ELECTION PROJECTION from ELECTORAL-VOTE.COM 9MAI12

ELECTORAL vote and national primary update....

May 09

---

Obama ?   Romney ?

Senate Dem ?   GOP ?

---

Senate map and races Downloadable polling data Previous report Next report Strong Dem (253) Weak Dem (32) Barely Dem (73) Exactly tied (0) Barely GOP (13) Weak GOP (42) Strong GOP (125) 270 Electoral votes needed to win Map algorithm explained

New polls:	(None)
Dem pickups:	(None)	GOP pickups:	(None)

---

Welcome	FAQs	Donations	Icons for bloggers	Previous elections
Electoral coll. graph	All Senate races	Data galore	Primaries & caucuses

---

Very Close in Florida Reaction to Obama's "Evolution" on Gay Marriage Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage Purging of the Senate Republicans Bonus Quote of the Day Not Gracious in Defeat

---

News from the Votemaster          

Tea Party Candidate Crushes Lugar in Indiana Senate Primary     Permalink

In an echo of three Senate primaries in 2010, an insurgent tea party candidate, Indiana state Treasurer Richard Mourdock, crushed six-term Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) by a margin of 60% to 40% in yesterday's primary. Lugar, although conservative, was a genteel and highly respected senator who was willing to work with the Democrats to get laws passed and problems solved. He is most famous for working with the former Democratic senator from Georgia, Sam Nunn, on a program that helped Russia destroy thousands of poorly guarded nuclear weapons after the collapse of the Soviet Union. This strength--his willingness to actually govern--became a weakness in the campaign as Mourdock relentlessly accused him of the sin of working with the Democrats.
Unlike the 2010 Senate races in Colorado, Nevada, and Delaware, in which a tea party candidates won surprise primary victories over shoo-in establishment candidates and then went on to defeat in November, Lugar saw it coming. Obviously, he could not change his 35-year voting record in the Senate, but he could have run his campaign as a fierce partisan who hated President Obama and all other Democrats as a matter of principle. But Lugar was too principled to campaign on a lie and paid the price.
Also present were some local factors specific to Lugar. He has not maintained a permanent residence in the state for decades. Although this is specifically allowed by Indiana law, Lugar's lack of a house in Indiana let Mourdock attack him as a "creature of Washington." Lugar's age (80) didn't help either. Also, he hasn't had to wage a serious campaign in years, so his campaigning skills are a bit rusty.
What many of Lugar's supporters wanted him to do was use the tactics that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) used in his 2010 Senate primary against tea party candidate J.D. Hayworth. McCain quickly amassed a huge war chest and just pounded Hayworth mercilessly with extremely negative ads from the instant Hayworth announced his challenge, defining him before Hayworth had a chance. While Lugar could have done that, it is just not his style and temperament.
This election has both short-term and long-term consequences. In the short term, the Democratic senatorial candidate in Indiana, Rep. Joe Donnelly (D-IN), a conservative Blue Dog, now has a serious shot at winning the general election. He and the DSCC are already attacking Mourdock as an extremist. Indiana remains a red state, but historically it has sent Democrats to Washington, including Evan Bayh and his father, Birch Bayh, who together served five terms in the Senate.
However, the Indiana senatorial general election is not quite the same as the three races in 2010 where tea party candidates won the primaries but lost in the general election. The main difference is that Mourdock is a serious, albeit very conservative, politician and has won statewide office twice, in 2006 and in 2010. None of the tea party candidates running in Colorado, Delaware, and Nevada in 2010 had ever held statewide office before. That could make a difference, both in the candidate's preparation and in the voters' perception.
In the long term, the defeat of such a respected conservative senator (who the Democrats didn't even bother to oppose in 2006), is going to send a signal to all Senate Republicans that any deviations from tea party orthodoxy and any attempts to work with the Democrats to actually govern, will result in a (possibly career-ending) primary challenge. The consequence will be to make the clubby Senate more like the House, where every Republican opposes anything the Democrats want in principle, and to a somewhat lesser extent, vice versa. In the current House, if Nancy Pelosi were to propose a 10% tax cut for millionaires, the entire Republican caucus would oppose it on the grounds that it wasn't big enough. Historically, the Senate was not like that because members represent entire states, not small gerrymandered districts, and serve for terms long enough for the voters to forget what they did 4 or 5 years ago. Possibly no more.

