Wednesday Morning Open Thread

My election post mortem - um, it's the economy stupid? Don't run crazy people in New York? Old people in Maine are bigots?

I dunno, I suppose you can force a narrative out of this but I do not see one here. 2010 will be decided by what happens between now and Election Day 2010. I think there is nothing to be garnered from last night's results.

But my head is so immersed in the escapist world of sports right now that you should not go by me on this.

This is an Open Thread.

< Maine Votes to Legalize Medical Marijuana Dispensaries | Deeper Into The Village >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Interpretations? Guess we just have to (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by KeysDan on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 07:45:18 AM EST
    wait for the Villagers to tell us what to think.  My guess for the Obama administration is that they will decide that they  just have to try harder to be more bipartisan and to jettison all those progressive moves over the past months in favor of blue dog and winger policies.

    Good article on Rahm's be more (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 10:08:27 AM EST
    Republican strategy. FDL

    Rahm doesn't think about Democratic turnout. His reputation for "winning a Democratic majority" rests on his ability as a self-promoter to take credit for victories that happened in spite of him. The truth is that his "act more like Republicans" strategy just hasn't worked out, and we're getting whiffs of the disaster it spells for Democrats who follow it.

    In 2009, we just couldn't win turnout regardless of who the President was or how popular the Administrations decisions were- think about it we're disappointed that Obama's been only partially succuessful so far, but even those minor succuesses have angered the GOP and those farther right (not sure how to characterize them- I mean I think a lot of its racism, but I also think the majority of those for whom that is the driving factor are GOP anyway- they've just been further angered- something that would also be the case if a Woman was president, these are the "angry white men" who don't want to lose status).  2010 should be interesting- I think 2012 could very well be a landslide larger than 2008 was simply because of demographic trends and the current level of Obama support- the mid-terms on the other hand are going to be tough- the only time in the last 30 years where a President didn't lose ground in his first mid-term was an anomaly that is unlikely to ever be repeated (2002- 9/11 basically drives the vote).

    I see two things... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Addison on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 07:49:00 AM EST
    To me the only issues here are (a) the media narrative -- IMO this can largely be dismissed as few people seem to be basing their voting decisions on the schizo media anymore (the preceding is a completely unsupported assertion, mind you) and (b) the degree to which the fringe right redoubles their effort to force out moderates in 2010. Or do they get smarter about it? Which disastrous position will Michael Steele take next year: dismiss his base or embrace them? Or will he be purged by then? All of these questions hinge on how the right as a mass deals with last night, I think.

    I think those are decent takeaways (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by andgarden on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 07:54:12 AM EST
    As to Maine, I think the bad news is that it's not only old people who are bigots. We're going in the right direction, but we still haven't really won one of these yet--anywhere.

    I was thinking about this this morning (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:50:12 AM EST
    It never occurred to me last night that Joshua the zombie was truly scary.  I see him everyday with his neck tilted to one side and his hump on the right side of his back.  We also used one of his sister's old honor student shirts from a local junior high for no special reason other than it was old.  We cut up the clothes and sprayed black and white hair and body color all over him and mashed it together so he looked fresh from the dirty grave.  And don't zombies always have a bloody mouth from their last dinner of fresh brains?  At his school last night he looked like a local junior high kid who might have been hit by a bus, and left his grave.  This was a fluke, not something anyone in the family imagined.  Then I began feeling bad that I and he may have shocked some people here.  But Joshua is not a mistake, he is a product of nature just like me.  I came to the conclusion that I'm tired of shame over natural things. I remembered how much embracing realities, that a very deep part of me knows to be true, even though they could be uncomfortable for a time has brought so much clarity to my life and freed my energy up to focus on truly important things.  By then I was pulling into the driveway and remembered that once again the voting population has revealed that they fear this sort of living and clarity too much.  And I actually sat there and cried for a minute, because being different as I am (mother of a son obviously like only 1 in a million) has transformed my life.  It has brought me more true joys than any other clarifying experience has, but it gets lonely sometimes.  And I cried for that aloneness I deal with and that so many other people do, and much of it is needless.

    "Everything but marriage" is winning (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by esmense on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 09:51:03 AM EST
    in Washington State. It gives people in civil unions -- and co-habitating elderly couples -- all the rights of married couples. But it doesn't call those rights "marriage." Perhaps this is really the politically smart way for this issue to move forward? When you present the issue as a matter of providing specific practical and humane "rights" are more people likely to respond reasonably out of a notion of fairness? While, when it's presented as a change in the long standing, ingrained cultural tradition called "marriage" more people respond fearfully -- an emotional, knee-jerk conservative, reaction? On an emotional level the first approach may be more likely to be seen as the addition of a good --  bestowing something new and deserved on a minority, while the second may, in some people, bring up fear of loss -- perceived as changing forever and unpredictably something the majority enjoys, values highly, and has always understood in a very specific way.

    I'm not arguing with those who understandably want gay unions to be recognized as "marriage" and don't disagree with them in terms of the benefits of doing so. I'm only speculating about why one approach may be, at this point in time, culturally and politically, the more successful approach.

    Of course, this success isn't getting any play in the national media. Nor are all the many other instances across the country where the conservative cultural and fiscal agenda failed miserably.    


    This works only (none / 0) (#59)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 10:13:56 AM EST
    if the Federal Gov't recognizes Civil Unions and Domestic partnerships as equivalent to marriage in federal law. The states can do what they do and pass either M or CU or DP and we can be equal in fact if not in name.

    WH on Maine referendum (none / 0) (#82)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 11:06:35 AM EST
    Obama "doesn't do" referenda:

    Asked why President Obama didn't get involved in the debate over a Maine ballot initiative that narrowly repealed a law approving gay marriages Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters the president simply doesn't get involved in referenda.

    "The president typically doesn't and hasn't gotten involved in ballot initiatives," Gibbs said Wednesday morning.

    Gay rights advocates have expressed dismay at the White House's decision not to actively help supporters of gay marriage in Maine, who fell narrowly short of scoring the first popular win for same-sex marriage at the polls last night.

    Sigh (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 11:08:19 AM EST
    What a lame excuse.

    How about this one (per Huff Post): (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 02:03:51 PM EST
    Obama didn't jump into NYC mayoral election because he didn't want to offend Bloomberg.

    That's obviously true (none / 0) (#176)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 09:39:20 PM EST
    Maine (none / 0) (#107)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:21:09 PM EST
    went the same way Obama does on gay marriage.  

    Too close to call, though (none / 0) (#93)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 11:24:35 AM EST
    There's not much of a spred in the votes and barely 1/2 the votes are counted. Next update on votes counted won't be until 4:00 this afternoon, I heard.

    I find it really sad to see how truly heartless people can be on this topic. This bill should have passed unanimously, IMHO. Those who need this bill will experience a tremendous uplift in their lives. And those who voted against it won't have the slightest change in theirs, so what motivates them to vote no?


