Totals include reported contributions from PACs and individuals affiliated with Heavy Hitter organizations, which are defined as the top overall donors to candidates, parties, Leadership PACs and other committees. Contributions to outside groups like super PACs do not factor into an organization's designation as a Heavy Hitter, however the totals below do include contributions by Heavy Hitters to such groups, as well as contributions to candidates, parties, Leadership PACs and other committees. Furthermore, the totals do not include contributions to politically active nonprofits, which are not disclosed to the public.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I have a midterm tommorow. I was hoping this was a thread about venting about tests

 whembly wrote:
I could've swore the R's outspent the D's last election, but I'm not finding anything.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
I could've swore the R's outspent the D's last election, but I'm not finding anything.

They did. It's right here, under "2012 Presidential Race": http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php

 whembly wrote:
So... if I'm looking at this correctly...

So, for all the complaints about Super-Duper Republicans, NRA (ranked #50) and The Koch Brothers (ranked #59)... they ain't making the top 10 "Heavy Hitters" list.

Still don't like the Citizen United rulings?

I could've swore the R's outspent the D's last election, but I'm not finding anything.

Let's keep this civil and use this thread as a "catch all" for political discussion if you don't want to create a separate thread.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Citizens United was the worst supreme court decision in my lifetime (or at lest that I know about). Money is not speech. It never has been, it never will be.

 d-usa wrote:
I am still an advocate of Nascar style suits with the names of donors on them for politicians.

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Citizens United was the worst supreme court decision in my lifetime (or at lest that I know about). Money is not speech. It never has been, it never will be.

Eh... I don't know about that... I consider Kelo much more egregious.

With respect to Citizens United... we probably need better transparency mechanism more than anything.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Citizens United was the worst supreme court decision in my lifetime (or at lest that I know about). Money is not speech. It never has been, it never will be.

Eh... I don't know about that... I consider Kelo much more egregious.

With respect to Citizens United... we probably need better transparency mechanism more than anything.

I don't know about "Kelo", so I wouldn't know.

Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)[1] was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Citizens United was the worst supreme court decision in my lifetime (or at lest that I know about). Money is not speech. It never has been, it never will be.

Eh... I don't know about that... I consider Kelo much more egregious.

With respect to Citizens United... we probably need better transparency mechanism more than anything.

I don't know about "Kelo", so I wouldn't know.

Kelo v. City of New London

Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)[1] was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

 d-usa wrote:
I am still an advocate of Nascar style suits with the names of donors on them for politicians.

 DogofWar1 wrote:
If you're interested in Corporate Personhood, things could get even more interesting when the Court looks at whether corporations can have freedom of religion. Thus far the Court has sort of vaguely said they have some first Amendment rights, mainly speech, but they haven't exactly filled in the blanks.

Also I feel obligated to be in here on account of my name.

It’s only taken seven years, but a member of the mainstream media is finally asking “what are they thinking?”

That would be the formerly “respectable” Howard Kurtz, the Columbia J-school grad who wrote for the Washington Post and worked for CNN and the Daily Beast, before he fell from grace and landed at Fox News, where he writes:

What on earth is the FCC thinking?

The last thing we need is the government mucking around with news content.

The title of this Big Brother-ish effort by the Federal Communications Commission sounds innocuous enough: “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs.” But it’s a Trojan horse that puts federal officials in the newsroom, precisely where they shouldn’t be.

Don’t take my word for it. The FCC says it wants to examine “the process by which stories are selected,” as well as “perceived station bias” and “perceived responsiveness to underserved populations.”

Perceived station bias? Are you kidding me? Government bureaucrats are going to decide whether a newsroom is being fair?

Keep in mind that the commission has the power to renew or reject broadcast television licenses. During Watergate, Richard Nixon’s FCC challenged two TV licenses of stations owned by the Washington Post. So mere information gathering can become a little more serious, given that enormous clout.

Well, read the whole thing, because it’s worth it (and read FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai’s rather heroic bit of whistleblowing on the matter, dated February 10, and finally getting some attention beyond the blogs) but before you go, allow me to answer Kurtz’ opening query:

“What are they thinking?” Mr. Kurtz, it’s pretty obvious; they’re thinking no one in the mainstream press has asked them a difficult or challenging question in 7 years, so why would they start now.
ould they start now.

--They’re thinking an obsequious press that couldn’t be bothered to sustain outrage over intrusions into its own phone and internet records won’t have a problem with the government parking itself into the newsroom.

--They’re thinking that if the mainstream press could forgive them for considering espionage charges against a member of the press — for doing what reporters are supposed to do — and then re-commence their habitual boot-licking, there is no real risk of media folk suddenly calling out a “red line”, or even being able to identify one.

--They’re figuring that with this president, the mainstream media has no idea what “a bridge too far” might mean. Nor, “abuse of power”; nor “cover-up”; nor “mendacity”, “incompetence”, “ineptitude” or “constitutional illiteracy.”

--They know that half the people in the newsroom are either married or to (or social buddies with) influential members of this government, and that everyone is all comfy and nicely settled in for the revolution.

--They know that the press willfully surrendered its own freedoms some time ago, in the interests of ideology, and so they really won’t mind a little editorial supervision from the masters:

. . .we no longer need wonder why the mainstream media seems unconcerned about possible attacks on our first amendment rights to freedom of religion and the exercise thereof. They have already cheerfully, willfully surrendered the freedom of the press to the altar of the preferred narrative. People willing to dissolve their own freedoms so cheaply have no interest in anyone else’s freedom, either.

--They know that if they like their newsroom, they can keep their newsroom, once it has been correctly updated. A Mad Man might sell the scheme as Prexy-Clean. Journalism “new and improved with powerful cleansing agents!”

I hope that helps, Mr. Kurtz.

And you are correct, by the way, when you write “if George W. Bush’s FCC had tried this, it would be a front-page story.” I expressed a similar sentiment in relation to this story, back on February 13.

But we have seen repeatedly that what was objectionable under a president with an R next to his name is barely worth a sigh when he or she carries a D. T’was ever thus.

Oh, you thought the press was serious when it ranted about “constitution shredding” and “the fierce urgency of now?”

Well, this is how career trajectories are ended, when one’s bright naivete cannot come to appreciate “nuance.”

Some may disagree, but I will dare to repeat myself, because I think I am right: The biggest problem in our nation is not the Democrats, or the Republicans; it is not the Obama Administration, just as it wasn’t the Bush Administration, and it won’t be future Clinton or Warren Administrations. Our biggest problem is that the press has voluntarily surrendered its freedoms for the sake of idols and ideologies..

Because this is true, our government is either factionalized, fictionalized and bombarded with daily media outrage and indignation, or it is given an utterly free pass, with no accountability required. Either way, it is a process of illusion, which gives assist to the necessary distraction, and that’s all.
I didn’t want to write about this today. The truth is, I don’t even want to write about politics, anymore, because it’s all distraction and illusion and theater.

I’d be happy to write about prayer and scripture, and nothing else, for the rest of my life, and maybe that’s what I’ll be doing, soon enough. But I am passionate about journalism, passionate about the need for a free press, and so I had to write, today. Without a curious press interested in protecting its own freedoms, there is no there, there. We might as well just put down the mics and turn out the lights, because it’s over.

Keywords—A game show of search and tag trivia for internet addicts.

I Can Haz NewsToons—Finally, a place on TV for social media’s best satire cartoons.

One.Click.Away—The untold stories behind the online classifieds

Vacation Hunters—One tweet, two vacation teams, one amazing vacation.

Videocracy—Hosts and a team of panelists comment on the stories and the people creating the shared content we’re all talking about.

#What’sYourFomo—This app will collect your list of FOMO’s (Fear Of Missing Out) and guarantees that you never miss a thing.

They know that half the people in the newsroom are either married or to (or social buddies with) influential members of this government, and that everyone is all comfy and nicely settled in for the revolution.

 motyak wrote:
I liked this bit

They know that half the people in the newsroom are either married or to (or social buddies with) influential members of this government, and that everyone is all comfy and nicely settled in for the revolution.

What revolution is he talking about?

--ABC News President Ben Sherwood, who is the brother of Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, a top national-security adviser to President Obama.
--His counterpart at CBS, news division president David Rhodes, is the brother of Benjamin Rhodes, a key foreign-policy specialist.
--CNN’s deputy Washington bureau chief, Virginia Moseley, is married to Tom Nides, who until earlier this year was deputy secretary of state under Hillary Rodham Clinton.
--White House press secretary Jay Carney’s wife is Claire Shipman, a veteran reporter for ABC.
--NPR’s White House correspondent, Ari Shapiro, is married to a lawyer, Michael Gottlieb, who joined the White House counsel’s office in April.
--The Post’s Justice Department reporter, Sari Horwitz, is married to William B. Schultz, the general counsel of the Department of Human Services.
--[VP] Biden’s current communications director, Shailagh Murray (a former Post congressional reporter), is married to Neil King, one of the Wall Street Journal’s top political reporters.

 d-usa wrote:
At least it's the media, so the revolution will be televised.

Shailagh Murray (a former Post congressional reporter), is married to Neil King, one of the Wall Street Journal’s top political reporters.

 whembly wrote:
- - - I didn't want to create a separate thread - - -

This caught my attention... because, dammit, this is what I was trying to articulate:

Over FCC Plans, MSM Finally a Bit Curious re Obama Admin

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
- - - I didn't want to create a separate thread - - -

This caught my attention... because, dammit, this is what I was trying to articulate:

Over FCC Plans, MSM Finally a Bit Curious re Obama Admin

We had such a good thread, opened with such a really a good article in your OP, and then you follow it up with this?

 whembly wrote:
I can switch hats...

 Ouze wrote:
I agree 100% that Citizen's United was a terrible decision and that Kelo was actually way worse. I'm not 100% sure how salient those are to the topic of midterm elections, though.

Still too early to call, you can't predict if a narrative-creating Todd Akin will show up.

My gutsy, "I haven't taken a look at numbers yet" feeling is the status quo will remain: Republicans will hold Congress (and gain seats), Democrats will hold the Senate (but lose seats, it will be very close).

A few weeks ago, I produced two Senate analyses. One focused on the relationship between the president’s job approval, the fate of Senate Democrats during the 2010 and 2012 elections, and what that would mean if this relationship continues through 2014. The second looked at Republican vulnerability in 2016 using a similar standard.

The first piece concluded that, based on President Obama’s job approval rating, Democrats have substantial vulnerability in 2014. This vulnerability is deeper than many analysts are willing to consider right now. Over the past two cycles, the president’s job approval has explained 58 percent of the variance in competitive Senate races in any given state. Given Obama’s current weak numbers, this seemingly bodes poorly for Democrats. Remember, the midterm map is the “reddest” Senate map Democrats have had to defend while Obama has been president. Their overexposure makes it something of a perfect storm scenario if things do not improve. This doesn’t mean that the problems are insuperable for Democrats. It simply means that the playing field is stacked heavily against them.

The second piece took a somewhat different tack. Instead of just looking at the playing field for 2016, it used that playing field as the basis for a simulation run in a neutral year to help better quantify Republican exposure. It concluded that unless 2016 turned out to be a good Republican year overall, that Republicans would probably have to win 53 or 54 seats in 2014 to feel good about their chances of holding the Senate two years later.

The present article takes the technique used in the second piece and applies it to the playing field described in the first. In other words, this is a “Monte Carlo simulation” to try to better quantify the amount of exposure Democrats are under this time.

First, a brief explanation of a Monte Carlo simulation is probably justified. As always, there are an awful lot of complexities and nuances that I can’t possibly fit into this piece. So just accept this as a starting point, to get a sense of what is going on. (I’ve bracketed the explanatory part with asterisks; if you’re not interested in understanding what’s going on, skip ahead.)

**

Monte Carlo techniques are varied, but at their root they involve generating a large number of random values within prescribed limits so we can assess the likelihood of a given outcome. For example, imagine a hypothetical situation where Democrats controlled a 50-50 Senate. Let’s also say that two Democratic incumbents were polling at 52 percent in polls with error margins of +/- five percentage points.

We want to know how often, statistically, the Democrats might be expected to win both seats and keep the Senate. Most contemporary analysts would approach this from one of two directions. Some analysts might note that Democrats led in both races, and should therefore feel extremely good about their chances. Others would note the error margins, label them both “coin tosses,” and call the battle for the Senate a tossup.

In fact, under these conditions Democrats would be solid, but not overwhelmingly solid, favorites to hold the upper chamber. Now, there is a mathematical way to answer this with precision, but it is complex and cumbersome, especially if there are 20 races to evaluate rather than two or if we need to simulate 10 variables instead of one. What we can do instead is to ask our program to produce random draws, centered on the two midpoints, with standard deviations that approximate half the error margins.

We then ask the program to generate some large number of draws, in this case 20,000. They will be centered around a mean of 52 percent for each Democrat, and 95 percent of the results will be within five points of that mean.

Democrats actually do well in each individual race: They win each one about 79 percent of the time. With that said, they only win both races 62 percent of the time. So even though both polls are technically “within the error margin,” Democrats should still be clear favorites to retain the Senate, although they should not be considered overwhelming favorites.

Notably, if we had three races with incumbents at 52 percent, we really would have a tossup Senate, with Democrats keeping it about 49 percent of the time. This is important: Even though each individual senator would be a 79 percent favorite to keep his or her seat, the odds would be slightly against the Democrats holding the chamber under these circumstances.

**

If this approach sounds familiar, it should. It is basically the one popularized by Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight, although his models are substantially more complex. And indeed, there are a number of complexities you’d want to build into an important model.

For this experiment though -- and this is a really important caveat -- we’re just trying to get a ballpark estimate of the relationship between the playing field and the Democrats’ chances of holding each seat, as well as what that means for the overall picture. So we might say that, based on presidential job approval, Democrats have a 20 percent chance of holding a particular seat. This is notable, but we should remember that one time out of five, the Democrats really will hold the seat.

Some candidates seemingly have better chances for beating the odds than others; there really are instances where, because of challenger quality or incumbent quality or both, we might actually bet on this being that “one time.” Virginia is a case where I suspect Democrats’ chances are substantially better than the president’s approval might suggest, given Mark Warner’s strength. On the other hand, I think the Democrats’ chances in South Dakota are probably worse than the odds suggest, even at relatively high Obama job approvals. In theory these would cancel each other out, but not always; I think the model underestimates Republicans in 2016 and probably overestimates them here, especially with respect to their chances of making huge gains.

With that said, I first looked at races The Cook Political Report currently rates as something other than “safe”; over the past 20 years, only two races that Cook Political has rated as “safe” at this point in the game have wound up switching hands, so we can be awfully confident that those seats are “staying put.” That leaves me with a universe of 17 competitive Senate races, 15 of which are held by Democrats, two of which are held by Republicans.

Second, using the technique outlined in my first Senate piece, I estimated what the president’s job approval would be in these states for each incremental increase in national job approval from 38 to 55 percent.

Finally, for each job approval rating increment, I ran 20,000 simulations for each race. The president’s estimated approval is used as the midpoint, and almost all of the simulations are kept within 10 points of that midpoint (two reasons: 1) no Democrat in a competitive race, with the possible exception of Joe Manchin in 2010, has run more than 10 points ahead or behind the president’s job approval in their state; 2) if you run the regression of job approval vs. outcomes, the standard deviation is five).

You can click here to see how often an average Democrat would be expected to lose each individual race to an average Republican at each job approval interval.

The next step is to total up our simulations, showing how frequently Republicans would win the Senate at each job approval interval for Obama.


This is a grim picture for Senate Democrats, suggesting that the president would have to get his approval above 50 percent by Election Day before they would be favored to hold the chamber. This is also consistent with what we’ve seen in polling, which shows the seven “red state” Democrats in truly severe states of distress, while Democrats in Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire and Colorado are exhibiting surprising weakness. If these 11 seats are showing similar signs of weakness in November, Democrats will have an extremely difficult time holding the chamber. At Obama’s current 44 percent approval rating, we’d expect Democrats to lose somewhere between nine and 13 seats.

