Red Racing Horses
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


About

Red Racing Horses analyzes and discusses elections from a Republican-leaning perspective. Thank you for visiting, and we hope you'll enjoy the blog. Please read our site Terms of Use.

~The RRH Moderators: BostonPatriot, Daniel Surman, GoBigRedState, Greyhound, James_Nola, Right Reformer, Ryan_in_SEPA, and Shamlet.

Problems logging into your account? Inside information? Complaints? Compliments? E-Mail us at: redracinghorses@yahoo.com. We check it often!

The Current RRH Race Ratings:

Final 2014 Race Ratings

2014 Turkey Awards


Political Roundup for January 22, 2013

by: Ryan_in_SEPA

Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 07:22:55 AM EST


President
2016: In case you missed it, Stu Rothenberg has declared the beginning of the 2016 presidential race.  2016 has the potential to be just as exciting for political junkies as 2008 with both parties potentially having open nominations unless Joe Biden decides to run for President.  If Hillary runs, this might be a moot point, but I doubt she does.

Sec Def: Secretary of Defense nominee Chuck Hagel has met with Jewish groups to assuage their fears regarding his nomination.  Hagel has a rough history on issues involving Israel and is not viewed as the nation's best friend on the Hill when he was a Senator.  It appears that Hagel has not completely won them over, but has made progress.

Congress
CO-Senate: Minus an opponent, Mark Udall is rallying support for his reelection bid in 2014.  Udall has already sent out emails to supporters seeking cash to finance what probably will be an expensive race in Colorado.

AR-Senate: Mark Pryor is not as lucky as Mark Udall as it appears Mark Darr (enough Marks in this sentence) is prepping to rough against Pryor in the 2014 US Senate race.  Considering the recent track record of the Democrats in Arkansas, Darr has a strong chance of upsetting the incumbent and a clear shot to the Republican nomination as he is from northwestern Arkansas, the base of the Republican Party in the state.

NJ-Senate: The road to Capitol Hill from Newark is proving to be more difficult for Newark Mayor Corey Booker than anticipated.  Booker has formed an exploratory committee regarding a run and seems to be giving incumbent Senator Frank Lautenberg the dignity of getting out before officially declaring a candidacy, but it appears Lautenberg and his allies plan on making this rough for Booker.  Booker seems to have underestimated the establishment mentality of New Jersey Democrats.

Interest Groups
Pro-Life Groups: Politico has an interesting piece on how pro-life groups are learning to more effectively advocate their cause by studying the success of the NRA.  National Right to Life in particular is focusing on how to target its message and be more effective of an organization.  I think groups like National Right to Life need to realize this model has its limits as the NRA was in a far more favorable position constitutionally.

Ryan_in_SEPA :: Political Roundup for January 22, 2013
Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

AR-sen
We really need some polling here.

I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat.

Agree
I don't think Pryor is Lincoln Part II, but I suspect a Republican will have a leg-up here.

28, Republican, PA-6

[ Parent ]
all we can do is speculate
I seriously doubt that Pryor is trailing, based on tenure name recognition and family history. But this will likely be a dogfight.

I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat.

[ Parent ]
Agree
I doubt Pryor trails at this point, but I am going to guess he loses as the Republicans Arkansas seem to be winning races without trying these days.

28, Republican, PA-6

[ Parent ]
Soften Pryor Up
Pryor has a lot COH and I am not sure how popular is Pryor name in Arkansas still?  I mean he did go unchallenged 6 years ago?

Really need to tie him to Obama.  He has voted for all big gov't Obama votes in Senate.


[ Parent ]
Agreed
And yeah, Pryor is up right now. Darr has 5% name recognition in the state.

[ Parent ]
Are we going to have
An election results open thread starting at 3 pm for the Israeli election?

26, Male, R, NY-10

Scott Walker for President!


We (you and me) can use the diary, can't we?


[ Parent ]
you and I...I think...


[ Parent ]
"you and I"
That is the correct wording.

I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat.

[ Parent ]
You know
The joke of the grammar teacher at the gates of hell and paradise?

26, Male, R, NY-10

Scott Walker for President!


[ Parent ]
That is one I have not heard
And I like jokes.

I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat.

[ Parent ]
A line of people are at the gate of heaven
Angel asks "who's there?" person answers "me", angel answers "paradise", same with the second and third people.
4th comes to the front, angel asks "who's there?", person answers "I". Angel answers "Grammar teacher, straight to hell".

26, Male, R, NY-10

Scott Walker for President!


[ Parent ]
Yes
There will be a results open thread.

28, Republican, PA-6

[ Parent ]
VA St. Senate
Any more breakdowns on the new disctricts? Very curious to see how much SD-36 (Toddy Puller) has moved to the right...

Marco Rubio 2016, please

64% Obama in 2008
According to Trende on Twitter.

26, Male, R, NY-10

Scott Walker for President!


[ Parent ]
Wow
Based on the new map I would have thought it dropped significantly, they made the new 36th the whole Ft. Hunt to Ft. Belvoir area of fairfax county and some of Springfield then down into the Prince William county area toward Quantico. The data I saw has it now as 60% white and about 20% Black and ~17% hispanic (of VAP). Those whites will be a lot less liberal than those living in Alexandria City though...

Marco Rubio 2016, please

[ Parent ]
districts by obama %
DISTRICT Dem. Pres. '08
40 33%
38 38%
14 38%
26 39%
23 39%
19 39%
11 41%
4 42%
27 42%
10 42%
3 43%
15 43%
12 43%
17 44%
1 44%
20 45%
28 45%
8 46%
22 46%
7 47%
24 48%
21 48%
6 49%
13 51%
29 52%
39 52%
33 54%
34 56%
32 60%
35 62%
36 62%
25 63%
37 65%
31 69%
30 70%
18 71%
2 74%
16 74%
5 75%
9 79%


28, R, PA-07.

[ Parent ]
So 23-17 McCain in a state Obama won by 6
Thats a pretty gruesome map. I think the new WI Senate was only 18-17 Romney.


29 London/MA-07

Centrist Foreign Policy Realist - Recovering Academic putting skills to work in Commodities Trading and Analytics


[ Parent ]
NRTL vs NRA
Right to life is very strong in Michigan.

Similarities:

1. A lot of the legislation on this issue is at the state level.
2. There are a lot of activists on this issue and single issue voters.
3. Geographic base.

Differences:
1. Constitutional background.

2. Different networks and clientele. Pundits combine the two issues, but they couldn't be more different. While a lot of pro-lifers and also pro-2nd Amendment and a lot of pro-2nd Amendment folks are pro-life, the ACTIVISTS are a different crowd. NRA and state 2a groups target gun clubs. Pro-life groups target churches. There are many pro-life activists who are anti-gun due to a dislike of violence in all cases. There are many pro-2a activists who are pro-choice due to governmental reasons.

