Comments on: The Outsider is IN

By: mui

mui — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 07:43:05 +0000

Let’s not forget the effect that Tester’s win might be having on the Lieberman camp right now. Heh!!! And how encouraging it is to us Lamont supporters. I say strike up the band!

By: Frank

Frank — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 02:30:50 +0000

Busby deserved to lose…Her obscene blunder urging the illegals to vote for her, reminding them they didn’t need papers to do so, was over the top. Her clarification of those comments was trying to unring the bell. Hope the election in her district this November will bring forth a candidate the dems could support with anti illegal gusto. I’d rather see the dems go down than to see my country overun with illegals. This is the hope of the house republicans..When will the dems get the message?

By: windansea

windansea — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 20:17:45 +0000

CA-50:

In 2002 the dem got 50,202 votes.

In 2006 the dem got 55,587 votes.

The % victory is close, but the increase in turnout was only 7%. The ‘increase’ in support is markedly similar Hackett, running against a weak candidate, in Schmidt.

NB-In 2004 Busby got 105,590, although a Presidential year. she lost 48% of her support. If dems want change, they certainly don’t vote like it.

By: DFLer

DFLer — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 19:59:56 +0000

Nope. No 18-point gain. Busby matched Gore2000 and Kerry2004 in the district. There is _no_ comfort in the CA-50 result.

This was a big nothing, and should scare the bejeezus out of Dems. Voters weren’t pumped, turnout was low, and the ins stayed in. No vote, no change.

By: Jane Hamsher

Jane Hamsher — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 19:24:27 +0000

Fred 67 — an excellent idea. What’s your plan?

By: tejanarusa

tejanarusa — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 18:31:39 +0000

in epu territory again – some of the usual suspects are on NPR’s Talk of the Nation discussion right now of yesterday’s election results. Matt Bai just introduced – writing a book about the new political game…A caller just now asked about CA 50 and allocation of resources for the fall – so much like our discussion here I wonder if it was a Firepuppy???
Anyone

By: PalmettoProgressive

PalmettoProgressive — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 18:27:48 +0000

I am a 67 year old retired old fart drowning in red in SC. Recently discovered you folks. Bought CTG. Liked what I read. Sent another copy to Dems in congress. Re Busby. I read her site and she did a good job. She would have done better if she would have been truly a progressive liberal and stayed out of the middle of the road where there is only yellow stripes and road kill. But she would have done a hell of a lot better if We would have manned the phone banks at MoveOn, Sent more $’s, Knocked on more doors and supported the candidate that we had. We have unfortunately got our self into a rock fight with a bunch of people that have been working smart and hard since Goldwater described their core values for them. We now are engaged in our own values debate and are unfortunately at the bottom of a well in this rock fight. It’s bad but it’s all we got. Lets get off our buts and work harder. One voter at a time. Go read the web site for the Democratic candidate for Attorney General in Texas. That will get your juices flowing. If you live in a Red district – quit bitching and get out and work. We nearly elected Tannenbaum to the Senate here in SC. Glad to be here! this is fun! I liked sending a rubber stamp to congress. I also enjoyed talking to nearly 90 CA-50 voters yesterday on MoveOn’s phone bank. See you at the victory parties in Novemeber!

By: Who is John Galt?

Who is John Galt? — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 18:15:51 +0000

I have to add my two cents in regards to Angelides and Westley. There have been a few who have mentioned what a downer this race has been. I concur that it hasn’t been fun to watch, but the only way either one of them had a chance to win was to run their races the way they did. I don’t know who started attacking whom first and in the end it doesn’t really matter. Americans love to say “stick to the facts” and “stop all the backstabbing.” In reality sticking to the facts and not attacking your opponent is a sure fire way to lose. Americans love the ideal of taking the high ground when in fact history has shown that we gravitate to the gutter, and unfortunately in the end it’s the only way one has a chance in hell of winning.

By: Christopher Walker

Christopher Walker — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 17:55:31 +0000

CA-50 was exciting because it was suddenly an open seat. The special election offered what looked like an opportunity to flip a long shot.

The netroots set our hearts on it because it was open and the GOP seemed in disarray, with a welter of candidates vying for the seat. But under normal circumstances CA-50 with its long GOP history and registration margin would never have been identified as a top-tier target.

I wish Busby well, but I’m taking her off my ActBlue page. She had her shot and missed. She gets due credit, not for coming so close, but for making them spend millions to defend what should have been a safe red seat.

What I’m afraid of is our well-known habit of sulking when we lose, and clinging to vanished chances. I propose we move on.

As I glance down the calendar looking for primaries yet to come, the one I see on the horizon where a progressive is battling a conservative Democrat for the soul of the party, and might *win*, is … (some of you are thinking Lamont, and I do wish him well) Dina Titus, running for governor in Nevada against an anti-choice, anti-gay former Republican, and leading him in the latest polls.

I’m moving some of my Busby energy there; some to upcoming state legislature races; and the remainder to the effort to identify the ten most important *and* *winnable* November races.

By: margaret

margaret — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 17:40:18 +0000

Just some humble thoughts, here. It’s been my observation that people, in general, hold politics in the background, like the tv which is talking while they are talking or eating. Only the catchy soundbites capture their fleeting attention. With a citizenry which is so unengaged by political debate unless it is one of shouting or demogoguery, how do the legitimate office-seekers get their attention with constructive agendas?

Frankly, I think that some of the problem lies with the fact that the people running may be smart, but not terribly creative thinkers. A big difference. Feingold is smart and creative and spontaneous. But the system of choosing candidates rewards those dullards who have been plodding along in local politics for a long time.

The Democratic Party needs to take a chance on new faces from different venues: higher education, secondary education, science, the arts, etc, instead of the endless parade of ex-lawyers, businessmen,
insurance salesmen, and the like. Recruit from the thinkers and professional commmunicators, like educators, in our society. They know how to use language to communicate, and they tend to be idealistic and folks of integrity.

I haven’t a clue as to the moral content of the candidates who will be running in my state in November. All I have is some faces, some names, and a sense of which party they belong to. It really isn’t enough to generate enthusiasm, but I vote, anyway, because I grew up doing so, and will still do so. But, what about people who have no history of civic involvement, for instance, people like Gleen Greenwald, who admittedly didn’t vote because he just trusted things were being taken care of…by somebody else. He woke himself up, but what about people who don’t know how?