Conventional wisdom says that this Carl Paladino versus Fred Dicker of the New York Post episode probably won’t go over very well for Paladino as he tries to become the next governor of New York.
Then again, this not your conventional election year. I’ll be interested to see what the next round of polling data has on this race.
And this is somewhat interesting–this isn’t the first time that Dicker and New York politicians nearly came to fisticuffs.
This piece in today’s Journal runs along the same line as my previous post on how the Obama White House (plus its liberal enablers in the House and Senate) and its radical agenda are hurting Democrats on the campaign trail:
If Democrats running against the White House prevail, the result could have a profound impact on the party’s ability to govern. More than 30 Democrats with proven records of independence are campaigning on this theme, and scores more have started trying to do so late in the game. Even if the party maintains control of the House, it almost certainly won’t have a functioning liberal majority, Democratic aides and lawmakers say. Conservative Democrats would be emboldened to go their own way, especially if many colleagues who stuck with the president lose.
Rep. Bobby Bright, an Alabama Democrat who calls himself a “fiercely independent” conservative, said the Democratic leadership largely let conservative House Democrats vote according to the dictates of their districts, a low-risk approach for a party with 77 more seats than Republicans. A loss of even a dozen would put Democratic conservatives in the catbird seat, assuming they return and remain united.
In Democratic caucus meetings throughout 2009 and this year, White House senior adviser David Axelrod repeatedly made the case that wavering Democrats would be tarred by Republicans with the president’s agenda whether they liked it or not. So, he argued, they might as well vote with the White House.
But resistance to the agenda is rewarding some House Democrats as the midterm elections approach. Mr. Bright from Alabama voted against the president on health care, climate change, the stimulus act and Wall Street regulation—and in one of the most conservative districts represented by any Democrat, he is strongly in the running.
You don’t say? You mean voting on a conservative agenda will get you reelected? Shocker!
I’ve always maintained that one of the big reasons the Democrats were able to gain majorities in 2006-2008, was that moderate Democrats in red and purple states were able to win, in lieu of a Republican party gone astray. Voters in those districts wanted conservative candidates, they just happened to find them in the Democratic party as opposed to the GOP.
With those majorities in place, ramming the Obama agenda (veering to the left) through the congress was not going to sit well with those voters. The result is what you see now–a potential collapse of that center majority.
Reid Wilson sums up the Democrats’ problem for this election season:
[...] West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin (D) faces a more difficult race for the state’s open Senate seat than he once contemplated. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee purchased television time on Manchin’s behalf, even though most surveys peg his approval rating north of 60 percent. But Manchin finds himself running neck and neck with businessman John Raese, who took just 34 percent of the vote when he ran for the seat in 2006.
Manchin’s problems are manifest in one individual: President Obama. Obama took just 43 percent of the vote in West Virginia in 2008, and his popularity has only slid further. Republicans are using the same playbook against Manchin as they are against other Democrats, labeling him an Obama rubber stamp.
In a coal state that fears cap-and-trade legislation as a threat to an already teetering economy, that label is deadly. Manchin, who won re-election in 2008 with more than 70 percent of the vote, suddenly finds himself in serious jeopardy as Republicans build rhetorical bridges between him and the national Democratic Party. If those associations can hurt the popular Manchin, they can hurt lesser-known House members running their first re-election campaigns.
In 2008, every politician in the Democratic party, up and down every ticket were elbowing each other to jump on Obama’s Hope and Change Express.
For the 2010 midterms anyway, that train has derailed.
I’m having some trouble trying to comprehend this:
Ms. O’Donnell is ubiquitous on conservative cable shows and talk radio, with her candidacy hyped by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and the Tea Party Express, based in California. But you can barely find a trace of Ms. O’Donnell or her campaign in Delaware itself, a state that is smaller than some national parks.
Whatever else Ms. O’Donnell may symbolize, she stands for the idea that politics in the online age is increasingly borderless and can often be shaped more by national causes than by anything having to do with local constituents.
The bulk of the contributions her campaign has received have come from outside Delaware, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, and until this week she had no campaign office in the state. She and a few aides were working out of her town house.
