Forecast for Dem primaries: Ugly, ugly and more ugly

[JEDIYoda]

Quote:
Originally Posted by PJABBER
Sorry to leave it at that, but it is time to spend some time with the kids! Not you guys, mine!

Oh for fsck sake, he's breeding!

I nominate DealMonkey`s response for most intelligently funny post of the year!!

 

[Double Trouble]

Partisan hackery aside, this will be a very interesting political season. We're seeing the same thing on both sides of the isle: the hard right and hard left are fighting to steer their party away from centrists towards their ideology, leaving centrists in kind of a no-man's land. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

 

[Robor]

Ok my opinion is that you are a dimwit. But you can't refute that since its an opinion piece..

Some opinions have value here. Yours, not so much.

 

[PJABBER]

You guys are so funny. Of course this is not an opinion piece. It is an evaluation of political prospects by a publication that covers politics. Why do you think it is called POLITICO? The only opinions that are expressed are those that are quoted and your own.

Fact 1 - The Democrats are fragile and vulnerable

Fact 2 - They eat their own, regularly

Fact 3 - Liberals have no sense of humor, whatsoever

Fact 4 - Having no sense of humor, liberals that take themselves so seriously are perfect in so many ways

 

[nageov3t]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_congressional_vote-901.html

that's a damn slim margin for a party that could have gotten Hitler elected president a year ago... but a year is a long time and who knows where we'll be 11 months from now.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Partisan hackery aside, this will be a very interesting political season. We're seeing the same thing on both sides of the isle: the hard right and hard left are fighting to steer their party away from centrists towards their ideology, leaving centrists in kind of a no-man's land. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

We live for partisan hackery

Seriously you are right. There is what you know, what you don't know, and what you think you know. Right now we "think" we know how it's going to go. My expectation is that the Reps are going to make a fair gain, however enough to make a difference? That I won't speculate on. I would dare say that the results could be a wake up call for one side or the other. They'll sleep through it as always, but as we all know what should be and what is are ofter completely different.

 

[shadow9d9]

You guys are so funny. Of course this is not an opinion piece. It is an evaluation of political prospects by a publication that covers politics. Why do you think it is called POLITICO? The only opinions that are expressed are those that are quoted and your own.

Fact 1 - The Democrats are fragile and vulnerable

Fact 2 - They eat their own, regularly

Fact 3 - Liberals have no sense of humor, whatsoever

Fact 4 - Having no sense of humor, liberals that take themselves so seriously are perfect in so many ways

Fact, liberals have the only shows that are funny. I'm pretty sure nothing beats the Daily Show for funny.

Fact, Republicans just ate their own at ny-23.

 

[Fern]

-snip-

Fact, Republicans just ate their own at ny-23.

Anyone of their "own" that endorses the Democratic candidate needs eating.

Fern

 

[shadow9d9]

Anyone of their "own" that endorses the Democratic candidate needs eating.

Fern

Endorsed after being completely screwed over by their own party for a braindead fringe. Have you seen the guy speak? He looks completely unhinged when he speaks.

 

[Carmen813]

You guys are so funny. Of course this is not an opinion piece. It is an evaluation of political prospects by a publication that covers politics. Why do you think it is called POLITICO? The only opinions that are expressed are those that are quoted and your own.

Fact 1 - The Democrats are fragile and vulnerable

Fact 2 - They eat their own, regularly

Fact 3 - Liberals have no sense of humor, whatsoever

Fact 4 - Having no sense of humor, liberals that take themselves so seriously are perfect in so many ways

Fact - PJBABBER does not know the definition of fact. Evidence: "Facts" 3 and 4.

 

[PJABBER]

The fear is palpable.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/1209/Republicans_winning_recruiting_battle.html

Republicans winning recruiting battle

Josh Kraushaar
POLITICO
December 01, 2009

Cook Political Report House analyst David Wasserman notes a telling indicator that the political environment in 2010 is shaping up to be favorable for Republicans: Several Democratic candidates have decided to drop out of tough races, while Democratic members of Congress who rarely face serious challenges are finding themselves with their toughest re-elections in years.

