• Yes! Moving away from the Bill Clinton / New Democrat mindset and back to our roots as the party of FDR will return us to our status as natural governing party of this country.

  • comment on a post Prez-2008: Who do you like? over 7 years ago

    In descending order: Wes Clark, Al Gore, John Edwards.

  • on a comment on Election Predictions Thread over 7 years ago

    I'm with you almost 100%.

    I'm calling wins for all those Senate seats, plus maybe Connecticut, 32 seats in the House and seven governorships.

  • comment on a post Use It Or Lose It: Full Frontal Assault over 7 years ago


    With Republicans pouring their resources into the three-state firewall of Missouri, Tennessee and Virginia, why aren't you advocating MyDD readers to call their senators and ask them to give money to DSCC or directly to Democratic challengers?

    By targeting safe Democratic incumbents -- you list 12 such senators in your Senate Forecast -- and asking them to direct thirty percent of their unneeded funds

    Here's a list of Democratic incumbents whose races you've listed as "Non-Competitive" in your Senate forecast with their cash-on-hand compared to that of their token opposition:

    (Dem. and COH -- Rep. and COH -- 30%)
    Akaka ($313,107) -- Thielen ($83,165) -- 30 percent: $93,932.10
    Bingaman ($1,603,445) -- McCulloch ($2,486) -- 30 percent: $481,033.50
    Byrd ($887,243) -- Raese ($142,248) -- 30 percent: $266,172.90
    Carper ($2,154,641) -- ($51,531) -- 30 percent: $646,392.30
    Clinton ($15,756,426) -- Spencer ($474,065) -- 30 percent: $4,726,927.80
    Conrad ($2,907,719) -- Grotberg ($4,147) -- 30 percent: $872,315.70
    Feinstein ($7,407,939) -- Mountjoy ($20,695) -- 30 percent: $2,222,381.70
    Kennedy ($7,435,096) -- Chase ($36,448) -- 30 percent: $2,230,528.80
    Kohl ($114,714) -- Lorge ($3,768) -- 30 percent: $34,414.20
    Nelson, Bill ($6,835,120) -- Harris ($963,639) -- 30 percent: $2,050,536.00
    Nelson, Ben ($449,213) -- Ricketts ($1,674,362) -- 30 percent: $134,763.90
    Stabenow ($1,251,830) -- Bourchard ($603,519) -- 30 percent: $375,549.00

    Unless I've added wrong along the way, that totals $14,000,184.00.

    Democratic senators elected in 2004 by large margins could also be targeted, as they'd be less likely to face strong opposition in 2010.

    (Senator with ending cash -- 30%)
    Blanche ($245,398) -- 73619.4
    Boxer ($1,106,546) -- $331,963.80
    Dodd ($1,855,961) -- $556,788.30
    Inouye ($683,718) -- $205,115.40
    Obama ($755,696) -- $226,708.80
    Bayh ($10,578,491) -- $3,173,547.30
    Mikulski ($400,555) -- $120,166.50
    Reid ($185,942) -- $55,782.60
    Schumer ($10,091,773) -- $3,027,531.90
    Wyden ($1,110,050) -- $333,015
    Leahy ($949,381) -- $284,814.30
    Murray ($1,019,100) -- $305,730
    Feingold ($1,700,985) -- $510,295.50

    Again, unless I've added wrong, that totals $9,205,078.80.

    The Classes of 2004 and 2006 total: $23,205,262.80.

    The firewall:
    Ford ($771,674) -- Corker ($497,583), Corker with ability to self-finance
    McCaskill ($246,724) -- Talent ($4,204,741)
    Webb ($2,731,442) -- Allen ($5,569,416)

    An influx of $20 million would not only help break through the Republican firewall, but also help maintain the substantial leads we've managed to gain in a number of other Republican-held states.

    Such a large influx could also substantially change the dynamics of a longshot race, like Nevada. Unlike Arizona and Connecticut -- where Pederson and Lamont have poured their personal finances into the races and still trail by around 10 points in most polls -- Carter suffers from a three-to-one cash disadvantage and has suffered such a chasm for much of the race. Diverting just a small portion of this $20 million could make Nevada a top-tier race.

    A great number of these senators are pondering presidential bids in 2008, so promising netroots goodwill would likely go much further in this operation than it would in the House Use It or Lost It campaign.

    All cash on hand numbers listed here come from Congressional Quarterly / Real Clear Politics figures through 9/30/06.

  • comment on a post Senate Forecast Update: Entering the Stretch Run over 7 years ago

    Quick question: Can you move Connecticut to the Democratic targets list since it is, in fact, a target? It would help drive home this "Control of the Senate" meme you've had latley.

  • comment on a post Lamont-Lieberman-Schlesinger Debate Liveblogging over 7 years ago

    The debate just finished on C-Span and, honestly, I'm leaning towards calling this one a win for Schlesinger. His responses came off much more sharply than either Lamont's or Lieberman's did, but he never seemed petty. (I became a big Lamonter over the summer, but I couldn't help but roll my eyes as he and Lieberman spent minutes going back and forth over whose ads were more negative.)

