and who also believe that government action should be within the bounds of the Constitution. I can actually get behind this idea. It's when the Tea Party folks use specifics, like eliminating the Department of Education, allowing health insurance companies to sell policies practically without regulation, and recklessly lowering taxes that are already low that I start to disagree. It's when the Tea Party folks use inflammatory language, like a desire to "firebomb" the Fed, that they turn me against them. It's when the Tea Party leaders lie about facts like the economic state of Social Security (it is after all fully funded) and mischaracterize certain politicians' stances, like calling Obama a socialist that I start to rally against them. And it's when Tea Party leaders dabble in social issues like gay rights and religious freedom issues that I find them unconscionably reckless and a danger to our society.
This is why it's easy to characterize the Tea Party as an angry white conservative mob blinded by hatred for outsiders and driven by sensationalism of cable news and AM radio. They are a divisive group, and their popularity stems from anger, a potent political emotion. Their specific policies would undoubtedly be bad for the country as a whole. But if in some alternate universe the Tea Party stood only for balanced budgets and responsible government, I could see extraordinary benefits from a tolerant group of tax-paying citizens who would push an agenda of control of government expenditures. They could act as a vigilant watchdog group, which could push for a more transparent government. Their political candidates could focus on the economy and be spokesmen and women for the benefits of conservation, austerity and efficiency.
But unfortunately we live in this universe and not some alternative version of it. Tea Party candidates are known for making radical statements that wouldn't help anything, like that non-discrimination laws are unconstitutional, that Americans would be better off if Social Security and Medicare were eliminated, and that Obama is either a socialist or a Muslim Nazi without a U.S. birth certificate, and he's trying to steal your money. And I don't see how it helps the country to put inflammatory liars into political office.
In the broadest sense, the Tea Party is a coalition of people who clamor for balanced budgets and elimination of wasteful government spending, and who also believe that government action should be within the bounds of the Constitution. I can actually get behind this idea. It's when the Tea Party folks use specifics, like eliminating the Department of Education, allowing health insurance companies to sell policies practically without regulation, and recklessly lowering taxes that are already low that I start to disagree. It's when the Tea Party folks use inflammatory language, like a desire to "firebomb" the Fed, that they turn me against them. It's when the Tea Party leaders lie about facts like the economic state of Social Security (it is after all fully funded) and mischaracterize certain politicians' stances, like calling Obama a socialist that I start to rally against them. And it's when Tea Party leaders dabble in social issues like gay rights and religious freedom issues that I find them unconscionably reckless and a danger to our society.
This is why it's easy to characterize the Tea Party as an angry white conservative mob blinded by hatred for outsiders and driven by sensationalism of cable news and AM radio. They are a divisive group, and their popularity stems from anger, a potent political emotion. Their specific policies would undoubtedly be bad for the country as a whole. But if in some alternate universe the Tea Party stood only for balanced budgets and responsible government, I could see extraordinary benefits from a tolerant group of tax-paying citizens who would push an agenda of control of government expenditures. They could act as a vigilant watchdog group, which could push for a more transparent government. Their political candidates could focus on the economy and be spokesmen and women for the benefits of conservation, austerity and efficiency.
But unfortunately we live in this universe and not some alternative version of it. Tea Party candidates are known for making radical statements that wouldn't help anything, like that non-discrimination laws are unconstitutional, that Americans would be better off if Social Security and Medicare were eliminated, and that Obama is either a socialist or a Muslim Nazi without a U.S. birth certificate, and he's trying to steal your money. And I don't see how it helps the country to put inflammatory liars into political office.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
On the Tea Party and Undenounced Lies
This was an email that turned into a blog post.
I believe the reporting of the phenomenon is way bigger than the phenomenon itself, and I feel that all except the most extreme tea party folks realize that the way to bring about change in this country is to rally popular support and elect different representatives. I definitely don't think the movement will end up in revolution. One thing that members of the tea party make clear is that they love the Constitution.
Having said that, it's all this inflammatory chest-thumping posturing that is ridiculous. This author is exactly right that the stupid things these white people are saying would scare the shit out of white people if black people were saying them. And the mainstream reporting of the phenomenon covers these right-wing talking heads with respect undeserving of the commentary they produce. The media should be loudly exposing the lies espoused by conservative commentators, not broadcasting them without comment. Congressmen and senators should be loudly denouncing their fellow members for this chest-thumping counterproductive revolutionary talk. And they should be doing it loudly because it is the right thing to do, not because it will score political points. And they should do it overtly, like calling out by name, and including the term "pants-on-fire" as many times as possible in their press conferences. Because these people should know that when they whip the public into a froth of fury, some radicals may actually believe the lies, and they'll start flying their planes into IRS buildings or start plotting to kill local police officers or something.
I believe the reporting of the phenomenon is way bigger than the phenomenon itself, and I feel that all except the most extreme tea party folks realize that the way to bring about change in this country is to rally popular support and elect different representatives. I definitely don't think the movement will end up in revolution. One thing that members of the tea party make clear is that they love the Constitution.
Having said that, it's all this inflammatory chest-thumping posturing that is ridiculous. This author is exactly right that the stupid things these white people are saying would scare the shit out of white people if black people were saying them. And the mainstream reporting of the phenomenon covers these right-wing talking heads with respect undeserving of the commentary they produce. The media should be loudly exposing the lies espoused by conservative commentators, not broadcasting them without comment. Congressmen and senators should be loudly denouncing their fellow members for this chest-thumping counterproductive revolutionary talk. And they should be doing it loudly because it is the right thing to do, not because it will score political points. And they should do it overtly, like calling out by name, and including the term "pants-on-fire" as many times as possible in their press conferences. Because these people should know that when they whip the public into a froth of fury, some radicals may actually believe the lies, and they'll start flying their planes into IRS buildings or start plotting to kill local police officers or something.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)