At least some good news: "Evan Bayh might actually be in real trouble" (4.00 / 6)

Well, not all is bad...

---

by: Gray @ Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 15:21:05 PM CST

Bayh needs to tack to the right (0.00 / 0)

Since that's his solution for all Democratic Party travails, he might as well get it over with and become a full-blown teabagger.  

---

by: wobbly @ Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 15:34:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

He has, hard (0.00 / 0)

Bayh's Progressive Punch score for crucial votes has tanked about 30 points this session.  He's the leader of the anti-Democratic Democrats in the Senate.  If he tanks much further right he'll join Ben Nelson in lala land or Parker Griffith with the Republicans.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 16:03:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The 55 Seat Strategy (4.00 / 4)

The Left got conned. To the extent that Act Blue bought in and actually raised money under the Road to 60 banner. We though Al Franken was the key to having Progressives have a voice, instead that seat turned over power to however the Conservadem of the Day thought it should be. "Why you can't blame Republicans, after all you got 60 votes"

It was a sham of a mockery of a travesty of a sham. Now it is a time to exploit the distance between 59 and 51 and hit the sweet spot. Ignoring raw numbers would the Democratic Senate Caucus be better or worse without Blanche Lincoln. How about Harry Reid. We don't even need to ask about Ben Nelson. And I would add Evan Bayh to that list.

Do we ever want to lose four seats? Not in the abstract. Should we cry if over the next two cycles we lose THESE four seats? If the choice is keeping Reid and not having funds to take Ohio or Kentucky the choice is pretty easy, take the exchange.

If Dems are going to lose Senate seats anyway it is time to start separating the acceptable losses from the unacceptable. Mass was unacceptable on several levels. Utah? Not so much.

---

by: Bruce Webb @ Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 15:39:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Let's trade Bayh for Jennifer Brunner (4.00 / 4)

Great deal!

Hell, I'll throw in Blanche Lincoln too, cuz I'm generous.

---

by: liberalmaverick @ Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 15:50:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

On a related note, (4.00 / 1)

Jerry Brown IS California's Martha Coakley, according to Robert Cruickshank at Catalitics.

Jerry Brown seems to be doing all he can do to become the next Martha Coakley. Like the Massachusetts Attorney General, California's Attorney General seems to believe he doesn't yet have to run an actual campaign. Meanwhile, Meg Whitman is not only spending a lot of money, but spending it wisely. She is building a strong campaign staff, a good field operation, and airing some rather effective radio ads across the state that make her sound like a soft moderate, rather than the slash-and-burn radical she actually is.

And what is Brown doing in response? Still stubbornly refusing to launch his campaign or even officially declare his candidacy. Instead his online outreach is little more than going through the family photo album.

Leaving these decisions up to the Democratic establishment is increasingly a bad idea.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

---

by: David Kaib @ Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 15:22:43 PM CST

I really can't believe Jerry Brown is our only (not even declared) real candidate (0.00 / 0)

As of now the Democratic field is a handful of people I've never heard of.  Our greatest hope of capturing this seat is a has-been small-government centrist who's ran for just about every political office in the state.

While I can't draw any lines in the sand right now, I don't see myself voting for Brown in the primary or even general election.

---

by: liberalmaverick @ Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 15:49:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Give me a break (0.00 / 0)

Brown's not perfect but he sure isn't eMeg.

Hasn't California had enough Republican dirtbags in the governor's job for you yet?

---

by: cenobite @ Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 18:27:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well Schwarzenegger wasn't TOO bad (0.00 / 0)

The whole state fell apart but I somehow don't think having Cruz Bustamante in the Governor's seat would've made any difference. (Phil Angelides would have been an awesome Governor and maybe he could've kept our state out of disaster, but even he has to deal with a Republican block in the state legislature.)

A year or two ago I thought that every Democratic politician with ambition would be gunning for this seat.  I'm amazed at how literally NO prominent Democrat (Brown isn't even declared yet) seems to want to touch this.

---

by: liberalmaverick @ Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 18:48:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Schwarzenegger was horrible! (0.00 / 0)

As a rethuglican, he had much better leverage to change the course than ANY Dem governor. And what has he to show for it? A big fat suntanned NOTHING, with Hollywood special effects on top! Really, imho even boring Gray Davis would have done a better job. Whenever the Governator actually weighed in, he made things worse! Really, nothing indicates that any Dem would have performed that bad.

---

by: Gray @ Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 08:57:01 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Schwarzenegger was too liberal (0.00 / 0)

to have any leverage over the Republican nihilists in the legislature.  But whatever, I'm not going to bother defending him.  The point of this thread was that we don't have any good candidates, and no, the usual tricks of "ooh scary Republican!" isn't going to work any more than it will for the President in 2012.

---

by: liberalmaverick @ Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 16:40:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I wouldn't call THAT too liberal! (0.00 / 0)

He prolly wasn't extremist right wing enough, ok. And as for the lack of good candidates: What the hell is wrong with those Californians? Too much sun makes their brains run dry? This fool's golden state is more and more becomming a sad joke.

---

by: Gray @ Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 18:10:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think CA has become such a disaster zone (4.00 / 1)

that no one wants to touch it.  Hence, the rather small fields on both sides.

I think the reason why the Democratic field is basically non-existent (outside of some no-name candidates - don't get me wrong, I'm open to no-namers but they have to get their message out if anyone will know who they are) is because everyone is scared of Jerry Brown, who isn't even declared yet.  If Brown all of a sudden chose not to run we'd be so screwed, unless one of those no-namers really catches on.