    True, but, most of the ballots left (none / 0) (#129)
    by esmense on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 01:53:38 PM EST
    to be counted are from King County where the measure is enjoying great support.

    That's good to hear (none / 0) (#172)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 03:48:11 PM EST
    I looked at the Puget Sound Business Journal website this morning. They were doing a poll on that initiative...the area participants to the poll were voting 3:1 in favor. That pleased me.

    I certainly hope it passes. We need to stop telling people how they can live when it is none of our business.


    Though not quite the same thing ... (none / 0) (#5)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:19:42 AM EST
    the Washington state result is at least movement in the right direction.

    What results in WA State? (none / 0) (#62)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 10:18:49 AM EST
    Not following which issue on the ballot you are referring to. So far, not too many results are final for anything....except the Constantine win over Hutchison (although, she's pretending she still has a good chance of pulling this off because he lied, lied I tell you).

    Do you have (none / 0) (#8)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:24:10 AM EST
    the wording of the Question in Maine?  

    But (none / 0) (#14)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:30:36 AM EST
    The Maine legislature can reverse this vote when they meet next week.  Of course, it depends on how much courage they have.

    Not necessarily (none / 0) (#131)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 01:59:04 PM EST
    While the rural areas did not go for "No on 1" (as expected), it was urban areas who underperformed and did not deliver for this to be successful.

    Consider this: Of the ten largest cities in Maine (Portland, Lewiston, Bangor, South Portland, Auburn, Biddeford, Brunswick, Sanford, Scarborough and Augusts), five of them (Lewiston, Auburn, Biddeford, Sanford and Augusta) voted yes.  Let me repeat that - five of the ten largest cities in Maine voted for the veto.  Even more interesting, take Lewiston-Auburn a step further:  They went (combined) 62%-38% for Barack Obama over John McCain in 2008, and 43-32-25 for John Baldacci over Chandler Woodcock and Barbara Merrill in 2006 - yet they voted heavily for a culturally conservative ballot initiative.  Welcome to Maine.


    This was the real battlefield where No on 1 lost.  These voters - and their cousins in other counties - are not "back country hicks" - even though some areas of those counties are remote.  I myself am from Penobscot country (Hampden, specifically - which incidentally went for Yes 53%-47% for those of you keeping score), and a great deal of these people represent the typical "suburban swing voter".  In other words, many of them work white collar jobs, live in mostly nice neighborhoods within striking distance of a city, and are pliable for whichever side makes the better case.  We are not talking about culturally conservative "Deliverance" type areas here - this is the home of Maine's soccer moms.

    So, it looks like the "bigots" includes sophisticated urbanites and suburbanites.


    Few Things (none / 0) (#159)
    by CST on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 03:18:02 PM EST
    #1 - I think you're basically agreeing with what andgarden said "it's not only old people who are bigots"

    #2 - "sophisticated urbanites and suburbanites" is kind of an oxymoron when it comes to Maine. And I mean that in the nicest way possible, I have family up there. Of the "ten largest cities" in Maine, only one of them, Portland, has over 50,000 people.  Note that's 50, not 500 thousand.  The next highest, Lewiston, has about 35,000.  Calling any of these "cities" is a bit of a stretch.

    As to your overall point, I think it's fair to say bigots come in all shapes and sizes.  But let's at least be honest about what we are talking about here.


    That's an odd demographic (none / 0) (#161)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 03:26:41 PM EST
    especially considering the population of the state as a whole- even Montana has more than one city over 50,000.

    Well (none / 0) (#162)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 03:28:45 PM EST
    I'm going by what someone who actually lives in Maine describes the voters as:

    Even more interesting, take Lewiston-Auburn a step further:  They went (combined) 62%-38% for Barack Obama over John McCain in 2008

    In other words, many of them work white collar jobs, live in mostly nice neighborhoods within striking distance of a city, and are pliable for whichever side makes the better case.  We are not talking about culturally conservative "Deliverance" type areas here - this is the home of Maine's soccer moms.

    So my guess is, it's a bit harsh to call them "bigots"


    More than one kind of bigot (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by CST on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 03:37:42 PM EST
    Being pro-Obama does not make you not a bigot.  To take it one step further, you can be a minority and still be a bigot.

    I don't consider it harsh at all considering they voted to take away the rights of others.

    I don't know who that person is, but they probably have a different definition of "city" than many of us, which is why I tried putting it in perspective.  Like I said, I am not unfamiliar with the state, although I do not live there.


    Well (none / 0) (#177)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 09:40:40 PM EST
    at least no one is trying to blame it on the black churches this time.

    Not in Maine... (none / 0) (#178)
    by CST on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 10:40:50 AM EST
    that's for sure

    If they voted yes, then functionally, they are (none / 0) (#165)
    by andgarden on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 03:34:07 PM EST
    There's really no other reasonable term for them.

    I guess one could argue ... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:12:11 AM EST
    that the Christie race shows that the old tax-cut/small government message can still work.

    But I'm not wholly convinced.  I think it just shows incumbents are always in danger in bad economic times.

    And that's nothing new.

    But Dems do need show more aggressive action and messaging on jobs. They currently aren't doing great about easing fears on that front.

    Obama's voters (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:23:28 AM EST
    did not bother voting in NJ and VA or Maine.
    That is my take away.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:24:16 AM EST
    they actually might have voted in Maine if you remember the McClurkin incident.

    could be (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:26:37 AM EST
    but I saw the donnie M. incident as more a pander to religious AA voters.  Maine doesn't have much of an AA population.

    Corzine should have ... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:44:45 AM EST
    been able to win without them.

    Though I do wonder if a direct appeal ad with Obama might have helped.

    Obama appeared in Corzine ads, but it was all rally footage.

    I also think the Marine Corps ad was a miscalculation.  


    No one bothered to turnout in those states (none / 0) (#152)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 03:06:30 PM EST
    seriously mid-term turnout is going to be down from 2008- basically it will only be high (on our side) among the elderly and possibly if Obama pushes hard among African-Americans, both the youth-vote and the vote among the middle class crashes every single mid-term and has since Political scientist began tracking.

    wonder (none / 0) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:41:31 AM EST
    if his Goldman Sachs background had anything to do with it?

    It didn't help ... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:46:39 AM EST
    but not a killer in and of itself.

    no (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:48:00 AM EST
    but another straw I think.
    if the demecrats dont start talking about real reform of the financial system we are in big trouble in 10.
    the rubes are not as stupid as they think they are.

    A lot of Dems don't seem ... (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:57:24 AM EST
    to get "the politics of the moment".

    And too many are falling into Hoover territory.  The whole "prosperity is just around the corner" vibe.

    That's not where they should be.


    if I was a republican (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 09:03:11 AM EST
    my 2010 talking points would include the fact that nearly all of the problems that caused the financial crisis still exist and nearly all of the people who caused it are still in charge.

