New Poll Shows Race Tightening for #NCSEN

At Politico, "Democratic poll: Kay Hagan lead narrows."

It's Public Policy Polling, a Democrat firm that polls for Daily Kos.

They were ranked most accurate after the 2012 election, so there's that.

Governor Jerry Brown Blames Climate Change for California Wildfires

Governor Moonbeam is back.

At the Los Angeles Times, "Gov. Jerry Brown presses message on climate change."

Vulnerable #Democrat Kay Hagan Falsely Accuses GOP Opponent of Supporting #ObamaCare

It's come to this.

Hagan's political fortunes are so dire that she's mounting bald-faced lies in radio ads, attempting to smear her opponent of --- wait for it! --- actually supporting the ObamaCare cluster that passed both chambers on a straight party line vote.

Just when you think you've seen it all, at Free Beacon, "Obamacare Supporter Kay Hagan Attacks Opponent in Ridiculously Dishonest Radio Ad."

http://t.co/vUPbMHFwaA pic.twitter.com/TIFbtl6K8N

— Free Beacon (@FreeBeacon) April 22, 2014

And where's Obama now? Well, anywhere Kay Hagan ain't. She's literally --- literally --- running from the President and his signature health care fiasco.

Jerry Brown for President?

Better than Oprah Winfrey, I guess.

Well, he's a little old actually (at 75), but Jack Ohman makes the case, at the Sacramento Bee, "Jerry Brown is running for president?"

Mentioned there is MoDo's interview with the governor, which is interesting, "Palmy Days for Jerry."

And from last summer at the New York Times, "Brown Cheered in Second Act, at Least So Far."

Again, he's too old. But I'll give him credit for his recent comments on fracking and marijuana. That said, as long as far-left Kamala Harris is in office, California's screwed on civil rights and social issues.

FLASHBACK: "Back to the Future with Jerry Brown at the Helm in California."

Pro-ObamaCare Ads in Vulnerable Democrat States Don't Actually Mention #ObamaCare

I just love this, from idiot Democrat propagandist Greg Sargent, at WaPo, "The Morning Plum: Dems hit back over Obamacare" (at Memeorandum):

I’m told the ad is backed by a $500,000 buy. Meanwhile, according to media buy information, AFP has already spent over $7.2 million on ads targeting Hagan, one of four incumbents who will be key to whether Dems hold the Senate. So this underscores how lopsided spending is right now. Dem operatives who are sounding the alarm about the spending disparity appear genuinely worried. In substantive terms, what’s noteworthy about this ad is that it goes after the GOP repeal stance:

Senate candidate Thom Tillis sides with health insurance companies. He’d let them deny coverage for preexisting conditions, and raise rates for women needing mammograms. Tillis supports a plan that would end Medicare as we know it, and force seniors to spend up to $1,700 more for prescriptions. Thom Tillis. He’s with the special interests. Hurting North Carolina families.

The ad never mentions “Obamacare” or the “Affordable Care Act” or even “health reform.” This reflects the dilemma Dems face in red states. The overall law — and its chief sponsor – remain deeply unpopular. But Dems believe the full repeal stance is also problematic — and they have to stand behind the law – so they are emphasizing the components in it that remain popular, while arguing Republicans would do away with those things and return us to the old system.

The "old system." Oh, like the old healthcare system that actually worked?

F-king morons.

Watch the ad at the link.

Kay Hagan's gonna be out on her ass, the dumb [four letter word here].

More at National Journal, "Another Democrat Apologizes for Obamacare."

Running Scared: Vulnerable Democrat Senators Won't Be Caught Dead with President Obama

Look, Obama's like a cancer infecting the Democrat Party from top to bottom. And I couldn't be more giddy at the left's tribulations. F-k 'em.

At LAT, "Democratic senators who won with Obama's help may not want it now":

NASHUA, N.H. — For better or worse, they are the class of Obama.

Eight Democratic senators swept into office partly on Barack Obama's 2008 coattails are facing their first reelection bid without the benefit of having the president on the ballot and at a time when his approval rating is near an all-time low.

The future of the Senate, and President Obama's ability to push through an agenda during his final two years in office, rests largely on their fate.

Democrats hold a five-seat Senate majority, when two independents aligned with the party are included. That means Republicans hoping to retake control of the upper chamber for the first time since 2007 need to pick up six seats this fall.

And the party is targeting this first-term Democratic group to help them get there.

On the front lines are North Carolina's Kay Hagan and Alaska's Mark Begich, running in traditionally conservative states that Mitt Romney carried in the last presidential election. Mark Udall in Colorado and Jeff Merkley in Oregon watched their already tough races tighten after the rocky rollout of Obama's healthcare overhaul.

