Oh, the House Republicans are so screwed. The Hill has yet another look at GOP prospects -- and the potential for GOP leadership changes. It's delicious:
The sky is falling on House Republicans and there is no sign of it letting up.
The GOP loss in Mississippi’s special election Tuesday is the strongest sign yet that the Republican Party is in shambles. And while some Republicans see a light at the end of the tunnel, that light more likely represents the Democratic train that is primed to mow down more Republicans in November.
The third straight House special election loss in three conservative districts this year is a clear indication that the GOP brand is turning off voters and the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) is in disarray.
In the wake of the devastating loss, the first question facing House Republican leaders is whether they will keep Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) as NRCC chairman. Speculation has been rampant that Cole would be asked to step down should Republicans lose in Mississippi, and on Tuesday that chatter intensified.
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) will be under tremendous pressure to do something dramatic after the trio of losses. Boehner has publicly clashed with Cole over staffing and lackluster fundraising numbers but despite their differences, their political futures are tied together.
Significant gains by House Democrats this fall would likely lead to Boehner and Cole losing their leadership posts. Travis Childers (D), who narrowly defeated Greg Davis (R) on Tuesday, will push the Democrats’ total in the House to 236 members. With six months to go until the elections, political analysts and observers are suggesting Democrats could reach 250 in the next Congress.
Some Republican conference members have criticized Boehner for not effectively managing Cole.
GOP strategists and lobbyists have also questioned Boehner’s leadership. One Republican source noted that, after Boehner called for staffing changes at the NRCC, Cole refused and triumphed in the showdown.
Okay, there are six months left til election day and a lot can happen. But, this is all looking good.
Now, if we could just get Clinton to admit she's lost so we can really start the battle against McCain.
Tonight, Democrat Travis Childers defeated Republican Glen Davis in Mississippi's First Congressional District. I wrote earlier today about all the money the Republican party was spending to save what should be a solid GOP seat. They failed BIG TIME. The final margin was an impressive 8-point victory: 54% - 46%.
The magnitude of this loss cannot be overstated. The Republican party is in serious trouble in 2008. This is their third loss in a row of open house seats in GOP districts. Russert even acknowledged how big this is for Democrats saying, "That is a seismic election, believe me." Huckabee just admitted that this is bad for the Republicans. We are on our way to a historic election.
As the NY Times reported today, the GOP tried to make Obama the issue in Mississippi.
Hoping to hang on to a Congressional seat in a tight special election here on Tuesday, Republicans in this mostly white and very conservative district are trying to make the vote more a referendum on Senator Barack Obama than on the candidates themselves.
In advertisements and speeches, Republicans have repeatedly associated Travis Childers, the white Democrat threatening to take the seat away from the Republican Party, with Mr. Obama. Republicans say Mr. Obama’s liberal values are out of place in the district. But for many Democratic veterans here, the tactic is a throwback to the old and unwelcome politics of race, a standby in Mississippi campaigning.
Former Gov. William Winter, a Democrat, expressed shock at the current campaign.
“I am appalled that this blatant appeal to racial prejudice is still being employed,” said Mr. Winter, who lost the 1967 governor’s race after his segregationist opponent circulated handbills showing blacks listening to one of his speeches. Mr. Winter went on to win the governor’s office 12 years later.
That tactic failed.
The GOP has got nothing...nothing going for it this year.
UPDATED: Here's the statement on this win tonight from Senator Obama. The defeat of the GOP and its ugly campaign was also a victory for the Democratic nominee for President:
"I want to congratulate Congressman-elect Travis Childers on winning this special election. By electing Travis in this traditionally overwhelmingly Republican district, the people of Mississippi voted to end the politics of division and distraction, and bring about real change. This is the third special election in recent months that Democrats have won in traditionally Republican areas -- an unmistakable sign that Americans want to make a clean break from the failed Bush policies of the past - and are not looking for four more years of those failed policies from John McCain. I look forward to working with Travis in the months ahead to fix our economy, and make a difference in the lives of America's hardworking families," said Barack Obama.