    Geithner's failings will soon loom large (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 09:12:56 AM EST
    and we will discover that his preference for Wall Street benefited nobody longterm outside of the Titans of conartist gambling.  What leaves me dumbstruck is that all of these players aren't even aware of the fact that at some point they crossed over into the land of conartists.  They still firmly believe they market something that directly single handedly governs our economic stability.  And I guess they believe that people can eat numbers to live.  According to Arianna, who is not my fave pundit but seems to have confirmed this with several sources, Larry Summers fave thing to say at the economic sitdowns about the jobs and housings crisis is, "Nothing can be done!"  Then what did FDR do?

    Yup ... (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 09:34:30 AM EST
    According to Arianna, who is not my fave pundit but seems to have confirmed this with several sources, Larry Summers fave thing to say at the economic sitdowns about the jobs and housings crisis is, "Nothing can be done!"  Then what did FDR do?

    And for all the claims of "studying FDR" that many in the Obama administration have made, they're not learning any of his lessons.

    For starters, FDR would never have chosen someone like Geithner.


    In FDR's words, perhaps they never studied this... (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Raskolnikov on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 02:53:16 PM EST
    "The country needs and, unless I mistake its temper, the country demands bold, persistent experimentation. It is common sense to take a method and try it: If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something."

    Nothing CAN be done (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 10:47:00 AM EST
    by these people. They have no desire to do anything, and they think we can't make them.

    Both sides have basically used small variations on the same teams since 1992- when economically the Democratic Party figured out that a shift to the right (economically) was one of the keys to political success.  One of my major disappointments with Obama is how many Clinton era people he appointed to guide the economy- Summers, etc. were part of the problem in the late 90s- they crafted the system that ended up leading to collapse.

    Corzine would have pitched better on 4 days (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by steviez314 on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:27:42 AM EST

    I'm so jumbled!

    red state has a narrative (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:43:41 AM EST
    lets hope they keep it up:

    First, the GOP now must recognize it will either lose without conservatives or will win with conservatives. In 2008, many conservatives sat home instead of voting for John McCain. Now, in NY-23, conservatives rallied and destroyed the Republican candidate the establishment chose.

    I have said all along that the goal of activists must be to defeat Scozzafava. Doug Hoffman winning would just be gravy. A Hoffman win is not in the cards, but we did exactly what we set out to do -- crush the establishment backed GOP candidate.

    I agree with much of that (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 09:32:15 AM EST
    but I see the problem is that the establishment did not include the rank and file. If I understand the selection process was pretty well closed door. You don't do that and expect people to just line up and do as told.

    As a larger picture I think it tells the Repubs and the Conservatives that gay and women's rights are to be ignored at their own risk.


    The religious right outreach (none / 0) (#53)
    by jondee on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 10:06:18 AM EST
    strategists made their bed with the militantly anti-choice, anti-gay faction as an integral part of their coalition, and now they're stuck with them.

    And you cant have it both ways: caterwauling about the John McCains being too-moderate "RINOS" and at the same time talking as if it were within the realm of possibility that the hard Right wing of the party would stop "ignoring gays and woman's rights" is to exist in a state of denial about current staus quo arrangments.


    The Repub strategist (none / 0) (#58)
    by jondee on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 10:13:45 AM EST
    attitude toward fundamentalists is a slight variation on "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", and, unfortunately for the country, that isnt going to change any time soon.

    Sorta that "Big Tent" mentality I guess. (none / 0) (#116)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:32:57 PM EST
    I believe (none / 0) (#68)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 10:27:57 AM EST
    Deeds and Corzine received a whole lotta money from people outside their states as well.

    Amusingly (none / 0) (#77)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 10:49:44 AM EST
    Hoffman totally skipped the last debate before the election, his stated reason being that it was hosted by a liberal public radio station.  I guess he figured he could just coast on the Sarah Palin endorsement and all that without demonstrating any fluency with the local issues, but apparently he figured wrong.

    By all accounts, Hoffman ran a by-the-numbers campaign based on ideological conservatism, a campaign so generic you could literally run it in any district.  That's why his candidacy was so appealing to national conservatives, and apparently why local moderates were none too enthused.  He made it a little too obvious that a vote for him would be a vote against the district's financial interests, and only committed conservatives are willing to make that trade.

    I find it quite amusing, by the way, that after Hoffman and all his national supporters spent the entire campaign talking about how the Democratic candidate and the Republican were two peas in a pod, how she was just as liberal as him or even more so, blah blah blah, that it was supposedly this huge backstab when she ended up endorsing the Democrat.  Isn't that what you'd expect her to do, after blasting her as a liberal for months?  I don't see how they can drive her from the race by screaming that she's not a real Republican, and then get offended when she doesn't endorse the candidate the "real" Republicans prefer.


    Gotta love mailers (none / 0) (#156)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 03:12:43 PM EST
    bragging about the endorsement of Michelle Malkin, I can totally see how that's a more sensible choice than citing local endorsements.

    Awesome (none / 0) (#155)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 03:11:27 PM EST
    You guys should primary Snowe and Collins, and push Crist out of the Senate Primary in Florida- it would be brilliant and don't those states deserve a chance to vote for hard right canidates for the US Senate (ignore what happened when Nelson faced Katherine Harris, also ignore what happened in PA when Santorum faced a moderate Dem) and nothing would help the GOP more than pushing out two moderate Senators with high bipartisan approval and choosing a radical right canidate over a popular sitting Governor to run for Florida's second senate seat.

    I think the lesson (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:45:33 AM EST
    is that it is challenging to get some parts of the Democratic base to show up in off-years, particularly the younger side of the coalition that Obama energized in 2008.  If Obama wants to keep enjoying strong majorities after 2010, he's going to need to invest some effort in figuring out a way to get his fan club to the polls when he's not on the ballot personally.

    Then again, maybe the takeaway from NY-23 is that Joe Biden and not Obama is the rock star in the Democratic Party.  Good show, Joe!

    "effort" aka "money" (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:54:37 AM EST
    Over at the orange, someone was wondering where all the Obama supporters are.  Didn't they know they needed to get out there and vote?

    Are you kidding?  2008 was Obama doing rally after rally and the media following him around like the celebrity hounds that they are.  The paid ads didn't hurt either.  If you dump hundreds of millions of dollars into outreach and media efforts, you should expect a proportional response.  If you don't - well then, do you expect people to take to the streets and the polls without all that motivation and stimulation?


    How about committing to issues (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by esmense on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 11:15:46 AM EST
    that aid that constituency? In the media, and  the internet, the assumption often seems to be  that Obama's young voters were all the children of the elite -- students at Ivy League universities, etc. (Voters just like their children, or themselves.) Perhaps it's true that for these elite young people the cultural significance of Obama's election was the most important reason for their vote -- sometimes it certainly seems that members of the Obama inner circle see it that way.

