Jamesb101.com

commentary on Politics and a little bit of everything else

Counterpoint….Freddy’s Bar in Brooklyn isn’t happy about the upcoming Nets move to Brooklyn…..

The New Jersey Nets are coming to Downtown Brooklyn…..

Artist's rendering of the proposed design for the Brooklyn home of the New Jersey Nets.

That’s gonna happen….it’s already started ….as you can see in the photo below…

New York City and New York State have gone to court and won it’s use of eminent domain to clear businesses and the property where the new Nets stadium will be built by a group of private investors over a Long Island Railroad yard and the surrounding area…..

My son has sent me the counterpoint here…about the people who will have to move from this 22 acre development track…..

Freddy’s in Brooklyn….. a nice looking bar….. is gonna have to relocate…..

See full size image

Here’s their rebuttal to the situation.….

Freddy’s in Brooklyn is a happening place that has been named one of the city’s best bars by the Village Voice, Esquire, and The New York Times.

Unfortunately, Freddy’s—and the surrounding neighborhood—is smack-dab in the footprint of the Atlantic Yards project, a multi-million-dollar, 22-acre development that is intended to create “an urban utopia” in the language of developer Bruce Ratner, and a new, publicly subsidized home to Ratner’s Nets, who currently play NBA basketball (if you can call it that) in New Jersey.

But don’t mistake Atlantic Yards as one more instance of the market-driven transformations for which New York is rightly famous. It’s actually the latest case of eminent domain abuse, where private property is seized by the state on dubious grounds and then immediately handed over to private interests for private gain.

In this case, the Empire State Development Corporation has designated the thriving area as blighted to facilitate the taking of privately owned houses and businesses without having to pay full market value. Ratner, whose partners in the venture include rapper Jay Z and the Russian billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov, stands to pocket hundreds of millions of dollars on the deal, all thanks to the brute force of the state.

This week, a Brooklyn Supreme Court ruling tossed out the eminent domain objections of residents and property owners who had held out for six years and Ratner plans to break ground on the site on March 11, if not before.

The workers and patrons of Freddy’s, however, are not going gentle into that good night. They’ve pledged to engage in civil disobedience and chain themselves to the bar when the bulldozers and wrecking balls come for their favorite haunt. A state sentator has even declared that she’ll lay down in front of the demolition machinery. The awful 2005 Supreme Court decision in Kelo,which held that governments can seize property to increase potential tax revenues, may have paved the way for Atlantic Yards, but Freddy’s is the next last stand in an ongoing battle against eminent domain abuse.

Produced by Dan Hayes, who conceived, shot, and edited the video; Damon Root, who researched the legal issues and did logistics; and Nick Gillespie, who co-wrote the piece and hosts.

Approximately 5 minutes.

Update…..

Lots of Cops, Chanting at Ratner’s Groundbreaking

Lots of Cops, Chanting at Ratner's Groundbreaking

The Observer‘s very unofficial Brooklyn correspondent Eric Kuo (as in he doesn’t actually work here) is at the Atlantic Yard’s project’s Barclay’s groundbreaking ceremony and Tweeting entertaining dispatches.

Kuo: “Chant is ‘arrest Ratner now’ somehow I doubt these cops will comply.”

Daily News City Hall Bureau Chief Adam Lisberg is also Tweeting the scene: “Is Bloomberg bored? Or just feels awkward sitting next to Paterson?”

March 10, 2010 Posted by | Blogs, Breaking News, Counterpoints, Entertainment, Government, Home, Law, Media, Other Things, PoliticalDog Calls, Politics, Sports, Updates | , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Counterpoint….Freddy's Bar in Brooklyn isn't happy about the upcoming Nets move to Brooklyn…..

The New Jersey Nets are coming to Downtown Brooklyn…..

Artist's rendering of the proposed design for the Brooklyn home of the New Jersey Nets.