Yesterday morning, I attended the Maria Leavey Breakfast with Majority Leader Harry Reid. I brought my Flip camera to get video -- and I did (except the sound didn't come through.) So, I waited for the transcript before I posted on the event.
Reid was his usual blunt self, answering questions on the record for the reporters and bloggers at the meeting. He didn't hold back. Nico Pitney posted one account here.
Couple of great lines from Reid. On Republican Senators:
First of all folks understand that the Republicans in the Senate do not represent mainstream Republicanism in the country. Mainstream Republicanism in the country is moderate. The Republicans in the Senate are not moderates, with the one exception of Olympia Snowe are not moderates, they're right wing. And that includes some people who in the past have been moderates, someone you'd think like Arlen Specter. I talk about Arlen Specter in my book briefly and say that he's with us when we don't need him. (Laughter) Which is true, he never votes with us on an important vote. The only one who does is Olympia Snowe.
And on FISA:
As you know the Senate passed a bill that granted immunity, I and the majority of the Democrats opposed that, but there were still enough Democrats to join with the Republicans to pass it. I personally don't believe that the phone companies should have immunity and I certainly don't think Bush and Cheney should have immunity. And that's where we are. They are trying to work something out. These are public hearings, public negotiations most of the time, not all of the time, but remember this is not going to happen unless we have Chairman Conyers and others sign off on it, otherwise you can't get it done. So I think we have some good people involved in this. Hopefully we'll work something out on it. As I said, I think the mad rush for immunity was not intense as it was.
For me, the best moment was the last question asking the Majority Leader to handicap the upcoming Senate races.
After explaining how well all the incumbents are doing, Reid turned to the challengers and open seats. In his own words:
We're ahead in Virginia, I mean Virginia's not even close. We're ahead in New Mexico. We'll probably win in Colorado. We're very concerned about that state always even though Mark Udall's way ahead, because the Republicans, there's more than 100,000 more Republicans than Democrats in that state. It's changing significantly, you have a Democratic legislature, a Democratic governor so we're doing OK in Colorado and I think Udall will win. As we speak we're ten points ahead of Stevens in Alaska. Mayor Begich is in town today, I'm going to go to an event for him later on this morning. We have a primary in Oregon. We believe that Merkley who's speaker of the Assembly, can beat Smith.
We believe that Elizabeth Dole is going to be beaten. The niece of Lawton Chiles, governor and senator from Florida, who is running, she's a state senator, and she's only two or three points behind her right now and I think she's going to win that race, she meaning Kay Hagan.
We have, we got poll results back out of Texas, we're only four points behind in Texas.
We're tied in Mississippi as we speak.
We just have a lot of places to look that are very important. I believe that Maine is going to be our Rhode Island this time. I think Sue Collins who has favorability not nearly as high as Chaffee's, but once Allen starts tying her to what Bush has done Maine which has a very progressive state, are, they're going to turn her out
So we're going to pick up some seats I've only gone over a few of them. We're as I, I think I told you we're competitive as I speak in 11 seats, so I hope that we'll pick up a number, a few of them. I'm kind of a cynic about everything that way I'm not disappointed as often. So I think we'll pick up four seats, five seats.
Let's review what's in play: Virginia, New Mexico, Colorado, Alaska, Oregon, North Carolina, Texas, Mississippi and Maine. Sounds good to me. I'd throw in New Hampshire, Minnesota and Nebraska (after Scott Kleeb wins tonight), too.
I received this email last night from a reader who is also the finance director for a Democratic congressional campaign. While the letter below is anonymous, I know the name of the author and the candidate they work for - this is for real.
John,
I got home tonight from my job as finance director for a top-tier Democratic Congressional challenger and read your post regarding the negative impact of Hillary's staying in the race upon our Congressional candidates' fundraising. I can say definitively that what you wrote is absolutely true. My candidate speaks every day to donors who tell him directly that they're more focused on the Presidential right now, or that they're tapped out because they've given so much to the Presidential. Or simply, as you say, because they're just pissed off about the Presidential.
