|
ive never been to kentucky i went to nashville once and i guess kentucky fried chicken sells nashville hot chicken now? so i guess ive basically been in kentucky that is to say, i dunno, i have no actual data so i could just shut up but naaaaaah ill keep talking maybe grimes had her shot and failed but she wouldn't be the first politician to make a comeback that didn't seem very probable
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 04:05 |
|
|
Sharron Angle is considering a primary challenge to Joe Heck in Nevada, saying that Trump's candidacy has shown people are hungry for outsider candidates.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Q9onfgUYj0
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
oystertoadfish posted:only be guessed at Grimes will probably run the next time governor comes around, presuming Bevin looks vulnerable in 2019. If not, then 2023. She's still in her 30s, has plenty of time. I say she'll run not because it is a good idea for her to do so (she's bad), but because there isn't much else left.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:I think they get that it's a joke, their problem is it's a super-sexist joke. hahaha shut the gently caress up berniebro Goatman Sacks has issued a correction as of 19:32 on Feb 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:hahaha shut the gently caress up berniebro Two months later, the outrage arrives!
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
oystertoadfish posted:
It's complicated. On the one hand I don't have a problem saying that Beshear has a lot more talent and trained ability than Grimes or Conway. More credentialed, too. But on the other hand there some specific circumstances surrounding his rise to the governorship that sometimes go overlooked. The first time he ran for governor, it was against a deeply unpopular and scandal-plagued incumbent, Ernie Fletcher, who had himself benefited from the scandals of the previous Democratic governor, Paul Patton. There was a deep malaise in the electorate, and a broad, bipartisan sense that the state government had gone to the dogs. Beshear had been a big deal in state politics in the 70s and 80s before taking a twenty-year hiatus to work in Biglaw, leaving him untainted by the various scandals of the 90s and aughts. The administrations he was in - particularly that of gov. Martha Layne Collins, under whom he served as lieutenant governor - are still fondly-remembered by both current Democratic voters and former Democratic voters who have defected to the Republicans over the past two decades. The consequences of realignment weren't as clear to voters in the Commonwealth at that time, so among our conservatives there is some sense of that time as the Good Ole Days when the democratic party still represented So I think this allowed Beshear to appear as a sort of King Under the Mountain figure, emerging from the unspoiled past to bring order to an unruly present. I'm not saying he couldn't have won without this context - he is good at what he does, and Ernie Fletcher was a very weak incumbent - but I think this particular context, combined with the presence of an engaging third-party option (Gatewood Galbraith, a charismatic perennial candidate), contributed to the sheer margin of the victory in 2007.  I'd say President Obama not yet being around for the Republicans to use as a boogeyman helped, too, and it undoubtedly did. This is the case throughout the South. But since our incumbent democrats also swept statewide elections in 2011 (post-Obama and post-Tea Party) it's hard to quantify this. PupsOfWar has issued a correction as of 12:11 on Feb 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 12:07
|
|
|
Is there any better sense these days what the Senate will look like? Seems pressing now that Scalia is dead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 12:18
|
|
|
Zas posted:Is there any better sense these days what the Senate will look like? Seems pressing now that Scalia is dead. If the GOP blocks the nomination I would say that these Senators re-election prospects shrink:
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 12:31
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:If the GOP blocks the nomination I would say that these Senators re-election prospects shrink: There's also an open seat in IN. I know it's IN, but they've also got a gubernatorial election in 2016, and the unpopular Mike Pence is up for re-election. A presidential year + the potential for unpopular Republican president and gubernatorial candidates + a SC issue might just flip the seat. After all, IN broke unexpectedly in the past two presidential elections (voting for Obama in 2008, electing Joe Donnelly in 2012).