3. National NRA is involved heavily on state issues. Right to Life here is dominated on state level. I don't see a lot from NRTL. I see tons from Right to Life-Michigan.

Where I think there is an opening on life arguments is actually through science. We don't need religious arguments to be effective on life issues and we need to avoid falling into that trap.  

MI-08 - Chairman - Livingston County Republican Party Since 2013 - Opinions are my own and not that of LCRP.  


Last point
I suspect the pro-life movement would be stronger focusing on the scientific rationale for their arguments.  The problem as you pointed out is that these groups are largely dominated by churches.

28, Republican, PA-6

[ Parent ]
that lasr point involving churches
That brings up a bigger point about targeting core constituencies in elections. The Religious Right came to the fore almost overnight in the late 70s and dominated the political discussions for the next 25 years. Is this force waning in influence or is it something else? I have long suspected that there would come a day where certain sects of religious orders would give rise to a "Religious Left" in the mold of what we see in Black Evangelical Churches, but spilling over to other races, denominations and other religious doctrines. Historically speaking there has been different religious factions at odda with each other. We saw this with the puritans vs. mainstream protestants during Colonial days. We saw this with Catholics Vs. Protestants during the Industrial Revolution. Up until now there has been very little yin to the yang w/r/t the Religious Right. I think that we may start seeing some factions of the super pious becoming reflectively Democratic on some issues, partoarly economic issues. Conversely I also believe Republicans will begin to make inroads with the irreligious as this happens. We have seen the very beginnings of this with the newfound libertarian movement and the Paulites. I do believe that in a couple decades time, the coalitions we are used to will be a distant memory like the dixicrats and the Rockefeller Republicans.  

I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat.

[ Parent ]
The religious left already exists.
Jim Wallis has been hocking his brand of "Evangelical social action" and "social justice" since the sixties. The religious left has had a couple of serious problems:
1. The decline of the "mainline" churches, a trend which will only continue in coming decades. The mainliners were the core demographic for the religious left, to the point that the denominations' central organizations are often indistinguishable from Democratic Party headquarters. Unfortunately for the religious left, the mainline's move to the left on theological issues is leading them to hemrage members rapidly.
2. The utter inflexibility of the mainstream left on social issues. Evangelicals who might otherwise be inclined toward the left on economic/social justice issues just can't stomach the uber-pro-choice-at-all-costs mentality of the modern Democratic Party. And Obama hasn't helped here at all; it's significant that Rick Warren, who gave the inaugural invocation four years ago, is now slamming the Obama Administration left and right on the HHS mandate. If you want a religious left to be credible, Warren is exactly the kind of Evangelical you need to be at least somewhat on-board to give you credibility.
3. The perception, accurate or not, that to be a politically left-wing Christian inevitably leads one to chuck large portions of Christian orthodoxy overboard. The fact that the two Evangelical pastors most loudly clammering that "you don't have to be a Republican to be a Christian" happen to be an open theist (Greg Boyd) and the head of the Emergent Church Movement (Ryan McLaren) isn't helping the religious left's street cred with young Evangelicals. Millennial Evangelicals are not particularly fiscally conservative, and are sliding toward the left on issues like global warming. However, they look at the spokespeople for the "religious left", and see a lot of people with some radical theology mixed in with their politics.

The irony for everyone talking about how Republicans need to "ditch the crazy Evangelicals" is that the young, reform-minded Evangelicals who are deeply concerned with non-governmental anti-poverty initiatives and take a "social justice" mentality to politics are exactly the kind of modernizers who can help Republicans craft real solutions on issues from poverty to immigration. Conversely, if Republicans don't start substantively addressing poverty, they're going to even lose Evangelicals in the long-run.  

male, social, fiscal and foreign policy center-right Republican, in but not of academia, VA-08.


[ Parent ]
I think it all comes back to abortion
I think if Roe v Wade (along with Doe v Bolton and Planned Parenthood v Casey) is overturned and this goes to the states, then it could happen. I think Roe v Wade set the stage for the movement in the 70's.

If it was otherwise going to happen, I thought it would happen in 2004. If there's one or two areas where a lot of religious social conservatives lean hard left, it's war or the death penalty. There's a mix of views there.

Right now there's a uniting issue among the Religious Right and Religious Center-Right (and even some religious left). Catholics (practicing), Evangelicals, most Mormons, and some conservative mainline Protestants. Abortion. It's viewed with the same disdain as slavery was by the "religious right" of its time in the 1850's. To one side it's "choice", but to us it's killing babies. Even bad personal conduct is forgiven at the voting booth if the person is right on that issue (Vitter). At its heart, that is always THE issue. It's why I think DesJarlais is toast.

Libertarians are split on abortion. They tend to have a love/hate view of the religious right and hate the neoconservatives and establishment. The mandate with HHS is a big one right now that unites both sides.

If those cases are overturned and it goes to the states, I can see your scenario happening.  

MI-08 - Chairman - Livingston County Republican Party Since 2013 - Opinions are my own and not that of LCRP.  


[ Parent ]
Single issue
After living for last 22 years in blue states like IL/MI/NH/CA, I have to say that abortion issue (at least how it has played out in the public square) is   the biggest issue that is holding upwards of 5% - 10% of the voters from looking favorably at the R team. Now there is a continuum of issues in the abortion debate, from the idea of minors having abortion without notification and consent of parents to banning abortions in all cases including rape/incest/danger to mothers life. Unfortunately for us and partly due to our own actions, all the debate has been on the later issue, where we keep losing election after election even in states like IN and MO. Here's the hard reality, Roe v Wade  is here to stay forever, even if we got to replace one of the liberal justices, can you imagine John Roberts casting the fifth vote for that after what he did last year in Obamacare rulings? We got to figure out a way to move the abortion debate from the former issue. Otherwise we will keep losing elections that we otherwise would have won , I see a replay of this coming in VA Gov. race this year. Imagine in a debate when a moderator asks KC  about the banning abortions in all cases question, guess what his answer is going to be and guess how it is going to play in VA elections this year even given the midyear drop off? It's going to be ugly.  My guess is that there are handful of states where you can win a statewide election with the position of banning abortions in all cases position, would be an interesting exercise for the form here to find out what those dates are. Virginia is definitely not one of them.  If KC was smart, he would have a sister Soulja answer to that most probable question in a debate.

42, Hardcore R Except Abortion & Gay Marriage, CA-10

[ Parent ]
Banning all abortions platform
After the personhood amendment failed at the ballot box in Mississippi, I am not convinced there are any states where running on such a platforms would be beneficial to a campaign. Perhaps in heavily Mormon Utah it would be advantageous statewide, but the state is so reflexively Republican and conservative that it would be unlikely to matter in a general election setting.

