2010 Mid-term Election season starts in the U.S.

[SerScot]

This is from CNN:

www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/05/18/tuesday ... tml?hpt=T1

From the link:

Voters sent mixed signals in Tuesday's primary elections in Pennsylvania, Kentucky and Arkansas. They tossed out a veteran senator, nominated a Tea Party-backed candidate and also chose a longtime aide to fill the U.S. House seat vacated by the death of Democratic Rep. John Murtha.

In another closely watched race, Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln failed to win more than 50 percent of the vote and faces a June 8 runoff in the Arkansas Senate primary to decide the party's candidate in November.

The results reinforced the perception of anger across the country against Washington politics-as-usual, but also showed the public discontent may be aimed at both Democrats and Republicans.

In Pennsylvania, voters rejected longtime incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter's bid to run for a sixth Senate term, choosing Rep. Joe Sestak as the Democratic nominee for Senate in November.

I'm interested to see what happens here. PA has usually supported Centrist candidates for Senate. With Sestak and the Republican who's name I can't remember we get a far left and far right candidates. Which way will they fall?

Can Rand Paul win in Kentucky putting a pretty firm libertarian into the Senate (I hope so)? Will Blanche Lincoln win out in Arkansas? If she does can she win in November? This will be an interesting test for the Obama Administration. What will they do if they end up losing control of the House or the Senate, or the House and the Senate?

Discuss.

[Lord Mhoram]

PA-12 was a big win for the Democrats. It's the only district in the United States that John Kerry won in 2004 that John McCain won in 2008; it's one of those rural conservative Pennsylvania districts that elects Blue Dogs. And that's the type of candidate who won John Murtha's seat. This could have been a prime Republican pick-up.

I expect Rand Paul will win the general election because I don't see a Democrat winning in Kentucky. Interestingly, his opponent won all the nominations from the Republican leadership, so consider Grayson another Tea Party scalp. I'm surprised he won by such a large margin; he seems awfully radical to me.

If I were voting in the PA Senate race, I'd have voted for Specter. He's a naked opportunist and an old-school pol, but at the end of the day, in a midterm election cycle, I'd vote for the candidate with roughly my political views who I see with the best chance of winning the general election. (With some exceptions: see below.) I don't know much about Joe Sestak; he seems like a pretty standard left Democrat. I don't know anything about his Republican opponent either.

Which leaves us with the Arkansas Senate race. I despise Blanche Lincoln. I don't understand why she calls herself a Democrat when she's been so destructive to key Democratic initiatives, especially healthcare. She deserves to lose. Republicans don't even like her (despite her best efforts). I expect her to win the runoff though.

[SerScot]

LM,

I'm not shocked Murtha's aid won in Murtha's district. He's more of a known quantity to the voters than the Republican Candidate. I think Murtha was a corrupt pol but he was a corrupt pol who kept the pork flowing to his district. I imagine the voters will expect the same.

Will this guy be up on the ballot again in November?

[Lord Mhoram]

Scot,

The polling frequently had Critz (the Democrat) losing the district, and the Republicans were looking to repeat the Scott Brown miracle. It may not seem shocking given Murtha's longevity, but it was by no means a sure thing. I'm not sure if he's up again in November.

[SerScot]

LM,

I think he may be up again in November. He's filling out the remainder of Murtha's term and House members are up every two years. It would be odd if he wasn't up in November now that I think about it.

[Avatar]

All your politicians do is campaign.

--A

[Lord Mhoram]

Indeed.

I don't buy the conventional wisdom that 2010 will be a 1994 repeat. Democrats have won seven straight House special elections since Obama's victory, and a plurality of voters now appear to want the Democrats to retain control of the House, a direct reversal from the not-so-distant past. No doubt there will be gains for the Republicans. But they shouldn't get too effusive.

[aliantha]

All your politicians do is campaign.

--A

You are exactly right, sir, which is why I said that I hope the Brits don't modify their election process into one like ours.

[Avatar]

Yeah...politicking seems more important to your guys than actually doing stuff. (And I include all parties in that.)

--A

[Rawedge Rim]

After last night, it's looking bad for incumbents. And Spector got his ass kicked.

