Rough week for Democrats
 

Scott Brown (R) has made an unlikely resurgence (or maybe just "surgence") in Massachusetts, raising $1.3 million dollars in a single day in small money donations (avg donation: $77). Martha Coakley (D) has been forced to actual campaign, turning in a sub-par debate performance, running a misleading attack ad with the name of her own state misspelled, and even paying Brown-supporting union workers to hold up campaign signs.

Coakley sounded the warning horn at a swanky DC fundraiser, begging for money, and it's estimated the DNC may have to pour in as much as $1 million of its own dollars to combat Brown's grassroots uprising. And in the (still) unlikely event he ends up winning, the Dems in the Senate are threatening to delay his swearing-in to avoid his filibuster-breaking 41st vote on health care, further angering the electorate.

This is Ted Kennedy's former seat, folks. This is Massachusetts.

And then, of course, we have the Democrat leadership's outrageous display of racism. Harry Reid refers to "light-skinned ... Negro dialect" and Bill Clinton says, "A few years ago Obama would've been getting us coffee." This is the party that blacks voted for by a 90% margin in 2000. Of course the Dems, including the racist "black leadership" (Bond, Jackson, Sharpton), are in full circle-the-wagons mode.

It's a great way to kick off 2010. May it continue.

Never underestimate the GOP's potential to screw things up.

The anti-intellectual current in the GOP is extremely strong--Palin, Huckabee, et al.

This is January. If we're having this discussion in November, then I'll be pleased but until then, I'm not betting on it.

And it's not surprising. The party not in power can say all the right things. However, the Republicans don't have a clear message which resonates with voters. In the last election, the Dems had a message, whether it was achievable or simply fluff is another matter, but they had one. Now that the Dems have ignored the economy and rammed insurance reform for health care down our throats, many have strep throat. The remaining question is dependent upon the resolution of the strep, does it clear up or morph into mono.

The GOP is its own worst enemy. Never have I seen a party more capable of grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory, than I have from the Republicans.

Heh. No news is too good news to bust up the 1-2 punch of Waters-Arch pessimism.

I've seen the Reps screw up too much to become too excited. If you want an overexcited pundit, go talk to Cali.

Why focus on the negatives? Sarah Palin just joined FoxNews, which hopefully will spell the demise of that already defunct news network. Dems have a lot to celebrate.

It is actually a really good time for Dems. The one issue they have wanted to see pass for 30 years now is going to pass in the next month (Coakley isn't going to lose, Tex).

Republicans have no plan, no focus, no anything (other than Steele, the Dems not so secret weapon, leading their counterattack), and all the passion of the Republican base is being directed at eliminating moderate Republican candidates in the primaries who can't win in the general election.

With health care almost done, we can focus on a jobs bill followed quickly by an energy bill.

You really know how to depress a guy; a few more trillion dollars added to the deficit and voila, you've decimated the country.

the democrats utopia is California.

And they believe all the problems in CA are due to conservatives.

If I were a political adviser, I would be linking the democrats to CA and the blues in the blue states.

I no longer remember who shared this information, so you may attribute it to nothing if you wish.

A friend of mine has close ties some how with the Controller I believe from California. And he reported that said controller had gone to DC to see if California could (a) become a territory or (b) file bankruptcy.

He determined neither was realistic, but the fact that California investigated the possibilities shows how desperate things are.

Obama's policies could lead this nation down California's road of financial plight, spend and give to everybody that will solve the problems.

This is why Obama will bail CA out with taxpayer money, just like GM. He will call it a loan, and say "in these uncertain desperate economic times, we had no other choice" and then they will trot out some stats that CA pays more in federal tax or something, and then the rest of us will involuntarily grab our ankles and take it.

Because CA is terrible PR for the liberals. The fundamental thinking of a liberal is "pay nothing, get everything." And CA is what you get as a result.

The situation as it is now is easily the most positive atmosphere for Republicans since (IMO) 2002. A few data points:

- Rasmussen shows R's ahead on "generic ballot" by 9%.
- Qunnipiac poll out today, Obama approval on the issues:
-- 41% on economy
-- 34% on creating jobs
-- 35% on health care
-- 48% on terrorism
-- 45% overall
- Also in Qunnipiac, the public is split 35-37 on whether they'd have been better off with McCain as president
- CNN/Opinion research: 48% judge Obama's first year a failure; 47% a success

The Brown-Coakley matchup, regardless of who ends up winning, has already showcased the discontent there is toward the incumbent party.

Who are you referring to?

No, California's problems have nothing to do with either party. Instead, they have to do with ridiculous vote requirements which make governing impossible.

How has it already done that? Not a single vote has been cast.

link?

Scozzafava, Rubio, Patrick Hughes (to beat Kirk), Mike Lee to beat Bennett, etc.

So that's a scientific, peer-reviewed article establishing a causative link between California's economic demise the plebiscite laws of California?

Yes, people complain about the initiative formula of California but I truly doubt it's the main factor in California's economic demise. However, spending too much sure sounds much more plausible. And for that, it doesn't take a regression analysis. If you spend more than you take in over a long enough time, when it's time to pay it back, you won't have enough. Seems simple enough.

Go ahead, fish for boogey-men elsewhere.

Tell that to the panicking Democrats in Massachusettes.

