Max

It's often difficult or foolhardy to make predictions on elections that are two years away. Here is an amusing look back on what the "experts" first thought about 2014:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83680.html

Hell, it's always possible that something totally unexpected could happen next week.

R.I.P. longtime Boston Mayor Tom Menino:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/10/30/thomas-menino-boston-longest-serving-mayor-has-died-age/zAuWXQ4ccPJSv7uuW0kcDK/story.html

Although I never saw the movie, I always wonder why Supergirl (1984) did poorly at the box office.

I'm sorry that my response was nasty regarding the desperate racial attacks that the Democrats are resorting to, but it doesn't change how I feel about that disgusting campaign poster. I don't understand why the party can't motivate African-American voters to go to the polls without resorting to extremely negative ads.

Withholding your vote, however, has the opposite effect. It actually rewards bad governing. There are so many options for showing up to the polls and still registering your displeasure: third party voting (which I will never do again), write-ins or voting "none of the above." Staying home and acting like you are sending a message is just ignorant, lazy bullshit.

I understand why you might feel this way, but personally, if neither candidate deserves the job, or if both candidates are just "evil," I will most certainly not reward one of them with my vote. (And unless the TP or write-in candidate has a realistic chance of at least making a decent showing, I find it to be a useless waste of time to chose those options.)

I'm very angry/annoyed at the President though and his stupid White House for allowing him to say such stupid things on camera and on the radio with Al Sharpton (who I don't like). He knows what a tough environment Democrats were are facing and yet he's still saying stupid sh&&t like "my policies are on the ballot" and "these are folks who voted with me". Great job sir. Enjoy that Republican majority ole Mitch at the head.

The bottom line is that the President is not a net positive for these folks. And I think most black voters are smart enough to understand that and won't trip if a Democrat has to put some distance between themselves and the President. Esp in Kentucky where he's pretty much poison. It's just a necessity. And if I were living in KY I would be telling every black voter to vote for Grimes because she is no where near as bad as McConnell will be for the President.

Prince is exactly right that Obama is nothing but a huge drag on Democrats running this year. This article in the National Journal (which is a mainstream publication, not to be confused with the conservative National Review) elaborates upon this:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/against-the-grain/white-house-in-denial-president-obama-is-costing-democrats-control-of-the-senate-20141029

I don't know why President Obama's most zealous supporters are upset that Senate Dems need to run away from him. It is just the reality of the situation, and Obama is far from unique in this matter (the exact same thing was true when Senate Republicans ran away from Bush in 2006). With Obama's approval rating at 39 percent in New Hampshire, it's hard to make a case that race is a key reason for his unpopularity (if anybody here is thinking that).

It's hysterical to me that Democrats think they can woo black voters even as the run from the nation's first black president.

It's beyond disgusting that the Dems would be using the slogan "If You Want To Prevent Another Ferguson In Their Future..." on a campaign poster. I thought the Dems are the party of facts, while the GOP is the stupid party, but the last I checked, Ferguson happened even though America has a Democratic president and Missouri has a Democratic governor. And furthermore, the Dems are the party of hope, while the GOP is the party of fear. (Or, so I have been told.)

The Dems fear they are going to get their asses handed to them next week, so I guess whatever race-baiting tactics are necessary, right?

The messages are coursing through the campaigns like a riptide, powerful and under the surface, largely avoiding television and out of view of white voters. That has led Republicans to accuse Democrats of turning to race-baiting in a desperate bid to win at the polls next Tuesday.

“They have been playing on this nerve in the black community that if you even so much as look at a Republican, churches will start to burn, your civil rights will be taken away and young black men like Trayvon Martin will die,” said Michael Steele, a former chairman of the Republican Party. “The reality of it is, the Democrats realize that their most loyal constituency is not as loyal as they once were.”

Instead of making her infamous gaffe, she should have just stated the obvious and admitted that she voted for Obama and then added that she thought he was a disappointment. (Obviously the far-left base would not have liked that, but those people are going to still vote for her anyway.)

As you stated, President Obama's unpopularity poses a huge problem for Hillary. I don't recall somebody ever getting elected when the sitting president of the same party was this unpopular. (The only ray of hope for the Democrats is that the Republicans remain both unpopular and highly disorganized.) Thus, Hillary needs to distance herself from the president to appeal to independents. At the same time, she can't distance herself too much from him, because that will lead to depressed turnout among the Democratic base, particularly black voters.

