Anzalone's List polled AL-Gov for Artur Davis

Showing a big primary lead over Ron Sparks and leading the two unknown Republicans who have already announced.

I can't find the link in my history.  IIRC I saw it yesterday and I didn't post anything because the daily scoop wasn't up yet.  

---

by: JeremiahTheMessiah @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 13:18:20 PM CDT

Thank goodness for Google:

http://blog.al.com/live/2009/0...  
Here we go.  

---

by: JeremiahTheMessiah @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 13:19:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We actually posted that one on Tuesday.

Link.

---

by: James L. @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 13:21:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Skimming is killing me.

Thus is the life of working during the summer.  

---

by: JeremiahTheMessiah @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 23:01:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hey, at least you have a job.

I'd do ANYTHING to get a job right now!

Check out the 2010 California races and help us take back Red California!

---

by: californianintexas @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 23:09:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

MI-13

I like Mary Waters, as she almost beat Mama Cheeks last time out. However, she's currently under investigation for "unethical behavior," so she's out probably for 2010. The buzz I'm hearing--and you have the wrong Cockrel here--is that Ken Cockrel's white step-mother Sheila Cockrel (who announced her retirement from City Council after 16 years) may run against Mama Cheeks in the primary. I just hope Martha Scott doesn't act as an inner-city spoiler (Waters carried the suburban Grosse Pointes by a pretty hefty margin in the 2008 primary, but Scott picked off the inner-city anti-Kilpatrick vote, thus allowing Mama Cheeks to squeeze through a narrow win).

Note: I call her Mama Cheeks because in Kwame Kilpatrick's desperate Detroit mayoral re-election campaign from 2005, she told a black audience to vote for "Y'all's boy."

Further note: There are few areas north of the Mason-Dixon as mired in racial tension as southeastern Michigan.

---

by: Zeitgeist9000 @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 13:21:30 PM CDT

Other than the stuff with her son ...

... what has she done wrong?

---

by: IndianaProgressive @ Fri May 22, 2009 at 11:01:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I do want to ask

How does her work as a Representative, be it good or bad, as well as her fit for the district and constituent services, weigh into whether we should keep her, along with such factors as potential Republican spinning using her connection to her son as dirt on the party (since they're not winning her seat, period, barring a Dollar-Bill-like circumstance)?

Bill Posey is not half-alligator...and is outclassed by Davy Crockett anyway

---

by: Glenn Magus Harvey @ Sat May 23, 2009 at 19:16:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ambassador Bridge

She's consistently held up the construction of another bridge to Canada in Detroit, something that would be very important for the revitalization of the city.  The owner of the Ambassador Bridge is one of her biggest contributors.

Mad At Thad:  A Blog Devoted To Ousting Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, Republican - Michigan

---

by: Sean Fitzpatrick @ Sat May 23, 2009 at 22:39:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Getting rid of Kilpatrick

and replacing her with a better candidate will be very important for 2012 redistricting, as we can seriously unpack MI-13 and MI-14 if we have strong incumbents there.  My idea is to add Livingston Co, Western Oakland Co, and Northern Macomb/St. Clair Co to these districts using a thin line from Detroit to these areas and some touch-point continuity.

---

by: IHateBush @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 13:30:45 PM CDT

No Majority-Black District?

So, you'd be interested in taking away Michigan's majority-black districts?

---

by: Zeitgeist9000 @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 13:54:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

that would be illegal to

and a disgusting tactic, even Republicans didn't go that far out their in Texas, Ohio, Florida, and PA. What he doesn't understand is that the public tends to lash out at ideas like that.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

---

by: ArkDem the Ragin Cajin @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 14:18:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The public doesn't give a shit

it is all inside politics to them.  The public is more concerned with the economy,health care, and energy.

I want to outdo the Repubs tenfold in using enhanced redistricting techniques.  