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
Zas posted:Is there any better sense these days what the Senate will look like? Seems pressing now that Scalia is dead. Before they have a presidential candidate? Absolutely not. Democrats are favored to retake Wisconsin and Illinois. Florida and Nevada are truly tossups (and given that Nevada is the only Democratic held seat currently up for grabs that means they cancel each other out) and everything else is some level of Republican favored (places like NH looking like a sleeper while places like Ohio are looking stronger and stronger.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
We won't actually know what Florida's looking like until the parties actually pick their candidates in August. Given the right/wrong picks it could quickly go from toss up to a strong chance for either side.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:If the GOP blocks the nomination I would say that these Senators re-election prospects shrink: Kirk and Johnson are p. much gone. Other than that, I don't know. Depends on the strength of McGinty's campaign in PA and whether the NH Dems can find someone to beat Ayotte. Missouri is an awful state and will re-elect Blunt regardless of what he does, and Rob Portman is either going to get reelected or end up on the Republican ticket for VP this year. Sandoval not running in NV means that that seat remains a tossup for Democrats instead of a likely R, and Catherine Cortez-Masto has Harry Reid's blessing, so she should at least be well-funded. Fritz Coldcockin has issued a correction as of 14:58 on Feb 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
Hassan is running in NH, the race will be really close, provided things don't look awful at the top of the ticket for Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
Here in FL I have to assume it will be Murphy running for the Dems, but I haven't been paying attention yet on who are the GOP candidates. Considering this state seems to never elect Dems at the statewide level anymore I'm going to default to pessimistic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
Zas posted:Is there any better sense these days what the Senate will look like? Seems pressing now that Scalia is dead. Currently 54R 46D Dems need +4 seats to take control of chamber (assuming they win the presidency in 2016, +5 if they lose) 34 seats are up for election (24R, 10D - the Tea Party class of 2010 is up for re-election) Dem Seats (10) 7 are safe (CT, HI, MD, NY, OR, VT, WA) 1 is likely (CA-Boxer) 1 is lean (CO-Bennet) 1 is toss-up (NV-Reid) Rep Seats (24) 4 are toss-up (FL-Rubio, IL-Kirk, NH-Ayotte, WI-Johnson) 3 are lean (NC-Burr, OH-Portman, PA-Toomey) 5 are likely (AK-Murkowski, AZ-McCain, GA-Isakson, IN-Coats, MO-Blunt) 12 are safe (AL, AR, ID, IA, KS, KY, LA, ND, OK, SC, SD, UT) So the Dems need 4 of the 7 close Rep seats (FL-Rubio, IL-Kirk, NH-Ayotte, WI-Johnson, NC-Burr, OH-Portman, PA-Toomey) and to hold both of the in-play Dem seats (CO-Bennet, NV-Reid) They should manage that, assuming a strong Dem presidential turnout
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:It's complicated. thanks for that write-up, that was really interesting Franco Potente posted:There's also an open seat in IN. I know it's IN, but they've also got a gubernatorial election in 2016, and the unpopular Mike Pence is up for re-election. A presidential year + the potential for unpopular Republican president and gubernatorial candidates + a SC issue might just flip the seat. After all, IN broke unexpectedly in the past two presidential elections (voting for Obama in 2008, electing Joe Donnelly in 2012). the mainstream republican candidate, young, apparently submitted too few signatures, or at least the democrats are challenging him for such. if he gets thrown off the ballot then the tea party stutzman guy is the candidate, i guess. the spin on daily kos elections is that he's less electable and the democrat, hill, will have a better chance at beating him. how much better, we won't know until we find out a) who the presidential nominees are and b) how much people hate each of them on a more ridiculous note, how long would trump have if he wanted to run as an independent for senator in his 'second home' state of florida?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
oystertoadfish posted:on a more ridiculous note, how long would trump have if he wanted to run as an independent for senator in his 'second home' state of florida? Noon on June 24th is the deadline to file his paperwork, pay his fees, and have his 119,316 signatures. Which is also part of why we won't actually know which party has a better chance at the Senate seat in November until after the August Primary. Still plenty of time for a whole host of unelectable assholes to jump in and win.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
oystertoadfish posted:thanks for that write-up, that was really interesting The judges in this case are Republicans and have telegraphed that they are going to certify Young using whatever is necessary, if he were to be booted off the ballot the race would instantly move to "leans R" from safe R. Florida talk- I'd honestly say that Murphy is the man to beat in this race, among both parties. Provided Rubio doesn't drop down the Republicans have two okay candidates, Jolly and whats-her-name (Rubio's protege) and one bad one but Murphy is an excellent politician. He's going to make mincemeat out of Grayson in the primary and I think he'll end up facing and beating Jolly in the general with a weak Republican presidential candidate doing little to hurt those chances. Cliff Racer has issued a correction as of 04:49 on Feb 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
