It's Election Day in America, and as is so often the case in this
fickle land, the results of the 2010 midterm elections are up in the air. Although President Obama's party is expected to suffer significant losses,
record numbers of districts remain competitive, and even minute errors in polling could mean the difference between
a historic Republican landslide and
an unexpectedly robust Democratic defense. At stake are control of not just the Senate and House, but myriad state and local offices, many of which will play key roles in the dynamics of the 2012 presidential race -- and, more subtly but no less crucially, the once-in-a-decade
congressional redistricting process. Much uncertainty surrounds the behavior of the electorate -- how many will turn out, and how informed will they be? To help move those statistics in the right direction, look inside for voter guides, national and state fact checkers, and an assortment of other resources to keep tabs on as the results roll in.
[more inside]
posted by Rhaomi
on Nov 2, 2010 -
858 comments
Yesterday, Ralph Nader sued the Democratic Party for conspiring to prevent him from running for president in 2004. The lawsuit alleges that defendants used “groundless and abusive litigation” to bankrupt Ralph Nader’s campaign and force him off the ballot in 18 states, and names as co-defendants the Kerry-Edwards campaign, the Service Employees International Union, private law firms, and organizations like the Ballot Project and America Coming Together that were created to promote voter turnout on behalf of the Democratic ticket. According to
attorney Carl Mayer from the team that filed the suit, interviewed this morning by Democracy Now!'s Amy Goodman,
"what this lawsuit will do, and the importance of it is, is to set a precedent so that the two-party monopoly system that shuts out minor parties in a way that other Western democracies never do, that this will set a precedent to prevent this type of intimidation and harassment."
posted by finite
on Oct 31, 2007 -
236 comments
Advice for weary, wandering Democrats Note to Democrats: "Barack Obama put it exquisitely in his victory speech: "Government can help provide us with the basic tools we need to live out the American dream."
Here's a dirty little secret. The Republicans know this. Nothing scares them more than us returning to our simple answers. ..."
posted by Postroad
on Apr 11, 2006 -
93 comments
A Letter to the American Left By Bernard-Henri Lévy.
"Nothing made a more lasting impression during my journey through America than the semi-comatose state in which I found the American left.
I know, of course, that the term "left" does not have the same meaning and ramifications here that it does in France.
And I cannot count how many times I was told there has never been an authentic "left" in the United States, in the European sense.
But at the end of the day, my progressive friends, you may coin ideas in whichever way you like. The fact is: You do have a right. This right, in large part thanks to its neoconservative battalion, has brought about an ideological transformation that is both substantial and striking. "
posted by mountainmambo
on Feb 11, 2006 -
84 comments
John Edwards: "No military draft if Democrats win" - which comes as a relief to me today as my own son turns eighteen. However, as it stands, the
Selective Service System has been ramping up its ability to begin a draft as early as Spring 2005, especially a possibility should Congressional Bills
S. 89 and
H.R. 163, known as the "
Universal National Service Act of 2003" pass in the House and Senate. Many people who have been in the military feel a draft would actually
degrade the quality of our military forces. Nonetheless, this time around, a draft would include men and women. And the Selective Service is also looking for a few good people to
become a Selective Service System Local Board Member, one of the tasks of which is to guarantee
"
that each CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR is properly CLASSIFIED, PLACED, and
MONITORED."(emphasis added)
posted by jackspace
on Sep 15, 2004 -
61 comments
Dem Blogs This community is filled with bloggers and I wondered if anyone had seen Maureen O'Dowd's take on how the Presidential Candidates are starting to use, for better or worse, "blogging" as a method to get their "message" across. ( Registration required )
posted by RubberHen
on Aug 13, 2003 -
9 comments
Howard Dean is closing in on the lead in New Hampshire, with 16% to Kerry's 17%.
