Democrats Capture Deep-Red Mississippi House Seat
We have witnessed tonight a momentous election with far-reaching implications for the country -- in Mississippi, where the Associated Press is projecting that Democrat Travis Childers has won the special election for the open GOP House seat.
With 90% reporting, Childers leads 52%-48% -- and with the strongholds for GOP candidate Greg Davis mostly in, and some of Childers' stomping grounds still out. And all of this happened in a district that went 62%-37% for President Bush in 2004.
This election tells us a few things:
• The Republican strategy to tie down-ballot Democrats like Childers to Barack Obama has failed. Even in a district that Obama is unlikely to win, it doesn't appear that an Obama-based attack can actually cause real damage for a relatively conservative Democrat.
• The GOP is in serious trouble overall. They have now lost three special elections in what should be safe seats: The Illinois seat of former Speaker Dennis Hastert, the Louisiana seat of former Rep. Richard Baker, and now this.
• Dick Cheney's visit to the district didn't help -- or at least didn't help enough.
• Republican morale is probably going to be even lower now as it was before, as they have been reduced to 199 House seats, down from 232 seats after the 2004 election.
They were down to 199 already, this just clinches it.
Damn I wish we could comment on the main page, but I guess the Mothership Commander doesn't want us showing him up.
May 13, 2008 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, this is wonderful news. The republicans packed a musket full of "Rev Wright" and when they pulled the trigger it blew up in their own faces. Here's looking forward to November.
May 13, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Eric. This is the real story today. Anti-obama rhetoric doesn't work even in hard-core repub strongholds. And supers will take this more seriously than her win in WV.
May 13, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
SUCK. ON. THAT.
Boehner go bye bye.
May 13, 2008 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Republican strategy to tie down-ballot Democrats like Childers to Barack Obama has failed. Even in a district that Obama is unlikely to win, it doesn't appear that an Obama-based attack can actually cause real damage for a relatively conservative Democrat.
It doesn't appear...OH Eric...you are pathetic.
May 13, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Its the change they deserve.
May 13, 2008 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
That it is.
May 13, 2008 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Doesn't appear"?
You ARE a jackass, Eric.
It has now FAILED 3 times.
Doesn't appear?
You should be CELEBRATING this fact, not diminishing it.
It's going to mean something as WE DEMS go forward.
What a putz!
May 13, 2008 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eric is still giddy from her "strong win" in WV.
May 13, 2008 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction - 'Shellacing'
May 13, 2008 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL.
May 13, 2008 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was a bit too harsh there, Eric. I apologize. I re-read you post again and it's not nearly as bad as I took it to be.
I'll go to my room now.
May 13, 2008 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
This completely ignores the larger issue, which is that tonight I officially won the nomination of the Democratic Party to be the next President of the United States.
On to next week, and Kentucky, where I will officially win the Presidency!
May 13, 2008 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are Queen of the world, dear! Queen of the woooooooooorld!
May 13, 2008 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. I do not officially become Queen of the World until after the Puerto Rico primary.
May 13, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
So much for the argument that Obama will be a drag on down ticket races.
May 13, 2008 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
WOO-HOO!!!!!
This makes me very optimistic.
Mike Huckabee was just commenting on this on MSNBC and acknowledged that the Republican brand is seriously damaged. He said something like, it's not enough to just ride the elephant through the streets because the elephant might get shot out from underneath you!
May 13, 2008 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The best I can tell, about 350,000 West Virginians turned out at the polls today. Anybody have any idea what kind of turnout this is? Good? Bad? Indifferent?
May 13, 2008 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
A little higher than historic, but as I noted in the previous thread, well short of the 700k turnout the Clinton camp was looking for to shore up the "popular vote" shell game with this contest (the win itself was never in question).
May 13, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks!
May 13, 2008 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is even shy of the 400K that Greg Sargent was putting forward in his analysis of the popular vote race a few weeks ago on TMP-tv.
May 14, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's OFFICIAL:
SCOTT KLEEB BEATS THE REPUB TURNED DEM in NEBRASKA:
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/5/13/203910/736/98#c98
So farL
Kleeb 67 (24488)
Raimondo 25 (9186)
Very cool.
May 13, 2008 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even in a district that Obama is unlikely to win, it doesn't appear that an Obama-based attack can actually cause real damage for a relatively conservative Democrat.
Do you think it's even possible that the Obama linkage even helped? This may not tell us much about that district in specific, but Mississippi did go for Obama in the primary.
