A sign of things to come?

Here is something for you that's more credible than the NYTimes:

www.dickmorris.com

GOP SENATE MASSACRE OF '08

By DICK MORRIS

Published on TheHill.com on May 20, 2008.


While Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) hangs in there, locked in a tough race with Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), the Republican undercard is facing obliteration in the 2008 general elections for the Senate. Polling suggests that a massacre may be in the offing — and one that’s possibly even greater than the worst of previous GOP years: 1958, 1964, 1974, 1986 and 2006.

Scott Rasmussen, whose site, www.rasmussenreports.com , follows these races closely, is producing truly hair-raising polling data.

Of the open Republican Senate seats in contention, Democratic victory seems very likely in Virginia (Democratic former Gov. Mark Warner now has 55 percent, while fellow former Republican Gov. Jim Gilmore stands at 37) and New Mexico (where Democratic Rep. Tom Udall takes 53 percent to GOP Rep. Steve Pearce’s 37 and 57 percent to Republican Rep. Heather Wilson’s 36).. In Colorado,

Democratic Rep. Mark Udall has a narrow lead over Republican Bob Schaffer (45-42). Nebraska would seem safely Republican, but a humongous black turnout in Mississippi could elect former Democratic Gov. Ronnie Musgrove, just as it led to a Democratic congressional victory in a bi-election this month. Score them: two Democrat, one leaning Democrat, one leaning Republican, and one Republican. A net loss of two or three seats.

And then there are the endangered incumbents. Three GOP senators are actually behind their Democratic challengers. Alaska’s Ted Stevens is behind Mark Begich by 47-45. Elizabeth Dole trails Kay Hagan in North Carolina by 48-47. And Jeanne Shaheen is well ahead of John Sununu in New Hampshire, 51-43. Stevens’s legal problems and the likely huge black turnout in North Carolina make all three states lean Democratic at this point.

Even when GOP incumbents lead, they are perilously under 50 percent. In Oregon, as of this writing, Gordon Smith leads Jeff Merkley by only 45-42 and Steve Novick by 47-41. And in Texas, John Cornyn leads Rick Noriega by only 47-43. In addition, Norm Coleman in Minnesota is hanging on by his teeth against Al Franken, 50-43; Susan Collins is only narrowly ahead of Rep. Tom Allen in Maine, 52-42; and in Kansas, Pat Roberts holds only a 52-40 lead over Jim Slattery. Mitch McConnell in Kentucky may also be in trouble.

So, among incumbents, score it three leaning Democratic, two tossups, and three leaning Republican.

Overall, that’s a likely Democratic pickup of five seats, with an eight-seat gain possible, and, in a partisan wipeout, a 12-seat shift.

Mon dieu!

In all likelihood, the filibuster will still remain a theoretical Republican option, but, in practical terms, may be beyond reach, especially if Obama wins the White House.

Driving the GOP’s imperiled Senate situation, or course, is a massive shift in party identification. While the two parties are normally about tied in party ID, the Democrats now enjoy a 44-30 advantage in the latest Fox News poll of April 29.A combination of the Iraq war, gas prices, the credit crisis and a looming recession are dragging down the Republican Party, big time.

So is a president with a 28 percent approval rating. Bush needs to go out and tell America that things are bad, but not that bad. There are solid signs that the economy may not be tanking after all. Unemployment, while rising, is still at historic lows. The credit crisis has not led to a wholesale collapse of the financial industry and the instability appears to be easing. And, in Iraq, we are approaching a more stable situation with lower combat deaths. Bush, who has largely been hunkered down in the White House, needs to hit the trail and move his ratings up into the mid- or high 30s, not an insurmountable challenge.

Will the endangered Republicans recover? Most have prevailed, in the past, by lifting their personal ratings out of possible danger early in the race. But when long-term incumbents find themselves mired in the high 40s or low 50s in vote share, it indicates a massive voter desire for change that is not likely to abate.

In the House, the incredible three Democratic bi-election victories, combined with the retirements of so many Republican incumbents, indicates that the GOP may be facing disaster there as well.

This is not a good year to be a Republican.

 

I'm not a fan of Dick Morris. I scour everything he publicly opines for a motive, especially stuff as far out as this. I think this piece is written more to get a reaction than to be a valid point of view.

