One is a man, the other is a woman. One is white, the other is black. They’re both 57 years old; they’re both Democrats, and they’re both running in the Maryland primary today to be the replacement for liberal legend Sen. Barbara Mikulski, who is retiring after a remarkable Senate career that saw her rise to be the chairwoman (now the Ranking Member) of the powerful Appropriations Committee.
Chris Van Hollen has enjoyed his own meteoric rise in the House of Representatives. In 2006, Nancy Pelosi created a special leadership position for him, and then he served as DCCC chairman from 2007-2011, experiencing one good and one very bad election cycle. He parlayed that into a slot as the Ranking Member of the powerful Budget Committee. But he gave it all up on a gamble that he could win today’s primary against Rep. Donna Edwards.
Rep. Edwards became a netroots hero in 2008 when she successfully primaried out Rep. Albert Wynn who had invited progressives’ wrath by opposing Net Neutrality while voting for the war in Iraq, a repeal of the Estate Tax, and Bush’s loathsome bankruptcy bill. Compared to Van Hollen, Edwards is a backbencher. While she does serve at the Ranking Member of the Committee on Science’s Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, she has no real power or special influence within the Democratic caucus. She wasn’t giving up too much to make a roll of the dice on a Senate seat. It’s fair to say, though, that she has a lot of enthusiastic grassroots supporters.
And she’ll need that support today because Von Hollen has reportedly raised $5 million more than she has, and some recent polls have shown Van Hollen pulling ahead.
Probably the more compelling story is about who will lose this race rather than who will win, because they both have had very successful and promising careers, and it’s not clear what kind of future awaits the loser of today’s primary.
LOL That is some selective editing you have done there.
What do you expect from someone who was probably supporting FBI political tricks back in the day?
Just say in’
.
Yes, I can only guess that I must have left out a ton of negative stuff on one of the candidates.
Which one could it be?
I’m sure someone will be along any minute to explain who it was, with all that particular candidates flaws.
With zero deviousness, manipulation, and with complete truthfulness.
With any self awareness is another question.
.
Maybe he can do for the DSCC what he did for the DCCC. Is that called failing upwards?
I assume you’re not referring to the 21 seats the Dems won in 2008.
Ah, yes. When Blue Dogs showed us what a bad idea they were in the first place as they were given pride of place in compromises that monkey-wrenched major legislation.
In 2008 the Blue Dog caucus in the House boasted 54 members. By 2014 they were down to 19. After last week, they’re down to just 10. As as mentioned before, none of those 10 are from the deep South and only a handful are from any part of the South. Despite the fact that the Democratic Party went to great lengths to recruit new Blue Dogs, they all lost to Republicans. And as much as everyone may be hoping they can regroup and win back some seats in more favorable terrain in 2016, it’s unlikely. Despite very heavy Party recruitment of right wingers willing to call themselves Democrats, the 2012 election didn’t repopulate the group and in places where there were Blue Dogs in more liberal districts, they were challenged from the left in primaries and lost. http://www.salon.com/2014/11/12/bye_bye_blue_dog_democrats_what_the_end_of_conservative_dems_means_f
or_america/
ah the jihad against the Blue Dogs
as you say there were 54 at their peak in a Democratic majority of 235 or about 23% of the caucus.
It’s clear that they did put some breaks on some liberal legislation but we did pass a lot of good legislation during that time.
It’s also clear we needed them to make a majority and we’ll need them again if we ever get a majority in the House again.
Suspect things are not gonna get any better for them: “Despite very heavy Party recruitment of right wingers willing to call themselves Democrats, the 2012 election didn’t repopulate the group and in places where there were Blue Dogs in more liberal districts, they were challenged from the left in primaries and lost.”
I think you’re mistaking where the Blue Dogs came from, maybe there were a handful that came from liberal districts but most of them came from conservative or purple districts. Either way they voted with us more than half the time which is better than never voting with us.
Quoted for truth and relevance. If our choice is between having a Blue Dog who’s with us 50% of the time and having a Republican who’s with us 0% of the time, it’s not hard decision to pick the Blue Dog. Only if the choice is between a ‘Full’ Dem or better and a Blue Dog in the general should the Blue Dog loose because of progressives.
Take a look at this map of red/blue congressional representation and tell me why we are looking for Blue Dogs in the South or anywhere else?
http://elections.nytimes.com/2014/results/house
Did you note that a racist/bigot, who is a big Democratic power broker(go figure!!) dropped big money on a commercial for CVH the past few days?
No, I have no idea what you’re talking about.
This:
http://theintercept.com/2016/04/25/pro-israel-billionaire-haim-saban-drops-100000-against-donna-edwa
rds-in-maryland-senate-race/
The netroots folks don’t seem too upset that the DEM machine is taking down one of their heroes. Or perhaps they’re just pretending that it’s not happening to avoid cognitive dissonance with being all in with HER.
McGinty in PA is a demonstration of DEM elite power in a most raw form. She has won as many election and spent as many years in elective office as Trump has. If she wins the primary, Toomey wins the general election.
