Zouk is not ridiculed for the predictions. The ridicule is for the lack of morality in the discussions.

"Clear crisp paragraphs" should not distract from morally untenable basic premises.

Scalia and Buchanan make beautiful logical progressions in support of their positions. Unfortunately, their basic premises are significantly flawed more often than not.

That a charlatan can write well, does not make them any less of a charlatan.

You write well...

The GOP spent $5 mm to win a special election against an ultra-liberal woman candidate in a strongly conservative, military, rock ribbed southern California district by 3 %age points?
I mean, the GOP has everything in their favor and still can't win a majority in one of their safest districts.
They can make fun of the Dems all they want, but in other districts where they don't have the calendar, money and enrollment advantages, they will not be smirking after November.

when I first started posting here some time back I compared the administration and people working with them to child molestors...

that still holds true,

you want to stop them, point at them, identify them....

it's not an event based activity it's a way of life

you need to see the way of life and indentify the perpatrators for what they are...

forget about the single events,

"I was just sitting down,"

"I didn't mean any harm,"

and so on...

patterns of actions...consistent lying, persistent giving of the countries assests to certain individuals....

you could take the Republican investment in the California election to replace dicklyss cunning ham....

recoreded phone messages from the President and Vice President, to certain households and an unprecedented amount of cash spent to make sure that a Republican got elected to cunning ham's seat....

what was that about?

people feeling like they were on a roll, wanting to take the steam off of people feeling like they could get the country back....

did they advertise about how they did it?

no, it was on NPR....not as an exposure, just as an aside...

2 + 2 ='s 4

front page the next day, "Republicans Win in California, Democrats Can't Deliver,"

I'm not partisan, but the Republicans, president and vice president were deeeeeeeply invested in that single election....

because it damped spirits...

not because it was good for the country, not because it was the best person elected...

because the machine was prevented from grinding to a halt...perception is everything,

isn't it?

isn't it more important than actually delivering something...

it's all about the ad, the soundbite, and keeping the sheep sleepy....sleep sleep sleep...

deception is a well used tool, and WHO OWNS the media? apparently not the people, it's only being used to control them, not inform them...

corporations do....

evil is not a single thing, it's the intent behind the movement...

it is the reason child molestors usually have a plan...it's not a single event

the only way to stalk a predator is to be one...

remove the stain of ugly from America today...

pay attention and call a perp a perp

.

what are Americans being fed? and why do the rest of the people in the world refer to them as "the mushroom people?"

is it because they're short and fat and sport foppish hair does?

or because they are kept in the dark and fed BULLSH-it...

by your lead er s....

baaaaahhhh baaaaaaaaa baaaaaaaaa

I have enjoyed the posts so far. To Alan in Missoula, I have actually had a couple of brief telephone conversations with Senator Testor and I was very impressed. I am a willing pupil for Montana Politics.

I actually come from what I fondly refer to as "The Belly of the Beast" in Orange County CA. Although the bottom line is did your candidate win or not, we do measure successful campaigns in percentage points. The 50th I think is reasonably comparable to South Orange County. I have often speculated that some of our Republicans here would rather cut their own throats than vote Democratic. Busby missed it, but given the make-up of the district, she isn't doing badly. Perhaps she can raise by a another 3 points by November - that would do it.

A couple of my takes on the 50th. First and foremost is the mainstream media out here. Given the competition, it is tough to get your story across. I have (in jest) considered getting a freeway chase going for publicity. Somehow, I think my message would still not get out.

The other thought does focus on our redistricting. After the census, our legislators (on both sides of the aisle) forged what I would call a "corrupt bargain" in assuring the seats for the next ten years (I am sure they would have loved in perpetuity) would remain in the current political "hands" as they were. Great for our legislators - add term limits to that and imagine the mess. Termed out legislators are running their spouses and children in these seats. It really gives a bad stench to the term, "family business".

Our Gropenfuhrer did attempt to put redistricting on the ballot in last November's special. (An Aside: Californians are currently politiked to the point of exasperation). Although the base premise was good (Create more competative districts), the method was bad. No one trusts retired judges (generally political appointees) and no one wanted the expense of immediate redistricting followed by (from my understanding) total voter approval.

Our Legislative Leaders have said they will put a workable method on the ballot but we are still awaiting the proposal. We still have time between now and 2011; however, I do not know how you can get a neutral panel. Everyone seems to have an agenda to promote.

Term Limits (still popular), creating safe districts, ballot box budgeting and legislation and (dare I speak heresy?) the fall out from Proposition 13 in 1978 have ruined our state and the spirit of democracy.

I agree with Rothenburg. Busby came within 5 points of 50%, it wasn't enough to win, but the tide is headed out to start the wave.

Here is what Stu Rothenberg wrote BEFORE the election, and BEFORE all the spin

http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogspot.com/2006/06/californias-50th-worst-nightmare-or.html

Well, I suggest spending the intermittent five months learning to spell and properly command the English language. If this proves infeasbile for you to accomplish, then save the damage your spelling inflicts upon the educational value of political debate and cease posting.