re: fl-sen i think grayson's gonna lose that primary but there's plenty of democrats who love that he's their louie gohmert and don't care about his cayman islands trust fund, or that he opposes raising taxes on the rich on principle. personally i think it'd be great for him to sit in the house talking poo poo and running significantly behind the democratic presidential nominee in a safe blue district but apparently (surprise!) he's an egomaniac. one of my friends says he brought drone strike victims to capitol hill for a hearing and it's too bad he isn't happy with being The Guy Who Does That and needs to fail to climb the ladder probably patrick murphy, who won one of the closest districts by presidential vote in the nation with a margin far exceeding obama's, is going to win the primary after the advertising gets spent strategically speaking, the guy who won a toss-up district with margins exceeding that of the president would be the better nominee for a toss-up state but hey maybe the primary voters gently caress it up the republican primary is sillier i think there's a bunch of fuckers running. the lobbyist who won fl-13 in that special election over sink in 2013 or whatever dumped his district after it got ungerrymandered (crist is gonna win there i guess?), but now he's saying he won't fundraise, like a loving former lobbyist is too ethically pure to raise money to try to get elected. it's an odd move. there's some tea party guy democrats want to win, some establishment types, a few people with geographic bases in different parts of the state, same deal as most places this early in the election cycle. i think that webster guy whose gerrymandered republican orlando district got turned blue is trying to win this thing too, i can't remember whether that's considered desperation or a guy who could win bunches of central florida gop primary votes oystertoadfish has issued a correction as of 01:47 on Feb 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
oystertoadfish posted:re: fl-sen It doesn't help that a lot of Central Florida is huge swathes of inland mississippi broken up by suburbs without a city to leech off of. I grew up in Pasco and while the place was small, I didn't realize how horrendous the sprawl was until later on when my siblings and I all grew up and moved out of the state, and my father retired and moved to Spring Hill. For him, groceries are like a half-day affair and god forbid you need to hit up a mall on short notice (just over an hour to something called sawgrass/sawmill/switchblade something or other). I mean he's a big fan of driving but good god that kind of isolation does awful things to people socially. Spent 30 years as a lawyer in a meth-ridden city along the "nature coast" but now he moves out into the middle of nowhere he thinks he needs to buy a gun. Of course CFL voters are going to go with the most batshit candidates and win because the FL Dems are basically all people still held over from the Carter era.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 04:48
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:It doesn't help that a lot of Central Florida is huge swathes of inland mississippi broken up by suburbs without a city to leech off of. I grew up in Pasco and while the place was small, I didn't realize how horrendous the sprawl was until later on when my siblings and I all grew up and moved out of the state, and my father retired and moved to Spring Hill. For him, groceries are like a half-day affair and god forbid you need to hit up a mall on short notice (just over an hour to something called sawgrass/sawmill/switchblade something or other). I mean he's a big fan of driving but good god that kind of isolation does awful things to people socially. Spent 30 years as a lawyer in a meth-ridden city along the "nature coast" but now he moves out into the middle of nowhere he thinks he needs to buy a gun. Of course CFL voters are going to go with the most batshit candidates and win because the FL Dems are basically all people still held over from the Carter era. Dude, that's not sprawl. That's just plain rural.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Here's something I wrote last year that could probably stand to be updated I would say IL, WI, and NV lean dem. WI and IL are blue states in a presidential year, and the two popular Democratic candidates have substantial polling leads. The GOP didn't get their candidate in NV and it's also a state likely to go blue in November. IN, surprisingly, may be in play as the NRSC's preferred candidate appears to have failed to get enough signatures to be on the ballot. The other Republican is a far-right tea partier with fundraising problems. Still, the path to a Senate majority isn't easy. PA's democratic primary is a mess and Strickland isn't currently polling well against Portman. But between those two and NH/FL, it's very possible the Democrats pick up the Senate again. (And then will lose it in 2018)
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
Why are people so pessimistic about PA? I moved away so haven't been following the primary closely, but I'm surprised that a Democrat in a presidential election year wouldn't be favored. Not trying to contradict anyone's opinion, just curious.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 05:58
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Why are people so pessimistic about PA? I moved away so haven't been following the primary closely, but I'm surprised that a Democrat in a presidential election year wouldn't be favored. Not trying to contradict anyone's opinion, just curious. PA is not that big of a Democratic state. PA: Obama +5 MN: Obama +7 IA: Obama +6 NV: Obama +6 WI: Obama +7 NH: Obama +6 Every single one of those states except PA was talked about as a swing state in 2012 yet they all went more for Obama than PA did.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
Normally I would say PA is a prime pickup opportunity, but not if Sestak wins the primary.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