And that's not even counting those who simply don't return our calls, or blow the candidate off when we do get them on the phone. We'll never know how many of those people would have been max-out donors to us, but are simply too involved in (or turned off by) the Presidential race to give a damn about someone who's running for a House seat.
We had a good 1st Quarter anyway, but I don't think we can continue to reach our fundraising targets unless this thing gets settled, and quickly. For her to wait until June is a nightmare that may well guarantee that not only my guy, but dozens and dozens of other challengers will come up badly short of their goals for the 2nd Quarter. And my candidate is in the very top level of targeted races. I can only imagine what the lower tiers of challengers are facing (well, no, actually I've heard from some of them, including the finance chair for a candidate in the Midwest to whom I spoke today).
We need her to drop out now, not only for the sake of our real Presidential nominee winning in November, but so that the rest of us can finally have a fighting chance with donors.
I'm assuming most blog readers are already familiar with Godwin's Law. But in case you're not, the official definition:
"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Further explained:
As a Usenet discussion gets longer it tends to get more heated; as more heat enters the discussion, tensions get higher and people start to insult each other over anything they can think of. Godwin's Law merely notes that, eventually, those tensions eventually cause someone to find the worst insults that come to mind - which will almost always include a Nazi comparison.
But wait, there's more:
When it happens, the thread is going to start either degenerating into a long flamewar over Nazi Germany or about Godwin's Law. Either way, the thread is effectively over, and you can safely killfile the thread and move on.
How about we initiate a Godwin's Law of Campaigns?
"As a primary campaign grows longer, the probability of invoking imagery involving Osama bin Laden or 9/11 approaches one."
Then by old school online community rules, the campaign that goes there first loses; we get to declare the contest effectively over; and - best of all - we can finally move on.
I know it's probably too early to be this annoyed, but how is this acceptable?
"I'm very proud that as of today, I have received more votes by the people who have voted than anybody else, and I am proud of that," Clinton said at a rally in Indianapolis. "It's a very close race, but if you count, as I count, the 2.3 million people who voted in Michigan and Florida, then we are going to build on that."
If you count as I count? How about not? How about we don't because those were the agreed upon terms. No backsies.
I am truly convinced that if the results were reversed and Obama was down and tried to loop in the popular vote from states where all candidates agreed not to campaign (especially any state where Clinton's name wasn't even on the ballot!), her camp would be crying foul so fast it would make your head spin.
I'm no strategist, but it seems that if you're aiming for the Democratic nomination, offending MoveOn and the Netroots is a first class disaster.
I mean, if by some chance you beat Obama, you're going to want MoveOn and the Netroots to help you beat McCain, right? Especially after you've already admitted that they're some of the biggest fundraisers the party's got.
And then there's the youth vote. Let's say you beat Obama, and they're a little angry. The Netroots could be great help in winning them back.
The "activist base" might have been willing to come around in time. They might have been willing to support you for the good of the party.
My friend and colleague Michael Signer had a great WaPo op-ed this weekend, fresh off a ten month stint as a senior foreign policy advisor to the Edwards campaign, about the dearth of media coverage on foreign affairs in the primaries. Signer rightly notes that the meaty foreign policy discussions are far more often carried out on blogs than in newspapers, and with a few notable exceptions, foreign policy issues have never really gained traction in either primary. This is especially weird considering the president has far more unilateral power on foreign policy than domestic issues, which are hugely shaped by Congress. It's partly due to general intra-party agreement on foreign policy -- obviously the general will feature much stronger disagreement about, say, Iraq -- but also partly because of media failures.
It's also, though, partly the fault of campaigns, or at least some Democratic foreign policy professionals who continue to see politics as icky or beneath them. Matt Stoller elaborates:
Look, if you want foreign policy to become a political issue, you have to make it a political issue. That's an organizing problem. I didn't see any attacks from any Democratic candidates against each other on North Korea or Russia, any attempts to draw distinctions, though I saw a lot of high-minded 'major serious policy addresses'. Of course those are going to be discussed on elite foreign policy focused blogs and nowhere else. If you want to get into the fray, you have to get in the fray.
