Arcuri and Gillibrand were classic DCCC campaigns, cautious and closed. In fact, I was frustrated by the amount of netroots support they got, considering their positioning. There was nothing netroots about their structure or thinking. I'm not surprised to see their actions in office, although I'd expect both to be like Gillibrand (reserve judgement until it was clear it was a fairly safe vote, then support it). Arcuri's vote just seems dumb.
By contrast, John Hall's campaign was really innovative and forward-thinking, and I don't see him on that list. And his race was much closer than those two.
Pretty sure they had a customized ActBlue page (campaigns can do alot to customize off of ActBlue), but I am sure it used to have a tip jar for ActBlue on it. If it doesn't now, I'd wager strongly they aren't using it anymore.
One thing that shouldn't be overlooked, though, are the Independents in NH. So far, the Democratic primary is garnering far more attention than the Republican one, so the Indies will probably vote disproportionately in the Dem primary in NH. From polling data and anecdotal conversations with friends and family, Obama seems solidly ahead of Clinton with Independents in NH as of now. And, considering Hillary's status, I don't see her picking up a lot of Indie support in NH.
She may go negative against Obama in the few weeks before the primary to try to hold Indie turnout down in NH.
it's obvious to these elites what is and isn't true, because they have access to the newsmakers or elite information streams themselves.
I think this is a key point. In my experiences being on the inside of information streams, a lot of the information publicly available looks pretty incomplete. In that situation, you have access to so much more information that it all looks slightly off, and the differences between outlets is generally smaller than the difference between what you know and what any of them portray.
Also, the "news media" is far more personalized when you are in that situation. News networks and outlets matter less than individual reporters. There are some good reporters at bad outlets and vice versa. And, since you only tend to notice stories that are directly related to your campaign/issue/boss, it's harder to get a sense of the overall slant of outlets.
However, this is not to say that there aren't a lot of folks on the inside who have a very, very good understanding of what Fox News is all about. Just that if your normal job doesn't involve communications, it is possible to miss the overall milieu of a Fox News. Or at least miss the severity of their bias.
I actually thought it was going to be much harder to bring down McCain, but then George Bush had to up and follow McCain's advice on Iraq. That accelerated the process significantly.
McCain's a dangerous man right now, full of cash with a stable of smear merchants at his command. It's going to get very, very ugly over there on the right. Giuliani is in for it, and big, and it won't have to be from us on the left.
I still suspect Gingrich takes it in the end. I would love a Gingrich vs. Obama matchup in the general. Two fully-realized but starkly different visions of America. Division vs Unity in a steel cage death match, with two highly skilled rhetoricians of nearly opposite appeals. Bring it on, baby!
That doesn't make any sense. As HST mentioned, being "pro-choice" is completely divorced from a personal opinion on abortion. The whole point is that the government doesn't have a role in a woman's decision like that. Being "pro-life," otoh, is all about governmental intrusion into that choice.
You can logically say, "I personally don't believe in abortion, but I don't think it's government's role to dictate that position on all women." However, it's laughable to say, "I personally don't have a problem with abortion, but I think the government should ban it anyway."
Obama's definitely surging; he's put some distance between him and Edwards. I think it's safe to say there's a top tier of two (Clinton and Obama), a very competitive second tier of one (Edwards), and everyone else right now. Richardson isn't in the conversation, yet, and won't be until he shows some competitiveness either in Q1 fundraising or some movement in an early state's polls. Biden, Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel are no-hopers.
Pure numbers doesn't measure intensity of focus. Democrats have a Senate Majority Leader that is pro-life; there's no prominent federal Republican that is pro-choice that I can think of. Democrats, despite pundit rhetoric, are more "big tent" on this issue than the GOP, numbers aside.
What happened to the Christian Coalition leader that pushed to broaden the focus away from pro-life and gay rights issues? He was forced to resign, iirc.
I think that the longer-term political focus of white evangelicals will certainly broaden, but I think it will be at least 2012 or later before that becomes a politically meaningful movement.
In this one, at least, they employ a "likely primary voter or caucus goer" screen, and the mechanics of that screen would have a lot to do with their results. Still, though, a lower score for Clinton and Giuliani among likely voters/goers as opposed to the general population makes intuitive sense.