It's primary day in the Northeast, and Delaware Republicans have a choice between winning Vice President Biden's Senate seat or losing it. Mike Castle, the moderate Republican running for the seat is not very conservative, and not my favorite politician. However, even a quality conservative candidate would have trouble winning in Delaware (Christine O'Donnell, Castle's inexperienced challenger, is no Marco Rubio), and these political facts cannot be changed.
Thus, I'm thinking that a Mike Castle win tonight will put more Republicans in the Senate, while a Castle loss would mean more Democrats there. I'm not a petty man, but I love the fact that VP Biden's former Senate seat could switch to Republican if Mike Castle wins.
I already adore the fact that liberal lion Ted Kennedy's former Senate seat belongs to Republican Scott Brown.
Furthermore, I'm really excited to see that President Obama's former Senate seat could soon belong to Republican Mark Kirk.
The real question is, are we a party that can accept moderate Northeastern Republicans? If we are not, we should throw out Scott Brown now, and the GOP should avoid spending campaign money in 12 states because the GOP will rarely win up there.
Jay Cost, over at Weekly Standard:
By and large, genuinely conservative candidates are going to have a difficult time getting elected and staying elected in the Northeast.
With the exception of the once-in-a-while Scott Brown type of candidate (and O'Donnell is clearly no Scott Brown!), the GOP can run moderate Republicans in the Northeast, or it can effectively cede the region to the Democrats, who will elect by default some of the most liberal members in the entire United States Congress. Which is it going to be?
Is this really a tough call for conservatives?
Can we have Northeastern Republicans who aren't as conservative as Utah or South Carolina Republicans? YES!
---
Good news from the courts:
A federal judge said Tuesday he is likely to let 20 states proceed with at least a portion of their lawsuit challenging the heart of the Democrats’ health care overhaul.
---
Speaking of the health care law:
In a 46-52 vote, lawmakers killed an amendment sponsored by Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) that would have saved businesses and nonprofit groups from having to report an array of small and medium-sized purchases to the Internal Revenue Service.
Why is this random, stupid IRS small business reporting rule mixed in with the Obamacare law? Easy. Because Obamacare is complex by design. Because Obamacare is designed to take more money from small businesses. Because Obamacare could have been ten pages long, but Democrats felt that ten pages was 200 times too short.
Let it never be said that Democrats always have small businesses' best interests in mind, because this rule, which brings new taxes and ludicrous amounts of paperwork along with it, could have been rejected today. However, the Democratic party (save a handful of conservative Democrats) voted against an amendment to remove this obscure, but very significant small business IRS reporting tax provision from the health care bill. Thus, my mother-in-law will be hurting. My good friend will be hurting. Several neighbors of mine will be hurting.
All because most Democrats in the United States voted against an amendment to remove an obscure, but very significant small business IRS reporting tax provision from the health care bill.
For future reference, if you see any serious tax code changes in the next random piece of legislation, let me know. I was wondering if this type of behavior (i.e. changing tax regulations in a random lung cancer awareness month bill) is typical.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Sunday, September 05, 2010
Senate Race #5 - California
For this installment of Senate Race, we turn to California. Incumbent Senator Barbara Boxer is very liberal, and rather unpopular. California has been hit hard by the recession, and as a Democratic member of the Democratic led Congress, Senator Boxer is being hit hard in the polls. It’s actually quite remarkable that this race is even close. In most other states, a Democrat such as Boxer would be well behind in the polls. However, California is one of the most left leaning states in the union.
Why is Senator Boxer struggling so much in a state that gave her 58% of the vote just six years ago?
A little background: California’s Democratic-controlled state government and its Democrat-lite Governor Schwarzenegger (who fiscal and social conservatives would never call a Republican) have created a statewide mess. Its two powerful Democratic senators and a lot of Democratic Congressmen and Congresswomen (in the majority in Congress for nearly four years since well BEFORE the recession began) have been helpless to halt the economic disaster of California. California deserves better than Barbara Boxer, and they may be beginning to realize it.
Here’s Boxer criticizing a member of the Armed Forces because he called her “Ma’am”
Boxer is very well-known in California. Republican candidate Carly Fiorina, however, is a fresh face. She is one of only a handful of women who have risen to the level of CEO of a Fortune 500 company. However, what impresses me most about her is her commitment to life. Even in the left-leaning state of California, Fiorina is a pro-life woman who is forthright with her views, even if it costs her a few independent voters. By the end of this post, though, you may feel that Fiorina is much closer to the mainstream of Californians on the issue of abortion than Boxer.
Nonetheless, this race should also be fairly close.
Carly Fiorina v. Barbara Boxer
Polling average, from Pollster.com
BB - 47%
CF - 45%
Percentage chance of a party change
23%
Current status
Leans Democratic Seat
Election night results estimate
Boxer 48.7%
Fiorina 46.9%
Final Thoughts
I have met many folks who are new to Iowa, having left the struggling Golden State. While it is very unfortunate for such a fine state to be in trouble, our state is certainly welcoming of those who are migrating to a more economically friendly Iowa. I do believe that Senator Boxer is not helping the current situation in California, though. While Fiorina has a tough road ahead of her (she’s at a 10:1 cash disadvantage) there is a chance she will pull it off.
On a related note, George Will recently criticized Senator Boxer for her extreme position on abortion. Here's an argument on the Senate floor from several years ago, dealing with when life begins.
In the 1999 colloquy, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) said: Suppose during this procedure the baby slips entirely from the mother’s birth canal. “You agree, once a child is born, is separated from the mother, that that child is protected by the Constitution and cannot be killed? Do you agree with that?” Boxer: “I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born … the baby belongs to your family and has all the rights.”
There's only one correct answer to the question that former Senator Santorum asked.
Question: Once a baby leaves his or her mother, does that child have a constitutional right to life?
Answer: Yes.
Anyone who does not answer as I answered above has, at best, serious moral failings...and Barbara Boxer did not answer a simple "Yes" to the question. Does this question really need more than a one word answer? Un...believable.
Why is Senator Boxer struggling so much in a state that gave her 58% of the vote just six years ago?
A little background: California’s Democratic-controlled state government and its Democrat-lite Governor Schwarzenegger (who fiscal and social conservatives would never call a Republican) have created a statewide mess. Its two powerful Democratic senators and a lot of Democratic Congressmen and Congresswomen (in the majority in Congress for nearly four years since well BEFORE the recession began) have been helpless to halt the economic disaster of California. California deserves better than Barbara Boxer, and they may be beginning to realize it.
Here’s Boxer criticizing a member of the Armed Forces because he called her “Ma’am”
Boxer is very well-known in California. Republican candidate Carly Fiorina, however, is a fresh face. She is one of only a handful of women who have risen to the level of CEO of a Fortune 500 company. However, what impresses me most about her is her commitment to life. Even in the left-leaning state of California, Fiorina is a pro-life woman who is forthright with her views, even if it costs her a few independent voters. By the end of this post, though, you may feel that Fiorina is much closer to the mainstream of Californians on the issue of abortion than Boxer.
Nonetheless, this race should also be fairly close.
Carly Fiorina v. Barbara Boxer
Polling average, from Pollster.com
BB - 47%
CF - 45%
Percentage chance of a party change
23%
Current status
Leans Democratic Seat
Election night results estimate
Boxer 48.7%
Fiorina 46.9%
Final Thoughts
I have met many folks who are new to Iowa, having left the struggling Golden State. While it is very unfortunate for such a fine state to be in trouble, our state is certainly welcoming of those who are migrating to a more economically friendly Iowa. I do believe that Senator Boxer is not helping the current situation in California, though. While Fiorina has a tough road ahead of her (she’s at a 10:1 cash disadvantage) there is a chance she will pull it off.
On a related note, George Will recently criticized Senator Boxer for her extreme position on abortion. Here's an argument on the Senate floor from several years ago, dealing with when life begins.
In the 1999 colloquy, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) said: Suppose during this procedure the baby slips entirely from the mother’s birth canal. “You agree, once a child is born, is separated from the mother, that that child is protected by the Constitution and cannot be killed? Do you agree with that?” Boxer: “I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born … the baby belongs to your family and has all the rights.”
There's only one correct answer to the question that former Senator Santorum asked.
Question: Once a baby leaves his or her mother, does that child have a constitutional right to life?
Answer: Yes.
Anyone who does not answer as I answered above has, at best, serious moral failings...and Barbara Boxer did not answer a simple "Yes" to the question. Does this question really need more than a one word answer? Un...believable.
Saturday, September 04, 2010
Senate Race #4 - Washington
Moving to the West Coast, we look at the beautiful state of Washington. Here we have Senator Patti Murray, who is a very typical blue state Democrat. However, she has an opponent this year who is the competent and well known former gubernatorial candidate, Dino Rossi. This race should remain fairly close like Wisconsin, despite the Democratic tilt of Washington state.
I have to imagine that if Dino Rossi was running for governor again this year (he has lost the previous two times to current Governor Christine Gregoire, once by only 129 votes) he would wipe the floor with the Governor. However, he is running against a well established and well-funded liberal Democrat, who may be tough to beat.
Patty Murray v. Dino Rossi
Polling average, from Pollster.com
DR - 50%
PM - 48%
Percentage chance of a party change
54%
Current status
Toss Up
Election night results estimate
Rossi 49.1%
Murray 48.9%
Final Thoughts
Washington is a blue state, no doubt. However, Dino Rossi is a mainstream Republican with a positive economic message and a strong electoral wind at his back. This Senate race will be interesting in regards to voter turnout. If Republicans, both conservative and moderate turn out for him, he’ll become a U.S. Senator. However, he is still working on getting the full support of Tea Party Republicans, who are somewhat wary of him. Given the alternative, though, I imagine that they will come around.
I have to imagine that if Dino Rossi was running for governor again this year (he has lost the previous two times to current Governor Christine Gregoire, once by only 129 votes) he would wipe the floor with the Governor. However, he is running against a well established and well-funded liberal Democrat, who may be tough to beat.
Patty Murray v. Dino Rossi
Polling average, from Pollster.com
DR - 50%
PM - 48%
Percentage chance of a party change
54%
Current status
Toss Up
Election night results estimate
Rossi 49.1%
Murray 48.9%
Final Thoughts
Washington is a blue state, no doubt. However, Dino Rossi is a mainstream Republican with a positive economic message and a strong electoral wind at his back. This Senate race will be interesting in regards to voter turnout. If Republicans, both conservative and moderate turn out for him, he’ll become a U.S. Senator. However, he is still working on getting the full support of Tea Party Republicans, who are somewhat wary of him. Given the alternative, though, I imagine that they will come around.
Friday, September 03, 2010
Senate Race #3 – Wisconsin
The next three posts will revolve around three Senate races that the Democrats were probably hoping to keep rather safe this year. These hopes, however, will not become reality.
59 D to 41 R – This is the current partisan breakdown in the Senate.
One year ago, most pundits would have said that the Republicans might gain 4-5 seats in the Senate this cycle. However, it is fascinating to see where we’ve come over the past 12 months. 10 Republican wins and 10 Democratic Senate losses in November are certainly possible. This would give the Republicans a majority in the Senate.
Three major reasons for this potential Republican majority are the Senate races in Washington, Wisconsin, and California. From Politico:
At the start of the year, few observers thought the Senate was up for grabs, in part because it seemed implausible that Washington’s Patty Murray, California’s Barbara Boxer and Wisconsin’s Russ Feingold were in any serious danger.
But with the political environment turning toxic for Democrats and incumbents, Murray drawing perhaps her toughest possible opponent and Boxer and Feingold facing self-funders, the three Class of 1992 veterans are in the fight of their long political lives as the battle for control of the Senate moves from traditional battlegrounds to blue state venues.
We start with our neighbors to the northwest, Wisconsin. They have elected Russ Feingold three times, and he’s trying to make it four. Feingold has always been an interesting Democrat, sometimes bucking the trends. For example, he voted against the Obama/Bush supported $700 billion bank bailout. He was also the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act, which passed through the Senate by a 98-1 vote. However, he voted for both Obamacare and the $800 billion stimulus package last year. Overall, he’s pretty loyal to the Democratic platform, and that may cause him trouble this year.
His opponent, businessman Ron Johnson, is well financed and could potentially knock off this 18-year Senator.
Ron Johnson v. Russ Feingold
Polling average, from Pollster.com
RJ - 47%
RF - 46%
Percentage chance of a party change
51%
Current status
Toss Up
Election night results estimate
Johnson 49.3%
Feingold 49.1%
Final Thoughts
Wisconsin is a purple state at heart. With the wind at his back, Ron Johnson could really give Senator Feingold a run for his money. Still, Senator Feingold isn’t hated in Wisconsin, and he gives off that “maverick” vibe that voters like. It may just propel him over the finish line. Here’s hoping it won’t though.
