Midterms

Well, one side prefers wasting money starting unprovoked wars and cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans.

 

Oh, I think the bunch running things, the ones with the power, the same guys who have run things up until the Obama/Congressional landslide, are excrement, but this quote you bolded is key to their strategy this Fall and it may very well work for them. Never underestimate the ability of the American public to not pay attention, forget to vote, and be swayed by vitriol.

The consultants argue that public anger, if properly stoked, alone can carry the party over the finish line. In their view, getting bogged down in the issues is a distraction and even a potential liability.


Don't assume that it won't work. Everything possible must be done to insure it doesn't, and at the moment, I don't have a great deal of confidence that Democrats are doing everything they can.

 

Well gosh, when they do something as simple as try to remind the public of the dangers of a Republican takeover (something anyone would have to include in the list of things that qualify as "Democrats doing everything they can" you call it a major blunder and then, strangely, call that blunder Machiavellian (strange because Machiavellian behavior is not typically associated with blundering - they are almost paradoxically opposite complaints).

You're a hard dude to please.

 

I think this is accurate. I also think Rim is accurate in his assessment that republican "policy" will bite them very hard if the democrats play it right.

But don't fret too much about that Wes, you can always take solace in the Texas GOP's clearly stated goals and objectives: Making sodomy and gay marriage a felony, and kicking out foreigners.

 

Is there a difference between 'very excited' voters and 'easily aroused' voters?

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=190235

 

the tea party's very bad Tuesday --

Moderates rule a series of high-profile primaries.

Aother Tuesday, another round of Republican primaries pitting self-proclaimed Tea Party candidates against their (sometimes slightly, sometimes considerably) more moderate opponents - and yet another sign that the Glenn Beck brigade is a long way from "taking back the country," despite all the hype.

So far, the Tea Party has been the major political story of the 2010 election cycle, and in many ways it's a fascinating, vibrant reflection of America's current fixations and frustrations. But given that the vast majority of the movement's favored candidates have lost their Republican primary battles - and given that the few candidates who've won, like Rand Paul and Sharron Angle, seem to be underperforming against vulnerable Democratic opponents - there's little reason to think that it will be a major electoral force any time soon.

The "weak tea" trend continued Tuesday in a series of marquee primary battles stretching from the upper to lower Midwest. In Michigan, moderate Rick Snyder - a former Gateway executive who supports embryonic-stem-cell research and sought to attract Democratic crossover voters with ads featuring Bill Ford - was competing against a flock of more conservative candidates (Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard, state Attorney General Mike Cox, and Rep. Pete Hoekstra) for the GOP gubernatorial nomination. In Missouri, Rep. Roy Blunt fought for Kit Bond's open U.S. Senate seat against state Sen. Chuck Purgason, an antitax, antigovernment conservative who has worked hard to position himself as a true-blue Tea Partier. And in Kansas, the two orthodox conservative congressmen, Todd Tiahrt and Jerry Moran, running to replace Sam Brownback, seemed basically indistinguishable until Tiahrt started harping on some of Moran's more moderate votes and secured the endorsement of a lady named Sarah Palin as a result.

Unfortunately for the Tea Party, the so-called mainstream candidates - Moran, Blunt, and Snyder - swept Tuesday night's races. Palin's endorsement couldn't push Tiahrt past Moran; he was trailing by 20 points in the polls when she announced her support earlier this summer, and lost last night by 4. Purgason's strategy of pounding Blunt as the consummate Washington insider didn't pay off; he never raised much money and lost last night by almost 60 points. And Snyder’s vow to “reach across the aisle” - a cardinal sin in the Tea Party bible - actually paid off, landing him 11 points ahead of Hoekstra, his next-closest opponent. The news wasn't much better for the Tea Party in a handful of House races. Social moderates, including Kansas’s Kevin Yoder, won several high-profile contests over their further-right challengers.

Still, there was at least one glimmer of hope for the strongly anti-Obama crowd. A Missouri ballot measure disapproving of the newly inked federal mandate to purchase health insurance passed, with 73 percent of voters shaking their fists at Washington. The only problem? The victory is largely symbolic, a loud protest almost certain to be shot down by the courts.

If anything, last night showed that mainstream Republicans have now devised relatively simple ways of fending off pesky Tea Party challengers. Missouri's Blunt relied on his Washington connections to suck up all the fundraising oxygen and to secure the endorsement of Tea Party icons like Michele Bachmann. Snyder realized that in an open primary against three bickering conservatives, going after disgruntled Dems could provide a decisive boost. And Moran worked to avoid alienating moderates in key battlegrounds like Johnson County by decrying the negative tone of the campaign. All in all, their success is proof that mainstream Republicans are tightening the reins and figuring out how to keep their party from - to borrow a phrase - going rogue.

 

I foresee the Republicans winning back a considerable number of seats. No matter how many they win back, I'm guessing that the Republicans will interpret it as a mandate that the people are disenchanted with the current political establishment while the Democrats will claim victory saying that they lost less seats than expected, that this was simply the cycle of politics and that no party retains control of the House and Senate forever.

I would prefer a situation in which moderate Republicans win a few seats while the more zealous tea pary panderers lose their seats.

 

Not sure what to make of this. Good for the GOP - makes them more likely to get seats. Bad for the Dems - these are better GOP candidates. As far as the country overall - you reduce the chance of some crazies getting elected, but increase the chance of the GOP winning more elections.

 

This is obviously mostly good news for Dems, though the closeness in the West is a little troubling.

The GOP can run up numbers all they want in the South; it's no more valuable for them than Dems running up numbers in the NE.

The best news in this poll is that Dems seem to have a fairly solid hold on the Midwest for now and that's the real, variable battleground.

 

I want the Dems to hold firm in the Senate (as in only lose 3-4 seats) and for the Republicans to take the House. I'm drinking the Kool Aide that the GOP will only act responsibly when they have a stake in government being successful. By taking the House, they will have to put up or shut up and actually govern instead of just lobbing incendiary grenades and scorching the Earth. Who knows, maybe some tough long-term decisions are made that actually benefit the country.

 

maybe not.

 

Did you know there is no electoral college during the midterm Congressional elections?

 

you're kidding.

 

Republican Party Only Winning Key 2010 Poll In Southern States

Findings released in a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll suggest that the Republican Party is very much a Southern regional white party in terms of the demographics of its supporters.

MSNBC relays the numbers:

The GOP has a HUGE generic-ballot edge in the South (52%-31%), but it doesn't lead anywhere else. In the Northeast, Dems have a 55%-30% edge; in the Midwest, they lead 49%-38%; and in the West, it's 44%-43%.