Sep
02
2014
5

Let us stop playing Harry Reid’s twisted little games.

Background: Harry Reid wants to waste precious Senate time on a Constitutional amendment that would significantly limit the First’s freedom of speech protections (all in the name of fighting Charles and David Koch, who apparently live under Harry Reid’s bed and plan to eat him if the night-light ever burns out).  The Washington Examiner’s Byron York lays out how pointless this is:

The first action Reid has scheduled for next week is a cloture vote on whether to even begin considering the amendment. Republicans could filibuster the measure, which would stop it and allow the Senate to move on to move meaningful matters. But that would allow Democrats to accuse the GOP of obstructionism. So Republicans will likely allow the amendment to go forward.

A long debate will then ensue in which Democrats denounce the Kochs and “corporate money” and Republicans argue the amendment would abridge First Amendment rights. After an extended back-and-forth, there will be another vote, this time on whether to end debate. Again, Republicans don’t need to use the filibuster to stop the measure, because they know it will fail in the final vote.

After more pointless debate, there will be yet another vote to move toward a final vote on the matter. If the amendment goes on to that final vote, and even if all 55 Democrats ultimately support it, it will fall a dozen votes short of passage.

(more…)

Sep
01
2014
--

Will the African-American vote save troubled Democratic Senate incumbents?

Michael Barone is… dubious.

It’s apparent that even the most vigorous black turnout effort in the eight states [of thirteen with contested Senate races, including Georgia and Kentucky] with low black percentages is not going to make much difference. Democrats there must hope that their candidates can maintain levels of support from whites at or above the levels achieved by Obama in 2008 and 2012. In addition, Democrats inColorado must hope they can maintain something like the 75 to 23 percent margin Obama won among Hispanics there in 2012 according to the exit poll. (Note: I have been skeptical, just based on instinct and observation of county vote totals, about the Colorado exit poll, which I suspect understates Obama support among whites and overstates it among Hispanics.)

In the five states with above-national-average black percentages, there’s obviously good reason for Democrats to try to bolster black turnout. But to win a Democratic candidate must also do significantly better than Obama did among whites in ArkansasGeorgia and Louisiana and somewhat better than in North Carolina.

(more…)

Sep
01
2014
10

I maintain a certain skepticism that Dick Durbin is in all that much trouble right now.

I am… hesitant to put too much weight on this Illinois Senate poll showing Dick Durbin ahead by only seven points. Don’t get me wrong: I despise Dick Durbin for being a re-segregationist, corrupt, constitutionally ignorant hypocrite who has no feel for his constituents and no interest in their welfare.  And I don’t think that Durbin can count on the Gov. Pat Quinn race giving him a boost in the election this go-round, largely because Pat Quinn is having difficulty breaking 40 in the polls himself.  It’s just that it’s still really, really easy to believe that this poll is just an outlier.  That’s usually the safe way to bet.

Mind you: I’d be ecstatic to find out that I was wrong, so… Jim Oberweis for Senate.  Because Dick Durbin is an awful Senator and not that great a human being*.  It’s long since time he found something else to do with his time.

Moe Lane

*The DC school choice thing really sticks in my craw.  There’s following a policy, and then there’s just meanness. Durbin made his choice.

Aug
31
2014
6

At-Risk Senate Seats, 08/31/2014 edition (Includes DOOM calls).

Here is my latest At-Risk races… and there are DOOM calls. Hey, it’s Labor Day Weekend. Time to start in on that.

Alaska Mark Begich High Risk
Arkansas Mark Pryor High Risk
Colorado Mark Udall Serious Risk
Iowa Retiring High Risk
Louisiana Mary Landrieu High Risk
Michigan Retiring Some Risk
Minnesota Al Franken Low Risk
Montana Retiring DOOM
New Hampshire Jeanne Shaheen Some Risk
New Mexico Tom Udall Off list
North Carolina Kay Hagan High Risk
Oregon Jeff Merkley Low Risk
South Dakota Retiring DOOM
Virginia Mark Warner Low Risk
West Virginia Retiring DOOM

(more…)

Aug
28
2014
3

I don’t think Harry Reid will run again.

I think that – as this article notes – Harry Reid is old, sick*, and he’s about to become the Senate Minority Leader in a world where the incoming majority will have a great number of opportunities for malice, and revenge**. I do note that Jon Ralston, the author of said piece, thinks that Reid will not only survive but thrive… but if you read that article, the impression you get is that Harry Reid has a hard crust and a hollowed-out interior.  Break through – or even give a good enough blow to the outside – and he’ll shatter like a piece of punk wood.

Mark my words: when Harry Reid eventually falls it will all happen in the course of one or two weeks. He’s not going to dig in his heels, although there is a small part of me that kind of hopes that he does.  A small and horrible part of me.

Moe Lane

*Take that any way that you like.

**The Senate has always been a place where comity warred with spite.  Spite has been winning, the last few years; and its victims are increasingly eager to return the favor.  And driving Harry Reid from office probably would soothe the Senate’s breast, as it were.

Aug
27
2014
7

The American Prospect: Hey, so we lose six Senate seats and control. No biggie.

Ooh, I wasn’t expecting stories like this until some time after Labor Day:

senate-democrats-tap

Link via RCP: the gist of it is that of course the Democrats will win back the Senate in 2016, because all of those young, hip, ethnically diverse voters will come out and vote for the Democratic candidate for Senator, right after they vote for whichever old white person the Democrats nominate for President!

