Dead Democrat Reelected in Long Beach, and Other Tales From the Crypt of California Politics

I mean no disrepect to Jenny Oropeza, who was well liked in the Long Beach community, but her reelection is a metaphor for the morbid left-wing partisanship in California. Red Dog Report catches the drift: "Zombie Politics: California Elects the Dead":

What Were They Smoking?

It’s been well established that the dead seem to rise up every other November to vote in Chicago.

But now the residents Long Beach have done Windy City one better.

California’s 28th State Senate District has re-elected Democrat Jenny Oropeza…

Who died last month ...

Democrats hold a 20 point voter registration advantage,

But the latest numbers showed that the Deceased Senator was leading by nearly 23 points.

Which means the Zombie politician received bi-partisan support!

Meaning that California is so anti-GOP that they would rather be served by the dead, than elect a living Republican.

But hey, that’s California for ya.

And this is perhaps the vote of the living dead, and just as depressing, "Strength of the Latino Vote is Key Factor in the GOP's Tepid Showing in the State":

In one declarative night, California on Tuesday confirmed its status as a political world unto itself, zigging determinedly Democratic while most of the rest of the country zagged Republican. Voters not only restored the governor's office to Democratic hands, they may have given Democrats a sweep of statewide offices, though uncounted ballots could still shift one race.

Driving much of the success — and distancing the state from the national GOP tide, according to exit polls — was a surge in Latino voters. They made up 22% of the California voter pool, a record tally that mortally wounded many Republicans.

Latinos were more likely than other voters to say it was the governor's race that impelled them to vote, and they sided more than 2 to 1 with Democrat Jerry Brown over Meg Whitman, the Republican whose campaign had been embroiled in a controversy over illegal immigration. Once at the polls, they voted for other Democrats as well.

California Republicans had multiple reasons for head-shaking on Wednesday. For decades, the state party has squabbled over whether success would come more easily to candidates running as conservatives or those who presented a more moderate face to the state's sizeable bloc of independent, centrist voters. This year they tried both. Senate candidate Carly Fiorina ran a firmly conservative race and Whitman took a more moderate road.

Holding their coastal strength, Democrats ran away with their big counties. Brown carried Los Angeles County, home to 25% of the state's voters, by 31 points, giving him almost 60% of his lead. Republican candidates, including Whitman, did better than Democrats in their traditional interior California strongholds. But the strong Republican counties tend to be heavier on acreage than voters.

On Tuesday each hit a double-digit dead end, as Fiorina lost to Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer and Whitman came in a distant second to Brown.

Democratic successes in the midst of 2010's national Republican renaissance marked a sharp turnabout from how the state behaved during the last major Republican year, in 1994. That year, as Republicans took back Congress, they won in California as well, picking up five of seven statewide offices, including the governorship, and adding legislative seats. This time, Democrats picked up a legislative seat despite Republican gains nationally, and were waiting for uncounted ballots to see whether they lost a congressional seat or two.

The difference between then and now rests on the changes in the California electorate. Those changes also explain the gulf that now exists between California and the nation. California in 1994 was more white and proportionately less Democratic than it is today, thus more similar to the country today. Nationally, non-whites made up only 22% of the Tuesday electorate; in California they made up 38%. Latinos nationally represented 8% of the national electorate, just shy of a third of their power in California. The California and national exit polls were conducted by Edison Research for a consortium of news organizations, including television news networks and the Associated Press.

Tellingly, Latinos in California had a far more negative view of the GOP than other voters — almost 3 in 4 had an unfavorable impression, to 22% favorable. Among all California voters the view of Republicans was negative, but at a closer 61% negative and 32% positive. Latinos had a strongly positive view of Democrats, 58% to 37%, whereas all voters were closely split, 49% to 45%.

More at the link.

We need some Marco Rubios in California, and then some: "Minority Republican Candidates Make History On Election Day."

All is not lost, but we have a lot of work to do in the Golden State.

I Just Can't Be Happy Today

A classic from The Damned. Sums up how I've been feeling after the People's Republic of California resisted the national GOP tide. I'll be back to my old self in a few days, and I'm hoping to get some analysis on the California races posted soon:

I Just Can't Be Happy Today
I Just Can't Be Happy Today

A lot of you know there's nothing to smile
There's no feeling fine without being fined
It's a price on your head
No point being sad when justice is red

I Just Can't Be Happy Today
I Just Can't Be Happy Today

They're closing the schools
They're burning the books
The church is in ruins
The priests hang on hooks
The radios on ice
The telly's been banned
The army's in power
The devil commands

Illegal to dance Forbidden to cry
You do what you're told and never ask why
Ignore all those fools
They don't understand we make our own rules

I Just Can't Be Happy Today
I Just Can't Be Happy Today
I Just Can't Be Happy, Just Can't Be Happy, Just Can't Be Happy Today
I Just Can't Be Happy, Just Can't Be Happy, Just Can't Be Happy Today

Money Was No Guarantee of Victory

At WaPo, "Whitman, Fiorina and McMahon: Spending Big, Failing Bigger":

LOS ANGELES - Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina and Linda McMahon had a lot in common.

All sharp, successful businesswomen who made millions as executives in the private sector, they identified 2010 as an apt historical moment for a Republican candidate with no political experience to break into politics. In pursuit of higher office, each committed considerable resources - more than $200 million combined - to challenge seemingly vulnerable Democrats.

Each risk taker came up far short of her goal.

Whitman, the 54-year-old former chief executive of eBay, burned through more than $140 million of her own money in a colossal loss in the California governor's race to a former governor, Attorney General Jerry Brown. Also in California, Fiorina, 56, the former Hewlett-Packard leader, spent about $7 million of her own funds in a bitter Senate loss to the incumbent, Barbara Boxer. And McMahon, 62, who with her husband built the smackdown empire called World Wrestling Entertainment in Connecticut, spent $50 million in seeking an open Senate seat, losing to Attorney General Richard Blumenthal.

