I'm calling it now: nothing much will change. we'll gain Missouri, Ohio, and New Hampshire, no other seats will change hands. And yes, I'm keeping Reid, Bennet, Dodd, Lincoln, and Burris in mind.
Burris is resigning, it's an open seat. I'd put more money on the Dem than the GOP for it, given the way Kirk is running for the primary, but either way Burris is leaving the chamber.
I don't think the 2010 midterms will be that bad for the democratic party, not because they'll necessarily do well, but because there just aren't that many opportunities for republican pickups.
I mean it's really hard to see the republicans picking up more than one or maybe two seats in the senate, which is academic given that the dems apparently can't whip their fucking caucus for shit in that chamber anyway, and if they lose five or ten moderate seats in the house it doesn't matter that much.
Polling was still showing Dems netting seats in the house as of a month or so ago. I haven't really seen anything since. I think there was also a +1 or so in the Senate. The lull is coming, but it's starting at a very high point to begin with. As of the latest real round of results that I know about the Dems weren't set to make the pickups they did this last round, but they were still making pickups.
Polls are kind of irrelevant at this point, given how early it is. If the economy stops bleeding jobs by next July and unemployment starts actually coming down then that'd be a plus, but most of the fundamentals that really determine outcomes are way too loose to judge.
I don't think the 2010 midterms will be that bad for the democratic party, not because they'll necessarily do well, but because there just aren't that many opportunities for republican pickups.
I mean it's really hard to see the republicans picking up more than one or maybe two seats in the senate, which is academic given that the dems apparently can't whip their fucking caucus for shit in that chamber anyway, and if they lose five or ten moderate seats in the house it doesn't matter that much.
Polling was still showing Dems netting seats in the house as of a month or so ago. I haven't really seen anything since. I think there was also a +1 or so in the Senate. The lull is coming, but it's starting at a very high point to begin with. As of the latest real round of results that I know about the Dems weren't set to make the pickups they did this last round, but they were still making pickups.
The biggest knock on the dems this cycle is that Obama strangled a few great opportunities in the cradle by nominating contenders to administration posts (vilsack, napoli-name-I-always-forget in arizona, etc.) But republicans have a lot of seats to defend this cycle, and retirements and bad recruitment have left them vulnerable in some areas I'm sure they didn't expect to be. So even if they luck out and knock off a couple of democratic incumbents, they'll probably give back a seat or two elsewhere.
And like you said, that's the pessimist's approach. Wouldn't be surprised at all if we woke up in nov. 2010 with moderate democratic gains.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I'm calling it now: nothing much will change. we'll gain Missouri, Ohio, and New Hampshire, no other seats will change hands. And yes, I'm keeping Reid, Bennet, Dodd, Lincoln, and Burris in mind.
Burris is resigning, it's an open seat. I'd put more money on the Dem than the GOP for it, given the way Kirk is running for the primary, but either way Burris is leaving the chamber.
Burris says he's retiring. You think he couldn't make a mess of that race claiming to be a Democrat even after someone else won the primary? Besides, people always associate a race with its current holder even if he isn't running for reelection (*cough* 1968, 2008 *cough*), and Burris is not terribly popular.
I don't think the 2010 midterms will be that bad for the democratic party, not because they'll necessarily do well, but because there just aren't that many opportunities for republican pickups.
I mean it's really hard to see the republicans picking up more than one or maybe two seats in the senate, which is academic given that the dems apparently can't whip their fucking caucus for shit in that chamber anyway, and if they lose five or ten moderate seats in the house it doesn't matter that much.
Polling was still showing Dems netting seats in the house as of a month or so ago. I haven't really seen anything since. I think there was also a +1 or so in the Senate. The lull is coming, but it's starting at a very high point to begin with. As of the latest real round of results that I know about the Dems weren't set to make the pickups they did this last round, but they were still making pickups.
Polls are kind of irrelevant at this point, given how early it is. If the economy stops bleeding jobs by next July and unemployment starts actually coming down then that'd be a plus, but most of the fundamentals that really determine outcomes are way too loose to judge.