I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat.

[ Parent ]
Nebraska
is one of the most pro-life states in the country. Pro-choice Republicans are few in number-they are outnumbered by Pro-life Democrats. Some county Democratic parties in Nebraska even have pro-life platforms. A platform of banning all abortions would not be detrimental in Nebraska. Nebraska Right to Life however decided long ago to focus on specific restrictive legislation they can get passed instead of broad-based bans. Thus, the Nebraska Legislature passed some of the most restrictive abortion legislation in the country a couple of years ago by wide margins, with many Democrats even voting in favor.

42, R, NE-1.

[ Parent ]
PA House special elections scheduled for 5/22
http://www.politicspa.com/may-...

This was the right move.  Holding separate elections for these two seats would have cost the taxpayers around $200,000.00

28, Republican, PA-6


Emerson has resigned...
...giving Nixon the chance to call a special election for April 2, when the state already has local elections scheduled.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/l...

Libertarian Conservative, Norway.


The wheels should really start turning now
I imagine the party committee will want to have a nominee in place by mid-February.

[ Parent ]
From what I've read
they've already held two meetings with various candidates.

Libertarian Conservative, Norway.

[ Parent ]
Choosing a nominee
http://www.stltoday.com/news/l...

Dizzying

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


[ Parent ]
June 4 is election day
due to federal law regarding overseas personell etc
http://www.stltoday.com/news/l...

Libertarian Conservative, Norway.

[ Parent ]
Virginia Senate VAPs
Black VAPs on the new districts:

16 - 55.5%
25 - 56.2%
9 - 56.9%
5 - 57.0%
2 - 57.2%
18 - 58.0%

Old districts:

2 - 53.1%
9 - 54.2%
16 - 54.9%
18 - 55.4%
5 - 56.3%

They were smart; each district has more blacks than prior and higher VAP than prior, in addition to creating an additional district.

28, R, PA-07.


Legally the Min/Maj Req
Is not something courts have ever embraced as an end into itself, but rather as a means of determining whether something does not reduce minority voting strength. Thats why Holder never tried to force Alabama, Louisiana or South Carolina to draw additional Minority Congressional districts, and the legal argument above is very similar to the nonsense Swingstate Project was peddling two years ago on the subject. Its also why I am not certain a EV-by-By CD plan in PA or VA would be safe from a VRA challenge - because it clearly reduces the overall impact of minority votes upon the outcome(aka the election of the President) through the proxies of reducing urban votes.

Texas had a real case that lower Hispanic VAPs led to more Hispanic Republicans being elected, and that given the nature of the state they wielded more power by Democrats. In effect, there was always more ambiguity and has always been more about the "Party of Choice" of Hispanics and how to maximize their influence, and there have been real divisions in the community. It was also decidedly unclear which map would have produced more Hispanic members in the end.

African American voting is more cut and dry. They vote for Democrats. No significant number, at least in Virginia vote Republican. Equally importantly, there is not a single African American member of the Senate GOP caucus nor has their ever been, so part of the ambiguity over VAP% that the GOP used in the Texas cases does not exist.

In the past the GOP has come into these cases with the support of a substantial bloc of black democratic legislators. This allows them to portray this as the will of both Republicans and African Americans. The problem here is that they passed this during the absence of a Black State Senator and Civil Rights Veteran on Martin Luther King Day who was the first black President's inauguration and then recessed to honor Stonewell Jackson.

None of that is a legal issue. But it is a political issue, and it means this issue is going to be too toxic for any ambitious Black Democrat to risk touching the GOP plan, even assuming they have had the foresight to draw the maps for them. Anyone who plays ball on this will likely be DOA if Marsh is as much a victim as he appears(if he were to announce he was in on it, things would change.)

Without any Black support, the VRA defense is basically a series of white republicans appearing in court saying they know whats better for Black voters than Black leaders, Black voters themselves, or the people Black voters vote for against a string of witnesses representing every minority group in the state.

The underlying legal case for the maps themselves may be stronger than Texas' failed preclearence bid, but the the actual legal environment, which was decisive in the end in that case, is far far worse here.

The Virginia GOP could really use Tim Scott here in its caucus.

29 London/MA-07

Centrist Foreign Policy Realist - Recovering Academic putting skills to work in Commodities Trading and Analytics


[ Parent ]
Winsome Sears
Should run for the 6th or 1st.

R - MD-7

[ Parent ]
still inside baseball
All of your redistricting and EV by CD have suggested there will be some great tide of outrage that will wash clean the strain of partisan gerrymandering and allocating.  I just don't see it ever happening, sorry.  

it clearly reduces the overall impact of minority votes upon the outcome(aka the election of the President) through the proxies of reducing urban votes.

It does no such thing.  If anything, it ensures that the minority community controls electoral votes in their own community, giving them more power.  Your argument would suggest that all PA Congressional Districts should be At-large, because then the minority vote wouldn't be unfairly concentrated in a few districts.  Why is it okay to gerrymander them legally for the sake of electing a couple of Reps., but not okay to ensure a couple of EVs?  If PA was reliably Republican at the Presidential level, all of the minority communities would endorse this plan!  It's only because Democrats have had success at the Presidential level that it's some horrible civil rights violation.  So it's a partisan issue on both sides.  


[ Parent ]
Agree. Using a VRA argument is a stretch
Claiming a state doesn't have the right to allocate the EV by CD like Neb. and Me. because of the VRA is a stretch. Article II of the Constitution states "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in Congress:"  Although I'm sure someone would  go to court if a state did allocate electors by CD, I don't see the Supreme Court, as currently constituted, buying the argument that it diminishes minority voting power.  If it did,states would lose the power to allocate electors in the manner in which the legislature determines, which is granted to the states by the Constitution. I don't think there was ever a Congrssional intent to use the VRA in this fashion. Minorities will retain power to help determine Electors in CDs in which they constitute a significant amount of the population, and of course 2 Electors will still be determined by the Statewide vote.  Frankly, Repubs are at a disadvantage with the way the Electoral College is "set up" now, and may need to allocate the EV by CD in states like Mich. and Pa. if they hope to have a good shot at winning the presidency. Note the Repubs haven't won these 2 states since 1988, and it would probably take a Republican landslide to move these states into the Red Column.  

[ Parent ]
"A series of white republicans appearing in court saying they know whats better for Black voters than Black leaders"
That's every VRA court case involving African-American districts since the 90's in a nutshell. And we keep winning them.

Also, I'm intrigued by your unwavering belief that this is going to be a political issue. Blacks will continue to vote Democratic, and white voters really won't be thinking about any of this in November or 2015. It's barely registered as a blip on the local news.