---

by: IHateBush @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 15:56:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

they do care,

there was a big public backlash in Texas and in hte media and what they did was nowhere near as disgusting as what you are. You are completely ignoring community representation, and creating discontinous and difficult to effectively represent districts that contain many different areas with often nothing in common for political purposes. The public does give a shit, they are not as single minded and as idiotic as you are making them out to be.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

---

by: ArkDem the Ragin Cajin @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 16:00:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

They don't give a shit

All the Repub gerrymanders were stellar successes.  There was zero public backlash at the voting booth for any of the gerrymanders.

It looks like all you have left are personal attacks and ad hominems, rather than arguments.

---

by: IHateBush @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 16:02:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You must remember

he's out for vengeance, not prudence. I agree that we should be more aggressive in redistricting if we control the levers of government. I completely disagree with the notion that we should maximize everything possible politically for the short-term, as not only is that a disgusting practice as a whole, but it's unwise in the middle and long-term. Sure, we may get an additional repub or 2 out, but we may lose 4 democrats in over the next 2 cycles. Remember, although the nation is currently in a pro-democratic mood right now, things WILL turn around, and we should always prepare for a rainy day.

---

by: KainIIIC @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 16:14:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I disagree that things WILL turn around

I think there is a decent chance that the Repub Party will implode and die sometime next decade.  Eventually another opposition party will coalesce, but there is no guarantee that will happen soon.  And when it happens, they will be more moderate options anyway.

But these wingnuts and Repubs must go, and I'm in favor of eliminating as many of them as we can as soon as possible, even if that means that we'll lose some of those later.

And it is much easier to retain a seat than it is to win one in the first place.  If we win the seats, we have a very good chance to retain them.  

Short-term maximization of seats in a gerrymander is not only the morally right thing to do, it is also the smartest thing to do long-term.

---

by: IHateBush @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 16:21:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh, goodness.

Well, let me remind you that there is a decent chance that they won't.  And if you use tactics that, rightfully or wrongfully, the public considers to be really dirty and dishonorable, then they will stand to gain from the public's distaste.

And remember that there will ALWAYS be an opposition party.  It might not be called or consist of the same people as the Republicans, but the opposition party WILL exploit anything for political gain.

Bill Posey is not half-alligator...and is outclassed by Davy Crockett anyway

---

by: Glenn Magus Harvey @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 16:38:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Democrats should go for the kill here

and do whatever they can to see that the Repub party does die.  This is a party that today is an unprecedented evil historically, worst than the Federalists, the Southern Democrats during the Civil war or the New Deal era Repubs.  They are even worse than George Wallace's third party.

---

by: IHateBush @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 16:46:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Really?

The Southern Democrats of the Civil War openly abetted and promoted the enslavement of millions and seceded from the union.  The Republicans are not nearly as bad as the Southern Democrats of the 1860s.  

---

by: Caspar @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 20:01:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I also reject completely the idea

that enhanced redistricting techniques is somehow "dirty and dishonorable".  

I really don't think the public gives a damn about aggressive redistricting.  I just don't.  It is something that political insiders are only concerned about.

---

by: IHateBush @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 16:49:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's not about whether you or I think it's dirty and dishonorable

it's about whether people will think that way, and whether people will think that way when the party out of power decides to spin it as such and put the effort into convincing people of it.

Bill Posey is not half-alligator...and is outclassed by Davy Crockett anyway

---

by: Glenn Magus Harvey @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 21:11:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

" I disagree that things WILL turn around "

Really? Are you really discounting the consensus opinion of just about any political scientist out there? Sure, we love that the GOP is eating itself apart, and it's also true that there's a small possibility of the GOP falling apart. But let's say the GOP survives, loses the '10 and '12 elections pretty significantly (as I myself predict will happen). On one hand, the GOP will be forced by necessity to adapt, moderate and become a reasonable alternative to the Democrats (who I would also predict to be the natural governing party of the nation for the next 40 or so years, similar to 1932-1968). As a result, the '14, '16, '18 and '20 cycles could be very dangerous for overextended representatives, depending on circumstances on the ground of each of those elections. Add that to the fact that with such a large majority, Democrats may be mired by complacency, corruption, even a self-eating philosophy that destroyed the GOP of today in the first place, not to mention the possibility of enacting unpopular legislation as the GOP did in the '05-'06 Congress.

