I went back and revised/fixed a couple of lines in the original. Basically, I was too in love with the idea of using the word ‘Halloween’ in the body of the text, when it was right there in the title and the acrostic. Moral of the story: kill your darlings.
Found here. Short version: …the funding pie’s going to get smaller for the Left in 2017. And nobody wants to take a smaller piece.
It’s 2016. Which means that it’s time to take all of this [expletive deleted] more seriously. Note that I did not say ‘entirely seriously:’ there’s still room for things like this tweet.
Tremble, political journos: our days of insisting it's not even 2016 yet are swiftly coming to an end
— Ariel Edwards-Levy (@aedwardslevy) January 1, 2016
But the days of hibernation are at an end.
I’m not really sure why the Hill sounds so surprised, here: “Republican Senate incumbents look to be largely free of tough primary challenges by Tea Party candidates that could complicate the party’s efforts to retain the uppwer [sic] chamber during the pivotal 2016 election.” We have 24 seats at stake in the next election, which is also a Presidential election. As the Hill admits, there are two open seats that are tempting prospects for conservative activists (three, if Vitter wins the governorship*); but what the Hill doesn’t quite bring up is that there aren’t that many Senators up this cycle that REALLY infuriate grassroots activists. I mean, yes: everybody grinds their teeth over John McCain. But he is probably the only nationally recognized galloping disaster of ours this cycle.
At least, for right now. Ask me again in March. Then again, in March we’ll be smack dab in the middle of the Presidential election cycle, and a lot of activists are going to be understandably fixated on that. So maybe ask me in 2017? …No, wait, too late then. Maybe just don’t ask me at all… no, that doesn’t even make any sense.
*I am not about to say that he can’t.
This is supposedly Bernie Sanders’ problem, in a nutshell:
The problem for Sanders is a demographic one. In the South, where a number of states hold primaries in February and the first half of March, Clinton still has a lock on nonwhite Democrats.
On March 1, primary voters in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia — all states where Clinton is expected to come out ahead — will go to the polls. Voters in Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Sanders’ home state of Vermont will as well, and though Sanders has a chance of winning any of those states, their delegate counts pale in comparison to those in a larger state like Texas.
Short version: Gov. Jack Dalrymple, a Republican, will not seek another term (North Dakota is one of the states that elects Governors in Presidential election years). Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, a Democrat, wants to be governor of North Dakota. This, then, would be a heavy temptation for her.
Two ‘problems,’ however*: one, North Dakota is a heavily Republican state, so she might lose. That will make her 2018 re-election… interesting. Sen. Heitkamp barely won in a squeaker in 2012; she has absolutely no margin whatsoever. But if Heidi Heitkamp wins the gubernatorial election, then the Democrats have an immediate headache: North Dakota passed a law earlier this year that dictates that all Senate vacancies must be filled via special election. Given that the Democratic bench is as devastated in North Dakota as it is everywhere else in the United States, this effectively means that she’d be replaced with a Republican. Continue reading North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple’s retirement puts Sen. Heidi Heitkamp in quite the pickle.
Politico: “The Kentucky GOP’s central committee voted Saturday to adopt a presidential caucus system next year, clearing the way Republican Sen. Rand Paul to run for president and reelection at the same time.” It’s costing Senator Rand Paul $500K to do this – he’s agreed to cover the costs of the Kentucky GOP running a caucus instead of a primary – but apparently the first-term Senator thinks that it’s worth it. Certainly Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell does, too. Continue reading Sen. Rand Paul looks likely to be able to run for Senate and President next year.
This is insightful (which is, of course, code for “I’ve been saying this for a while now myself”):
— Sean Hackbarth (@seanhackbarth) July 14, 2015
One reason I don’t sweat Trump too much. What’s the point? He’s not going to make it to the actual primaries anyway.
This here is an important point that can’t be brought up enough.
Ever wonder why no interesting center-left Democrats aren’t challenging an increasingly vulnerable Hillary Clinton? There aren’t any. Nobody. No one.
As Britain and France were bled white by their World War I battles, the Democrats were drained by a series of midterm debacles in which those in swing states were punished by voters, and all but the bluest of blue were cut down. On the altar of healthcare, Democrats sacrificed the fruit of two cycles of party-expansion, the picking of people who could win in red states and red districts, to bolster the party’s breadth and appeal.
I’m having a problem with the formatting for it, but even on first glance I’m struck by the way that Cook is basically conceding that the Democrats’ cause for optimism – and, judging from the title (Mapping the 2016 Electorate: Demographics Don’t Guarantee a Democratic White House) Charlie Cook isn’t as optimistic – starts by conceding that Hillary Clinton needs no net change in the black vote to even be able to hope to win. That is by no means assured in the 2016 election. Cook kind of hints at it in the tables, where he pegs the GOP’s must-win numbers among African-Americans at 10% – which, of course, was the old rule-of-thumb number prior to 2008. Continue reading Interesting breakdown by Cook on the 2016 electorate.