[ Parent ]
Its not
Black Democratic Legislative Leaders testified on behalf of the GOP in Florida and Texas, as did Hispanic ones.

The political issue is Manhattenlibertarian's sentiments. His position is that the electoral college is biased against republicans right now so they have to change it to win. The assumption being that the political system should be neutral between ideologies rather than votes. Ie. if you don't win elections the normal solution is to instead reach out and expand your coalition.

What the current gerrymandering fad and EV-by CD will end up doing is allowing the Republicans to hang on for an extra 8-10 years in their current ideological form in places where that ideologically is clearly a minority. That means they will do the same thing Democrats did in the 1990s in Texas and Tennessee.

Finally, I think it is a bad thing for minorities to be in power generally in Democracies, because it de-legitimizes not just the electoral system, but all of the laws passed by that system. I accept that it happens, but there should never, ever as a firm moral principle in my mind be policies or reforms undertaken to make that outcome more likely. I personally could never support or condone policies or people who did so.

29 London/MA-07

Centrist Foreign Policy Realist - Recovering Academic putting skills to work in Commodities Trading and Analytics


[ Parent ]
Repubs better off with popular vote than electoral college
You seem to think that by indicating Repubs would be better off if they allocate the EV by CD in certain large states where they control the legislative process that I am advocating a Republican Presidential victory with a minority of the votes.  Actually, what I am saying is that unlike the situation in 2000, where Gore lost the EC but won the popular vote, things have turned around so that it is now more likely a Repub could win the popular vote but lose the EV.  Let's look at the 2012 Election.  Romney lost by 3.8% of the popular vote, a relatively close election, but lost the Electoral College in a landslide, 332 to 206. So Repubs need to expand their coalition, but it will still be difficult to carry a number of large Northern states even if the Repub vote share increases; in effect a large number of Republican voters will be "stranded" in these states because of the way the EC works. That's why I think the Repubs would be better off with a direct popular vote than the EC, but getting a constitutional amendment passed to do this would be very difficult. Therefore, the only practical thing for Repubs to do is allocate the EV by CD in large states they are unlikely to carry and where they control the legislative process.  This helps "rescue" the "stranded" Repub voters. Otherwise you will have close elections in the future where Repubs carry the popular vote but lose the EC.

[ Parent ]
Simple Solution
Congress can award 100 extra electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote.

My problem is that while allocating by CD in say Pennsylvania might improve the "net" fairness of the system, the temptation to maximize the advantage is too great. Doing so in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, leaves Obama .8% of the vote in Florida away from losing the electoral college with a 4 point national victory.

I don' think it helps the GOP in VA either in the long-run. It locks in current coalitions for the foreseeable future which is not a good thing for them. And that creates the potential for a situation where you have minority, and based on past experience, extremely ideological, Republican legislative majorities based on a permanent minority of the vote. When that collapse you end up with vengeance-based politics.

29 London/MA-07

Centrist Foreign Policy Realist - Recovering Academic putting skills to work in Commodities Trading and Analytics


[ Parent ]
Limit to allocation of EV by CD
I think the allocation of EV by CD would be very limited.  Republicans probably wouldn't want to do this in Ohio and Virginia, since they have gone Republican for President in the recent past and even when Republicans have lost, it has not been by a large margin.  It would not be very bright to allocate EV by CD in these states and then run the risk that the Repubs carry the state in the next election.  I suggested Mich and Pa because I don't think it is likely these states would go Repub in a close election and Repubs control the legislative process in these states.  So I see this as a limited "equalizer" in close elections that makes up for a Dem bias in the Electoral College. I don't have any problem with your suggestion that 100 electoral votes be awarded to the popular vote winner, although I wonder if that can be done without a constitutional amendment.

I'm not sure how your comment on Va. relates to the above topic.  I assume you are talking about the recent state legislative apportionment which appears to have taken place by a questionable maneuver (which is not the way I would do business). Even if it had been passed the "right way", I assume you are saying that the creation of many "safe districts" means the Repubs would lean too much to the right and this might hurt them in the long run statewide.  This may be true, although in general this is the case to a varying degree for all partisan reapportionments , whether by Dems or Repubs. Non-partisan reapportionment would be ideal, but that hasn't always worked out to be truly non-partisan (e.g., Arizona).  In any event, I think the current Repub candidate for Gov may lean too much to the right to carry a "purplish state" like Va.  If he wants to win he needs to be very careful about his rhetoric; based on recent experiences this often seems to trip up hardline social conservatives.  If the Repub Lt. Gov runs as an independent, he will probably "peel" off "moderate" Repub voters in the No. Va. suburbs.    


[ Parent ]
CO-Senate
Who would be the best GOP candidate? With Colorado becoming more of a blue state, I doubt a top-tier candidate runs. I think Coffman and Gardner have been rumored to be interested but I doubt they run.

any Republican Hispanics to run?
anyone? Lt Gov Norton if not.

[ Parent ]
Bill Owens
But it is unlikely he runs. I doubt Coffman or Gardner run, so Norton would probably be our best choice.

29/Male/Married/Father of One/Republican/CA-3

[ Parent ]
America is getting more pro-life... not.
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_...

Basically this is a pro-choice country and minorities are becoming substantially more liberal.

28, Republican, PA-6


The numbers go up and down on this
But really the issue is a continuum of views. And what one person may consider to be pro-choice, another person may view as pro-life. Really what this poll shows is that there is about 2/5 of the country that feels abortion should be always legal, and 3/10 that feel it should be always illegal with the remaining 3/10 having a mixed view of exceptions, special cases, etc. I think the only real significant number here is 70% saying they want to keep Roe. The other numbers ffluctuate depending on wording, definitions, etc.

I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat.

[ Parent ]
That's a good analysis
The problem with numbers on the issue is there is a lot of nuance on the issue that can't be fully described by a single question like this. I think your description of the different numbers for different positions is probably pretty close.

42, R, NE-1.

[ Parent ]
I was simply repeating what that poll said
With the numbers, at least.

I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat.

[ Parent ]
But do most voters really understand Roe?
Do they understand that overturning Roe would not ban abortion but rather convert the issue to a state matter?  And that abortion would remain legal in virtually all states, especially NY, Califorinia, Maryland and Massachusetts?  

I'm skeptical.  I think that many people believe that overturning Roe would end legal abortion. And I think this view drives the approval numbers up.      


[ Parent ]
Your presupposition is inaccurate
Abortion was banned in something like 2/3 of the states before Roe, and only easily available in a handful of states total. If it were overturned, we would likely see a comparable number of states either banning it or limiting it beyond the point of accessability, so the statement "abortion would remain legal in virtually all states" is a gross misrepresentation at best.