That’s gonna happen….it’s already started ….as you can see in the photo below…

New York City and New York State have gone to court and won it’s use of eminent domain to clear businesses and the property where the new Nets stadium will be built by a group of private investors over a Long Island Railroad yard and the surrounding area…..

My son has sent me the counterpoint here…about the people who will have to move from this 22 acre development track…..

Freddy’s in Brooklyn….. a nice looking bar….. is gonna have to relocate…..

See full size image

Here’s their rebuttal to the situation.….

Freddy’s in Brooklyn is a happening place that has been named one of the city’s best bars by the Village Voice, Esquire, and The New York Times.

Unfortunately, Freddy’s—and the surrounding neighborhood—is smack-dab in the footprint of the Atlantic Yards project, a multi-million-dollar, 22-acre development that is intended to create “an urban utopia” in the language of developer Bruce Ratner, and a new, publicly subsidized home to Ratner’s Nets, who currently play NBA basketball (if you can call it that) in New Jersey.

But don’t mistake Atlantic Yards as one more instance of the market-driven transformations for which New York is rightly famous. It’s actually the latest case of eminent domain abuse, where private property is seized by the state on dubious grounds and then immediately handed over to private interests for private gain.

In this case, the Empire State Development Corporation has designated the thriving area as blighted to facilitate the taking of privately owned houses and businesses without having to pay full market value. Ratner, whose partners in the venture include rapper Jay Z and the Russian billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov, stands to pocket hundreds of millions of dollars on the deal, all thanks to the brute force of the state.

This week, a Brooklyn Supreme Court ruling tossed out the eminent domain objections of residents and property owners who had held out for six years and Ratner plans to break ground on the site on March 11, if not before.

The workers and patrons of Freddy’s, however, are not going gentle into that good night. They’ve pledged to engage in civil disobedience and chain themselves to the bar when the bulldozers and wrecking balls come for their favorite haunt. A state sentator has even declared that she’ll lay down in front of the demolition machinery. The awful 2005 Supreme Court decision in Kelo,which held that governments can seize property to increase potential tax revenues, may have paved the way for Atlantic Yards, but Freddy’s is the next last stand in an ongoing battle against eminent domain abuse.

Produced by Dan Hayes, who conceived, shot, and edited the video; Damon Root, who researched the legal issues and did logistics; and Nick Gillespie, who co-wrote the piece and hosts.

Approximately 5 minutes.

Update…..

Lots of Cops, Chanting at Ratner’s Groundbreaking

Lots of Cops, Chanting at Ratner's Groundbreaking

The Observer‘s very unofficial Brooklyn correspondent Eric Kuo (as in he doesn’t actually work here) is at the Atlantic Yard’s project’s Barclay’s groundbreaking ceremony and Tweeting entertaining dispatches.

Kuo: “Chant is ‘arrest Ratner now’ somehow I doubt these cops will comply.”

Daily News City Hall Bureau Chief Adam Lisberg is also Tweeting the scene: “Is Bloomberg bored? Or just feels awkward sitting next to Paterson?”

March 10, 2010 Posted by | Blogs, Breaking News, Counterpoints, Entertainment, Government, Home, Law, Media, Other Things, PoliticalDog Calls, Politics, Sports, Updates | , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Follow-up on the MyDD and Charlie Cook discussion on the House in 2010…..

From Jonathan Singer over @ Mydd.Com as a follow up to this post.….

See full size image

Just a few weeks ago, Charlie Cook said that it’s “very hard to come up with a scenario where Democrats don’t lose the House.” The quote may seem familiar; I have referenced it a couple times in recent days.

If Cook is still looking for such a scenario, the respected pollster Ipsos, surveying the country for McClatchy newspapers, has provided it:

Looking ahead to November’s elections, 50 percent said they’d vote for Democratic candidates if the election were today, while 40 percent said they’d vote for Republicans.

