The Democrat's 2010 Problem

By now, everybody knows about the shockingly bad electoral conditions for Democrats.  If a Republican has a good chance to win Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in Massachusetts, then almost every Democrat in the country has to be scared stiff.

But the electoral problem creates a more immediate predicament for Democrats, and I think we're going to see two sustained Democratic freak outs as they try to figure out how to address this.

  • The 2010 elections may mark the end of the Democrat's ability to move a lot of the really big legislation/regulation.
  • But if they try to move the really big legislation/regulation before the 2010 elections, they're only going to make their electoral situation worse.

The first Democratic freak out will be an internal Congressional fight in 2010 over whether to (1) move big and fast while they still have the votes, or (2) slow down and preserve as many seats as they can.

The second Democratic freak out is going to occur in 2011 and beyond, when Democrats try to figure out what the lesson of the 2010 elections really is.

  • Progressives - and especially the netroots - will say the lesson is "Damn the Republicans, Full Speed Ahead", but that's what they always say.  Revolutionaries like bold action more than practical details.
  • Moderates/pragmatists will say the lesson is "don't try to do too much, take smaller steps, make reasonable compromises".  But that is more effective at maintaining power than accomplishing major policy goals.

I think Congressional Democrats are going to become awfully pragmatic.  I'm not really sure where the White House will end up, especially if Rahm Emanuel leaves.  We are definitely going to see a lot of bargaining and ugly deal-making.

Nobody would have predicted this a year or two ago, but....is this going to be the triumph of the DLC over the Progressives within the Democratic Party?

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (3 votes)

Comments

I know no such thing

By now, everybody knows about the shockingly bad electoral conditions for Democrats.

I know no such thing - well, other than the fact that this is a meme that the right is trying hard to keep alive.

The reality:

  • The economy under Obama's stewardship is beginning to recover from the massive crater that the Republicans put it in - a hard fact that Dems all over the country will be able to run on in the fall.
  • People want HCR - but all you will offer is delay and obstruction. There is going to be a bill, it is going to be signed, and Democrats all over the country are going to be able to run on the achievement of preventing denials due to pre-existing conditions and an end to bullshit rescission. While painting your side as in the pockets of the insurers.
  • Your party chairman is Michael Steele.
  • For the third election cycle in a row, more Republican members of the House and Senate are retiring than Democrats. And remember - you are starting from a waaay smaller pool.
  • The NRCC has only $4.3 million on hand and a debt of $2 million. They have barely enough to support one campaign let alone the 40 or more they need to be able to reclaim the House. The DCCC on the other hand has $15.3 million, with a debt of $2.6. This allows them to play a hell of a lot of defense as well as some offense in the coming cycle.
  • The Republican's have nothing to offer except the promise of more gridlock in Washington. Your brand is nothing - nada, zip. You are offering no agenda.
  • Meanwhile, the Democrats are doing things like clawing back the bailout funds from the banks.
  • Your party chairman is Michael Steele.

Coakley by 10. No meaningful change in the balance of power in the House, Senate or State Houses in November.

BTW, there are more than one Democrats, so shift the ' in your title over one space.

 

Shhh, Coakley never got the memo

Leave her be in her belief that she does not need to be concerned.

you're right

John Smith, you are right.  Why it's nothing but right-wing ideologues who are saying that Democrats face a very difficult election in 2010.

Oh did I say "right-wing ideologues"?  I meant Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden.

The gap in meaning and intent between Henke's words and

those of Pelosi and Biden is about as large as the one between the words "per day" and "one time", which I have helpfully explained for you below.

nothin'

The gap in meaning and intent between Henke's words andSubmitted by John Smith on Fri, 01/15/2010 - 07:09.

those of Pelosi and Biden is about as large as the one between the words "per day" and "one time", which I have helpfully explained for you below.

 

John Smith Translation: I got nothin'.

I'll play the devil's advocate, here

...and note some items on the conservative side of the ledger.

1) Historically speaking, the party in the White House virtually always loses some seats in off-year elections.

2) The Democrats have MONUMENTALLY botched health care reform. What's going to pass is actually going to make everything much worse--every vestige of genuine reform has been stripped from the bill. This can't help Democrats in the elections; it can only hurt them. Little of it takes effect until 2013, so the fact that it DOES make everything worse won't  immediately hurt them (that pain will be reserved for later), but the base is totally disillusioned by what's happened, not ust with health care but with nearly everything Obama has done, and will likely stay home in large numbers, while Republicans will hammer the other side of the issue, energizing their own base.