Over the last week, three Democratic candidates touted by national strategists abruptly withdrew from their races: Solano Beach Councilman Dave Roberts (running against California Rep. Brian Bilbray), state Rep. Todd Book (running against Ohio Rep. Jean Schmidt) and Tennessee Commerce and Insurance Commissioner Paula Flowers (in the seat held by retiring Rep. Zach Wamp).

In a neutral political environment, the seats held by Bilbray, Schmidt, and the open Tennessee seat would be enticing targets for Democrats. Democrats aggressively contested the first two seats in both 2006 and 2008, and experienced unexpected success in Southern open seats over the last two elections.

But in 2010, defense is the name of the game for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which is defending several dozens vulnerable freshmen and second-term members, while also protecting veteran members who could find themselves in newfound trouble. It will be a lot more challenging for a first-time candidate running in a tough district to get financial support from the DCCC when the party is worried about defending its own.

The story is different on the Republican side, where recruiting hasn’t been a problem lately. As I note in my story today, some of the most senior Democratic members of Congress have, for the first time in years, serious challengers.

Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.), who didn’t even face a Republican opponent last year, now looks like he could be running against a top-tier challenger in state Sen. Jim Tracy as he vies for a 14th term in the House. Rep. John Spratt (D-S.C.), one of the most influential Democrats in the House, is poised to face a serious challenge from state senator Mick Mulvaney, who has quickly moved up the political ranks in South Carolina.

Two leading Republicans are already jumping in to run for the seat of retiring Rep. Dennis Moore (D-Kan.), while no Democrats have yet stepped forward.

 

[feralkid]

The fear is palpable.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/1209/Republicans_winning_recruiting_battle.html

Republicans winning recruiting battle

Josh Kraushaar
POLITICO
December 01, 2009

Cook Political Report House analyst David Wasserman notes a telling indicator that the political environment in 2010 is shaping up to be favorable for Republicans: Several Democratic candidates have decided to drop out of tough races, while Democratic members of Congress who rarely face serious challenges are finding themselves with their toughest re-elections in years.

Over the last week, three Democratic candidates touted by national strategists abruptly withdrew from their races: Solano Beach Councilman Dave Roberts (running against California Rep. Brian Bilbray), state Rep. Todd Book (running against Ohio Rep. Jean Schmidt) and Tennessee Commerce and Insurance Commissioner Paula Flowers (in the seat held by retiring Rep. Zach Wamp).

In a neutral political environment, the seats held by Bilbray, Schmidt, and the open Tennessee seat would be enticing targets for Democrats. Democrats aggressively contested the first two seats in both 2006 and 2008, and experienced unexpected success in Southern open seats over the last two elections.

But in 2010, defense is the name of the game for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which is defending several dozens vulnerable freshmen and second-term members, while also protecting veteran members who could find themselves in newfound trouble. It will be a lot more challenging for a first-time candidate running in a tough district to get financial support from the DCCC when the party is worried about defending its own.

The story is different on the Republican side, where recruiting hasn’t been a problem lately. As I note in my story today, some of the most senior Democratic members of Congress have, for the first time in years, serious challengers.

Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.), who didn’t even face a Republican opponent last year, now looks like he could be running against a top-tier challenger in state Sen. Jim Tracy as he vies for a 14th term in the House. Rep. John Spratt (D-S.C.), one of the most influential Democrats in the House, is poised to face a serious challenge from state senator Mick Mulvaney, who has quickly moved up the political ranks in South Carolina.

Two leading Republicans are already jumping in to run for the seat of retiring Rep. Dennis Moore (D-Kan.), while no Democrats have yet stepped forward.

Shouldn't this concern you as a Democrat?

 

[PJABBER]

Shouldn't this concern you as a Democrat?

I am registered as an independent.