[Zarathustra]

Rand Paul's victory was pretty decisive, especially for a Libertarian-leaning candidate. I'm used to seeing Libertarian votes number merely in the hundreds in my city of 300,000. I think this Tea Party thing might actually be legit! I've suddenly become a lot more hopeful that the Republicans--if they do succeed in regaining control of the government--that they'll actually lean closer to my perspective, closer to representing me. I don't have much hope for the Libertarians gaining control, but if their ideology can be expressed through the Republican Party, so be it. I'm very happy to see this result.

[SerScot]

Zarathustra,

NPR interviewed Rand Paul yesterday, here's a skinny of the interview:

www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/05/wi ... nd_pa.html

He dodged some hard questions about the Civil Right's act and Government regulation of industry. It's going to hurt him, even in Kentucky.

[Vraith]

Heh...I wonder if the elder Paul named his son after Ayn Rand?
Her basic philosophy is nearly a dead match for current Libertarian thought.
I wouldn't mind a viable Libertarian party, with decent representation in Congress as long as they did the opposite of what Z says would be ok: maintained complete independence from the Republicans.
Paul was right that there are just accidents, and investigations shouldn't be emotional...but he strikes me as a little naive about what businesses will and won't do.

[Zarathustra]

Honestly, I don't know much about Rand Paul. I'm more interested with what he represents in the electorate. There is a change happening, and this is (part of) the beginning.

Anytime an individual becomes a viable threat to the status quo, he's going to become a lightning rod for his opponents to pick him apart. That's fine. I'm not interested in defending Paul. I'm sure he's human and has flaws like everyone else. He might even have positions I disagree with.

However, I didn't read anything in that link that was problematic. He said we should investigate the accidents. I think he is just cautioning against using anti-corporation rhetoric to whip people into a witch-hunt frenzy.

[SerScot]

Zarathustra,

www.npr.org/templates/archives/archive.php?thingId=2

Check the link above. Scroll down a bit and you can listen to the interview.

[Zarathustra]

... a lot of the things that actually were in the bill, I'm in favor of. I'm in favor of everything with regards to ending institutional racism. So I think there's a lot to be desired in the civil rights. And to tell you the truth, I haven't really read all through it because it was passed 40 years ago and hadn't been a real pressing issue in the campaign, on whether we're going for the Civil Rights Act.

I don't see how that's dodging the question. He said he hasn't personally read the 40-yr-old law, so can't comment on the specifics, but was against "institutional racism," and agreed with those aspects of it.

In a time when our entire administration is making unfounded accusations about a bill they haven't read (the Arizona immigration law), I find that refreshing.

Others might find it disturbing that he didn't immediately and unconditionally pander to minorities. But he's talking about the federal government controlling a situation vs local solutions. It's a common conservative response. It doesn't mean he is for segregation or keeping black people out of businesses. It's about keeping government out of businesses.

It's only a problem if you're suspicious enough to think he's going to try to repeal the Civil Rights Act. I don't think any reasonable person is suggesting that.

[SerScot]

Zarathustra,

I see it as dodging because he could have said private property owners have the right to exclude who they want to exclude. However, saying that would have pissed a lot of people off. He had to dodge to get out of giving that answer.

I would have been impressed if he'd given the answer I proposed but suggested people shouldn't patronize businesses who exclude minorities.

[Zarathustra]

SerScot, that would have been a ballsy answer. I'm not sure if it's his position, however. In order to conclude that he's dodging, you have to assume that's really what he wanted to say.

You could be right. Like I said, I don't know enough about Paul, so I can't make that call. At the very worst, he's being diplomatic, and walking a fine line between the appearance of racism (chopped up in a soundbite) and staying true to his principles.

[Lord Mhoram]

Zarathustra,

How is stating support for the Civil Rights Act "pandering to minorities"?

[Zarathustra]

Zarathustra,

How is stating support for the Civil Rights Act "pandering to minorities"?

For someone who knows little more than the positive connotations of its title, how could it be anything else? Just like Obama and Co. pandering to minorities by criticizing a bill they haven't read, praising a bill one hasn't read would be similar.

Criticize him for being ignorant of the details of the Civil Rights Act if you want, but you'd have to apply similar criticism to Holder, Obama, Napolitano, etc. regarding the 10 page Arizona law they haven't read. At least he didn't state an opinion about it that is demonstrably wrong when one looks at the actual words.