The voters who primarily see this as their single issue are lopsidedly pro-life. The number of vocal pro-choice advocates is much smaller. If the case were threatened however, I imagine you'd see a lot of squishy suburban women that may be sympathetic to Republicans going wildly away from the party in the wake of such an event. It would sure make for some political theater in the subsequent election, that's for sure.

I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat.


[ Parent ]
You would have the Ireland Debate
About crossing state-lines to get access to an abortion. The country is a lot smaller now transportation-wise. Abortion bans would likely be ineffective at actually doing much to eliminate abortion if New England/New York/Maryland/DC/West Coast/Colorado/Illinois/Minnesota kept Abortion on-demand and even provided taxpayer funding for it. I am also not convinced Florida would ban it either.

In many of the states that would see bans people already travel extensively. As a consequence, adding an extra few hours really wouldn't matter much.

I think states would fall into three categories

1. States where the population is heavily Pro-life and the states are heavily Republican. These states would largely ban it.

2. States where Democrats are solidly in control. If anything, I suspect these states would actually expand access to abortion in response to a repeal of Roe v. Wade and become destinations for people from other states seeking them.

3. States where Pro-Life Republicans would probably have mathematical majorities sufficient to impose bans politically, but where public opinion is likely to be far too divided or opposed to such policies to avoid a backlash. I would put Florida, Virginia(if the new senate maps go through), North Carolina, Ohio, Georgia(borderline), Michigan(maybe), Missouri(maybe) into this category. I think this is where any backlash(that is not related to the new debate over crossing state-lines) would occur, since its in these states where there would exist both a population of Pro-Choice(or anti-ban) GOP-leaning swing voters, and the actual possibility of a ban being implemented.

29 London/MA-07

Centrist Foreign Policy Realist - Recovering Academic putting skills to work in Commodities Trading and Analytics


[ Parent ]
I disagree with both these statements
Roe v. Wade was 40 years ago. A lot has changed in the last 40 years and states aren't where they were socially. Do you really think that if Brown v. Board of Ed were overturned we'd see states segregating their schools?

Also, abortion was recently made illegal back then. It'd always been illegal. So no one was actively making a decision. They weren't taking anything away from anybody. Any new abortion laws will be actively making something which is legal illegal. While that's certainly not a complete deterrent, it's a much harder road to take. I'm sure if the rich were taxed at 90% many progressives, as they once were, would be okay with it, but you won't find any introducing bills at 90% today.

Pro-life voters are rarely single issue. Most of them tend to take similar stances on most social issues and many of them favor small government fiscal conservatism. I don't think it's me finding people similar to myself, since I agree with conservatives on social issues maybe one-third of the time.

Many Democratic voters, IMO, tend to be single issue. You find a lot more womens' rights advocates who agree with Republicans 90% of the time, but won't vote Republican, than vice-versa. Liberal womens' groups are a lot louder than National Right to Life.

Maybe your experience is different, but I don't know if we can say for sure without some polling.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


[ Parent ]
yes it has been quite awhile
But I don't think you can compare the two issues. Segregation is over you don't see a single state in the entire union putting any sort segregation law on the books (through a ballot initiative or through the legislature). Abortion on the hand is still a pertinent issue, as you have several states each election cycle having ballot initiatives regarding the matter and even laws dealing with it emerging in the legislature each year. So it is still a very hot button issue.

Some states have gotten more pro-choice others more pro-life. CA for example has moved more in the Pro-choice. In 1975, 51 percent of Californians supported abortion rights, according to the poll. That support swelled to 70 percent in 2006. And even despite that you'll see abortion related propositions on the ballot(recent as 2008) as opposed to ones of school segregation.

What do mean abortion was illegal? Prior to Roe it was a state issue. You had 30 states where it was illegal, one where it was Legal in case of rape, two where it was Legal in case of danger to woman's health. 13 where it was Legal in case of danger to woman's health, rape or incest, or likely damaged fetus, and finally 4 where it was Legal on request. Sure I guess if you go way back it was illegal. One of the first parties to experiment with issue and Pro-choice message on their platform was the MA GOP back in 1948.

It's hard to say about which side has more single issue voters, but then again it really depends on how you define Pro-life vs Pro-choice. Depending on where you draw the line you could turn/classify a Pro-life voter into a pro-choice  one (or vice versa)


[ Parent ]
This poll
The problem with many polls is that it's all in the phrasing. The first question asks whether people approve of a Supreme Court decision. Only 57% feel they have knowledge of it, which should disqualify the question right there. One has to wonder what the others know. For all someone knows row v. wade has something to do with getting across a lake. Or was it the one that desegregated the schools?

For the most part, people will answer they shouldn't overturn a Supreme Court decision if they have limited knowledge. The Supreme Court is good, right?

The second question throws in "at least in the first three months of pregnancy." It mitigates the question. It's usually okay when we see a trend, but the question was last asked 7 years ago.

At least the third question is okay. Of course it was the 32nd question in the poll. That can skew things.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


[ Parent ]
I can't help being so perceptive
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/22/...

Over half the people under 30 don't know it deals with abortion.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


[ Parent ]
It's really how you draw the line
on what you consider to make someone Pro-life or Pro-choice these days.

I have quite a few friends who consider themselves Pro-life with the exception to the big 3. Now if you the shift the argument to no exception for abortion they'd be classified as Pro-choice.


[ Parent ]
VA map from Trende
If you extrapolate changes in POTUS vote under old/new lines, to 2011 results, GOP would have won 26-14 majority.  

26, Male, R, NY-10

Scott Walker for President!


NM-Sen; Udall for Interior?
http://m.washingtonpost.com/bl...

I doubt this happens as Martinez would certainly appoint a Republican. Obviously appointing herself would be great, but I imagine Duran or Barela would be the likely choices.

29/Male/Married/Father of One/Republican/CA-3


Terrible Idea
If Obama did this he would anger even me.  Plenty of people to choose from for Interior.  Bingamann, Lincoln, Schweitzer, Freudenthal etc.

33/M/D/NY-01 DKE:Socks The Cat

[ Parent ]
Martinez
Should communicate to Obama she would appoint a Democratic placeholder. Bingamin would be great as a placeholder, and then we'd have an open seat in 2014 without as strong a Democrat as Heinrich. Barela would be a great Republican candidate  

Male, LA-01

Cassidy, Rounds, Ernst, Handel, Land for Senate!  


[ Parent ]
Pretty sure Obama is not the type to trust politicians at their word
Although this would be a chance for New Mexico to change their laws to be similar to other states that require the politician to be of the same party ala Hawaii and Wyoming.

I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat.

[ Parent ]
Virginia Senate DRF
I have it, e-mail the site if anyone is interested.

R - MD-7

Word!
Awesome. You beat me to it (I was working on it) but that'll save me some time.  

From IL-09, Living in PA-07.
Sold on Bob Dold!