On the other hand, IIRC the Dems had a very strong showing at the state level in 2014, a midterm year that saw Democrats get their asses kicked pretty much everywhere else (there were three state supreme court positions up for election, and Team D nabbed all three of them). That makes me think PA is moving towards the Dems at the state level.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
FMguru posted:On the other hand, IIRC the Dems had a very strong showing at the state level in 2014, a midterm year that saw Democrats get their asses kicked pretty much everywhere else (there were three state supreme court positions up for election, and Team D nabbed all three of them). That makes me think PA is moving towards the Dems at the state level. That was all on Wolf's coattails though, or maybe Corbett's reverse coattails.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:PA is not that big of a Democratic state. I can't deny the numbers, but isn't the argument there that PA is unusually inelastic? That it has a slim majority of Democratic voters with relatively few persuadable voters, largely because of the significant cultural differences between Pittsburgh/Philadelphia and the rest of the state? That turns PA into a turnout game, which should be helped by 2016 being a presidential election year. Concerned Citizen posted:Normally I would say PA is a prime pickup opportunity, but not if Sestak wins the primary. I cannot imagine what makes him so seemingly compelling that they'd give him another shot, but I didn't really get the appeal of him the first time around either, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
pennsylvania's interesting because toomey seems to have cultivated a moderate image, so especially now that the senate's likely to be in the news all year with the supreme court it'll be interesting to see if he can outperform the republican presidential candidate to the degree that he'll need to to survive outside of a scenario where the national electorate is functionally identical to the republican primary electorate in which case there's no debate worth having, obviously if the gop gets pa's electoral votes toomey wins another term in the senate i think on the democratic side i think mcginty probably wins that one although clearly nothing is decided, fetterman has a nice story and could rise with a bernie tide but fundraising and polls are somewhere in the gray zone between 'dead candidate' and 'rising star' from my vague recollection and sestak has no money and seems to have more appeal in rural parts of the state that won't contribute a large percentage of the democratic primary vote, again from my vague ignorant observations my vague impression of how sestak won the 2010 primary was that he was the guy who said 'no gently caress that' when the democratic establishment decided to embrace party-switching arlen specter, and it turned out the actual democratic voters wanted to end specter's career. how wrong is that? it's pretty impressive he only lost by 2% in the general election, btw, but he still seems like a weak candidate from the poor fundraising. and probably specter would've picked up the margin and pulled off the win against the tea party wave FAUXTON posted:the FL Dems are basically all people still held over from the Carter era. of note here is that patrick murphy, the guy i think is the electable candidate in the democratic primary, was a republican until a few years ago. crist is another successful democrat, probably will be part of the house minority next year, who followed such a pattern this seems to make the most liberal florida democratic primary voters piss and poo poo themselves so it'll be interesting to see if murphy can get through the primary - i suspect he will but i think early polling shows slight grayson leads with high undecideds. murphy has more money and in past elections has shown an ability to get more people to vote for him than grayson has oystertoadfish has issued a correction as of 06:22 on Feb 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:I can't deny the numbers, but isn't the argument there that PA is unusually inelastic? That it has a slim majority of Democratic voters with relatively few persuadable voters, largely because of the significant cultural differences between Pittsburgh/Philadelphia and the rest of the state? That turns PA into a turnout game, which should be helped by 2016 being a presidential election year.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
I'll say what I've said before in this thread again, because it appears to bear repeating. People here are over-estimating where Democratic candidates are right now. They have a great shot at a lot of these shots, especially with the possibility of a meltdown at the top of the Republican ticket, but right now Republican incumbents lead in all but two of their races, another two races are tied but one of those would be a Democratic loss. Ron Johnson has done a terrible job of maintaining his image in Wisconsin and will probably lose to Feingold. Mark Kirk had a near impossible job in Illinois and lost the day he had that stroke because he really needed six years of full out RINOism to even have had a shot. Duckworth sounds like a strong candidate and will probably have an easy election when all things are said and done. Rubio's open seat looks to be a tossup right now. I think that its technically still possible for Rubio to drop back down and run for re-election but even without him Jolly is an okay candidate. Murphy for the Democrats is, as I said earlier this page, excellent. Nevada, Reid's open seat, is also a tossup. It would have leaned R-pick up but Sandoval didn't want it. The Republicans have a good candidate from a swing district, Representative and former Sheriff Heck while the Democrats have a contested primary between unproven state government people. New Hampshire should probably be a toss up and yet it