Dean is appealing to voters by being
outspoken in an environment in which many of his fellow democrats are submissive to Bush's approval rating, and due to anticipation of his
universal health care plan, which he is soon to unveil. Already established as the most net-savvy candidate, Dean has hundreds of real-life
meetups planned for
today.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly
on Jun 4, 2003 -
38 comments
The First Democratic Debates were last night, but you wouldn't know it from the media's coverage. Barely a story on CNN. Howard Dean stole the night, with over a hundred screaming supporters outside the debates. The only person there with supporters was the
blogging Presidential Candidate. There were students there from U.C. Berkley, Washinton, Georgia, North Carolina, and Kentucky. All thanks to the power of blogspot, and
meetup. Whether or not Dean gets the nomination, this will be a campaign for the history books.
They'll be on c-span all day today.
posted by cjoh
on May 4, 2003 -
67 comments
Democrats finally speaking out? "Today the Republican majority leader in the House of Representatives announced that -- and I quote -- 'Nothing is more important in the face of war than cutting taxes.' Let me make this clear: Never in its history has the United States passed a big tax cut in a time of war. We have always believed in shared sacrifice. " Sen. John Kerry's speech at the Jefferson Jackson Dinner April 3 in Georgia.
(Salon article, click the free day pass to view)
posted by Espoo2
on Apr 6, 2003 -
29 comments
Daschle, Gephardt: 'political strategy is working' "WASHINGTON (CNN) - As cable networks projected continued Republican dominance of the House and a Republican takeover of the Senate, two leading Democrats met with reporters to announce that 'everything is going according to plan' and the future of the Democratic Party looks bright.
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle expressed optimism about Democratic prospects for the next elections, saying that "our strategy of leaving no daylight between ourselves and the president is clearly working. Although in today's election the voters were still able to distinguish Republicans from Democrats, resulting in some lost seats for us, I'm confident that by 2004 we will regain our lead by becoming utterly indistinguishable from Republicans."
Great humor!!
posted by nofundy
on Nov 6, 2002 -
10 comments
Do Republicans dream of electric sheep? A new study concludes that Republicans have scarier and more frequent nightmares than Democrats. As usual, the explanation for this is split among party lines:
"What do you expect after eight years of William Jefferson Clinton?" -- Kevin Sheridan, Republican National Committee deputy press secretary.
"If George W. Bush were the leader of my party, I'd have trouble sleeping at night, too," -- Terry McAuliffe, Democratic National Committee chairman.
Wow... deja vu
all over again.
posted by Dirjy
on Jul 10, 2001 -
11 comments
Grand Old Petroleum. GOP. Get it? The DNC really cracks me up sometimes. This is, however, an interesting development in politics. Is every issue going to have its own clever webpage in the future? The mind boggles.
posted by CRS
on May 17, 2001 -
17 comments
The link between Reagan's party and Clinton's persecution After power itself, conservative Republicans have wanted nothing more than to round out the 20th century with the ledgers balanced. They needed a Democratic Richard Nixon and a Republican Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Tom Teepen makes a pretty good case here. Clinton wasn't Nixon, and Reagan sure as hell wasn't FDR.
posted by mac
on Apr 2, 2001 -
16 comments
Why HAVE the Republican and Democratic parties shifted about so dramatically? In most periods from 1789 to the present, the US has had two dominant national parties competing to control government: Federalists vs Republicans (1790s-1810s), National Republicans vs Democratic Republicans (1810s-1830s), Whigs vs Democrats (1830s-1850s), Republicans vs Democrats (1850s-present). Despite the changing names, the underlying coalitions have been remarkably stable. In effect, there have been only two main parties in American history: the northern party and the southern party. [via A&LD]
posted by rushmc
on Jan 3, 2001 -
7 comments
Michael Lynch
characterizes the D2KLA (or whatever they're calling it) protesters as idealistic and irrational. Also there's some interesting quotes and tactics discussion from the LAPD.
posted by dcehr
on Aug 16, 2000 -
21 comments