But let’s take it one step further. We’re probably right to be skeptical that Obama’s job approval will be, say, 55 percent on Election Day, just as it’s not likely to be 38 percent. Instead, let’s run simulations for his job approval. It has averaged 48.3 percent over his presidency, with a standard deviation of 4.35 percent. If we run our simulations around these values, we get the following overall distribution of outcomes:

Notably, there are situations where Democrats end up gaining seats. There are also, however, situations where the election turns into an absolute debacle for Democrats.

The most common outcome, however, is Democratic losses of between seven to nine seats. In about a third of the simulations there are more losses, and in about a third of the simulations, there are fewer.

Now, again, one might decide that, based on candidate quality and other issues, Democrats are poised to systematically end up on the high side of the probability calculus. I actually think this is probably correct. My general view is that this approach gets the odds right in the most commonly discussed races, especially since Republicans don’t seem poised to nominate weak candidates (for now). At the same time, though, weak Republican recruiting in places like Iowa and Minnesota, combined with unusually gifted Democratic incumbents in places like Virginia, probably means that the model overstates Democrats’ chances of losing more than eight seats.

One other possibility is that the relationship we’ve seen between job approval and Democratic outcomes won’t hold for this cycle. It’s been relatively strong over the past couple of elections, but that doesn’t mean it will continue. In fact, models that go back further in time give Democrats a much stronger chance of holding the Senate. My own sense is that, due to polarization, it now takes extremely unusual circumstances for a Democrat to win a state like Arkansas under a Democratic president (just as Lincoln Chafee couldn’t hold on in Rhode Island under a Republican president, despite being a very liberal Republican). But this might not hold true this year.

With all of that said, this is a very, very challenging map for Democrats. As things presently stand, the map probably makes them underdogs to hold the Senate. Barring some sort of change in the national environment or meltdown in the Republican nominations process -- neither of which is impossible -- Democrats are likely in for a very long night on Nov. 4.

A few moments ago, the body was treated to a report from the senator from Iowa about his recent trip to Cuba. Sounded like he had a wonderful trip visiting, what he described as, a real paradise. He bragged about a number of things that he learned on his trip to Cuba that I’d like to address briefly. He bragged about their health care system, medical school is free, doctors are free, clinics are free, their infant mortality rate may be even lower than ours. I wonder if the senator, however, was informed, number one, that the infant mortality rate of Cuba is completely calculated on figures provided by the Cuban government. And, by the way, totalitarian communist regimes don’t have the best history of accurately reporting things. I wonder if he was informed that before Castro, Cuba, by the way, was 13th in the whole world in infant mortality. I wonder if the government officials who hosted him, informed him that in Cuba there are instances reported, including by defectors, that if a child only lives a few hours after birth, they’re not counted as a person who ever lived and therefore don’t count against the mortality rate.

I wonder if our visitors to Cuba were informed that in Cuba, any time there is any sort of problem with the child in utero they are strongly encouraged to undergo abortions, and that’s why they have an abortion rate that skyrockets, and some say, is perhaps the highest the world. I heard him also talk about these great doctors that they have in Cuba. I have no doubt they’re very talented. I’ve met a bunch of them. You know where I met them? In the United States because they defected. Because in Cuba, doctors would rather drive a taxi cab or work in a hotel than be a doctor. I wonder if they spoke to him about the outbreak of cholera that they’ve been unable to control, or about the three-tiered system of health care that exists where foreigners and government officials get health care much better than that that’s available to the general population.

I also heard him speak about baseball and I know that Cubans love baseball, since my parents were from there and I grew up in a community surrounded by it. He talked about these great baseball players that are coming from Cuba — and they are. But I wonder if they informed him — in fact, I bet you they didn’t talk about those players to him because every single one of those guys playing in the Major Leagues defected. They left Cuba to play here.

He also talked about how people would come up to him in the streets and not a single person said anything negative about America. Nobody came up to him wagging their fingers saying, ‘You Americans and your embargo is hurting us.’ I’m glad to hear that. Because everyone who wants to lift the embargo is constantly telling us that the Castros use that to turn the people against us. So obviously, that’s not true. So I’m glad to hear confirmation of what I already knew to be true. I heard about their wonderful literacy rate, how everyone in Cuba knows how to read. That’s fantastic. Here’s the problem: they can only read censored stuff. They’re not allowed access to the Internet. The only newspapers they’re allowed to read are Granma or the ones produced by the government.

I wish that someone on that trip would have asked the average Cuban, ‘With your wonderful literacy skills, are you allowed to read The New York Times or the Wall Street Journal or any blog, for that matter?’ Because the answer’s, ‘No.’ So it’s great to have literacy, but if you don’t have access to the information, what’s the point of it? So I wish somebody would have asked about that on that trip. We heard about Mr. Gross, who is not in jail. He’s not a prisoner. He is a hostage. He is a hostage. And in the speech I heard a moment ago, I heard allusions to the idea that maybe we should — he didn’t say it, but I know the language, I know the code in this — that maybe there should be a spy swap. Here’s the problem: Mr. Gross was not a spy. You know what his crime was, if that’s what you can call it? He went to Cuba to hand out satellite radios to the Jewish community. But, we’re glad to hear that the Cubans are so nice to him that they let him walk 10,000 steps a day and do pull-ups and they let him build a necklace out of bottle cap tops. Very nice of them to allow him to do those things. How generous.

I wonder if anybody asked about terrorism, because Cuba is a state sponsor of terrorism. I wonder if anybody asked about the fact that, just a few months ago, a North Korean ship going from Cuba to North Korea was stopped in the Panama Canal and it contained items in violation of international sanctions against a government in North Korea that, a report just came out confirming what we already knew, has death camps and prison camps. And the Cubans are allowing them to evade these sanctions. Did that come up in any of the wonderful conversations in this socialist paradise in the Caribbean? I bet you it didn’t.

Let me tell you what the Cubans are really good at, because they don’t know how to run their economy, they don’t know how to build, they don’t know how to govern a people. What they are really good at is repression. What they are really good at is shutting off information to the Internet and to radio and television and social media. That’s what they’re really good at. And they’re not just good at it domestically, they’re good exporters of these things. And you want to see exhibit A, B, C and D? I’m going to show them to you right now. They have exported repression in real-time, in our hemisphere, right now.

Let me show you the first slide here. This gentleman here is the former mayor of a municipality in Caracas. His name is Leopoldo Lopez. And this is the National Guard of Venezuela pulling him into an armored truck last week. You know why? Because he’s protesting against the government. He’s protesting against the government of Venezuela, which are puppets of Havana, completely infiltrated by Cubans and agents from Havana. Not agents, openly, foreign military affairs officials involved in Venezuela. You know why? Because the Venezuela government is giving them cheap oil and free oil, in exchange for help during these sorts of repressions. So here he is, he’s sitting in jail right now because he’s protesting against the government. He’s sitting in jail right now.

So here’s the next slide. This is Genesis Carmona. She’s a beauty queen and a student in a city called Valencia. She’s on that motorcycle because the government in Venezuela and the thug, these so-called civilian groups that they’ve armed — another export from Cuba, a model the Cubans follow — they shot her in the head. She died last week. This is the government that the Cubans support. Not just verbally, not just emotionally, but with training and tactics. This is who they export — this is what they do. And she’s dead. And this is her being taken on a motorcycle to the hospital where they were unable to save her life because she was shot in the head by Venezuelan security forces.

Here’s another slide. Remember I showed you Mr. Lopez? These are his supporters being hit with water cannons — by water cannons in the street because they’re protesting against the government. This has been going on now for two weeks. This is the allies of Cuba, Venezuela, the puppets of Cuba. And this is what they do to their own people. Water cannons knocking people to the ground. Why? Because they’re protesting the government.

Let me show you the next slide. Here’s a demonstrator detained by police. Look how they drag him through the streets. This is in Caracas, Venezuela.

Let me show you another demonstrator. This is a student — by the way, these are all students in the street. You see this young man here? He was also shot in the head by security forces and pro-government groups in Caracas. This happened on February 11. This is what they do in Venezuela. This is what the allies of the Castro regime does, this is what they export. This is what they teach. This is what they support. And it doesn’t stop here.

Who are Cuba’s allies in the world? North Korea. Before he fell, the dictator in Libya, the dictator in Syria, the tyrant in Moscow. This is who they line up with. This is this wonderful paradise? By the way, this in and of itself deserves attention, what’s happening in Venezuela, in our own hemisphere. It is shameful that only three heads of state in this hemisphere have spoken out forcefully against what’s happening. It is shameful that many members of Congress who traveled to Venezuela and were friendly with Chavez, some even went to his funeral, sit by saying nothing while this is happening in our own hemisphere. And this wonderful Cuban paradise government that we heard about? This is what they support. Just this morning, the dictator that calls himself a president — never been elected to anything, Raul Castro — announced he is there for whatever they need to help them do this.

I listen to this stuff about Cuba and I listen to what’s happening in Venezuela, they’re very similar. Not just in the repression part, but the economics part. You know Venezuela’s an oil-rich country with hardworking people? They have a shortage — we don’t have an embargo against Venezuela. They have a shortage of toilet paper and tooth paste. Why? Because they are incompetent. Because communism doesn’t work. They look more and more like Cuba economically and politically every single day.

What’s the first thing the Venezuelan government did when these broke out? They cut off access to Twitter and Facebook and the Internet. They ran CNN out of there. They closed down the only Colombian station. Years before, they had closed down all the independent media outlets that criticized the government. Where did they learn that from? From Cuba. And yet we have to listen to what a paradise Cuba is. Well, I wonder how come I never read about boatloads of American refugees going to Cuba? Why have close to one and a half million people left Cuba to come here? But the only people that leave here to move there, are fugitives from the law and people that steal money from Medicare that go there to hide? Why? How come no American baseball players defect to Cuba? Why don’t any American doctors defect to Cuba if it’s such a paradise?

He cited a poll, ‘More Americans want normal relations with Cuba.’ So do I — a democratic and free Cuba. But you want us to reach out and develop friendly relationships with a serial violator of human rights, who supports what’s going on in Venezuela and every other atrocity on the planet? On issue after issue, they are always on the side of the tyrants. Look it up. And this is who we should be opening up to? Why don’t they change? Why doesn’t the Cuban government change? Why doesn’t the Venezuelan government change?

Throughout this week, I will be outlining proposals and ideas about what we need to do, the sanctions we should be pursuing against the individuals responsible for these atrocities. So with North Korea, we have sanctions. Why? Because they’re a terrorist government and an illegitimate one. Against Iran we have sanctions. Why? Because they support terrorism and they’re an illegitimate government. And against the Cubans we have sanctions. Why? Well, you just saw why. Sanctions are a tool in our foreign policy toolbox, and we, as the freest nation on Earth, are looked to by people in this country, and all around the world, to stand by them in their moment of need when they clamor for freedom and liberty and human rights. They look for America to be on their side, not for America to be cutting geopolitical deals or making it easier to sell tractors to the government there. We should be clear about these things.

But here’s the great news. I don’t know if they get C-SPAN in Cuba. I bet you the government people do. I hope you see that in America, we’re a free society. You’re allowed to come on the floor and you’re allowed to say and spread whatever you want. You think Cuba’s a paradise? You think it’s an example and a model that we should be following? You’re free to say that, here, in the press and anywhere you want. But we’re also free to come here and tell the truth. We’re also free to come here and denounce the violations of human rights and brutality. And I would suggest to my colleagues, the next time they go to Cuba, ask to meet with the Ladies in White. Ask to meet with the Yoani Sanchez. Ask to meet with the dissidents and the human rights activists that are jailed and repressed and exiled. Ask to meet with them. I bet you’re going to hear something very different than what you got from your hosts on your last trip to the wonderful Cuba, this extraordinary socialist paradise. Because it’s a joke. It’s a farce.

And I don’t think we should stand by here with our arms crossed, watching these things happen in our hemisphere and say nothing about them. I can close by saying this: Over the last week, I have tweeted about these issues. I get thousands of retweets from students and young people, until they shut them out, in Venezuela who are encouraged by the fact that we are on their side. What they want is what we have, the freedom and the liberty. That’s what all people want. And if America and its policy-makers are not going to be firmly on the side of freedom and liberty, who in the world is? Who on this planet will? If this nation is not firmly on the side of human rights and freedom and the dignity of all people, what nation on the Earth will? And if we’re prepared to walk away from that, then I submit to you that this century is going to be a dangerous and dark one. But I don’t believe that’s what the American people want from us. Nor the majority of my colleagues.

 whembly wrote:

Food for thought... the (D) Senate's chance is linked to Obama's Job Approval...

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Food for thought... the (D) Senate's chance is linked to Obama's Job Approval...

Which also indicates that the probability of victory for Republican hopefuls is linked to Obama's job approval. That said, I've never found Presidential approval to be a strong indicator of the outcome in Senatorial votes, there are simply too many additional variables in play in any given Senatorial election (which RCP notes).

 whembly wrote:
Food for thought... the (D) Senate's chance is linked to Obama's Job Approval, per RCP

 whembly wrote:

Transcript:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Transcript:

Much bombastic! Such Republican!

I wonder how he feels about the Contras, or the Brazilian military coup, or any of the many instances in which South American countries oppressed leftist revolutionary movements at the behest of the US.

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Transcript:

Much bombastic! Such Republican!

Yep.

I wonder how he feels about the Contras, or the Brazilian military coup, or any of the many instances in which South American countries oppressed leftist revolutionary movements at the behest of the US.

O.o

Are they happening now?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Transcript:

Much bombastic! Such Republican!

Yep.

I wonder how he feels about the Contras, or the Brazilian military coup, or any of the many instances in which South American countries oppressed leftist revolutionary movements at the behest of the US.

O.o

Are they happening now?

Does that matter? WWII happened a long time ago, it's still bad if you supported the nazis. And it's would still be hypocritical of him to have supported crackdowns on leftist revolutions.

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Transcript:

Much bombastic! Such Republican!

Yep.

I wonder how he feels about the Contras, or the Brazilian military coup, or any of the many instances in which South American countries oppressed leftist revolutionary movements at the behest of the US.

O.o

Are they happening now?

Does that matter? WWII happened a long time ago, it's still bad if you supported the nazis. And it's would still be hypocritical of him to have supported crackdowns on leftist revolutions.

Wha?

Rubio wasn't alive during WW2...

Even during The1964 Brazilian coup d'état (I'm assuming that's dogma is referring to)...

Contras occurred around 1985... Rubio was 14-ish... he was chasing girls at this age.

dogma ain't got nuth'in.

 whembly wrote:

Rubio wasn't alive during WW2...

 whembly wrote:

Are they happening now?

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Rubio wasn't alive during WW2...

Nice job biting on a Godwin.

 whembly wrote:

Are they happening now?

Rubio is not an idiot, nor are any members of his staff. He knows these things occurred and is clearly dodging any commentary relative to those events in order to secure his position in Florida.

 whembly wrote:

Yup. Absolutely.... doesn't make it less awesome.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Yup. Absolutely.... doesn't make it less awesome.

Yes, it does. His speech is a boring pastiche of national and Florida Republicans.

It has also just occurred to me that Rubio's position on the Mexican government should be considered. After all, it is socialist, so clearly the cartel violence that has not spilled over into the US should be regarded as against a leftist government, and therefore in support of the US.

 whembly wrote:

I don't understand really what you're yammering about.

Are you surprised that he's doing this? He's politicking for Florida isn't he? This is red-meat for the Cubans in Florida...

A trove of Clinton White House records long processed for release remains hidden from public view at the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock — even though the legal basis initially used to withhold them expired more than a year ago.