Even if the GOP disintegrates, and let's say a new party, like the Reform party, pops up and replaces the GOP. That would be good for a few election cycles, splitting the center, center-right and right-wing vote. So then the GOP becomes irrelevant, and the two parties are a center-left and a centrist/center-right Reform party. If we overextended ourselves in every scenario, who's to say that this party wouldn't eat up all of the gains we made in redistricting, and eat up incumbents and open seats that we made more vulnerable through gerrymandering?

Politics, nor governing, does not operate at the extremes. The GOP currently doesn't know this, but they'll learn the hard way. I hope we do not go down the same path as the GOP.

---

by: KainIIIC @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 16:54:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

1932 model

Democrats continued to gain in both 1934 and 1936 after enormous gains in 1930 and 1932 of 50 (1930) and 97 (1932) House seats.  The 1938 Republican gains were huge but were mainly due to the recession of 1937 (caused by an attempt at balanced budgets).

Most important, Democrats controlled the House for all but four year all the way up to the 1994 election.

We haven't had the gains of 1930 and 1932 so I don't see the losses of 1938 as logically following.  I would personally advocate at least moderately aggressive redistricting.  That would mean maybe one or two seats in Michigan, one seat in PA (the 6th), eliminating a Republican seat in NJ (to cover loss of a seat), one seat in MN, possibly one seat in WI, possibly as many as 5 seats in CA.  

The Republican gerrymanders were partially successful and played a huge role in holding on to the House for 14 years.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 18:08:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree 100%

with your logic about redistricting. Win a few seats here and there in states like MI, IL, PA, WI, MN, NY, CA and if possible, in other states like VA, OH, NJ, etc. Also, focusing on making our new incumbents safer, and our older reps who represent swing districts safer in the event of an open seat.

And, that is true that our 4 cycles produced a lot of gains, you also have to figure that in '06 we started out with 202, in '30 we started out with 164, so there was of course a lot of room to grow there, and marginal seats for the taking.

Additionally, our House coalition from the years 1979-1994 were, with the exception of perhaps a few terms in 87-94, completely buttressed by dixiecrats who really didn't vote with us much to begin with. Our Walt Minnnicks and Gene Taylors are stronger, more progressive Democrats than the Billy Tauzins and Phil Grahams. I'd also remark that Republicans controlled the Senate from 81-86 as well.

---

by: KainIIIC @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 18:46:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is exactly why I'd go for the jugular

and try to destroy the Repub party rather than see it moderate.

not to mention the possibility of enacting unpopular legislation as the GOP did in the '05-'06 Congress.

I want to see the Democrats enact liberal legislation, much of which may be unpopular.  A Republican Party which has moderated could take advantage of a backlash to such legislation.  A party that is in the process of dying and is split between two factions cannot take advantage of such a backlash, and there would be little to prevent liberal legislation to pass for years.  It will take time for a credible opposition party (say Reform) to be formed.

So if there is anything that we can do to help destroy the Repub Party (similar to the Federalists and Whigs), we should do so.  A destroyed Repub party means a much larger shift to the left than one defeated for several elections but still in one piece.

---

by: IHateBush @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 18:29:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Suppose this is true

On one hand, the GOP will be forced by necessity to adapt, moderate and become a reasonable alternative to the Democrats (who I would also predict to be the natural governing party of the nation for the next 40 or so years, similar to 1932-1968). As a result, the '14, '16, '18 and '20 cycles could be very dangerous for overextended representatives, depending on circumstances on the ground of each of those elections. Add that to the fact that with such a large majority, Democrats may be mired by complacency, corruption, even a self-eating philosophy that destroyed the GOP of today in the first place

With an aggressive gerrymandered map, we will get moderate Repubs to replace the more vulnerable Democrats.  Those moderate Repubs will be more reluctant to overturn the Democratic agenda already put in place.  So even in that case, the worst we get is a Democrat for 2,4, or 6 years, and then a moderate Repub.  Without aggressive gerrymandering, we get a wingnut Repub.  
Right now, we have all wingnut Repubs, who advocate extreme right-wing policies. I think gerrymandering as many of these types out of existence would be the best strategy.  There is no reason why degenerate creatures like Michele Bachmann, John Kline (MN), Peter Roskam(IL), Mike Rogers (MI) or Paul Ryan (WI) should be in Congress.  Or many of those worthless Repubs in California.