Barrett Wins Democratic Gubernatorial Primary for Wisconsin Recall Election     Permalink

Republicans weren't the ony ones with a nasty intraparty primary yesterday. The Democrats matched them attack for attack in Wisconsin, where Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) is facing a recall election in June. After a sufficient number of signatures were submitted to make Walker face the voters again after barely a year in office, the Democratic establishment quickly settled on Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett. Their reasoning was that Barrett ran against Walker in the 2010 gubernatorial election and lost by only 5% during a Republican landslide, so in a special election he would be a strong candidate. Unfortunately for him, the state's unions decided to back a liberal candidate, Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk, rather than the moderate Barrett. This led to a nasty ideological primary, that Barrett won easily 58% to 34%. Polls of the June election show Walker leading Barrett 48% to 47% among likely voters. Expect an especially vicious campaign leading up to it.

North Carolina Voters Ban Same-Sex Marriages Again     Permalink

The North Carolina referendum banning same-sex marriages passed 61% to 39%. In a sense, such a referendum was not necessary since state law already bans them, but the referendum went further and also said that civil unions are not recognized under state law. The outcome was never in doubt and shows why President Obama is still on the fence over this issue: a significant number of voters oppose the idea, especially in North Carolina, a state he won by the narrowest of margins in 2008 and will have to fight strenuously to win in 2012. A sign that he is going to try is the fact that the Democrats are holding their national convention in the state's largest city, Charlotte.

Romney Wins in Indiana, North Carolina, and West Virginia     Permalink

Mitt Romney won three more primaries yesterday, but his losing 20% of the vote to candidates no longer in the race shows that he has not yet unified the party. Here are the results.

State	Romney	Paul	Santorum	Gingrich
Indiana	64%	15%	14%	7%
North Carolina	66%	11%	10%	8%
West Virginia	70%	11%	12%	6%

While Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are out of the race, Ron Paul is still in there fighting. In states that have already held a caucus, Paul supporters are fighting to capture actual delegates. However, even in a one-on-one race with Romney, Paul is not winning the hearts and minds of the actual voters. The best he could do yesterday was 15% in one state (Indiana). While he would like to be a factor at the convention, it doesn't look like he is going to get enough votes to make that happen.

Redesign of This Site to be Launched Soon     Permalink

A new and much more modern design for the this site will be launched soon. That is when we will start tracking the state polls daily. Stay tuned. It won't be long.


If you like this Website, tell your friends. You can also share by clicking this button  

-- The Votemaster

The War Must Not Go On! from SOJO 23JUN11

AMEN!!!! A very well thought, well written commentary on the war in Afghanistan from Sojourners....
Last evening, President Obama made his long-awaited announcement on beginning withdrawal of the 103,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan. The president announced that 10,000 of these troops will be withdrawn by the end of this year, starting in July, and 23,000 more by the end of summer 2012. That will leave approximately 70,000 troops in Afghanistan, roughly double the number of troops (34,000) when he took office in 2008. The president said these remaining troops will be withdrawn “at a steady pace” going into 2014.

But that’s not good enough. President Obama had an opportunity to pivot his policy on the war in Afghanistan -- to focus on the still real threats of terrorism, rather than on failed wars of occupation with massive numbers of troops on the ground. Public opinion polls now consistently show that 50 to 60 percent of the American people want the troops to come home. Two-hundred-four members of the House, from both parties, voted in late May for the McGovern-Jones amendment -- which calls for an accelerated withdrawal and a responsible exit from Afghanistan. Two members of Congress, Jim McGovern and Walter Jones, one Democrat and one Republican, were the authors of that measure and have been the real leaders of political and moral conscience on this war. Twenty-eight bipartisan senators also called for an accelerated withdrawal in a recent letter to the president. A wide array of political leaders, from both parties -- including senators Carl Levin, Max Baucus, and Richard Lugar, and Republican presidential candidates Jon Huntsman, Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul -- are expressing reservations about the war strategy. Obama could have built on these changes in public opinion and announced a dramatic change in war policy for Afghanistan. But last night, he did not.

We constantly hear the message, “Support the troops.” It’s on bumper stickers, at ball games, and on banners in airports. As a Christian who opposed the two wars our troops have been fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, I can say that I do support the troops. They are primarily young, from lower-income and working families, who in the current economy have few other options. The military promised them the opportunity for a job, training, and perhaps the chance go to college on their return. But that promise to young people with few other options came at a high price. So far, 1,552 Americans have died in the war in Afghanistan; 11,200 have been wounded. In one study of the 300,000 returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan who sought help from Veterans Affairs health centers, nearly 37 percent of those treated for the first time were suffering from mental health problems such as post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, or alcohol problems. These problems too often result in suicide. During the first half of 2009, more American soldiers committed suicide than were killed in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. In June 2010, an average of one soldier a day committed suicide. Furthermore, 11 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are unemployed.