And it's true: my favorite way to talk about foreign policy is to chat in a wonky way with other wonks. But I do things like write for this blog and write a book and attend YearlyKos because there's huge value in making these issues accessible and, dare I say, interesting to people who aren't professionals. So Signer rightly elaborates on the media aspect of the problem, and the best way to influence that -- rather than simply hoping the media does a better job all on its own -- is to connect the policy with the political. It's an effort that is, I should say, *vastly* improved from two or four years ago, with excellent groups popping up to do it, but there's always more room for us to get better, and it's vital that we do.
In Paris, there are roughly 70,000 Americans and of that group around 85% are Democrats. Roughly six million Americans live outside of the US. In the past many were not registered to vote because it's not an easy process, especially considering what happens to ballots sent from overseas. The 2004 election was possibly a turning point as many Americans living overseas became involved thanks to the poor policies by the Bush administration. Without the same biased media coverage, Americans abroad had a very different view of what was going on both in America and to our reputation abroad. When Bush had a 90% approval rating, most American expats were in the 10% category and wondering why the rest were fawning over his actions. More expat voting, after the jump.
I hope the Democrats Abroad continue the process of bringing democracy to Americans overseas. Everyone was talking about it and expats actually felt like we were part of the process. Now if only they could move beyond being a 'boomers and beyond' clique that aren't very welcoming to newcomers. Sheesh, just like old time French politics where leadership never changes.
Obama supporters everywhere but no sign of Hillary people. I don't know how that happened but it was during peak voting hours in the evening. And a link to Democrats Abroad voting in Madrid and the party afterwards.
UPDATE: 5:45AM EST - Obama has grown his lead from around 70 votes to over 500 votes over Hillary with 85% counted.
UPDATE: 4:50 AM EST - Obama 49%, Hillary 48% in New Mexico with 80% reporting.
At 3:59 AM EST, the count is only 54% with the lead going to Hillary (48%) over Obama (46%). Here in Paris, lots of smiling faces as American Democrats living here had the opportunity to vote in the primaries, in person. People talking about 'making history' in the room and a steady flow in the evening. The Obama voters seemed to out number Hillary voters and surprise that Hillary supporters were MIA while the Obama team had customized posters and real people. It was odd not to see a single person promoting Hillary, with only a basic hillaryclinton.com poster taped to a wall.
The results are from American expats living in Indonesia. Don't forget to get out and vote today if you are a Democrat living outside of the US. Check out the Democrats Abroad site to get more details and make sure you have the proper documents. Here in Paris, there has been a lot confusion due to too many emails from the Democrats Abroad in Paris, none of which really explained what was happening, how it worked or what it meant. That's pretty much business as usual for the group but if you can make it to one of the polling stations, check out the list and vote.
Be sure to ask about when our expat votes are going to be counted in a general election while you're there. The organization seems to be moving in the right direction, but could certainly use some help in Washington. There are roughly six million Americans living abroad, so that ought to count for something.
As much as it pains me to give credit to the Democrats Abroad, at least the Paris group, this is pretty cool. The initial information that was sent out did not make it clear that this vote would actually count. We have to wait until the main election to send our ballots by registered mail or FedEx at our own expense and then have our votes shoved in to a remote closet, never to be viewed again. (Thanks to everyone in Washington for helping the millions of Americans abroad feel like we're part of the process.)
Americans living outside of the US will be able to either vote online or in person and the votes will count at the convention in August. Click here to register with the Democrats Abroad or you can do it in person at your location between 5-12 February. Here is the list of where you can vote in person.
The worldwide election results will determine the 14 delegates who will join eight DNC members in Democrats Abroad’s delegation of 22 to the Democratic National Convention. These delegates will be elected at a combination of regional and global meetings held during early 2008. These meetings also provide an opportunity for Americans abroad to shape the party's election platform.
