The Politics Thread

[Max]

I've been so busy that I haven't had the chance to comment on the Mark Sanford election until now. I want to first state that it is not adequate for liberals to dismiss Sanford's victory simply because it was a district that went 58.3% for Romney. Sure, it makes it hard (though running against Sanford makes things a lot easier than normal, which is why so many liberals were obnoxiously gloating before the election took place)--and I give Carl credit for being one of the few people who correctly predicted all along that Sanford would win--but Democratic Congressman Jim Matheson (UT), Mike McIntyre (NC), and Nick Rahall (WV) all represent districts where Romney won 67.2%, 59.2%, and 65.0% of the vote, respectively. Furthermore, Senator Joe Manchin of WV won re-election in a landslide the very same evening that 62.3% of that state's voters selected Romney for President. On the flip side, progressive darling Elizabeth Warren defeated Scott Brown as Obama carried MA with 60.7% of the vote. Yet, I've never once observed a Democrat remark that Obama's crushing defeat of Romney in MA played a huge role in Warren's 7.6% victory over Scott Brown (which is a smaller margin than Sanford's 8.8% victory over Colbert Busch).

Given his ethical flaws, I would not have voted for Sanford. But, I wouldn't have voted for Colbert Busch either; her legal history is also far from perfect, given that she was arrested in 1988 for contempt of court (as she was in a divorce trial with her first husband). And even some Democrats have remarked that she ran a poor campaign: she seldom gave interviews, was foggy on some issues (e.g., she couldn't identify what Manchin/Toomey was), had Vice President Biden campaign for her (in a place where she needed to put as much distance from herself and the national Democratic party as possible), and (unlike Sanford) didn't do any election day events. But even I must confess (in part because the press seldom mentioned her arrest) that I thought Colbert Busch was going to win until the last 24 hours or so. She blew it, and a better Democratic candidate--who both had more experience in politics and more credibility in distancing himself from the national party--would have won.

Edited May 17, 2013 by Max

[ReddFoxx]

Jim Matheson's family name is gold in Utah and he's an incumbent. plus Romney got a huge boost there. McIntyre and Rahall are incumbents in rural ancestrally Democratic areas. Incumbency played a role in Massachusetts, too, Brown was never going to lose by double digits. SC-1 is a wealthy, Republican gerrymander, Democrats don't win those sort of districts. If North Charleston wasn't gerrymandered into SC-6, Colbert Busch would have won. What saved Sanford was the heavily partisan tilt of the seat, which is R+11. Colbert Busch overperformed Obama by 5%, which wasn't that bad, but it wasn't enough. It really was a long shot if you factor in the demographics and history of the seat.

Edited May 17, 2013 by ReddFoxx

[Max]

Is WV--the state where Joe Manchin won by a landslide as Romney was also winning by a landslide--also a Republican gerrymander?

Redd, I also seem to recall you predicting (in the Status Updates)--like I did--that Sanford was going to lose (especially after he debated a cardboard cutout of Nancy Pelosi). Everybody gets an election wrong now and then, so there's no shame in admitting you were incorrect (especially in an election that many conservatives thought was a lost cause). Other than Carl, I don't recall any liberals saying (until after the election) "this election was hopeless, it's too Republican." (The National Democratic Party certainly didn't think it was hopeless--even though they also knew about the district being made even more conservative due to gerrymandering--or else they would have wasted tons of money on Colbert Busch.)

IMO, a "golden" family name means a lot less than it is hyped up to be. (For instance, the Kean name is golden in NJ, yet Tom Kean, Jr. lost badly when he ran for Senate in 2006. In NY, Andrew Cuomo badly lost a 2002 gubernatorial primary. And some still believe that the Romney name is magical in MI, though not only did Mitt lose there in 2012, his mother lost a Senate primary there in 1970.) Jim Matheson is a very conservative Democrat, and that (more than anything) explains how he gets elected in such a Republican district. Joe Manchin was first elected to the Senate (in part) by running against Obamacare and "cap and trade." While Colbert Busch claimed to be a Matheson/Manchin type of Democrat, voters in that district were unwilling to believe her, due to a variety of factors: her lack of a public track record, her support of abortion rights and gay marriage (during her debate with Sanford), her being seen with Vice President Biden on the campaign trail, and her being the brother of Stephen Colbert (whom conservatives dislike because of the very progressive audience he attracts). (Now, I agree that the last factor--about her famous brother--was not a fair thing to hold against her. But, it was the truth that her name hurt her, in much the same way that Bill O'Reilly's brother's name would be used against him in a heavily Democratic district, even if he turned out to be a moderate Republican.)

I think that a Matheson/Manchin Democrat would have defeated a flawed Sanford. If Democrats can nominate somebody that conservative, he will be an endangered incumbent in 2014 (or, as predicted by Carl, Sanford could be defeated in a primary).

Edited May 17, 2013 by Max

[DRW50]

Statewide isn't the same as a district. SC is also a very Republican state and has been for the last decade in particular.

[Max]

Oh, I most definitely realize that the gerrymandering doesn't come into play when dealing with statewide elections. But, many states have now become so politically lopsided that they are just as partisan as gerrymandered Congressional Districts (which was a major point I was trying to make.) As mentioned earlier, the gerrymandered SC-1 District was a place where Romney got 58.3% of the vote. Yet, the statewide results in WV and MA were more partisan: 62.3% Romney and 60.7% Obama, respectively.