    But I run a business that employs young working class men and women -- people who are struggling to work, pay for education and training and support themselves (and surprisingly often help out their families, too) in a high-cost-of-living urban environment. They are bright, ambitious people; sometimes from poorer, more rural parts of the state, often minorities and/or children of immigrants, graduates of the foster care system, etc., etc. and their liberalism is economic, not just cultural. They voted for Obama (and supported Dean, with great enthusiasm, before him) because they REALLY WANT and need major health care reform, more affordable access to education and training, more affordable housing and transportation, etc. The future success of these young people, who will not inherit major material resources from their parents, depends on the quality and availability of their community's and the nation's public resources and cultural, material, social and economic infra-structure. The kind of resources and infra-structure that we've been neglecting for the last 30 years.

    If Obama wants enthusiasm from the majority of this country's young working people he can't just be the change -- he has to actually change the conservative course the country has pursued for the last 30 years; neglecting the public resources that support the needs and goals of our many young and ambitious citizens in favor of protecting the private wealth of their richest, most conservative and fearful elders.


    I'm confused (none / 0) (#66)
    by CST on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 10:26:32 AM EST
    I thought the C.W. was that new and younger voters didn't actually come out en masse in 2008.

    They did come out (none / 0) (#69)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 10:29:36 AM EST
    They came out in force - but just not in any larger numbers than any other presidential election.

    Again (none / 0) (#70)
    by CST on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 10:34:54 AM EST
    if it's not "any larger" than other elections, how is that "in force"?

    Aren't they traditionally no shows?

    How does this relate in any way to Obama-love (or lack there of) that they show up exactly how they always do for pres elections and also non pres elections?


    Because they came out well (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 10:43:32 AM EST
    in previous elections in this millennium, actually -- because of great GOTV efforts on campuses, for example, by pressure groups then.  It's just that the older voters went to Bush.  (Well, of course, they went to Gore in 2000, when a lot of young'uns went to Nader, but that's another story. . . .)

    I will tell you that after watching the disheartening effect of the 2000t election on new voters then, I did not expect them to come out again so well in the next election.  But they did -- in 2004.  Not so much in the midterm, though.  So there may be hope for a good GOTV effort again in 2010.  

    On the other hand, I think that very different reasons brought out new voters in 2000 and 2004 vs. new voters in 2008.  


    cx (none / 0) (#81)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 11:06:05 AM EST
    Make that hope for a good GOTV effort again in 2012.

    Must have more coffee. . . .


    I thought (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by CST on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 11:15:32 AM EST
    GOTV was very impressive in 2004 considering who the candidate was.  It might be harder in 2012 because it's an incumbent year for Dems.  I think 2004 was more of a "I hate Bush vote" than an "I love Kerry vote".

    I guess my point is (none / 0) (#86)
    by CST on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 11:10:32 AM EST
    we shouldn't be surprised by this, when there is no real difference between this time around and previous times.  

    I agree, new voters in 2008 probably came out for different reasons.  That being said, new voters in 2000 and 2004 were no longer new voters by 2008, and some of them (2000) were no longer necessarily "young voters" by then either. which is why the "disheartening effect" of 2000 wouldn't necessarily affect new voters in 2004 - different batch of people.  

    Speaking as someone who was a "new voter" in 2004, 2000 just stood as an example of why it is so important to vote.  In landslide years you don't get the feeling that your vote really matters.  Even though the count was off, 2000 showed us that every vote matters (even if they don't all "count").  A few more voters in Florida and the Supreme Court never would've had a say.

    All that being said, I am worried about 2010, but that's because I don't think anything has really changed.  I hope I'm wrong.


    It's always larger (none / 0) (#79)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 10:58:42 AM EST
    in presidential election years.  Young people don't pay attention to local or state politics as much.  It's boring and there's too many little details to pay attention to.

    Local politicians actually (somewhat) have to be accountable to voters - by going to small venues, and actually answering questions.  There isn't a national strategy and well choregraphed commercials and larger than life personalities usually.

    Look at the caucuses - young people who supported Obama came out to vote for him, but very few stayed around to vote for other party officials or party business.  They didn't care - it was boring.


    My view (none / 0) (#83)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 11:07:07 AM EST
    is that turnout basically works like it always has, but that Obama's coalition includes a little more of the younger folks than winning Democrats of the past, a little more emphasis on minorities, and a little less representation from the older Democrats who sit around and tell stories about FDR.  And it just so happens that the former groups turn out less in off-year elections.  So while they still might turn out to be a great coalition for the Democratic Party down the road, that's a problem that needs to be solved in the short term if we want the midterms to go well.

    Will younger Democratic voters (none / 0) (#87)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 11:15:08 AM EST
    turn out for midterms to vote against those who voted to impose mandates re HCR?  

    Quite a few of them will still be able to (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 11:42:52 AM EST
    get coverage under their parents insurance plans under proposed legislation. IIRC the Dems raised the age to 27.

    In some ways a smart move since it will remove some of the resistance to the mandates from younger people. Looking at it from another viewpoint, it will probably reduce the number of young, healthy people participating in the exchanges.  


    just a hunch (none / 0) (#90)
    by CST on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 11:18:28 AM EST
    no - especially if it doesn't take effect by then.  The lack of jobs for young people might get them out though.

    to clarify (none / 0) (#92)
    by CST on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 11:21:46 AM EST
    I don't think young people are against mandates in general, despite the fact it will probably affect them the most.

    It's not like they don't want healthcare, it's just a question of how to pay for it.  That's why I think jobs are the larger issue.


    No job, no money (none / 0) (#95)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 11:38:33 AM EST
    No money, who cares about a mandate?

    this is just getting weird (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:46:42 AM EST
    Pandering to the religious? (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:55:57 AM EST
    That shouldn't be news, given the pattern of past behavior of the current administration.

    I like Kos' take (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by magster on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:49:22 AM EST
    If Dems as a unit don't deliver on its mandate, Dems will stay at home on election night.  The Republicans voted in the same numbers as 2008 and the Dems didn't.  

    Creigh Deeds can now cheer when McDonnell opts out of the public option.  It's what he wanted.

    thats (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:55:45 AM EST
    absolutely right.  the thing kos may not have mentioned is that the "Obama coalition" showed up for Obama but there is no guarantee they are going to show up for any other democrat.

    Yes, many voted for celebrity (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:58:36 AM EST
    and not ideology.  Guess the Dems will have to find more celebrities to run.



    And the insistence (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:59:29 AM EST
    that this election isn't a referendum on Obama, yet...

    If Dems had done well, they'd be all talking about Obama's coat tails.

    The world viewed the prism of partisanship.


    Yeh. So if this was a repudiation (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 09:07:24 AM EST
    of the status quo, Obama is now the status quo.

    Interesting, then, to imagine how Axelrod will run Obama in 2012.  The buzzwords can't be hope and change.  What will they be?


    hope (5.00 / 7) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 09:08:27 AM EST
    FOR change?

    They'll fall back on the old favorite (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 10:15:20 AM EST
    "be afraid, be very very afraid"  All they need to do is make their opponent look more evil than they are, and playing dirty is right up Axelrod's alley.

    Yes, but the old "lesser of two evils" (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 10:24:32 AM EST
    argument just doesn't look a winner with the new voters who came out to the polls to be trendy.