Further, it is much easier to hold a seat than to win one originally.  That means that the Repub who would have to beat an incumbent Democrat will really have to be a good candidate who distances from the Limbaughs and Cheneys, both in oratory and record.  Aggressive redistricting would eventually result in better and less divisive Repubs than the utter filth that we have today.    

---

by: IHateBush @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 18:44:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

There is also nothing "disgusting"

about using enhanced redistricting techniques.

---

by: IHateBush @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 16:28:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You don't think black voters would care

if we gerrymandered away a minority-majority district?

Check out Blue Arkansas:
http://bluearkansas.blogspot.com/

---

by: ARDem @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 16:20:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A black will still win the district

so I'm not sure they'll care that much.  This isn't 1980 or 1990, a black can and will win a district that is 40-50% black in the North.  Gwen Moore won WI-4, a district in Milwaukee that was just 33% black, and she's not an especially impressive candidate.

---

by: IHateBush @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 16:24:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Balancing substantive and descriptive representation

has been one of the challenges of redistricting in the last 20 years. I commend to you Justice O'Connor's opinion in Georgia v. Ashcroft:

The ability of minority voters to elect a candidate of their choice is important but often complex in practice to determine. In order to maximize the electoral success of a minority group, a State may choose to create a certain number of "safe" districts, in which it is highly likely that minority voters will be able to elect the candidate of their choice. See Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S., at 48-49; id., at 87-89 (O'Connor, J., concurring in judgment). Alternatively, a State may choose to create a greater number of districts in which it is likely-although perhaps not quite as likely as under the benchmark plan-that minority voters will be able to elect candidates of their choice. See id., at 88-89 (O'Connor, J., concurring in judgment); cf. Pildes, Is Voting-Rights Law Now at War With Itself? Social Science and Voting Rights in the 2000s, 80 N. C. L. Rev. 1517 (2002).

   Section 5 does not dictate that a State must pick one of these methods of redistricting over another. Either option "will present the minority group with its own array of electoral risks and benefits," and presents "hard choices about what would truly 'maximize' minority electoral success." Thornburg v. Gingles, supra, at 89 (O'Connor, J., concurring in judgment). On one hand, a smaller number of safe majority-minority districts may virtually guarantee the election of a minority group's preferred candidate in those districts. Yet even if this concentration of minority voters in a few districts does not constitute the unlawful packing of minority voters, see Voinovich v. Quilter, 507 U.S. 146, 153-154 (1993), such a plan risks isolating minority voters from the rest of the state, and risks narrowing political influence to only a fraction of political districts. Cf. Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S., at 648-650. And while such districts may result in more "descriptive representation" because the representatives of choice are more likely to mirror the race of the majority of voters in that district, the representation may be limited to fewer areas. See H. Pitkin, The Concept of Representation 60-91 (1967).

   On the other hand, spreading out minority voters over a greater number of districts creates more districts in which minority voters may have the opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice. Such a strategy has the potential to increase "substantive representation" in more districts, by creating coalitions of voters who together will help to achieve the electoral aspirations of the minority group. See id., at 114. It also, however, creates the risk that the minority group's preferred candidate may lose. Yet as we stated in Johnson v. De Grandy, supra, at 1020:

"[T]here are communities in which minority citizens are able to form coalitions with voters from other racial and ethnic groups, having no need to be a majority within a single district in order to elect candidates of their choice. Those candidates may not represent perfection to every minority voter, but minority voters are not immune from the obligation to pull, haul, and trade to find common political ground, the virtue of which is not to be slighted in applying a statute meant to hasten the waning of racism in American politics."

Section 5 gives States the flexibility to choose one theory of effective representation over the other.

---

by: andgarden @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 16:27:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The 13th and 14th are over 60% black

They could dilute quite a bit and still be very, very safe districts for African-American Democrats.