The Democrats’ 10-point generic ballot lead in the Ipsos-McClatchy poll represents a net improvement of 3 percentage points since early November, a move within the survey’s margin of error.

It is worth noting that these numbers do not look the latest trend estimate from Pollster.com, which actually gives the GOP a narrow 43.0 percent to 42.4 percent lead in a nationwide race for Congress. However, that narrow Republican advantage is the result of the plethora of data from a single pollster: Rasmussen Reports. When these surveys are excluded, the numbers shift more than 6 points towards the Democrats, with a Democratic edge of 47.1 percent to 41.5 percent.

So there definitely is a universe in which it is “very hard to come up with a scenario where Democrats don’t lose the House”: that of Rasmussen polling. And that may be the reality on the ground come November. But in the reality represented by the composite of all other polling, including this latest Ipsos survey, the Democrats’ goose is not nearly cooked.

March 4, 2010 Posted by | Blogs, Breaking News, Counterpoints, Government, Media, Other Things, Politics, Updates | , , , | Leave a comment

A Counterpoint on the Rasmussen Iowa numbers…..

From  desmoinesdem over @ MyDD.com…….

Scott Rasmussen released a new poll of the Iowa governor and U.S. Senate races today. Rasmussen surveyed 500 “likely Iowa voters” on February 18.

Given Rasmussen’s usual “house effect” favoring Republican candidates, I expected the numbers to be worse for Democrats than other recent Iowa polling. Instead, they were comparable to last week’sResearch 2000 Iowa poll for KCCI-TV and the Selzer and Co. poll for the Des Moines Register, which was conducted three weeks ago.

Like the other pollsters, Rasmussen found Governor Chet Culver well behind Republican front-runner Terry Branstad. Like Research 2000, Rasmussen found Senator Chuck Grassley above 50 percent against Democratic challengers, but well below Grassley’s usual re-election numbers and even below the numbers Rasmussen found for Grassley in late January.

More details are after the jump.

There’s more…

As a credit to Daniel G…he’s now bracketing his Rasmussen numbers……

Counter- Counterpoint!

From Daniel

I told ya yesterday RAS, Selzer and R2000 have rougly the same Numbers.

Well,

The Dog is very suspicious of Rasmussen Polling BUT I AM very, very suspicious of Research 2000 Polling.

After all most R2000 Polling ARE PAID BY KOS.

February 23, 2010 Posted by | Counterpoints, Government, Media, Men, Other Things, Politics, Polls, Updates | , , | 4 Comments

Counterpoint……Why are liberals so condescending?

This from Gerard Alexander @ Washington Post…..

Every political community includes some members who insist that their side has all the answers and that their adversaries are idiots. But American liberals, to a degree far surpassing conservatives, appear committed to the proposition that their views are correct, self-evident, and based on fact and reason, while conservative positions are not just wrong but illegitimate, ideological and unworthy of serious consideration. Indeed, all the appeals to bipartisanship notwithstanding, President Obama and other leading liberal voices have joined in a chorus of intellectual condescension.

It’s an odd time for liberals to feel smug. But even with Democratic fortunes on the wane, leading liberals insist that they have almost nothing to learn from conservatives. Many Democrats describe their troubles simply as a PR challenge, a combination of conservative misinformation — as when Obama charges that critics of health-care reform are peddling fake fears of a “Bolshevik plot” — and the country’s failure to grasp great liberal accomplishments. “We were so busy just getting stuff done . . . that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are,” the president told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos in a recent interview. The benighted public is either uncomprehending or deliberately misinformed (by conservatives).

This condescension is part of a liberal tradition that for generations has impoverished American debates over the economy, society and the functions of government — and threatens to do so again today, when dialogue would be more valuable than ever.

Well Gerard….They better start talikng..because to tell you the truth… nobodies listening to them..…The President….. for whom they voted for….screws them every chance he gets…lately leaving them dangling in wind on Healthcare….and moving ahead with the Afghan War……

And the Republican’s have been using their talking points to win elections around the country…even in Democratic states!….

