That's 10 straight special election wins for Democrats, but let's talk about the Tea Party some more

[Ian David]

That's 10 straight special election wins for Democrats, but let's talk about the Tea Party some more!
http://twitter.com/Litzz11/status/14293594044

Reality Check: Democrats Continue House Special-Election Streak
By Sam Barr

Last night probably could not have gone better for Democrats, even though the party establishment is shedding crocodile tears over Arlen Specter and Blanche Lincoln (the latter of whom is in serious trouble, as Lt. Gov. Bill Halter outperformed polls and has three more weeks to close the deal). Even in Kentucky, Democrats probably got the more exciting (not to mention the more progressive) candidate in Jack Conway, and also get to face the shall-we-say eccentric Rand Paul. Of course the Republican is still favored, but Kentucky is now probably a battleground.

Even more interesting, I think, is the fact that Democrats extended their streak in House special elections by holding on to the Pennsylvania 12th, John Murtha’s old seat. That makes ten straight special elections to fill House seats in which Democrats have either retained or stolen a seat. You have to go back to May 2008, when Steve Scalise replaced Bobby Jindal, to find a Republican victory. (Of course, Scott Brown won a special election in January. But the GOP probably has more realistic hopes of flipping the House in November if there is a genuine “wave” a la 1994.)

To review:

LA-6: Don Cazayoux (D) replaces Richard Baker (R), May 2008 (though Cazayoux lost the general election in November)

MS-1: Travis Childers (D) replaces Roger Wicker (R), May 2008

MD-4: Donna Edwards (D) replaces Albert Wynn (D), June 2008

OH-11: Marcia Fudge (D) replaces Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D), November 2008

NY-20: Scott Murphy (D) replaces Kirsten Gillibrand (D), March 2009

IL-5: Mike Quigley (D) replaces Rahm Emanuel (D), April 2009

CA-32: Judy Chu (D) replaces Hilda Solis (D), July 2009

CA-10: John Garamendi (D) replaces Ellen Tauscher (D), November 2009

NY-23: Bill Owens (D) replaces John McHugh (R), November 2009

PA-12: Mark Critz (D) replaces John Murtha (D), May 2010

More:
http://hpronline.org/hprgument/reality-check-democrats-continue-house-special-election-streak/

[WeDidIt]

1. But that doesn't fit a pre-determined media narrative

CNNFOXMSNBC doesn't report the news, they decide what the news will be.

[racaulk]

2. That's absolutely correct.

:thumbsup:

[sui generis]

3. I heard the term "tidal wave" about thirty times before I left the house

this morning.

Come on, news guys! Just because y'all drink from the same fountain doesn't mean we want your cooties out here in the real world.

I think we should propose legislation to regulate news quality, starting with any form of IQ based licensing over 70 for newscasters and editors.

[zipplewrath]

4. I understand your point

But that's making a mountain out of a mole hill. What you're talking about is that they HELD 9 out of 10 seats. That is good, in the sense that it suggest some sort of "wave" isn't coming. But some folks will look at the numbers and point out that 1) Some of those races were closer than we'd like, especially for a special election. And 2) some of those candidates had to run to the right of Obama to win.

I think one can spin it a few ways, which why the 24 hours news stations will spin it to their existing point of view. In some sense, it suggests there is no real "wave". There's always a loss of "independents" in mid year elections. It isn't surprising that some of those races were tough. Alternately, one can see evidence that the "base" isn't "energized" and so that can spell trouble in the fall. I also think that's a tad weak, trying to judge how "energized" a base is going to be 6 months out. But what the networks want to do is to create a "horse race" context to get people to tune in week after week. They're not about to sit there and say "we'll have to wait until November".

[TheCowsCameHome]

5. But a Teabagger win is HUGH!!!! I'm being SERIES!!!!

Don't you get it?:eyes:

[quiet.american]

6. K&R. nt

[Javaman]

7. Makes no difference.

The Dems can win 100 in a row, but as soon as one of the ball lickers wins a single election, it will immediately blight out anything else in the media as the "NEW REVOLUTION!!!!!".

It's not about reality, it's about spin. As long as ratings trump reality, this is what we will get.

[Kablooie]

8. Could people realize that just saying no and trying to shut down the govt doesn't solve problems?

[Sheepshank]

9. Does anyone have a site that shows actual voter #'s (not percentages)?

I've seen plenty of sites that indicate the percentage of votes, but I'd like to see one with the actual voter numbers.

Last night, I was watching Maddow and she had some interesting numbers relating to the early scores for Kentucky primaries

The total number of votes cast for the Reps, was about a third of the total number of votes cast for Dems...a clear reflection of turn out and overall party support. Those early numbers lead me to believe, there will not even be a close race in Kentucky on election night.

[Ian David]

10. I think this is what you're looking for...

"Tea baggers" come in THIRD in Kentucky.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8366652&mesg_id=8366652

[Sheepshank]

12. Thanks.....

yup Teabaggers group comes in third in the race. Doesn't bode well for NOV unless someone screws up royally.

[Scurrilous]

11. K & R

:thumbsup:

[NJmaverick]

13. K & R!