3) Forms a corollary to #2. Obama's compromise, compromise, compromise on EVERYTHING approach has totally turned off the Democratic base, who thought they were electing a Democratic majority, and, instead, find that the Republicans are still running everything. The base should be excited at this point in his presidency, and, instead, it's indifferently staying home (which is what happened in the 2009 elections--no one showed up).

4) Republican DON'T really have to present any sort of alternative; in an off-year election, they just have to be there. They can, however, blow this by trending hard right, as they've been doing.

no crystal ball

The reality we live with, right now, I think, is that it's really impossible to know what comes next. If the ecnomy worsens, if healthcare reform passes and is signed, if Coakley loses... there's just a lot of potential outcomes in at least the next 6-8 weeks to be generalizing, confidently, about the overall picture. I generally agree with John Smith on his points and would say similarly:

  • Republicans can't really capitalize on the Democrats' problems without some sense of a coherent alternative. That has yet to be made clear and concise. Scott Brown isn't really doing that. Neither, really, is Marco Rubio, just to name two.
  • Michael Steele.
  • Tea Party anger has to be converted into a sense of purpose and forward motion, or its just a lot of unfocused, easily distracted shouting.
  • Until you can actually combine the charismatic attention getters (e.g. Palin) with the pragmatic dealmakers (Crist et al) in a package that appeals to your base... there's just not much there

Democrats have made and are making mistakes, no doubt. No one should be overconfident. But the reality remains: there are, at best, a handful of races right now that may indicate some potential for Republican successes, but in general trends, Democrats will still control almost all of the northeast, and won't give up much in the upper midwest or far west. Republicans can likely consolidate the South and some border states (wherever, say, one might put Kentucky in that), but beyond that... it's hard to see big shifts. At least now. That can change, depending on circumstance and planning. I think, though, that many conservatives are betting on miracles over hard work. That doesn't, it seem to me, amount to a really thought through plan for future success.

 

don't listen to liberals for election advice

Republicans can't really capitalize on the Democrats' problems without some sense of a coherent alternative. That has yet to be made clear and concise. Scott Brown isn't really doing that. Neither, really, is Marco Rubio, just to name two.

And yet both are doing remarkably well.  Why is that?  They are merely copying the Democrats' playbook from ca. 2005: complain and complain about the guys in charge in order to create an atmosphere of doubt.  Then, once the guys in charge have been thoroughly discredited, you can ride in to power on a wave of "hope" and "change".  There would be no desire for change unless the seeds of doubt had been previously sown.

Michael Steele.

You miss the point: Scott Brown is raising $1 million per day DESPITE Michael Steele's cloddish behavior.  Michael Steele isn't in charge, if that wasn't obvious enough already.  Liberal sycophants like John Smith bring him up only to embarrass the right. 

Tea Party anger has to be converted into a sense of purpose and forward motion, or its just a lot of unfocused, easily distracted shouting.

Well yeah I would agree, and that is why there are grassroots organizations forming up around Tea Party activism in order to channel that energy towards worthwhile goals.  Of course this is what classicliberal2 calls "astroturfing", in part because Tea Party activists actually have the gall to start forming, and cooperating with, organizations that can make a real difference, but mostly as a naked smear job.

Until you can actually combine the charismatic attention getters (e.g. Palin) with the pragmatic dealmakers (Crist et al) in a package that appeals to your base... there's just not much there

You miss the point again.  The Tea Party activism was born mostly as a reaction to this sort of compromise.  "Pragmatic dealmaker" is DC-insider code for "sellout".  We won't accept it any longer.  And, really, neither should the "dealmakers", because what happens whenever those "pragmatic", "dealmaking" Republicans make a deal with Democrats?  Do they get any credit?  No, they are attacked even more savagely because they didn't just completely cave.  Just look at what happened to McCain: he went from beloved maverick to hate-filled geezer almost overnight.  If we wanted "pragmatic dealmakers", we would have embraced McCain.  We didn't.

The bottom line is, though, don't listen to liberals for your election advice.

 

Liberal election "advice"

I don't have election "advice"... merely observations.