They have no friends……..

February 7, 2010 Posted by | Counterpoints, Government, Healthcare, Law, Media, Military, Other Things, PoliticalDog Calls, Politics, The Economy, Updates | , | 2 Comments

Counterpoint to CD…………

Sometimes we just let it …..all.….. hang out here……..

From Daniel G……

Don’t let this guy spam you Dog. He’s so full of Nonsense.

Here is why:
1. IL State Comptroller Dan Hynes (D) should have stayed put in his current gig and sought a 4th term, but I think him challenging incumbent Governor Patrick Quinn (D) in the nasty primary may have been a mistake.

2. It’s looking more likely State Senator Bill Brady (R-Bloomington) will be the GOP nominee last I checked.

3. IL Democrats will keep Secretary of State, State Attorney General and State Treasurer, while losing the Comptroller’s office.

4. IL State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias (D) will tie Kirk to the DC establishment since Kirk’s been in DC for like 10 years and he has a record that the Democrats will use against him in negative ads.

Wait!…while we’re at it….here’s more…..from the man from Texas……

Here are my predictions on the Senate and have you ever heard of DEMOGRAPHICS because this country is turning more and more biracial.

1. West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin (D) is likely running for the United States Senate in 2012, he’s also won 3 statewide elections to boot.

2. In Wisconsin, the Democrats have a LONG bench from down-ballot statewide officeholders to House members who are likely to run for Kohl’s Senate seat.

3. Once Perry beats the shit out of KBH either in March or April (he’s going to win re-election as my governor), look for KBH to resign her Senate seat and fade from the scene forever, which will lead Perry to appoint Railroad Commissioner Michael Williams (R-one of 3 African American GOP statewide officeholders) to the Senate seat.

Former TX Comptroller John Sharp (D) will win the Senate seat for the Democrats regardless either in special election or in 2012 whenever the seat opens up.

4. US Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) will run for the United States Senate against Kyl and give him a run for his money and plus with a Democratic governor looking more likely in November, Obama will turn the state BLUE in 2012 (the GOP will have a shitty candidate against him like Palin or Pawlenty).

5. Democratic incumbents will hold onto their Senate seats in CA, MO, VA (it’s trending Blue), etc.,

I see Democrats keeping the Senate for a LONG time even if a Republican wins the White House in 2012.

He’s wrong on so many things. He just picks Candidates and says there’re running. There’re not running.

1. Manchin is finished with Politics after he completes his term as Governor in 2012. He never was and never will be a Legislature Guy.

2. CD is wrong in Wisconsin as well: The only credible Candidate Democrats have to run in case Kohl retires is Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI). If it’s a Ron Kind vs. Paul Ryan Match-Up Ryan wins.

3. Hutchison won’t resign her Senate Seat until Health Care & Cap, Trade is finished. She already said that. CD is too bullish on that. AND EVEN if she resigns she would do it after April 1st which means a Special Election would be held on the same as the Midterm Election. Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX 6) has already lobbied Perry for an Appointment so in a Barton – Sharp Match-Up Barton would win.

4. On Giffords: I doubt she gives up a House Seat after 4 1/2 year to run for a Race where she has only a 50/50 Chance of winning. The most likely Candidate to run against Kyl is Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon. Giffords will wait for McCain to retire in 2016.

5. The Democrats WILL CERTAINLY LOSE the Senate in 2012. There will be too many Open Seats as well as endangered Incumbents like McCaskill, Webb, Brown, Tester, etc.

james,

Don’t believe all the bullshit CD says. My Record speaks for itself. I report Good News and Bad News for both Parties. CD is a partisan hack.

This is just my response to CD’s posting. You can post it if you want.

Daniel G.

February 5, 2010 Posted by | Blogs, Media, Men, Politics, Updates | , | 5 Comments

Counterpoint….an confirmed Liberal and Progressive's view of yesterday's loss…..