[ Parent ]
Which Bay Area House seat will Ro Khanna seek?
http://www.ibabuzz.com/politic...

http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05el...

Khanna was raising up a storm last cycle, but held off. He has to be encouraged by the Swalwell/McLeod wins to know that a same party challenge can work very well in a Democratic district in Top Two. Khanna needs the right combination to ensure advancement. He either no Republicans or 2+ Republicans and no other Democrats just in case the Republicans take a fair amount of votes. Evelyn Li got 27.6% of the vote this year. That leaves little margin for error.

Swalwell would be more vulnerable and less likely to ruffle feathers. Of course they both won by beating old vets. So you can use the young up and comer angle that Swalwell used.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


Honda will get an admin appointment
It will make it easier for both. Khanna is well connected and has money, and with Honda's age, it seems like the most logical move.

29/Male/Married/Father of One/Republican/CA-3

[ Parent ]
ME-Gov PPP
Pretty much confirms that LePage has a floor of 35 and ceiling of 40. http://www.publicpolicypolling...

R - MD-7

McDonnell Not Happy
http://news.fredericksburg.com...

Enough to veto?

33/M/D/NY-01 DKE:Socks The Cat


Probably not
If he signs it, he's killed any national ambition he has (because this is very easy to beat him with).  If he doesn't, the Senate Republicans have just hit the nuclear option without getting anything for it, and will still likely get beaten with the issue in the next election.

Also, Terry McAuliffe has got to be the happiest man in Virginia right now.  His chances of winning the governor's office have shot up dramatically in the last two days, even assuming this isn't enough to get Bolling to made an indie run.

23, Libertarian Republican CA-18
Liberals dream things that never were and ask why not.  Conservatives shout back "Because it won't work"


[ Parent ]
Umm...
Voters don't really care about redistricting. If it were the case that this would hurt McDonnell's chances at higher office, why did the media never bring up the 2003 redistricting in Texas during Perry's failed presidential bid?

Lifelong Republican, TX-17

[ Parent ]
+1.
The governor's race will still come down to the fact that McOlef and Cuccinelli are both poor candidates; the one who avoids stumbling wins. If Bolling were a bit more charismatic, he might actually win as an indie.  

male, social, fiscal and foreign policy center-right Republican, in but not of academia, VA-08.

[ Parent ]
Couple Reasons
1. Perry had far more interesting flaws for which he would have been crucified in the media. Creationism in Education for instance. I suspect "How old is the Earth>" and "Do you believe Dinosaurs existed?" Would have been constant refrains in a general campaign.

2. The narrative here is less redistricting, but more Confederate History Day on steroids. Republicans used the absence of a Civil Rights Veteran at the second inauguration of the first black President to push through a plan to disenfranchise Black voters and then recessed to honor Stonewall Jackson. Then they had the nerve to claim they were doing it for black voters own good. That will be the attack levied at McDonnell, not that he gerrymandered.  If Confederate History day hurt his national ambitions, this is far far worse. I do not see how he has any national future, since the combination of Stonewall Jackson day and Confederate History Month will permanently tar him.

29 London/MA-07

Centrist Foreign Policy Realist - Recovering Academic putting skills to work in Commodities Trading and Analytics


[ Parent ]
And Perry never had the slightest shot in heck of being elected President
He would have done far worse than Romney did. He would have lost the high income voters Obama lost ground to Romney with, while he would have failed to make gains anywhere else.  

29 London/MA-07

Centrist Foreign Policy Realist - Recovering Academic putting skills to work in Commodities Trading and Analytics


[ Parent ]
Agree
Perry was a bumbling idiot and he would have shot himself in the foot several times.

I am surprised he has been Governor for so long and never lost a primary with his behavior.  Texas Republicans tend to run a tight ship with pretty good candidates.  Perry is the exception to the rule.

28, Republican, PA-6


[ Parent ]
Kay Bailey Hutchison is just as surprised as you
I wonder if she would have beaten him in 2006. That election was one of the strangest this side of AK-Sen 2010.

[ Parent ]
KBH
There was a strong chance that she would have beaten Perry in a primary in 2006 because she was, until her failed challenge to Perry in 2010, the most popular elected official in Texas. Knowing this, Perry hinted at the time that 2006 was going to be his last run, and KBH chose to run for re-election to the Senate instead.

Perry's outsmarting KBH doesn't begin there however, because it was rumored that back in 2001, she was eyeing a gubernatorial bid. Taking advantage of the fact that Gramm had already announced his intentions to retire, Perry went all across the state, telling every large sum Republican donor that would listen that since Gramm was retiring, it would be best for Texas if KBH remained in the Senate so Texas would not lose all its seniority at once.

Lifelong Republican, TX-17


[ Parent ]
Perry
His Texas campaigns have always been very disciplined. His absolute implosion on the national stage initially came as a surprise.

That said, Perry has kept office by keeping both the socons and the bizcons happy, knowing that if he has both of those groups, his opponent(s) will have no path to victory in a primary. Abbott's best hope should he actually go through with primarying Perry (and FWIW, I'm currently skeptical that he will) is that the bizcons are tired of Perry's attempts at banning abortion, and the SBOE's (yes, the governor actually has absolutely no control over this) attempts at incorporating "intelligent design" into science textbooks, that he can win them, as well as suburban independents by a large enough margin to succeed in the primary.

Lifelong Republican, TX-17


[ Parent ]
Confederate History
That would torpedo his national ambitions like nothing else.  

The problem with attacking anyone on redistricting is that it is not something enough people care about.  It simply does not inflame passions.

28, Republican, PA-6


[ Parent ]
The Optics of the Stonewall Jackson thing confuses me
For no apparent reason it greatly increases the political damage to McDonnell for signing the bill, and him signing it was presumably the purpose of this excercise.

29 London/MA-07

Centrist Foreign Policy Realist - Recovering Academic putting skills to work in Commodities Trading and Analytics


[ Parent ]
I don't know why you are making such a big deal about this
We have seen time and time again that the average voter doesn't care about redistricting. It is inside baseball to most people-only political geeks like us really care. When has redistricting ever been a big issue one way or the other in a campaign? Never, as far as I can tell. This will have no impact on the governors race.

42, R, NE-1.

[ Parent ]
[cough] Martin O'Malley [cough]
I don't think anyone believes that O'Malley 2016 will have a problem with redistricting and that's the worst map out there.  

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
I'd disagree with that
As would others I think.

33/M/D/NY-01 DKE:Socks The Cat

[ Parent ]
What are you disagreeing with?
That O'Malley's map doesn't hurt him or that it's the worst map out there? If it's the former I'm interested in your opinion of how. The people of Maryland said it was fine. If it's the latter then you're arguing something that's besides the point I'm making. If you like, it's not the worst map out there.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
Map
I'd disagree with it being the worst map.