The papers contain confidential advice given to or sought by President Bill Clinton, including communications with then-first lady Hillary Clinton, and records about people considered for appointments to federal office.

About 33,000 pages of documents are involved, according to the National Archives, which runs the library.

Under the Presidential Records Act, such records can be withheld for up to 12 years after a president leaves office. However, at the 12-year mark, those broad restrictions fall away and the once-secret presidential papers are generally subject to disclosure. For the Clinton files, that milestone came and went in January 2013.

The long-sealed records pose a delicate series of choices for the Clintons, and even President Barack Obama. They could allow disclosure of the papers, fueling new stories about old controversies like Whitewater and pardons granted as the 42nd president left office in 2001. Or they could fight to keep some or all of the files secret, likely triggering a court battle and stoking concerns that the former president and his wife are unduly secretive.

Either way, it’s a potentially messy situation unfolding just as Hillary Clinton — widely considered a clear front-runner for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination — mulls over whether to make a second bid to return to the White House.

t’s not entirely clear who’s responsible for the delay, since the release process involves the library and National Archives headquarters, as well as lawyers for the former president and Obama.

Unlike collections in other hands, the withheld files at the Clinton Library are under the control of the federal government. Obama would have to choose whether to back any privilege assertion by the ex-president — a move that would be in tension with public statements Obama made as a candidate and as president, promising to improve access to presidential records. Even the long delays in accessing the files raise significant questions about whether reforms Obama imposed on his first day in office are working.

After a series of inquiries from POLITICO in recent days, an official with the current White House said Tuesday afternoon that a large batch of the formerly withheld Clinton records should emerge soon.

“The White House has cleared a significant number of P2/P5 Clinton documents … roughly 25,000 pages,” said the Obama aide, citing the legal designations originally used to withhold the records.

The aide, who asked not to be named, did not say precisely when that clearance was given. However, he added: “There have been no executive privilege assertions on Clinton materials to date.”

After several days of queries, a National Archives spokesman said Tuesday evening that some — but not all — of the previously withheld records have been approved for release.

“As of today, the representatives of the former and incumbent presidents have approved the release of a majority of the approximately 33,000 pages of Clinton presidential records that were previously withheld” under the advice and appointment provisions, said Chris Isleib, director of communications for the National Archives. “Our goal is to make these records available as soon as possible, but it will take the Clinton Library and [the National Archives and Records Administration] additional time to complete the logistics of making available such a large release, including being able to make the records available on the Web.”

Isleib said the White House had extended the deadline regarding the remaining records until March 26.

An aide to former President Clinton indicated Tuesday evening that the former president’s aides just learned of the current White House’s signoff on some of the records.

“We were notified today by the National Archives and Records Administration that the White House had cleared over 20,000 pages of previously closed Clinton administration documents, subject to an assertion of executive privilege by the former president. We informed NARA that President Clinton did not intend to assert privilege with respect to the documents,” said the aide, who asked not to be named.

Handling of historical records about the Clintons is already drawing increased scrutiny — attention that seems certain to grow in the coming months.

“Especially if you have a Hillary Clinton candidacy for president, there is going to be renewed interest in how these things are depicted, what’s public and what’s not. That’s a debate that’s about to be had,” said Brandon Rottinghaus, a University of Houston political science professor who conducted research at the Clinton Library and was frustrated that certain records relating to Clinton-era scandal management were off-limits.

Earlier this month, the conservative Washington Free Beacon published a pair of stories that sparked questions about history’s ability to haunt the former first lady. One delved into records kept by late Clinton friend Diane Blair detailing many of Hillary Clinton’s personal concerns about the crises that beset her husband’s presidency, including his affair with Monica Lewinsky. The other article noted that papers from Bill Clinton’s official files during his two terms as Arkansas governor are locked away from view at a public library in Little Rock.

The Free Beacon stories did not mention the much vaster collections at the Clinton Presidential Library: some 78 million pages of paper records and 20 million emails — only a tiny fraction of which are available for public research. However, the Republican National Committee quickly made such a link, portraying the undisclosed files as a political liability.

“The Blair archive wasn’t the only locked down library in 2008 — the Clinton Library was described as ‘Little Rock’s Fort Knox,’” an RNC email to reporters said, quoting a 2007 Newsday story.

As archivists at the Clinton Library have processed records for the past decade or so, they have dutifully marked the advice-related and appointment-related information so that it could be released with little additional work after the 12-year point.

However, more than 13 months after the legal restrictions expired, there are no indications that any of the formerly restricted records are available for research.

“The obvious answer is they are trying to protect Hillary and there’s no question at all that there’s something in that … but the reality also is they don’t have the staff,” said Gettysburg College professor Shirley Warshaw, a frequent visitor to presidential libraries.

National Archives personnel have repeatedly complained that they lack the resources and personnel to complete legally required page-by-page reviews in a timely fashion. However, the formerly restricted Clinton records have already been reviewed and don’t require much new effort to prepare for release.

For at least some of the records, the National Archives has formally advised representatives of Bill Clinton and Obama of the planned release, giving both parties a chance to look over the records before they would become public — and giving both parties an opportunity to slow down the process.

In September, a top archivist at the Clinton Library told POLITICO the formerly restricted material was still “work[ing] its way through the notification process.”

If either Clinton or Obama objects to any release, they could try to assert executive privilege over the material, setting up a potential court fight.

The Clinton Library has not published a comprehensive list of the materials held back from prior document releases. However, information posted online indicates that a number of the withheld records come from Hillary Clinton’s office.

For example, in 2011, the library withheld as confidential advice portions or all of 785 pages of health-care-reform-related records from the first lady’s staff. The papers were removed from a large set of files released in response to a lawsuit from conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch.

Also withheld under the now-expired confidential advice provision were a series of documents pertaining to Clinton-era scandals such as Whitewater and the death of White House aide Vince Foster. The records held back include legal memos on such subjects from figures like Clinton personal attorney David Kendall and White House Counsel’s Office lawyer Elena Kagan, who became a Supreme Court justice in 2010.

In 2007, a total of about 2,600 pages at the library were being withheld in part or in full as confidential advice, a National Archives spokeswoman told The New York Sun. The number apparently grew to at least about 33,000 by last year.

The expiration of the 12-year restrictions on the Clinton files is also a key test for an executive order Obama signed on his first full day in office, promising to overhaul the presidential records process and remove obstacles he said were put in place by his predecessor, President George W. Bush.

The delays in access to the processed-but-unreleased Clinton-era records are far longer than those involving comparable files from President George H.W. Bush’s White House.

When the 12-year restriction on Bush’s records dropped in 2005, formerly withheld records began to emerge quickly from his library in College Station, Texas. Nearly 10,000 pages of records were made available to researchers just 29 days after the 12-year mark. A total of more than 31,000 pages of formerly restricted files were released in the course of that year. Full release of the more than 68,000 pages was completed in 2009, according to the Bush library’s website.

However, the expiration of the 12-year restriction on President Ronald Reagan’s files led to greater delays and a messy legal fight.

About 70,000 pages were processed but restricted as confidential advice to Reagan when his papers hit the 12-year mark in 2001, according to a court filing. That looming release triggered a policy review by the incoming administration of President George W. Bush, which held up disclosure of the files.

In November 2001, Bush issued a new executive order on presidential records. Historians and other researchers denounced the order and filed suit, claiming Bush’s directive would allow for unlimited delays and give former presidents or even family members of deceased presidents broad authority to block releases. A court ultimately held a portion of the Bush order illegal.

Despite the ongoing litigation, the first batch of about 8,000 pages of formerly restricted Reagan records was made public in February 2002. The release of the remaining records took place by 2004, although Reagan’s representatives ultimately prevailed in withholding 11 documents totaling 74 pages. The withheld papers included a memo about pardons for Oliver North and John Poindexter, as well as a document about Nancy Reagan’s use of military aircraft.

Obama’s White House has boasted that his executive order would lead to greater openness at presidential libraries.

“President Obama has also ensured that White House records, even sensitive documents, will become more readily and more quickly available to the public in the future,” a 2011 report on Obama’s commitment to open government declared. Promising greater openness in “the near and far future,” the report said Obama “rescinded” the Bush order, which had allowed “former presidents and their descendants to delay indefinitely the release of information.”

Despite the thousands of pages of previously withheld records now in limbo, disclosure at the Clinton Library has not stopped altogether.

Last October, the Clinton Library did release a batch of 57,234 pages of health care reform-related records to Judicial Watch, whose lawsuit demanding access to the complete set of files was brought in 2007 and continues. No pages were withheld as confidential advice in the latest batch. In addition, that same month the library and the Central Intelligence Agency released 300 documents pertaining to the Bosnia crisis.

But researchers still complain that the clearance process Obama put in place has not worked much better than Bush’s.

“The Obama executive order has probably solved some of the problem, but certainly not all,” said George Lardner, a former Washington Post reporter who has done extensive research on presidential pardons. “The Obama order is easily subject to manipulation. The Obama order includes a provision that the time period for review can be extended and extended and there’s no limit to it. … The Obama order is worse than the Clinton [era] order, and certainly not that much better than the Bush order.”

“For sure, you’ve got a delay in the process because of that three-tiered system of review,” Rottinghaus said, referring to the National Archives, the former president and the current one. “The Obama administration has promised more openness and couldn’t completely deliver.”

If issues of access to Clinton Library files do become a political headache for Hillary Clinton in a forthcoming presidential bid, it won’t be the first time.

During the 2008 presidential race, Clinton came under fire — often from Obama and his allies — for allegedly trying to keep her White House files shrouded in secrecy.

In one of the highest-profile episodes, late NBC Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert used the forum of a televised debate in October 2007 to publicly challenge Mrs. Clinton about off-limits records from her time as first lady.

“There was a letter written by President Clinton specifically asking that any communication between you and the president not be made available to the public until 2012. Would you lift that ban?” Russert said, brandishing a copy of the letter.

“That’s not my decision to make,” Mrs. Clinton said. “And I don’t believe that any president or first lady has. But certainly we’ll move as quickly as our circumstances and the processes of the National Archives permits.”

Obama leapt on the political opening, raising his hand to chime in.

“This is an example of not turning the page. We have just gone through one of the most secretive administrations in our history, and not releasing, I think, these records at the same time, Hillary, as you’re making the claim that this is the basis for your experience, I think, is a problem,” Obama said. “Part of what we need to do is rebuild trust in our government again. … And that means being open and transparent and accountable to the American people.”

Russert’s questions infuriated Bill Clinton, who later called them “breathtakingly misleading.”

“She was incidental to the letter,” the former president insisted. “It was a letter to speed up presidential releases, not to slow them down.”

While the purpose of the letter was to narrow the overall amount of information kept from the public, the letter does indicate that “communications directly between the President and First Lady” should be “considered for withholding,” among several other categories.

Those restrictions are precisely the ones that expired last January.

Later in the campaign, the Clinton Library did release Hillary Clinton’s official schedules as first lady. They contained little news and proved far less damaging politically than the controversy over the delay in releasing them.

 whembly wrote:
Let's try this again...

This goes for both congress critters and potential presidential nominees.

Here's what I think the GOP needs to do, in general:
The GOP needs to start talking about Freedom and Liberty, distancing themselves from the Dems who want to make rule after rule after freaking rule to control everyone from cradle to grave.

Essentially: Get off my freaking back and leave me alone, let me do my own damn thing... I think is a pretty powerful message.

Here's the Democrats need to do, in general:
Stick with what works?
-War on Woman
-Throw Hillary on stage... all she has to do is say "hi"
-Defend Social Programs
-???
-Profit?

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Let's try this again...

This goes for both congress critters and potential presidential nominees.

Here's what I think the GOP needs to do, in general:
The GOP needs to start talking about Freedom and Liberty, distancing themselves from the Dems who want to make rule after rule after freaking rule to control everyone from cradle to grave.

Essentially: Get off my freaking back and leave me alone, let me do my own damn thing... I think is a pretty powerful message.

Only problem is that this has never been the GOP message.

The Republicans love rules, they love to make rules, they love to tell people what they can and cannot do and they love telling people what they HAVE to do.

Oklahoma is about as red as you can get. Our State Senate is 75% Republican and our State House is 71% Republican. Do a basic bill search for all the bills introduced this year and you will see nothing but rules and regulations introduced by the Republicans. And it's not really much different on the national level.

The idea that the Republican Party is the "leave me alone" party and the "don't make rules for people" party is the biggest load of bull and you have to be 100% delusional and a complete idiot to believe that. At some point that might have been true, but it hasn't been for a very long time.

Republicans and Democrats are 100% the same when it comes to telling people what to do. The only difference is that they have different priorities and different targets that they want to control and restrict.

Here's the Democrats need to do, in general:
Stick with what works?
-War on Woman
-Throw Hillary on stage... all she has to do is say "hi"
-Defend Social Programs
-???
-Profit?

They have to be willing to make sacrifices and they need to work on that by presenting budgets that are workable and budgets that are getting us back on track on sensible spending. They have to introduce reasonable laws if they want to actually pass any legislation without giving Republicans ammunition.

George W. Bush drove us apart but Barack Obama is doing everything he can to bring us back together.

 whembly wrote:
Here's what I think the GOP needs to do, in general:
The GOP needs to start talking about Freedom and Liberty, distancing themselves from the Dems who want to make rule after rule after freaking rule to control everyone from cradle to grave.

Essentially: Get off my freaking back and leave me alone, let me do my own damn thing... I think is a pretty powerful message.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Here's what I think the GOP needs to do, in general:
The GOP needs to start talking about Freedom and Liberty, distancing themselves from the Dems who want to make rule after rule after freaking rule to control everyone from cradle to grave.

Essentially: Get off my freaking back and leave me alone, let me do my own damn thing... I think is a pretty powerful message.

Nah, the Republicans have been beating that drum for a generation. Anyone that the message resonates with has heard it and is already voting Republican. To everybody else it just sounds like the same tired old rhetoric (which frankly it is).

Republicans really need to run on, well, nothing. The economy is still crappy, and the Republicans have done a great job at attacking the ACA, so there's no real policy achievement for Democrats to hold up. In that environment all Republicans have to do is set themselves up as small targets and expect a low Democratic turnout.

Democrats, on the other hand, have a tough sell. They have to keep pushing on issues (hence the minimum wage thing)... but it's hard to run on a reform message when you've been in power for some time. Other than that, they just have to hope that Republicans do something to get Democrat aligned but cynical voters to get scared of the Republicans. But Akins moments only come along every so often (the dumb comments aren't enough, you also need the right political moment), and well, given everything else going up against them they maybe need like a triple Akins to do it.

 whembly wrote:
I think "doing nothing" is a mistake for Republicans... they can't just keep bashing Democrats and their policies (ACA, Immigration, etc...). They really need to define what they're going to do in Congress. Otherwise, they'll end up doing pretty much what the Democrats are doing "being on different sides of the same coin".

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I think "doing nothing" is a mistake for Republicans... they can't just keep bashing Democrats and their policies (ACA, Immigration, etc...). They really need to define what they're going to do in Congress. Otherwise, they'll end up doing pretty much what the Democrats are doing "being on different sides of the same coin".

That's very true. All we see the Rs in congress do is stop the Ds from doing anything. I listen to the weekly radio address and all it is is "The Democrats are doing this horrible thing", "Obama is doing this horrible thing.", never any ideas about what to do.

 whembly wrote:
I think "doing nothing" is a mistake for Republicans... they can't just keep bashing Democrats and their policies (ACA, Immigration, etc...). They really need to define what they're going to do in Congress. Otherwise, they'll end up doing pretty much what the Democrats are doing "being on different sides of the same coin".