This from Jonathan Singer over @ Mydd.Com……

Last night was a surprise to many — not in the sense that the day before it was inconceivable that a Republican could win in Massachusetts, because it was becoming increasingly evident in the waning days of the campaign that he had a serious shot at winning, but rather because Republicans have had such difficulty in federal elections in the state in recent years (notwithstanding their very real ability to win in non-federal gubernatorial elections, including every one from 1990 to 2002).

But watching Scott Brown’s press conference this morning, it’s easy to see why voters found him to be compelling. He, like few others, was able to appeal to all sides without firmly placing himself in either camp. Conservatives will claim him as one of their own, and his victory was no doubt significantly aided by the widespread support of an emboldened Right. Yet at the same time, Brown was not antagonistic, stating during the campaign and since that his election was not a referendum on Barack Obama, not running any ads on the topic of healthcare reform (which is understandable given the difficult position the combination of Republican opposition to reform with Brown’s previous support for a similar measure put him in).

So my first thought is, it will be very interesting to see how Brown is able to maintain his balance. He did so far this morning in his press conference, projecting at once the populist sentiment that helped draw him strong supporters — but also the conciliatory tone that made him palatable to a great number of Independent and even Democratic voters. But as difficult as this is on a rhetorical level (and I don’t mean to understate its difficulty), when the votes actually start coming on tough issues and Brown will either have to assert himself as someone willing to deal (which could depress his base) or as someone unwilling to deal (which could make him unelectable come 2012), it won’t be nearly as easy to appeal to everyone.

That said, while Brown’s victory may not have charted a legislative path for his party, it appears to have charted an electoral one: Say enough to fire up the base, but not so much as to turn off swing voters. The folks at First Read have it right: “In fact, this serves as a bit of a warning for national Republicans: Chris Christie, Bob McDonnell, and now Scott Brown won not by attacking Obama, but rather by downplaying their GOP ties and riding an anti-incumbent wave. None of them went out of their way to attack Obama; the national party wants the media to believe this is a referendum on Obama, but the campaigns themselves were referendums on the political process — whether in Washington, Richmond, Trenton, or Beacon Hill.”

For the Democrats, it’s clear that running as the establishment isn’t going to work in 2010. Voters are in an anti-incumbent mood (see not only Jon Corzine but also Mike Bloomberg), and aren’t going to be warm to coronations. What’s more, running is necessary. Martha Coakley held, through the Sunday before election dayless than one-third of the events Brown did, holding 19 events after the primary compared to the 62 held by Brown. The electorate isn’t going to simply hand Democrats victories. It’s not going to happen. (Similarly, maligning star athletes from the city probably isn’t going to woo many voters.)

But beyond that, and on to policy, my sense is that the Democrats are going to take the licks they’re going to take, and that as much as legislators believe they can inoculate themselves by voting “no”, if there is an anti-Democratic sentiment in 2010 there’s going to be an anti-Democratic sentiment that hits just about everyone regardless of their votes. No doubt the Democrats are in a dire position. But it’s hard to envision a situation in which getting less done — particularly not passing healthcare reform, and fast — helps the party electorally. Voters aren’t clamoring for a continuation of the current situation in the country, they are clamoring for change. And change doesn’t occur by sitting on one’s hands.

So it should not surprise you that I’m still in the camp including Josh Marshall, Ezra Klein and a great many others who believe the best course of action for the Democrats to pass healthcare reform — and fast — then move on. There is simply no political upside in getting nothing done.

January 20, 2010 Posted by | Blogs, Media, Other Things, Politics, Updates | , , , , | Leave a comment

Counterpoint….an confirmed Liberal and Progressive’s view of yesterday’s loss…..