The question isn't so much why three savvy businesswomen threw so much good money after bad in losing ventures to win political office. In a year when voters overwhelmingly registered their dissatisfaction with Democrats and the unemployment-riddled economy, the candidates had every reason to consider the millions a sound investment. Instead, the question is how they failed so resoundingly.

"It's in some ways like a highly underdeveloped country that suddenly strikes oil and they don't know what to do with the money and start spending it unwisely," said Ross Baker, a professor of political science at Rutgers University. Baker said that money is a threshold requirement in politics, "but above a certain amount you don't get a dividend for every extra dollar."

"And when it's your own money, you cast aside some of the restraints and keep spending, to the point where you cast aside certain other aspects of the campaign that might be deficient," he said.

More at the link.

I've already examined Whitman's liablities, and being a shitty candidate is probably just the best way to sum up her debacle. I've said less about Fiorina, although she was bit subdued for me, and I know nothing about McMahon.

A Settling of Accounts with Mr. Perfect

At Der Spiegel:

The Democrats suffered a debacle at the polls in the US on Tuesday -- and President Barack Obama is to blame. Once celebrated as a great communicator, the president has lost touch with the mood in his country. Now, he must re-invent himself. But can he succeed?

On Thursday, US President Barack Obama will be leaving Washington behind. He is embarking on a trip to Asia, including a stop in Indonesia. The flight is a long one -- almost an entire day. But Obama lived for a time in Indonesia as a child, and the feeling of being at home is something the president could use these days.


After the Congressional elections on Tuesday, it is certainly not a feeling he can enjoy in the US. The president can analyze the results all he wants, the dramatic losses his Democrats experienced at the polls and the loss of control of the House of Representatives. But he is unlikely to find a simple answer to the question as to how he should proceed.

To the right he is confronted by the stark hatred of the Tea Party movement. In the political center, voters abandoned Obama in droves. And on the left there are complaints that instead of Mr. Change, Obama has turned into Mr. Weakling. Young voters and African Americans are, of course, still behind Obama, but many of them didn't even bother to cast their ballots on Tuesday.

The debacle, the largest loss of seats for the president's party in more than half a century, isn't just a warning for Obama. It is a demolition. For two years, Obama was allowed to hope that he had managed to capture the heads of American voters in addition to their hearts. In fact, however, he only managed to find his way to their hearts, and only for a short time.

RTWT.

Revved-Up GOP Ponders 2012

At WSJ, "Palin's Viability as Presidential Front-Runner Is Closely Scrutinized; 'Ideas Are Going to Matter'":

A revitalized Republican Party began looking toward the 2012 presidential election with renewed optimism about its prospects but uncertainty about who was best positioned to lead the charge.

Republican Sarah Palin was drawing especially close scrutiny from some in the GOP for signs of her viability as front-runner. Ms. Palin emerged from Tuesday's elections as a champion of the tea party movement that helped spur a Republican wave. But losses Tuesday by Ms. Palin's hand-picked candidates in Nevada and Delaware showed the limits to her powers, while preliminary results in her home state of Alaska showed her favored candidate, Joe Miller, was trailing.

"Sarah Palin is a beloved figure in the Republican Party, but now we shift gears—and, in the party, ideas are going to matter," said Katon Dawson, former chairman of the South Carolina GOP. He said Ms. Palin would "get fully vetted on her service in Alaska."

Ms. Palin's active media presence and endorsements in the midterm campaign have maintained her high profile as a spokeswoman for her party. In a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll in mid-October, Republicans cited her most often as the "most important leader or spokesperson'' for the GOP. Ms. Palin was named by 19% of Republicans in the survey, ahead of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, at 16%, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, at 14%, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, at 13%.

Independent voters also cited Ms. Palin as the "most important'' GOP leader, but they listed Mr. Romney second most frequently, with Mr. Huckabee a more distant third.

Other potential candidates include Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, South Dakota Sen. John Thune and Rep. Mike Pence (R., Ind.).

Matt Kibbe, president of the conservative tea-party group FreedomWorks, said Wednesday he would add a new name to the list: Florida Sen.-elect Marco Rubio, a 39-year-old Cuban-American who is a tea party hero and could help Republicans expand their reach to Hispanics and younger voters.

"The American people are looking for new blood," he said.

More at the link.

All this sounds serious, but the same assets will count in 2012 as in past races (grassroots support, media exposure and polling, and money --- lots of money, which will be Sarah Palin's key advantage over a number of other challengers for the GOP nomination).

The Boehner Evolution

At WSJ, "House Republicans and the challenge of divided government":

John Boehner is no Newt Gingrich, which suits the current public mood. Americans have had their fill of triumphalism and revolution in a House Speaker. But Barack Obama is also no Bill Clinton, a President with a gift for tactical politics and compromise. And therein lies the drama of the next two years as we return to divided government. We're probably destined more for gridlock than accomplishment, which after the last two years is an accomplishment itself.

***

In his press conference yesterday, Mr. Obama did not sound like someone ideologically chastened by the rout of his fellow Democrats. He said he felt "bad" for so many careers cut short, and that he was thinking about his own role in the defeat. But he rejected the thought that his own policies were to blame, save for the fact that they haven't—yet—produced an economic recovery robust enough to make everything else he did popular. His concessions to defeat, in short, were limited to a reflective personal tone, not substance.

The message we take away is that Mr. Obama will continue to press his "transformative" agenda in any way possible. Even on cap and trade—an issue that West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin literally shot in a TV ad to save his campaign—Mr. Obama said yesterday he would seek other means to accomplish the same goal of taxing carbon. We can only imagine what soon-to-be-jobless Democrats in the Coal Belt and Midwest thought of that one.

Which brings us to Mr. Boehner, who saw the Gingrich train wreck of 1995 up close as part of the leadership. He knows Republicans can't govern from the House, so his challenge will be picking the issues on which he might be able to succeed, or at least frame the agenda for the election of 2012.