    Gotta love Ned, but I think he was scooped today, and that kind of performance by Schlesinger might just take a bite out of Lieberman's Republican base.

  • Arizona and Nevada are seriously underappreciated. With the Foley scandal still showing legs -- When was the last time a story had a 15-day shelf life on the mainstream media? -- and Ney's plea today, I can see a number of conservatives staying home on Election Day. Low turnout may not seriously impact certain House races, but Senate seats can't be gerrymandered and a lower-than-expected turnout statewide could have a tremendous impact on these races.

  • on a comment on House Forecast Update over 7 years ago

    I can't see NY-23 becoming competitive at any time. McHugh is decently popular and Johnson has run a lackluster campaign, to say the least. His fundraising has also been, well, atrocious.

  • on a comment on Murtha/Edwards 2008 over 7 years ago

    I'm more of a fan of Clark / Edwards

  • comment on a post House Forecast Update over 7 years ago

    Still fishing for an answer here: But why is NY-23 listed at all? McHugh is decently popular and Johnson has no cash.

  • comment on a post Dems Gaining Significant Ground Among Rural Voters over 7 years ago

    I asked this in the last House Forecast update and never got an answer, but when did NY-23 become competitive?

  • comment on a post House Forecast Update over 7 years ago

    Why is the NY-23 even listed as "Others to Watch"? The population is tuned out, McHugh hasn't done anything to piss people off (as he doesn't done anything at all) and Dr. Bob Johnson is running a terrible campaign. Talking to hardcore Democrats when I there last, some hadn't even heard of him. They thought we'd failed to recruit a candidate.

  • comment on a post Moveon Doing a Clinton-Tasini Poll over 7 years ago

    Hillary has been a fantastic senator for New York. Unlike every other representative we have in the state and national governments, Hillary has truly represented the interests of upstate New York. And by "upstate" I don't mean Westchester County, but the real upstate: St. Lawrence County and the surrounding areas north of Syracuse.

    My area of New York is consistently ignored by our statewide politicians, with the possible exception of Eliot Spitzer. The fact that nearly all candidates for statewide office campaign New York City and the surrounding suburbs downright angers people in northern New York. This is an area of the state where people moved to make Northern New York the 51st state in the Union. It's north of Syracuse -- yes, there is a lot more New York north of Syracuse and Albany -- it's a very rural area that, with the exception of the military families that surrounding Fort Drum, is dotted with small villages and dairy farms stereotypical of Vermont. Except that it's the politial opposite of Vermont, dominated by Republicans and conservatives.

    Hillary ran her first campaign as a New York outsider and started campaigning in areas like mine, slowly working her way around the state towards New York City. It impressed a small number of people who had a hard time getting over the Clinton name and the "carpetbagger" tag. Six years later, she has visited our area more than every other statewide politician put together and fought hard for money to benefit local projects.

    The vast majority of the people I know back home -- I'm writing this from Vermont, where I go to school -- are so used to the ignorance of their state and federal representatives that they've become more preoccupied with their town and village governments because those are the only people that will listen to them. I used to intern at a law firm where all seven secretaries could name you the mayor, town clerk, a fair chunk of the city council and school board but struggled to come up with do-nothing Congressman John McHugh's name, or that of Senator Schumer who, apparently, has a reputation for media domination in New York City and Washington.

    The non-local politican they did know and almost always loved? Hillary. She's won over the hearts and minds of these people by simply paying attention to them and it's not uncommon for people this overwhelming conservative area to tell you "I'd vote for her for president, she's done a great job in the Senate."

    Looking forward to the supposed White House run, I've never believed she was interested. I've said before that I'm unconvinced that she really wants to run and that all this national work is Bill's doing and, recently, I feel proven by the Senate Majority Leader rumors.

    Also, as regular bloggers jump all over her for her "calculation" and "triangulation," I've never seen her vote for anything that struck me as calculated, with the sole exception of the flag burning amendment, which she eventually voted against. I distinctly remember bloggers being upset over her video game warning label drive, as such measures would be the first step to media censorship and all that bull. But, am I the only one that remembers an old article on Hillary walking of "Pulp Fiction" when Bill asked that it be shown at the White House because she was so disgusted with the graphic violence? When I read about the video game plan, I thought of a disgusted mother walking out of a violent movie, not presidential pandering.

    All that said, I will not be voting for Hillary Clinton come the 2008 primaries, but I will if she wins the nomination. At this point, I'm still too much of a Wes Clark fan to vote for anyone else, though I'm more and more impressed with John Edwards every passing day. But there's no denying the hard work and dedication Hillary done for the State of New York, especially the oft-forgotten northern territories. And, for that, I will always be a fan of Senator Clinton.

  • on a comment on The Age of Principle over 8 years ago

    Now it's a good thing to compare ourselves to Republicans?

  • on a comment on The Age of Principle over 8 years ago

    Well said, couldn't agree more.


Advertise Blogads