33/M/D/NY-01 DKE:Socks The Cat

[ Parent ]
McDonnell's thesis would probably be a better negative against him...
than mid-year redistricting if/when running a presidential campaign.

Or "Vaginal Bob."

Perhaps he should become a 20+ year member of Reverend Jeremiah Wright's Church of Hate and Bigotry or launch his presidential campaign from Bill Ayer's living room to have presidential success.


[ Parent ]
Its not the gerrymandering
Its the fact that this is exactly the sort of Reconstruction Jim-Crowe politics that Democrats love to accuse Republicans of.  And now they have a damn good example of it.

There's a huge difference between a large legislative majority passing a favorable set of maps for themselves and what is essentially a minority party exploiting a formality to try to seize control of the chamber.

And then there's the fact that Virginia's major statewide elections are in 9 and a half months, and Democrats are going to beat this issue to death in the meantime.

23, Libertarian Republican CA-18
Liberals dream things that never were and ask why not.  Conservatives shout back "Because it won't work"


[ Parent ]
"Reconstruction-Jim Crow era politics"
It's hard to make that argument, because again-people don't care about redistricting. You just can't get people to care that much about the issue. I maintain it will have no effect on the governor's race.

42, R, NE-1.

[ Parent ]
Angered
Well does this torpedo the rest of his agenda or can he save it by vetoing?  I suspect the former because the Democrats have no incentive to play now.

I personally think this is naughty, but acceptable as the bill has been in the works for awhile and the member clearly did not make sure he was paired with another before leaving the chamber.

28, Republican, PA-6


[ Parent ]
Vetoing it would win him the love and devotion of the DC Press Corp
And the Chris Christie example calls out. If he wants to be President it seems like an almost obvious move. Given the optics it helps to erase the Confederate History Month thing from public mind, and while the Democrats may not be grateful, the media will be.

If he is running for Senator I think its mixed. It probably does not help him much, but real damage it inflicts will be consequentialist rather than direct. When I was in Florida the weekend before the election there were six, seven hour lines, thousands of voters waiting in them with Democratic volunteers distributing water and setting up projection screens to show movies. Rick Scott and the GOP legislature had cut early voting, but not by enough to cause the lines. Nonetheless, because they had cut early voting, because they had eliminated a Sunday, and because they had been blamed for partially trying to suppress turnout, they were blamed for every single thing that went wrong. The incompetence of the Miami-Dade elections bureau therefore was directly blamed on a deliberate Republican plot involving Mitt Romney and Rick Scott and the media took up the refrain that none of this would have happened if it hadn't been for them.

McDonnell is going to be at the mercy of a Republican Super-Majority, because by signing this he will be blamed for anything they pass. It does not matter if they would have take a 22-18 majority in 2015 anyway, and passed exactly the same laws. The "Ultrasound","Guns in Preschools" , "Banning Gay Student Groups at UVA" laws that will emerge from the VA Senate's supermajority will be blamed on "gerrymandering" by the Press corp and tied to him.

If a Republican Senate Supermajority behaves like PA Senate Republicans, I think the damage is manageable in a good year. If they behave in proportion to some of the stuff they did in a 20-20 chamber in 2012, he is probably in real trouble. And the way this was carried out, including the ostentatious Stonewall Jackson thing does not show much evidence of solid judgement.

Frankly, if I were McDonnell I would not have much confidence in this crew not to torpedo my own ambitions if I was not careful. What I might do is use this as an excuse to push through a non-partisan panel, which in Virginia, would produce Republican majorities in both chambers, or to push through the Non-Partisan Panel's senate map which would still produce a large GOP Senate majority, albeit 24-16 rather than 27-13.

29 London/MA-07

Centrist Foreign Policy Realist - Recovering Academic putting skills to work in Commodities Trading and Analytics


[ Parent ]
well seeing as the senate will remained tied till 2015
it will be risky him signing it. He'd basically have to spend the rest of his term kissing Lt. Gov. Bolling's ass so that he can count the tie-break vote if Senate Dems oppose his bills.

The main problem for R's is that they have to wait two years to see anything change


[ Parent ]
PPP has Franken up at 50%
http://www.publicpolicypolling...

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

Seems reasonable
I do find it odd that they included Cravaack considering he is a resident of New Hampshire and publicly announced his permanent departure from the state. Bachmann would crush in a primary, but I doubt she runs. I doubt any of the congressmen will run, actually.

I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat.

[ Parent ]
Knocking off a low-key liberal in a light blue state
An improbable task. What I'd probably do, instead of painting Franken as an unabashed left-winger, is note that he hasn't done diddly-squat noteworthy in his Senate tenure. Basically, use the Hagan-Dole strategy against him.

24, MA-07, Rockefeller Republican. Jeb 2016. Visit me at http://twitter.com/polibeast

[ Parent ]
Interesting strategy
I doubt it'll work, as Klobuchar will certainly cut a couple ads for Franken saying what a great ally he has been to her. She has more than enough political capital to do that, and it gets her closer to the Presidential donors that she will be coveting in 2015. I doubt she wins the nomination, but I am now 100% convinced Amy Klobuchar will run for president in 2016.

I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat.

[ Parent ]
Agreed on Klobuchar
And I suspect her candidacy will prove more Pat Schroeder than Hillary Clinton.

24, MA-07, Rockefeller Republican. Jeb 2016. Visit me at http://twitter.com/polibeast

[ Parent ]
hardly fair
Klobuchar is a much more stable politician and person. She is not the stereotypical female that leaves a race crying. I am actually a little disturbed that you would even imply such a thing. I think k she actually campaigns in more of a John Edwards circa 2004 thank anything. Young energetic senator that doesn't really offend anyone but doesn't excite and fervent supporters. Maybe a Tim Pawlenty candidacy on the left, so to speak.

I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat.

[ Parent ]
That won't work
Minnesota likes its politicians humble and inconspicuous.

23, Libertarian Republican CA-18
Liberals dream things that never were and ask why not.  Conservatives shout back "Because it won't work"


[ Parent ]
Yes
That is what makes Bachmann's constant underperformance possible.  

28, Republican, PA-6

[ Parent ]
DCCC Recruits
http://atr.rollcall.com/dccc-u...

CO-6: Andrew Romanoff
NV-3: Erin Bilbray-Kohn
IA-3: Michael Sherzan

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


A Bilbray for NV-03?
LOL. That's rich, especially considering the shenanigans that caused her dad to lose to John Ensign in a very Democratic seat.

From IL-09, Living in PA-07.
Sold on Bob Dold!


[ Parent ]
WV-SEN
Capito way ahead in primary, Rahall ahead.
http://harperpolling.com/polls...