This from Jonathan Singer over @ Mydd.Com……

Last night was a surprise to many — not in the sense that the day before it was inconceivable that a Republican could win in Massachusetts, because it was becoming increasingly evident in the waning days of the campaign that he had a serious shot at winning, but rather because Republicans have had such difficulty in federal elections in the state in recent years (notwithstanding their very real ability to win in non-federal gubernatorial elections, including every one from 1990 to 2002).

But watching Scott Brown’s press conference this morning, it’s easy to see why voters found him to be compelling. He, like few others, was able to appeal to all sides without firmly placing himself in either camp. Conservatives will claim him as one of their own, and his victory was no doubt significantly aided by the widespread support of an emboldened Right. Yet at the same time, Brown was not antagonistic, stating during the campaign and since that his election was not a referendum on Barack Obama, not running any ads on the topic of healthcare reform (which is understandable given the difficult position the combination of Republican opposition to reform with Brown’s previous support for a similar measure put him in).

So my first thought is, it will be very interesting to see how Brown is able to maintain his balance. He did so far this morning in his press conference, projecting at once the populist sentiment that helped draw him strong supporters — but also the conciliatory tone that made him palatable to a great number of Independent and even Democratic voters. But as difficult as this is on a rhetorical level (and I don’t mean to understate its difficulty), when the votes actually start coming on tough issues and Brown will either have to assert himself as someone willing to deal (which could depress his base) or as someone unwilling to deal (which could make him unelectable come 2012), it won’t be nearly as easy to appeal to everyone.

That said, while Brown’s victory may not have charted a legislative path for his party, it appears to have charted an electoral one: Say enough to fire up the base, but not so much as to turn off swing voters. The folks at First Read have it right: “In fact, this serves as a bit of a warning for national Republicans: Chris Christie, Bob McDonnell, and now Scott Brown won not by attacking Obama, but rather by downplaying their GOP ties and riding an anti-incumbent wave. None of them went out of their way to attack Obama; the national party wants the media to believe this is a referendum on Obama, but the campaigns themselves were referendums on the political process — whether in Washington, Richmond, Trenton, or Beacon Hill.”

For the Democrats, it’s clear that running as the establishment isn’t going to work in 2010. Voters are in an anti-incumbent mood (see not only Jon Corzine but also Mike Bloomberg), and aren’t going to be warm to coronations. What’s more, running is necessary. Martha Coakley held, through the Sunday before election dayless than one-third of the events Brown did, holding 19 events after the primary compared to the 62 held by Brown. The electorate isn’t going to simply hand Democrats victories. It’s not going to happen. (Similarly, maligning star athletes from the city probably isn’t going to woo many voters.)

But beyond that, and on to policy, my sense is that the Democrats are going to take the licks they’re going to take, and that as much as legislators believe they can inoculate themselves by voting “no”, if there is an anti-Democratic sentiment in 2010 there’s going to be an anti-Democratic sentiment that hits just about everyone regardless of their votes. No doubt the Democrats are in a dire position. But it’s hard to envision a situation in which getting less done — particularly not passing healthcare reform, and fast — helps the party electorally. Voters aren’t clamoring for a continuation of the current situation in the country, they are clamoring for change. And change doesn’t occur by sitting on one’s hands.

So it should not surprise you that I’m still in the camp including Josh Marshall, Ezra Klein and a great many others who believe the best course of action for the Democrats to pass healthcare reform — and fast — then move on. There is simply no political upside in getting nothing done.

January 20, 2010 Posted by | Blogs, Media, Other Things, Politics, Updates | , , , , | Leave a comment

Counterpoint…….What if 2010 is Like 1982?

This from Mydd.com…..One never knows…Do one?

by Jonathan Singer, Fri Jan 08, 2010 at 02:43:19 PM EST

I want to loop back and write a little bit more about something I touched on earlier this week: That if the 2010 midterms look like the 1982 midterms — which isn’t inconceivable considering that Barack Obama’s approval rating today looks a lot like Ronald Reagan’s did at the same point in the 1982 cycle — it wouldn’t be terrible news for the Democrats.