Scott Brown making $1 million a day? Nice... but necessary? At this point he's winning just by taking the high road and letting Coakley do herself in... which is kind of the point: you won't have Coakleys on a nationwide basis. And Mass is, in that and other ways, a special case. There's little to suggest that Republicans, never mind conservatives, have a clear notion of how to apply what makes Brown a winning case nationally - it's mostly "if the stars align, and you have a broken Democratic election machine that hasn't had to fill an open seat in close to ten years... then we're golden!".

Marco Rubio? That seat has been an expected GOP win all along; the main question has been whether Rubio can win a general. It still is, though I agree, it'd be his to lose. Does that apply nationally? How? Florida, it seems to me, is a reminder that, in the South, you kind have to expect that the GOP can take most races... unless they can't. Runbio v. Crist, then, stll seems more about the internal tensions of the party more than anything about the left.

The point I was trying to make is that A) to Jon's overall case that so many factors work in the right's favor... isn't so clear as he'd like to suggest. And B) even if there are trends to suggest some benefit to conservatives... it's hard to see a massive swing on a broad scale. You can cut the Dems to 55 or 56 in the Senate. You can take 10 or 15 seats off of Pelosi's majority... but those are still Democratic majorities. And you still have a fractious, tense, right wing that doesn't have its own agenda for building out future success.

Me... I just want the push-pull of competing, worthwhile ideas. I want a coherent, conservative alternative on issues like healthcare and the environment and the economy. I want to hear another side. I do think Democrats need, and deserve, the wake up call that there is an opposition and it has a point. I think there's a fitful, gradual sense that there might be something coming together. But I think there's too much reliance, on the right - as I said - on believing Tea Party anger is more of a coherent force than it appears yet and the base being seduced by siren songs like Sarah Palin's... which are not a sure sign of any coherent set of conservative policies that can appeal to a broad coalition of voters.

It's not "advice"... it's just what I see.

No, he is not.

Scott Brown is raising $1 million per day

Uh...no, he is not. He raised that on one day, and one day only.

I'm surprised that someone who likes to brag about their advanced educational achievements doesn't understand the difference between "per" on "once".

 

Yes he is.

Uh...no, he is not.

Umm, yes he is.

I'm surprised that someone who likes to brag about their advanced educational achievements doesn't understand the difference between "per" on "once".

Oh screw you.  I don't brag about my degrees, you just feel threatened by them.  If I were in your shoes I would be too, because your highest educational accomplishment appears to be reading leftist talking points.

There is a little clue for you in that item you linked to.

It looks like this:

Although Brown’s campaign touted Monday’s money-bomb fundraiser that brought in $1.3 million dollars, the campaign declined to confirm totals for other days this week.

Regarding your ego:

Well, I have the big-time degree. 2/26/09

You see, I actually am a chemist, and so I know a thing or two about molecules. 1/06/09

Dunno - looks a bit like bragging to me.

Do you find it difficult to keep a straight face when accusing me of reciting talking points while simultaneously quoting this manifestly dubious item from Tucker Carlson's new "venture"?

hah

This is the part you missed:

Knowledgeable sources in Massachusetts tell The Daily Caller that Republican candidate for Senate, Scott Brown, has raised at least $1 million dollars every day this week, most of it online.

As to your other comment: Oh WOW!  In the 1.5 years that I have been a member here, I have mentioned my degrees in chemistry precisely twice.  WHOA SHAME ON ME, I'M SUCH AN EGOMANIAC!  Stop me before I "brag" again!

The fact of the matter is, John Smith, you are outclassed.  There is not a shred of original thought emanating from your brain.  You repeat what you read at TPM, Daily Kos, Media Matters, and the other leftist outfits and take it as gospel truth.  I seriously doubt if you are even able to evaluate an issue critically.  You think Jon Stewart snark passes for rational discourse.

Here's some unsolicited advice: Read NRO's The Corner for a week, along with all of your usual lefty sites.  It won't kill you.  And you may actually learn something.

Oh, and you got your date wrong on your last citation.

You noticed it too?

I've said it before, Smith's posts are basically regurgitated crap from TPM, Dailkos, and Think Progress.

