Senate Democrats are closing ranks behind Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki and President Obama’s decision to keep him in the cabinet despite Republican calls for his ouster.
As of Thursday afternoon, not a single Democratic senator had called for Shinseki’s resignation.
And Senate Democrats have been slow to embrace House-passed legislation that would give Shinseki the authority to fire senior executives.
I find stories like this to be perversely fascinating:
Top Democratic donors say they are exasperated by a lack of leadership from the White House on policy and are questioning whether they should throw money into midterm elections they believe won’t change Washington.
…mostly because I invariably end up asking myself, How do ‘top Democratic donors’ manage to make money when they apparently spend all their time in deep comas? Seriously: if you’ve taken this long to figure out that Barack Obama is bored by his job, doesn’t do any part of it that he absolutely doesn’t have to, and can’t be bothered to show consideration to others… then I don’t know. Maybe you shouldn’t give money to Democrats. Instead, give money to me.
Otherwise known as ‘voting over the Internet.’
Iowa Democrats are mulling a slate of ways to boost participation in their next presidential caucuses, including permitting Internet voting, a controversial method that would mark the first time in history the web is utilized to cast an official ballot preference for president.
I look forward with some interest to see how that experiment works out for them. And for the screams of horror and despair, of course.
PS: I do not expect Mickey Mouse or [whatever Howard Stern suggests] to win the 2016 Democratic Iowa caucus. I simply no longer think that such a thing can be ruled out.
Articles like this are very helpful. For Republicans: “Is there anyway Democrats can win the 17 seats they need to capture the House majority this November? In one word: Yes.”
In several hundred words: no, not really.
Juan Williams is pretty much stuck with arguing generalities and gerrymandering. The first is used to assure his readers that the American people clearly love the Democrats more, while the latter is used to explain away that pesky problem that said American people have been apparently hate-voting the GOP into power since 2010. But it’s probably wise on Mr. Williams’ part, given that when actual numbers come into play things get sticky: “In the 2012 House races Democrats won 50.6 percent of America’s votes with a popular President Obama at the top of the ballot.” (more…)
Yeah, I know. Fine: replace ‘NRSC’ with ‘Moe Lane’ and pretend that I asked the original question. Because I’d like to know the answer, too:
The NRSC pulled the official payroll records for Democrat Senator offices and calculated the average pay for men and women for the most recent 6 month period available. Here’s what we found:
· Mark Udall pays women 91 cents for every dollar that a man makes.
· Mary Landrieu pays women 88 cents for every dollar that a man makes.
· Mark Begich pays women 82 cents for every dollar that a man makes.
· Mark Warner pays women 75 cents for every dollar that a man makes.
· Gary Peters pays women 67 cents for every dollar that a man makes.
On average, these five Democrats on the ballot in battleground states pay women in their office 80 cents for every dollar made by a male employee.
But it could be.
Long-range plans differ btw Rs and Ds: 81% of Reps say they’ll definitely vote in November. 68% of Dems say that in new @cbsnewspoll
— Anthony Salvanto (@SalvantoCBS) March 26, 2014
— Doug Stewart (@zamoose) March 25, 2014
Your daily dose of Democrats eating their own*:
‘Downton Abbey’ Democrats May Cost their Party the Senate
When it comes to green gentry liberalism, think of an Americanized version of the PBS hit—where everyone knows his or her place, and our betters look best.
Last week was a good week for natural gas, but a bad one for green gentry liberalism. John Podesta, a veteran of the Clinton White House who is once again a presidential adviser, tried to explain some energy facts of life to the true-believing liberal base. Still, it’s unclear if Podesta’s intended audience was listening, and that willful blindness may cost the Democrats control of the Senate.
Remember how, from 2001 to 2006 or so, the Democrats kept screaming about “chickenhawking?” – Oh, yes, the Left has been re-purposing homophobic slurs for some time: they used that term to attack anybody who supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but did not actually serve. It went nowhere, of course: your average anti-war type not only does not understand the concepts of ‘democracy’ and ‘America;’ he can’t actually spell them* – but it was nonetheless a phenomenon. To the point where John Kerry spent the 2004 election apparently answering every question with a reminder that, hey, he served in Vietnam. Crazy, I know, but that was the thing then.
And what’s the thing now? Declaring that war veterans are out of touch with America and shouldn’t run for office. (more…)
(H/T: AoSHQ) The two were Mike Parrish in PA-06 (Lean Republican) and Buffie McFadyen in CO-0 (Safe Republican). Of the two, obviously Parrish is the more disappointing news for Democrats… but it’s interesting to note that ‘R+5′ is apparently enough to be effectively out of the realm of possibility for Democrats this cycle anyway. I remember a time when it was not, and that time was 2006 and 2008.
I know, I know, it’s vaguely minor news and everything. But if you’re wondering why people are making certain assumptions about the 2014 election cycle, it’s because of stories like these. You look at who is running, who is retiring, who is staying out of races, who is jumping in… money, too, of course, but money tends to get cancelled out by other money. In the end, the people running are the biggest part of this picture. To mangle Machiavelli… gold may not get you good candidates, but good candidates can always get you gold. (more…)
Markos Moulitsas apparently wishes to lead the movers of garbage out on strike for better working conditions*.
In a remarkable post [link removed**] yesterday, Moulitsas, founder and publisher of the progressive community site DailyKos, celebrates the departure from the Senate of 10 moderate Democrats over the last decade, and makes clear his hope that Senators Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) and Mary Landrieu (D-La.) lose their tough reelection battles this year. He doesn’t name some other moderates in tight races, like Mark Begich (D-Alaska) and Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), but his logic suggests that he’d be only too happy to say goodbye to them as well.
Strictly speaking, I am not criticizing the Fix for not drawing a more explicit link between Presidential approval ratings and Senate churn in a midterm election. They established the basic point, which was that both parties are increasingly taking seriously that the President’s current low numbers will translate into Democratic losses in the Senate. The Monkey Cage spells it out:
Presidential approval is strongly correlated with midterm congressional election outcomes. Gallup has polled Americans on presidential approval during every midterm election cycle since 1954. Across the 16 midterm election cycles from 1954 through 2012 the average level of presidential approval during the first quarter (January to March) of the election year is about 58 percent. Over the available Gallup presidential approval polls for the first quarter of this year, Obama’s approval is significantly below the average, about 42 percent, worse than every other year except 2006 and 1974.