Chuck Todd, among others, has written that close Senate elections in a given year don’t tend to split evenly between the two parties, but rather that one party manages to win virtually all the close races. “Check out the competitive races from the last five cycles,” Todd writes. “It’s a remarkable pattern.”

Todd is largely right — close Senate elections do tend to break in one party’s favor. In 2008, Democrats won seven of the eight contests decided by fewer than 10 percentage points; in 2006, they won five of seven; in 2000, they won seven of 10; and in 2004, Republicans won seven of eight such races. (The2002 elections, when the Republicans won six of ten single-digit elections, is somewhat of an exception to this general rule).

But it’s worth looking back to the 1982 midterm elections to bear out an exceedingly important point that is overlooked when reciting the general rule that close Senate elections tend to break in a particular party’s favor: The party winning the close elections isn’t necessarily the one you might expect.

The 1982 midterm elections saw a whopping 11 Senate elections decided by fewer than 10 percentage points. Considering that Ronald Reagan’s approval rating lagged at 43 percent and that the economy, while improving, was still in the doldrums, one might have expected most of these races to have broken in favor of the opposition Democrats. Indeed, in House elections that year, the Democrats were able to capitalize, picking up a net 26 seats.

Yet come election day, the races didn’t break overwhelmingly in the Democrats’ favor. In fact, the opposite occurred, with Reagan’s Republicans winning nine of 11 single-digit Senate elections. Take a look:

Republican Win Democratic Win
California: Pete Wilson 51.5/Jerry Brown 44.8 New Jersey: Frank Lautenberg 50.9/Millicent Fenwich 47.8
Connecticut: Lowell Weicker 50.4/Toby Moffett 46.1 New Mexico: Jeff Bingaman 53.8/Harrison Schmitt 46.2
Indiana: Richard Lugar 53.8/Floyd Fithian 45.6
Minnesota: Dave Durenberger 52.6/Mark Dayton 46.6
Missouri: John Danforth 50.8/Harriet Woods 49.1
Nevada: Chic Hecht 50.1/Howard Cannon 47.7
Rhode Island: John Chafee 51.2/Julius Michaelson 48.8
Vermont: Robert Stafford 50.3/James Guest 47.2
Virginia: Paul trible 51.2/Richard Joseph Davis 48.8

Going into November 1982, there was little reason to believe that the close races would swing for the GOP. The Democrats had strong candidates in most of these states — a Governor, Jerry Brown; an elected state Attorney General, Julius Michaelson; an elected Lieutenant Governor, Richard Joseph Davis; an elected Secretary of State, James Guest; and multiple-term Congressmen Toby Moffett and Floyd Fithian. Reagan’s numbers, as noted above, were in the tank, and the economy was still weak.

But the races mostly swung away from the opposition Democrats. After all the dust settled, the Senate remained firmly in control of the Republicans.

So close Senate races do tend to trend towards one party in a particular cycle, though not every year (see: 2002). When they do, it’s not always to the party you might expect. Sometimes this trend can actually help the party in power, even when that party is headed by a President with an approval rating in the low-40s at a time when the economy is still weaker than expected.

January 8, 2010 Posted by | Government, Media, Other Things, PoliticalDog Calls, Politics, Polls, Updates | , , , | Leave a comment

Counterpoint…..how much is enough in the Tiger Woods story?

I very good piece from the LA Times about the times we live in…with a hunger for gossip, sensationalism and reality….

The counterpoint in the piece is good…Woods has controlled his image top maximize his pocket…he now finds himself in a situation that demands privacy…..At what do we..the public…cut him some slack?…Does he have that right?……How much of a public person is he?….And is he allowed to be a private person?….And isn’t this just between him…and his wife?

Good piece …should be required reading for every ‘public person’…..

December 4, 2009 Posted by | Entertainment, Family, Media, Men, Sports | , , , , , | Leave a comment