The funny thing is he acts like he comes up with this on his own.

the liberal man's burden

Well, yeah.  It's hard to miss.  It's just an extension of "the white man's burden", only extended to the realm of politics.  It goes something like this: We start with the premise that liberalism is the correct way to view the world.  We then read up on all of the liberal sites on how great liberalism is.  When we approach a conservative, we just repeat all the stuff we read on liberal sites, because - well, it's correct, and the liberal do-gooder is doing his part to educate the ignorant, unwashed conservative masses.

Chemjeff has a disease

 

And that's projection. He is so good at it!

To be fair, many conservatives do believe in the notion that conservatism is doing anything that isn't liberalism.

Here's a standard delusional reaction (employed commonly by the online right, and chemjeff too on several occasions):

Look at the reaction from the left/liberals! We must be [/doing something] right!

 

 

 

And then there's this guy...

Who pretends to be non-partisan or non-ideological.

You're proving my point.

You can't argue with substance, you must accuse me of having some sort of illness.  Gee, I wonder what medicine you are going to suggest for me.   Could it be....liberalism?

Dead on.

You just described 99% of liberal posters on the net. The 1% are the ones who actually write the talking points.

To quote Reagan: "It's not that liberals are ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."

Progressives have created this alternate history where they somehow are the champions of freedom and liberty when their ideology espouses the exact opposite. It's not surprising that the useful idiots like Smith have to rely on talking points written by others. I'm certain that at some deep, subconscious level, they realize that "Progressives" are really "regressive" and want to bring back the days of "The Divine Right of Kings" (only they disguise the monarchy with a chosen elite instead).

Ah, your confirmation

 

RBill has the same disease as chemjeff. Replace "progressive" with "conservative" and he would be more closer to reality.

 

 

One Problem...

Reality begs to differ.

See!

 

After all God and Reality must be Republican and so is RBill.

But then Stephen Colbert told us that "Reality has a well known liberal bias". And that's my talking point for the day.

Conservative

...Not Republican.

Learn to read.

Ok. God, Reality and RBill are ALL conservative!

 

...not republican (at least not till the tea party folks take over the gop.)

According to RBill, I must be a liberal and i must be deluded. Oh, Satan too must be liberal (But NOT deluded, like the 1% who write us the talking points.)

Btw, conservatism and authoritism are mutually exclusive!

A libertarian republican is someone i can symphathize with, i was giving RBill a benefit of doubt there.

Correct.

You're a liberal, deluded and I'll add irrelevant.

And RBill and chemjeff repeat what talking points?

 

NRO - The Corner, Free Republic, Red State, Hot Air, Town Hall and Big Government maybe?

Both of you are so full of yourself.

I am neither a democrat nor a republican or an independent. I read left wing sites and rigth wing sites.  The intellectual gap in the online world between the left and the right is stark. You idiots don't realize that you are left refering to only NRO or The Next Right and some such as things reaching any sort of credibility to counter the left's online discourse. The moment you make your ad hominems regarding  "left wing talking points" is when  you don't have any of your usual right wing points left other than use the standard tactic to attack your opponents.

Liar.

I am neither a democrat nor a republican or an independent.

I stopped reading after this lie.

Really?

Please tell me how it is so, "You lie", "You lose" RBill?

 

 

Again, the amusing irony

The fact of the matter is, John Smith, you are outclassed.  There is not a shred of original thought emanating from your brain.  You repeat what you read at TPM, Daily Kos, Media Matters, and the other leftist outfits and take it as gospel truth.  I seriously doubt if you are even able to evaluate an issue critically.  You think Jon Stewart snark passes for rational discourse.

Again, the amusing irony of you going on about this while at the same time trying to defend a bogus-on-its-very-face item from Tucker Carlson. Really, it is priceless.

"And, BTW, I don't own a TV.  So I don't have the opportunity to watch your delicious Jon Stewart for my daily news."

chemjeff, 11/17/09

Rather difficult for you to opine on Jon Stewart snark, then, isn't it?

My God, you are stupid.

My God, you are stupid.  The fact that I don't own a TV doesn't mean I have never ever ever seen the show before.  Oh, and there's always the Internet.  So yes I am familiar with the Jon Stewart snark even if I haven't seen his show in a while.

Please, continue trying to punch above your weight class.  It is amusing for all to see.