    My sense is that they (also) did not like the Bush/Cheney politics of fear.  So will it look like new, shiny politics of fear from Obama's mouth?


    True, but what percentage of (none / 0) (#78)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 10:51:43 AM EST
    voters do you think voted for Obama as "any D is better than an R?" The last election was a lesser of two evils vote. The difference was a certain group of voters road ponies to the polls so it looked friendlier.

    Nope, for the new voters (none / 0) (#143)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 02:42:36 PM EST
    in 2008, the last election was not about the lesser of two evils.  It was for 18 million or so others, but most of those were not new voters.

    Including Obama in 2012 (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by magster on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 09:47:26 AM EST
    And as many Repubs stayed home (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 09:02:07 AM EST
    in 2008, the reason for the loss, it ought to be worrisome that they could bring out more to the polls in 2010.

    fear is a great motivator (none / 0) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 09:07:53 AM EST
    they have people scared to death.  my hate and fear mail from "blue dog dems" has reached or even passed pre 2008 election levels.  and started including people who resisted the last time.

    there is a wave coming.


    The Village narrative will be (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by HenryFTP on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 09:09:54 AM EST
    that Democratic politicians need to act more like Republicans, while even the exit polling rather strongly suggests that our elected Democrats would be far better off acting like real Democrats:


    Why Democratic politicians persist in ignoring the factors that brought them victories in 2006 and 2008 is a mystery to me -- Rahm Emanuel seems to think that time has stood still since 1994, even though the same amount of time has elapsed since then as the period from 1953 to 1968. It is hard to escape the conclusion that the Democratic leadership is largely out of touch with the Party faithful and indeed broad swaths of the American public.

    So much for the dazzlingly "transformative" White House political operation . . .

    I am sick to my stomach (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by kenosharick on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 09:49:29 AM EST
    about Maine. Imagine if your basic civil rights as an American were decided by popular ballot- mine are.  What if the question of African Americans being allowed to vote or marry was on the Mississippi ballot in the 1960s, rather than being decided by courts and legislatures? Not every issue should be put to popular vote, especially not questions of fundamental civil rights.

    Read this and weep. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 09:57:36 AM EST

    This isn't new.  I believe the last count was that thirty states have anti gay legislation.  That happened in under ten years.  This isn't about "the people".  This is about an organized and effective national right wing & religious coalition.  

    Now how can I state that in sound bite terms?  I've been trying to get this point across to people, but I think I've been largely ineffective.


    Sound bite (none / 0) (#179)
    by MyLeftMind on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 04:17:26 PM EST
    Democrats are idiots to let the GOP bludgeon them again and again with this issue. Anti-gay sentiment is fear and hatred based, both of which are huge GOTV motivators. If the Dems in Congress would simply establish equal rights at the federal level, all this state-level stuff would no longer matter. But they won't because too many Democratic voters despise gays themselves.

    Even here at TalkLeft the ramifications of withdrawing marital equality in Maine isn't deserving of a blog post.

    Here's a sound bite for Democrats: Your discomfort with gay male sex has NOTHING to do with equal rights for my heterosexual children. Get over it.


    Excellent points, but (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 10:04:21 AM EST
    too often in our history, we have had to give up on the courts and resort to the popular vote.  I.e., woman suffrage.  After the court route was out, it was subjected to referenda after referenda, inch by inch, town by town, state by state -- for a total of almost 1000 campaigns that women had to wage in what they called their "century of struggle."  And the amount of fundraising that they had to do to wage all those and finally win some and then enough -- well, money always has run politics.

    Looking at those parallels, it is worrisome to have to say that this cause may be only a couple of decades into its century of struggle.


    I wanted to put this up today (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 09:49:58 AM EST
    a small acknowledgement of service because British troops have experienced a great deal of loss lately in Afghanistan.  And they got hit with what I think is the second most dangerous thing to do outside of driving around Afghanistan, and that is training Afghan police forces.

    And Canadians and Australians (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 09:53:08 AM EST
    There is a very moving video on Youtube, which I use in classes, of parallels from Gallipoli to the current wars, set to the tune of one of the most poignant antiwar songs ever, "Waltzing Matilda."

    The sight of coffins coming home again to Canada and Australia is so sad.  And never hidden from the cameras there.  


    It is important to keep track of such things (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 10:08:47 AM EST
    That is one of the factors the public uses to form its group opinion about whether or not the cost of a military operation is worth it.  It was the almost complete wiping out of the Lima company Marine's in Iraq due to several different attacks and IEDs that set off the Crawford protest.  And then they threatened to arrest the protesters, which caused a lot of people to join the protest to challenge that B.S.  Enough was enough and the whole Iraq War was based on nothing but lies....and it seemed that a mandate of Americans stood up and shouted NO due to witnessing the costs.

    The cost (none / 0) (#154)
    by Raskolnikov on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 03:10:29 PM EST
    The cost isn't really felt by most Americans, government debt is a very abstract thing that the vast majority of our population doesn't even consider.  I can only imagine opposition would be much more widespread and forceful if it had a DIRECT impact on our pocketbooks; that is to say if the war were funded through taxes and not debt.  You can tell people that each of us owes China $30,000, but until you send them a bill, its just an inconsequential idea.

    To clarify (none / 0) (#157)
    by Raskolnikov on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 03:15:04 PM EST
    I understood you to mean the cost was the lives and livelihood of our serving men and women, but the financial aspect is just as often ignored.  Both, obviously, need to take a more central part in our ongoing discussions of the "necessity" of certain wars.

    I speak of both costs (none / 0) (#175)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 07:06:50 PM EST
    But the lost lives is usually more poignant for the general population.  And the difficult thing about knowing the condition of the military equipment, what needs to be replaced and what it is costing us and what is happening in that realm is that that information can be closely guarded if it sends out information about any "strategic weaknesses" that we may be experiencing.  For me, the cost of war is the cost of war though.

    My narrative: (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 10:15:15 AM EST
    All politics is local.
    The personal is political.

    3 year sentence... (1.00 / 1) (#124)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 01:36:15 PM EST
    in S. Carolina for buggery...even for a second offense that's harsh.  Did anyone ask Sugar how she felt about their relationship?  I ask because one thing I learned workin' with horses is if a horse don't want you in their stall you will know and right quick via hind leg kick.

    When he gets out (none / 0) (#125)
    by CoralGables on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 01:45:24 PM EST
    if he moves to Miami, as a registered sex offender,  he can live under a bridge. I wonder if future probation will ban him from parimutuel facilities.

    And I thank you for my daily education as buggery was not in my vocabulary. All I can say is everyone needs a little sugar now and then. Guess he wasn't a Sweet'N Low kinda guy.


    You're on fire CG.... (none / 0) (#132)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 02:03:07 PM EST
    not a parimutuel ban...The Breeders Cup is this weekend!  Go Zenyatta!