Unlike you Dems, I don't know everything. I do make errors on occasion. I never made most of the claims you all attribute to me. but I do stand by my prediction and will return in November to gloat - again.

You're right Ohio guy. Zales Ecton was a one-term wonder in the 1946 election. He was beat by the man who turned out to be our greatest senator, Mike Mansfield, in 1952. He was senate Majority Leader under JFK, LBJ, Nixon and Ford, then Ambassador to Japan under Carter and Reagan.

Ironically, this election is over Mike Mansfield's seat. Montana has a ticket-splitting tradition too. There really is a lot of swing vote out there. We pride ourselves out here in "voting for the man (or woman), not the party." The Legislature is often split between parties.

We do like populists. Governor Brian Schweitzer is one of those. Jon Tester is another. He was raised on the farm he now runs as an organic grain farm. He was the pioneer in seeking that niche of the market, where prices aren't governed by the big grain merchants. His leadership ability is obvious because he rose to lead his party in the Senate in his second tern as Senator from a district that covers the fertile winter wheat country of North Central Montana.

He has a ranch too, and is a real rancher, where Conrad Butrns is a pretend cowboy from Missouri. He's cultivated the cowboy hat, snoose-chewin' bit. As they say in Texas, all hat, no cattle. That's not a Montana accent that rolls off of Conrad's lips. He's from Missouri. Tester's family traces back in Montana to the homestead days.

Hey, I have an uncle in Columbus. One of my Vietnam buddies lives in Cincinatti and another in Akron.

Alan - I actually just found out today that Burns is only the second republican elected to the Senate in Montana history. I never knew that. Makes it even more ridiculous for someone to say that Montana will not send a "D" to the Senate huh? But then again, the same people regularly make similar up-is-down statements on this blog.

Yes, they will go door to door in Montana.
We have a lot fewer doors to knock on here. That's how Tester defeated Morrison. What do you think? that we all live miles from each other out here? You are way out of your league in discussing Montana politics.

Ohio guy. You are very astute. Montana has a long history of electing Democrats to Congress. See the answer I wrote to Zouk. Burns is actually the only Republican elected to the Senate in the past 60 years.

Zouk. You obviously know nothing about Montana political history or even the current political climate. Our other Senator, who pulled more than 70 percent of the vote last time is a Democrat. Two years ago we elected a Democratic Governor and a Democratic legislature.

And you think we can't elect a strong Democrat over a crippled Burns? Dream on Zouk. Montana has a long history of Democratic Senators. Conrad Burns is the only Republican Montana sent to the Senate since the 1946 election. That's a 60-year span. It's Conrad that went against the trend by defeating Melcher who lost because the left wing and the Green vote stayed home on him in 1988. Burns barely survived a challenge from political unknown Brian Schweitzer in 2000. Schweitzer is now Montana Governor.

You are propbably one of those who know Montana is somewhere west of Ohio, but can't decide which side of the Dakotas it's on. I've been an observer of Montana politics for more than 35 years. Burns had a nice run against the grain. But he's done it now. Only a miracle will see him taking another oath of office in 2007.

Conrad Burns Quotes:

>> In an April article in Vanity Fair, Abramoff said, "Every appropriation we wanted [from Burns' committee], we got ... I mean, it's a little difficult for him to run from that record." > Back in 1994, while campaigning for a second term, Senator Burns dropped by a local newspaper, The Bozeman Daily Chronicle, and told an editor an anecdote about one of his constituents, a rancher who wanted to know what life was like in Washington.

Mr. Burns said the rancher asked him, "Conrad, how can you live back there with all those n*****s?"

Senator Burns said he told the rancher it was "a hell of a challenge."

The anecdote was published, and Senator Burns apologized. When he was asked why he hadn't expressed any disapproval when the rancher used the word n****r, the senator said: "I don't know. I never gave it much thought."

Maybe he didn't express any disapproval because he didn't particularly disapprove. > Last fall he upset a pair of female flight attendants after one of them, a mother with two children, asked him about outsourcing and the economy. She wondered what she would do if she lost her job. The senator reportedly replied that she could stay home and take care of her children.

A third flight attendant, after hearing the story, wrote an angry letter to Mr. Burns, saying, "Before you sit in judgment and make such ignorant statements, you really should stop and remember that we don't all live in a 'Leave It to Beaver' world." > Back in 1991, immediately after a civil rights bill had been passed, he invited a group of lobbyists, some of them white and some of them black, to accompany him to an auction.

When asked what was being auctioned, he replied, "Slaves."

The Washington Post quoted one of the lobbyists as saying: "We were floored. We couldn't believe it." <<

Well Vivian, it seems like a Republican would be a lot more likely to tell someone "go back where you came from" solelt b/c of the color of their skin. Maybe you should read up on the bigoted and racist history of your party before you accuse the party that cares about civil rights of being racist.

Good news in Montana for Democrats. Jon Tester defeated John Morrison for the go against Conrad Burns. Tester is a solid candidate who could have "his whole life put in the newspaper" without ethical flaws in what promises to be race about personal values. I just hope that he isn't too freaked out when Rove and the gang attack. I'm told he's actually a real nice guy.

"I am now predicting that the magnificent state of MT will not send a D Senator to DC."

May I introduce Democratic Senator Max Baucus from the great state of Montana.

Score:
king of hypocrisy:0
People NOT living in GOP Fantasy World: 8,472,389

a lose is a lose, you are correct, however, we spin because there were some positive notes taken about this election.

1 Busby gained votes in a very low turnout election. A republican couldn't even take in 50% in a heavily republican district.

2 We now get to look forward to the re-match in November, Things can change in 6 months and the NRCC won't be able to spend 4.5 million dollars to defend Bilbray.

3 Despite the lost race, the Dems made the NRCC spend a lot of money, and that in my book is a good thing.

So, I guess those reports of Bilbray getting 49% of the vote were incorrect? Lets see, Dubious got 55% and Bilbray got 49%...no problem, right?

The posters who see the simplicity in "a loss is a loss" have it right. Spinning won't change the result.

Time to move on.

Looking ahead: Democratic Primary in Virginia June 13th for G. Allen's Senate seat. Harris Miller v. Jim Webb. Longtime Democrat v. new Democrat.

KOZ -- You do realize that Montana's other Senator IS a Democrat, right (Max Baucus)? And that Rasmussen (a Republican polling firm) showed Burns trailing Tester and Morrison before the Dem primary? If that wasn't enough, Dems also took control of both House's of the State legislature in 2004 as well. Montana clearly didn't like Kerry, but they do like Schweitzer and populist Democrats like Tester. I hope you'll admit you were wrong on this prediction come November.

Bilbray's victory shows the power of gerrymandering. Democrats will have a hard time winning back the Congress because their are very few districts that are truly competitive. In the 50th, Bilbray used the immigration issue to make the districts voters overlook the unpopular Bush administration and their crooked ex-Congressman. Busby made one mistake and that ended the race. Unfortunately it means that voters get a Congress full of extremists who are ruining our country.

Zouk is not ridiculed for the predictions. The ridicule is for the lack of morality in the discussions.

"Clear crisp paragraphs" should not distract from morally untenable basic premises.

Scalia and Buchanan make beautiful logical progressions in support of their positions. Unfortunately, their basic premises are significantly flawed more often than not.

That a charlatan can write well, does not make them any less of a charlatan.

viva, The real problem, as you know, isn't with the small employers -- it is with the corporations. They are the the ones who bring, with their hiring tactics, the poor of Mexico to work in their factories. As you well know, it isn't that easy to come here if you aren't well-connected.

And the corporations are bush's constiuency. He has done nothing --nothing -- to stop the flow. Clinton punished far more employers than bush has. But he has no intention of actually doing something about the issue -- it's like everything else he does -- all talk and photo ops and pandering.

Get over it, the voters elected a Republican because there are smarter voters in the district

Don't lie about the President's position on immigration or the House's for that matter.
No Republican from the President on down has any problem with LEGAL Mexicans or LEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
Illegal means they broke the law and are illegally residing in this country.

Frankly, I don't have a problem as do many of my Mexican friends and neighbors who were either born here or came here legally like my father, to make illegal entry a felony. There is no excuse for lawbreaking--none, whether it is by illegal aliens or the employers and elitist like Zoe Baird who hire illegal nanies on the cheap to watch their kids.

You and your far left buddies need to stop your demonization of those who honestly disagree with conventional politically correct issues whi tend to be out of the mainstream of American thought.

Yesterday's election in CA50 should be a wakeup call to both parties to solve the immigration problem and get Mexico to the table to help as well.

vivabush04OH

Sorry, that should be 'Mexican-American' to be grammatically coherent.

vivabush, so you're a 1st generation Mexican? And you support an administration that would brand you as a felon?

The money disparity is exactly why we won't ever have clean elections again unless there is campaign finance reform.

Right now, any election can be bought -- and most of them are. As you say, king of dittoheads, money buys a lot of 'convincing'. Or as Limbaugh would put it, 'education'. The power of propaganda. As we have seen thorough history, it works-- people believe it, especially when it's targeted to their deepest fears and hatreds.

Like I said Drndle:
"would have heard it from a Democrat..."

Not from me, I am 1st generation Mexican.

Vivabush04OH

"Bush carried the state by 20%" this is the background which clearly states the D will be in for a tough slog. Look at the money disparity $3.5M vs $260K. that buys a lot of convincing in 4 short months. Or didn't you learn anything from yesterday's outcome? More pipe dreams from angry Dems. I predicted that SDiego would not send a D Rep and was ridiculed a few days back. Vindication! I am now predicting that the magnificent state of MT will not send a D Senator to DC.
Score so far:
Zouk 1
Moonbats 0

vivabushista,

No, actually, more like something he would have heard from you.

I could be wrong but didn't the state of Montana send a "D" to the governor's mansion in 2004, even as Bush carried the state by 20 points? Dosen't said "D" have an approval rating of 65%? Maybe someone from Montana could help me out here b/c it seems to me that Conrad Burns is the one with a steep hill to climb, seeing as he is the second most unpopular senator in the coutry, who is running against a state senate preident who leads a state legislature which is also receving high marks from Montanans, just like the "D" governor.

RMill - the redistricting issue was brought back up again in the Ohio legislature last week or the week before, this time by Speaker Husted. He knows that there is a very good chance the republicans will lose control of the Board in November, so now all of a sudden he is interested in being bipartisan. There was a very good and I must admit pretty funny article in The Other Paper about the whole thing and how democrats turned around and voted against their own bill when Husted and Dewine's little prick nephew pulled some procedural trick to bring up the old bill that the repubs themselves had voted down last year:

http://www.theotherpaper.com/cover.html

The bottom line is that both sides are hypocrites - each side is only interested in redistricting reform when they are 1) not in control of the Board or 2) very likely to LOSE control of the Board in the next election. Democrats are doing the same thing republicans would do in their position.

Ohio has suffered under 16 years of incompetent and corrupt one-party republican rule b/c of republican gerrymandering. Ohio lags behind the rest of the country in job growth, education, income, and ethics and accountability in state government. The democrats rejecting redistricting reform now is brazenly political, but to be honest I couldnt care less. Call me partisan but the best thing for Ohio would be to have a majority Democratic delegation to the U.S. House, and a state House and Senate with Democratic majorities. These bodies being under Democratic control would ensure that they would actually work toward solutions to Ohio's problems, not focusing on making their friends rich like the current republican-controlled state government.

What will an army of volunteers do in Montana go door-to-door? you will have a very steep hill to climb if you want to send a D from the state of Montana. I wish you luck, you are going to need it.

things will turn out right for the wrong reasons, but that's okay...

tommorow, the world changes.

Just so Montana is not forgotten here. The national media, including this blog, discounted Tester because of his early name-recognition factor and the gap between his funds and Morrison, who had a 2-1 money lead. Yet on the day of truth, Morrison found himself making an early concession speech after a 61 percent to 35 percent drubbing by Tester.

The grain-growing region in Montana is traditionally the swing region in Montana. Guess where Tester is from? Guess what he does for a living? That's right, Burns has to beat a homegrown grain farmer in the swing area of the state if he expects re-election.

Tester has a strong grass roots organization. That's what won him a huge majority over the much richer Morrison organization. Burns may have a lot of money to spend, but he hasn't got an army of volunteers.

Burns is much more vulnerable today, than he was before the Democrats picked their nominee. Had Morrison won, Burns would be running against a tarnished Western Montana liberal lawyer. He would have beat that to death in his usual low blow negative campaign ads.

Now Burns has to beat a charismatic farmer and savy legislative leader, who just made a huge impact on potential general election voters with his overwelming victory.

Drndl says:

"My nephew, whose mother is a 5th generation Mexican immigrant who was born here and never learned to speak spanish, has been told to 'go back where he came from' in Orange County --despite the fact he's never even been to Mexico."

Sounds like something he would have heard from a Democrat.

FYI fellow Buckeyes.

If voters vote for Gops or against Dem issues, they're dupes and brain dead. The 4 left-wing ballot intiatives in last Novembers general elections were bad and voted down overwhelmingly by the electorate despite support from most of the major urban dailies.

So, last week the Ohio General Assembly votes on a GOP measure to change the Reapportionment Board which draws legislative districts every ten years. This is a bill that former State Rep Dem Ed Jerse worked with House Speaker Jon Husted to bring to the floor and similar to one the Dems themselves brought forward last year.
Guess what? In a stroke of political genius, the Dems KILLED THEIR OWN BILL.
Reminds me of the scene in Red October when the Soviet sub Captain realizes they are about to be hit by their own torpedo:
"you ass, you've killed us."

This fall prepare to see this GOP ad:
"Last year Dan Stewart said he was for elections reform. But when Republicans put it to a vote, Stewart voted against his own bill."

But wait there's more, perhaps the better reason for voting this down is because the Ohio Dems expect to win the Governor, Auditor and Secretary of State seats which all sit on the apportionment Board. Why would these hypocrites want to change a system they would potentially be in charge of?
There's your answer on reforming gerrymandering in Ohio--Dems are against it.

I'm sorry -- 'national sovereignty' -- whatever the hell paranoid fantasy are you talking about?

Mike said it all. The Democrats lost in this district because of the Immigration issue. Unless the Democrats embrace border security and national sovereignty, they will not take back the House, and they will lose in 2008.

One thing that Chris does not mention is that not only is CA50 overwhelming Republican, it's also been been a traditional white stronghold, well-off and military.

Since WWII many of the major employers there have been contractors, which is why the Duke, with his military background, was very popular. Bilbray, a San Diego native, was born at Coronado Naval Air Station where his father served in the Navy, according to his website.