Theoretically in November, if I sensed the Dems getting too close to 60 seats in the Senate, I would consider it extremely risky to vote for Obama.

 

As long as "conservatives" continue looking backwards to the 1980s and treat Reagan as if he were some sort of god, then they will stay in the wilderness. George W. Bush is the most right-wing president this country will have in a long time. The U.S. will never elect a doctrinaire conservative as president and they may as well grow up and get over that. And selective amnesia allows people to forget aspects of Reagan that weren't so conservative.

Whatever "conservative" president that may get elected will always disappoint either the budget hawks, anti-tax (anti-government) zealots, neo-con interventionists, pro-business lobby or social conservatives.

So-called "movement conservatives" may as well give up their utopian pipedreams because they are out of touch with political reality. Dreaming is fine, but don't act disappointed when you find out it's just a dream. Republicans pander just as much as Dems, and once elected, they will break just as many promises.

 

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ood_of_america/benchmarks/america_s_best_days

 

^^^lol and neither party has a goddam clue how to actually reduce these huge, bloated, and useless government services. No, they add MORE! Especially the GOP, of all the bizarre things.

 

A_3PO,

I'm disagreeing with you from a historical perspective, but when Republicans have done well, it's been by promising conservatism (and neo-conservatism is not conservatism). Call me crazy or idealist, but I think that if they ever practiced it, they'd be in control as long as they did so.

 

I tell you. If either party could reduce this monstrosity of a government by even 25%, I'd join up, donate money, volunteer, and wear silly hats to a convention like my man weslinder:


(this is an actual photo of weslinder in his college republican days. He needed the money.... I think)

 

Shh... I did my best to keep this a secret.

(Really, I was fighting windmills with other members of the Libertarian Party in college. One could say that I'm still fighting windmills, but at least now I have powerful allies, and some that even have money.)

 

The oil companies?

 

When waging campaigns, Republicans have done quite well promising conservatism. They promise the good and downplay consequences and pain. Good strategy. But when it comes to governing, the vast majority of the electorate in this country doesn't want strict conservatism. If the GOP ever got enough control and governed this way, they would be ruthlessly thrown out the window by voters. Just my opinion.

There is nothing wrong with being an idealist as long as you understand your position is a small, minority viewpoint. My political stance can be called idealist and I know most others don't share my views.

 

Nicely played.

 

Here's another sign (via kos)...

Bush is so hated that McCain can't get people to come to his own fundraiser in Phoenix.

 

If the Dems end up with 58 or 59 seats in the Senate, they will still get whatever they want. As a magic number, 60 only matters the few times when filibusters are important. When it comes to how many seats the Dems have in Senate, 60 is only a psychological number. If a landslide happens, I don't see the GOP regularly using filibusters to thwart a decisive mandate given by voters to Dems. Becoming ardent obstructionists would doom the GOP even further and they know that. The GOP goal should be to limit the Dems to no more than 56 seats. Any more than that turns the Senate into a steamroller almost like the House. A truly reliable "supermajority" would take about 62 seats, which ain't happening.

I hope that made sense.

 

I didn't know where to put this, so here it is. The fundraising numbers talked about are so ridiculous I won't believe it's possible until someone publishes that Obama actually raised $100 million in one month. The only reason this doesn't bother me so much is because the vast majority is from small donors instead of fatcats who want to be paid back with favorable legislation and other specific favors. This is Twilight Zone stuff.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/barack-obama-is-100m-man-2008-06-09.html

Barack Obama is $100M man
By Alexander Bolton
Posted: 06/09/08 07:31 PM [ET]

Leading Democratic fundraisers predict that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) will raise hundreds of millions of dollars over the next few months if he opts out of public financing and begins raising money for the general election.

Specifically, they say Obama could raise $100 million in June and could attract 2.5 million to 3 million new donors to his campaign.


These fundraisers say Obama could increase his fundraising dramatically because of three factors: a boost of enthusiasm among Obama donors following his clinching of the nomination; the migration of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) donors to his camp; and the mobilization of big Democratic donors who have given little so far this year.

Record-breaking projections give Obama strong incentive to pass up $85 million in public funds that his opponent, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), has said he would accept.