This means focusing above all on policies for faster economic growth and job creation. In one sense, this is easier than it sounds: First, stop doing more harm. Merely putting an end to any new taxes or regulation will contribute to business confidence, removing the fear of new higher costs.

The immediate priority is extending the 2001 and 2003 tax rates, which expire on January 1. Democrats are already angling for some classic insider fudge, such as extending lower rates for the middle class permanently but only for a year for upper incomes and dividends. Or perhaps raising rates only on those who make $1 million or more.

The best growth policy and politics is to extend all of the lower rates permanently. Temporary tax cuts don't provide the same assurance for business investment or hiring, and the top marginal rates on income and capital investment are the ones that most affect economic growth.

Conceding the class war argument after picking up 60 or more House seats would also be a terrible signal of political weakness. If Republicans hold firm on tax cuts for everybody, they can force Mr. Obama and Senate Democrats facing re-election in 2012 to oppose an extension for the middle class simply to punish the rich. We think they will fold ...

More at the link.

This Is For All the Lonely People...

Hey, California GOP ... don't give up ...

The 'WTF' Election

Mark Schmitt is only half right at his dismissive essay, "The "F-You Election" (at Memeorandum). It's true that voters gave the Democrat-Socialists the epic middle-fingered salute last night, but not for the reasons Schmitt elaborates:

Tuesday's election, and months of Tea Party and other well-funded rebellions, brought back to power the F-You Boys, the F-You Men, and -- if exit polls confirm a narrowing of the gender gap -- F-You Women as well, exemplified by Sarah Palin's "mama grizzlies." Economic frustration is on the rise, and the results tracked it -- in the Midwest, in the border South, and particularly in the Rocky Mountain West, states like Arizona and Nevada that once believed they were "recession proof" are now enduring unemployment rates well over 10 percent. But there were also F-You Billionaires, like the Koch Brothers, whose principal economic frustration is that their inherited fortunes might be modestly taxed; and the F-You Wall Streeters, who two years ago supported Barack Obama, and whose industry was saved by government bailout, but who now seem to have convinced themselves that they were the passive victims of a hostile takeover.

Based on the survey research of Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, the "F-You" bloc is basically a vulgarized iteration of the working-class populist vote that has historically supported efforts such as the Reagan-Democrat electoral coalition and later Ross Perot's "United We Stand" movement that took 20 percent of the vote in 1992. Schmitt excoriates these constituencies because they are the exact opposite of the urban-arugula elites who look down their noses at down-market electoral demographics as modern-day Know-Nothings. Frankly, folks like Schmitt --- and his readers at the socialist American Prospect, and across the progessive fever swamps --- are simply devastated that their big goverment, we-know-what's-good-for-you agenda has been brutally repudiated. Yeah, voters said "F-You," but that after saying "WTF" for the past 18-months, as the Obama administration ran up the largest peacetime budget deficits in American history, while the unemployment rate skyrocketed to 10 percent, and while the Democrat Party passed an enormous and enormously-unpopular healthcare bill that sought to put the U.S. on the path to nationalized medicine.

Schmitt is right that the coalition of voters that ousted the Obama-Socialists is a largely unattached demographic that won't easily translate into long-term partisan gains for the GOP. But we already know that. Schmitt would be better off looking inward to examine why far left-wing progressive government got the boot on Tuesday. It's more likely that --- in coming elections --- the Democrat state-socialist ideology will continue to get the big "F-You" at the polls. And the frustrated working-class electorate will continue to demand good government and economic perfromance, exactly what hasn't been delivered amid the Obama interregnum.

The New Teen Drug Epidemic

Watching Dr. Phil:

Brooke and Tiffany are addicted to heroin and prescription drugs. They live together with their children, two 4-year-olds and a 4-month-old, and often go on drug-finding field trips as a family. A few weeks ago, Tiffany overdosed while the children were in the next room. Dr. Phil meets with the twins’ parents and siblings and is shocked by what he learns.

How's That Leg Tingle Doing Tonight?

I had actually clicked over to this exchange last night while watching the returns . Michele Bachmann's great. In fact, her comment from a couple of years ago on MSNBC is what put her on the national radar (below). I sent money immediately. At the video above Chris Matthews asks Bachmann if she's "in a trance tonight," and she comes back with a shot over the left-field wall and right out of the stadium.

Obama's Post-Election Press Conference — UPDATED!!

More than anything, the election was referendum on U.S. economic performance, and thus Barack Obama's leadership as steward of American prosperity. Election 2012 starts right now. See, "For Obama, Daunting Challenges of 2012 Start at Once."

I'm listening to the press conference at the White House page. I tuned in just a few minutes ago, so the discussion is mostly policy at this point, but he's nevertheless whining about how "dedicated public servants" who supported his ObamaCare train wreck have been sent packing: "We were doing the right thing." I'll update this post later with responses. Also, I have a lot of thoughts on last night's national tidal wave, and I especially have some harsh words for the voters of California. So check back later:

RELATED: Ed Morrissey, "Open Thread: Obama’s Post-Election Presser."

**********

UPDATE: There's a Memeorandum thread now. And see Steve Benen, "HEALTH CARE AND 'THE NEXT TWO YEARS'..." Plus, at ABC News, "President Obama Takes Responsibility for Democrats' Loss, Saying, 'I've Got to Do a Better Job': House Shifts to Republican Control, Dems Cling to Senate Majority."

Allen West Wins Florida's 22nd District

Former New York Representative Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., was often called "black America's Congressman." One of the first two blacks in Congress in the Post-Reconstruction Era, Powell was "a leader in the black community not just in New York, but all across the country."

It's an imperfect analogy (Powell was a Democrat), but my sense is that Lt. Colonel Allen West's election to Congress last night will have implications far beyond Florida's 22nd Congressional District.