So he's not only local and military, he's a lobbyist for the industry and thus well-placed to bring in plenty o' earmarks for the district. Especially that big black box money, that black hole of taxpayer cash being funneled to 'defense contractors.'

And of course, the whole district is close to the border and near other major urban areas heavily populated by Mexican immigrants and one of the things the locals fear most is that Mexicans will 'infiltrate' their neighborhoods.

My nephew, whose mother is a 5th generation Mexican immigrant who was born here and never learned to speak spanish, has been told to 'go back where he came from' in Orange County --despite the fact he's never even been to Mexico.

Francine Busby should have known that anything she said to a Mexican audience would be monitored and pounced on and used against her. But unfortunately for her, she's not a slick politician with a vast, well-coordinated, national communications network behind her.

Was there any analysis of voter turnout by party? With a hotly contested Democrat primary for Governor, a universal pre-school ballot initiative, no Republican gubernatorial primary, and a former lobbyist as the Republican standard bearer, I'm not surprised this was a close race.

Keep torturing the statistics. They will eventually tell you what you want them to tell.
this is Busby's third loss, when will a distinct NO sink in? Maybe it is the message, ever consider that?

I think comparing the April 11 "primary" to yesterday's race does not actually prove anything (there were many more candidates on the ballot in April, plus the turnout yesterday was actually a little lower). Nevertheless, the 1% growth in Democratic votes cited by Chris was actually just a hair under 2% (when comparing two percentages, they should never be rounded first) So therefore, Busby increased the D vote by 2% in just 7 weeks. That actually seems pretty good in a race with only a 3% gap.

Ohio guy

That issue has been revived, this time by the Republicans, who now face the reality of possibly losing control of the apportionment board. I have not heard anything recent in the last couple of weeks.

"KOZ raises the issue of gerrymandering--obvious to anyone who checks a map of California districts. Just for information (someone on this post should know), which candidates out there have come out for a serious approach to this problem?"

Kakuzan - to answer your question, last year Ohio democrats sponsored a bill to take the redistricitng process out of the hands of partisan politicans and place it in the hands of a seven-member non-partisan board that would require a unanimous vote to approve new lines. Ohio republicasn voted agaisnt it every one of them and then rallied to kill the issue when it was placed on the state ballot by making up lies about it.

68,000 absentee and provisional ballots left to count- don't count Francine out yet.

Chris: I would be curious if you could comment on the busby-bilrey race in the context of a general election vs. a special election/primary. Since presidential electorates tend to be more democratic, compairing Busby to Kerry appears to be a bad yardstick.

Looking Ahead
June Primary Primer

June 13 Primaries
Maine
Gov
Dem
Baldacci* v. Miller

Rep
Emery
Mills
Woodcock

Survey USA
May Approval
Baldacci (D)* 43% (up from 39% in April and up from 41% in Feb)

June 5
Rep Primary
Emery 31%
Mills 27%
Woodcock 29%

Rasmussen
Head to Head
May 4
Baldacci (D)* 44%
Emery (R) 36%

Baldacci (D)* 44%
Mills (R) 36%

Baldacci (D)* 46%
Woodcock (R) 33%

North Dakota

South Carolina
Gov
Dem
Moore v. Willis

Rep
Sanford*

Survey USA
May Approval
Sanford (R)* 53% (up from 51% in April and up from 47% in Feb)

Rasmussen Head to Head
April 20

Moore (D) 33%
Sanford (R)* 52%

Willis (D) 28%
Sanford (R)* 55%

Only interesting in that the ease or difficulty of Sanford's victory could help or hurt his 2008 presidential aspirations.

Virginia
US Senate
Dem
Miller v. Webb
Rep
Allen*

Survey USA
May Approval
Allen (R)* 53% (up from 49% in April and up from 51% in Feb)

Rasmussen Head to Head
April 11
Miller (D) 34%
Allen (R)* 51%

Webb (D) 30%
Allen (R)* 50%

June 27 Primary
Utah- nothing interesting here

July is dead
Georgia 7/18
Oklahoma 7/25

Next Political Junkie Tuesday is August 8-
CO, CT, MI, MO

Two points worth noting about the CA House results. First, as Chris wrote, Busby's vote share in the CA50 special runoff - 45% - was only 1 point higher than her vote share in the first round in April, and only 1 point higher than Kerry's vote share in the district in 2004. In other words, in spite of nearly uniformly bad news for the GOP since early 2005, Busby couldn't grow the Dem vote. If one can generalize from this trend, it may be harder for Dems to pick up 15 House seats than was thought last week. Perhaps Dems can gain seats in blue states such as CT and NY, but even if the Dems were to pick up every seat in CT, NY, PA, and NH now in play, that doesn't get them to 15. The only way the Dems will win the House is by picking up some seats in red states such as OH, IN, and KY - a big challenge.