[ReddFoxx]

West Virginia is incredibly ancestrally Democratic and heavily union, plus Manchin is very popular.

I said Colbert Busch "might" win, I never said she actually would, "might" is the operative word. The only reason the DCCC spent there was because of Sanford, nothing else.

In a small state like Utah, family name does help and Matheson has been able to establish himself because of it, plus he's a multi-term incumbent. Sanford is not going to be defeated in 2014, this is a fiscal conservative, wealthy district, those don't fall even to conservative Democrats.

[DRW50]

Something I wanted to mention is that between gerrymandering and our culture at large, voting patterns have become far more partisan. You look at the elections over the last decade in states like Connecticut, Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas.

Colbert Busch seemed to be OK (I don't think she was terrific), but she just wasn't going to win. Sanford is scandal-plagued, but not the type of scandals that are going to turn off a lot of hardcore conservatives. They don't care if you cheat on your wife, as long as it's not with another man. He is likely a placeholder, unless SC Republicans really screw up next year in that primary.

Edited May 18, 2013 by CarlD2

[DRW50]

Another virulently bigoted black Republican. Watch the media fawn over the GOP and tell us he will be President, like they did with Ben Carson.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/va-pick-compared-planned-parenthood-to-kkk-91588.html?hp=l6

How scary for anyone with an ounce of sanity in Virginia if this ticket wins. Cucinelli is even worse.

[DRW50]

I just can't believe this man will likely be LG of Virginia. http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/virginia-gop-lt-governor-nominee-ew-jacksons-long-history-attacking-gays-berating-democrats The likely AG wanted women to face criminal charges if they didn't report their miscarriages. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/20/mark-obenshain-miscarriage-bill_n_3307578.html It's scary as hell. These people will probably win and it may not even be close.

[quartermainefan]

I don't think what he did had anything to do with ethics. This is the guy that ran away to south america to be with another woman? Isn't he now engaged to her? It's not like he was conducting a sleazy hooker binge one weekend. Clearly he was married to the wrong woman, and he felt so strongly about it to the point where he literally ran away. How is that a matter of ethics? He didn't steal money or anything like that. About the worst he did was use public money to pay for his traveling. But lets be real here, if the country wasn't so provincial and puritanical he wouldn't have felt the need to run. He cheated on his wife and therefore you admit you could not vote for him. How does he cheating on his wife in any way impact his intellectual capabilities? And what does any of this have to do with ethics? Who is worse, Newt Gingrich who dumped his dying wife on her deathbed or this guy whose big crime was that he ran away to be with a woman he wanted to marry?

Ethics would be a discussion of John Edwards, the scum of the earth. This guy is a saint in comparison. Now if you want to discuss a lack of ethics, look at those republican Oklahoma senators who were against FEMA and money going to NJ and NY but suddenly want FEMA to come in and help Oklahoma, population 3 when last checked. Ethics is we help those 3 people even though they were against helping the millions of NY and NJ people. That was petty and hateful, showed a lack of character and no ethics whatsoever. I would trust Sandford over those jokes from OK crying for help when it was only a few months ago they were willing to let NJ be washed away.

[Max]

Anthony Weiner launches his mayoral bid with a polished ad:

 

http://<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/yDhL4g8IZBM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

I honestly would not be surprised if he won.

 

Here is some insight into how his entry affects the race:

 

http://<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/CkV-FQVNqKQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[marceline]

Personally I couldn't care less about Sandford's whoring around or how in lurve he was.

The unethical part comes from the fact that he left his state and the country without telling anyone. If there had been a disaster in his state a la West, TX or Moore, OK, the residents of his state would've been screwed even as their tax dollars paid for his psychotic, nookie chasing ass. For that reason, I think Mark Sanford should never be allowed to hold public office (or any job other than fast food) ever again. If you want to cheat, fine, cheat but do your damn job like a professional.

Edited May 23, 2013 by marceline

[ReddFoxx]

He also used public dollars to take the trip, he paid it back, but that fact of the matter he shouldn't have used it in the first place.

[quartermainefan]

And Dick Cheney used public dollars to wage a war as a source of his own entertainment. Did he pay anything back? Newt Gingrich used public dollars to not examine whitewater but to seek out Clinton affairs and then used more public dollars trying to impeach him for having the nerve to lie about cheating on his wife. Did he pay anything back? This is the one guy out of all of them who actually paid the government back. The NJ governor that put his boyfriend into cushy jobs, he didn't pay anything back. The pedo congressman who went after male pages a few years back, he didn't pay anything back. The guy who stored cash in his fridge paid nothing back. John McCain was involved in the biggest banking scandal pre 2008 and he paid nothing back. This guy spent a few dollars on planes or hotels, paid the money back, the woman he ran to see he is engaged to I believe. It is a crimeless crime. There isn't a single victim in his case.

[marceline]

I'm not accusing him of a crime. I'm accusing him of betraying the public trust. I don't care that he paid back the money. He left the country and either nobody knew where he was or his staff lied for him which would mean he made them a part of his sickness. He. Left. The. Country. He abandoned his constituents and his responsibilities and there's no way to pay that back. That's unforgivable. Edited May 24, 2013 by marceline