Last night's results were bittersweet for Californians, and later I'll have some commentary and analysis on the results from the Left Coast, but Allen West's victory lifts my spirits. He will be a voice for moral clarity and patriotic values in Congress, and he is the most recent affirmation that we live in a color-blind society. More at The Other McCain, "VIDEO: Allen West Victory Speech":

Additional video at The Blaze, "Lt. Colonel Allen West’s Victory Speech: ‘Made My Toes Tingle’." See also the Palm Beach Post, "Congress: Allen West claims victory over incumbent Ron Klein."

RELATED: "Black Republicans Win First Congress Seats Since 2003."

ADDED: From Gateway Pundit, "Rep. Allen West Bashes Obama In First Interview “This Should Not Be About Punishing Enemies or Hand-to-Hand Combat”:

Election Night Bloodbath

Althouse is live-blogging, and what better clip to introduce the evening?

I came home around 4:30pm to meet my wife. We voted and picked up some dinner, and then my little boy at his after school program. The TV is on and I'm on Twitter and William Jacobson's live-event. Something of information overload here and I'm still filtering. I love NYT's headline, "Tea Party Victories Propel Republican Gains in Senate." And Stephen Green tweets, "The midwest, the south -- it's a bloodbath for the #Democrats."

2. Rand Paul's victory speech:

3. I just tweeted: "#Feingold Twitter stream reveals left's agony http://is.gd/gDXGG And see, "Tea Partier Beats Feingold‎."

And still on information overload, but here's a sweetie at the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, "Florida Congress: Democrat incumbents lose." And at WSJ, "Obama Is Dealt a Tough Hand: Depleted Democratic Ranks Forces Him to Choose Between Steering Left or Right."

4. California is toast http://is.gd/gE4wV http://is.gd/gE3ZD

That said, "President Doesn't Watch Midterm Election Train Wreck."

5. I'm not pleased with the People's Republic of California, and there's some deep corruption in Nevada, "Harrah’s Bosses Put Squeeze on Employees to Vote in Pro-Reid Effort."But it's a historic night overall. Signing off here with NYT, "G.O.P. Takes House in Setback to Obama: Democrats Are Positioned to Hold Senate Despite G.O.P. Gains."

Turnout Reports Alarm Democrats: Obama Plans Election Post-Mortem

We're seeing scattered reports around the country of weak Democrat turnout in battleground states. At the Scranton Times Tribune, "Turnout steady, voters cite negative campaigning as Election 2010 theme." And at Ballot Box, "Endangered Democrat: 'Turnout isn't where we need it to be'." And especially, at Washington Wire, "Coons Camp Expresses Turnout Worries" (via Memeorandum).

Turnout is stronger elsewhere around the country. Either way, President Obama, bracing for the worst, is planning a major national address tomorrow. At NYT, "The President Plans a Post-Mortem":

President Obama plans to talk about the results of Tuesday’s elections at a news conference Wednesday afternoon in the East Room of the White House, his staff announced.

Aides said they expected Mr. Obama to call for an end to the division that characterized the campaign and for a renewed focus on bipartisanship to solve the nation’s economic and other problems.

The White House is bracing for a bad night, anticipating an outcome that has virtually every political specialist predicting that the Democrats will lose the House but possibly hang on to the Senate. The White House wants to use the news conference the next day to help Mr. Obama reframe his presidency and signal that he heard what the voters were trying to tell him.

More at the link.

President George W. Bush fired Donald Rumsfeld after the 2006 midterms, and it's not clear that Obama will go that far, although he should and then some.

Crush 'em

Readers may remember Markos Moultisas' infamous exhortation from late in the 2008 presidential campaign, "Break Their Back, Crush Their Spirits":

See, here's the deal -- we're going to win the White House, we're going to win big in the Senate, and we're going to rack up big gains in the House. Republicans know this and are preparing for the worst. Now think of 2004 -- we really thought Kerry was going to pull it off. Remember that? And remember how utterly devastated we were when Bush pulled it off? The pain was so much worse because we expected to win.

So with conservatives bracing for the worse, they won't experience the kind of pain we did. Not unless we deliver a defeat even worse than their worst nightmares. And I'll be honest with you -- I want them to hurt as much as we did. I want their spirits crushed, their backs broken.

Well, payback's a bitch mofo. So let's reflect on Moe Lane's remembrance of all things Democrats past:

• These people told their clients to say that you hate African-Americans.
• These people told their clients to say that you hate Latinos.
• These people told their clients to say that you hate gays.
• These people told their clients to say that you hate women.
• These people told their clients to say that you hate Jews.
• These people told their clients to say that you hate Muslims.
• These people told their clients to say that you hate the poor.
• These people told their clients to say that you hate America.

Shall I continue?

• These people told their clients to say that you were fascists.
• These people told their clients to say that you were theocrats.
• These people told their clients to say that you were stupid.
• These people told their clients to say that you were uneducated.
• These people told their clients to say that you were hatemongers.
• These people told their clients to say that you were insane.
• These people told their clients to say that you were violent extremists.

I can keep this going for quite a while, you know.

• These people told their clients to call you unpatriotic.
• These people told their clients to call you cowards.
• These people told their clients to mock you at every opportunity.
• These people told their clients to deliberately use a sexual slur when referring to you.
• These people told their clients to trivialize and dismiss your concerns at every opportunity.

And now these professional Democrats are sad because they’re going to lose. Well, they deserve to lose. Because they’re bad people. And because the entire point of the United States of America is to make sure that bad people lose. So go vote on Tuesday, and make as many bad people as possible lose.

Righteously.

Yes, crush 'em, righteously and remorselessly. They deserve it:

Communist Party USA Does GOTV for Obama Democrats!

PREVIOUSLY: "Cartoonist Ted Rall Calls for Communist Revolution: 'I Would Like to See a Completely Leftist Proletariat Dictatorship'."

**********

The Marxist-Leninist revolutionary party is getting out the vote for the Obama-Dem-Socialists.