However, as a result of participation in this forum I am seriously considering registering as a Republican as the best chance to influence the selection of candidates that are supportive of classical liberalism.

I believe the Democrats have so entrenched themselves into a "people work for government" rather than "government works for the people" mindset that they have completely discredited themselves in this period of holding complete control of the executive and legislative branches of the federal government.

I am hoping for change in 2010. ¡Viva La Reagan Revolución!

 

[Vic]

How can a political Party that advocates so pitilessly for political correctness tolerate any level of dissent within its own ranks?

Don't do drugs, kids.

 

[feralkid]

I am registered as an independent.

However, as a result of participation in this forum I am seriously considering registering as a Republican as the best chance to influence the selection of candidates that are supportive of classical liberalism.

I believe the Democrats have so entrenched themselves into a "people work for government" rather than "government works for the people" mindset that they have completely discredited themselves in this period of holding complete control of the executive and legislative branches of the federal government.

I am hoping for change in 2010. ¡Viva La Reagan Revolución!

Then why do you claim to be a "Classical Liberal?"

 

[PJABBER]

Then why do you claim to be a "Classical Liberal?"

I really should put an automated reply together for this question as it comes up so frequently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

http://www.radicalacademy.com/philclassliberalism.htm

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/whatisclassicalliberalism.pdf

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0892c.asp

 

[Vic]

PJABBER is pretty much the antithesis of classical liberal. He's just expecting you won't read his links. No self-respecting classical liberal would even consider disrespecting himself by constantly pushing social conservative values enforced by govt authority, as he does.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

You guys are so funny. Of course this is not an opinion piece. It is an evaluation of political prospects by a publication that covers politics. Why do you think it is called POLITICO? The only opinions that are expressed are those that are quoted and your own.

Fact 1 - The Democrats are fragile and vulnerable

Fact 2 - They eat their own, regularly

Fact 3 - Liberals have no sense of humor, whatsoever

Fact 4 - Having no sense of humor, liberals that take themselves so seriously are perfect in so many ways

You could have condensed this post down to "yea, it's an opinion piece, but I'd really rather not call it that."

 

[PJABBER]

I am intrigued by the pending dissolution of Democrat cohesion and political prospects after just three years of dominance (two years as majority party in Congress, one year in control of both the White House and the Congress.)

While the Democrat Party is still putting up some kind of front, the polls show that even while taking positions vastly unpopular with the majority of voters in the country (huge increases in government debt funded spending, massive intervention of government into the private sector, innumerable special interest earmarks, opaque decision taking which completely eliminates public commentary on legislative initiatives, huge proposed tax increases) they have also alienated the fringe leftists they embraced and upset the racial and sexual minorities they count on for winning elections.

Even while most of the Democrats continue the Lemming March, more and more are choosing to fall out of elective office while they can still secure high paid alternative employment.

Republicans, the Party that self destructed by failing to live up to their espoused ideals are poised to gain, and gain significantly.

While it still remains to be seen how the Tea Party movement manifests itself in the politicking of 2010, there is an outreach to their discontent by the Republicans and, maybe, just maybe, a recognition that the sooner the Republicans return to their roots, the quicker that reconciliation will occur.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...Dems-head-for-the-exits-8660117-79354837.html

Amid rumbling discontent, Democrats head for the exits

Michael Barone
Senior Political Analyst
The Washington Examiner
December 16, 2009

While Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid scrambles to assemble 60 Democratic votes for health care legislation that, according to the RealClearPolitics.com average of recent polls, is opposed by a 53 percent-to-38 percent margin, several Democratic members of the House are scrambling for the exits on what is starting to look like a sinking ship.

You may noticed that I avoided using the cliche "rats leaving the sinking ship," because the four Democratic House members who over the last three weeks announced their decisions to retire rather than run for ree-lection cannot fairly be characterized as rats.