Of those four, I can think of two with "passion", to use your word: Scozzafava and Crist/Rubio, but neither fits your characterization. Scozzafava isn't a moderate, wasn't selected in a primary, and didn't win the general (or "special", if you prefer). Rubio trounces Meek in Rasmussen's December poll, 49-35% ... better than Crist, 42-36%. So he's certainly just as electable.

I'm not aware of any polling data for either Hughes or Lee vs their competition, so if there's some huge groundswell behind them that you've mystically identified, feel free to prove it.

Sorry- did you present a scientific peer reviewed article supporting your argument it is all the Dems fault, or were you just "fishing for boogey-men?"

I don't have to.

Democrats have controlled the Legislature in California for as long as can be remembered. If Republicans have no control, how could one blame anybody but those in control?

The public fisc is running huge deficits.

It doesn't take a study to link the two.

Democrats have not controlled spending in California.

For you to dissuade me from the obvious, a loose argument is insufficient. But, Mike is correct, Obama will give California a multi trillion dollar bailout, arguing we can't afford for California to go more bankrupt without California fixing its fiscal problems.

Yes public spending is a blessing not a curse. Go ahead stick to the sinking ship of California.

Californians have 1) elected liberals, 2) have huge spending on immigrants, many of them illegal, 3) vote for every government program that sounds half-helpful, usually unfunded.

At the same time, largely though voter initiatives, have limited the amount they have to pay in tax.

Huge spending + inability to have huge taxes = fiscal irresponsibility. And unlike the federal govt. they can't print money, and their credit sucks.

Cali's predictable response is, the initiatives limit the amount of money which can be raised through taxes, and therefore, it's not the spending which is the problem but the silly citizens who don't want increased taxes.

Silly me, I thought the legislature needed the approval of the Republican executive in California. Is that not the case anymore?

I didn't use the word "energy."

Scozzafava is absolutely a moderate (honestly surprised you would argue to the contrary). That's what Republicans hated most about her (and why they picked Hoffman, who was far from moderate). Conservatives pushed the ultra-conservative Hoffman in opposition to Scozzafava and wound up handing the seat to Democrats.

As for Rubio, Rasmussen is the only major poll showing Rubio beating Meek, whereas every poll shows Crist beating Meek. Take your chances with Rubio, please.

As for the others, the point isn't that the incumbent will lose (although perhaps he/she will), but that the tea partiers are doing everything in their power to promote candidates who are less electable in the general than the current party candidate. I say, more power to them. Even if they don't beat the incumbent, they fracture the party.

Arnold is not a Republican and in many instances he became a rubber stamp for the California legislature. There is virtually no influence of limited government or Republican principles outside of Orange County or San Diego County.

It is a Democratically dominated and controlled Legislature which dictates to the Governor. There really is no balance in California, so no, you can't punt that way.

I realized that after the fact, and changed it to "passion." Doesn't affect that content of the post, but point taken.

Republicans did not pick Hoffman. They picked Scozzafava, and not in a primary, as you said. Had an actual primary been held and Hoffman been selected, he would've won that race. This example is a total contrast to what you said.

Cites, please. And try to keep them recent, if you can find them.

Cite some evidence that conservatives are doing "everything in their power" to oust Bennett and Kirk.

Tex, what is the solution to get the damn whackos out of Lincoln's party?

Why do our whacko brethren keep trying to undo the party?

Piss them off so bad that they start their own website.

Republican party leadership selected Scozzafava, a moderate Republican (despite your claims to the contrary) to run for the seat. Tea partiers threw a fit, Hoffman was promoted, Hoffman and Scozzafava split Republican votes (even though she had to withdraw days before the election, thousands had already voted by that point), and Owens won. This is precisely what I am talking about, not in contrast to it.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...meek-1065.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...meek-1126.html


Ha! No, I will just enjoy the fact that you now equate "conservative" with "tea partier." That alone is all the evidence you need of the problems Republicans face.

Those are not recent polls. Even so, Meek +8 and Meek +3 are pretty narrow margins. Hardly makes Rubio "unelectable".

In other words, you have no evidence.

Roll with it, Tex. You and your fellow tea partiers are one of the best thing to happen to Dem election fortunes this year.

Heh, oh I'm rolling with it, don't worry. If you think this is a good year for Democrats, more power to ya!

In the meantime, here's the two latest Brown and Coakley ads. You tell me which one feels like a frontrunner:

Coakley (including the misspelled Massachusettes):



Brown:

You are resorting to the "feel" of campaign ads now to find comfort? I will resort to the "feeling" of enjoying Coakley's win.

And yes, it is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades once health reform passes.

News for Dems keeps getting better:

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal...rity_would.php

This is a two-edged sword. For it to continue will mean our economy worsens which means we all suffer.

If it turns around, then these numbers mean nothing as voters have short memories.

I predict Obamanomics will fail, but take no glee or delight in that prediction.

I can't believe Coakley is this stupid. Maybe she's just cursed. In the clip below, she calls Curt Schilling a Yankee fan.

This is a woman from Boston. From Boston.



Schilling (a vocal Brown supporter) comments: "Never, and I mean never, could anyone ever make the mistake of calling me a Yankee fan. Well, check that, if you didn’t know what the hell is going on in your own state maybe you could."

Heh. Hope il Pad drops by to see this.

This is a time when populism will do well with independents. I think the electorate is tiring of the enlightened entitled liberal elite, who will lord over us and show us unwashed masses the way.