Two former governors, Mark R. Warner of Virginia and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, are now seen as potentially vulnerable, and their races have drawn interest from high-profile Republicans. Former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie is taking on Warner, while former Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown, a rising star in the party before his 2012 defeat, is flirting with a run in New Hampshire.

Only Tom Udall of New Mexico and Al Franken of Minnesota, from two of the bluest states in the group, appear safe at this early stage.

"All of these senators are dealing with a fundamentally different environment than the one in which they were first elected," said Nathan Gonzalez, an analyst for the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report. "The question is how much worse than 2008 is it going to be?"

Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York, who helped guide the eight to victory in 2008 as chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, says they are not as vulnerable as some people think.

"Despite the onslaught against them, their numbers are pretty good," he said. "Obviously an off-year election is more difficult. But each of them has a good record of accomplishment and each of them is a more savvy politician today than they were then."

Of five races where recent polling is available, Hagan trails her potential Republican opponents and Mark Udall and Begich have slight leads in their races. Shaheen leads Brown in a hypothetical matchup. Only Warner polled above the 50% threshold that analysts say is a key indication of an incumbent's strength.

All eight are focusing their campaigns on local issues and accomplishments, something that's right out of the standard campaign playbook for first-term senators.

But Obama — whose historic 2008 candidacy helped them snatch seats that had been in Republican hands — keeps emerging as a major factor in the races as Republicans seek to exploit the president's growing unpopularity with conservatives and independent voters...

Yeah, well, Obama, the narcissistic asshole, does have a repulsive tendency to inject himself into everything. President Selfie the Clown. Stay away from the f-ker.

Let them all blow chunks I say. It's going to be a blowout.

More at that top link.

Three Ominous Signs for #Democrats Heading Into 2014

From Sean Sullivan, at WaPo:

With just days until the 2014 midterm election year is officially upon us, there are fresh signs of trouble for congressional Democrats.

A trio of findings spells bad news for Democrats in a new CNN/ORC International poll released Thursday: The generic ballot test has broken sharply toward Republicans, voter enthusiasm for Democrats is lower than it is on the GOP side, and President Obama is shaping up as an albatross for candidates who support him.

Let’s take a closer look at each one starting with the generic ballot test...

It's gonna be a bloodbath.

Continue reading.

PREVIOUSLY: "Democrats on Losing Side of 13-Point Polling Swing Since October."

Democrats on Losing Side of 13-Point Polling Swing Since October

Because the government shutdown was supposed to hurt the "hostage taking" Republicans, or something.

At Politico, "Poll: Big gain for Republican Party":

Democrats are on the losing end of a 13-point swing in the polls since October, resulting in an early lead for the GOP heading into 2014, according to a new poll on the midterm elections released Thursday.

The CNN/ORC International survey shows Republicans holding a 49 percent to 44 percent lead over Democrats, a swift reversal from just two months ago, when the Democratic Party stood steady with an 8-point lead over the GOP, 50 percent to 42 percent.

In the generic ballot test, the poll asked respondents whether they would vote for a Democrat or Republican in their congressional district, without providing any specific names.

The survey follows a tumultuous few months for Democrats, who have been hurt by the rocky rollout of the health insurance exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act. In October, the GOP was reeling from the perception that House Republicans were to blame for the government shutdown.

The new numbers will very likely concern congressional Democrats, but CNN Polling Director Keating Holland cautions against making any early predictions on the 2014 elections based on the new poll results.

“There is just under a year to go before any votes are actually cast, and the ‘generic ballot’ question is not necessarily a good predictor of the actual outcome of 435 separate elections,” Holland said. “A year before the 2010 midterms, for example, the Democrats held a 6-point lead on the generic ballot, but the GOP wound up regaining control of the House in that election cycle, thanks to an historic 63-seat pickup.”

That's true, but since the Democrats are collapsing because of ObamaCare, the administration's umpteen delays are only going to keep the healthcare disaster at the top of the headlines for 2014. Panic only begins to describe the response to these numbers among Democrat congressional and Senate candidates. It's going to be a bloodbath. See, "The Coming Democrat Congressional Elections Massacre."

Nancy Pelosi's Broken #ObamaCare Promise

Fox News reports on AFP's attack on House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

And an interesting analysis from Frank Luntz. Watch it.



More from Matt Vespa, "AFP PUTS PELOSI IN THE CROSSHAIRS."