Upon thinking about this, I realize that these two statements of mine are contradictory. (Because I said that if Grimes stated she was disappointed in Obama, the base would vote for her anyway, but if Clinton distances herself too much from Obama, it will depress turnout among the base.) I still agree with what I said regarding Hillary, but had Grimes done what I suggested, some of the base likely would have chosen to stay home. However, the suggested answer of mine is still the best way I can think of for her to get out of a tough situation; by doing what she did, she not only depressed turnout among her base, she also alienated independents.

I want to point out one bright spot for Senate Democrats, and that is Georgia. (There is also New Hampshire, where Jeanne Shaheen is pretty likely to win, even though Scott Brown is gaining ground.) David Perdue seems to be floundering, and Michelle Nunn has been leading in four out of the last five recent polls. This race will almost certainly go to a runoff, but that helps Nunn, because arguably Perdue's strongest selling point--that electing him will give the GOP a Senate majority--will be moot (as I fully expect the Republicans to already have the Senate majority by then). Nunn is also helped greatly by her last name (whereas in Jason Carter's case, it is more of a mixed blessing), by the fact that she has no Senate track record (and thus can't be tied to Obama), and by the fact that she received an enthusiastic endorsement from Zell Miller.

The other Senate races don't look so good for the Democrats: Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Kentucky, and Louisiana (which could go to a runoff, though the result will still be the same) all seem to point to a likely GOP victory. North Carolina appears to be about tied at the moment, by Kay Hagan is trending downward, and I believe that she will be caught in the tide. In Kansas, Pat Roberts was flailing for life, and would have lost had the election been held in September, but I think that he will pull out a narrow victory; Greg Orman hurt himself by being so coy in regards as to which party he would caucus with (which undermined his initial appeal as being somebody who wasn't a typical politician). Democrats are hoping for a similar situation in South Dakota (as in Kansas), but I don't think that will occur.

Though my predictions have been pretty mixed in the past, my best guess is that the GOP will have 53 seats in the next Senate, gaining AK, AR, CO, IA, LA, MT, NC, SD, and WV, while losing GA. I may change these predictions later, but probably only if something unexpected happens before the election.

I would love to read the predictions anybody else may have.

The governors races are much more fluid and unpredictable, so I am not yet ready to predict those yet.

I don't remember Gawker ever getting all that involved in political races.

Gawker may not get involved in political races, but they definitely advocate on behalf of liberal causes. Just right now on their website, they're reporting on a lone case of a Nebraska school district that is permitting high school students to pose with firearms for their high school yearbook photos. (I'm guessing that the implication is this is typical red state dysfunctional behavior.) Another story is criticizing Bill de Blaisio because whites in NYC still have far lower arrest rates than blacks for marijuana possession.

By the way, I am sorry for my delayed response, but something really pressing came up and I was unable to respond until today.

Still can't believe Mitch is probably going to win in Kentucky. I really don't give a rats a$$ who Grimes voted for and I doubt Kentucky does it but leave it to the useless media to focus on that rather than on the real issues.

McConnell was winning even before that. I think the coal issue (which is often pooh-pooed by many but is hugely relevant in KY and WV, among other states) and Grimes being a little too polished without being tested did her in. Her gender is probably an issue too.

I agree that who Grimes voted for is totally irrelevant, but I think that she damaged herself badly when she gave her "non-response" to that particular question. (And her non-response is relevant, because voters need to know if a candidate is being completely straight with them.) Instead of making her infamous gaffe, she should have just stated the obvious and admitted that she voted for Obama and then added that she thought he was a disappointment. (Obviously the far-left base would not have liked that, but those people are going to still vote for her anyway.)

Anyway, it isn't only McConnell who wants to focus on useless issues (such as who Grimes voted for president). Illinois--which is failing miserably--has arguably the country's worst governor in Pat Quinn. He was trailing in the polls until he took a page from the anti-Romney playbook against his opponent, venture capitalist Bruce Rauner, and Democrats pounced on him for something as pointless as belonging to a $100,000 wine club.