Oh and I'm even perfectly willing to admit that Scott Brown may not really have raised $1 million per day.  But that's not why you jumped on me, originally.  You ASSUMED that I was deliberately trying to mislead people by calling Scott Brown's Monday moneybomb a daily fundraising amount .  That is when you pulled out your can of snark and tried to nail me.  Well, it turns out I wasn't lying, that I had an actual source for my claim.  Could the source be wrong?  Sure, it could.  But that's besides the point, for you anyway.  The point was to try to "get me".

My pleasure

Please, continue trying to punch above your weight class.  It is amusing for all to see.

Happy to oblige.

Well, it turns out I wasn't lying, that I had an actual source for my claim.  Could the source be wrong?  Sure, it could. 

Good to see that even you concede just how bogus that item is.

For future reference, am I also allowed to rely on any old random piece of internally-contradictory nonsense that I find on the Internet as "proof"? Or is that a privilege that you reserve for your lofty self?

reading comprehension

Good to see that even you concede just how bogus that item is.

I guess there's something wrong with your reading comprehension as well.  I didn't say it was bogus.  I'm willing to say it might be bogus, which is WAY more than you are willing to admit for any of your lefty sources.  But, I do think it's plausible.  There is an incredible enthusiasm in the air for Scott Brown and it's entirely conceivable he's raised $1 million per day since the Monday moneybomb.

For future reference, am I also allowed to rely on any old random piece of internally-contradictory nonsense (aka lefty websites) that I find on the Internet as "proof"?

FIFY.  That's what you always do anyway.  It's not like I've been successful in stopping you before.

The chemjeff standard

OK, everyone, here we have the official chemjeff standard for sources that can be used on this site: if you believe the item might be bogus but the scenario it lays out seems conceivable to you (regardless if you have any local or specialist knowledge to apply to it) then you can state it as gospel truth.

 

Anonymous sources of The Daily Caller

 

"Knowledgeable sources in Massachusetts tell The Daily Caller"

That's proof enough that it becomes a certain reality for some? After all such unverified news is good for Brown's campaign.

No wonder Brown's campaign declined to confirm figures other than for the one day money bomb that crossed over a million dollars.  That's  a clue indeed. But not for the clueless.

 

Question about the Brown campaign

I haven't been following the race in depth, so this may be a silly question:

Now that it's a real contest in MA and people are fired up, where the bleep is the national Republican Party?  Are they finally giving Brown some serious money and resources?  If they aren't, why not?

they can stay away

Quite frankly, I'm glad they're staying out.  The base is fired up enough and Scott is raking in $1 million per day.  The national guys will only screw things up.

Really? $1 million per day?

So Brown has raised $15 million so far this month! Hot damn, that is impressive!!!

Or...could it be...possibly...that he raised $1 million in ONE day, and then peanuts on the others?

Something more like $100K a day?

More logical, but less bombastic, so I can see why you didn't go with that.

And, BTW - do you really think that we think that the $1 million on that one day all came from within Mass?

 

every day this week

$1 million per day, for every day THIS WEEK, you moron.

And I know for a fact that not all of it came from within Massachusetts.  I did my part and I don't live in Massachusetts.

Kinda makes you wonder about

Kinda makes you wonder about the rest of his math. Like a 10 point Coakley victory.

"over 5.3 million in 5 days!"

 

"Or...could it be...possibly...that he raised $1 million in ONE day, and then peanuts on the others?" --  John Smith

That's more plausible.

The Daily Caller claims that MOST of the "million a day"  it was raised online. It is more likely that most of the money came from big donors and collections (most of it from outside the state of course).

What idiots like chemjeff don't realize is the fact that Brown's campaign refused to confirm the "million a day figure" is a good indication that Tucker Carlson's "knowledgeable sources within Mass" (note, the wording is not 'sources within Brown's campiagn') is as ridiculous as it gets.

If he was indeed raising unheard figures online from small donors, his campaign would be all over it publicizing it. What's there to hide? Lets me guess: They want to hide the actual amount to to catch their opponents in surprise or keep the Coakley camp guessing! At least Hillary Clinton's campaign claimed that she raised 10 million or something in a single day (most of it online!) after Penn primary to counter Obama campaign's publicly viewable donor widget. Everyone knew that was bunk. But it gave her media coverage and some short term boost for good news. From the FEC campaign filings, there is no way to verify for fact if the millions were raised on a single day or if its spead out over the month. The same could be true for Brown's campaign, but given the small amounts he may have raised relative to the non-money bomb days this month, his campaign was clever not to risk the easily demonstrable lie from the FEC filings later.