Well obviously. How things go from here on out will effect the elections. I was just pointing out that the cable news conflict jockeys spending 45 minutes of every hour pontificating about how screwed the Dems are really isn't accurate.
I don't think the 2010 midterms will be that bad for the democratic party, not because they'll necessarily do well, but because there just aren't that many opportunities for republican pickups.
I mean it's really hard to see the republicans picking up more than one or maybe two seats in the senate, which is academic given that the dems apparently can't whip their fucking caucus for shit in that chamber anyway, and if they lose five or ten moderate seats in the house it doesn't matter that much.
Polling was still showing Dems netting seats in the house as of a month or so ago. I haven't really seen anything since. I think there was also a +1 or so in the Senate. The lull is coming, but it's starting at a very high point to begin with. As of the latest real round of results that I know about the Dems weren't set to make the pickups they did this last round, but they were still making pickups.
The biggest knock on the dems this cycle is that Obama strangled a few great opportunities in the cradle by nominating contenders to administration posts (vilsack, napoli-name-I-always-forget in arizona, etc.) But republicans have a lot of seats to defend this cycle, and retirements and bad recruitment have left them vulnerable in some areas I'm sure they didn't expect to be. So even if they luck out and knock off a couple of democratic incumbents, they'll probably give back a seat or two elsewhere.
Vilsack wasn't going anywhere anyway, and I still have hopes that Napolitano and Sebelius will resign in time to take McCain's and Brownback's seats.
I don't think the 2010 midterms will be that bad for the democratic party, not because they'll necessarily do well, but because there just aren't that many opportunities for republican pickups.
I mean it's really hard to see the republicans picking up more than one or maybe two seats in the senate, which is academic given that the dems apparently can't whip their fucking caucus for shit in that chamber anyway, and if they lose five or ten moderate seats in the house it doesn't matter that much.
Polling was still showing Dems netting seats in the house as of a month or so ago. I haven't really seen anything since. I think there was also a +1 or so in the Senate. The lull is coming, but it's starting at a very high point to begin with. As of the latest real round of results that I know about the Dems weren't set to make the pickups they did this last round, but they were still making pickups.
The biggest knock on the dems this cycle is that Obama strangled a few great opportunities in the cradle by nominating contenders to administration posts (vilsack, napoli-name-I-always-forget in arizona, etc.) But republicans have a lot of seats to defend this cycle, and retirements and bad recruitment have left them vulnerable in some areas I'm sure they didn't expect to be. So even if they luck out and knock off a couple of democratic incumbents, they'll probably give back a seat or two elsewhere.
Vilsack wasn't going anywhere anyway, and I still have hopes that Napolitano and Sebelius will resign in time to take McCain's and Brownback's seats.
Brownback was retiring anyway, wasn't he? Sebelius is pretty popular, but I'm not sure she would take the senate seat away from the crazies. Kansas has an incredibly strong machine built from the "give us our corn money, save teh bebees" crowd, and those people by and large HATE Sebelius. She'd have a tough run of it, to be sure.
I don't think the 2010 midterms will be that bad for the democratic party, not because they'll necessarily do well, but because there just aren't that many opportunities for republican pickups.
I mean it's really hard to see the republicans picking up more than one or maybe two seats in the senate, which is academic given that the dems apparently can't whip their fucking caucus for shit in that chamber anyway, and if they lose five or ten moderate seats in the house it doesn't matter that much.
Polling was still showing Dems netting seats in the house as of a month or so ago. I haven't really seen anything since. I think there was also a +1 or so in the Senate. The lull is coming, but it's starting at a very high point to begin with. As of the latest real round of results that I know about the Dems weren't set to make the pickups they did this last round, but they were still making pickups.
The biggest knock on the dems this cycle is that Obama strangled a few great opportunities in the cradle by nominating contenders to administration posts (vilsack, napoli-name-I-always-forget in arizona, etc.) But republicans have a lot of seats to defend this cycle, and retirements and bad recruitment have left them vulnerable in some areas I'm sure they didn't expect to be. So even if they luck out and knock off a couple of democratic incumbents, they'll probably give back a seat or two elsewhere.