    All kidding aside, if Sugar minded the attention from this whackjob she would have served as her own judge, jury, and executioner.  Not saying buggery ain't animal abuse...but its definitely a mild form, 3 years is crazy even for a second offense...get him a hobby horse:)


    How do you know the horse wasn't (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 02:25:46 PM EST
    restrained, mentally shut down and/or drugged? Many animals go through abuse and are capable but don't serve as their own judge, jury, and executioner for one reason or another. She may have shut down. That's how my dog handled abuse, as do many abused animals. "If Sugar minded the attention . . . " How can you even say that?! (I don't give a sh*t that you have been around horses either. NO freakin' excuse!)

    Mild form of animal abuse? Sorry, that's just sick.


    3 years in a cage... (1.00 / 1) (#140)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 02:37:49 PM EST
    is pretty sick too pal...do you really think what happened to Sugar is worse than what happens to the Central Park carriage horses everyday?

    What the guy did was wrong, and sorry if my humor offended...but the response is even worse.


    I wonder (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:22:37 AM EST
    if Corzine is wishin' he had pardoned that poor MS patient being put through Jersey's ringer.

    I am betting he wishes (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:25:20 AM EST
    He supported Hillary Clinton last year.  Her voters are more faithful and engaged in voting in off year elections.

    Two words.. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:27:42 AM EST
    probably sunk Corzine more than anything else...Goldman Sachs, thy name is Mudd.

    How strange (none / 0) (#15)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:35:50 AM EST
    Corzine was one of Hillary's earliest endorsers.

    Late endorsers who hung in there (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:40:05 AM EST
    get more loyalty.  Give, get.

    I dunno (none / 0) (#40)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 09:33:52 AM EST
    I would never discount the electoral power of the bitter knitters, i'm just not sure that was a big part of Corzine's problem. Heck, the entire NJ establishment was pro-Hillary.

    Oh, I agree not a major factor (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 09:50:10 AM EST
    in this race, probably.  Just a general comment on which relied more on the new voters -- the ones who want celebrities -- with the result yesterday that we predicted.  

    I don't care what is said (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 09:45:50 AM EST
    NJ and VA were clear cut comments on Obama and his administration as well as the Democratic controlled Congress.

    People are not happy with the spending. People are not happy with showering money on Wall Street. People are not happy that attention is being given to health care reform, which most do not have a problem with. People are not happy with the so-called Cap and Trade legislation which more and more know to be unneeded and there only to make its supporters rich and richer. And people are very unhappy that their taxes are going up next year when the Bush tax cuts expire.

    And people are very, very, very unhappy with the economy. Whether Obama understands or not, he is the President and the economy is his.

    The Democratic controlled Congress (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 09:47:32 AM EST
    picked up two new members of the Democratic Caucus, both supporters of a public option.

    What lesson do you draw from that?


    Those are local races (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 09:53:26 AM EST
    VA and NJ were state wide.

    Vast difference.


    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 10:27:03 AM EST
    Heh yourself (none / 0) (#142)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 02:41:43 PM EST
    But I do understand the need to hang on to something... if for self respect if nothing else.



    Projection (none / 0) (#166)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 03:35:34 PM EST
    look up the definition. Seriously, how can you say that the state elections are referendums while the elections which actually sent people to DC are local?

    Funny how the national conservative apparatus (none / 0) (#167)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 03:36:53 PM EST
    didn't bother much with the Governors's races while Palin, et al weighed in on a local race, its almost like your trying to rationalize or something.

    You'll have to ask a conservative. (none / 0) (#173)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 05:11:24 PM EST
    VA and NJ (none / 0) (#63)
    by CST on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 10:22:39 AM EST
    were also races for control of LOCAL gov't.

    Coming from a state where we routinely elect republican gov's and always send Dems to D.C. - I take that with a grain of salt.  Especially in NJ where the incumbent candidate had significant issues.

    Local politics is very very different from national politics.

    To be honest, I am most upset about Maine.  Since that IS a national issue.


    there is also a vast difference between (none / 0) (#64)
    by DFLer on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 10:23:15 AM EST
    "local" races that send people to the national congress to deal with national issues and local governors, who only deal with local state issues.

    Awesome rationalization (none / 0) (#164)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 03:33:40 PM EST
    so the races that actually could have some impact on what Obama does, were local, but the ones that only affect state level decision making were referendums on the national political scene- that doesn't seem almost exactly backwards to you?

    economy (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 10:47:08 AM EST
    People are and will continue to be miserable because of the economy nothing more, nothing less.  I do not think cap and trade shows up on the radar and if it does it is a very small minority.  Being that the economy is 99% of the previous admin budget and misguided policies, people may be upset with this admin but their anger is misplaced.

    People who are upset with the tax ending next year are the upper echelon.  All groups in the middle class and below are oblivious.  

    My guess is that the same group of americans who thought that Iraq was involved in 9-11 are the same ones who believe that the economy is President Obama's fault.

    I said it when the stimulus was approved and will say it again, our government, both parties and house and senate, conceded 10% lingering UE with their anemic stimulus (considering it is less than our entire annual spend on defense.)  When they conceded UE at 10% for a prolonged period they sent a message to the populace that they were only concerned with keeping the moving at a snails pace.

    What we are experiencing right now will continue well into next year and perhaps into 2011.  We won't reach peak employment until 2013-2014.  

    The new normal is not pretty and sans additional stimulus will feel a lot worse than it feels right now.

    Larry Summers has said in meetings there is nothing we can do about rising UE and foreclosures.  There is something they can do.  Infrastructure investment creates short term opportunities, fixes ailing bridges/roads/schools etc and would be a major help in chipping away at UE.  

    Smart people should be upset at both parties and all reps because of their concession.  Not the failures of Bush but the apathy of our representatives to address the fear that has gripped this nation.  Financial fear keeps a majority of the population up at night.  Afghanistan, alqaeda, iraq don't.  


    People are miserable (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by jondee on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 11:50:15 AM EST
    because they've been willfully kept in the dark about what brought about the current mess, and on some level they know it, which only increases the sense of alienation from those they should ideally be in solidarity with in the Rooseveltian sense of "WE will get through this." No light at the end of the tunnel.

    And the people have been kept in the dark because the Wall St scam artist - unregulated market true believers like Summers and Geithner are still in power -- for some perverse reason -- and dont want the system, and themselves, placed under a glaring public spotlight.


    Economically speaking (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by jondee on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 11:58:50 AM EST
    People like Summers and Geithner are about as Democratic and populist in the Rooseveltian sense as Joe Lieberman is.

    i think that adds to it (none / 0) (#108)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:25:05 PM EST
    but by and large the conversations at night are centered on finances.  Some are employed and scared.  Many are UE and really scared.  

    Financial insecurity has a deep hold on our country not because of gov't deficits but because of personal ones.  Want to make the deficit disappear from the conversation?  Create jobs.  Problem is neither party wants to have a real discussion on that investment and are pandering.