And the end of it all, it says more about idiots like chemjeff who would want to believe Tucker Carlson's anonymous soucres rather than Brown campaign itself.

 

There has to be a point there somewhere

But after rereading 5 paragraphs, damned if I can find it.  Did someone here make the claim that the money was only being raised within Mass? Sounds like some one is still sensitive to the fact that Obama raised lots of undocumented dollars on the internet from overseas. .

The fact is LOTS of money is being raised and "Ted Kennedy's seat" is not being assigned to the next democrat in line without a fight. It was thought to be automatic, but due to Obama's bungling, we have a tight race. And I think YOU said the GOP would be in the wilderness for years to come . . .after you over read Obama's "mandate" for "change" (like he did).

Nationally, Coakley is the canary in the coal mine. And live or die, that canary has coughed up a lung.

 

"Most likely" is all you got?

"Or...could it be...possibly...that he raised $1 million in ONE day, and then peanuts on the others?" --  John Smith

"Could be ... possibly" - sounds like his own wishful thinking, not based on any source at all.

The Daily Caller claims that MOST of the "million a day"  it was raised online. It is more likely that most of the money came from big donors and collections (most of it from outside the state of course).

"Most likely" - another oppinion - "most of it came from outside the state of course." - lets get back to this accusation below.

What idiots like chemjeff don't realize is that, the fact that Brown's campaign refused to confirm the "million a day figure" is a good indication that Tucker Carlson's "knowledgeable souces within Mass" (note, not even 'sources within Brown's campiagn') is as ridiculous as it gets.

So let me get this straight you are saying sources outside of Brown's campiagn do not know where the money has came from or how much it will be. But you are making a claim that you do.

At leats Hillary CLinton's campaign, claimed that they she raised 10 million or something in a single day (most of it online!) after Penn primary to counter Obama campaign's publicly viewable donor widget. Everyone knew that was bunk. From the FEC campaign filings, there is no way to verify for fact if the millions were raised on a single day or if its spead out over the month.

Ah yes FEC filings ... that is indeed where people can verify your claim "most of it came from outside the state of course." ... but those numbers are delayed because they are not due until the end of the month. So your accusation on where the money came from is a lie, isn't it; It is slander not even hearsay.

The same could be true for Brown's campaign. If he was indeed raising unheard figures online from small donors, his campaign would be all over it publicizing it. What's there to hide? Lets me guess: They want to hide the actual amount to to catch their opponents in surprise or keep the Coakley camp guessing!

And the end of it all, it says more about idiots like chenjeff who would want to believe Tucker Carlson's anonymous soucres rather than Brown's campaign itself.

You are now questioning if it can be discerned how much a candidate has raised based on outside information. A person of inteligence can discern if the last amount the campaign had on 12/31/09 was $1,000,000 and with the knowledge of how much advertisement time costs at fair market rates (an amount easy to determine) that they have paid out $10,000,000 in advertisements that they made at least $9,000,000.

Well do you need somebody to explain to you that it is possible to determine how much money is being spent.

But you also want to add the tone that if it is from say out of state it is immoral for example:

SEIU has stepped up its involvement in MA in the waning days of the race, sending hundreds of volunteers and hundreds of thousands of dollars to the state on behalf of AG Martha Coakley (D).

The union, one of the most powerful arrows in the Dem quiver, is spending $685K on TV ads touting Coakley and slamming state Sen. Scott Brown (R), and a spokesperson for SEIU says it will have 300 volunteers on the ground on Tuesday.

The heightened activity has some GOPers on edge, and at least one group is worried SEIU could be taking over for ACORN as a top organizational tool benefiting Dem candidates.

“This whole thing is turnout, and this looks like the place the SEIU-ACORN folks turn on the turnout machine. They did it in Minnesota, successfully,” said David Norcross, chair of the Republican National Lawyers Association.

The RNLA will send its own volunteers to MA for Election Day, with plans to monitor polling places to prevent any fraud. The group got a tip that SEIU-sponsored buses would be taking voters to the polls, Norcross said.

 This hearsay quote comes from SEIU themselves and was reported by National Review.

Joke's on you.

Hell, maybe he's raising $1 million a day all from a single guy, I don't know.  Or maybe he really isn't raising $1 million a day.  Or maybe he's raising $10 milion per minute.  Who really knows?

But here's the funny part.  We are arguing over whether the fundraising of Scott Brown is incredibly awesome, or only kinda-sorta awesome.  Scott Brown the Republican.  In deep blue Massachusetts.  In an election for Ted Kennedy's former seat.  In an election where Brown has campaigned explicitly on stopping Obamacare.

And who's the Democrat running again?  Martha something?

Oh, and thanks for calling me an idiot and accusing me of having some sort of disease, especially when you do so in responding to my view that liberals act as if conservatives are idiots and have some sort of disease.

Obama's Chappaquiddick

Home of the orginal Tea Party. All Brown needs to do is ask and he has money to finish this thing.

 

Nice try. Chemjeff deteriorates into HuffPo standards.

We are arguing over whether the fundraising of Scott Brown is incredibly awesome, or only kinda-sorta awesome.

1.3 million dollar money bomb is awesome! Joe Wilson raised so much in a single day (most of it online!, of course not all of it from his congressional district)

You are claiming that Scott Brown raised "over a million a day for at least five days" as a FACT--Not "maybe", "perhaps",  "most likely",  "allegedly" or even "reportedly"--based on a dubious report from a partisan site. (And this 'fact' wasn't supported by you by quoting any other media outlet with their own reports on Brown's fundraising.)

Especially ironic, given chemjeff's demands, in online conversations,  for high levels of fact checking and calls for quoting unbaised reports/sources (this doesn't include 'any' analysis and research - not opinion pieces - from anti-right sites like Media Matters, TPM, Think Progress etc; they are outright unreliable! Even if their sources are not anonymous like in the current example of The Daily Caller.)

Even more ironically, Chemjeff relies on an original "EXCLUSIVE" report from  the newly launched (Jan 11, 2010)  The Daily Caller, which is, in  the founder Tucker Carlson's words, "the political right's answer to Huffington Post".  We will see if the Caller stands upto at least HuffPo's standards in their original reports. Either way i guess we are now free to rely and quote HuffPo pieces to argue stubborn idiots and hypocrites like chemjeff on the next right.

 

the anklebiters

Oh good, the two resident Next Right anklebiters have decided to gang up on me.  I can fell them both in one stroke then.

First, this bears repeating: We are discussing the very good fundraising totals of a conservative Republican for a Senate election in the bluest state in the nation, an election in which he wasn't expected to stand a chance.  We aren't talking about Coakley, because there's nothing much to say about her - she is gaffe-prone, she has no momentum and her campaign has gone completely negative at this point.  Our liberal interlopers are reduced to arguing over fine details regarding the Republican's fundraising.  Where are they standing up to defend Coakley's bold, inspiring vision?  Oh that's right, she doesn't have one!

Now, what the two anklebiters have jumped on is a poorly sourced claim made on Tucker Carlson's website.  I agree it's poorly sourced, and in hindsight maybe I would have checked on it a little more carefully before repeating it.  I even later said that hey, there is room for doubt in this statement.  (Did you two give me any credit for that?  No.)  I'm willing to admit this.  Are you willing to make similar admissions?  When you cite something from TPM or Daily Kos about how BOOOSH killed 400 million billion babies and cute kittens in Iraq, and you are called on it, are you willing to admit that maybe your source might have shaded the truth? 

And, if you think about it, what you are really saying is that I'm correct to have high standards.  Otherwise, why would citing a poorly sourced claim from Tucker Carlson's website be considered "wrong"?  If you believe there should be no standards, then anything is fair game and what I quoted is just as legitimate as claiming Bush served a plastic turkey for Thanksgiving (for example).

But, let's be honest here: This isn't about standards for citation, it's about tearing me down.   Isn't this what Alinsky preached in his Rules for Radicals - make the argument personal?  If you can successfully harass the main proponent of an argument, so much so that he slinks off in humiliation, then you never have to address the substance of the argument.  The argument becomes discredited by default.  That's the real object here.  It's mean and pathetic, frankly.  In fact, this reflects a great deal of the commentary on this website from the leftists.  They hardly ever stand up and defend liberalism.  They spend the vast majority of their energy trying to attack and tear down conservatives and Republicans.  It's almost as if they are more interested in destroying conservatism than implementing liberalism.  Why, it's almost as if they are motivated more by hate than anything else!  Every minute they spend attacking me personally is one minute they are not spending telling us how great Obama's agenda supposedly is.  I am a big boy and I can take these pathetic insults.  The fact that they occur so voluminously, though, says much about what is in the hearts of the attackers.

