Tag: elections

DCCC chair Steve Israel upset that Democratic groups don’t give money to dead people.

Oh, there’s a certain reputation that clings to the Democrats about their willingness to let dead people vote, but that’s a different power dynamic entirely. This is something else:

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Steve Israel told reporters Wednesday he is “frustrated” that his party’s outside groups have not supported House Democrats on television in the final stretch of the midterms.

Many big Democratic players — such as environmental and labor groups — focused their financial firepower on the Senate, which is in play this cycle. This has caused increased anxiety among House Democrats, who also face losses in 2014.

House Democrats must pick up a net of 17 seats to win control of the House, but it’s increasingly likely the party will lose seats in that chamber this cycle. For the first time, Israel made a public plea to outside groups for their financial help.

Continue reading DCCC chair Steve Israel upset that Democratic groups don’t give money to dead people.

White House to Senate Democrats: “Sauve qui peut!*”…

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.

Via

and

Moe Lane

*Classical Reference.

Do NOT rely on this news about how bad Democratic turnout is likely to be.

That is not to say that it’s untrue:

The Democratic Party’s worst fears about the midterm election look to be coming true.

Polling in recent weeks suggests turnout on Election Day could be very low, even by the standards of recent midterms. That’s bad news for Democrats because core groups in the liberal base are more likely to stay home than are people in the demographic segments that lean Republican.

A Gallup poll last week found that voters are less engaged in this year’s midterms than they were in 2010 and 2006. Only 33 percent of respondents said they were giving at least “some” thought to the upcoming midterms, compared to 46 percent in 2010 and 42 percent in 2006. Even more troubling for Democrats, Republicans held a 12-point advantage  when those paying “some” attention were broken down by party.

…because it almost certainly is true; but “Turnout will save us!” is the single most dangerous statement in electoral affairs. Use it as a pick-me-up.  Certainly deploy it as a weapon against our political foes.  But never, ever put your weight on it.

That’s all.

US Supreme Court: North Carolina Democrats may not have their election fraud, after all.

Oh, yeah, like anybody else is going to couch this anything except favorable partisan terms, either.

The Supreme Court, with two Justices noting dissents, on Wednesday afternoon allowed North Carolina to bar voters from registering and casting their ballots on the same day, and to refuse to count votes that were cast in the wrong polling places.  Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.  The majority did not explain its action.

The order gives the state time to file an appeal from lower-court rulings striking down those two provisions, which were part of a larger, sweeping change in voting rights in the state.  If the Court grants review of the state’s appeal, the postponement will remain in effect until there is a decision.

Continue reading US Supreme Court: North Carolina Democrats may not have their election fraud, after all.

Start the clock on Valerie Jarrett leaving this administration.

Stories like this (via Hot Air Headlines) are merely the harbinger:

[Valerie] Jarrett appears to exercise such extraordinary influence that in some quarters on Capitol Hill she is known as “Rasputin,” a reference to the mystical monk who held sway over Russia’s Czar Nicholas as he increasingly lost touch with reality during World War I.

No one suggests that Jarrett is solely responsible for the administration’s slow response to the crises, contradictory communication, and labored political calculation that have become its hallmarks.

Continue reading Start the clock on Valerie Jarrett leaving this administration.

Do not expect the Democrats to panic until it is too late.

‘Too late’ being defined in terms of what I would find amusing or seemly, of course. And the reason for this is simple: the Democratic party’s propagandists – both official and unofficial – are no longer dedicated to winning the 2014 election cycle.  What they’re dedicated to right now is the task of keeping their base from panicking.

I could have sworn that I made this analysis before, but I can’t find it, so I guess that I’ll just have to repeat the thought from memory: the 2009 gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia demonstrate why panic is bad for a political party.  In Virginia: the, well, hapless candidate (Creigh Deeds) was widely considered to be DOOMed a month before the election.  And the Democrats abandoned him in a panic… and in the process also abandoned all the other candidates, which is one reason why in 2009 state Democrats got decimated in the General Assembly* and lost all three statewide positions. Contrariwise, New Jersey Democrats refused to panic, and they ended up with a situation where Chris Christie won election handily, yet failed to supply coat-tails for pretty much anybody else. Continue reading Do not expect the Democrats to panic until it is too late.

Team Obama now accepting President’s new, more selective appeal*.

See if you can figure out the flaw in this strategy.

In an election that Republicans want to make all about President Barack Obama, the White House is determined to make him all but disappear in the battleground states that matter.

The White House is putting the finishing touches on a post-Labor Day schedule that will send the president to states where he’s still popular, such as: Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Illinois and California, Obama officials and Democratic operatives said this week.

Continue reading Team Obama now accepting President’s new, more selective appeal*.

The New York Times’ meaningless refusal to endorse Andrew Cuomo.

I mean, it shouldn’t be meaningless:

New York had had enough corruption, [Andrew Cuomo] said, and he was going to put a stop to it. “Job 1 is going to be to clean up Albany,” he said, “and make the government work for the people.”

Mr. Cuomo became governor on that platform and [the NYT made a silly claim here], but he failed to perform Job 1. The state government remains as subservient to big money as ever, and Mr. Cuomo resisted and even shut down opportunities to fix it. Because he broke his most important promise, we have decided not to make an endorsement for the Democratic primary on Sept. 9.

…but it is, for the basic and simple reason that Andrew Cuomo will win the Democratic nomination for Governor of New York; and once that happens the endorsement of him by the NYT in the general election will be as inevitable as the sunrise. Put another way, Glenn Thrush is precisely right, here: Continue reading The New York Times’ meaningless refusal to endorse Andrew Cuomo.

The Hill more or less publishes its ‘Democratic candidates in 2016’ list.

Oh, sure, they’re calling calling it “Five figures on the left who could challenge Hillary Clinton,” but let’s face it: Democrats who aren’t on the Left these days are rare, and probably dying of old age. And since Hillary is pretty solid Left herself – socialized medicine is not even remotely conservative – the alternatives are pretty darn Left as well.  Below is the Hill’s list, with my sardonic commentary attached:

  • Hillary Clinton. Pros: Bill Clinton. Cons: Bill Clinton.  Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama.
  • Elizabeth Warren.  Pros: Can make a plausible case that Barack Obama hates her.  Cons: Ever see what happens when a Massachusetts liberal runs for President?  It ain’t pretty.
  • Joe Biden. Pros: He’s the only person on this list that has anything like a personality.  Cons: He’s the only person on this list who can’t run against – or away from – Barack Obama’s legacy.  Plus, you know, Joe Biden.
  • Martin O’Malley. Pros: Hey! He’s a sitting governor. Cons: …I don’t find him interesting enough to be worth despising.  Nobody does. That pretty much includes Maryland Democrats, the average one of whom will readily admit after his or her third drink that the man has the charisma of an empty soda bottle.
  • Bernie Sanders. Pros: He’s as close to a Commie as you can get in this country and still be elected to anything. Cons: He’s as close to a Commie as you can get in this country and still be elected to anything.
  • Russ Feingold. Pros: Of everybody on this list, he’s the only one who hasn’t been burned by Barack Obama’s policies, activities, feuds with Congress, or simple guilt-by-association. Cons: Russ Feingold hasn’t held office since 2010, and has been avoiding running for anything since then.  And the Democrats badly wanted Feingold to run for Governor of Wisconsin.

Continue reading The Hill more or less publishes its ‘Democratic candidates in 2016’ list.