And you favor who? Sestak?
Is he the dead lock winner you’re looking for?
Isn’t there another Casey the PA DEMs can run? Seems to be about the only “dead lock winner” name they can come up with. Their bench always seems to be half empty and what remains is weak. (How’s AG Kane doing of late?)
Overall, Sestak seems like an okay guy to me and maybe I rate him a bit higher on the okay scale because he isn’t a DNC/DLC made guy. Rahm told him to forget about running for the House in 2006. And the Obama on down did everything they could to get him out of the 2010 primary against the new DEM Specter who they also raised money for. Would have to research the amount of money raised and spent by Specter, Sestak, and Toomey in for the 2010 primary and general election before venturing any assessment of Sestak’s chances in a rematch with Toomey.
McGinty has been helicoptered into the race by all those that opposed Sestak in 2010. (That tends to work better in NY than most other states. Californians with long memories still recall how such a DEM move screwed up our Senate races for quite a long time.) Sestak had two tough House races and one tough primary race under his belt when he ran against Toomey and he only lost by 2% point in a GOP dominate election year.
Fetterman is the most interesting of the three and possibly the most qualified. But he chose not to be serious enough.
I agree with most of your points here, including that you’re giving Sestak a lot of credit for his enemies.
Just so you know, the thinking here among progressives is:
That’s the negative view anyway.
I prefer to dwell on the positives, and I think they’d all be pretty good, probably better than average senators.
Meant that I gave Sestak credit for succeeding in spite of the DEM elites efforts to defeat him. He’s been defying the incumbent or “our guy” protection racket in the DEM party. (While truly dreadful, have to give Dave Brat credit for taking down Eric Cantor.)
In general, voters tend to prefer Senate candidates that have some prior electoral successes and have served in elective office. Even a powerhouse like Elizabeth Warren didn’t so easily defeat Scott Brown and MA is a lot more “blue” than PA. This senate seat looks to me like one the DEMs let get away, but it won’t be the first one and probably not the only one this year.
Also, I know you’re grumpy about the fact that Clinton is winning this thing, but you’re slipping big time lately with your normal standards.
I mean, you’re just either wrong or misinformed about the Netroots and Donna Edwards, and it’s beginning to seem like you don’t even care which it is.
Slipping because I failed to visit dKos in the past week and notice a support piece for Edwards? Notice that I didn’t say the netroots had abandoned Edwards or weren’t still on board with her. It’s just hasn’t been a huge priority for them since the DEM machine kicked into that race for Van Hollen.
This was a tricky primary for the netroots to negotiate because Van Hollen and Edwards are splitting the DEM primary vote in ways that make their claims for HRC appear disingenuous. Van Hollen gets the white wealthy vote and Edwards get the poorer AA vote; both voter factions have been claimed for HRC in most primary states. Plus, the CBC declined to endorse Edwards.
I’ll stand by my statement that the netroots folks won’t make a lot of noise about Edwards losing.
Jesus.
They endorsed her before anyone else, stuck with her, and are still pushing their entire community to support her, and you want more. You want them to make noise when she loses.
Make noise about what?
The people of Maryland make a choice, either she wins (which is still possible) or she doesn’t, and then you move on.
WTF is it with making noise after the fact?
No — it’s not about being noisy (or me being grumpy, though I occasionally am). It’s about power. Recognizing when one has it and how much and how to leverage it. As several people down thread have also been attempting to point out. The netroots sold out to HER and got nothing in return other than losing the House seat of a politician they had supported for a number of years. Pretty pathetic use of power IMHO.
Sorry — the comments about power are in the other thread.
Acknowledging upfront that this is trivial, arguably nit-picking.
That said, every time I read that, it’s like fingernails on a chalkboard to me, so I’m indulging myself a bit here.
Why do you capitalize all three letters??? (Do you analogously capitalize “REP” for Republican? If so, haven’t noticed.) In common usage, that implies it is an acronym (which, in fact, is EXACTLY what it is in my area of expertise . . . for “Digital Elevation Model”!) rather than an abbreviation, i.e., for “Democrat”.
I’ve never seen anyone else use this . . . acronym/abbreviation/whatever-it-is. How did you come up with it? WHY???
Do you analogously capitalize “REP” for Republican?
No, b/c who uses rep or Rep for Republican? Rep is more commonly used as an abbreviation for representative. It’s understood and accepted on the internet (and beyond) that GOP = Republican, either party or individual member (although the acronym is technically for the party and not members of it, nobody seems to be making a stink about that). (It does bother me when people use GOP instead of Republican in speech.) I used GOP as an abbreviation for Republican because it seems to be understood and it is only three keystrokes instead of ten and for a poor typist fewer keystrokes are always preferable.