I actually think minimum wage is a great plank for them to advocate.

 whembly wrote:

The GOP needs to start talking about Freedom and Liberty, distancing themselves from the Dems who want to make rule after rule after freaking rule to control everyone from cradle to grave.

 whembly wrote:

The ideas are there... it's just that the messaging is horri-bad.

 sebster wrote:

Definitely. Too little too late though, I suspect.

After months of railing against President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, Republicans scored a key victory in a hard-fought congressional race that had been closely watched as a bellwether of midterm elections in November.

Republican David Jolly defeated Democrat Alex Sink in a Florida special election Tuesday that largely turned on the federal health care law, with both sides using the race to audition national strategies in one of the country's few competitive swing-voting districts.

The implications of the dueling messages for control of Congress in November inspired both parties to call in star advocates like former President Bill Clinton and former vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan, in addition to blanketing the district with ads, calls and mailings. More than $11 million was spent on the race, according to the Sunlight Foundation, a nonprofit group that tracks government information.[whembly: !!! sweet jebus!!]

While Republicans held the congressional seat for more than four decades until the death of Rep. Bill Young last year, the district's voters favored Obama in the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections. Democrats were hopeful, clearing the field for Sink, the state's well-known chief financial officer and the party's gubernatorial nominee in 2010. Republicans failed to recruit their top picks, leaving Jolly to fight a bruising three-way primary.

This stretch of beach towns and retirement communities on the Gulf Coast is the type of terrain where Democrats need to compete if they hope to win seats in the House and keep control of the Senate. Analysts said the loss could bode badly for the party, which is already saddled with an unpopular president and a slow economic recovery.

"The overall picture does send a message and it says, 'Be afraid. Be very afraid,'" said Jack Pitney, a former national GOP official and government professor at Claremont McKenna College in California. "This is one more piece of evidence that 2014 will be a very difficult year for Democrats."

Democrats, however, downplayed the loss, saying the GOP fell short of its traditional margin in a Republican-leaning district packed with older voters. With almost 100 percent of the vote counted, Jolly had 48.5 percent of the vote to Sink's 46.7 percent. Even before the defeat, party officials had been lowering expectations.

"I've never believed that special elections are a bellwether of anything," said Rep. Steve Israel of New York, who chairs the House Democrats' campaign operation. "You have to treat every district for what it is, not for what you want it to be."

Nevertheless, the battle for Florida's 13th District seat in the Tampa area was a prequel of sorts to the national fight this year over who controls Congress in the last two years of Obama's final presidential term. The House is expected to remain under Republican control. But in the Senate, Republicans are hoping to leverage Obama's unpopularity and his health care law's wobbly start to gain the six seats required to control the 100-member chamber.

That made the race in Florida a pricey proving ground for both parties heading into November elections.

Jolly, a former Young aide backed by Republicans and outside groups, campaigned on a conservative platform, promising spending cuts, balanced budgets and repealing the health care law.

The message against the health care overhaul proved a rallying cry for Republican voters, who surged to the polls on Election Day.

In Bill Bennett’s Morning in America program Wednesday, Ryan, who has become involved in the issue of poverty over the last year and a half, told Bennett there is a “tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work.”

“So there’s a real culture problem here that has to be dealt with,” added the House Budget Committee chairman and 2012 GOP vice presidential nominee.

In the radio interview, Ryan also referenced conservative author, American Enterprise Institute scholar, and self-described “right-wing ideologue,” Charles Murray, who wrote the controversial book “The Bell Curve,” which claims that black people have inferior intelligence and is the reason for social disadvantages.

"I've never believed that special elections are a bellwether of anything," said Rep. Steve Israel of New York, who chairs the House Democrats' campaign operation. "You have to treat every district for what it is, not for what you want it to be."

In Bill Bennett’s Morning in America program Wednesday, Ryan, who has become involved in the issue of poverty over the last year and a half, told Bennett there is a “tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work.”

 Ouze wrote:
Paul Ryan also had a good one the other day. In part:

In Bill Bennett’s Morning in America program Wednesday, Ryan, who has become involved in the issue of poverty over the last year and a half, told Bennett there is a “tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work.”

“So there’s a real culture problem here that has to be dealt with,” added the House Budget Committee chairman and 2012 GOP vice presidential nominee.

In the radio interview, Ryan also referenced conservative author, American Enterprise Institute scholar, and self-described “right-wing ideologue,” Charles Murray, who wrote the controversial book “The Bell Curve,” which claims that black people have inferior intelligence and is the reason for social disadvantages.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

The bolded statement I agree with. Back home there is the same issue. However it was an issue that did not need race injected into it.

 d-usa wrote:
The "say stupid stuff" moments are beginning...

Lindsey Graham Challenger Calls The Senator 'Ambiguously Gay'

 dogma wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

The bolded statement I agree with. Back home there is the same issue. However it was an issue that did not need race injected into it.

To be fair, Ryan didn't inject race into the matter; at least not directly.

 djones520 wrote:

Nope, but there have been plenty of people trying to say he did.

I saw so many articles using the "he used code words" bull gak over this. Looks like this election is going to be about fake racism again...

 Ouze wrote:
Paul Ryan also had a good one the other day.

 dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Nope, but there have been plenty of people trying to say he did.

I saw so many articles using the "he used code words" bull gak over this. Looks like this election is going to be about fake racism again...

That is, as has been repeated ad nauseam, because he cited Charles Murray. That isn't to say Charles Murray is an idiot *, but such a citation was probably not politically prudent.



*Because he isn't. And The Bell Curve is textbook example of what happens when academic work is used for political purposes.

 whembly wrote:

So Paul is going to take his "hits", just like Obama did for attending Rev Wright's Church... eh?

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

So Paul is going to take his "hits", just like Obama did for attending Rev Wright's Church... eh?

I was unaware you were on a first name basis with Rep. Ryan.

But no, Rep. Ryan will continue exploiting academic publications for political gain, as he is wont to do, and will almost certainly suffer virtually no repercussions (of course he is not the only politician to do this); because most people are not academics.

 whembly wrote:

EDIT: why should I call him by his title? Don't you know... just about all congress critters are criminals. Relatively speaking of course.

 whembly wrote:

I think he's gone to far "wonky"... as such, he'll anything he'd saying will fall on deaf ears.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

EDIT: why should I call him by his title? Don't you know... just about all congress critters are criminals. Relatively speaking of course.

You called Rev. Wright by his title.

 whembly wrote:

I think he's gone to far "wonky"... as such, he'll anything he'd saying will fall on deaf ears.

I don't follow you.

 whembly wrote:

Yup.

Unless you know something I don't?

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Yup.

Unless you know something I don't?

So is it fair for me to assume that you have greater respect for Rev. Wright than for Rep. Ryan?

 d-usa wrote:
Have I missed the times that Obama introduced policy plans while citing Rev. Wright to justify said policy?

 d-usa wrote:
If you think that "here is what I want to do and it is specifically based on what this guy says" and "here is what I want to do" (did you know he used to go to a specific church) are the same thing then you are not very good at playing the game...

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If you think that "here is what I want to do and it is specifically based on what this guy says" and "here is what I want to do" (did you know he used to go to a specific church) are the same thing then you are not very good at playing the game...

Wut?

Aren't they both controversial figures? (author vs the Rev)

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If you think that "here is what I want to do and it is specifically based on what this guy says" and "here is what I want to do" (did you know he used to go to a specific church) are the same thing then you are not very good at playing the game...

Wut?

Aren't they both controversial figures? (author vs the Rev)

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If you think that "here is what I want to do and it is specifically based on what this guy says" and "here is what I want to do" (did you know he used to go to a specific church) are the same thing then you are not very good at playing the game...

Wut?

Aren't they both controversial figures? (author vs the Rev)

Ryan specifically stated that he wants to make something policy and specifically used the authors work as the justification of that policy. People are not saying that Ryan was influenced by him because they used to hang out in grad school, or went to a luncheon together, or attented the same church. The connection is there because Paul Ryan specifically stated "I want to do X because of Y".

To the best of my knowledge Obama has yet to go out and announce a specific policy and verbally state that he wants to change policy and that it is justified because of what Rev. Wright said.

That's why this episode of the Inferring Game is not very good, because nobody is inferring anything about Paul Ryan's connection to the author. Paul Ryan admitted that the authors work directly influenced this specific policy goal.

So we have "Paul Ryan states that his policy is partially based on this authors work" and your counter is "well, Obama went to that guys church once..." without actually providing a single policy that has been based on the Rev.'s teachings.

Ted Cruz ✔ @tedcruz
Follow
Saw this, but noticed an error. So I wanted to make one thing clear: I don't smoke cigarettes http://bit.ly/1nqK08i
8:58 AM - 15 Mar 2014

“Remember Domino’s finally admitted they had bad crust?” Paul said in response to a question after his speech. “I think the Republican Party finally admitted it. OK, bad crust, we need a different kind of party.”

Republican Sen. Rand Paul on Wednesday took his case for civil liberties to one of the most liberal enclaves in the country — and lived, politically, to tell the tale.

The Kentucky senator drew a largely friendly reception at the University of California-Berkeley as he skewered the intelligence community, argued his party must “evolve, adapt or die” and left the door open for a 2016 presidential run.

Paul also announced that when he returns to Washington, he will push for the establishment of a select committee of policymakers designated to oversee intelligence gathering. The proposal comes in the wake of allegations from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) that the CIA may have, without authorization, searched computers used by Senate Intelligence Committee staffers — something the agency denies.

“It should be bipartisan, it should be independent and wide-reaching,” Paul said of the proposed committee. “It should have full power to investigate and reform those who spy on us in the name of protecting us. It should watch the watchers. Our liberties are slipping away from us.”

But while blasting the intelligence community, the libertarian-leaning senator also sought common ground with young people as he pitched them on the importance of strong privacy safeguards.

“When [the intelligence community] says, ‘Oh, it’s only boring old business records,’ think what information is on your Visa bill,” Paul said. “From your bill, the government can tell whether you drink, whether you smoke, whether you gamble, what books you read, what magazines you read, whether you see a psychiatrist, what medications you take.”

He continued, to applause: “I oppose this abuse of power with every ounce of energy I have. I believe that you have a right to privacy, and it should be protected.”

Paul, who has filed a lawsuit against the National Security Agency, is a passionate advocate for civil liberties. He also believes that championing privacy could offer the GOP a way to bring more young people into the fold, a bet that was on vivid display during the Bay Area appearance.

During the question-and-answer portion of the appearance, the moderator began, “There’s been pretty extensive media coverage of your recent visits to places that don’t usually vote Republican, like students at Howard University …”

“You mean like Berkeley?” Paul interjected, to laughter and applause.

Asked whether such efforts are an attempt to broaden his “personal appeal” ahead of 2016, Paul responded coyly, “Maybe.”

“Part of it might be that,” he said. “Part of it might be that the Republican Party … has to either evolve, adapt or die. … Remember Domino’s [the pizza chain] finally admitted they had bad crust? I think the Republican Party finally admitted it. OK, bad crust, we need a different kind of party.”

As he has done in the past, Paul pointed to libertarian-minded causes, such as ending indefinite detention and reforming drug sentencing laws, as ways the party could appeal to a broader electorate.

“So something’s gone wrong,” Paul said. “So maybe [if] a candidate would stand up and say, ‘Everyone deserves their day in court,’ that laws should not have a racial outcome, maybe then people would say, ‘You know what, I’ve always hated those Republicans, and their crust sucks, but maybe there’s some new Republicans, maybe there’ll be a new GOP.’ We’ll see.”

Aside from quick detours to discuss issues such as lower taxes, which received a full-throated defense from Paul, he spent the bulk of his speech slamming the NSA, the CIA and the politicians who defend some of the spy agencies’ more controversial intelligence-gathering tactics.

“Your rights, especially your right to privacy, are under assault,” he said. He added that in the wake of the news concerning the CIA’s alleged searches tied to Senate staffers, “I think I perceive fear of an intelligence community that’s drunk with power, unrepentant and uninclined to relinquish power.”

NSA officials, he said, have displayed “sheer arrogance.”

“They’re only sorry they got caught,” he said, though he noted that he is for due process, not “against the NSA per se.”

He criticized Director of National Intelligence James Clapper for once saying he offered the “least untruthful” answer to a question about the extent of the NSA’s data collection. Paul said Clapper should be tried for perjury, a suggestion he has made before, and a stance that drew applause in Berkeley.

“As Americans, we don’t deserve the ‘least untruthful’ way,” he said. “We have a right to the truth, we deserve the truth and we demand the truth from our officials.”

NSA leaker Edward Snowden presents a complex question, Paul said. On one hand, it would be “chaos” if sensitive information was leaked indiscriminately; on the other, “without the Snowden leaks the spies would still be blithely doing what they pleased.”

“Clapper lied in the name of security,” the senator said. “Snowden told the truth in the name of privacy.”

The Republican also went after President Barack Obama in a brief section that touched on the sensitive subject of race.

“I find it ironic that the first African-American president has, without compunction, allowed this vast exercise of raw power by the NSA. Certainly [the late FBI Director] J. Edgar Hoover’s illegal spying on Martin Luther King and others in the civil rights movement should give us all pause,” he said.

And while he acknowledged Obama is not Hoover, Paul cautioned: “Power must be restrained because no one knows who will next hold that power.”

By NATE SILVER

When FiveThirtyEight last issued a U.S. Senate forecast — way back in July — we concluded the race for Senate control was a toss-up. That was a little ahead of the conventional wisdom at the time, which characterized the Democrats as vulnerable but more likely than not to retain the chamber.

Our new forecast goes a half-step further: We think the Republicans are now slight favorites to win at least six seats and capture the chamber. The Democrats’ position has deteriorated somewhat since last summer, with President Obama’s approval ratings down to 42 or 43 percent from an average of about 45 percent before. Furthermore, as compared with 2010 or 2012, the GOP has done a better job of recruiting credible candidates, with some exceptions.

As always, we encourage you to read this analysis with some caution. Republicans have great opportunities in a number of states, but only in West Virginia, South Dakota, Montana and Arkansas do we rate the races as clearly leaning their way. Republicans will also have to win at least two toss-up races, perhaps in Alaska, North Carolina or Michigan, or to convert states such as New Hampshire into that category. And they’ll have to avoid taking losses of their own in Georgia and Kentucky, where the fundamentals favor them but recent polls show extremely competitive races.

Since a number of you may be new to FiveThirtyEight, I’m going to go into slightly more detail than usual in explaining how we make these forecasts. You’re welcome to skip past this next section if you’re more interested in the forecasts than in how we came to them.

An overview of our methodology

In contrast to the forecasts we’ll begin issuing sometime this summer, which are strictly algorithmic based on our senate forecast model, these are done by hand. However, they’re based on an assessment of the same basic factors our algorithm uses:

The national environment. The single best measure of the national political environment, in our view, is the generic congressional ballot. Right now, it shows a rough tie between Democrats and Republicans. That stalemate likely reflects voters’ dislike for both Obama and the Republican Party.

A tie on the generic ballot might not sound so bad for Democrats. But it’s a misleading signal, for two reasons. First, most of the generic ballot polls were conducted among registered voters. Those do not reflect the turnout advantage the GOP is likely to have in November. Especially in recent years, Democrats have come to rely on groups such as racial minorities and young voters that turn out much more reliably in presidential years than for the midterms. In 2010, the Republican turnout advantage amounted to the equivalent of 6 percentage points, meaning a tie on the generic ballot among registered voters translated into a six-point Republican lead among likely voters. The GOP’s edge hadn’t been quite that large in past years. But if the “enthusiasm gap” is as large this year as it was in 2010, Democrats will have a difficult time keeping the Senate.

Democrats’ other problem is one of basic constitutional mathematics. Senators are elected in six-year cycles, so the seats in play this year were last contested in 2008,1 an extraordinarily strong year for Democrats. Even a strictly neutral political environment, or one that slightly favored Democrats, would produce a drop-off relative to that baseline. And Democrats’ losses will grow this year if voters go from modestly favoring Republicans to strongly favoring them.