I don't see anyone beating Rahall because 3rd district voters won't vote for anyone else.

26, Male, R, NY-10

Scott Walker for President!


General
I hope they polled the general too

Male, LA-01

Cassidy, Rounds, Ernst, Handel, Land for Senate!  


[ Parent ]
Spoke too soon
Capito 50 Rahall 32
Capito 53 Goodwin 20
Capito 51 Davis 24

Capito rivals Manchin in popularity. Manchin is at 57-36, she's at 55-28.
http://www.harperpolling.com/p...

Male, LA-01

Cassidy, Rounds, Ernst, Handel, Land for Senate!  


[ Parent ]
Geesh
Can we label this one Likely Republican after a few more polls?

28, Republican, PA-6

[ Parent ]
If a few more polls
Come out and show Capito with a 55% favorable rating and up 20+ on Rahall, yes  

Male, LA-01

Cassidy, Rounds, Ernst, Handel, Land for Senate!  


[ Parent ]
Considering
Capito polled close to Manchin in 2010, this does not surprise me. I would be very surprised if she lost.

[ Parent ]
Rahall
A few more polls like this and I doubt he runs.

[ Parent ]
Depends what his House polling shows
But yeah, I've never thought he was likely to pull the trigger.  The 3rd is still pretty blue downballot and he has strong incumbency/name rec.

Age 22, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (college)

Law and Order Liberal.

Berkeley Class of 2015.


[ Parent ]
I don't think he runs either
Remember, the Senate run is going to be in more hostile territory against a more popular and liked incumbent congresswoman.  His chances are almost certainly better in the House.

23, Libertarian Republican CA-18
Liberals dream things that never were and ask why not.  Conservatives shout back "Because it won't work"


[ Parent ]
Polling his House race won't do it
You don't know:

a) What the electorate will look like in 2014
b) Who your opponent will be (since your opponent will have 0% name recognition this year)
c) How well you plan to run a good campaign

Put it this way - If Joe Manchin had decided to retire and Rahall was considering a candidacy for the Senate in 2011, he would have looked at his House polling and seen himself up 40 points. He won by 7-8.

He can't afford to be making a decision on the Senate race in 2014 when we have a clearer picture of what the House looks like.  


[ Parent ]
Poll a Snuffer rematch
nt

R - MD-7

[ Parent ]
Rahall would be a disaster
He doesn't understand the strategy behind modern campaigning and how to publicize one's campaign. I predict he suffers an avoidable loss this decade.

[ Parent ]
Is this an independent poll?
Or an internal? Or a third party?

I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat.

[ Parent ]
Harper
The Republican counter to PPP  

Male, LA-01

Cassidy, Rounds, Ernst, Handel, Land for Senate!  


[ Parent ]
Method
Isn't 462/579 a rather small sample for a poll like such?  

German citizen - Conservative by heart, non native english speaker

[ Parent ]
Laurenberg goes nuclear, linkens Booker to child who needs a spanking
http://www.mediaite.com/online...

Fireworks.

24, MA-07, Rockefeller Republican. Jeb 2016. Visit me at http://twitter.com/polibeast


So many misspellings
Make that Lautenberg and likens.

24, MA-07, Rockefeller Republican. Jeb 2016. Visit me at http://twitter.com/polibeast

[ Parent ]
i knew
That 1. Frank would likely not go down without a fight.  2.  Booker hasn't really made friends in high places who will rally around him.  We've already seen Sheila Oliver (from his home county) come out against his celebrity.  You know the Congressmen are not going to support him over Frank.  I'm trying to think of what counties might endorse Booker over Frank for the line.  He may have pulled the trigger too quickly here.

[ Parent ]
GoBigRedState is probably most interested in this
but I found out that in March Doug Bereuter will be speaking to my class on Congress.

Age 22, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (college)

Law and Order Liberal.

Berkeley Class of 2015.


Interesting
I'm curious as to if you know whether there's any particular reason why he was chosen.  

42, R, NE-1.

[ Parent ]
I don't
It's very random for the one guest speaker in my class to be a retired Republican from the Midwest, and I can't seem to find any connection between him and my professor.  If I find out, I'll post the reason though.

Age 22, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (college)

Law and Order Liberal.

Berkeley Class of 2015.


[ Parent ]
One connection
at least to the area would be the fact that after he left Congress until a couple of years ago he headed up the Asia Foundation, which is based in San Francisco.

42, R, NE-1.

[ Parent ]
Most likely the only person they can get
Probably will be in the area for some other engagement. Speeches to college classes are not exactly a very lucrative gig.

R - MD-7

[ Parent ]
Phil Mickelson and Taxes
http://espn.go.com/golf/story/...

http://www.golfchannel.com/new...

Phil got hit with a quadruple whammy, with his Social Security, Medicare, Federal and State taxes all going up. I can understand being upset. The problem is that the left boycotts you if you don't happily fork over your cash. Do what Tiger did and quietly leave your home state. That way Jerry Brown can claim that rich Californians won't leave over taxes.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/...

I'm pretty sure that they'll get rid of the state tax deduction in any future tax package, since a tax deduction that's available based on where you live is inherently unfair and amounts to low tax states subsidizing high tax states. So, Phil will get another whammy.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


the slight difference i see
Is when you change states, it's hard to call you "unpatriotic", because you are still American and paying the same to the feds.  It's not like moving your money offshore or something.
But it would be hard for any liberal to argue that Phil is getting something for his millions he pays to California that he wouldn't be getting for the zero he'd pay to Texas.  Certainly not worth it for the "honor" of a CA address.

[ Parent ]
If you eliminate the state tax deduction you create double taxation on income
The Feds would then be taxing income that individuals are not actually receiving since they are paying that money to the state. If you are subject to the AMT tax you cannot deduct your state income taxes from your Federal AMT tax. A lot of people who live in high tax places like CA and NYC are forced to pay the AMT simply because they pay so much in state taxes. In another words the high state taxes force them to pay higher federal taxes which is also unfair. Its 1 thing to tax people on money they get to keep. Its quite another to tax them on money the government is already taking away from them!

[ Parent ]
Taxes
It's increased taxation, not double taxation. You are taxed by various government taxes on your income. I get taxes taken out by Federal, State, Social Security, Medicare, and for Disability. All told, they take out a sizable chunk. You can deduct your state taxes from your income, but not from your tax liability. So you only get a partial deduction.

If you don't like high state taxes, then live in a state with low taxes.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


[ Parent ]
Well
Hypothetically, if a state had 30% tax rate and the federal govt had a 75% tax rate if you couldn't deduct you state taxes from your federal taxes you would have a negative income!


[ Parent ]
Search




Advanced Search


(C) RedRacingHorses
Powered by: SoapBlox