But for a second I thought my eyes were fooling me, 'cuz, you know, there's no "real commies" around any more. Just "imaginary" ones. Just ask Tintin, the blogging asshat at Sadly No!

"Because we do in fact hate commies, at least real commies, not the imaginary commies that community college Assistant Associate Professor Douglas sees lurking behind every potted plant."

If the grand alliance that elected Barack Obama comes out in full force to vote we can stop the Tea Party/Republican takeover, continue moving forward and push further for green jobs, union rights, health care and the safety net for the common good.

If voters fail to turnout, the Tea Party/Republican “Promise to America” alternative is clear: continued tax breaks for the top richest two percent which will increase the deficit, privatization of social security, repeal of health care and financial reform, no extension of unemployment compensation, outsourced jobs, increased racism and severe limits to democratic rights.

Momentum has been on the side of the Democrats in the last few days, but most races are too close to call. Hundreds of millions more dollars are being pumped into smear ads on TV, radio and internet in an attempt to defeat progressives and suppress voter turnout. The money is coming from shadow groups funded by unlimited corporate contributions.

When the choice before our country is made clear, voters can be convinced to go to the polls.

Everyone can make a difference. If you are not already connected, plug into one of the opportunities listed below, or find something in your own neighborhood to make your voice heard with door knocking, phone banking and helping line up others to volunteer as well.

Resources to help get out the vote:

AFL-CIO Labor 2010

One Nation Working Together Events

MoveOn — Stop the Takeover

Organizing for America Call for Change

Hip Hop Caucus — Respect My Vote

Rock the Vote / Register to Vote

Election Protection... Right to Vote

NCLR — Vote for Respect

Political Action Commission

Communist Party USA

Rebel Movement Takes Center Stage

Late polling shows Sharron Angle leading Harry Reid 48 to 45 percent in the Nevada Senate race. While few analysts expect the GOP to take the upper chamber, a loss for the Democrats' current Majority Leader will be one of the most prized GOP trophies of the election. And of course Sharron Angle is at the forefront of the tea party wave that's shaking the political system to its foundation (and proving the naysayers not only wrong, but plain old mean, with their relentless and unprincipled attacks on citizen patriots as bigoted backwoods hicks). We'll see how some of the other grassroots tea-party style candidates do, but Americans haven't seen this kind of change in decades, if not centuries.

The Wall Street Journal discusses the "rebel movement" in its Tuesday morning lead story:

For America's political establishment, Scott Brown's victory in the U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts became a warning flare: The tea party was a force to be reckoned with.

For Larry Lynch, it was a personal awakening.

Mr. Lynch didn't even live in Massachusetts. He was 1,100 miles away in Brunswick, Ga. A retired immigration enforcement agent, he had joined the Golden Isles Tea Party, he says, because "the government has gone too far" in spending and bailouts to big companies.

"All of us plain ol' Joes who worked all of our life—we got what we got because we worked for it, not because it was a handout," he says.

Mr. Lynch had never donated to a campaign or so much as put a bumper sticker on his car. But he sent $100 to Mr. Brown, hoping a victory in Massachusetts would make a statement to the nation. When Mr. Brown won, Mr. Lynch believed something in the country had shifted. Soon he had written checks to tea-party candidates in three other states.

"There was just this feeling of solidarity, that people are finally waking up," he says. "It was this feeling that, 'Yeah, we can make some changes. We can make a difference.'"

Whatever the result of Tuesday's races, 2010 will be remembered as the year of the tea party. In part, that's because of Mr. Lynch and the thousands like him who, in a time of national crisis, decided to throw themselves into politics. The movement, barely 12 months old at the start of the year, became the most dynamic political force of 2010.

Tea party-backed candidates didn't win every race they entered during 2010—and undoubtedly won't prevail in every race Tuesday. But in a spring and summer of surprises, they did displace at least a half-dozen long-time incumbents.

More broadly, the movement re-energized—and in some cases, scared—conservatives demoralized and dispirited in the aftermath of the Bush presidency and Obama victory. It brought dozens of new politicians to the fore, and redefined the debate on issues including health care and spending in a way that put Democrats on the defensive.

More here.

There's a lengthy discussion of the role of Tea Party Express in boosting Sharron Angle's prospects in Nevada.

It's all simply amazing, especially since I've been involved at the grassroots in many of the major political developments of the last 18-months. Today's going to be a huge day in American political history. I'm unbelievably excited.

George W. Bush Throws Out First Pitch at World Series

See: "Wow: Texas Still Really Likes George W. Bush (Video)."

And "Bush Throws Out Ceremonial First Pitch While Dad Looks On."

Video c/o Left Coast Rebel:

Candidates Pull Out All the Stops

From this morning's LAT.

Pulling out all the stops, as far as I can tell, means going as extremely negative as possible. As I was headed out the door this morning, I saw both of these spots back to back on KABC 7 Los Angeles. Negative ads work, which is why candidates don't pull 'em, even after repeated calls to lighten up:

Election Eve Rule 5

Via Theo Spark:

Mom Pleads Guilty in 'FarmVille' Baby Murder

No, I'm not making that up.

At Florida Times-Union, "Jacksonville mom shakes baby for interrupting FarmVille, pleads guilty to murder."

A Jacksonville mother charged with shaking her baby to death has pleaded guilty to second-degree murder.

Alexandra V. Tobias, 22, was arrested after the January death of 3-month-old Dylan Lee Edmondson. She told investigators she became angry because the baby was crying while she was playing a computer game called FarmVille on the Facebook social-networking website.

Updates at the link.

Hat Tip: Glenn Reynolds.

A Long, Nasty Campaign Comes to An End

At CNN:

No more robocalls interrupting dinner or angry campaign ads at every TV break -- the most expensive mid-term elections in history finally take place Tuesday, when voters decide who goes to Congress and governors' offices.

Polls indicate a dissatisfied electorate may clean house -- literally -- by tossing out the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives and possibly doing the same in the Senate.