Ah yes, they're throwing in a few SuperDelegates to make sure we don't vote for the "wrong" person. Even when they're doing good, they're doing bad.
The opening in London, Paris and Frankfurt markets has been ugly, just like Asia. Where are the Republican presidential candidates during this collapse? They're still talking about tax cuts instead of addressing real world problems that their party created. It's incredible to even imagine that we're heading into a recession - if we're not already there - and this group is debating issues that were laid to rest a few years ago.
Outside of extreme right wing circles, people know that tax cuts do not "pay for themselves" as the right likes to say. Never have, never will. They can provide benefits but as a long term solution to the current economic problems, not at all. Giuliani may not have a chance to mingle with people outside of his million dollar plus salary circles but people in the real world are fed up with tax cuts for the elite and the middle class squeeze. Times have changed, but the GOP is still stuck in the past. Why is it so hard for them to understand that most of the country has been left behind while only the select few have profited?
The quarterly losses were hideous, setting a record low for the Wall Street bank. Considering the awful state of banks (in both the US and Europe) at the moment and the recession talk, it's only a matter of time before voters start digging deeper into the economic plans offered by presidential candidates.
Krugman had an interesting article yesterday on this that's worth investigating. The leading GOP candidate has some amazing remarks that are worth noting. McCain does not sound like someone we need during these times.
Take, for example, John McCain’s admission that economics isn’t his thing. “The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should,” he says. “I’ve got Greenspan’s book.”
The Republicans are in such trouble if the economy continues to take over as the leading concern. Their only plan is to throw around even more tax cuts. Yes, they've worked so well for the broad majority of Americans, how could anyone not be thrilled at the prospect of more? Tax cuts for the wealthiest has only helped separate the richest from the rest at rates not seen since the Great Depression. It doesn't help the GOP that the other leading issue is Iraq, as in $1.5 trillion and counting, while the US economy falters.
Churchill summed it up nicely when he said "you can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else." We've repeatedly tried tax cuts for the richest and guess what?
After the 2000 election, many Democrats were furious with Gore. How could he accept the results of the election and walk away? As time progressed, Gore started to speak out and was right. Again and again and again. He said what was unpopular but spoke with passion and Democrats found him to be the only person who dared speak the truth, no matter how many times he was smeared by the White House and the GOP. When other Democrats were trying to figure out how to stand up to Bush, Gore was doing it. He won back the party and to this day, Democrats love Gore for being the voice that was otherwise missing.
Then compare that to Kerry, who ran a painfully bad campaign in 2004 and never knew when to stop opening his big mouth and sticking his foot right in it. He alienated Democrats and then delivered one misstep after another. Every time he tried to be cute, he made himself and the party look bad. He never ignited the passion of the party faithful and never offered any new ideas. Maybe he's OK for the Senate but outside of that, meh. Just how beneficial is it that Kerry is standing on stage with Obama? His team can talk all they want about his Rolodex but I fail to see where that endorsement gives Obama much of anything other than a reminder of yet another blown election and a meek candidate who couldn't call out one of the worst presidents ever. I'm not so sure a Kerry endorsement is such a big coup and how long will it take before Kerry puts his foot in his mouth again?
Despite the changing story with the "incident" in the Strait of Hormuz, the Republican candidates are all doing their best to out-macho one another with the exception of Ron Paul, who suggested caution and further review. The others are ready to throw fire and brimstone to kill 'em all and ask questions later. Great. Just what the country is demanding after WMD in Iraq and too-many-to-count "terrorism" threats in the US conveniently announced during troubled times for the Bush administration. (Think, Miami Seven, for example.)
The Guardian picked up the faltering story today and we will probably hear an update after 4PM on Friday or over the weekend to make sure the story is as buried as possible when it contradicts the war-lust of Dear Leader. Are Americans really begging for another war in the Middle East? Do the Republican candidates honestly think that's what the people are screaming for? Out of touch and out of office.