At this point I'm afraid to say that it's not quite in the bag for Madam Secretary. No matter who the Republicans nominate the problem will still be after 8 years of President Obama the country will be yearning for something more down to Earth, less "hope and change". In short the state of US while not bad may be all over the place. Even I as a staunch supporter of the President can admit that his leadership has been kinda lax at very crucial times. I don't know if he just has terrible people advising him in these last two years but if he doesn't get it together soon, his legacy will be very mixed and I'm afraid he'll be known for incompetency in some arenas/circles.....

Unless the Republicans nominate Paul (which is all too possible at this point), 2016 won't be a cake walk for Hillary. (Cruz has no realistic chance of getting the nomination.) She'll still be a slight favorite against Bush, Christie, or Kasich. (The same is true against a match with Rubio, but I don't think he will run because he is just too hated among the base.)

As you stated, President Obama's unpopularity poses a huge problem for Hillary. I don't recall somebody ever getting elected when the sitting president of the same party was this unpopular. (The only ray of hope for the Democrats is that the Republicans remain both unpopular and highly disorganized.) Thus, Hillary needs to distance herself from the president to appeal to independents. At the same time, she can't distance herself too much from him, because that will lead to depressed turnout among the Democratic base, particularly black voters.

In an effort to save Mark Udall, whose candidacy appears to be just about over, Deadspin (which is owned by the far left website Gawker) makes up a story about his opponent Cory Gardner, only to have it blow up in their faces:

http://www.denverpost.com/election2014/ci_26734964/source-disputes-deadspin-account-cory-gardners-football-career

I'm shocked that I am the first to bring this up but Rick Scott's performance at last night's debate was the worst debate performance that I have ever seen (far worse, IMO, than Rick Perry's "Oops" moment, which at least was understandable to anyone who has ever had a brainfreeze, although it indicated that he most definitely was not ready for primetime).

I think that Charlie Crist is an total opportunist, but Scott sucks. (I personally would not vote in that race if I lived in FL, but after last night I have changed my mind and am starting to think that Crist may be the lesser of the two evils.) Even though Crist had a tiny lead in the Real Clear Politics "poll of polls" (which I consider to be the best election prognosticator), I had always thought that Scott was going to win because of the Republican nature of the year and because many liberals mistrust Crist since he isn't a true believer. But after last night, I would be shocked if Scott pulls out a victory.

This won't really matter in terms of the 2016 general election because I feel the adage of governors "carrying" states for their party's nominees is one of the most overhyped "nuggets of wisdom" in politics. (Unless it's Florida 2000 close, it rarely seems to make a difference.) But primary elections are a different matter, and this has to be a terrible day for the Chris Christie 2016 Presidential Campaign; the whole reason why Christie has been spending so much time on behalf of Scott is because Christie knows that Scott--if re-elected--will owe him big during the Florida primary (which will be Christie's make-or-break primary).

I don't care about MSNBC losing ratings all that much. They need a serious revamp. Most of the daily personalities are long past any prime they may have had. It's ludicrous that the morning show is hosted by the odious Joe and vapid Mika then you move on to such heavy hitters as Chuck "Starbucks vs Chik-Fil-A" Todd and Al "Can't get a sentence out" Sharpton. And while I love Rachel and admire her thoroughness, I admit that I often scream "get to the [!@#$%^&*] point!" when I watch.

The real tragedy of that article is the news that CNN - a network that discussed alien abduction as a possible cause for the disappearance of the Malaysian jet - is gaining viewers. That's ridiculous. At this point the only solid sources for news are Al Jazeera, BBC and PBS.

I'm glad. The network has steadily become a complete joke over the last 2 years. It's one thing to be partisan. It's another to be blatantly foolishly partisan. At least some anchors manage to contain it but you've got Ed Schultz who's basically the DNC head chair on MSNBC. Then you'e got 8-11PM block which is a hot mess of boring/awkward Chris Hayes followed by boring, way too loud, obnoxious and holier than thou Rachael Maddow, and then unabashed liberal Lawrence O'Donnel who I don't mind as much since it is quite late.

Even Chris Matthews is starting to irk me. Morning Joe has devolved into whatever Mika and Joe's crusade of the moment is....it's no longer interesting/exciting political discourse/analysis. Instead it's just NFL this or this stupid story or another.