    Another stimulus isn't going to make our problems disappear but it would give people hope which after a campaign largely based on hope seems only a distant memory at this point....


    They're misplaced?? (none / 0) (#145)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 02:46:23 PM EST
    That's what happens when you are on TV 24 hours a day for a year.

    The economy is now Obama's.

    And no. The tax cuts covered everyone, so will the increases.


    Funny about the economy (none / 0) (#169)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 03:37:59 PM EST
    what with even Fox's polls showing less than 25% attributing the economy to Obama while nearly 60% atrribute the same to Bush.

    Really (none / 0) (#170)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 03:38:48 PM EST
    tell me what Tax cut that applied to individuals making less than $50,000 a year is going to expire.

    Do your own research (none / 0) (#174)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 05:13:13 PM EST
    and look up the tax rates.

    I would agree that as of 9-30 it is his (none / 0) (#171)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 03:42:58 PM EST
    and unless you have a whole bag o' sunshine for the nation that can get it moving quicker.. my guess is the giant wheels of economy will start to turn in the next few quarters stopping every now and again because the chain popped off.  And that is as good as it gets, even if the messiah hisself was in the oval office....

    Polanski's latest bail appeal (none / 0) (#57)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 10:12:12 AM EST
    is not likely to be very successful as it's apparently the very same offer that was rejected previously.
    "At this moment, we have no new bail offer," Galli said.

    Btw, BTD, re your 1st sentence (none / 0) (#74)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 10:47:16 AM EST
    -- when it's the economy, as it so often is, it's always interesting to see the guesstimates on gender of voters. (I.e., the economy is almost always the number-one issue with women, understandably . . . even if pundits and media put it in other terms and don't see the economic connections.)  

    I don't know, though, if that will be done with just state-level races?  

    Strong showing in defeat... (none / 0) (#75)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 10:47:25 AM EST
    by Thompson in the NYC mayor race...he won Brooklyn and The Bronx despite getting outspent 13-1...a level playing field and he probably takes it.

    Nope. (none / 0) (#109)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:26:07 PM EST
    very low turnout meant Bloomie voters thought he was a shoe in by a larger percentage. Thompson voters had a reason to make sure they showed up, their vote literally counted.

    Bloomberg could (and did) run on his accomplishments/plans, Thompson, not so much. His attacks on Bloomberg were comical in some cases . . .


    I don't know... (none / 0) (#121)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 01:05:02 PM EST
    maybe Thompson could have better branded himself with 13 times the dough.

    Thats what I saw from Bloomberg with his ad and mailer blitz...not touting accomplishments so much as touting "Bloomberg" as a brand name.  


    He wasn't touting a brand name (none / 0) (#122)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 01:26:45 PM EST
    did you not learn anything from the Obama campaign? :) That was branding. And that was all about Obama. Bloomberg is not all about Bloomberg in that manner.

    I don't think money would have helped Thompson. He couldn't match Bloomberg on issues. And he would have had to convince people he could do a better job based on . . . ? And Bloomberg would be able to counter with some with substance vs pie in the sky words from another politician.

    Thompson could do a better run in 4yrs against a Rep. I doubt Bloomie is going to throw the city into the toilet in the next 4 yrs, so Thompson can run on what's good and what he can make better. He needs to work on some campaigning, imo, from what I saw. I didn't find him convincing, genuine and thought he could be a tad bit petulant. Not someone that should take over the city, especially right now. I thought he could have handled the third term issue better in his campaigning, it should have been a bigger stepping off point, but I felt he didn't take his end of the argument far/strong enough. And to keep referring to Bloomie as a Repub was fairly laughable. Bottom line, money or not, it's still his message/campaign. Fell short, not something to inspire confidence in voters who aren't already in your corner. People want results more and more these days . . .


    Here is the season for opera in (none / 0) (#76)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 10:47:33 AM EST
    Krakow, Poland.  Impossible to present such an array of contemporary opera is U.S.  Amazing.


    November's line-up boasts Stravinsky's A Soldier's Tale (4th), Szymanowski's King Roger (9th), Moniuszko's much-loved The Haunted Manor (Straszny Dwor, 14th, 15th, 17th) and Puccini's Madame Butterfly to round things off (28th, 29th).

    P.S.  I discovered this info as a result of google search re Polanski--what else.

    Come on now (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 11:08:58 AM EST
    Is that a mandatory link or an optional link?  I demand that you clarify.

    Yes, mandatory clarification. (none / 0) (#112)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:28:37 PM EST
    There you go, nicely done! (none / 0) (#153)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 03:08:43 PM EST
    Lots of chestnuts there. (none / 0) (#91)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 11:19:14 AM EST
    I greatly admire and attend (none / 0) (#110)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:26:26 PM EST
    SFO's cutting edge choices:  Messiaen's "St Francis," Ligeti's "La Grand Macabre,"  Hegie's "Three Decembers," Britten's "Death in Venice," and others.

    See there (none / 0) (#123)
    by CoralGables on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 01:33:33 PM EST
    Polanski has been good for you. I would call it a fixation, but will give you the benefit of the doubt and call it a harmless yet passionate hobby with the possibility of beneficial operatic side effects.

    Just trying to broaden my horizons. (none / 0) (#126)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 01:45:58 PM EST
    Afterall, baseball season will end tonight or tomorrow night.

    Pitchers and catchers report (none / 0) (#130)
    by CoralGables on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 01:55:09 PM EST
    to Jupiter in about 109 days. It's never too early to get away from Polanski and reserve space at the Florida condo of brotherly love.

    Thinking about it, if it's the condo of brotherly love maybe he should have chosen one in Clearwater where the Phillies hold spring training.


    He is quite loyal to the Fish. (none / 0) (#134)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 02:08:11 PM EST
    Further news on Anthony Sowell (none / 0) (#94)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 11:37:00 AM EST
    Body count is now up to ten, plus one skull.  The current charges are five counts of aggravated murder.

    Good thing they made sure he did his full fifteen years for the original rape.  He'll be relying on a public defender.  LWOP is likely to be the end result, if not the actual sentence.  He's fifty years old now.

    The poster boy... (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 11:50:26 AM EST
    for who I'd keep half the prisons open for...a classic case of "you give us no choice you sick mother-effer".

    I hope they get the bodies ID'd (none / 0) (#105)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:05:33 PM EST
    ASAP.  There's already two missing women whose families are waiting and probably more I don't know about.

    The Sowell story is also full of examples of what happens when witnesses fail to provide information.  


    Nobody talks, everybody walks. (none / 0) (#115)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:30:58 PM EST
    No code (none / 0) (#117)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:50:16 PM EST
    is without its flaws.

    Hindsight is 20/20...it doesn't appear the cops did anything wrong, the main beef it seems is that the cops and the victim that got away failed to get together to further the investigation in a timely manner.  I just hope the review doesn't lead to more invasive police procedures...it is by design that it is often difficult to catch the bad guys under our system, and I wouldn't have it any other way.