Vilsack wasn't going anywhere anyway, and I still have hopes that Napolitano and Sebelius will resign in time to take McCain's and Brownback's seats.
Brownback was retiring anyway, wasn't he? Sebelius is pretty popular, but I'm not sure she would take the senate seat away from the crazies. Kansas has an incredibly strong machine built from the "give us our corn money, save teh bebees" crowd, and those people by and large HATE Sebelius. She'd have a tough run of it, to be sure.
You don't want to be a governor right now. All you're doing is cutting services, furloughing workers, and raising taxes. They got out when the getting was good. Now they'll be remembered as the one that did ___ instead of the mean old so and so who took my ___ away. If you're running to become governor, now's the best time to be doing it, because when revenues return after the recovery you get to be the guy who brought everything back and 'saved the state' by...well just kind of being there, really.
The biggest knock on the dems this cycle is that Obama strangled a few great opportunities in the cradle by nominating contenders to administration posts (vilsack, napoli-name-I-always-forget in arizona, etc.) But republicans have a lot of seats to defend this cycle, and retirements and bad recruitment have left them vulnerable in some areas I'm sure they didn't expect to be. So even if they luck out and knock off a couple of democratic incumbents, they'll probably give back a seat or two elsewhere.
Vilsack wasn't going anywhere anyway, and I still have hopes that Napolitano and Sebelius will resign in time to take McCain's and Brownback's seats.
Brownback was retiring anyway, wasn't he? Sebelius is pretty popular, but I'm not sure she would take the senate seat away from the crazies. Kansas has an incredibly strong machine built from the "give us our corn money, save teh bebees" crowd, and those people by and large HATE Sebelius. She'd have a tough run of it, to be sure.
Brownback's leaving the Senate and entering the governorship, and I doubt Parkinson will be able to stop him.
There was a debate in NY's 23rd tonight. Hoffman sounds like a sanctimonious prick.
National Or Local Race?
"Mr. Hoffman indicates the the most important thing, that this is a national race, and the parochial issues of the district are not important," said Scozzafava. "I disagree with that. The most important issues in this race are the issues that are most important to the 23rd Congressional district."
Hoffman defended his independence: "As the only conservative Ronald Reagan Republican in this race, the only people that are supporting me are the people that believe in the values and the ideals that represent conservatism."
This is probably the most telling part of the whole thing.
I think the debate did a good job of pointing out that, aside from the social issues, Scozzafava really isn't that different from Hoffman. The press has been playing her up as being some kind of liberal Rep (because of the social issues), which I think has skewed peoples' view of her. By taking those social issues out of the debate, she really sounds no different than I'd expect a Republican to sound. Good piece for anyone looking for a little clarification and perspective.
I haven't read the whole thing (30 pages) but I take it it's not good for Orly.
F. Conduct of Plaintiffs’ Counsel
The hearings have been interesting to say the least. Plaintiffs’ arguments through Taitz have generally failed to aid the Court. Instead, Plaintiffs’ counsel has favored rhetoric seeking to arouse the emotions and prejudices of her followers rather than the language of a lawyer seeking to present arguments through cogent legal reasoning. While the Court has no desire to chill Plaintiffs’ enthusiastic presentation, Taitz’s argument often hampered the efforts of her co-counsel Gary Kreep (“Kreep”), counsel for Plaintiffs Drake and Robinson, to bring serious issues before the Court. The Court has attempted to give Plaintiffs a voice and a chance to be heard by respecting their choice of counsel and by making every effort to discern the legal arguments of Plaintiffs’ counsel amongst the rhetoric.This Court exercised extreme patience when Taitz endangered this case being heard at all by failing to properly file and serve the complaint upon Defendants and held multiple hearings to ensure that the case would not be dismissed on the technicality of failure to effect service. While the original complaint in this matter was filed on January 20, 2009, Defendants were not properly served until August 25, 2009. Taitz successfully served Defendants only after the Court intervened on several occasions and requested that defense counsel make significant accommodations for her to effect service. Taitz also continually refused to comply with court rules and procedure. Taitz even asked this Court to recuse Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato on the basis that he required her to comply with the Local Rules. See Order Denying Pls.’ Mot. For Modification of Mag. J. Nakazato’s Aug. 6, 2009, Order; Denying Pls.’ Mot. to Recuse Mag. J.Nakazato; and Granting Ex Parte App. for Order Vacating Voluntary Dismissal (Sep. 8, 2009).