Incidentally, we prefer to look at aggregate measures of the national environment, like the generic ballot and Obama’s approval ratings, instead of piecemeal ones such as voters’ views of Obamacare. Certainly the unpopularity of the Affordable Care Act — and its clumsy roll-out late last year — contributes to Democrats’ problems. But it’s hard to tell where Obamacare’s unpopularity ends and President Obama’s overall unpopularity begins. Voters’ views of the economy also have ambiguous effects in midterm years, especially when control of government is already divided.

Candidate quality. The notion of “candidate quality” might sound awfully subjective, but there are sound statistical ways to assess it. Fundraising totals, especially individual contributions, are a good indication of a candidate’s organizational strength. Various systems rate a candidate’s ideology on a left-right scale, based on her voting record or public issue statements, and we can compare those ratings against those of voters in her state. And candidates who have previously held elected office tend to outperform inexperienced ones, controlling for other factors.

State partisanship. As Dan Hopkins wrote at FiveThirtyEight last week, races of all kinds have become more and more correlated with presidential results in recent years. So the Partisan Voting Index (PVI), which compares how a state voted in the past two presidential years against the national popular vote, is also a useful tool for congressional races. At this early point in the cycle, there’s reason to be skeptical of races where the polls are out of step with how the state usually votes; states often revert to their partisan mean once more voters engage with the campaign.

Incumbency. Incumbents may be unpopular in the abstract, but they still win the overwhelming majority of races. Incumbency still represents an advantage in most cases, and sometimes a significant one. We can spot the potential exceptions by looking at an incumbent’s approval or favorability ratings.

Head-to-head polls. Head-to-head polls at this point in the cycle have some predictive power if evaluated carefully. That means taking care to see whether the poll was conducted among registered or likely voters, and putting less emphasis on polls when one or both candidates lack widespread name recognition. However, as my colleague Harry Enten has lamented, many of the more important Senate races have rarely been polled this year. Furthermore, much of the polling comes from firms such as Rasmussen Reports and Public Policy Polling, which have poor track records, employ dubious methodologies, or both. So the most appropriate use of polls at this stage is to see whether they roughly match our assessment of the race based on the fundamentals. Where there is a mismatch, it could indicate that the polls are missing something, that our view of the fundamentals is incorrect, or some of both — and it means there is more uncertainty in the outlook for the state.

Overall forecast

In consideration of these factors, we assess the probability of the Democratic or Republican candidate winning each seat. Where the choice of candidates is uncertain — for instance, in a race where a Democrat will face either a moderate, six-term incumbent U.S. representative or a poorly-financed tea party upstart, depending on the outcome of the Republican primary — the probabilities are meant to reflect a weighted combination of the plausible match-ups. Our assessment of the 36 races2 up for grabs this November is as follows:

One advantage of looking at the races on a probabilistic basis is that we can simply sum the probabilities to come up with a projection of how the new Senate will look. That method projects that Republicans will finish with 51 seats,3 a net gain of six from Democrats, and exactly as many as they need to win control of the chamber. (Democrats will hold the Senate in the event of a 50-50 split because of the tiebreaking vote of Vice President Joe Biden.)

That represents an edge for Republicans, but not much of one — and there are any number of paths by which they might get to 51 seats, or fail to do so. It might help to break the 36 races down into six categories, based on the party which holds the seat now and its likelihood of flipping to the other party.

Democrat-held seats likely to be picked up by Republicans (4): West Virginia, South Dakota, Montana, Arkansas

You’ll find that our characterization of the 36 races in most cases is very close to that issued by such forecasters as the Cook Political Report and Rothenberg Political Report. We’re looking at the same sort of information they are, and they have strong track records, so it’s natural there should be similarities.

One point of difference is that we’re much more pessimistic about the Democrats’ chances in West Virginia, South Dakota and Montana. These races have a lot in common, taking place in three red states where longtime Democratic incumbents have retired.

We’re bullish on Republican chances in these states for simple reasons. First, they’re red states. Second, we think the national political environment modestly favors Republicans. Third, we think the Republicans are poised to nominate equal or superior candidates in each state. Fourth, our research suggests there is little or no carry-over effect from incumbency once the incumbent himself retires. In West Virginia, for instance, the retirement of Democrat Jay Rockefeller provides little information about how the race will turn out in November.

We give Republicans a 90 percent chance of winning West Virginia, in fact. The state’s politics are a little more complicated than might be apparent from presidential voting — Obama is extraordinarily unpopular there, but a slim majority of the state’s voters are still registered as Democrats, and Democrats hold the governorship and both branches of the state legislature. But Republicans are poised to nominate an excellent candidate in Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, and she has held leads of 6 to 17 percentage points in polls against the likely Democratic nominee, Secretary of State Natalie Tennant.

We also give Republicans a 90 percent chance of winning South Dakota. It’s a more straightforward case, except that the presumptive Republican nominee, Gov. Mike Rounds, has been caught up in a controversy over the state’s participation in the EB-5 immigration visa program. To have much of a chance, Democrats will either need Rounds to lose the Republican primary or be significantly damaged by it.

Montana is slightly different in that Democrats technically do have an incumbent, John E. Walsh, running for re-election there. However, Walsh was appointed, not elected (he replaced Max Baucus in February when Baucus was named United States Ambassador to China). Appointed senators have a poor historical track record; from a predictive standpoint, it’s best to think of their races as open seats, rather than incumbent defenses. Walsh trails the likely Republican nominee, Rep. Steve Daines, by double digits in polling so far. The race is likely to tighten; Montana is somewhere between a purple state and a red one, and Walsh, who was elected as Montana’s lieutenant governor in 2012, is a credible candidate. Still, we give Republicans an 80 percent chance of flipping it.

The final race in this category is Arkansas, where Democrats have a true incumbent, Sen. Mark Pryor, running. Pryor was once so popular that he won without Republican opposition in 2008. But Arkansas has become redder and redder, and Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln’s 21-point loss to Republican John Boozman in 2010 demonstrates that past popularity is no guarantee of future success for a Democrat there. Furthermore, Republicans have a strong candidate in Rep. Tom Cotton, who is ahead by an average of about five points in recent polls. Pryor will be able to fight for his seat — he had $4.2 million in cash on hand as of Dec. 31, compared to $2.2 million for Cotton. The polling has returned inconsistent answers about Pryor’s approval and favorability ratings, so it’s hard to say how deep a reservoir of personal goodwill he will have to draw from. But the evidence points toward him being the underdog.

Democrat-held seats that are toss-ups (4): Louisiana, North Carolina, Alaska, Michigan

For Republicans, the path of least resistance to a Senate majority is winning West Virginia, South Dakota, Montana and Arkansas, and then two of the four states in this category.

Louisiana, where the Democratic incumbent Mary Landrieu is running, may be the easiest opportunity. Landrieu’s fundamentals are similar in most respects to Pryor’s: Her fundraising has been fine, but otherwise she’s running against the tide in what has become a very red state, and her moderate overall voting record may be undermined by her role in passing the Affordable Care Act in 2010. The difference is that Landrieu’s most likely opponent, Rep. Bill Cassidy, has yet to pull ahead in the polls, which instead show a race that’s roughly tied.

In North Carolina, Democrat Kay Hagan is an example of a candidate who could go in and out with the political tides. She was elected in 2008 over Elizabeth Dole as the Obama campaign turned out African Americans and college students throughout the state. But those are precisely the voters who don’t always show up for midterms. Still, Hagan could get a reprieve depending on Republicans’ choice of nominee. Republicans have eight declared candidates for their May 6 primary who range from Thom Tills, the speaker of the state House, to a variety of activists and political amateurs.

Alaska might be the hardest race to forecast. The polling there is often erratic. The state has voted Republican for president every year since 1968, but its independent streak sometimes translates differently in other races. The Democratic incumbent, Mark Begich, might face an establishment candidate in Daniel S. Sullivan, the former attorney general, or Mead Treadwell, the lieutenant governor — or he could face Joe Miller, the former judge and tea party activist who is unpopular beyond the Republican base.

The race in Michigan differs from the others in this group: It’s somewhere between purple and blue instead of red, and there’s no incumbent, as Democratic Sen. Carl Levin is retiring. But Republicans will have an excellent candidate in Terri Lynn Land, the former secretary of state. She comes from the old guard of moderate Michigan Republicans, instead of the tea party wing that might have preferred a candidate like Rep. Justin Amash. The likely Democratic nominee, Rep. Gary Peters, should win his primary without serious opposition, and he’s kept pace with Land in fundraising. But we take the polls that show the race as a toss-up at face value. The question is whether Michigan’s modest blue lean is enough to overcome a modestly Republican-leaning national climate.

Democrat-held seats that lean Democratic but with a plausible GOP pick-up (3): Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire

Republicans have some backup options if they fail to win states such as North Carolina and Michigan.

The best one is Colorado. The GOP got the candidate of its choice in Rep. Cory Gardner, who declared for the race last month. That will prevent them from again nominating Ken Buck, the tea party candidate who lost a winnable race in 2010. (Buck has withdrawn from this year’s Senate race and decided to run for the U.S. House instead.) By our measures, Gardner is a decent candidate rather than a great one. He’ll start at a fundraising deficit to the Democratic incumbent, Mark Udall, who had $4.7 million in cash on hand as of Dec. 31, and he comes from a conservative district and has amassed a conservative voting record that may or may not translate well in the Denver suburbs. But Udall’s approval ratings only break even, and we give Republicans a 40 percent chance of winning his seat.

The other big recruiting news is in New Hampshire, where Scott Brown, the former Massachusetts senator, has announced he’ll seek the Republican nomination. But as Harry Enten noted, Brown isn’t terribly popular in New Hampshire, which has long had a love-hate relationship with Massachusetts. Just as important, Jeanne Shaheen, the Democratic incumbent, has enjoyed approval ratings that would be good enough to get her re-elected. The political winds in New Hampshire can shift quickly, which is why we’re not ruling out a Republican win. But we don’t think Brown improves the GOP’s chances much as compared with another credible candidate.

Iowa is also a political bellwether. Sen. Tom Harkin, the Democrat, is retiring, which might seem to give Republicans even or better odds in a Republican-leaning national environment. But Democrats have a substantial edge in candidate quality. Rep. Bruce Braley, the presumptive nominee, has a fairly moderate voting record and $2.6 million in cash on hand. Meanwhile, Republicans have yet to coalesce around one of several inexperienced candidates. Perhaps like the one in New Hampshire, therefore, this race could swing Republican if the Democrats’ national position deteriorates further; Braley would hold the seat for them in an election held today.

Democrat-held seats likely or almost certain to be retained by Democrats (10): Minnesota, Oregon, New Jersey, Virginia, Hawaii (special election), Massachusetts, Illinois, New Mexico, Delaware, Rhode Island

Minnesota might seem vulnerable for Democrats. Sen. Al Franken won his seat only after a months-long recount in 2008, and he’s amassed the liberal voting record you’d expect of him. But Franken’s approval ratings are pretty good and he raises plenty of money from liberals around the country. So far, he has deterred a credible Republican challenger from entering the race.

In Oregon, Democratic incumbent Jeff Merkley has middling approval ratings. But the state has become quite blue, and the Republican roster there is weak; in 2010, the GOP nominated inexperienced candidates in both the Senate and gubernatorial races. It doesn’t look like they’ll nominate a strong candidate this year, either. Their chances of victory depend on the electoral climate becoming catastrophic for Democrats.

The other eight races on this list are likely to hold for Democrats even in worst-case scenarios. Republicans have sometimes talked up their opportunity in Virginia, where the former chairman of the Republican National Committee, Ed Gillespie, is running. Ordinarily, we’d snark about party hacks overrating the chances of one of their brethren winning office, but Virginia just elected Terry McAuliffe as its governor. However, Democratic incumbent Mark Warner maintains high approval ratings, and he’d likely hold the seat even against a strong opponent.

Republican-held seats that lean Republican but where Democratic pick-up is possible (2): Georgia, Kentucky

Republican paths to take over the Senate are complicated slightly by their need to defend two seats of their own.

The higher-profile problem is in Kentucky, where Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Republican minority leader, has poor approval ratings, and Democrats will nominate a charismatic candidate in Alison Lundergan Grimes, the secretary of state.4 Grimes has run about even with McConnell in polls since she declared her candidacy in July. But McConnell will have all the financial resources he could want — he had $10.9 million as of Dec. 31 — along with Obama’s unpopularity in Kentucky to undermine Grimes. His path to survival could resemble that of the Democratic leader, Harry Reid, who prevailed in Nevada in 2010 with similarly poor approval ratings after a brutal campaign. We give McConnell a 75 percent chance of holding the seat. I’ll concede that I’m curious to see what our algorithmic forecasts do with this race once they’re up and running.

Georgia might be the slightly better opportunity for Democrats. The Republican primary, to be held May 20, has been a mess in the polling, with any of five different GOP candidates near the top of the race depending on the survey. Their prospects range from Secretary of State Karen Handel, who might be the strongest general-election nominee, to Reps. Phil Gingrey and Paul Broun, who have amassed conservative enough voting records that they might turn off swing voters even in red Georgia. Democrats are almost certain to nominate Michelle Nunn, the daughter of former U.S. Sen. Sam Nunn, who has run even with or slightly ahead of the Republicans in scant polling so far. Ordinarily, we are skeptical of candidates who lack previous experience in elected office, but those from famous political families don’t have the same name-recognition deficit to overcome and can sometimes tap into their families’ networks to raise funds and staff their campaigns.

Republican-held seats likely or almost certain to be retained by Republicans (13): Maine, Mississippi, South Carolina (regular election), Nebraska, South Carolina (special election), Texas, Tennessee, Oklahoma (special election), Kansas, Oklahoma (regular election), Wyoming, Alabama, Idaho

Thirteen other Republican-held seats will be contested in November, but none looks like a viable opportunity for Democrats. The moonshot for Democrats might be in Mississippi, where the Republican incumbent, Thad Cochran, is vulnerable to a primary challenge and Democrats have a good prospective nominee in former Rep. Travis Childers. Still, as Harry Enten explained, it’s hard for any Democrat to get to 50 percent of the vote in Mississippi.

A wide range of outcomes

We’ve sometimes seen people take our race ratings and run Monte Carlo simulations based upon them, which assume that the outcome of each race is independent from the others. But that’s a dubious assumption, especially so far out from the election. Instead, the full-fledged version of our ratings assumes that the error in the forecasts is somewhat correlated from state to state.

In plain language: sometimes one party wins most or all of the competitive races. If we had conducted this exercise at this point in the 2006, 2008 or 2012 campaigns, that party would have been the Democrats. In 2010, it would have been the Republicans. There are still more than seven months for news events to intervene and affect the national climate.

There are 10 races that each party has at least a 25 percent chance of winning, according to our ratings. If Republicans were to win all of them, they would gain a net of 11 seats from Democrats, which would give them a 56-44 majority in the new Senate. If Democrats were to sweep, they would lose a net of just one seat and hold a 54-46 majority.

So our forecast might be thought of as a Republican gain of six seats — plus or minus five. The balance has shifted slightly toward the GOP. But it wouldn’t take much for it to revert to the Democrats, nor for this year to develop into a Republican rout along the lines of 2010.

 whembly wrote:
Meh... I think it's waaaaaaaaaaay too early to make such proclamation.

 sebster wrote:

Has there ever been a drawn Senate before, a 50-50 split? The VP would become relevant, it would blow everyone's mind.

 dogma wrote:
2001, it was quite the mess.

 sebster wrote:

 dogma wrote:
2001, it was quite the mess.

Interesting. Will look in to it. Thanks!