…Huh. Doesn’t have the same zing, when put that way. (more…)

Written by in: Politics | Tags: , ,
Aug
25
2014
1

Quote of the Day, Of COURSE Gary Peters (D-CAND, Michigan-SEN) Is Still A Misogynistic Hypocrite edition.

I really should have expected that, honestly.

Former Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land, R-Byron Center, went first by slamming U.S. Rep. Gary Peters, D-Bloomfield Township, claiming he is a hypocrite, flip-flopper and beholden to President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

“Whenever men tell me about a war on women, I’m suspicious,” she said to a packed house at the Suburban Collection Showplace convention center in Novi. “Can you say hypocrisy? I’m not going to be lectured to by a man who pays the women in his office 67 cents on the dollar.”

Terri is, of course, referring to the minor awkwardness that Peters – like pretty much all the other Democratic party fatcats – talk up gender pay inequality, but never actually do anything about it close to home. As that NRSC (yes, I know*) article makes clear, Gary Peters is merely the worst of a bad bunch of Democratic Senate candidates with screaming cases of entitlement and absolutely no shame whatsoever.  And here’s something to also note: ever notice that you never read stories about how Democrats have raised their female staffers’ pay, in light of the situation?  It’s like they’ve decided to address the problem via the classic Beltway Establishment method of ignoring it completely and hoping that the media will go find another chew toy.

All of this via:

…and if you are a Michigan voter, Terri Lynn Rand would quite like you to vote for her.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

*Data is, as they say, data.

Aug
21
2014
8

The New York Times reconciles itself to losing the Senate.

(H/T: Hot Air) It wouldn’t publish an article like this unless it had come to terms with the situation:

A Republican takeover of the Senate this fall would hurt Mr. Obama for the final two years of his presidency, but it might help Mrs. Clinton if she runs to succeed him.

Republican control of both the House and Senate would provide Mrs. Clinton a clearer target to run against in courting voters fatigued by Washington dysfunction. The longer an unpopular president and his more-unpopular partisan adversaries battle to a standstill, the easier it is to offer herself as a fresh start.

“It would be bad for the country,” said Stanley B. Greenberg, President Bill Clinton’s former pollster, but “total gridlock would allow Hillary to be the change.”

…Except, of course, for the minor problem that Hillary Clinton put into motion, and was the public face for, the current administration’s disastrous foreign policy record*.  To say nothing of the fact that a sixty-nine year old apparatchik is not exactly what one thinks of when one says ‘dynamic agent of change.’  But that’s just the NYT’s little ways.

What’s more interesting is that the Old Grey Lady is busily reassuring its readers about the sourness of those Senatorial grapes. Contra the Democratic argument – and not a few conservative ones –  there is no particular evidence that the Republican party is at any serious electoral risk vis a vis its policies and stated goals.  If there was, we wouldn’t be seeing the Republican party poised to take control of the Senate.  If you want to see what a political party out of tune with the electorate looks like, look at 2006**.  Or, indeed, 2010.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

*I was going to say ‘worst foreign policy record in American history,’ except that I have to be fair.  Barack Obama has not yet managed to get Washington, DC burned down by an invading army.

**2008 is what a party blindsided by an economic crisis and a new data-driven voter drive paradigm looks like.

Aug
21
2014
10

So, it’s August, and it’s GOP +7 in the Senate.

Via Stephen Green: oh, how I love this RCP Senate average map.

rcp-senate

I might not love it so much if it hasn’t changed by October 21st, but for right now that’s a great map. Seven GOP pickups that don’t have Alaska, Colorado, and even maybe Michigan? And no Democratic pickups?  Yeah, I’ll take that at this stage of the election cycle.  After all, it’s not even Labor Day. (more…)

Written by in: Politics | Tags: , , ,
Aug
19
2014
1

What do, in fact, 1998 and 2002 mean in terms of Senate midterm elections?

Moving on, my random thought on this part of Sean Trende’s analysis of the 2014 Senate map:

Likewise, the tendency of the president’s party to fare poorly in midterm elections is so well-known as to require only an asterisk here: While the president’s party has lost House seats in all but two post-World War II midterm elections (1998 and 2002), it has gained or broken even in Senate seats in five (1962, 1970, 1982, 1998, and 2002). That’s somewhere between a third and a quarter of the postwar midterms, so our rule here is not really as “real” as it is for House elections.

To be honest, I don’t know whether 1998 or 2002 ‘count’ for anything. The 1998 results were skewed by Clinton’s impeachment; 2002’s, by the 9/11 attacks. Sure, I know, every election cycle is unique – but those two were particularly unique. Well. You know what I mean.

Moe Lane

Aug
18
2014
18

Well, I’m sure that new Democratic Montana Senate candidate Amanda Curtis MEANS well.

Or at least she means something.

Some people never seem to learn that social media is this giant whirring cloud of razor blades that can flense a person’s political career in an instant. I mean, seriously: no politician who wants to run in a statewide race anywhere should ever be recorded with an unmistakable sneer in his/her voice when saying the word ‘Christianity.’ I don’t care what the context is, because neither will voters.

And no, life is not particularly fair.

Moe Lane

PS: Admittedly, I am punching down here. One reason why it’s not going up on the front page of RedState.

Aug
10
2014
1

At least one upset in Hawaii: Neil Abercrombie loses primary, Schatz clings to lead.

Ace of Spades HQ’s Decision Desk projects it as follows:

(more…)

Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com