Taitz also attempted to dismiss two of her clients against their wishes because she did not want to work with their new counsel. See id.Taitz encouraged her supporters to contact this Court, both via letters and phone calls. It was improper and unethical for her as an attorney to encourage her supporters to attempt to influence this Court's decision. Despite these attempts to manipulate this Court, the Court has not considered any outside pleas to influence the Court's decision.
Additionally, the Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court. While the Court seeks to ensure that all interested parties have had the opportunity to be heard, the Court cannot condone the conduct of Plaintiffs’ counsel in her efforts to influence thisCourt.
I haven't read the whole thing (30 pages) but I take it it's not good for Orly.
F. Conduct of Plaintiffs’ Counsel
The hearings have been interesting to say the least. Plaintiffs’ arguments through Taitz have generally failed to aid the Court. Instead, Plaintiffs’ counsel has favored rhetoric seeking to arouse the emotions and prejudices of her followers rather than the language of a lawyer seeking to present arguments through cogent legal reasoning. While the Court has no desire to chill Plaintiffs’ enthusiastic presentation, Taitz’s argument often hampered the efforts of her co-counsel Gary Kreep (“Kreep”), counsel for Plaintiffs Drake and Robinson, to bring serious issues before the Court. The Court has attempted to give Plaintiffs a voice and a chance to be heard by respecting their choice of counsel and by making every effort to discern the legal arguments of Plaintiffs’ counsel amongst the rhetoric.This Court exercised extreme patience when Taitz endangered this case being heard at all by failing to properly file and serve the complaint upon Defendants and held multiple hearings to ensure that the case would not be dismissed on the technicality of failure to effect service. While the original complaint in this matter was filed on January 20, 2009, Defendants were not properly served until August 25, 2009. Taitz successfully served Defendants only after the Court intervened on several occasions and requested that defense counsel make significant accommodations for her to effect service. Taitz also continually refused to comply with court rules and procedure. Taitz even asked this Court to recuse Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato on the basis that he required her to comply with the Local Rules. See Order Denying Pls.’ Mot. For Modification of Mag. J. Nakazato’s Aug. 6, 2009, Order; Denying Pls.’ Mot. to Recuse Mag. J.Nakazato; and Granting Ex Parte App. for Order Vacating Voluntary Dismissal (Sep. 8, 2009).
Taitz also attempted to dismiss two of her clients against their wishes because she did not want to work with their new counsel. See id.Taitz encouraged her supporters to contact this Court, both via letters and phone calls. It was improper and unethical for her as an attorney to encourage her supporters to attempt to influence this Court's decision. Despite these attempts to manipulate this Court, the Court has not considered any outside pleas to influence the Court's decision.
Additionally, the Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court. While the Court seeks to ensure that all interested parties have had the opportunity to be heard, the Court cannot condone the conduct of Plaintiffs’ counsel in her efforts to influence thisCourt.
Ho ho ho...
Wow. She is fucked. The California Bar cannot ignore sworn statements claiming that she suborned perjury.
Hahah, that sounds like "These people are crazy idiots" said in dense legal speech.
No, it's "this person tried to get people to break the law, which as a sworn officer of the court she knows better than to do." Which is substantially worse.
You don't want to be a governor right now. All you're doing is cutting services, furloughing workers, and raising taxes. They got out when the getting was good. Now they'll be remembered as the one that did ___ instead of the mean old so and so who took my ___ away. If you're running to become governor, now's the best time to be doing it, because when revenues return after the recovery you get to be the guy who brought everything back and 'saved the state' by...well just kind of being there, really.