Sen. Rand Paul has become the first Republican to assemble a network in all 50 states as a precursor to a 2016 presidential run, the latest sign that he is looking to build a more mainstream coalition than the largely ad hoc one that backed his father’s unsuccessful campaigns.

Paul’s move, which comes nearly two years before the 2016 primaries, also signals an effort to win the confidence of skeptical members of the Republican establishment, many of whom doubt that his appeal will translate beyond the libertarian base that was attracted to Ron Paul, the former Texas congressman.

Rand Paul’s nationwide organization, which counts more than 200 people, includes new backers who have previously funded more traditional Republicans, along with longtime libertarian activists. Paul, of Kentucky, has also been courting Wall Street titans and Silicon Valley entrepreneurs who donated to the presidential campaigns of George W. Bush and Mitt Romney, attending elite conclaves in Utah and elsewhere along with other GOP hopefuls.

For the rest of this year, his national team’s chief duties will be to take the lead in their respective states in planning fundraisers and meet-ups and helping Paul’s Washington-based advisers get a sense of where support is solid and where it’s not. This is especially important in key early primary battlegrounds, such as Iowa and New Hampshire, and in areas rich in GOP donors, such as Dallas and Chicago.

“A national leadership team is an important step, and it’s a critical one for the movement going forward,” said Fritz Wenzel, Paul’s pollster. “Rand has tremendous momentum, and the formation of this team will guide him as he gets closer to a decision and [will] serve as a foundation for a campaign.”

A growing number of Republicans have started to consider presidential campaigns. Aides to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) are sketching out how possible bids could look and keeping tabs on donors and potential staffers. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Rick Santorum, a distant runner-up to Romney in the 2012 race for the GOP nomination, have been wooing conservative leaders.

At this early juncture, Paul is consistently at or near the top in polling. A CNN/ORC International survey this month found that 16 percent of Republicans and independents who lean Republican were likely to support Paul, putting him at the front of the Republican field. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the 2012 GOP vice-presidential nominee, was second, at 15 percent.

Paul’s leadership team is set up as part of Rand Paul Victory, a group that pools donations. It is a joint committee that overlaps the fundraising efforts of Rand PAC, Paul’s political-action committee, and Rand Paul 2016, his Senate campaign, and it is described by Paul aides as the basis for a presidential campaign.

“There are people in every state who have joined Team Paul, with the money people ready to go,” said Mallory Factor, a consultant and South Carolina Republican who has worked with Paul to expand the senator’s footprint.

Kevin Madden, a former adviser to Romney and House Republican leaders, said the development of a national network was a notable moment in pre-primary positioning.

“This framework of supporters is an important building block in the architecture required to build a competitive national campaign,” Madden said. “What looks like just a name is often someone who knows local reporters, has a fundraising network or has an ability or history of organizing party activists.”

Democrats are closely watching Paul as he moves to become less of a fringe figure than his father, who struggled to resonate with Republicans beyond his fervent base.

David Axelrod, director of the Institute for Politics at the University of Chicago and a former strategist for President Obama, said, “He’s certainly creating buzz, and when I saw him at Romney’s donor meeting in Utah, it showed seriousness behind what he’s trying to do, beyond all he’s done from a message standpoint.”

Axelrod dismissed the criticism of those consultants in both parties who have said Paul needs to enlist more veteran hands and tap a well-known Republican strategist with deep presidential campaign experience.

“David Axelrod wasn’t David Axelrod until he was,” Axelrod said.

At the Romney retreat last year in Park City, Utah, Paul gained some fans among the GOP elite. Though few pledged to back him should he run for president, they did warm up to him.

“Going in, people weren’t sure. Most of them didn’t know him,” recalled Ron Kaufman, a Romney confidant. “But they had these one-on-one meetings with him and came away saying he’s a sharp guy. They were still in the grieving stage, not ready to think about 2016, but their opinion of him increased rather dramatically.”

Nevertheless, many Republicans question whether Paul can build a campaign that could win a national election.

“I think he’s dangerously irresponsible,” said Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), who is mulling his own presidential bid and has been critical of the GOP’s tea party wing, including Cruz.“I can’t believe responsible Republicans will support this guy, who’s a modern version of Charles Lindbergh.”

The decision to swiftly expand and announce Paul’s national political infrastructure — which will be fully unveiled this spring — comes after reports describing Paul’s operation as unready to compete nationally.

But it was finalized this month at a meeting at a Hampton Inn in Oxon Hill, Md., during the Conservative Political Action Conference. Speaking to more than 40 members of Paul’s circle, his strategists emphasized consolidating the sprawling support Paul has amassed into a coordinated apparatus.

Paul, who also spoke, said he will not make a final decision on a run until the end of the year, but he indicated that he is leaning toward getting into the race and wants a well-staffed political operation to move on all fronts — fundraising, advertising, Internet presence and volunteer coordination — if he does.

Paul’s national team plans to huddle once every quarter, with weekly calls between the meetings. Foreign policy advisers, such as former ambassador Richard Burt and Lorne Craner, a former State Department official, are expected to be part of the chain of command.

Joe Lonsdale, a hedge-fund manager, is also onboard, as is Ken Garschina, a principal at Mason Capital Management in New York. So are Donald and Phillip Huffines, brothers and Texas real estate developers; Atlanta investor Lane Moore; and Frayda Levy, a board member at conservative advocacy groups Americans for Prosperity and the Club for Growth.

From the state parties, outgoing Iowa GOP chairman A.J. Spiker and former Nevada GOP chairman James Smack have signed on, and a handful of Republican officials are preparing to join once their terms expire, including Robert Graham, chairman of the Arizona Republican Party.

Drew Ivers, a former Iowa GOP chairman and Paul supporter, said Paul is “seriously building” a Hawkeye State network, but said much of the activity has gone unnoticed by Washington observers because it is mostly on social media. “In June 2007, Ron Paul’s name identification was zero,” Ivers said. “These days, 95 percent of Iowa Republicans know Rand Paul.”

Paul’s chief political adviser, Doug Stafford, and his fundraising director, Erika Sather, will manage the bolstered organization. Their challenge will be to construct a presidential-level operation that is able to court both the family’s long-standing grass-roots activists as and wealthy donors.

Sather, a former development director at the Club for Growth, spent much of the winter introducing Paul to donors beyond the rich libertarians who poured more than $40 million into Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential campaign. Stafford, a former adviser to several conservative groups, has mined the donor lists of the Campaign for Liberty, FreedomWorks and other advocacy organizations.

Cathy Bailey and Nate Morris, two prominent GOP fundraisers from Kentucky, were also instrumental in bringing the group together.

Morris, previously a fundraiser for George W. Bush, has served as Paul’s guide as the freshman senator has navigated steakhouse dinners and tony receptions with Wall Street and Silicon Valley leaders.

“The bones for the network are there,” Morris said. “We’ll take that and bring in new talent, people who could be like Spencer Zwick was for Mitt Romney’s on finance. Among donors, there’s a fever out there, people are looking to rebrand the party and they haven’t yet been tapped.”

Last year, Rand Paul Victory raised $4.4 million, with nearly half of its fourth-quarter donations coming from high-dollar donors, typically those who give more than $500 and often contribute the legal limit.

Paul’s pitch at these gatherings combined his antagonism toward the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs with a discussion of issues such as drug-sentencing reform and what he calls “crunchy conservatism,” a focus on the environment and civil liberties.

In June, in a pilgrimage to Facebook’s headquarters in Palo Alto, Calif., Paul spoke with the company’s founder, Mark Zuckerberg, and wrote a Patrick Henry-inspired social-media message — “Give me liberty to post” — on a hallway chalkboard.

Nurturing relationships with Bob Murray, a coal baron and former Romney bundler, former Bush bundler Jack Oliver, who is aligned with former Florida governor Jeb Bush, and Blakely Page, an associate of billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch, has been a priority.

Those big-name donors have yet to sign on with any potential Republican candidate, but Paul’s supporters believes the formation of a leadership team could entice them, or at least signal Paul’s seriousness to them.

Billionaire Peter Thiel, the cofounder of PayPal, is another looming figure in Paul’s constellation of friends, advisers, and possible bundlers. He stays in touch with Paul, occasionally meets with him, and is one of his top West Coast allies. Another is San Francisco businessman John Dennis, who once ran for Congress against Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the current House minority leader.

Jesse Benton, Ron Paul’s former campaign manager who is running Sen. Mitch McConnell’s reelection campaign in Kentucky, and Trygve Olson, a Paul ally and an adviser to American Crossroads, a Karl Rove-affiliated super PAC, are two more Paul supporters who could join his camp after the midterm elections. Rex Elsass, who has worked for Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R), has agreed to serve as Paul’s media strategist.

Mitt Romney has said time and time again that he has no interest in running for president a third time.

But, on Sunday morning, CBS' Bob Schieffer said not to write off the idea of a 2016 campaign by Romney so quickly.

"I have a source that told me that if Jeb Bush decides not to run, that Mitt Romney may actually try it again," Schieffer said.

During a political panel discussion, the "Face the Nation" host said that he has been told that Romney will consider seeking the Republican nomination for the presidency in 2016 if former Florida governor Jeb Bush chooses to sit the race out.

Romney and Bush are considered similar candidates -- both moderate former governors who enjoy the support of much of the GOP establishment but draw skepticism from the party's conservative ranks.

Several major Romney donors told The Washington Post earlier this year that Bush would be their preferred Republican candidate in 2016.
After shrinking out of the public light following his crushing loss to President Obama in 2012, Romney has slowly reemerged as a coveted political ally for Republicans seeking office this year.

Romney, 67, has begun to embrace the role of party elder, believing he can shape the national debate and help guide his fractured party to a governing majority.

Insisting he won’t seek the presidency again, Romney has endorsed at least 16 candidates this cycle, many of them establishment favorites who backed his campaigns.

 Frazzled wrote:
I do believe I'd vote for Clinton before Romney.

 Ahtman wrote:
So Presidential elections now fall under Midterm elections?

 whembly wrote:
Seriously, anyone thinks they can take on the Clinton machine again?

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Seriously, anyone thinks they can take on the Clinton machine again?

Obama seemed to do alright.

 d-usa wrote:
Can Bundy run as champion of the people?

 whembly wrote:
Damn... touche dude...

Think there's another Obama out there?

 LordofHats wrote:
The 2008 campaign reflects that pretty well. Throughout the summer, McCain was slowly building steam, inching closer and closer to Obama in the polls, even with Palin as a running mate (did anyone even like Biden?). Then the recession hit and he ended up even lower than he was before.

Not to say McCain would have won, merely that there's a clear death blow dealt to his campaign by an economic cliff he couldn't control.

 Ouze wrote:
As opposed to, say, R-Money, who had an awful lot of unforced errors.

 d-usa wrote:
Rule #1: Stay away from Palin.

 d-usa wrote:
Rule #1: Stay away from Palin.

 sebster wrote:
But he ran in 2008 which just happened to be a basically unwinnable year for Republicans, as well as the economy having tanked, it was also following on from the Bush administration, which had really tanked the Republican name.

 dogma wrote:

He also lost his base once he tried to defend Obama in a series of Townhall meetings. Classy, but dumb where victory is concerned.

While appearing on Wednesday's edition of AM 870′s "Morning Answer," Col. Allen West told Ben Shapiro that he is considering a run for the White House in 2016 out of respect for those who have asked him to run.

"As I was doing the motorcycle ride across the country and wherever we stopped, fuel stop, overnight stop, people would come up and they would ask me that question," he said. "And it would be very disrespectful and dismissive of great Americans if I did not step back and take the time to consider it and pray about it and talk about it with close confidants, so that is what I'll do."

West, however, warned that while he'll consider a run, there is no guarantee he actually will throw his hat in the ring.

"Am I considering it?" he asked. "I am considering it. That does not mean I am going to jump it and do it, but in respect to those people who are so very kind and believe that I have that level of capacity and capability, that’s what I have to do for them.”

In 2010, West became the first African-American GOP congressman from Florida since 1876. Two years later, he narrowly lost to Democrat Patrick Murphy in a contest fraught with allegations of voter fraud and what some call questionable practices by local election officials.

West is not considering a rematch this year, but he remains a favorite with the Tea Party.

Predictably, the liberal hate machine spun into action upon hearing the news. Liberals at the far-left hate site Democratic Underground, for example, called West a "joke of a human being" and a "crazy nut case."

Earlier in the week, West hammered the Obama administration with a blog post suggesting the focus on kidnapped Nigerian girls is intended to distract from the scandal surrounding Benghazi, a suspicion also held by others.

“Consider all the scandals facing the Obama administration, especially Benghazi and the Select Committee, which Rep. Nancy Pelosi referred to as a ‘political stunt,’” he wrote Monday. “Really? Four Americans die, we’re told it was because of an anti-Islam video, no one has been ‘brought to justice’ and THAT is a phony scandal and a political stunt?”

West has remained outspoken on many issues since his failed 2012 run, and many conservatives say they would love to see him run, even though it would present a difficult choice if Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, also joins the race.

A post at The Right Scoop put it this way: "I must say though Allen West would present the left with their biggest problem, primarily because he is a black conservative. And that is something I would love to see play out."

 d-usa wrote:
Hodor.

President Barack Obama’s job approval slump and voters’ entrenched wariness of his health care law are dogging Democrats ahead of the 2014 midterm elections, and Republicans have captured a lead in the areas home to the year’s most competitive races, according to a new POLITICO poll.

In the congressional districts and states where the 2014 elections will actually be decided, likely voters said they would prefer to vote for a Republican over a Democrat by 7 points, 41 percent to 34 percent. A quarter of voters said they were unsure of their preference.

Among these critical voters, Obama’s job approval is a perilous 40 percent, and nearly half say they favor outright repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Sixty percent say they believe the debate over the law is not over, compared with 39 percent who echo the president’s position and say the ACA debate has effectively concluded.

Both Obama’s job approval and the partisan ballot matchup are markedly more negative for Democrats in this poll than other national surveys — a reflection of the political reality that the midterm campaign is being fought on turf that is more challenging for Democrats than the nation as a whole.

The poll reveals that voters — even in the more conservative midterm states like Georgia and Arkansas, and tossup House districts in states such as Illinois, West Virginia and California — still lean in a liberal direction on several issues Democrats have championed this year, including immigration reform, pay equity for men and women and background checks for gun purchasers.

But none of those issues comes close to approaching health care as a major concern for midterm voters. Nearly nine in 10 respondents said that the health care law would be important to determining their vote, including 49 percent who said it would be very important.[whembly: !!!]

By comparison, only 28 percent said that immigration reform was “very important” to determining their vote, and 16 percent who said the same of male-female income disparity.

Charles Pearre, a retired civil engineer in Virginia’s Prince William County, said his top priority for the midterms was “getting the government back on track where we have a Congress that can get something done.” But Pearre, a self-identified conservative, said he prefers a divided government and deeply distrusts the president.

“My opinion of the president is he’s not doing a good job at all and he’s not qualified,” said Pearre, who has not decided which party to vote for in the midterms. “The health care law, I think, should be totally revised.”

So far, the 2014 midterms have shaped up as an asymmetrical contest between Republicans campaigning broadly against the health care law and Obama as a national political brand, and Democrats emphasizing a host of locally tailored issues and a narrower message about economic fairness and gender equality. The Republican argument appears more bluntly powerful in many of the midterm races — GOP-trending states with competitive Senate races, for instance, like Louisiana and North Carolina — but it remains to be seen whether the same set of national issues will continue to dominate the six months between now and Election Day.

Among voters who had an opinion of the ACA, the electorate was almost exactly split between those who want to repeal the law entirely and those who favor either leaving it alone or keeping it in place with modifications.

Forty-eight percent of respondents endorsed repeal, versus 35 percent who wanted to modify the law without repealing it and just 16 percent who said it should be left unchanged.