May 13, 2008 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
EIGHT POINT WIN FOR CHILDERS
IN MISSISSIPPI
OH MY GOD
May 13, 2008 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Milbank's article tomorrow is priceless:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/13/AR2008051302862.html?hpid=topnews
May 13, 2008 11:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is hysterical, thanks for posting. I particularly love this passage:
2:57 p.m., Yeager Airport, Charleston, W.Va.: A steep descent brings Clinton's plane to Charleston's hilltop airport. After an appropriate wait, she steps from the plane and pretends to wave to a crowd of supporters; in fact, she is waving to 10 photographers underneath the airplane's wing. She pretends to spot an old friend in the crowd, points and gives another wave; in fact, she was waving at an aide she had been talking with on the plane minutes earlier.
May 13, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was a particularly sad, but illuminating paragraph.
May 13, 2008 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You beat me to it. Brutal, ain't it ? LOL.
May 13, 2008 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is another interesting analysis of Childers win by Ben Pershing - enjoy
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2008/05/democrats_win_miss_special_ele.html?hpid=topnews
May 14, 2008 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm amazed at the amount of abuse Eric takes here, for no good reason. Perhaps he's somewhat biased toward Clinton, I don't know, but it's at the margins if it's anything at all. He's obviously a good Dem journalist. He's on our team. I wish some of the nastier regulars here would give it a rest.
May 13, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, smell you.
:-P
May 13, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll second this. The nasty tone is really grating and unnecessary. (Joshua can come out of his room now, though, that was a nice apology.)
May 13, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I concur Evie, Eric has done a great job and deserves a little slack. Many of the posters are quick to point out any flaws but rarely compliment Eric for any timely posts. If he has a bias, it is slight and he is only human.
If we are not careful, we will end up as Greg Sargent as the only bogger ;-)
May 13, 2008 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
*** clinking glasses ***
I'll drink to that, on to November.
Did anyone else watch the video Obama sent out about Saturday's voter registration events in all 50 states? Damn, he's good. I'm from Illinois, and I knew he was good before this, but, geez, the man is good.
May 13, 2008 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
This was supposed to be in reply to A Missouri Voter who said, "here's to November". But I forgot to check the damn box. This interface is still clunky.
May 13, 2008 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Childers WINS!!!
Anti-Obama ads DON'T WORK!
Yeah baby!!!!
May 13, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
WOOOOOOOOO-HOOOOOOO!
Now if there was just a single Democrat running for President, we'd be set.
May 14, 2008 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Grand Obliterated Party....
There Will be Blood this fall
May 14, 2008 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bloody enough for 59 senate seats? Obama's veep breaks the ties.
May 14, 2008 1:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course the Senate can never be tied 59-59, skip that last bit, it must be tired, and I must be late...
May 14, 2008 1:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would like to point out that in tonight's victory AA turnout was huge. Do people really believe that an HRC coup will reap the same rewards in the fall?
May 14, 2008 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I actually considered endorsing Obama last night, thinking, well, compared to most politicians he's not that bad, probably not dumb, and maybe even up to the job, despite a lack of any clear evidence to prove it. But then I thought, the three presidents in modern (post 1900) history with the least experience, by far, are W, Obama (assuming he were elected) and JFK. And W and JFK are actually among the worst, along with Harding.
W and JFK: loutish rich kids who went to Ivy institutions based on family money and social class. Undistinguished academic careers.
Obama: pompous middle-class kid who goes to Ivy institutions based on checking the "AA" box. Undistinguished academic career.
W: "businessman" living off sweetheart deals from people wanting a connection to Sr.
JFK: "writer" of Pulitzer winning book, written by someone else.
Obama: "law professor" who never published a single scholarly article, usually a requisite to teach law.
W: governor for a few years
JFK: Senator for a term
Obama: Senator or a few years
Performance:
W: well, pretty obvious
JFK: because he got assasinated, people get all weepy over Kennedy, but he was in fact not at all that good a president.
Obama: well, as Borat says, if you want, you can let a monkey fly a plane, but watch out, you don't know what's gonna happen!
So you have guys who never actually accomplished anything on their own, who are privileged by one reason or another, whose purported achievements are actually make-believe, and then they have the serious responsibilities of the presidency to handle.
Sorry, Obama's not proven and definitely not ready.
May 14, 2008 3:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think we have a winner for the most ludicrous post of the day. Congratulations. Take off your blinders and look at the so-called "experienced" presidents and their records, sport. You don't know history. Worst yet, you want to show everyone else you don't know history, for which you succeeded!