    Pretty major flaw, in this case. (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 01:49:28 PM EST
    Hard to argue with that... (none / 0) (#135)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 02:08:12 PM EST
    though the "eye for an eye" and "somebody call 911!" codes have their body counts and crosses to bear too.

    Sowell almost did, too. (none / 0) (#128)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 01:49:35 PM EST
    The rape victim failing to show.  The naked woman who fell(?) out of a second story window and didn't say anything...

    If the rape victim had vanished, what would have happened?  Would the police have investigated without a witness?


    "No reflection on us!" (none / 0) (#98)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 11:49:09 AM EST
    WH spins Dem election losses

    WASHINGTON - The White House distanced itself Wednesday from Democratic losses in two states, saying the races for governor hinged on local issues and were not a referendum on President Barack Obama.

    The Republican victories Tuesday in Virginia and New Jersey energized the opposition and are a setback for Obama as he struggles to overhaul the U.S. health care system, win passage of climate change legislation, and build political support for his handling of the war in Afghanistan.

    They could also be ominous for Democrats ahead of next year's midterm elections, when a third of the Senate, all of the House of Representatives and most governorships are on the ballot.

    But White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters that voters in both states went to the polls to work through "very local issues that didn't involve the president."

    The presidential spokesman said that voters were concerned about the economy. He said "I don't think the president needed an election or an exit poll to come to that conclusion."

    More spin! (none / 0) (#106)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:10:36 PM EST
    Nancy Pelosi says it's all good.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she sees no need to be worried by Republican victories in two governors races last night, because for her the news was all good.

    "From my perspective, we won last night," said Pelosi (D-Calif.), referring to the New York special election for the House seat previously held by Republican Rep. John McHugh. "We had one race were engaged in."

    Oh well.... (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:27:01 PM EST
    if they find themselves jolted out of bed while having these delightful dreams next year they'll have only themselves to blame/credit :)

    Greenwald today: 2 for 1. Excellent. (none / 0) (#99)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 11:49:34 AM EST

    Love this one from Greenwald (none / 0) (#114)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:29:04 PM EST
    An anonymous White House source, too scared to reveal himself, tells Weiner he should "man up".


    Of course, not only is the statement ironically self-loathing, it's also mysoginistic and homophobic (per Americablog).  It's a perfect trifecta.

    Whoever this White House Source is, me thinks they tend to be mean and nasty in general.  Any guesses at who such a nasty person might be?


    Here's what caught my eye: (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    A White House official who is too cowardly even to attach his own name to his comments -- who has to hide behind Politico's permanently extended fetal wall of anonymity
     [Italics added.]

    Another Dem against HCR (none / 0) (#102)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 11:55:03 AM EST
    Ike Skelton

    Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) has expressed his opposition to the healthcare reform bill pending before the House Wednesday morning.

    Skelton is not the only panel chairman who is planning to vote no. Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) has been highly critical of the legislation that could be voted on later this week.

    In a statement sent to The Hill, Skelton said, "While the bill unveiled last week is an improvement over the bills considered by House committees during the summer months, it does not represent the right balance for the people I represent and I do not intend to support it.

    "I oppose the creation of a new government-run public option and continue to have serious concerns about its unintended consequences for Missourians who have private insurance plans they like. I remain concerned about the bill's impact on rural hospitals and doctors. The proposed reductions to Medicare reimbursement could further pinch the budgets of rural healthcare providers.

    "And I worry that the House bill does not clearly prevent federal funds from being used for abortion services. As a pro-life member of Congress, I cannot support a reform bill that would allow taxpayers to fund abortions."

    It's great that they are (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by cawaltz on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:02:45 PM EST
    hunky dory with Federal funding for medical care going to prayer groups though.

    The irony being that I could actually make a case that in some instances abortion can save a life of a woman whereas there is absolutely no proof that prayer works at all on a medical basis.

    That these people are considered leaders ought to be considered a national tragedy.


    Steve Lopez's column on shopping for (none / 0) (#113)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:29:03 PM EST
    medical marijuana in LA:  LAT

    Re Al Martinez, former columnist for LAT: (none / 0) (#118)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:56:17 PM EST
    he has a blog, which I just discovered.  A wonderful writer.  link

    The NFL commish... (none / 0) (#119)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 01:01:04 PM EST
    is crying to Congress...it appears state workers rights laws are interfering with their precious drug-testing programs and player suspensions.  Link

    Of course, Waxman can't let an opportunity to yell "what about the children!" to pass...

    "One thing is clear: We should not allow the drug policies that the NFL, Major League Baseball, and other sports leagues have put in place to be rendered null and void. That is an invitation to steroid abuse in professional sports. And it will inevitably lead to more steroid use on high school football fields and baseball diamonds."

    Surprisingly, Rep. Bobby Rush was quite candid...

    "You don't want to have 435 members of Congress writing a law that would have in any way some immediate conduct and effect on your players,"

    I like this guy Rush...he knows his fellow reps all too well.

    Pop Quiz.... (none / 0) (#136)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 02:24:00 PM EST
    Kent, Ohio man returns home early Sunday morning to find his house on fire.  He enters the burning building to see that all the occupants got out, suffering first and second degree burns.  He then approaches the two cops at the top of the drive.  Do the officers sworn to serve and protect....

    a) congratulate the man on his heroics and then get him some medical attention.

    b) get him some medical attention and then congratulate him for his heroics.

    c) subdue and taser him, chain and cage him, take him to the judge, then get him medical attention.

    The survey says...

    Of course (none / 0) (#138)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 02:31:50 PM EST
    This is all his side of the story.

    but (none / 0) (#139)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 02:37:41 PM EST
    No one from the Police Department was available for comment.

    I predict... (none / 0) (#141)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 02:40:35 PM EST
    a charges dropped/please don't sue us resolution.

    Why would they respond? (none / 0) (#151)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 03:00:05 PM EST
    He's suing them - any good attorney would tell  them not to comment.

    Scary (none / 0) (#148)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 02:56:56 PM EST
    Watch the Daily Show bit about Salt Lake City and the Mormon Temple.

    Err. (none / 0) (#149)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 02:57:23 PM EST
    Colbert Report- its Jason Jones though.

    Scott Paul says it best... (none / 0) (#158)
    by Slado on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 03:16:10 PM EST
    obs, jobs, jobs. Yesterday's result wasn't a referendum on Obama or the Republican brand. Voters are simply fed up with the economy; every exit poll confirmed this. Look at the reemergence of "Reagan Democrats" in middle-class parts of New Jersey. The message for the Obama Administration is that it had better pivot quickly from health care and climate to the economy, or Democrats face dire consequences in 2010. The message for Republicans also can't be encouraging: the "tea party" brand won't work on a large scale outside of its base, so it had better get serious about offering real solutions for the economy.

    So just what was BO's message (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 03:24:35 PM EST
    during his 3 trips to NJ to get out the vote?

    He tried to rally the voters in Newark to vote for Corzine because of climate and health care?

    If so, I can only shake my head in wonderment...