With all predictions, including those of Democrats, signaling Republican gains, the election is considered a referendum on both the Democratic-controlled Congress and President Barack Obama's first two years in office.

Losses by the governing party are common in the first mid-term election it faces, but the shift Tuesday could rival or match historic levels dating back decades.

Unemployment of 9.6 percent amid a slow recovery from economic recession has been the dominant issue, with Republicans accusing Obama and Democrats of pushing through expensive policies that have expanded government without solving the problem.

Obama has led Democrats in defending his record, saying steps such as the economic stimulus bill and auto industry bailout were necessary to prevent a depression, while health care reform and Wall Street reform will lay the foundation for sustainable future growth.

As voting day approached, voter anger appeared to tune out the Democratic arguments. Conservative groups and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce funded attack ads that skewered increased spending under Obama and the health care reform bill he championed, while labor unions and traditional Democratic donors backed messaging that warned a GOP victory would bring back Republican deregulation and policies that caused the recession.

The long and bitter campaign season will cost more than $3.5 billion to be the most expensive non-presidential vote ever, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, a watchdog group.

Republicans need to win an additional 39 seats to claim the House majority, and 10 more Senate seats to overtake Democrats there.

With around 100 of the 435 House seats at stake considered "in play," or competitive, the anti-Democratic mood is predicted to result in big Republican gains.

More at the link.

A bland piece, but it almost always comes out that Republicans are "nastier."

'I will walk on f***ing broken glass to get to the polls tomorrow'

At Doug Ross, "Last Call for Liberty."

Warm Southern California Weather

I left my college at about 3:00pm, and it felt like a warm summer day!

Check the image from the live doppler's at KABC-TV Los Angeles. And here's the view out in front of the LBCC athletics facility. What a beautiful day.

RELATED: My college was featured at Los Angeles Times last week, "In Long Beach, a Promise to Help Struggling Students."

Dear PBS: Please Buzz Off

The solicitation from PBS came this morning. I didn't even open it, but it turns out the People's Broadcasting flacks contacted Michelle as well, to which she delivers the epic smackdown, "PBS to conservative blogger: Help us. Conservative blogger to PBS: Buzz off":

The following e-mail arrived in my mailbox this morning from taxpayer-supported PBS — home of Obama sycophant and drool bucket-carrier David Brooks and Palin-basher/Obama cheerleader Gwen Ifill.

Yep, the government media that has spent the last two years promoting the progressive agenda and sought a $550 million taxpayer bailout to push social justice activism now wants conservative bloggers to help publicize their election night coverage.

Michelle,

I wanted to send out a note to invite you to participate – even embed – the PBS NewsHour’s online-only live show tomorrow night (starting at 10 p.m. EST) ....

Dear PBS: Please buzz off.

We don’t need no stinkin’ state-sponsored media — and we certainly don’t need any Left and Left-er “legendary political columnists” telling us about the grass-roots electoral revolution they’ve ignored, derided, and demonized for the past two years.

Recent: Free the Taxpayers: Defund State-Sponsored Media.

Hat Tip: William Jacobson.

Revival of Volatility Signals Historic Era in U.S. Politics

At WSJ:

KOKOMO, Ind. — Voters this week look set to do something not seen since the early 1950s: Oust a substantial number of sitting House lawmakers for the third election in a row.

The apparent Republican resurgence suggests the country is caught in a cycle of political volatility witnessed only four times in the past century, almost all during war or economic unease.

This fall's election has generated dozens of House races, from the suburbs of Denver and Chicago, across the South, and up the Ohio River Valley into New England, where voters who rejected Republicans in the past two elections are threatening to throw their support back to the GOP. In many cases, they're returning to the same candidates they rejected earlier.

The phenomenon is on full view in Indiana, where Democrats are fighting to keep three House seats they won in 2006. Voters in all three districts have a history, going back more than a century in some cases, of rejecting incumbents in moments of strain.

"We know what we don't want better than we know what we want," said Steve Ellison, a commercial real-estate broker who hosted a campaign event in his Mishawaka home for Republican challenger Jackie Walorski, who is trying to unseat two-term Democrat Joe Donnelly in the state's Second District. "I suppose that helps explain the schizophrenia."

If Republicans win big on Tuesday, as polls suggest, it is far from clear how firm a foothold they will have. Voters hold unfavorable views of both parties. Republican leaders acknowledge they could easily be tossed in 2012, just as they were in 2006.

The country has seen similar gyrations before ...

More at the link.

I'll have more on this later, but there's been lots of polling data indicating voter preferences for smaller government --- and depending how robust are those findings, tomorrow's election results might herald a tendency toward limiting the growth of government, if not demands for smaller government per se. Democrats will resist that meme, since they're out to expand the state and monopolize power over the individual. Yet, while electoral volatility has long been a key aspect of the post-1960s dealignment era, the tea parties have revealed some of the deeper wellpsrings of limited government in American politics.

In any case, check the related thoughts at Q & O, "Win isn’t GOP mandate, just another chance."

Cartoon via Theo Spark.

Democrats for Dope

I've been keeping my eyes peeled, and this morning I finally found a chance to join William Jacobson's bumper sticker brigade.

This one's not too fancy, but I love it. Democrats for Dope:

And "Yes We Can!" And how's that working out for ya? Might need to smoke a couple o' fat ones tomorrow. Republicans are going to crush these brain-addled druggie-socialists, and none too soon either.

RELATED: At the Field Poll, "VOTER OPPOSITION TO PROP. 19 (MARIJUANA) HAS GROWN. STRONG OPPOSITION TO PROP. 23 (SUSPENDING AB32). CONTINUING SUPPORT FOR PROP. 25 (MAJORITY VOTE FOR STATE BUDGETS)."

Plus, "Southern Californians Are Sinking California's Marijuana Legalization Effort."