May 14, 2008 6:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
oh, which "experienced" presidents to whom do you refer? Nixon? Aside from Watergate, can be judged very successful, especially in foreign policy. Johnson? Successful in many respects, except Vietnam, a war planned and initiated by Kennedy advisors. Hoover? Hard to say he was unsuccessful, more so simply unlucky. I think you confuse "success" with "historical circumstances." And I assure you, I know American and world history far, far better than you dumb fucks : )
May 14, 2008 6:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe you need to be reeducated. Go see the links below, smartypants.
May 14, 2008 6:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, since you're running around the site posting the same tripe multiple times, I'll post the same response:
Weak. Try this:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Info/experience.html
or Time's take on the experience yardstick:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1717926,00.html
- and -
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1717927,00.html
And a few more:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/07/presidential_experience/
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/01/17/Worldandnation/Presidential_experien.shtml
http://theroaringlyon.blogspot.com/2007/12/krugman-on-presidential-experience.html
Bottom line is: experience may matter if you're looking for a surgeon, but appears to have no bearing on presidential performance. Besides that, Obama's political/executive experience falls within the low-midrange of past presidents, a far cry from "inexperienced". There have been many successful presidents with less experience, and in terms of years of experience, Obama actually ranks right about the same as Abraham Lincoln.
Your experience argument is a dud.
May 14, 2008 6:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yilla, I agree with you; I trained many young men prior to going into the field...What I learned was, it wasn't the looks, it wasn't the pedigree. It was the ability to work as a team!
May 14, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's why Obama
May 14, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
oh brother, very simplistic "analysis," with some very misleading "statistical analysis" thrown in too look convincing, and much the same as the "W doesn't need to be smart" arguments I heard in 2000.
You're just a another dumb bunny, sorry.
May 14, 2008 6:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK, Genius. Please give your own detailed explanation for your opinion. At least I offered analysis of some sort. The best you've come up with is labels and assertions without a single argument to back up your opinions.
Or, if you can't form an argument of your own - which I'm beginning to suspect - give us some links that illustrate how important this experience stuff is Obama seems to be lacking. Cite some historical date, facts, illustrations - heck, even a well written essay. I've done my work. I've given 6 links that either disprove your assertions, or at a minimum make a case that the POTUS-related experience is difficult to quantify, measure, compare and ultimately make a conclusive case for.
Your turn.
May 14, 2008 7:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
well, experience matters, it's logically obvious. true, hard to generalize about. But what experience does Obama have? "Law professor" without being qualified, community organizer for a few years (loser job), a local pol for a few years, and a few years in the Senate.
It ain't a lot. But we'll see, if he fails on the scale I think he will, I'll laugh my ass off.
May 14, 2008 7:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
But, by the same token we can see that there have been presidents with plenty of experience, GOBS of experience, and that didn't seem to help. Aside from presidents, look at Rumsfeld, Rice, etc. Lots of experience, horrible results.
Obama's argument makes more sense - judgement matters more than experience. Obama actually predicted much of what has gone wrong in Iraq when he originally came out in opposition to it. I'll take that kind of foresight and clear thinking over the experience of, say, McCain, any day.
Ultimately, we won't know what kind of President Obama will be until he's served. We can make all kinds of declarations, but none of know.
Yet, the experience argument remains weak. There is no evidence for it, and plenty of evidence that suggests it makes little or no difference at all. But, feel free to cite evidence that does prove your point. I'm open to it. But all you've done so far is bluster and call names. Gotta do more than that to make your case.
May 14, 2008 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
oh, in 2002 and 2003, everyone was in the dark, and you could make one of two guesses. Obama guessed right. Not what I would cite as "judgment."
May 14, 2008 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
The anti-Obama rhetoric worked enough to persuade Childers to insist that he had never met Obama. The winning Democrat distanced himself from Obama.
May 14, 2008 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Honorable Robert DeNiro (D-Miss.)
Sorry, but I can't look at that photo of Childers without thinking of Rupert Pupkin.
Anyway, congratulations to him and to Chris Van Hollen. An awesome victory!
May 14, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
provided the relatively conservative Democrat actively puts more distance bewteen himself and Obama then Obama and the Senate subcommittee that he chairs.
Childers explicitly denied that he had been endorsed Obama.
If you google Childers website, the word Obama only appears once and only because Childers reprinted a newspaper endorsement that used Obama.
Childers himself refers to he who can't be named as a Senator from Illinois. http://www.childersforcongress.com/42908.htm
May 14, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink