• on a comment on NV-Sen -- Population Dynamics over 8 years ago

    I can't see many Bible-thumpers moving to Sin City.  Low tax/gun owner/libertarian types, though, I can see.

  • comment on a post Unions Backing Melissa Bean (D-IL) Challenger? over 8 years ago

    Left wing indepedent challengers cause Republicans to win.


  • comment on a post Schumer Hearts Santorum over 8 years ago

    ...the NOW manages to get Santorum re-elected.  I mean, do they really think Santorum is better than Casey?  Unless they think that, they should shut the hell up.

  • on a comment on Schumer Hearts Santorum over 8 years ago

    In any case, my take of Rasmussen is that he is the mirror of Zogby: An "independent" pollster with obvious partisan leanings and results to match (Zogby leans Dem; Rasmussen leans Rep).  This doesn't mean he sucks, it just means you should just give the Dem a few extra points to his numbers.  A pollster with consistant bias is not a problem.  A pollster with INCONSISTANT bias is a problem.

  • comment on a post MyDD Conversation with NV-Sen Candidate Jack Carter over 8 years ago


    Carter: The way I look at this... I'm a very philosophical person. It is not going to be up to me to decide for Oscar whether he's going to win or not.

    That probably should say "run", not "win".  I haven't listened to the mp3, but from the context, that seems to be what Carter is saying, especially since he says "run" two sentences later.

  • If the district is competative, it's probably fairly conservative, so if they do elect a Democrat, it's probably a fairly conservative one.

  • http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104114/plot summary

  • The place for challenges of Democrats is within the primary system.  Voting for independents or third party (Green, etc.) canidates in a race that had both a Dem and a Rep just helps the Republican-it's a vote to not to vote, therefore basically gives the Republican half a vote.

  • The stakes are too high.  The other side frequently plays dirty; we need to too, or we ought to not bother showing up, because we will lose if we don't.

    For example, it's no coincindence that the only Democratic president in the last twenty five years was one who had no qualms with playing dirty when it was needed.

  • on a comment on Afternoon Thread over 8 years ago

    Feingold has the ability to sound pissed off but not crazed.  Angry, but with a logical reason.  This was something Dean lacked at times.  Feingold also comes off great on TV, especially in TV ads, which was another one of Dean's failings.  Another thing Dean had, which never fully came out (because his campaign imploded before they needed to), was some skeletons in the Vermont closet.  Feingold, as he pointed out famously in one of his early ads, had none then; and he still has none now.  Feingold's negatives aren't skeletons; they're biography (jewish, twice divorced).  Feingold is also Swift Boat proof-attcking his main negative, his religion, will just blow up in his enemy's face, unless done on the down low, very subtly, which limits it's effectiveness.

  • For example, Feingold has the best TV ads of any canidate I've ever seen.  Look:

    http://www.russfeingold.org/multimedia.p hp

    Name a canidate who has better ads than that.  I double dare you.

  • comment on a post ARG Polls On Censure over 8 years ago

    The censure question asks specifically about Feingold's censure motion, which was about the illegal wiretaps.  The impeachment question was open ended for the reason.  That is, it is possible to not have a problem with the wiretaps, but want to impeach Bush for starting the Iraqi war in the first place (or for any other reason).  This probably explains how there could be more indies who want to impeach than there is that support Feingold's censure motion.

  • Look, I am trying to predict the future, which is impossible.  Hillary has about three things in her favor:

    1. Name recoginition

    1. Money
    2. Support of women's organizations

    All three are meaningless in New Hampshire and Iowa.  It's all retail politics there.  Basically, in those two states, pretty much every voter gets to have coffee with every canidate.  Nobody knew who Kerry or Dean were this far out in 2004.  Dean had more money than anybody, yet he lost.  I believe Feingold will play better than Hillary, or anybody else, with the Democratic primary voters in those two states.  That is why I call him the front runner.  Obviously, no poll will show this at this juncture.  Polls at this point are amazingly meaningless.

    Let me show you a poll from April 2002:

    Zogby America Poll. Latest: April 19-22, 2002. N=391 Democratic voters nationwide:

    "If the Democratic primary for president were held today and the candidates were [see below] for whom would you vote?"
     Al Gore 46        
     Tom Daschle 7        
     Joseph Lieberman 6        
     Bill Bradley 5        
     Richard Gephardt 4        
     John Kerry 4        
     Al Sharpton 2        
     Gray Davis 1        
     John Edwards 1        
     Joseph Biden 1        
     Howard Dean -        
     Christopher Dodd -        
     Other 2        
     Undecided 22

  • The question isn't, "Has he voted with us in the past?"  The question is, "Who would be with us more, Lieberman or Lamont?"

  • ...not even run.

    At this point, I think Feingold has the nomination locked up, except absolutely nobody (except maybe Feingold) knows this yet.  He is the opposite of Kerry in every sense of the word, and that's what Democratic primary voters will be looking for in 2008.  Plus, he has certain advantages that the other canidates lack in Iowa and New Hampshire.  Iowa is right next door to Feingold's home state (assuming Vilsack doesn't throw a monkey wrench into that), and New Hampshire is ripe for Feingold's anti-Patriot Act, anti-illegal domestic spying themes (I believe one Patriot Act vote recently was 97-3, with Feingold and the two Republican senators from New Hampshire being the 3).


Advertise Blogads