These are both insightful criticisms. I personally think that the network could benefit if it brought in someone new--who is liberal, but not liberal 100% of the time--and made his or her show the network's flagship program. I think that having Rachael Maddow's show serve this purpose is not helping MSNBC.

For all of Fox News' flaws, they do not have a program as hard-lined as Hannity serve as the network's flagship. The O'Reilly Factor echos the conservative talking points most of the time, but the host sometimes says things you don't expect, and I think that is when the show is at its most interesting.

Ratings are tanking at MSNBC (including at Rachael Maddow's show):

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/13/business/media/leaning-forward-msnbc-loses-ground-to-rival-cnn-.html

What most intrigues me about the MA primaries is why the Dems were foolish enough to nominate Martha Coakley for governor.

Maybe this will finally get liberals to stop oohing and aahing over this misogynist blowhard.

DRW, I am not surprised in the least that Maher would support Rand over Hillary. The anti-war left (of which Maher is a part) still hasn't "forgiven" Hillary for her Iraq War vote, and they have long been attracted to isolationists such as the Pauls. Single issue voters (or even those voters for whom staying out of wars is the #1 issue) will be willing to cross party lines if the candidate in the other party is far more appealing on their issue (despite the fact that they would agree with Hillary on many other things).

But with some on the far-left, the appeal of Paul over Hillary isn't just because of foreign policy. They also don't like her ties to big corporations, while they actually agree with the Tea Party's willingness to stand up to the corporate wing of the GOP. That being said, I don't think that Rand is electable against Hillary, because the number of independents he will alienate will be greater than the number of discontented liberals that he will attract.

I cannot believe that the five year anniversary of the last episode is approaching. It feels so much longer than that. As sad as daytime was back then, it seems like a great era compared to today.

I didn't pay much attention to anything Rick Perry involved so this a nice surprise. But the case I'm waiting on is Bob McDonnel, I'm not naive enough to believe he would actually do jail time but I really hope he's convicted.

I fully expect McDonnell to go to prison, as his offenses are worse than the things that Christie and Perry are accused of, and are even more severe than the wrongdoings that sent Blagojevich to prison.

Bob Taft was involved in a big scandal, though he wasn't forced to resign. Do you know what happened to him legally?

Rick Perry has just been indicted:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/15/politics/rick-perry-indictment/index.html

I vaguely remember reading about these allegations in the past, but compared to all the absurd "hoopla" that Bridgegate received, I never expected Perry would be the sitting governor to be indicted. He will be lucky to serve out the rest of his term.

I think Hillary must feel that Obama's foreign policy achievements will be deemed iffy at best and she wants room to say she is not him. Yes, he got Bin Laden, but after than his achievements are few. That's not to say she could have gotten much more but there is no way to prove he couldn't. He's probably pissed but Hillary and Bill are probably the only two democrats who don't need Obama's approval to say what they want to say for their own goals. I am sure Hillary weighed the pros and cons of her statements and decided it was time to break away from Obama and his perceived sinking ship.

I appreciate your insightful comments, Qfan. I have a lot of mixed feelings about the Clintons, because I think that they are very unethical human beings, yet their moderation and sensible foreign policy is something that is sorely lacking right now in the Democratic Party.

If Hillary weren't so ruthless, I would feel sorry for her, because it seems as if she can't win. If she embraces Obama's foreign policy, then she turns off independents, but if she criticizes it she turns off the far left and gets huge grief from Axelrod and company.

Judge Walker is played by Jerry Lanning, ex Cain Harris[Harry Kane] GL, Justin Marshall AW&Texas among other roles.

Thanks so much for telling me. Upon reading about him, I found out that he is mostly a theater actor. Interesting to note that he played Russ Mathews for a few days in 1989, and was once married to Sherry Mathis.

So Henry Simmons and Ellen Wheeler ended up together. Was their pairing well-received?

I thought that they had excellent chemistry, but I don't know how others felt. Due to the cancellation, that relationship was left with much unexplored potential.

They're going to hug it out now, and many Democratic partisans are pretending that everything is hunky dory. I guess she got the memo that criticism of the president (unless its criticism for not being liberal enough) isn't permitted. Despite the fact that her criticisms were valid, I am surprised that someone as supposedly politically savvy as she managed to again piss off the base the way she did back in 2008.