isn't, it features an okay incumbent Republican between an okay Democratic governor. However, Ayotte has consistently had a small lead in polls and that hasn't trended one way or another. Its hard to not say that it leans R. Pennsylvania is also leans R. Toomey only really moderated himself in one way, the gun bill, but it was big and newsmaking and he's largely kept quiet about how conservative he is in everything else. The Democrats have a very contested primary and while McGuinty has all the endorsements and more money she does not have a polling lead. Nor should she, Sestak's a better candidate, a former Representative from the politically important Philly suburbs and someone who drat near won this race in an awful 2010 environment. Ohio faces a well liked and competent incumbent versus a well liked and competent former governor and should be a toss up. But, again, it isn't. Strickland is having a hard time putting away his no-name primary opponent, has lagged in fundraising and is earning the dreaded adjective "tired." Hillary's going to have to drag this guy over the finish line if Democrats want this seat. Maryland will have a new senator too, sadly (miss you already, Barb.) Its going to be Van Hollen because Edwards is an incompetent who sucks at raising money, hasn't done much campaigning yet and can't even consolidate the black establishment behind her (CBC declined to endorse because so many local black politicians are backing Van Hollen.) California is in the same boat, featuring power-broker Kamala Harris versus dipshit Loretta Sanchez. Sanchez is more conservative but less popular among Democrats, her only hope is to take second in the jungle primary and then win the general. However there's currently two major Republican candidates in that race (the magical number Sanchez would want is 3) so that will be tough to do. Colorado would have been a tough race for Republicans anyway but lacking a strong candidate its hard to even call it "likely" instead of safe. Indiana would be in play if Young fails to make the ballot but Indiana's Republican judges will cheat him through and he'll have an easy time in his primary and general. "Likely" for another week until the case is officially decided, then either safe or leans R. NC, GA, AZ, MO, KY and every other state is safely for one party or another, despite what people in here might say. Also, just to correct the incorrect information stated above, those three PA Supreme Court Justices who won were elected in an off-off-year election, 2015 (Wolf was 2014.) They weren't brought in on Wolf's coat-tails so much as there's an ongoing scandal related to naughty e-mails among judges in PA and some of the ones up for election got caught up in it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/burgessev/status/699659571971932161
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
Richard Blumenthal breathes a sigh of relief, knowing he's safe for another day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Franco Potente posted:Richard Blumenthal breathes a sigh of relief, knowing he's safe for another day. Provided he doesn't do another train safety press conference. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5Wo8p72LZA
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
In Indiana, Rep. Todd Young was the favorite for the GOP Senate nomination. BUT it looks like he failed to get 500 valid signatures in a congressional district so he may not be on the primary ballot. Rep. Marlin Stutzman would be the front-runner if Young can't get on the ballot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
My understanding is that Indiana's judiciary isn't going to let a little thing like facts keep him out of the race.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
oystertoadfish posted:re: fl-sen I know Grayson has a progressive record for a Florida democrat, but other than that he looks corrupt as hell. Murphy is an R-turned-D who makes Charlie Crist look like Bernie Sanders. Granted all I know about him I got from his wikipedia page. Who is the least bad of these to vote for? Of course the Florida Democratic Party would have the two worst candidates imaginable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
Ramrod Hotshot posted:I know Grayson has a progressive record for a Florida democrat, but other than that he looks corrupt as hell. Murphy is an R-turned-D who makes Charlie Crist look like Bernie Sanders. Granted all I know about him I got from his wikipedia page. Patrick Murphy would be a lovely Senator but he's not Charlie Crist. If I were in Florida, I would pick Murphy because we need a majority leader more than we need another progressive vote, and Murphy at least stands a shot at winning. Grayson is a disaster.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Ramrod Hotshot posted:I know Grayson has a progressive record for a Florida democrat, but other than that he looks corrupt as hell. Murphy is an R-turned-D who makes Charlie Crist look like Bernie Sanders. Granted all I know about him I got from his wikipedia page. As a practical matter the individual ideology of a senator matters far, far less than who they will support for Majority Leader and if they can actually get elected. Since they're both Democrats I'd go with Murphy as Grayson is an unlikable corrupt shithead even if he happens to have the right ideology at times because being an unlikable corrupt shithead is kinda problematic in an election. Since the Democrats aren't winning the House and so they're not passing any progressive legislation, all that really matters is who controls the Senate and if they can get appointees through.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 04:05 |
|
|
Maybe so, but I wouldn't put too much value on the "electability" of one candidate over another. People said Crist had crossover appeal. Yeah.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 18:08
|
|