The Coming Democrat Congressional Elections Massacre

Reid Wilson, at the Washington Post, is not so bullish on Democrat chances in 2014.

See, "Is another Republican wave building?":

President Obama’s poll numbers are at record lows. The health care law that serves as the cornerstone of his domestic policy legacy is even more unpopular. And there are few chances to change the conversation among a skeptical public that isn’t happy with Washington.

Sound familiar? It should: The national political climate today is starting to resemble 2010, when Republicans won control of the House of Representatives by riding a wave of voter anger. Wave elections are rare. Only a handful of times in the previous century has one party racked up big wins. Democrats won big handfuls of House seats in 1930, 1932, 1948, 1958, 1974, 2006 and 2008. Republicans won back more than 40 seats in 1938, 1942, 1946, 1966, 1994 and 2010. And with nearly a year to go before Election Day, voters’ moods can change dramatically.

But the rocky rollout of the Affordable Care Act and President Obama’s crumbling support suggests another wave might be building. While voters usually punish a president’s party in at least one midterm election, they may be winding up to deliver another smack to President Obama’s allies on Capitol Hill.

Voter dislike of ObamaCare cost Democrats the House in 2010. It could cost them the Senate in 2014. The poll numbers hint at the toll the Affordable Care Act has taken on the Democratic Party. A CNN/ORC International poll conducted November 18-20 shows 49 percent of registered voters favored a generic Republican candidate for Congress, compared with 47 percent who favored a Democratic candidate. A Quinnipiac University poll conducted November 6-11 shows the generic ballot tied, at 39 percent each.

Historically, Democrats have held an advantage of at least a few points on the generic ballot, even when election results are a wash: Democrats held a six-point edge just before Election Day 2000 and picked up a grand total of one seat. Democrats led Republicans by one point on the generic ballot just before the 2010 elections, when Republicans rode to a sweeping victory.

And there’s no sign that Obama will become more popular. Presidents who see their approval ratings dip so dramatically in the second term rarely see their numbers improve. Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon’s approval ratings never recovered after the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal (Nixon, of course, didn’t stick around to see just how far his ratings could fall). George W. Bush’s approval rating sank in the spring of 2005, and continued falling through the end of his term. Obama’s numbers are starting to resemble Bush’s trend lines.

For much of Obama’s tenure, even voters who say they disapproved of his job performance still retained a favorable impression of the president. That’s increasingly not the case: In the latest Washington Post/ABC News survey, conducted earlier this month, Obama’s unfavorable rating, 52 percent, tops his favorable rating, 46 percent. It’s only the second time [pdf] the number of unfavorable impressions outweighed the favorable ones. Reaction to the bungled rollout of the health care law is overwhelmingly to blame. Already, the fallout has been evident: Public surveys in Virginia showed Gov.-elect Terry McAuliffe (D) leading Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) by wide margins in the wake of the government shutdown. But Cuccinelli made the final weeks of the race into a referendum on ObamaCare, and McAuliffe’s support began to erode. On Election Day, McAuliffe won by just 2.5 points, a narrower margin than even his internal polls showed. Another week, and Cuccinelli might be governor-elect.

Democrats will say the Republican Party is in even worse shape than they are, and they have a point: In the October Washington Post/ABC News poll, just 32 percent of voters said they had a favorable impression of the GOP, compared with 46 percent who had a favorable impression of the Democratic Party. And Republicans still have not articulated a clear governing vision for the country, even a year after failure to do so emerged as a central criticism of Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign.

But...

Continue reading.

And even if things swing toward the Democrats' in coming months, the fact remains they've got to pick up 17 seats to flip the House, a difficult proposition with the incumbency effect as strong as ever. See Charles Cook, "Anti-Incumbent Fever Won't Oust Many Incumbents."

Karl Rove had an excellent analysis on this the other day at WSJ, "Can the Democrats Retake the House in 2014?"

As for the Senate, see Hotline on Call, "The Hotline's Senate Race Rankings: Democrats on Defense."

It's going to be big. I can't wait until next November.

FLASHBACK: From November 2009, a year after Obama's election, and one year before the GOP takeover of the House, "Payback is a Bitch: 'Political Climate for 2010 Not as Favorable to Democrats'."

Yep, it's a gonna be a bitch for those f-kers. Screw 'em. Make them eat the ObamaCare turd-pile.

Corruption: Exposing Barack Obama's Illegal Foreign Campaign Money Loophole

From Katie Pavlich, at Townhall:

A new report obtained by Townhall from the non-partisan Government Accountability Institute [GAI] shows the Obama campaign has potentially violated federal election law by failing to prevent the use of fraudulent or foreign credit card transactions on the official Obama for America [OFA] donation webpage.