Also, national Dems and environmental organizations will be disappointed by the results in CA11. Pombo won his primary big over Pete McCloskey, and the Dems chose Jerry McNerney as their candidate again. McNerney got only 39% against Pombo in 2004, and it's hard to see how he can gain 11% over the result of two years ago. The DCCC's candidate, Steve Filson, lost the primary, so DCCC may not be willing to put as much money into this race with McNerney as the Dem candidate. The environmental groups alone are probably not enough to defeat Pombo.

So two CA House seats look stronger for the GOP today than they might have a week ago.

Gerrymandering is only a problem if you want to have competitive districts. the passage of McCain-Feingold should retire all thoughts of lower re-election rates. Easier than that pesky campaigning and arguing issues.

The Republicans have had a nice run in elections, but they are incapable of governing responsibly (see Iraq, deficit, corruption, eavesdropping, fearmongering, NCLB, fascist judges, etc.). What goes up must come down.

Thanks Drindl, I'll take your idiot comment as compliment, maybe some day I could be as smart as you. Ann Coulter was way over the top(she always is) but the Jersey girl are not shrinking violets and should have their motives analysed the same as they question the motives of others. I have to go now and wallow in my evil stupidity.

The House may be listening but the Senate and President seem to be switched off. I personally don't care much about this issue but obviously plenty of others do.

Personally I always enjoy reading King of Zouk. Better a clear, crisp paragraph, even if wrong-headed, than a meandering rant or a one-line supposedly witty kvetch.

KOZ raises the issue of gerrymandering--obvious to anyone who checks a map of California districts. Just for information (someone on this post should know), which candidates out there have come out for a serious approach to this problem? I mean other than Governor Schwarzenegger.

Unnoticed by the national media was Washington State - where an anti-gay initiative failed to get enough signatures to even qualify for the ballot, and as a result, our state now has laws that make it illegal to discriminate against gays in renting, buying houses, and other economic issues of fairness.

Additionally, if turnout was only 34 percent in CA, that means we only got the partisans of both parties, admittely in short supply on the Dem side in CA-50, where they never were a majority.

The final election in November will be the actual test. And that's a mail-in paper ballot, like in most Western states, and thus harder to spin with lies right before election day, since voters can just wait if given rumors to see if the papers say it's a lie.

This article is utter nonsense. In 2002, Cunningham beat his Democratic opponent 64% to 33%, a difference of 31 points. In 2004, Busby lost to Cunningham 58.5% to 36.5%, a difference of 22 points. This time the gap was narrowed to only 3 points. So despite the RNC throwing $4.5 million at this race and outspending the Dems by 2-1, the GOP has lost considerable ground. Sorry, but there is no other way to spin it.

Chris,
You failed to mention the CA 50th was all about ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. Ms. Busby was a proponent of amnesty. Mr. Bilbray endorsed secure borders first. Are Congress and the President listening? Also, I understand Dems spent $4.5 million. Where do you get your figures?

Rupublican wins Republican district...so what? What I found more interesting is the first half of the Post's Lead, "Republicans narrowly escaped a potentially demoralizing defeat in yesterday's special House election". Jeez, thank God for the conservative media, eh Drindl.

Some idiot here said 'Ann Coulter had the courage to'.. . which gave me a good laugh. She doesn't know what the word means. What she did was sink to attacking victims of 9/11, women and children who lost their husbands and fathers. She is the enemy of decency. But all you 'conservatives' are. You will use any issue to win, no matter how vile. Apparently there;s just no bottom anymore, you just keeps sinking lower.

And that's why we have this sudden furor over immigration. Elections and nothing else to run on. Happened quick, didn't it? Know why? Talk radio. A coordinated wave of talk radio attacks. Just like Goebbels used in the 30's. As he wrote about often, radio was one of the main engines for the rise to power of Hitler. He said,' It is no exaggeration to say that the German revolution, at least in the form it took, would have been impossible without the airplane and the radio.'

And what did they broadcast? Hatred and fear of immigrants and gays and Jews. Substitute 'Muslims' and you've got exactly the same mix. [Of course, people like Ann Coulter hate jews too, they just slander them a little more quietly.]

Politicians don't care about illegal immigration. Because they understand without these hapless illegals who work for bottom- feeder pay under often dangerous conditions, literally everything would cost much, much more. It's really of a piece of a much broader issue, which is the globalization of the economy. Corporate factory operations don't want to hire citizens with rights and demands. They want illegals who can be bullied.

But your politicos know how to push your hate hot buttons and get you out to vote--and once you have reelected them, they will continue to ignore you, like they did with the gay marriage issue. The illegals will still be here next year, not a damn thing will be done about them and your fine representatives will still be ripping you off. Go ahead and wallow in your evil stupidity.

The most interesting thing to me about the election results were that in an overwhelmingly conservative Republican district, the winner still got only 49.5%-- just under half the vote. Even if the 4.5% of the vote that went to the third-party candidate had gone to him, that's not what I'd call an overwhelming victory. And let's have more discussion and less name-calling, please.

While i think King of Zouk is way off base on a few things most notably his contention that the war in Iraq is a success he's right on track here..(minus the "ha ha" post)..Fact of the matter is the gop stayed on message while the dem really never got hers out..you can't compare the immigration problem with gay marriage either..immigration is a solvable problem while the gay marriage debate is pure political theatrics..granted it was a repub stronghold, but with the toxic political atmosphere today you'd think people would vote for change...as dems we need to take a hard look at the message makers, message bearers, goal setters whatever you want to call them, and get some legs underneath it or it could be a lonnnggg November...........

Zouk - Your hole still awaits; although it must be crowded with Ann Coulter in there.

I guess all those polls you keep citing don't amount to much in the actual measurement. Just keep chanting "Gore won the Popular vote" that should get you through the day. the fact is
"National Democrats must come to terms with the fact that momentum for the midterm elections will not materialize simply because they preordain it in the media or because they ask their special interest friends to buy it for them. "
and
"THE BOTTOM LINE

Ø Local Issues Made The Difference. National issues were not a factor in this race. While Francine Busby and National Democrats concentrated their efforts on attacking Brain Bilbray as a lobbyist, it was Busby's positions on immigration and taxes that were the main focal points for Bilbray and anti-Busby voters.

Ø Campaigns Matter. Despite having the more effective attacks and a very favorable environment, the Democrats couldn't win the race. This campaign proved that in competitive House races, despite the environment, voters will be forced to focus on the choice between the two individuals on the ballot. "
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/
Carp and cry all you want - we don't want your stinkin' tax raises.

Slim: would the "usual cast of Bush haters" include the now 72 percent of Americans who think he is doing a crappy job? (According to the oh-so-liberal Wall Street Journal)

I watched Hardball last night, and Chuck Todd believed Bilbray would win, Cillizza agreed. That is the reality

If a Republican managed to win a Republican District, at least these guys have a base of reality in politics that all factors leaned toward Bilbray.

The Democrats, liberals, and the usual cast of Bush haters are venting their loss. That is just the truth, and the website is giving them a place to dispel their anger. Now I wonder if all the people who come in here to complain will ever offer some real solutions instead of just badmouthing the Republicans and President Bush.

Man, this is going to be a long long 5 months before the November election. I wonder if the Democrats fail to win back the House if they will finally dump Pelosi. She offers nothing to the Democrats and it will be time for her to step down if they fail to win back the House.

the stances on the issues could not have been clearer in this mini-election. Bilbray was for a hard line stance on immigration and the Dem was not. this is not spin and is not manipulation - it is a good, solid question that the voters need to decide. these are not social wedge issues, they are actual problems that need to be addressed. Just because you are on the unpopular side of an issue doesn't make everone else a fool.
I may not be a hard-core Republican, but I am most certainly NOT a Democrat. Until they return to the party that elected Kennedy and Truman, fewer and fewer people will call themselves Dems. hint - strong defense, lower taxes.
It is a politicians duty to find an issue that resonates with the voters and gets him on the side that has more people in his district. what is wrong with this? voters can decide if they are interested or not and if it "rings" true to them. Everyone decries this but then you want to get something done in Washington. Well, which is it?

Another fixed election? Nobody in their mind would vote for another Republican. I guess nobody reads the newspaper any more.

I think that real lesson from this election is that immigration is going to be a real issue in alot of places for the near future. McCain's refusal to back Bilbray I thought was gonna lose the election for him. I wonder how this will reflect back on McCain's more moderate stance on illegal immigration in the build up to 2008?

By the way the "build a fence from the pacific to the Gulf" line may work in republican districts or border towns but I don't think it will work in more moderate districts. The President and McCain are on the right side (politically at least) on this issue.

KOZ, I don't get it, man. You claim that you are impartial and objective to the GOP then you come on here gloating like a teenager when the Republicans win. Why don't you have the courage of your convictions and announce your true loyalty?

Your claim to be "libertarian" has already been obliterated on these boards. I'm just asking for a bit of honesty here.

By the way, congratulations on the win you are so heartily enjoying. I'm happy for you and your Republican compatriots. hopefully you guys will keep up the good work on the social wedge issues, they're really advancing our nation toward success.

"despite their candidate stupidly voicing their "get the illegals to vote" strategy, the mediacrats spin the results"

Who's spinning now? All you guys do is wait for the Dem contenders to misspeak one time then you beat it to death like it's a clear-headed explanation of their policy. Why debate issues when you can just harp on one sentence? I read the quotation and my interpretation was that Busby was suggesting you don't need voting papers to participate in the campaign. But I guess that kind of nuance gets lost in the right wing spin machine.

It's disheartening that one party is so obsessed with "winning" that they govern the country from that perspective alone, while the other party is too clueless and fragmented to take back control. I'm disappointed in the Dems, but I'm disgusted with the Repubs.