If Ms. O’Donnell is actually running anything like a traditional campaign for the Senate, there isn’t much evidence of it right now. The campaign’s Web site lists no public events at which voters or reporters can meet her or hear her speak. (And in any event, Ms. O’Donnell has declared herself off limits for interviews with national reporters.) Last week, a spokeswoman for Shirley & Bannister, a Virginia-based consulting firm that the O’Donnell campaign recently hired, said she would find out about any scheduled appearances by the candidate, but then she stopped returning e-mails.
At the state Republican headquarters in Wilmington, staff members said Monday that they had no information about whether Ms. O’Donnell was out campaigning. A pile of O’Donnell yard signs, leaning against a wall near the door, was the only obvious signal that the party even had a Senate candidate. (The headquarters continues, though, to get calls from out-of-state voters who are furious at the local party for not supporting Ms. O’Donnell.)
After she won the primary, I wrote that the O’Donnell campaign would have to hunker down and work their tails off to get the message out about what she stands for, set the narrative and take her message to the people of Delaware. Part of that was going out and pressing the flesh with some old-fashioned politicking.
I disagree with O’Donnell’s decision to stop doing media interviews–I’m not a fan of when politicians do that as it makes it appear as if there’s something to hide, or they lack confidence in themselves.
But back to the Times piece. I understand the grassroots campaign is an online phenomenon more than anything (over $2 million raised doesn’t come in the mail), and people more astute than I on these matters have better insight as to what’s really going on in Delaware. At least I hope so, anyway. But I’m just getting the feeling that O’Donnell is not going about this the right way, and needs to get out there more and not less. Again, I hope I’m wrong.
UPDATE. It’s been a little more than two weeks since the primary and the O’Donnell campaign still hasn’t run a television ad. Jim Geraghty scratches his head:
We are a month away from Election Day, and so far, the O’Donnell campaign has yet to air a television ad. I am informed by those close to the campaign that the ads should be going up “soon,” with the precise launch date still being determined by those producing the ads.
[T]he Chris Coons campaign and the DSCC have each aired two ads since the primary, and obviously O’Donnell has endured being the punchline of every late-night comedian and Saturday Night Live. This race may turn on whether or not her image in Delaware voters’ minds has been irrevocably set, or whether she can show that there’s much more to her than her old appearances on MTV and Bill Maher’s show.
T minus thirty days…
Being a liar and a lunatic has it’s advantages for your opponent:
Daniel Webster, a Republican running for the House in Florida, sent out a fund-raising appeal Tuesday, according to a spokesman — not long after his Democratic opponent, Representative Alan Grayson, went up with an advertisement comparing Mr. Webster’s stances on women’s issues to the Taliban’s.
The response? Brian Graham, the Webster spokesman, says the campaign raised more than its original goal of $50,000 the first day the appeal went out. On Wednesday evening, a graphic on the candidate’s Web site appeared to show that the campaign had surpassed its revised goal of $100,000.
“Today has been better than we expected,” said Mr. Graham, who added that the campaign had also placed fund-raising pleas on Google and the Drudge Report. “We’ll be re-evaluating that goal again.”
Coupled with this morning’s bombshell poll from Florida, this is even more good news from Florida’s 8th district.
In one of the most closely watched U.S. House races in the nation, Republican Daniel Webster now holds a 7-point lead over Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson in Central Florida’s 8th Congressional District, according to a new Sunshine State News Poll.
Webster, a former state senator, leads the freshman congressman 43-36 in the survey of 559 likely voters conducted Sept. 25-27. TEA (“Taxed Enough Already”) Party candidate Peg Dunmire drew 6 percent and NPA hopeful George Metcalfe garnered 3 percent, while 9 percent remained undecided (2 percent cited “other” and 1 percent refused to state).
Digging deeper, the numbers look even worse for Grayson as 51 percent of respondents said they had an unfavorable view of the Orlando-area congressman.
“Grayson has real problems here,” said Jim Lee, president of Voter Survey Service, which conducted the poll for Sunshine State News.
“He’s even more unpopular than the president, which is not surprising given how controversial he has been with his rhetoric, overall style and TV ads.”
Lee added, “It’s fascinating that both Grayson and the president have virtually the same image (a positive/negative ratio of 34/51), but Grayson is actually disliked more by independents (36/47 favorable/unfavorable) while Obama is only 36/37.”
Keep in mind that Grayson is a rock-star to liberal Democrats. To them, his flame-throwing and ignorant comments and lies exemplify what the entire Democratic party should be about. No moderates, remember?