To the contrary, Dennis Moore (Kansas 3), John Tanner (Tennessee 8), Brian Baird (Washington 3) and Bart Gordon (Tennessee 6) are competent House members who among them have won election to Congress 36 times. Gordon is chairman of the House Science Committee; Tanner was offered an appointment to succeed Al Gore in the Senate in 1992; Baird was lead sponsor of measures to ensure the continuity of Congress in time of national disaster. All have claims to significant legislative accomplishments.

And to political success in marginal Democratic territory. Gordon and Tanner represent districts that voted heavily for John McCain in 2008; Moore's usually Republican district gave Barack Obama a small majority; Baird's suburban district has voted at just about the national average in the last three presidential elections.

All four cited plausible personal reasons for calling it quits, and none can be unaware that there is a robust job market in Washington for former Democratic congressmen with good political skills. Members of Congress make $174,000 a year; heads of trade associations make upward of $741,000 and don't have to return to home districts on weekends.

All four of these retiring members faced the prospect of tougher opposition in 2010 than they have encountered in years. Tanner and Gordon are from what I call the Jacksonian belt, the area settled by Scots-Irish southwest from West Virginia to Texas, where Obama ran poorly in both primaries and the general election last year. Polls in nearby Jacksonian Arkansas have shown Democratic incumbents running even with or behind unknown Republican challengers.

Moore and Baird are from suburban districts where their views on cultural issues have been a political asset. But in the gubernatorial elections last month in Virginia and New Jersey, suburban voters brushed aside cultural issues and voted for Republicans who ran against higher taxes and big government. That suggests that Democrats in suburban House districts can't expect to match Obama's 2008 showings next year.

These four Democrats are not the only House members who aren't running for re-election, but all of the 12 Republican retirees and all but one of the seven other Democratic retirees are leaving the House to run for statewide office.

The question now is whether more Democrats of this ilk will choose to retire -- something House Democratic leaders have been working to prevent. They're very much aware that Republicans in 1994 won some 21 open seats in which Democratic incumbents did not seek re-election, nearly half the 52 seats the Republicans gained when they won control of the House that year.

Public opinion expresses itself in the legislative process in various ways. Democrats' current large majority in the House, which has enabled them to pass unpopular cap-and-trade and health care legislation, is largely the product of public discontent with George W. Bush's perceived nonfeasance on Katrina in 2005 and perceived malfeasance in Iraq in 2005 and later.

These four decisions to retire, and similar decisions by other Democrats that may come, seem (for all disclaimers of personal reasons) to be the product of public discontent with the policies of the Obama administration and congressional Democratic leaders in 2009. Such discontent, perceptible only in the Jacksonian belt last year, has now clearly spread to the suburbs of major metropolitan areas.

The odds are still against Republicans picking up the 41 seats they need for a House majority. But it's interesting that when Massachusetts Democrat Michael Capuano, fresh from a second-place finish in the primary for Edward Kennedy's Senate seat, was asked to tell the Democratic caucus what he had learned on the campaign trail, he replied in two words: "You're screwed." How many of those listening decided that it would be a good idea to spend more time with the family after 2010?

 

[Fear No Evil]

Hopefully Obama and his cabal of democrat war criminals will be tried for their crimes against humanity before 2010..

Its not the same around here without Harvey's macros.

 

[PJABBER]

As a follow-on to the article just above, I ran across this story that describes the demographic of people who continue to support Obama and, by extension, the Democrats. I think we can include in our thinking an understanding that Congressional districts that include a high proportion of this demographic will continue to sway Democrat, while those that do not will turn to the Republican Party.

The concern for Democrats is whether they can mobilize groups like ACORN to get out the vote for the Democrats this time, enough so that they can overcome the commitment of the Republicans this time around to change the course of government malfeasance.

http://townhall.com/columnists/Terr...ied,_poor,_inexperienced_and_pro-obama?page=2

Unchurched, Unmarried, Poor, Inexperienced and Pro-Obama
by Terry Jeffrey
Townhall.com
December 16, 2009

(Terence P. Jeffrey is the editor-in-chief of CNSNews)

A strategist casting a cold eye on the Gallup poll tracking President Barack Obama's job approval rating might be tempted to give our president the following advice: Sir, you need more unmarried, unchurched, poor and inexperienced Americans.

Given the polling trends, the more people who are devout, married and prosperous and have seen more than a few decades of life, the worse it will be for the president. What's good for America is bad for Obama.

Unless, of course, you think that faith, family, wealth and longevity are bad. But, then, who would think that?

Each Monday, Gallup publishes a demographic breakdown of the president's approval rating among the people it has surveyed during the previous seven-day period.

For the week of Dec. 7-13, Obama's overall approval was 49 percent, with some groups rating him significantly higher than that and some rating him significantly lower. Among people who seldom or never go to church, Obama did relatively well. Fifty-three percent said they approved of the job he is doing. Among those who go to church monthly or nearly weekly, 53 percent approved. But among weekly churchgoers, only 42 percent approved.

If there were not a class of citizens in this country who go to church every week, a majority of Americans would still approve of the job Obama is doing.

Obama also did very well among the unmarried. Fifty-nine percent approved of the job he is doing. Among married people, however, only 42 percent approved.

If marriage could be eliminated in this country -- leaving only the never married, the divorced and the cohabitating -- a majority of Americans would still approve of the job Obama is doing.

Similarly, younger people were far more likely than older people to give Obama a positive rating. Fifty-nine percent of Americans 18 to 29 said they approved of the job he is doing. But only 50 percent of those 30 to 49 approved, only 48 percent of those 50 to 64 approved, and only 40 percent of those 65 or older approved.

If everyone in this country were under 30, a majority of Americans would still approve of the job Obama is doing.

When income brackets were considered, Obama did best among the poorest. Fifty-six percent of those who earn less than $24,000 per year, and 53 percent of those who earn between $24,000 and $60,000, approved of the job he is doing. But only 49 percent of those who earn between $60,000 and $90,000 per year approved, and only 44 percent of those who earn more than $90,000 per year approved.

If no one earned more than $60,000 per year in this nation, a majority of Americans would still approve of the job Obama is doing.

Is there a lesson in this Gallup poll? Yes. The people who form the backbone of our society -- the married, churchgoing, hard-working, experienced members of our national community -- do not believe what Obama is doing today as president serves their interests.

In fact, it is not only their interests that are being disserved. Many Americans who are not among the married, churchgoing or prosperous today, would in the normal course of things become those things tomorrow. In this free country, younger people tend to grow older, get married, prosper and, in many circumstances, find their way back to church if they have strayed from it.

A bigger welfare state such as Obama envisions where more people are dependent on government and where the industrious must bear a greater financial burden to support the government will make it harder for all our children to live the American dream -- and join the demographic categories that disapprove of the job Obama is doing.

 

[chucky2]

Hopefully Obama and his cabal of democrat war criminals will be tried for their crimes against humanity before 2010..

Its not the same around here without Harvey's macros.

Yeah, WTF happened to the Macronator? I haven't seen it spamming every thread in P&N with Oba, er sorry, Bush hating vitriol about illegal wars, yada yada yada.

The realization that Messiah is doing what 'Bush&Co' did - and worse - must be too much to bear. I know, must be working on pages of Obama/Obama supporter links so as to better spam P&N.

Reality: Couldn't happen to a nice Macro! :thumbsup:



Chuck

 

[ericlp]

So does this mean we get a third party?

 

[piasabird]

By the time we have primaries there will be no money left to promise to anyone. How do you get elected when the government is broke? I guess they will have to revert to republicans starving children and denying gradndparents medicine and poisining the water and the air.

 

[shadow9d9]

Democrats don't control congress... they are at least 10 short of that.. even if you consider the hick "democrats" to be democrats, you still don't have complete control because Lieberman is "independent"... notice how he single handedly has held up reform?

Being disingenuous only makes you look like a fool.

With NY-23 giving up a 150 year old conservative position, the primaries will be great fun to watch.