---

by: liberalmaverick @ Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 20:24:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Obama was always just a holding action (0.00 / 0)

so we could gather forces for real change:

Thinking otherwise cost us one whole year, and by the time the backlash is over, it may be 2017.

From now on, we have to get it right.

---

by: Paul Goodman @ Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 15:35:46 PM CST

I hope no one here will be foolish enough to send money to Evan Bayh (4.00 / 3)

funnel your hard-earned dollars here instead.

If you're in Indiana, please vote for a minor party candidate or write-in instead of Bayh or the Republican.

Bye bye Bayh...

---

by: liberalmaverick @ Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 15:42:29 PM CST

Indeed! No money for Bayh, no money for the DLC and DSCC! (4.00 / 1)

Let the damn centrists care about saving their DINOs for themselves. Every dollar they use to save them is a dollar less for defending centrist incumbents against progressive challengers. Progressives should use their bucks to support progressives. Like Chris said, this is a chance to increase our share of the lawmakers!

---

by: Gray @ Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 16:00:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Doesn't Bayh have more than $10 mil on hand? (0.00 / 0)

I don't think one Rasmussen poll means he's going to lose. I also still am not convinced Pence will give up a shot at a leadership post in the House majority in order to take on Bayh.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 15:58:31 PM CST

$12 million (4.00 / 1)

But money didn't save Daschle in South Dakota.  He spent $21 million in that teeny state and still went down.

With the current Supreme Court ruling, no Senate Democrat can buy his way to safety through his bankroll.  He/she has to earn it by really working for the middle class and working class instead of the corporates.

If he goes, we are better off.  Maybe they won't follow the leader off the cliff.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 16:08:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I really think this attention to polls (0.00 / 0)

at this time is not useful at best and is in fact quite likely harmful. I believe Obama's inability and unwillingness to move his ass on anything substantial (except Afghanistan where he showed little real hesitation in committing men amd resources for a venture which will occupy us for a decade at least, barring some major unforeseen events) was tied to his complacency over generic approval/disapproval polls. In the actual election in Mass. where national issues played a real role we got to have the curtain drawn back and see how vulnerable Obama and his politics are and how shallow is the pro forma support.  

---

by: VLaszlo @ Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 16:05:55 PM CST

and it could have been foreseen and prevented (4.00 / 1)

if arrogant and inept Obama and Rahm et.al actually kept in touch with the base instead of thinking their polling data was the whole story.  

---

by: VLaszlo @ Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 16:08:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

A 52-48 (0.00 / 0)

Senate would mean the converadems and the conservatives would had effective control (48 GOP plus Lieberman, Nelson and Landrieu).

If I had to bet the GOP would take the Senate if the election were held in the next 4 weeks.  Moreover the consensus year-end forecast for unemployment is 9.7%, which means unemployment would have been close to 10% for over a year - something that has not happened since the Great Depression.  If the consensus on unemployment is right holding the Senate may depend on finding candidates not connected to Washington to run against GOP incumbents.

---

by: fladem @ Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 16:15:53 PM CST

Close but ... (0.00 / 0)

Unemployment was equal to or greater than 10% for 10 consecutive months in 1981-82.  That was a different count.  Reagan excluded "discouraged workers" in  1986 to deliberately lower the count.  The real number will be well above 10% in November.  The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports two data points, U-3 (the official rate) and U-6.  U-6 is around 17%.

The previous five recessions were all between 22 and 26 months in length.  We are already at 26 months counting January.  This one is going to be far longer lasting.  A five year recession comparable to the Panic of 1893 or the Panic of 1837 is IMO the most likely scenario given the "jobless recovery" mantra.  The most recent guesses showed a 2012 recovery date.

Hoover lost 52 House seats and eight Senate seats in 1930. Of course it got worse as the economy really hit bottom in 1931 and 1932.  Based on top numbers pre-MA Chris is predicting a loss of 7 Senate seats.  The House figure has not budged much of late but would translate to a loss of 30-35 seats.  The winner of the House popular vote has retained/won the House all but once (1996) since 1942.  We have lost over 90% of our popular vote cushion in the House.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 16:56:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If control of the Senate is close after 2010 (4.00 / 2)

I think Nelson and/or Lieberman could join the Republicans and flip control of the Senate.  They both have incentives to do so for their reelection races in 2012 (especially Nelson).

---

by: liberalmaverick @ Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 17:20:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

really mad at Biden, by the way (4.00 / 1)

We could have had Carney appointed to this seat, and Castle probably would have taken a pass. But no, seat had to be kept warm for Beau. Castle took his chance, and now Beau is running for cover.

I think Coons has a shot in a D+7 state if he runs a good race.  

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 16:29:31 PM CST

Who's Coons? (0.00 / 0)

And what kind of Democrat is he?

---

by: liberalmaverick @ Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 17:19:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

As long as Reid goes I'll be happy, relatively. (0.00 / 0)

Does he even have a clue of the devastation he's brought to the entire country by letting the Senate be the killing field for Obama, the country and the Democratic party as a whole?  Probably not because he knew the consequences of what he was doing just as surely as Byrd did with the liberal Jimmy Carter's agenda.

It's so eerie and ironic to note that President Carter's one wish if he could change anything that would have allowed him a more successful term,  was to allow a majority vote rule in the Senate.

Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.

---

by: worldlymother @ Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 19:46:01 PM CST