Sarah Palin Would 'Make the Sacrifices' and Run for President

At Los Angeles Times:

The former governor of Alaska predicts Tuesday's vote will serve as a rebuke to President Obama as well as the GOP establishment ...

Check the link.

She's going to run. She's done almost everything right since she stepped down as Alaska governor. And this has the establishment freaked out, as the lead story tonight at Politico indicates, "Next for GOP Leaders: Stopping Palin." Also at Memeorandum.

I tweeted my thoughts earlier, but Conservatives4Palin have a great response:

Rather than being fearful for the effects of the Obama agenda, the GOP Establishment appears to have a greater fear of Palin nomination and the "wrath" of "enthralled" Palin supporters. The GOP Establishment deems that nominating Governor Palin in 2012 would spell disaster. However, for whom would a Palin nomination be a disaster? The GOP Establishment? One of the GOP boys: Romney, Huckabee, Pawlenty, Gingrich, Thune, Barbour, Daniels? President Obama? The 2010 primaries have already given the Establishment reason to be "fearful" of "conservative grass-roots activists". Such grassroots, conservative campaigns and candidates gave people like Rand Paul, Joe Miller, and Christine O'Donnell their respective nominations.

With Victory, Republicans Would Face Uncertainty

From John Harwood, at New York Times:

If voters engineer the Congressional makeover that strategists in both parties now expect, the implications for governance over the next two years, and for America’s political future, remain a mystery. Ascendant Republicans will have to juggle the Tea Party’s determination to block President Obama’s agenda with centrist voters’ desire for the two parties to work together on jump-starting the economy.

“The looming victories for Republican candidates next Tuesday is not a validation of the Republican Party at all,” former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida said in an interview. Instead, he argued, they would reflect “a repudiation of the massive overreach” by Mr. Obama and Democrats and “disgust with the political class” for its failure to cooperate and deliver results.

“It could create a middle ground,” Mr. Bush concluded. “Or it could create a dismemberment of our political parties.”

In this fractious environment, the Senate race in Florida may represent the best-case situation for Republicans. After insurgent conservative Marco Rubio overtook Gov. Charlie Crist for the Republican nomination and built a general election lead, top Democrats were reduced to trying vainly to persuade their own nominee, Representative Kendrick B. Meek, to abandon the race to help Mr. Crist’s independent candidacy stop Mr. Rubio.

The equally chaotic Alaska Senate race could become the worst case. After Joe Miller, a Tea Party favorite backed by former Gov. Sarah Palin, defeated the incumbent, Lisa Murkowski, for the Republican Senate nomination, party leaders swung behind Mr. Miller and threatened to strip Ms. Murkowski of her position as the ranking member of the Senate energy committee after she announced that she was still running.

Now that missteps by Mr. Miller have left him plummeting in the polls, some Republican strategists are openly rooting for Ms. Murkowski’s unorthodox write-in campaign as their best hope for preventing an upset by the Democrat Scott McAdams.

The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, reflecting the fervor of his party’s base, recently declared that “the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

But former Governor Bush said Republicans must make clear that their top priority is increasing employment and economic growth. In particular, he advised Republicans to seek common ground with Mr. Obama and Democrats on trade and energy policy.

See more at the link.

Jeb Bush is mostly right, although governing instability next year is not going to destroy the parties. Folks should read Scott Rasmussen's essay, "A Vote Against Dems, Not for the GOP," especially the bottom line: "Elected politicians ... should leave their ideological baggage behind because voters don't want to be governed from the left, the right, or even the center. They want someone in Washington who understands that the American people want to govern themselves.

Ezra Levant Tribute Dinner, Canadian Centre for Policy Studies

Featuring Mark Steyn, pictured at left, with the lovely Kathy Shaidle and Ezra Levant.

More pictures at Blazing Cat Fur, and see Five Feet of Fury, "Last night's gala tribute to Ezra Levant in Ottawa, with keynote speaker Mark Steyn":

Canadian Centre for Policy Studies website is here.

127 Hours

It's an intense story. I remember first reading about it 2003. Mountain climber Aaron Ralston was pinned by the arm in a freak hiking accident in Utah. He ended up severing his arm and survived. The movie version is pretty intense, apparently. Folks have been passing out during screenings:

Two at the Telluride Film Festival, three at the Toronto International Film Festival and one at the Mill Valley Film Festival.

If that were a list of trophies for the new movie "127 Hours," which opens Friday, the filmmakers would be overjoyed. In fact, it's a partial tally of people who have collapsed during early screenings of the movie about a real-life hiker who amputated his forearm after a falling boulder pinned his hand in a remote canyon.

"I started to feel like I was going to throw up," said Courtney Phelps, who was watching "127 Hours" at a recent Producers Guild of America screening in Hollywood and grew ill just as the amputation scene ended. "So I went to the bathroom, and then I started feeling dizzy and my heart started racing."

Phelps fainted on the restroom floor, and was treated by paramedics who had been called when another moviegoer suffered an apparent seizure. "I have never had, even remotely, an experience like this," she said. "I'm a television producer. I know this stuff is not real."

Evidently, that doesn't matter.

Filmmakers always hope their work will affect audiences in powerful ways. But the strong physical and emotional responses generated by "127 Hours" have not only surprised director Danny Boyle and his creative team — they've also presented a delicate marketing challenge for Fox Searchlight, which co-financed and is distributing the $20-million movie.

"I would prefer that people not pass out — it's not a plus," said Stephen Gilula, the studio's co-president. "We don't see a particular publicity value in it."

Still, Gilula said the swoons — besides the incidents in Telluride, Toronto and Mill Valley, there have been at least eight more at other preview screenings — prove the film's artistic power. "It's the most empathetic experience I've ever seen," he said. The movie, rated R for "language and some disturbing violent content/bloody images," opens Friday in New York and Los Angeles, with more cities set to be added in the coming weeks.

More at the link.

I think I may catch this one in theaters.