59 D to 41 R – This is the current partisan breakdown in the Senate.
One year ago, most pundits would have said that the Republicans might gain 4-5 seats in the Senate this cycle. However, it is fascinating to see where we’ve come over the past 12 months. 10 Republican wins and 10 Democratic Senate losses in November are certainly possible. This would give the Republicans a majority in the Senate.
Three major reasons for this potential Republican majority are the Senate races in Washington, Wisconsin, and California. From Politico:
At the start of the year, few observers thought the Senate was up for grabs, in part because it seemed implausible that Washington’s Patty Murray, California’s Barbara Boxer and Wisconsin’s Russ Feingold were in any serious danger.
But with the political environment turning toxic for Democrats and incumbents, Murray drawing perhaps her toughest possible opponent and Boxer and Feingold facing self-funders, the three Class of 1992 veterans are in the fight of their long political lives as the battle for control of the Senate moves from traditional battlegrounds to blue state venues.
We start with our neighbors to the northwest, Wisconsin. They have elected Russ Feingold three times, and he’s trying to make it four. Feingold has always been an interesting Democrat, sometimes bucking the trends. For example, he voted against the Obama/Bush supported $700 billion bank bailout. He was also the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act, which passed through the Senate by a 98-1 vote. However, he voted for both Obamacare and the $800 billion stimulus package last year. Overall, he’s pretty loyal to the Democratic platform, and that may cause him trouble this year.
His opponent, businessman Ron Johnson, is well financed and could potentially knock off this 18-year Senator.
Ron Johnson v. Russ Feingold
Polling average, from Pollster.com
RJ - 47%
RF - 46%
Percentage chance of a party change
51%
Current status
Toss Up
Election night results estimate
Johnson 49.3%
Feingold 49.1%
Final Thoughts
Wisconsin is a purple state at heart. With the wind at his back, Ron Johnson could really give Senator Feingold a run for his money. Still, Senator Feingold isn’t hated in Wisconsin, and he gives off that “maverick” vibe that voters like. It may just propel him over the finish line. Here’s hoping it won’t though.
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
The Home Stretch
As we enter the month of September, we are just over two months away from the 2010 Midterm Elections. The stakes: Control of the House of Representatives and the Senate.
I'll start posting more over the next two months as we are entering a time period when non-political folks start looking at races more carefully. As such, if they come to 1007 East Grand, they'll be able to find information about local, statewide, and national issues and elections.
Today, let's look at some information that the fine folks over at Gallup are providing...particularly the "Trust" numbers from 2010 compared to the "Trust" numbers from 2006.
The difference between now and four years ago is pretty stark.
The question is: WHO DO YOU TRUST MORE?
These numbers truly explain why so many Democrats are fearing this upcoming election. The Democratic Party has had virtually unlimited control of the federal government for the past two years, and the American people are clearly not happy.
Here's how the trust numbers have turned toward the Republican Party:
- Corruption in Government: 26 points
- The Economy: 27 points
- Terrorism: 29 points
- Immigration: 31 points
- Healthcare (the Democrats key domestic victory): 38 points
This massive swing in trust foreshadows good fortune for the Republican Party in November.
I'll start posting more over the next two months as we are entering a time period when non-political folks start looking at races more carefully. As such, if they come to 1007 East Grand, they'll be able to find information about local, statewide, and national issues and elections.
Today, let's look at some information that the fine folks over at Gallup are providing...particularly the "Trust" numbers from 2010 compared to the "Trust" numbers from 2006.
The difference between now and four years ago is pretty stark.
The question is: WHO DO YOU TRUST MORE?
These numbers truly explain why so many Democrats are fearing this upcoming election. The Democratic Party has had virtually unlimited control of the federal government for the past two years, and the American people are clearly not happy.
Here's how the trust numbers have turned toward the Republican Party:
- Corruption in Government: 26 points
- The Economy: 27 points
- Terrorism: 29 points
- Immigration: 31 points
- Healthcare (the Democrats key domestic victory): 38 points
This massive swing in trust foreshadows good fortune for the Republican Party in November.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