I will use anything anyone wants to offer to refer to a Democrat or the Democratic Party that’s three keystrokes and analogous to GOP. So far nobody seems to have come up with anything. Perhaps because like you they can’t get beyond the notion that three capitalized letters can never be anything other than an acronym. (Wonder how many people under the age of 40 know what GOP stands for?) Then there’s the umbrage that people like you take when anyone attempts to simplify clunky self-branding of Democrats and the Democratic Party.
The other side keeps it simple — a member of the Republican Party is a Republican and use of GOP for either is fine.
On a political blog, using DEM for a Democrat or the Democratic Party seems fine to me — and you really didn’t have any difficulty understanding what was being said within the context of my comment did you?
If only they were always this easy:
“Dem”
Plural? “Dems”
Party as a whole? “the Dems”
Has advantage of already being in widespread usage and universally understood, besides not implying acronym (which “GOP” is)!
Oh, and “people like you” is always so endearing. You should continue employing it. Win friends and influence people!
“When discussing politics, Van Hollen and Edwards seem to disagree in the same way that Clinton and Sanders do.
[…]
Yet Van Hollen, according to the polls, is performing better among Sanders fans than among Clinton supporters. The explanation may be that race and gender play as much of a role as ideology, if not a greater one.”
(http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/04/maryland-democrat-senate-chris-van-hollen-donna-edwards)
Interesting: Within hours after he made his candidacy official on March 4, three other voices from the liberal wing of the party — MoveOn, Credo Action and Daily Kos, the website run by the activist Markos Moulitsas — openly questioned his progressive bona fides and implied that he was one of a breed of “corporate `New Democrats.’ ” Moulitsas’s website declared that Van Hollen’s flexibility on Social Security amounted to “a major red flag,” making him “a candidate that may bargain away retirement security.”
(http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/magazine/the-great-democratic-crack-up-of-2016.html?_r=0)
Guess they got over it.
OT:
Chaos’ In Kansas: ACLU Says Two-Thirds Voter Registrations On Hold
ByROXANA HEGEMANPublishedAPRIL 26, 2016, 8:02 AM EDT 15081 Views
WICHITA, Kan. (AP) — Voting rolls in Kansas are in “chaos” because of the state’s proof-of-citizenship requirements, the American Civil Liberties Union has argued in a court document, noting that about two-thirds of new voter registration applications submitted during a three-week period in February are on hold.
Kansas is fending off multiple legal challenges from voting rights activists, and just months before the state’s August primary, the status of the “dual registration” system remains unclear. Federal judges in separate voter-registration lawsuits unfolding in Kansas and Washington, D.C., could rule at any time. There’s also greater urgency because registrations typically surge during an election year.
Kansas is one of four states, along with Georgia, Alabama and Arizona, to require documentary proof of citizenship — such as a birth certificate, passport or naturalization papers — to register to vote. Under Kansas’ challenged system, voters who registered using a federal form, which hadn’t required proof of U.S. citizenship, could only vote in federal races and not in state or local races. Kansas says it will keep the dual voting system in place for upcoming elections if the courts allow its residents to register to vote either with a federal form or at motor vehicle offices without providing proof of citizenship.
what a mess
in other WI news, it was never about protecting the vote
http://www.wpr.org/walker-signs-bill-blocking-communities-issuing-ids-voting
Terrible. They might as well reinstitute the poll tax while they’re at it. Thanks, SCOTUS!
Actually I blame the Clinton octopus.
.
A federal judge has upheld North Carolina’s voter ID law in a ruling posted Monday evening.
I suspect a pretty good-paying job awaits the loser.
But you’re right. It sucks that two good Democrats have to battle each other, while Republicans with room temperature IQs manage to coast into office.
So much ‘ water is wet’ news in this, but it must be said. Must be pointed out.
I have said and mean it:
They long for the delusional world of Mad Men, where they pretend that they were big fish in a pond, when the truth is that they were fish in a pond where 90% of everyone else was shoved into sardine cans.
…………….
When Was America Greatest?
Margot Sanger-Katz
APRIL 26, 2016
Donald Trump’s campaign slogan is “Make America Great Again.” His supporters, it turns out, disagree on when that was.
…………………………..
No, political scientists.
Has nothing to do with who is in the White House.
The 90% of the rest of the folks were in sardine cans 50 years ago – they are out now, and, they’re not going back.
oh no… what happened?
His name is Van Hollen. Make an effort.
And he did not “give it all up on a gamble.” Edwards was taking the gamble. She got into the race after he did. He was always the obvious choice and she was always the underdog.
I was in Edwards’ district before I got gerrymandered out of it, and I worked for her on two elections and contributed to her campaign against Al Wynn. She’s a solid liberal, very personable, and I agree with her on policy, but was not a particularly good congressperson. She alienated her union support, did horrible constituent service (I have friends who hate her because she blew off their family’s social security disability problems), did not establish relationships with state officials (a friend works in consumer work for the state says their office heard from Van Hollen all the time, and never from Edwards) and even managed to offend Pres. Obama. That is not how you win a Senate election.
I voted for her yesterday, but it was obvious from the start that she was going to lose and it really pisses me off that she gave up her House seat for no reason.