This is 1/3 of Chris Christies plan for winning both this election and riding it to his potential re-election. The other 1/3 are taxes and combating corruption.
If he wins, he'll win re-election in four years barring a major scandal.
RedTide on
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
I haven't read the whole thing (30 pages) but I take it it's not good for Orly.
F. Conduct of Plaintiffs’ Counsel
The hearings have been interesting to say the least. Plaintiffs’ arguments through Taitz have generally failed to aid the Court. Instead, Plaintiffs’ counsel has favored rhetoric seeking to arouse the emotions and prejudices of her followers rather than the language of a lawyer seeking to present arguments through cogent legal reasoning. While the Court has no desire to chill Plaintiffs’ enthusiastic presentation, Taitz’s argument often hampered the efforts of her co-counsel Gary Kreep (“Kreep”), counsel for Plaintiffs Drake and Robinson, to bring serious issues before the Court. The Court has attempted to give Plaintiffs a voice and a chance to be heard by respecting their choice of counsel and by making every effort to discern the legal arguments of Plaintiffs’ counsel amongst the rhetoric.This Court exercised extreme patience when Taitz endangered this case being heard at all by failing to properly file and serve the complaint upon Defendants and held multiple hearings to ensure that the case would not be dismissed on the technicality of failure to effect service. While the original complaint in this matter was filed on January 20, 2009, Defendants were not properly served until August 25, 2009. Taitz successfully served Defendants only after the Court intervened on several occasions and requested that defense counsel make significant accommodations for her to effect service. Taitz also continually refused to comply with court rules and procedure. Taitz even asked this Court to recuse Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato on the basis that he required her to comply with the Local Rules. See Order Denying Pls.’ Mot. For Modification of Mag. J. Nakazato’s Aug. 6, 2009, Order; Denying Pls.’ Mot. to Recuse Mag. J.Nakazato; and Granting Ex Parte App. for Order Vacating Voluntary Dismissal (Sep. 8, 2009).
Taitz also attempted to dismiss two of her clients against their wishes because she did not want to work with their new counsel. See id.Taitz encouraged her supporters to contact this Court, both via letters and phone calls. It was improper and unethical for her as an attorney to encourage her supporters to attempt to influence this Court's decision. Despite these attempts to manipulate this Court, the Court has not considered any outside pleas to influence the Court's decision.
Additionally, the Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court. While the Court seeks to ensure that all interested parties have had the opportunity to be heard, the Court cannot condone the conduct of Plaintiffs’ counsel in her efforts to influence thisCourt.
Ho ho ho...
Wow. She is fucked. The California Bar cannot ignore sworn statements claiming that she suborned perjury.
Well thank God she has her real estate / dentistry professions to pay back the student loans from the law school she didn't attend.
edit: holy fuck, she did kind of technically go to law school in an unaccredited correspondence course sort of way. Edited for correction
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The U.S. economy grew at a 3.5% annual rate in the third quarter, ending a string of declines over four quarters that resulted in the most severe slide since the Great Depression.
...
A rebound in auto sales, which were helped by the government's Cash for Clunkers program, also provided a boost to GDP. The economic stimulus package, with public works projects and aid to state and federal governments, boosted growth as well.
Congratulations guys. Hopefully this is a sign of things to come.
Howard Dean calls out Karl Rove during debate, Rove gets butthurt.
Rove had said that Medicare rejects claims twice as often as the overall health insurance industry, and he promised to put the proof in his Wall Street Journal column next week. “And I would appreciate it if you didn’t question my integrity. ..Mr. Dean, you just called me a liar and I don’t appreciate it,” replied Rove, former deputy chief of staff and senior adviser to George W. Bush and a Fox News contributor. Later, Rove called Dean “adolescent” after the former Democratic National Committee chairman interrupted one of his answers.
I can't think of anything pithy to say about this. The jokes just present themselves with that one.
There was a debate in NY's 23rd tonight. Hoffman sounds like a sanctimonious prick.
National Or Local Race?
"Mr. Hoffman indicates the the most important thing, that this is a national race, and the parochial issues of the district are not important," said Scozzafava. "I disagree with that. The most important issues in this race are the issues that are most important to the 23rd Congressional district."
Hoffman defended his independence: "As the only conservative Ronald Reagan Republican in this race, the only people that are supporting me are the people that believe in the values and the ideals that represent conservatism."
People who were 30 during the Carter/Reagan election are now 59.
TIME TO MOVE ON
Speaker on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited October 2009
Rove is being an asshat over being called a liar when he lied, economy is up 3.5%, and Taitz is about to get legally kicked in the ass. This is a good day y'all.
Hahah, that sounds like "These people are crazy idiots" said in dense legal speech.
No, it's "this person tried to get people to break the law, which as a sworn officer of the court she knows better than to do." Which is substantially worse.
Courts take perjury rather seriously. Especially when it's a lawyer doing it.
psychotix on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited October 2009
I like the section in that order that discusses how the Plaintiffs want the court to remove Obama from office, even though the judicial branch is Constitutionally unable to do so.
I like the section in that order that discusses how the Plaintiffs want the court to remove Obama from office, even though the judicial branch is Constitutionally unable to do so.
No dude it's totally in the Constitution! What, where? I don't have time to point it out, just do it!
Henroid on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
I like the section in that order that discusses how the Plaintiffs want the court to remove Obama from office, even though the judicial branch is Constitutionally unable to do so.
I think the 'theory' goes that if Obama is deemed ineligible by the courts on the grounds that he isn't a natural born 'murkin. He'll just blink out of existence or something seeing as how there's no mechanism for removing a president because he was deemed 'ineligible'.
Deebaser on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
I like the section in that order that discusses how the Plaintiffs want the court to remove Obama from office, even though the judicial branch is Constitutionally unable to do so.
No dude it's totally in the Constitution! What, where? I don't have time to point it out, just do it!
Maybe it's in the 10th Amendment and that's why the 10thers are getting all worked up.
Deebaser on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
I like the section in that order that discusses how the Plaintiffs want the court to remove Obama from office, even though the judicial branch is Constitutionally unable to do so.
I think the 'theory' goes that if Obama is deemed ineligible by the courts on the grounds that he isn't a natural born 'murkin. He'll just blink out of existence or something seeing as how there's no mechanism for removing a president because he was deemed 'ineligible'.
"Great Scott, Barack! If you don't get your mother to give birth to you in Hawaii instead of Kenya, you'll be... erased from existence!"
"Whoa, this is heavy."
I like the section in that order that discusses how the Plaintiffs want the court to remove Obama from office, even though the judicial branch is Constitutionally unable to do so.
I think the 'theory' goes that if Obama is deemed ineligible by the courts on the grounds that he isn't a natural born 'murkin. He'll just blink out of existence or something seeing as how there's no mechanism for removing a president because he was deemed 'ineligible'.
It's not that dumb, well, not completely that dumb.
The tactic is that if they can have a court say that is proof, is not valid enough proof for the office they can spend the rest of his term sandbagging him and he won't be able to run in 2012. It will also give the another "look at the dumbocrats" line they can yell till kingdom come.
People who were 30 during the Carter/Reagan election are now 59.
TIME TO MOVE ON
They're going to continue to ride his coffin long after anyone who could have voted for him is dead.
It'll get even better after he passes from living memory. That's the point at which he stops being the face of the glory years of the Republican party and becomes their patron saint.
Posts
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Burris is resigning, it's an open seat. I'd put more money on the Dem than the GOP for it, given the way Kirk is running for the primary, but either way Burris is leaving the chamber.
Polls are kind of irrelevant at this point, given how early it is. If the economy stops bleeding jobs by next July and unemployment starts actually coming down then that'd be a plus, but most of the fundamentals that really determine outcomes are way too loose to judge.