Between "dead broke," the rape tape, floundering book sales, and this incident, the whole campaign rollout of hers has been nothing but a disaster thus far.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/hug-summit-for-obama-clinton-110005.html?hp=f1

I am really enjoying some of these May 1999 AW episodes. I feel that the show was really hitting its stride then, only to then have it all taken away from us.

In these two episodes (5/21/99 and 5/24/99), the Jordan Stark storyline ends. (Jordan/David traps Amanda in the Secret Garden, but Cameron convinces Amanda to come back to him, and Jordan fails to get Amelie back.) We also watch Paulina on trial for Grant's murder. (Does anybody know the name of the actor who plays Judge Anthony Walker? He looks familiar.) I remember Paulina being such an idiot for believing that Tito/Tim was her son, when others kept on warning her that he just wanted her money.

Michael Rodrick (Cameron) was quite a good actor. He deserved a bigger career than he had, and I really enjoyed the Cameron and Amanda pairing.

Although these two characters were not in these two episodes, the Felicia/Sergei storyline was also going on at this time. I read on the internet that if AW had not been cancelled, the lighthearted character of Sergei would have taken a very dark turn. I also read that Anne O'Donnell (Alice Barrett) would have turned out to have been Frankie Frame.

Hillary Clinton bravely criticizes President Obama for waiting to long to respond to the crisis in Iraq, and the ruthless David Axelrod takes a cheap pot shot:

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/david-axelrod-hillary-clinton-iraq-109948.html?hp=f1

I am convinced that if Hillary ever does become president, the left will be deeply disaffected after four years, virtually guaranteeing the GOP of the presidency in 2020. Given that many in the MSNBC wing of the party are angry at the president for engaging in any military intervention at all and are angry at him for not being liberal enough on domestic policy, I can't imagine the outrage that will be expressed at four years of another center-left Clinton Presidency.

Not uh! Had they did that, AW might've been canceled sooner than what it was. I've loved of what I've seen of SB online, but AW was my heart! Now if they switched AW and DAYS timeslots then maybe I'd've been for it.

Had AW not held the post-DOOL time-slot, it may very well have been cancelled earlier than it was (though SB would likely have benefited). Then again, airing AW at 1:00 (as you suggested) actually would have made a lot of sense, because it would not have competed against any of the P&G soaps. The decision to place both ATWT and AW at 2:00 was idiotic.

To be fair, I think that SB would have performed considerably better than it did had it aired in the post-DOOL time-slot, as (1) DOOL would have been a much more popular lead-in and (2) SB had more in common with DOOL than AW had in common with DOOL. And keep in mind that AW is my all-time favorite soap, so I am trying to see this is in a purely objective manner.

I know of at least one instance when both parties held their conventions in the same city: in 1972, both parties held their conventions in Miami Beach. However, I doubt that this will again happen.

From an objective standpoint (keeping in mind that the site of a convention usually has zero impact on the result of a presidential race), I think that Birmingham and New York City would be the worst of the two options for the Democrats, since they are in lopsidedly partisan states. The others all have their pluses:

*Philadelphia - Even though PA wasn't considered a swing state in 2012, it surprisingly was where Obama scored his third narrowest victory of the election (behind much more hotly contested states such as CO, IA, NH, NV, and WI). The demographics of PA aren't nearly as favorable to Dems as they are in the Southwest or (more conservative leaning) Florida, so I think that this state will be a major battleground in 2016, and it would be hard for the GOP to win the White House without winning PA.

*Columbus or Cleveland - For the obvious reason that these are Ohio cities, they would be good choices. However, I am not sure if Ohio will have the same importance in 2016 as it did in 2004 and 2012. If Obama's popularity doesn't improve, and Hillary proves to be a less than stellar candidate, Ohio may be the first Obama-won state that the Democrats choose to put on the backburner. (This is what Al Gore chose to do in 2000, and it makes even more sense today, given that Ohio is not a great state demographically for Democrats. And most importantly, Democrats do not need Ohio to win.)

*Phoenix - This may be the best choice, even though there will be little chance of Democrats winning AZ in 2016. That's because Democrats cannot assume that they will do as well among Hispanics in 2016 as they did in 2012, and holding the convention in the largest city in the Southwest would boost many Hispanics economically.