For the past eight months, GAI has been investigating the potential influence of foreign online campaign donations in House, Senate and presidential elections. The report was conducted using spidering software and found thousands of foreign sites linking to campaign donation pages. The investigation was conducted with the guidance of a former U.S. attorney. GAI is led by Peter Schweizer, who recently exposed congressional insider trading in his book Throw Them All Out.

“As FBI surveillance tapes have previously shown, foreign governments understand and are eager to exploit the weaknesses of American campaigns,” the report says. “This, combined with the Internet’s ability to disintermediate campaign contributions on a mass scale, as well as outmoded and lax Federal Election Commission rules, make U.S. elections vulnerable to foreign influence.”

OFA seems to be taking advantage of a “foreign donor loophole” by not using CVV on their campaign donation page. When you donate online to the Obama campaign using a credit card, the contribution webpage does not require donors to enter a secure CVV number (also known as CSC, CVV2 or CVN), the three-digit securing code on the back of credit cards. This code, although not 100 percent effective, is used to ensure a person making a purchase physically possesses the card. According to the report, 90 percent of e-commerce and 19 of the 20 largest charities in the United States use a CVV code, making its use standard industry practice in order to prevent fraud. Another anti-fraud security measure includes software, better known as an Address Verification System, to verify a donor’s address matches the address on file with the credit card company. The investigation could not determine whether OFA is using this type of software to prevent fraudulent or illegal donations.

Hmm...

Sounds familiar. I wonder where I've heard this story before?

Oh yeah: "Obama’s Fundraising Fraud."

Maybe the dead-tree press will do something about it this year? You know, like reporting it.

There's more from Pavlich at the link.

I'm not holding my breath. The FEC never goes after campaign finance fraud. The system's a joke.

Is the U.S. Headed for Recession?

From David Wessel, at the Wall Street Journal, "When Even Pessimism May Be Too Optimistic."

Supreme Court May Uphold Arizona's SB 1070

Actually, the Court may be willing to uphold a part of the law.

William Jacobson reports: "Oral argument reports: Supreme Court appears poised to uphold key part of Arizona Immigration Law (SB 1070)."

And see CSM, "Arizona immigration law: Another setback for Obama at Supreme Court?"

Arizona's SB 1070 Headed to Supreme Court

At the Los Angeles Times, "Showdown on Arizona immigration law goes to Supreme Court":

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court and the Obama administration are set for another politically charged clash Wednesday as the justices take up Arizona's tough crackdown on illegal immigrants.

It will be a rematch of the attorneys who argued the healthcare case a month ago, and another chapter in the partisan philosophical struggle over states' rights and the role of the federal government.

And once again, President Obama's lawyers are likely to face skeptical questions from the high court. Last year, the court's five more-conservative justices rebuffed the administration and upheld an earlier Arizona immigration law that targeted employers who hired illegal workers.

To prevail this year, the administration must convince at least one of the five to switch sides and rule that the state is going too far and interfering with the federal government's control over immigration policy.

The election-year legal battle goes to the heart of the dispute between Republicans and Democrats over what to do about the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the country.

Arizona and five other Republican-led states seek a stepped-up effort to arrest and deport illegal immigrants. They say the federal system is broken and fault Obama for what they consider a "relaxed" enforcement policy.

If cleared by the courts, Arizona would tell its police to check the immigration status of people they lawfully stop and suspect of being in the country illegally. If they were unable to show a driver's license or other "proof of legal presence," they would be arrested and held for federal immigration agents. Arizona also would make it a crime to lack immigration papers or for illegal immigrants to seek work.

FLASHBACK: "'Phoenix Rising' for SB 1070 at Arizona State Capitol."

Obama Justice Department Scapegoats Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio

I met Sheriff Joe, a couple of times, during my coverage of the immigration protests in 2010. He doesn't get emotional about these things.

At Los Angeles Times, "Pattern of civil rights abuses alleged in Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Maricopa County."

"Don't come here and use me as a whipping boy for a national and international problem," he said. "We are proud of the work we have done to fight illegal immigration."

Supreme Court Agrees to Review 9th Circuit Ruling on Arizona's SB 1070

At New York Times, "Court to Weigh Arizona Statute on Immigration." (At Memeorandum.)

And Governor Jan Brewer applauds the Supreme Court's announcement on Facebook.

FLASHBACK: "'Phoenix Rising' for SB 1070 at Arizona State Capitol."