---

by: skaje @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 14:18:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

but to a great degree would be

diluting and taking away the voting rights of minority voters, something the Supreme Court has struck down before.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

---

by: ArkDem the Ragin Cajin @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 14:53:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Detroit area

as racist as it may be is not Alabama.  Whites will vote for black candidates in the region, as they did for Obama.  Obama got more than 10% among whites in the Detroit suburbs, he did much better than that.

As long as blacks can still have their choice of candidate, it is a legal district.

---

by: IHateBush @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 15:54:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No I would just reduce

MI-13 and MI-14 to about 50% black.

---

by: IHateBush @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 15:50:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But I think it is a serious consideration

whether a majority black district is necessary anymore in many Northern states.  

It is definitely needed in the racist Deep South where Obama got in the low teens among white voters, but I'm suspicious that it is still needed in many Northern states.  

---

by: IHateBush @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 15:59:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Now wait a minute, racism exists everywhere, not just in the South.

Obama's election doesn't mean racism is dead, it's still very prevalent today in all sections of the nation.  Assuming the South is more racist than the North neglects history and present circumstances for the millions of Americans that deal with racism every day in all shapes and forms.

Check out Blue Arkansas:
http://bluearkansas.blogspot.com/

---

by: ARDem @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 16:22:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The question is not racism

The question is political racism, that is will white voters vote for a black candidate.  Obama's election makes it much more difficult to argue that whites will not vote for a black candidate in the North.

The argument is reversed in the South, however, as it can be clearly argued now that Southern whites are very reluctant in voting for a black (especially when Obama did worse than Kerry in many Southern states among white voters.)

---

by: IHateBush @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 16:26:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Start making that argument

When more black guys get elected from districts that are <30% black. There haven't been many, and plenty of them were Republicans, hence neutralising racial backlashes.

People may not be openly racist, but they're a product of their circumstances and it's not that long since the dark ages. When people say that black politicians are too far left to get elected, too controversial and too corrupt to get elected, they may be genuine (especially since in their monolithically Democratic seats they rarely get the challenges they need) but they may be expressing suppressed racial bias.

I say this as a man who grew up in a village with one family from an ethnic minority - the ones who ran the Chinese takeaway. When I moved into my current area (which is probably about 40% black and only about 25% white British) I caught myself mistrusting strangers and constantly trying to keep sight of an escape route. And I'm a bleeding heart leftie who didn't believe he had any racist beliefs.

I got over that stupidity after a couple of weeks (and now walk without fear throughout this fairly high-crime area in the dark, which isn't much more sensible) but I'm no longer confident that we can believe our own assessments of our racial attitudes. Especially if they aren't challenged like mine were. Without having to come up with a single racist reason, a Democratic-leaning guy in a 95% white district might very well vote Republican when faced with a black Democratic candidate, based solely on attitudes of which he himself is barely aware.

I might be wrong. But until I start to be empirically proved wrong by black congressmen appearing in majority-white districts, I'd say the VRA is necessary everywhere.

---

by: Englishlefty @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 16:18:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Here is my opinion on DiFi for Governor

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

In a more serious note, I really hope she doesn't run. She'll dominate the primary and probably win the general but I don't think she would be a good governor.

---

by: mkpowers @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 13:43:09 PM CDT

I agree

She'd be indecisive, and she just doesn't have the energy for it.

I'd rather see Debra Bowen in there if we want a woman in the job.

---

by: Zeitgeist9000 @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 13:53:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

California Governor race

Has Jerry Brown announced his intentions?  

---

by: Tarheeman1993 @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 14:00:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

He's All But Announced (n/t)

---

by: Zeitgeist9000 @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 14:03:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But it would get her out of the Senate.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

---

by: TheUnknown285 @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 13:59:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Replacement Pick

From the Chicago Tribune:

Five other states also direct that the temporary replacement picked by the governor should say in office until the next major election, but they add wrinkles:

California -- "An election to fill a vacancy in the term of a United States Senator shall be held at the general election next succeeding the occurrence of the vacancy or at any special election."   Italics mine. This gives the governor the option of calling for a special election.