The question of whether to accept public financing has become a quandary for Obama. He appeared to pledge earlier in the campaign that he would if the Republican nominee did the same. Obama’s aides now claim he merely pledged to “pursue” a fundraising agreement with the Republican nominee.

Though political watchdog groups such as Democracy 21 have pressed Obama to accept government financing, he has resisted because the law would restrict him to spending only as much as McCain — $85 million —between the end of August and Election Day. Democratic fundraisers say Obama could outspend McCain by a margin of 3 to 1, or more, if he skipped taxpayer-subsidized funding.

“One hundred million dollars this June — it’s definitely within reach,” said Wade Randlett, who has raised more than $200,000 for Obama.“

Randlett said Obama would not likely reach the awe-inspiring total if he limited himself to contributions that could only be spent before the August convention.

“The big question is when we really open the floodgates to general-election money,” he said.

Randlett said there are three reservoirs of Democratic money available.

“First, there are the people who have not maxed out to Obama,” he said, citing donors who may have given a total of $500 in small chunks. “Then there are the Hillary folks — that’s a second very large bucket. The third large bucket are the people who thought, ‘I’m not sure who’s going to win’ and put small bets on either candidate.

“There were a significant number of people keeping their powder dry because they were unsure who was going to win,” he said.

One prominent Democratic fundraiser who had aligned with Clinton but has now joined Obama predicted the presumptive Democratic nominee could more than triple his number of donors.

Steve Grossman, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), said that if Obama skips federal campaign funds and raises money through November, he would have 4 million to 5 million donors by Election Day.

If those new donors give amounts similar to what Obama supporters have given so far this election cycle, Obama could raise another $630 million for his campaign. He raised $272 million through the end of April from about 1.5 million donors.

Grossman said that senior Clinton campaign officials urged him in recent days to raise money for Obama.

“I’m disappointed my candidate lost, but she has already let me know that she wants me to be involved [with Obama] in a significant way,” he said.

Grossman predicts the infusion of Clinton fundraisers into Obama’s campaign would “turbo-charge [fundraising] results over the next six [to] seven weeks.”

Obama has stepped up his fundraising operation since clinching the Democratic nomination this week. Democratic fundraisers say he has planned a high-dollar fundraising event at a private home in Chicago on Thursday and another fundraiser in Philadelphia on Friday. He has also planned a joint fundraiser with the DNC in Washington, D.C., on June 18 and another money event in Los Angeles on June 24.

Democratic fundraisers say that Obama has informed donors that he will only accept contributions for the primary campaign at these events.

The Obama campaign declined to comment on the upcoming fundraising schedule.

Obama has also turned his attention to managing the DNC since winning the nomination. Paul Tewes, Obama’s Iowa state director, is reviewing operations at the committee and will serve as Obama’s top strategist there, said a Democratic operative.

The Democratic committee has only $4.4 million in its war chest, compared with $41 million that the Republican National Committee (RNC) has saved, according to reports made public last month.

Democratic fundraisers say that McCain has had months longer to help the RNC build up a financial advantage because he clinched the GOP nomination in early March.

Obama has established a joint fundraising committee with the DNC that will allow Obama’s biggest donors to give up to $28,500 to the party committee.

Alan Kessler, who served as one of Clinton’s national finance co-chairmen, said that Obama’s record-breaking fundraising has left little doubt that he could raise $100 million in a single month, a total that would have been considered impossible a few years ago.

Kessler said, however, that Obama may not break the $100 million mark until July, when fundraisers and donors who supported Clinton’s campaign have had a chance to recuperate from her primary loss.

“Given the historic amounts Obama has raised, I don’t think anything is beyond the realm,” he said. “There is a huge fatigue factor among a number of the Clinton folks.

“There are some who are still emotional and a little angry over how some things went,” Kessler said. “Some are waiting to see how Obama reaches out to Clinton and whether there’s an offer or discussion involving the vice presidency.”

Kessler said that many Clinton donors would follow her lead and support Obama, “but a number want a little breathing time after a grueling 16 or 17 months of fundraising.”

 

I actually prefer one party to control Congress and the other party the White House. That way, truly bad ideas that pass Congress will get vetoed. Similarly, really bad ideas the President may want will not make it out of committee.

 

Another election, another Dem victory.

 

socialism, here we come.