Sore losers! Insulting me (or others) will still not win elections as you may be coming to understand. Happily, this does not bode well for McCain. The second midterm election is historically a loser for the party in power. you simply can't read anything into this one little election, except that it was a R district and still is. And 5% is not really that close. Gerrymandering is very effective and will continue to result in massive re-election rates (95%+). Dems, don't get your hopes up about an easy win in the Fall. Come up with some winning issues and fight a good fight. If you are convincing and honest, you can win. But raising taxes, cutting and running in Iraq, amnesty and the rest are NOT winning points of view.

Zouk - Your hole awaits you. Time to crawl back!

The Washington Post continues its "Buck up dems" election engineering. Knowing how much the libs wanted this one and despite their candidate stupidly voicing their "get the illegals to vote" strategy, the mediacrats spin the results so Harry Reid won't have to cry in his Latte. This is all about the Washington Press corp wanting more parties because they are so socially inept they are unable to meet anyone and impress them. Dems have better parties, so they want them to win, beside reporters being American hating liberals. The election was a great indicator of how stupid the press is, and how much Americans respect for them have deteriorated.

It's nice to see Ann Coulter had the courage to take on those 4 Jersey girls who have hiding behind their spouse's death to throw arrows and attack conservatives knowing most people would be to polite to respond. Their free ride is over.

A little statistical point: Everyone who's looking for a telling tea leaf that says "whoever won that election should be optimistic" misses the mark. If the district is *heavily* Republican, the telling point is that the election was close - which is a clear confirmation that the tide is running against the GOP. The few points that decide whether the Republican eked that out or did not is irrelevant to other districts, which are going to vary in how skewed their demographics are compared to CA-50.

In other words, notice the signal, rather than the noise. Noise can go either way.

GOP registration in CA50 outnumbers Democratic registration by an overwhelming margin. That Busby pulled 45% of the vote means that those voters that are what some might term "swing" are leaning Democratic right now in this district. The fact is that CA50 is a big-time Republican stronghold. I'm not calling Tuesday a victory for Democrats, because not winning an election and getting a hollow "moral victory" won't re-take Congress, won't shift debate and action in Washington, and won't put America's priorities ahead of right-wing radicals.

But those voters across the country who see what the GOP is doing in D.C. and what they've done while in power are finally coming to and realizing that America can't afford more Republican rule. The Democratic voters will be out in force come November. GOP voters might or might not be. But those 10% of voters who are truly independent in their party ID are going to lean Democratic this year, as it looks like they did in CA50.

That portends some victories this fall for the Dems; maybe not overwhelmingly and perhaps not even enough to overtake both houses of Congress. But it will be enough to shake up D.C. a little and plant the seeds for more transformational elections in 2008, when the White House is on the table along with more Senate and House seats.

I disagree with the MSM's premise that this was in any way a bellwether election. However, I think Chris hit it on the head regarding the impact the illegal immigration issue will play this fall. In districts/states where there are close races, candidates who don't take the hard line position for border security and against amnesty (yes, it is amnesty) will end up losing.

Congress, Bush, but more importantly, the majority of Democrats are complete out of touch with most voters on this issue. If was Republican strategist I would be working behind the scenes to organize massive "immigrant" protests this Fall.

Many Americans profit from legal and illegal immmigration and many are hurt by it. Many well educated Democrats (and their circle of friends) are not personally threatened by immigration and have a natural sympathy for people living in third world poverty. Sympathy is surely proper, but allowing illegal immigrants to control our immigration policy is not. Uncontrolled immigration is not the only security issue for America that 3rd world poverty causes and being able to create jobs in poor countries is the only real solution.

It's a real shame when idiots like King of Zouk can post drivel and turn this into a clone of Yahoo! message boards.

Rightard wignuts suck

"King of Zouk":

In Zouk, does proper spelling matter? I learned in second grade that losing is spelled l-o-s-i-n-g. Unless, of course, you actually meant the sometimes word "loosing", for which the primary definition is "to set loose; release".

So, if you meant to imply that the strongest suit of the Democratic Party is to release or set loose elections, I suppose your post is accurate. I don't understand what that means, but if you're the King, then I guess you must be all-knowing and all-powerful. Thus the need for you to post your political views on a website.

"King of Zouk":

In Zouk, does proper spelling matter? I learned in second grade that losing is spelled l-o-s-i-n-g. Unless, of course, you actually meant the sometimes word "loosing", for which the primary definition is "to set loose; release".

So, if you meant to imply that the strongest suit of the Democratic Party is to release or set loose elections. I don't understand what that means, but if you're the King, then I guess you must be all-knowing and all-powerful. Thus the need for you to post your political views on a website.

Chris, The right track/wrong track is never a good barometer of foretelling elections. (ask President Kerry)You also incorrectly overestimate Bush's unpopularity. As long as Iraq doesn't do a total meltdown or the economy go south, the HOUSE & SENATE WILL STAY REPUBLICAN. You heard it here 1st. Yesterday on your blog I said Bilbray would win by 5%. Not bad eh.

Ha, ha ha. Must be a real bummer when reality comes crashing down on your fantasy world. Back to loosing elections - Dems strongest suit.