The POLITICO poll, administered by SocialSphere Inc. and conducted by the research firm GfK, tested 867 likely voters in hotly contested areas. The poll was conducted online using GfK’s KnowledgePanel methodology, which is also employed by The Associated Press, from May 2 to 13. The poll has an overall margin of error of plus or minus 4.1 percentage points.

At the same time that the health care law is plainly a political anchor for Democrats, the poll signals that fully killing the ACA may not be a slam-dunk as a political proposition and could be a more complicated issue for a GOP presidential ticket to negotiate in 2016. While majorities of white voters (54 percent) and men (51 percent) support repealing Obamacare, repeal now falls short of majority support with most subgroups.

Among independent voters, a majority favor either keeping the law with modifications (45 percent) or leaving it intact entirely (11 percent), with 42 percent supporting repeal. Among self-described moderates, 50 percent say the law should be left in place but modified.

The law receives powerful support from minority voters, including 80 percent of African-Americans who want to leave the law alone (34 percent) or modify it (46 percent), and 55 percent of Hispanics who want it left entirely intact (22 percent) or only modified (33 percent).

Broken down by region, only in the South did total repeal of the law command the support of a majority — 51 percent. In the Northeast, Midwest and West, repeal was the preference of a plurality of voters, but a majority favored either leaving the ACA as is or making changes to the law without repealing it.

The midterm electorate, however, is expected to be whiter and more conservative than the country as a whole, and many of the year’s highest-stakes Senate races are in Southern states such as Arkansas, North Carolina and Louisiana. So even if the law has gained some legitimacy with the broader public, it remains ominous for Democrats that repeal is the plurality position of likely voters.

Iowa Democrat Cheri Hansen said the economy was the most important issue to her in 2014. While she said she was happy with Obama, she allowed that there “probably need to be some changes” to the ACA. “I think we need to get a predominant party in there to accomplish anything, apparently,” she said.

“It’s not a presidential year, so it’s not as important,” Hansen said. “But you know, the economy is important.”

Vivian Ryals, a Democratic voter in Greensboro, N.orth Carolina, said she took a fatalistic view of the health care law: “It is what it is, and I’ll kind of leave it at that.”

“I am more middle-of-the-road on that issue. I’m not in favor of it, and I don’t oppose it,” said Ryals, a teacher who explained she is more concerned about voter ID requirements that Republicans have implemented on the state level.

The larger backdrop for the elections is widespread hostility toward Washington and distrust of government. Voters give harsh reviews to both parties in Congress, and a plurality say that their personal experiences with government are more negative than positive. Nearly two-thirds of voters said they prefer a government in which different parties control the White House and Congress, rather than one party controlling all the levers of power.

Voters give a thumbs-down to congressional Republicans by a 38-point margin, with 69 percent disapproving and 31 percent approving. Democrats fare only a bit better, finding themselves 29 points underwater — with 35 percent of likely voters approving and 64 percent disapproving.

Thirty-seven percent of respondents said that their interactions with the federal government over the past year had been more negative than positive, while only 18 percent said the opposite. Forty-five percent were unsure how to assess their experiences dealing with the government.

Perhaps most damningly, few who were informed about recent scandals involving two congressman — former Florida Rep. Trey Radel, who bought cocaine from an undercover police officer, and married Louisiana Rep. Vance McAllister, who kissed a member of his staff — said they were surprised.

Only 11 percent of respondents said they were “shocked” by the cocaine scandal, and even fewer — 4 percent — expressed extreme surprise at the “Kissing Congressman.”

In both cases, a solid majority of respondents said they were “not moved much at all.”[whembly: !!!]

On social issues, the poll shows the midterm electorate is somewhat more conservative than the country at large: While the broader population has swung in the direction of favoring same-sex marriage, the issue is a tossup with midterm voters. Forty-eight percent of respondents said they support same-sex marriage, and 52 percent said they oppose it.

On another issue where the country as a whole has quickly shifted in a progressive direction, decriminalizing marijuana, a 56 percent majority of voters in midterm battlegrounds still say they oppose legalizing recreational pot use.

When it comes to abortion rights, however, midterm voters are more aligned with Democrats than with Republicans: 54 percent say they support the right to an abortion either with no restrictions (19 percent) or some restrictions (35 percent).

Forty-five percent said there should be either a near-total abortion ban with some exceptions (34 percent) or a total ban on the procedure (11 percent).

 whembly wrote:
Snip.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Snip.

Why are you celebrating yourself by way of an article that interprets statistics, most of which are behind a pay-wall?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Better put that push on immigration reform so that the illegal immigran...undocumented democrats can be registered to vote

 whembly wrote:

Why not? Does it bother you?

 whembly wrote:
I can see the ACA have a small impact..... But the biggest one my simply be party fatigue.

WASHINGTON – In a clash of Senate titans, the nation's two most powerful senators disagreed sharply Tuesday over the growing role of unlimited money in American elections – and a proposed constitutional amendment to curb political spending.

"American families cannot compete with billionaires," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., declared at the opening of a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. "Our involvement in government should not be dependent on our bank account balances."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., called a proposed amendment that would give Congress and the states the power to regulate campaign spending a "dangerous proposal" that would "dramatically weaken one of our most precious freedoms."

"I understand that no politician likes to be criticized," McConnell said. "But the recourse is not to shut up your fellow citizens."

Tuesday's packed hearing offered a rare sight: The Senate's leaders sitting together at a witness table. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said the joint appearance before the panel to debate policy was the first in the four decades he has served in the Senate. (In 2001, then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., and the Senate's top Republican at the time, Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott, appeared together before Judiciary to introduce a nominee.)

Although they sat by side-by-side Tuesday, Reid and McConnell couldn't be further apart on the issue.

Reid has spent much of this year denouncing the growing role of money in politics – and the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, in particular -- as Democrats push an election-year narrative that portrays Republicans as siding with moneyed special interests.

At the hearing, he picked up the theme, saying the Kochs "must have 50 different phony organizations to pump money into the system."

"The American people reject the notion that gives the Koch brothers, corporations or special-interest groups a greater voice in government" than any other voter, Reid said.

This year, Democrats plan to hold a vote on the constitutional amendment, proposed by Sens. Tom Udall, D-N.M., and Michael Bennet, D-Colo., that would allow lawmakers to rein in spending by candidates and independent groups. Outside groups have reported spending more than $106 million to influence midterm elections, more than three times what was spent at this point in the 2010 election, according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics.

The measure stands little chance of winning the required support from 67 senators, but Democrats want to keep a spotlight on the issue and the Supreme Court's recent rulings that have opened the spigot for more cash in elections.

McConnell, one of the nation's biggest foes of campaign-finance regulations, says Democrats are playing election-year politics with Americans' free speech rights.

"This is a political exercise, and that's all it is," he said. "The goal here is to stir up one party's political base, so they'll show up in November."

Despite their sharp disagreement, Reid and McConnell did not feud directly at the hearing. Reid spoke first and left immediately after testifying. "We've criticized each other for years," Reid said of McConnell. "He won't be upset that I'm leaving."[whembly: ]

Democrats and campaign-finance watchdogs have criticized the high court's ruling in April in McCutcheon v the Federal Election Commission that tossed out limits on the total amount of money individual donors can give to all candidates, committees and political parties. Four years earlier, the court's blockbuster Citizens United decision allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts to influence elections as long as they operate independently of candidates.

Shortly before the hearing began, a coalition of liberal groups — including MoveOn.org and People for the American Way — wheeled in a stack of boxes containing petitions urging Congress to act on the amendment.

Republicans on the panel and free speech advocates urged restraint before any attempt to alter the First Amendment.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said the measure would allow Congress to ban books and films.

"If this amendment passed, Congress can say, 'You are no longer a citizen. You are a subject because we have taken away your ability to speak,' " he said.

Floyd Abrams, a First Amendment lawyer, said he rejected the notion that outside money in elections is inherently bad. "The First Amendment favors more rather than less speech."

The complaints of those who argue that spending by wealthy interests drowns out other voices in politics is "like telling a newspaper, "You should have fewer editorials,' " Abrams said.

 Piston Honda wrote:
Political ads on tv are in a greater need of a cap than baseball.

1 political ad per hour per station.

More than enough.

And please stop coming to my doorstep volunteers. More annoying than gnats at a BBQ.

Incumbent Sen. Thad Cochran received 48.9 percent of the vote Tuesday and his Tea Party challenger, state Sen. Chris McDaniel won 2,000 more votes to earn 49.6 percent. In Mississippi, if no candidate gets 50 percent of the vote, a run-off follows.

 Easy E wrote:
The results in Mississippi were interesting.

Incumbent Sen. Thad Cochran received 48.9 percent of the vote Tuesday and his Tea Party challenger, state Sen. Chris McDaniel won 2,000 more votes to earn 49.6 percent. In Mississippi, if no candidate gets 50 percent of the vote, a run-off follows.

Will there actual be the much baley-hooed Republican Civil War?

Spoiler:

Answer: No

 Easy E wrote:
Hint: See my spoiler for more details on my position about the Republican Civil War.

 whembly wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Hint: See my spoiler for more details on my position about the Republican Civil War.

Oops... didn't click.

I just hate any politicians who has the mindset that their seat is theirs... as if, it was owed to them.

MOORE, Okla. – Scott Esk is running for House District 91 state representative.

On his website, he says he is a conservative who wants to apply biblical principles to Oklahoma law.

Morris said, “This guy posted on Facebook that homosexuals should be stoned to death. My first response was you’re nuts, nobody would be stupid enough to do that.”

Morris says he found those postings from last summer on Facebook.

At the time, Esk had commented on a story about the pope saying “Who am I to judge?” on homosexuality.

Esk posted some old testament scripture that referred to homosexuality being punished.

Someone asked – “So just to be clear, you think we should execute homosexuals (presumably by stoning)?”

Esk responds – “I think we would be totally in the right to do it. That goes against some parts of libertarianism, I realize, and I’m largely libertarian, but ignoring as a nation things that are worthy of death is very remiss.”

 d-usa wrote:
Perry said that fething up the Texas environment had doubled oil production in Texas, and he urged Californians to feth up their environment for some money too.

 whembly wrote:
I’m not convinced that such therapy is even very effective, but I think people ought to have the right to pursue it if that’s what they want.

I mean... if there were therapies that could make a straight person gay, would the critics be against it???

 sebster wrote:
So does anyone think Perry has a real shot this time around? The 2012 disaster has been explained away by back surgery and pain killers, and his recent speaches seem much improved. And as far as pathways to the Whitehouse go, there aren't many more reliable ways to get there than being a strong conservative governor of Texas.

 sebster wrote:
So does anyone think Perry has a real shot this time around? The 2012 disaster has been explained away by back surgery and pain killers, and his recent speaches seem much improved. And as far as pathways to the Whitehouse go, there aren't many more reliable ways to get there than being a strong conservative governor of Texas.

 whembly wrote:
I’m not convinced that such therapy is even very effective, but I think people ought to have the right to pursue it if that’s what they want.

Such therapies aren't effective. They have some effect at making bi-sexual people a little more straight and a little less bi-sexual, but other than that they basically just shame people for a period of time in to asexuality.

I mean, could you imagine any kind of therapy that could make you want to have sex with men?

I mean... if there were therapies that could make a straight person gay, would the critics be against it???

Yes. Because the point is that trying to change someone's sexuality, particularly by shaming their natural sexual drive, is very likely to screw that person up in all kinds of ways.

 Easy E wrote:
Perry will be a side show that will entertain the media a bit and then go nowhere int he primaries; IF he even tries again.

...
Well, the playbook I believe is to look at her record. I think you have to consider what's happened around the world during the years that she was secretary of State. And you have to say it's been a monumental bust. And then her most recent comments as she was rolling out the book, she was asked whether the Bowe Bergdahl trade was one that presented a threat to the United States.

And she came back with a clueless answer. She was clueless. She said, "Look, these commandos don't represent a threat to the United States." Well, of course they do. And then she went on to say, "They only represent a threat to Afghanistan and Pakistan." Are you kidding? I mean, we're in Afghanistan.

And we're in Afghanistan in part to protect America's security. I think her clueless comments about the Bergdahl exchange as well as her record as the secretary of State are really going to be the foundation of how a Republican candidate is able to take back the White House.
...

 whembly wrote:
No... he's toast.

HRC would win in a landslide over him.

 whembly wrote:
Ya know... I change my mind on this...

Perry is wrong, very wrong.

Predisposition to alcoholism (or any addiction for that matter) is not curable, but it *is* treatable. That distinctly a flaw in chemistry, not in character. Was Perry suggesting alcoholism and homosexuality are both flaws that need fixing? Was he suggesting that homosexuality is a disease? Probably not... but, we don't really know that. As someone who aspires to take a run for Presidency... he's totally flubbing this.

 dogma wrote:
It amuses me that the nonsense argument "we don't negotiate with terrorists" is running head-first into the equally nonsense argument "we leave no man behind".

 sebster wrote:
If the economy is poo, then a garden gnome could run against HRC and win.

 Easy E wrote:

 sebster wrote:
If the economy is poo, then a garden gnome could run against HRC and win.

I used to believe this too. Then Obama v Romney happened.

 whembly wrote:
Romney is running again??!?!?

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Romney is running again??!?!?

Romney will never run again. He took his last best shot and lost.

 Easy E wrote:
After he broke the unions in Wis, I thought the next step would be the Presidency for Walker.

Is this going to be 2010 all over again for the Dems or what? It looks that way. You would think they would be going like crazy to motivate their base, but so far i see nothing. Are they crazy, lazy, out of money, or just waiting until the challengers are set?

 whembly wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
After he broke the unions in Wis, I thought the next step would be the Presidency for Walker.

Is this going to be 2010 all over again for the Dems or what? It looks that way. You would think they would be going like crazy to motivate their base, but so far i see nothing. Are they crazy, lazy, out of money, or just waiting until the challengers are set?

Probably waiting to see if HRC explodes... *shrug*

I still think she'd win handily over any Republican candidate.

All I'd want is the next President to have been Governor.

What do ya'll think of Bill Richardson? Obviously, he's left of me policy wise... but, objectively I think he'd be a good Prez.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
After he broke the unions in Wis, I thought the next step would be the Presidency for Walker.

Is this going to be 2010 all over again for the Dems or what? It looks that way. You would think they would be going like crazy to motivate their base, but so far i see nothing. Are they crazy, lazy, out of money, or just waiting until the challengers are set?

Probably waiting to see if HRC explodes... *shrug*

I still think she'd win handily over any Republican candidate.

All I'd want is the next President to have been Governor.

What do ya'll think of Bill Richardson? Obviously, he's left of me policy wise... but, objectively I think he'd be a good Prez.

Well, to be fair whembly, Regan is left of you policy wise .

 Easy E wrote:
I used to believe this too. Then Obama v Romney happened.

 Ouze wrote:
Yeah, really. I can't imagine Republicans would want Romney running, and enduring another long season of "Anyone-But-Romney" polling arcs and plummets.

 whembly wrote:
What about Bill Richardson? Scott Walker?

 whembly wrote:
What about Bill Richardson? Scott Walker?

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:
What about Bill Richardson? Scott Walker?

Why not Zoidberg?

Spoiler:

But seriously: Walker will run into serious problems due to his support for Badgercare, and Richardson couldn't even manage to secure a cabinet position under the Obama Administration*.

In terms of getting through the Primaries, my money would be on Paul Ryan; should he choose to run. But in the Generals his positions on social issues will dog him. I think Jindal has a better chance at winning the Presidency, but a significantly worse chance of being able to stand for that election.

*I also suspect that he won't run simply because he doesn't want the pay-to-play scandal to crop up again.

 whembly wrote:

Ugh... I think Paul Ryan is too palinized at this point.

 dogma wrote:
The difference is that Palin was, and is, an idiot while Ryan is not.

 sebster wrote:

 dogma wrote:
The difference is that Palin was, and is, an idiot while Ryan is not.

