There it is. RT @jameshohmann: Mark Begich concedes, congratulates Dan Sullivan.
— T. Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) November 18, 2014
Congratulations, Senator Dan Sullivan.
Now isn’t this just precious:
Asked if his leadership style contributed to the Senate losses, Reid told POLITICO: “Does anybody in Nebraska know me? Or Kansas? I don’t think it had much to do with me. I don’t think most people know who I am.”
Trust me, soon-to-be Senate Minority Leader: we’ve been making sure that people in Nebraska and Kansas – and Arkansas and Alaska and North Carolina and South Dakota and Montana and Louisiana and Kentucky and Georgia and West Virginia and Colorado and, oh, so many other places! – know exactly who Harry Reid is, and what he represents. (more…)
The AP called it: “Republican Dan Sullivan bested Democratic incumbent Mark Begich in Alaska’s Senate race, picking up an eighth seat for the GOP in the 2014 midterm elections, the Associated Press reported Wednesday.” You knew this a week ago, because you were reading AOSHQDD; but the AP waited until the trends in the absentee ballots were clear. Mark Begich is not conceding, of course, but he will start finding that people are already starting to think of him in terms of former Senator Begich. And so it goes.
My congratulations to Senator-elect Dan Sullivan.
PS: The Governor’s race remains too close to call. Realistically, however, incumbent Governor Sean Parnell has to be considered the underdog in that one. Ironically, his current position is not entirely unlike Begich’s in 2008…
Lotta good bits in this:
[Aside from confirming nominees, Harry] Reid also wants to move a package of expiring tax provisions, the annual Defense Department authorization bill and an extension of a tax moratorium on Internet purchases in the weeks between Thanksgiving and Christmas.
That will be a challenge not only because of the tight schedule, but because of expected clashes between Democrats over what should be prioritized before Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) takes over the Senate’s agenda in January.
For example, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), who is about to lose his chairmanship, is pushing for consideration of a bill reforming the National Security Agency despite opposition from other Democrats.
Well, Mark Udall, you had a pretty good run.
Then, finally, came the only reference to policy in [Mark] Udall’s speech. “And by the way, I’m proud to stand with Colorado’s women,” he said, almost as an aside. “I’m proud to stand for reproductive freedom.”
An angry voice from the crowd jeered: “That’s not the only thing you stand for! J[****] C[*****]!”
Udall turned to a short, dark man on his left. The senator look genuinely stunned. “I’m sorry?”
“That’s not the only thing you stand for!” The heckler was Leo Beserra, a 73-year-old who made millions on Wall Street and, since the early 1990s, has shared a generous slice of that wealth with Colorado Democrats.
Like they do.
I hadn’t realized that the Democrats had realized that things were that bad: “Nervous that Democrats could lose control of the Senate, the White House is already discussing how to cut deals with a Republican majority.” Sure, the article’s trying to argue that in 2016 Senators in Obama states would be desperate to make deals… because Barack Obama’s people are still retaining the almost-charming delusion that 2008/2012 Presidential results will be all that relevant in a 2016 election. Tell that to Bob Schaffer, Jim Gilmore, Elizabeth Dole, and arguably Steve Pearce.
Then again, perhaps the Democrats in the White House haven’t worked out their potential new place in the world, yet: (more…)
The Arkansas Senate election is now over*.
Arkansas Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor argued that the federal government’s desegregation of Arkansas’s largest public school in 1957 was an “unwilling invasion” that took “a local problem out of the local authorities’ hands” and led to deep suspicions of democracy in the state, according to a copy of his college thesis obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
Written in 1985, the 30-page paper—which also suggested that the state’s Democratic Party was hindering economic progress, and attributed policies such as welfare and the Equal Rights Amendment to “wild-eyed liberals”—could add to Pryor’s difficulties as he fights to protect his seat from Republican challenger Rep. Tom Cotton.
Specifically, the Surgeon General nomination. Why is Vivek Murthy’s nomination stalled, again? Well, as Byron York reminds us it’s primarily because Harry Reid wants it stalled:
It would take just 51 of the Senate’s 55 Democrats to confirm Murthy. But that confirmation has not happened. “There is bipartisan opposition, so Sen. Reid hasn’t even tried to bring him to a vote,” says another senior Senate GOP aide.
Consider this the fallout from Reid’s decision to partially nuke the filibuster (oh, I slay me): Harry Reid wanted the judges, and he figured that getting them was worth the embarrassment of having to occasionally scuttle the President’s more embarrassingly awful executive branch nominees. And Murthy is, indeed, embarrassingly awful: back in 2012 he rather infamously declared guns to be a “public health issue” – which is to say, Dr. Murthy wants to use the regulatory aspects of the State to do an end-run around that pesky Constitution thingy and ban guns that way. Which is why civil rights groups have made their opposition to Dr. Murthy crystal clear – and why Harry Reid has allowed Murthy’s nomination to languish in the bowels of the Senate*. (more…)
This is not what you tell people when you’re trying to keep a loss from being a rout:
Understanding full well Obama’s unpopularity is a drag on some Democrats in tight congressional races, White House officials are signaling to party leaders and campaign managers alike there will be no consequences should they run away from the president in order to win.
This is what you tell people when you think that there’s going to be a rout, no matter what, but you want to maybe rebuild something from the shattered fragments afterwards. It’s also a tacit admission that you’re expecting this preemptive forgiveness to be largely if not almost completely an academic exercise anyway. If I was a more reckless man, that’d be grounds for a DOOM call right now.
Too late? WH officials telling top Senate campaigns there won’t be any retribution if they go after Obama http://t.co/oDzrLTxHvD
— Josh Kraushaar (@HotlineJosh) October 13, 2014
This is very interesting:
…a scandal touching Virginia’s current Democratic governor, Terry McAuliffe, may also implicate Warner. Several Democratic figures in the Old Dominion are involved a federal investigation looking into the circumstances of the resignation of a former Democratic state senator. The Washington Post has the scoop that federal investigators have been told of Warner’s supposed involvement in offering that senator and his family political favors in exchange for his staying in the legislature…
For those who don’t remember: the state Senate flipped earlier this year when Democratic state senator Phillip Plunkett suddenly resigned, essentially in exchange for a judgeship for his daughter. More recently it’s come out that Governor McAuliffe’s chief of staff is on tape offering to make Plunkett an alternate deal, with kind of short-circuits any kind of righteous indignation on the Democrats’ part. It’s hard to take the high ground on an issue when your opponents can accurately note that your real problem is that you didn’t make a better offer than they did – which is what McAuliffe pretty much did. Now it’s come out that sitting US Senator Mark Warner is caught up in this entire, tawdry story as well.
Will this help Ed Gillespie? Hard to say, although having his opponent be possibly involved in a future federal investigation for corruption probably won’t hurt Ed. Mark Warner is currently hovering just under 50% in the averages, but there’s the usual third-party nonsense to consider. All in all, I’d have preferred to have had this story come out last month. Mind you, this is still an improvement on the way that these things can go with the Washington Post: they quite often wait to break stories like this until after the election…
This is not an unreasonable position for a Democrat to take, of course; or, rather, it is unreasonable, but it is not particularly unexpected. But since Greg Orman is still urinating on people’s legs and telling them that it’s bipartisanship, well…
Democratic Senate candidate Greg Orman said that he would allow the president to choose whomever he “feels he needs to pick” to serve in cabinet positions.
“At the end of the day, we sort of let to need chief executives, whether they are Republicans or Democrats, pick the team that they feel like they need to pick to run various cabinet agencies,” Orman said during a Kansas Senate debate with incumbent Pat Roberts (R., Kan.) on Wednesday.