The Republicans have redefined themselves as the party that prevents legislation. It's working, the voters like it.* I'm betting that Romney gets elected. * The claim is that obstructionism only appeals to the core voters, but Romney now leads comfortably among independent voters.
They say that every congress. The problem being, neither side wants to actually reform the filibuster rules because they know that at some point in the not so distant future they will be in the minority and will want to stop the other side from pushing their agenda through.
I don't buy this. It was true once, but this sort of reasoning no longer speaks to the problems with the modern filibuster. With the modern filibuster the Senate is almost completely dysfunctional. So if you actually want to pass legislation, and if you actually want to confirm appointments, and if you actually want the Senate to be able to accomplish any of the business for which it was established, then you have to get rid of the modern filibuster. It's no longer about stopping something from happening, the question of the filibuster is now becoming whether anything at all will be allowed to happen. Eventually a majority is going to take hold in the Senate that wants to pass legislation and confirm appointments and they're going dump the filibuster in order to be able to do that. They will give themselves the ability to act, and that'll be more important to them then having the ability to prevent others from acting in the future. That day is probably rapidly approaching.
That's the point. Neither party is likely to get 60 seats, yet governance still needs to happen. And it should.
http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2012/08/20/senate-candidates-comments-on-rape-stir-outcry Maybe a bumper sticker should be made: "If you got pregnant after "rape" it means it was not a real rape. Could this help Claire McCaskill?
(sigh)Republican Senators(sigh) 17th Amendment Under Attack States need their own Chamber of Congress where they won't be bullied by the people who live in them. http://www.colbertnation.com/the-co...47/august-16-2012/17th-amendment-under-attack
Akin was on Huckabee's radio show earlier and said he wasn't going anywhere.. But it wouldn't surprise me if the truth is somewhere in the middle. He might try to ride out the wave. Missouri is turning red and McCaskill is incredibly unliked. Even with this screw up, he's still in a good position to take the seat.. The question is, will he survive the Republican onslaught he's under.
Well the race still competitive. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/2012_missouri_senate_race.html This could be the chance for the Democrats to save control of the Senate. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/2012_elections_senate_map_no_toss_ups.html BTW here is the interview. 'http://widget.newsinc.com/single.html?WID=2&VID=23781752&freewheel=69016&sitesection=csmonitor'
Yeah, I don't see how this doesn't completely blow up in his face. I thought the comparison to the "sit back and enjoy the rape" comment from that clown Clayton Williams from Texas was the right one. http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/scarce/clayton-williams-victims-rape-should-relax- You have a woman running in a red state and the man manages to completely insult half the entire electorate, not to mention the husbands and fathers who aren't going to blow it off so readily as well. Williams dropped from +20 to losing based on that alone. Even if they were to successfully switch candidates, I don't see how they pull it off in what was already a close election.
It's way to soon to look at polls for a response to the comment, but it wasn't by any mean in the bag for Akin to begin with. I'd be surprised if he doesn't drop at least 10 points with this.
Please, please stay in the race, Todd Akin. I wonder if Democrats all over the country are flooding his e-mail and phone lines with words of encouragement.
A big deadline coming up tomorrow...here's the process for any interested in what would happen if he does withdraw. And if that happens, Steelman has to be the favorite. Another possibility would be Jo Ann Emerson. Turning the race into a woman on woman contest would seem to be the best strategy for the Missouri GOP. http://atr.rollcall.com/missouri-what-happens-if-akin-drops-out/
Due to the controversy, PPP just released a special poll from the Missouri senate race. Akin is still slightly ahead, and virtually no change from their last survey in May.
Where have I said "there has been no change in the race"? My language has been limited to "virtually no change from their last survey in May" and "if you replace the previous PPP survey with this poll, the race stays the exact same as it was before". Which is correct, until we obtain more data to adjust the consensus, the race shows no change.
NPR is claiming Missouri will go from contested to likely Democrat. Any one can confirm that with a less bias source? (Yes I know NPR is bias but still the best news on the free radio IMO).
Fantasy land? Akin is still up on McCaskill in the most recent poll. It all depends on whether the Republicans actually stand by their decision to pull funding from Akin if he stays in. If they stand by it, then the Dems will be able to beat Akin into a bloody pulp and keep the seat, but there's no way the Republicans will stand by their decision past mid-September.
McCaskill up by 10 according to a Rasmussen poll (and they lean Right): http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/poll-mccaskill-leads-akin-by-10-points Their last one had Akin up 47 - 44.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/23/akin-is-in-for-now-but-if-he-drops-out/ NYT blog entry with a hasty explanation of what replacing Akin would entail.