Palin may be an idiot, but more than that she's a scammer. There's no money in actually running, just like there was no money is finishing her term as governor, and so she went for the easy dollars.

Ryan is also a scammer, putting out junk budgets and papers to give a thin veneer to the credibility of his politics, but only doing so by straight up lying about the sources for his work. Whether he thinks his scam is good enough to survive a presidential bid... well I'm not convinced, and I wonder if Ryan is smart enough to avoid the gamble.

 sebster wrote:

Whether he thinks his scam is good enough to survive a presidential bid... well I'm not convinced, and I wonder if Ryan is smart enough to avoid the gamble.

Hillary Clinton's minions are hard at work assembling a political machine and fine tuning it for another go at the White House. Mrs. Clinton is doing her part preparing for a run as well, churning out a bland memoir about the "hard choices" she faced as secretary of state and coyly positioning herself (again) as the inevitable nominee of the party. But after the troubled beginning to her book tour, we're beginning to see the reasons why Hillary may eventually decide to pull the plug on a 2016 presidential run. Here are five:

1) She's just not that good at campaigning. If the last two gaffe-prone weeks have reminded us of anything about Hillary, it’s that she’s a mediocre politician at best. Her shortcomings are significant: she can be stiff and wooden in public; she lacks the aura of a natural politician; she’s not a great public speaker, and she can come across as politically flat-footed and tone deaf -- as she did with her “dead broke” response to a rather benign question about relating to the financial challenges of the average voter. People still seem to believe that the Clinton name is synonymous with political skill, but that assumption is only half-true: If Hillary possessed even half of Bill’s political talent and acumen, she wouldn’t have lost to Barack Obama in 2008.

2) The “fire in the belly”question. Certainly, Mrs. Clinton shares her husband’s seemingly limitless ambition. It’s been the driving force behind their existence as individuals and as a couple for more than four decades. But I’m with Mike McCurry on this one: Hillary Rodham Clinton is going to be 67 years old on October 26. Does she really want to spend her golden years working 16 hours a day shaking hands at high school gyms in Dubuque, Iowa, and rubbing elbows at diners in Manchester, New Hampshire? Especially when she can burnish her legacy with meaningful work through the Clinton Global Foundation -- while making millions a year at $200,000 a pop for 45-minute speeches -- and spend time with her soon-to-be born grandchild.

3) It ain’t gonna be a coronation. HRC must have been taken aback last week when two members of the traveling sisterhood – Diane Sawyer of ABC News and Terry Gross of NPR – actually pressed her with uncomfortable questions about Benghazi and gay marriage, respectively. Hillary didn’t respond well in either situation, and the ensuing coverage was instructive. If she can’t count on favorable press coverage during the choreographed rollout of a self-reverential memoir, what does that tell us about how she’d do in debates against a determined opponent? And does Clinton really want to face the scrutiny, not to mention the slings and arrows, that come with any campaign?

4) Obama is leaving a mess. President Obama’s second term is complicating matters significantly for Hillary. His foreign policy, which Clinton helped direct for four years – is adrift. The situation has unraveled dangerously in Syria and now Iraq. The infamous “reset” with Russia is a joke. Obama’s job approval rating is on the slide, and not only on foreign policy. He’s struggling to stay relevant in Washington or to move any sort of domestic agenda forward, which will be made even more difficult if Republicans take the Senate in November. It’s hard to see how any of these dynamics change for the better in the next two years -- and they may get worse. Hillary will not want to be seen as running for Obama’s third term, yet she won’t be able to distance herself too far from his record. That will be a tough needle to thread politically (see point #1).

5) The country wants real change. America was mesmerized by Obama’s call for change in 2008. It was one of the narratives that propelled him over Hillary in the first place. Eight years later, Obama has failed to deliver much of what he promised on uniting the country and changing business as usual in Washington. As a result an even stronger populist, anti-establishment, anti-incumbent fervor is coursing through the electorate. That does not bode well for Hillary Clinton, who embodies the elite establishment -- and the past. If the famed Clinton political acumen still exists in that family, Hillary will figure this out and take a pass on 2016.

 Easy E wrote:
How did we start talking about the President during the Mid-terms?

How is the R and D brands holding up this election season? That's the real question.

New @TexasGOP platform includes a striking shift on the Patriot Act from 2012. New language on top. pic.twitter.com/deqdSM5fid
— Aman Batheja (@amanbatheja) June 18, 2014

 Ouze wrote:
You know, that mini article Whembly posted has a lot of good points.Being President in 2014 is actually sort of a lousy job, cachet wise, and it's an uncertain upgrade if you're already Hillary Clinton.

 whembly wrote:
If not HRC... then who's the Democrat nominee?

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:
If not HRC... then who's the Democrat nominee?

Amy Klobuchar or Andrew Cuomo, maybe Deval Patrick. People have also mentioned Martin O'Malley who has openly stated he's going to run.

 whembly wrote:

Deval Patrick will probably be too polarizing as he's from Chicago. <---oops, wrong Patrick. Deval is current Gov .Massachusetts.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Deval Patrick will probably be too polarizing as he's from Chicago. <---oops, wrong Patrick. Deval is current Gov .Massachusetts.

But he was born, and partially grew up on, the South Side of Chicago.

 Easy E wrote:
Amy Klobuchar is the Senator from Minnesota. She specializes in not being a bomb thrower and staying just on the radar.

Full Disclosure: Senator Klobuchar has purchased stuff from my bakery and had it sent to Washington DC. She sent us a nice picture with our stuff, news blurb, and helped us get it put into our local paper. When her office called, we thought it was a prank.

 whembly wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
After he broke the unions in Wis, I thought the next step would be the Presidency for Walker.

Is this going to be 2010 all over again for the Dems or what? It looks that way. You would think they would be going like crazy to motivate their base, but so far i see nothing. Are they crazy, lazy, out of money, or just waiting until the challengers are set?

Probably waiting to see if HRC explodes... *shrug*

I still think she'd win handily over any Republican candidate.

All I'd want is the next President to have been Governor.

What do ya'll think of Bill Richardson? Obviously, he's left of me policy wise... but, objectively I think he'd be a good Prez.

 Easy E wrote:
How did we start talking about the President during the Mid-terms?

How is the R and D brands holding up this election season? That's the real question.

 d-usa wrote:
Don't forget about good old Biden running!

 d-usa wrote:
Don't forget about good old Biden running!

 Frazzled wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Don't forget about good old Biden running!

Say what you want but his quote about Iraq breaking up was prescient.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
How did we start talking about the President during the Mid-terms?

How is the R and D brands holding up this election season? That's the real question.

1. Good point EE.
2. brands are holding up very poorly currently. Even worse is the "incumbent" brand. Usually thats a lot of smoke and little flame but we'll see.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) acknowledged Thursday that he put his foot in his mouth when he recently compared being gay to being an alcoholic.

At a lunch sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, he sought to shift emphasis away from the disputed comparison -- which was panned by a CNBC anchor and, naturally, mocked by Jon Stewart.

“I got asked about an issue, and instead of saying, ‘You know what, we need to be a really respectful and tolerant country, and get back to talking about, whether you’re gay or straight you need to be having a job, and those are the focuses I want to be involved with,’ instead of getting — which I did, I readily admit, I stepped right in it,” Perry said, as quoted by Politico.

Perry said the Republican Party needs to focus less on social issues and more on convincing Americans that its policies will benefit them economically.

“If you really are going to be the party that’s going to talk to everyone, we say, ‘Listen you may not agree with all of my positions, but giving you and your family and your loved ones the opportunity to get a better life, if we create a climate in this country where you’re going to have a job, and a good job, and a good paying job’ — if we’ll do that, then I think we’ll be successful,” he said, as quoted by Politico.

 Easy E wrote:
Amy Klobuchar is the Senator from Minnesota. She specializes in not being a bomb thrower and staying just on the radar.

Full Disclosure: Senator Klobuchar has purchased stuff from my bakery and had it sent to Washington DC. She sent us a nice picture with our stuff, news blurb, and helped us get it put into our local paper. When her office called, we thought it was a prank.

 dogma wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Amy Klobuchar is the Senator from Minnesota. She specializes in not being a bomb thrower and staying just on the radar.

Full Disclosure: Senator Klobuchar has purchased stuff from my bakery and had it sent to Washington DC. She sent us a nice picture with our stuff, news blurb, and helped us get it put into our local paper. When her office called, we thought it was a prank.

Having met Klobuchar, she seems like a genuinely nice person; a rarity in politics. I think that could help carry her through the Primary, but would see her McCained in the General.

 whembly wrote:
If she picks a male Sarah Palin as VP???

 whembly wrote:

If she picks a male Sarah Palin as VP???

 Easy E wrote:
Do you think proxies can do the heavy lifting? I actually heard her mentioned more as a VP candidate than for the big ticket itself. Oh look, I'm back to talking about Presidential politics again. it is just so sexy I can't resist.

For the Mid-terms, will it revolve around Obamacare again or will some othe rissue suddenly take center stage?

 whembly wrote:
Obamacare? Maybe if bad news keep sprouting up... such as in a 3,137-County Analysis: Obamacare Increased 2014 Individual-Market Premiums By Average Of 49 percent.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Obamacare? Maybe if bad news keep sprouting up... such as in a 3,137-County Analysis: Obamacare Increased 2014 Individual-Market Premiums By Average Of 49 percent.

Oh come on. First up - Manhattan Institute, so we're talking about a survey done by what is basically a wing of the Republican Party.

Second up, it's the same fething scam that's been run over and over again since ACA was announced - take the minimum legal package pre-ACA, which no-one on God's Earth will pretend was adequate healthcare, and compare it to the much greater minimum package post-ACA. Shockingly enough, the post-ACA mid-range sedan does cost more than the pre-ACA Ford Pinto with the bald tyres.

 sebster wrote:

But I do agree that it's the party fatigue that's the issue. It's very hard to keep getting re-elected on 'we'll carry on as things are already going'. Anything that's worked has already been taken for granted and forgotten about, anything that's failed is being raised over and over again.

 whembly wrote:
Simply party fatigue.

 d-usa wrote:
Speaking of Democratic Contenders:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/19/brian-schweitzer-says-his-gaydar-goes-off-when-he-sees-eric-cantor/

...
“We should tell these countries in Central America that no more aid, no more assistance, no nothing until they stop this from happening,” Arizona Sen. John McCain told KFYI radio in Phoenix…

“And tell our friends in Mexico to secure their border, their Southern border as well as their Northern border, and no comprehensive immigration reform until we get our border secured. It’s unacceptable,” McCain continued. “It’s a human tragedy, and when they encourage people to come up through Mexico … they are subjecting these young people, and primarily young women to the worst kinds of abuse.”

McCain said he had heard from Customs and Border Protection that there were signs in recent months that the unaccompanied migrant crisis was approaching, but he did not know whether President Barack Obama had been briefed.

“He sure as heck should have, should have been informed and he should have known that this is coming,” McCain said. “It is one of the most, frankly, disappointing things for me personally because as you know, I’ve been for comprehensive immigration reform. You can’t do that unless you have secure borders.”
...

 whembly wrote:

Man... that's a hard flip his old Gang of Eight bill, eh? Politicians... what'd you expect?

 d-usa wrote:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/08/palin-calls-for-obamas-impeachment-over-border-crisis/

"Impeach Obama", has it been a couple months ago already?

The Democracy Alliance is not a famous organization, but it deserves to be. The Alliance consists of approximately 100 rich liberals who have taken upon themselves the task of coordinating America’s many left-wing organizations to promote a single radical agenda. The Alliance does not publicize the names of its members, but it held a conference for its “partners” and membership prospects in April, at the Ritz Carlton Hotel (naturally) in Chicago. Someone who attended the conference unfortunately (heh) left his or her copy of the documents passed out by the Democracy Alliance behind, and they eventually fell into the wrong hands. Ours.

In the document below, you can see the agenda for the April DA conference and get information about DA’s partners, among other things.

Democracy Alliance Docs_063014


here is always a certain dissociation when leftists gather at a Ritz Carlton hotel to discuss their commitment to the poor. It is impossible not to laugh at this invitation to a dinner with Katrina vanden Heuvel, the heiress who bought and now runs the Nation magazine, a Communist publication, and New York’s newly-elected mayor Bill de Blasio. They will discuss “New York’s path to social and economic equality.” Sure: in the world to come, the hedge fund manager will share his income equally with the doorman, and Miss vanden Heuvel will divide her inheritance with New York’s poor. [whembly: heh!]

In the meantime, though, let’s make sure the Democratic Party’s donors all make another billion or two. (Tom Steyer figured prominently at the DA conference.) And don’t miss this delicious detail: all of the wine that the Ritz Carlton served at the vanden Heuvel-de Blasio after-dinner event came from vineyards owned by Democracy Alliance partners! Some things, we conservatives just can’t match.


When you look at the agenda, it is striking how seamlessly the Democracy Alliance, with its far-left tint, meshes with the Obama administration. Thus, the DA partners were treated to appearances by David Axelrod and Debbie Wasserman Schultz:


But that’s not all: the ultimate Obama insider, Valerie Jarrett, also graced DA’s Chicago conference:


Note that Ms. Jarrett appeared along with Lizz Winstead, a comedian of sorts who founded the Daily Show, which, we are told, is the main source from which young people learn about current events. Entirely non-partisan, of course.[whembly: ]
The Democracy Alliance does not itself raise and spend a great deal of money. Rather, being a partner in the Alliance requires one to contribute large amounts to other left-wing groups. The Alliance evaluates left-wing organizations on various criteria, and makes recommendations to its members as to where they should put their money. Currently, the Alliance lists 21 groups in its “Aligned Network”: America Votes, American Constitution Society, Black Civic Engagement Fund, Brennan Center, Catalist, Center for American Progress, Center for Community Change, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Common Purpose Project, Fund for the Republic, Latino Engagement Fund, Media Matters for America, New Media Ventures, New Organizing Institute, Organizing For Action, Progressive Majority, Progress Now, State Engagement Initiative, State Voices, Women’s Equality Center and Youth Engagement Fund. You can see the list, with descriptions of each group, in the document below:

img-521072109-0001

The most interesting of the DA documents that have come to light is the one below. It contains DA’s “investment recommendations” for 2014. Not only does it list the recommended organizations, but it rates each organization in several categories, sets out the group’s budget for 2014, and shows how much of that budget should be contributed by the 100 members of the Democracy Alliance. One category in which DA rates the organizations is “Collaboration,” as DA believes that all left-wing groups should coordinate their activities for maximum political impact.

Politicians like Harry Reid have denounced Charles and David Koch and others who contribute to conservative causes as “shadowy,” “secretive” people who infest politics with “dark money.” In that context, it is worth noting that most of the groups to which the Alliance and its elite liberal members contribute are 501(c)(4)s that do not disclose their donors. In fact, this question is addressed in a “FAQ” in one of the DA documents:


Harry Reid has no problem with that, since they are Democrats. [whembly: Zing!]

There is much information in this document, which I haven’t yet had time to digest fully. For example: have you ever wondered what Media Matters’ budget is? I can tell you: in 2013, it raised $13,820,000, of which $2,700,000 came from Democracy Alliance partners. Most of the rest, if I am not mistaken, was contributed by George Soros. DA notes that last year, Media Matters “partially met” its goal “to diversify funding and make organization more sustainable.” I assume that means that if one or two rich leftists die, David Brock is out of business.

These documents place an enormous amount of information about America’s Left at your fingertips. We have no proprietary interest in them; on the contrary, you can read them and comment on them here or elsewhere, and anyone can embed them on his or her own web site. They deserve, I think, broad circulation, as a window on the contemporary American Left.

 dogma wrote:
I'm sorry, I stopped reading when the article claimed The Nation is a communist publication.