Supreme Court May Rule on Arizona's SB 1070

The Obama administration challenged the legislation, and a ruling favoring Arizona could hand the president a huge election-year defeat.

At Los Angeles Times, "Supreme Court may weigh in on Arizona immigration law":

The court has already agreed to decide whether the Obama healthcare law is constitutional. If it takes the immigration case as well, both decisions probably would come down by late June, just months before the presidential nominating conventions.

FLASHBACK: "'Phoenix Rising' for SB 1070 at Arizona State Capitol."

Happy Labor Day to Opus #6!

That's my friend Opus #6 of MAinfo. We met at the Michele Bachmann rally at Knotts Berry Farm in early 2009. Opus left a wonderful comment at the blog yesterday, at my essay, "Housing Downsizing!":

This housing downsizing post has to be my favorite American Power post of all time. Probably because I downsized in June. And the kids and I, though a little cramped in our 3-br rented condo, are enjoying the community pool with lots of friends to play with, way less stress worrying about bills and repairs, and extra money in the checking account. I also loved seeing your mom. You and I are in the same generation and our parents are on the same track. She looks lovely. And a sweet nurturing woman is a blessing to any family.

I pray that you and your family enjoy the new digs. That you have many happy days in your new place, lots less stress and building character as your kids observe you handing the changing nature of our society and economy not with bitterness but with courage.

I responded at the post.

It means a lot. I've met many wonderful people through blogging. We share our lives online and we meet in person as well. Have a great Labor Day, Opus!

Emerging Democratic Majority?

Michael Barone debates Ruy Teixeira on Capitol Hill, August 18th. My money's on Barone. Teixeira's been forecasting a coming Democrat majority as long as I can remember. Here's this report, shortly after the "Hope & Change" election of 2008: "New Progressive America: Twenty Years of Demographic, Geographic, and Attitudinal Changes Across the Country Herald a New Progressive Majority."

Teixeira's not quite as confident today, "Key Socialist Fears “White Working Class” Could Defeat Obama."

Freakin' commie douchenozzle.

Republican Party Splitting Over U.S. Role in Libya

I don't think Obama's Libyan war violates the War Powers Act, but unlike my fellow neocons, I'm more reserved in my support for the NATO campaign against Gaddafi. Recall Victor Davis Hanson's essay at the start of the war, "A Middle East Policy in Shambles." Completely ad hoc, and spineless too, it's hard to get excited about this, especially since Afghanistan (and Pakistan) remains the central danger point in U.S. international affairs.

Anyway, I think my concerns are not unfamiliar among the wider conservative establishment. Michele Bachmann, in particular, seemed to impart the sense that America's a bit overextended at the moment. See, LAT, "GOP splitting over U.S. role in Libya and Afghanistan":

Republicans are facing a widening fissure over the U.S. role on the world stage as party leaders decide whether to confront President Obama this week over his policy toward Libya.

House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and other congressional Republican leaders have said that U.S. involvement in NATO's bombing campaign, which hit the 90-day mark Sunday, violates the War Powers Act. The House could seek to cut off money for the war as it takes up the annual Pentagon spending bill this week.

Several of the party's potential presidential candidates have called for the U.S. to quit the fight in Libya and questioned the depth of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan.

Other Republicans have begun pushing back, criticizing what they see as a growing isolationist agenda within the party. The result is that Republicans, once relatively unified on foreign policy issues, now have a division that parallels the long-standing split in Democratic ranks.

The debate was on public display Sunday as two of the GOP's leading figures on defense and foreign policy, Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, criticized Republican presidential hopefuls and congressional leaders who question the country's military intervention around the world.

"There has always been an isolationist strain in the Republican Party," McCain said on ABC's "This Week," "but now it seems to have moved more center stage.... That is not the Republican Party that has been willing to stand up for freedom for people all over the world."

Graham said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that any debate over cutting funding for the Libya war would encourage resistance by Libyan leader Moammar Kadafi. "Congress should sort of shut up," he said.

McCain and Graham also criticized former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who's leading in the polls for the party's presidential nomination, for referring to the fighting in Afghanistan as a "war for independence" that the U.S. should leave to others.

"I wish that candidate Romney and all the others would sit down" with U.S. commanders "and understand how this counter-insurgency is working and succeeding," McCain said.

Romney was one of several presidential hopefuls who, in last week's Republican candidate debate, focused criticism on U.S. military operations in Libya and Afghanistan. None took the sort of hawkish positions that McCain advocated during his presidential run in 2008.

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), for example, questioned what U.S. interest is at stake in Libya. "We were not attacked," Bachmann said. "We were not threatened with attack. There was no vital national interest."