YES YES

SUCK IT YOU CORPORATE FASCIST FUCKS

SUCK IT

Republicans ran attacks ads against Obama in this district thinking it would help their candidate. IT FAILED MISERABLY!!!!

Eric

And yet you didn't care to credit Obama for these wins. Surely, Hastert seat was due to a major role played by Obama and his team.

And yet, I remember you gleefully wondering a few posts back whether Obama was "hurting" Cazayoux.

At least, I should be happy that you didn't report that Cazayoux won despite Obama "hurting" him.

What a pathetic bias !

Okay, whats the over/under for anyone out there for how many seats the republican party loses this fall in the house? I think maybe 23 or 24 maybe.

I'm out -

- it's such a good night!

One love

Quick! Dems! Don't coalesce around the obvious nominee. Battle it out for the next five months!

After all, political atmospheres like this are extremely common. Take some time and money and spend it on beating up Obama and Clinton!

You'll be glad you did...er...McCain will!

Eric's not a heavy lifter lately. The writing's on the wall, and this site like Hill's campaign is turning into a broken record.

So much for the "Obama is a liability" BS.
This was a 59% Bush district.

If I may challenge conventional wisdom, it's long been assumed that low turnout elections like special elections are an advantage to Republicans, since they turn out more than Democrats. However, I have observed since 2004 a trend I suspect started earlier, wherein Democrats are winning low turnout elections. This one I noticed had a 24% turnout.

I'm not sure what this tells us, other than anyone suggesting low turnout elections aren't worth contesting is a fool. Maybe Democrats even benefit now, though I can't say why. It might suggest to Republicans that they don't benefit from suppressing votes as much as they think. That's assuming they don't find some excuse to blow off this loss, like they did every sign in 2006. Sorry Mr. Rove, but that's "the math".

"Cazayoux was losing until they counted the Baton Rouge votes which were heavily AA."

Well, it's a little more complicated than that. Baton Rouge has the bulk of the people in the area. The near outlying areas tend to be "white flight" suburbs, which tend to be Republican. Baton Rouge is a huge college town and Obama has lots of support at the college level. Plus folks in Baton Rouge tend to be better educated and more liberal than folks in the surrounding areas.

Which isn't to say race isn't a factor, but the city vs. country, city vs. suburb, college town dynamics are all in play in Baton Rouge, as well.

All that said, I recall running into strong Obama support from the old white guy set in rural Louisiana waaay back last year when Obama couldn't get endorsements from black politicians because they didn't take him seriously and the meme of the moment was "not black enough". Reverend Wright cleared that one up, eh?

There is a much larger trend here:

These days Wall Street is backing the Dems (Hillary is notoriously tight with Wall Street and corporate America but Obama has seen his share from hedge funds as well).

As a result, there is a dangerous bait-and-switch that will be played. The fact is, Hillary is really an elite, and the other Dems are not far behind. This is not your great-grandfathers' FDR coalition. This is far more like the GOP from the 50's. So they will run like populists but expect to stand in line behind the suspenders and pinstripes during the great bailout of 2010.

Or said another way: the Dems have a real chance to become the "corporate fascist fucks" mentioned above.

Those Dem coffers are full. Careful what you wish for.

This was also a good test of the bigot factor, and how Obama will influenc this whole election cycle, they ran anti-Obama ads to try to keep this Democrat from taking LA, as if it was Wright running for office.

I think most bigots actually delude themselves into imagining everyone else is prejudiced, and IU would wager now they are all crying foul and working even harder for constitutionally illegal Voter ID requirements, because "Those Dems must have cheated." They just can't imagine a world without prejudice.

This is definitely a bigger victory than it looks like on the surface, if we can win seats in the south like this, this may actually become Rush's feared "50-state landslide."

I have alwasy anticipated a Democratic victory at many levels in this election, but this is evidence it is bigger than anything even the most optimistic among us have hoped for.

stop and think how silly we sound,,, if Obama is President, why do we need a veto-proof majority?

But it would be great to have both a Democratic President and a veto-proof majority.

Remember the "nuclear option" the R's were posing back in their Delay days?

HYPOCRITES!!!

...they are now suffering even in their bastions for their shameful historic hubris.

"Dems Capture Long-Held GOP House Seat In Louisiana"

This isn't about Obama. This is about a man that won an election in a very red district. Give this man the credit please. His win is most important in the whole scheme of things no matter who wins the Presidential election.

Dems have got to look more at the big picture. This win makes that big picture sweeter!

Just as it did in 1932, its going to take a Democratic electoral landslide to undo the multiple disasters inflicted on the country by the Republicans. I think that the Cazayoux election and the Foster election are signs that the public may be coming to this realization.
Its too bad the country has to go through so much pain, but unfortunately its probably necessary.

to think you still have 46% of the voters in that state after all that they have gone through and yet to go through would still vote republican says a lot about their lack of intellegence. it it is somewhat scary to know we still have these type of people voting as we try to gain back our democracy.

The rules of the House of Representatives do not permit filibusters. That's only in the Senate.