With the recent replacements/appointments we had for the Senate, why do I not see this being any better.  Sen. Jane Harman anyone?

---

by: TXObserver @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 14:29:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"Senator Jane Harman" is a scary thought, even if I ignore all the issues

her scandal would cause us to have to defend a California U.S. Senate seat, for goodness's sake.

Bill Posey is not half-alligator...and is outclassed by Davy Crockett anyway

---

by: Glenn Magus Harvey @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 14:50:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

could be worse

It could be Sen. Dana Rohrabacher!!!

---

by: mkpowers @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 15:32:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, from a strategic perspective, Harman would be worse

Rohrabacher is someone we could push against, and he's got a record of being unfitting to the state based on the issues.  Harman would be an annoying problem on our side.

Bill Posey is not half-alligator...and is outclassed by Davy Crockett anyway

---

by: Glenn Magus Harvey @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 16:42:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sen. Jane Harman- that sounds exactly like something

a Governor DiFi would do.
OTOH, she just might appoint a Sen. Debra Bowen, which would be truely awesome.

---

by: homerun @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 18:01:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

DiFi is likely my least favorite Dem politician, and

at this point I HOPE she runs.  If she does, it won't matter who the Republicans run, so we save millions and millions of dollars that could go after Calvert and Lundgren and Bilbray, etc.

Additionally we would get a better Senator (even if DiFi were to make the appointment).

The Dem Gov candidates are very poor.  the best of the bunch, Brown, will require many, many millions to defeat any of the pretty decent crop of Republicans.

God help the utterly pathetic state of california Dem politics, but DiFi is really, seriously, a savior here.  (Barf.)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

---

by: tommypaine @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 18:22:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

haha, look at that map

such a beautiful blue, especially MS and AL. AR is so completely blue its amazing, that's the 74-26 majority for you.

I don't really mind Carolyn Kilpatrick, she's a good Democrat and a strong voice for Detroit, serving as an effective congresswoman. She really shouldn't be judged for her sons actions or for not abandoning her son and throwing him out to the wolves to protect her on ass politically.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

---

by: ArkDem the Ragin Cajin @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 14:20:29 PM CDT

If we could just get some of those Democrats to shape up...

things would be better in the old confederacy.

Check out Blue Arkansas:
http://bluearkansas.blogspot.com/

---

by: ARDem @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 14:38:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Agreed

As I asked upthread, what has she done wrong other than the stuff with her son?  She's actually been a more effective nuts-and-bolts advocate for Detroit than John Conyers has been over the last decade.

---

by: IndianaProgressive @ Fri May 22, 2009 at 11:36:26 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Just a thought...

What are the chances that FL Republicans get the 2/3 majority in their state legislatures that would enable them to override an Alex Sink veto of a gerrymandered Congressional map?

---

by: benjso99 @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 15:52:41 PM CDT

Haik Terrell Won't Run Against Vitter

Politico ran a story about Suzanne Haik Terrell possibly challenging David Vitter.  Then it updated it, stating she won't go through with a primary challenge.  The story mentioned party unity as a reason for her decision and she said good things about Vitter.  I think Louisiana Secretary of State Jay Dardenne is now the only potential primary candidate that could come close to Vitter in a GOP Senate primary.  Vitter looks to be much more safe than he was months ago.  I wonder what Democrat will go against him in the general election.  Last I heard, a state senator and a rich businessman were the most interested in going against Vitter.  

---

by: mdouglas @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 18:24:42 PM CDT

GA-09: State Rep. Tom Graves (R-Ranger) is in.

http://northgeorgia.timesfreep...

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

---

by: TheUnknown285 @ Fri May 22, 2009 at 10:39:13 AM CDT

Um, isn't that the most Republican

district in Georgia?

---

by: andgarden @ Fri May 22, 2009 at 11:15:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

It is

I was just keeping everyone updated.  We do, however, have an interest in finding a comparatively less-insane Republican there (not saying necessarily that it's Graves), but it definitely ain't Evans or Jones.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

---

by: TheUnknown285 @ Fri May 22, 2009 at 11:33:14 AM CDT

[ Parent ]