They Hate Our Guts

And they're drunk on power, argues P.J O'Rourke, at Weekly Standard:

Perhaps you’re having a tiny last minute qualm about voting Republican. Take heart. And take the House and the Senate. Yes, there are a few flakes of dander in the fair tresses of the GOP’s crowning glory—an isolated isolationist or two, a hint of gold buggery, and Christine O’Donnell announcing that she’s not a witch. (I ask you, has Hillary Clinton ever cleared this up?) Fret not over Republican peccadilloes such as the Tea Party finding the single, solitary person in Nevada who couldn’t poll ten to one against Harry Reid. Better to have a few cockeyed mutts running the dog pound than Michael Vick.

I take it back. Using the metaphor of Michael Vick for the Democratic party leadership implies they are people with a capacity for moral redemption who want to call good plays on the legislative gridiron. They aren’t. They don’t. The reason is simple. They hate our guts.

They don’t just hate our Republican, conservative, libertarian, strict constructionist, family values guts. They hate everybody’s guts. And they hate everybody who has any. Democrats hate men, women, blacks, whites, Hispanics, gays, straights, the rich, the poor, and the middle class.

Democrats hate Democrats most of all. Witness the policies that Democrats have inflicted on their core constituencies, resulting in vile schools, lawless slums, economic stagnation, and social immobility. Democrats will do anything to make sure that Democratic voters stay helpless and hopeless enough to vote for Democrats.

Whence all this hate? Is it the usual story of love gone wrong? Do Democrats have a mad infatuation with the political system, an unhealthy obsession with an idealized body politic? Do they dream of capturing and ravishing representational democracy? Are they crazed stalkers of our constitutional republic?

No. It’s worse than that. Democrats aren’t just dateless dweebs clambering upon the Statue of Liberty carrying a wilted bouquet and trying to cop a feel. Theirs is a different kind of love story. Power, not politics, is what the Democrats love. Politics is merely a way to power’s heart. When politics is the technique of seduction, good looks are unnecessary, good morals are unneeded, and good sense is a positive liability. Thus Democrats are the perfect Lotharios. And politics comes with that reliable boost for pathetic egos, a weapon: legal monopoly on force. If persuasion fails to win the day, coercion is always an option.

Armed with the panoply of lawmaking, these moonstruck fools for power go about in a jealous rage. They fear power’s charms may be lavished elsewhere, even for a moment.

More at the link.

RELATED: Moe Lane, "Your feel-good election post of the weekend."

Image Credit: No Sheeples Here!

GOP Likely to Capture Control of House

From the last pre-election survey from Pew Research, "Record Republican Engagement Drives High Turnout Forecast." The GOP leads among likely voters 48 to 42 percent on the generic ballot, but I love the discussion of Republican enthusiasm:

Many of the patterns apparent throughout the 2010 campaign remain clearly evident in its final days. First, the Republicans enjoy a substantial engagement advantage. The GOP's overall lead is only evident when the sample is narrowed to likely voters. Among all registered voters, preferences are about evenly divided -- 44% Democrat, 43% Republican.

This represents one of the largest gaps in preferences between all voters and likely voters ever recorded in Pew Research Center surveys. As was the case earlier in the campaign, this is more a consequence of unusually high engagement among Republicans than disengagement among Democrats. Since September, a growing number of Democrats say they have given a lot of thought to the election, but they still lag Republicans by a wide margin. The current levels of Democratic engagement are fairly typical for a midterm election, though they are somewhat below what they were in 2006, when the party regained control of Congress.

Second, the engagement gap notwithstanding, the Republicans owe much of their lead to strong backing from independents and other non-partisan voters. As in previous polls, likely independent voters favor GOP candidates by a wide margin -- currently, 45% to 32%. Shortly before the 2006 election, independents backed Democratic candidates by a 42%-to-35% margin.

Third, compared with 2006, the GOP has made gains among many segments of the electorate, but especially men, voters ages 65 and older, and whites. The Democrats hold substantial leads only among African Americans, younger voters, those with low family incomes, union households and the religiously unaffiliated....

In the final weeks of the campaign, there are no signs that the large engagement gap favoring the Republican Party has narrowed. Republican voters continue to be far more likely than Democrats to say they have given a lot of thought to this year's election (70% vs. 55%); more Republicans than Democrats say they are more enthusiastic than usual about voting in this year's congressional election (61% vs. 41%); and Republicans are eight points more likely to say they are following campaign news "very closely" (39% vs. 31%).

These measures suggest that overall turnout is likely to be as high this year as in the 2006 midterm elections....

On many measures, the Republican engagement in 2010 is surpassing long-term records. Fully 70% of Republicans have given a lot of thought to this election, the highest figure recorded among either Republicans or Democrats over the past five midterm election cycles. And the differential between Republicans and Democrats is larger than ever previously recorded.

Because of this large engagement gap, the likely electorate is skewed toward voting blocs that favor the GOP. While 16% of all registered voters are younger than age 30, this age group makes up only 8% of likely voters due to their lower levels of interest and commitment to voting. Similarly, lower income Americans, who tend to favor the Democrats, make up a smaller share of the likely electorate due to their lower engagement levels.

The full report is at the link. But reading this discussion, especially the data on likely turnout among young and lower-income voters, suggests that all this recent talk of a last minute Democrat surge has been heavily exaggerated. Again, I'm reminded of Democrat strategist James Carville's extreme resignation at the party's expected losses, and his hunch that sometimes the tide is so large that all the corrupt detritus of the majority gets swept out.

CNN released a new survey today as well, "CNN Poll: Large Advantage for GOP as Election Nears." Republicans enjoy a 10-point lead among likely voters in the generic ballot, 52 to 42 percent. The CNN survey did not gauge voter enthusiasm, yet reports out tonight indicate sparse crowds for some of the days big-ticket political rallies. See, "Thin Crowd for Cleveland Campaign Rally," and "Thousands of empty seats for last Dem voter rally by Obama, Biden" (via Memeorandum).