But I know all of this will go over the heads of our two trolls, and instead they will just continue to call me a hypocrite in their sneering, hateful way.  Just remember the famous quotation on the subject: "Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue."  Meditate upon that, if you can.

Um, no.

When you cite something from TPM or Daily Kos about how BOOOSH killed 400 million billion babies and cute kittens in Iraq, and you are called on it, are you willing to admit that maybe your source might have shaded the truth? 

And, if you think about it, what you are really saying is that I'm correct to have high standards.

Um, no. What I am really saying is that you  mischaracterize everything you don't agree with as a cartoon liberal talking point (witness first paragraph quoted above) and you don't actually have high standards for yourself - you just like to think that you do.

Regarding all the slings and arrows you feel you've been unfairly subjected to - allow me, dear Hamlet, to quote back some of your own words to you:

Oh screw you. 

your highest educational accomplishment appears to be reading leftist talking points.

The fact of the matter is, John Smith, you are outclassed.  There is not a shred of original thought emanating from your brain.  

My God, you are stupid.

Please, continue trying to punch above your weight class.  It is amusing for all to see.

you moron

So, what - personal attacks are pathetic, unless they are launched by you?

Consider me unfelled.

 

the end

What I am really saying is that you  mischaracterize everything you don't agree with as a cartoon liberal talking point

No, I characterize accurately pretty much everything you post as a liberal talking point.  This is Exhibit A of your furious spinning in order to declare Obama the Savior of the Nation.  Some people here, even some liberals, are willing to recognize and offer constructive arguments, yea even offer praise to conservatives where praise is due.  You are not one of those people.  For instance, in your partisan spin job cited above, somehow you neglect to mention that the monetary stimulus of the economy, launched by the Fed, was started under Bush.  Does he get any praise from you?  Does Bernanke get any praise?  No and no - it all goes to Obama.  So why again am I NOT supposed to dismiss your comments as just partisan hackery?  Clearly all you want to do is give a tongue job to Obama.  That's fine but don't pretend it represents any serious contribution to the discourse.  It deserves the ridicule it got.

So, what - personal attacks are pathetic, unless they are launched by you?

The difference here is, we aren't equivalent.  I can offer a cogent argument.  You cannot.  You must resort to personal attack because you cannot argue against the merit of my argument.  By contrast, you don't have a cogent argument to rebut.  ALL YOU HAVE are gotcha games, silly debate tricks, and snark.  There is no substance.

You are the one that has been the target of my insults.  That is because you are the most shallow, most idiotic liberal here.  I tried to take you seriously, for a long time.  I now realize it's pointless to try.  You'll note that I don't insult classicliberal2 or acinphx or In Between.  They are all characters to be sure, but they at least have something worthwhile to say.  You?  Not so much.

But hey, prove me wrong.  Why don't you post your treatise on why liberalism represents the salvation of mankind?  Why don't you offer some constructive argument, with sources and references, on ANYTHING of substance?  I'll read and ponder a real argument that tries to make an interesting case, and I'll respond constructively and politely.  But what type of response are you expecting, exactly, when all you write is "SARAH PALIN IS STOOOOOPID"?  My belief is that you have nothing of substance to offer because all you are truly interested in doing is laughing at conservatives.

And I have wasted enough time on this silly little discussion.  As far as I'm concerned this conversation is over.

You certainly are more dour

than I, and you are more in love with the sound of your own typing, but neither of those two add up to substance. And this idea that you are better than me and therefore you have a special license to engage in behavior that is not permitted to anyone else in your rule book - very Republican of you.

Re: they can stay away

You may be right, chemjeff.

However, hopefully the national GOP at least has a team of lawyers ready in case the election is close.  Curiously, very close elections tend to be won by the local majority party: for example, Florida, Washington, and Minnesota. 

I have no illusions about what will happen if Tuesday's election is close enough for a recount, but that's not the point.  The point is that such majority-party "victories" will become ever more blatant if they go unresisted.