The biggest knock on the dems this cycle is that Obama strangled a few great opportunities in the cradle by nominating contenders to administration posts (vilsack, napoli-name-I-always-forget in arizona, etc.) But republicans have a lot of seats to defend this cycle, and retirements and bad recruitment have left them vulnerable in some areas I'm sure they didn't expect to be. So even if they luck out and knock off a couple of democratic incumbents, they'll probably give back a seat or two elsewhere.
And like you said, that's the pessimist's approach. Wouldn't be surprised at all if we woke up in nov. 2010 with moderate democratic gains.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Burris says he's retiring. You think he couldn't make a mess of that race claiming to be a Democrat even after someone else won the primary? Besides, people always associate a race with its current holder even if he isn't running for reelection (*cough* 1968, 2008 *cough*), and Burris is not terribly popular.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
You don't want to be a governor right now. All you're doing is cutting services, furloughing workers, and raising taxes. They got out when the getting was good. Now they'll be remembered as the one that did ___ instead of the mean old so and so who took my ___ away. If you're running to become governor, now's the best time to be doing it, because when revenues return after the recovery you get to be the guy who brought everything back and 'saved the state' by...well just kind of being there, really.
Who's next in line, should Reid lose?
Durbin or Schumer. If I had to guess I'd say Schumer thanks to DSCC, and Durbin being from Illinois.
I think the debate did a good job of pointing out that, aside from the social issues, Scozzafava really isn't that different from Hoffman. The press has been playing her up as being some kind of liberal Rep (because of the social issues), which I think has skewed peoples' view of her. By taking those social issues out of the debate, she really sounds no different than I'd expect a Republican to sound. Good piece for anyone looking for a little clarification and perspective.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/three-candidates-debate-in-ny-23-a-moderate-democrat-versus-two-republicans.php
F. Conduct of Plaintiffs’ Counsel
Ho ho ho...
Wow. She is fucked. The California Bar cannot ignore sworn statements claiming that she suborned perjury.
PSN: Corbius
No, it's "this person tried to get people to break the law, which as a sworn officer of the court she knows better than to do." Which is substantially worse.
This is 1/3 of Chris Christies plan for winning both this election and riding it to his potential re-election. The other 1/3 are taxes and combating corruption.
If he wins, he'll win re-election in four years barring a major scandal.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Well thank God she has her real estate / dentistry professions to pay back the student loans from the law school she didn't attend.
edit: holy fuck, she did kind of technically go to law school in an unaccredited correspondence course sort of way. Edited for correction
http://www.taftu.edu/TLS/1_tuition.htm
Congratulations guys. Hopefully this is a sign of things to come.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
you'd betta not be dissin shakezula
the mic rula
the old schoola
cuz if you wanna trip, he'll bring it to ya
http://rawstory.com/2009/10/dean-debates-rove-political-identity/
Yeah! Hump that fucking corpse some more!
TIME TO MOVE ON
Courts take perjury rather seriously. Especially when it's a lawyer doing it.
No dude it's totally in the Constitution! What, where? I don't have time to point it out, just do it!
I think the 'theory' goes that if Obama is deemed ineligible by the courts on the grounds that he isn't a natural born 'murkin. He'll just blink out of existence or something seeing as how there's no mechanism for removing a president because he was deemed 'ineligible'.
Maybe it's in the 10th Amendment and that's why the 10thers are getting all worked up.
"Great Scott, Barack! If you don't get your mother to give birth to you in Hawaii instead of Kenya, you'll be... erased from existence!"
"Whoa, this is heavy."
It's not that dumb, well, not completely that dumb.
The tactic is that if they can have a court say that is proof, is not valid enough proof for the office they can spend the rest of his term sandbagging him and he won't be able to run in 2012. It will also give the another "look at the dumbocrats" line they can yell till kingdom come.
They're going to continue to ride his coffin long after anyone who could have voted for him is dead.
He's honestly the sequel to Lincoln for them, the next Republican to be held up until Conservative Messiah comes again.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Reagan is the Conservative Messiah. Everyone else is just trying to be the Conservative Pope that prays to him.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.