Of course, there are very few children of members of Congress, or of finance and business executives, in the military. Those who run the country are not sending their children to fight the wars they continue to prolong. Frankly, war is good business for those who run the military-industrial complex that former President Eisenhower warned us about. Generals always recommend more war because it’s their business. It gets them promotions and advances their careers. And they often distort the facts to stay in business -- claiming progress in order to justify continued war -- when there really is no significant progress at all. Meanwhile, more young people get killed or damaged for the rest of their lives, and the cost for so many innocents is even higher. That can simply no longer be justified in Afghanistan.

The president acknowledged and honored the sacrifice of the troops, and said we need to shift from nation-building in Afghanistan to nation-building at home. But the meager reduction of troops he announced last night simply doesn’t support either goal. I heard on Morning Joe this morning that John McCain has more staff on Capitol Hill than the CIA reports al Qaeda now has in Afghanistan. And the threat of Bin Laden was not ended by the war in Afghanistan, but by focused intelligence and counter-terrorism in Pakistan. Yet, after the president’s announcement last night, the United States will still have nearly 100,000 troops in Afghanistan for the rest of this year, and will spend more than $100 billion in the coming year. It seems the war in Afghanistan will go on and on and on.

To truly support the troops who are fighting and dying in Afghanistan, we must commit our resources where they are most needed. We must make the courageous decision to end the war in Afghanistan much faster than the president called for last night. Incremental and gradual drawdowns of troops over many years is not the correct response to a failed war. We needed a pivot to a new policy last night -- but we didn’t get it.

The president’s decision to finish his first term with twice as many U.S. troops in Afghanistan as when he took office is a political and moral mistake. This week, nearly 40 religious leaders delivered a letter to the White House saying “we are united in the belief that it is time to bring the U.S. war in Afghanistan to an end.” We must now build on that to mobilize resistance to the war across the religious community. It’s time for the faith community to help lead the movement that will bring this unnecessary and unjust war to an end. The president’s message last night was “the war goes on.” Our message on Afghanistan must be: War No More.

+Click here for Sojourners’ FREE “War No More” bumper sticker as a gift for your involvement!

Jim Wallis is the author of Rediscovering Values: A Guide for Economic and Moral Recovery, and CEO of Sojourners. He blogs at www.godspolitics.com. Follow Jim on Twitter @JimWallis.

Entire Senate Republican Caucus Commits To Filibustering Anything Prior To Budget, Tax Cuts 1DEZ10

SO much for working together for the good of the nation, eh gop and tea-baggers?
This story has been updated
WASHINGTON -- The entire Republican Senate caucus has signed a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid, informing him that they will filibuster any legislative measure that comes before the Senate prior to the body considering a budget or tax cut legislation
The Associated Press first reported the letter last night. But on Wednesday morning Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's office passed a copy on to reporters, showing that he had secured signatures from every Senate Republican.
"[W]e write to inform you that we will not agree to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to any legislative item until the Senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increase that is currently awaiting all American taxpayers," the letter reads. "With little time left in this Congressional session, legislative scheduling should be focused on these critical priorities. While there are other items that might ultimately be worthy of the Senate's attention, we cannot agree to prioritize any matters above the critical issues of funding the government and preventing a job-killing tax hike."
The maneuver comes, notably, just hours after congressional leadership met with President Barack Obama in an effort to chart out how to work in a bipartisan fashion. It also dropped on the same day that a bipartisan group of lawmakers was set to meet with the Secretary of the Treasury and head of the Office of Management and Budget to discuss a resolution to the tax cut debate. Pointing to the latter, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) took the floor on Wednesday to condemn, what he called, a "cynical" tactic to delay legislative progress.
"My Republican colleagues knew [about the tax cuts meeting] as they drafted this letter," Reid said. "Therefore, they also know that the true effect of this letter is to prevent the Senate from acting on many important issues that have bipartisan support. With this letter they have simply put in writing the political strategy the Republicans have pursued this entire congress: Mainly, obstruct and delay, obstruct delay action on critical matters, and then blame the Democrats for not addressing the needs of the American people. Very cynical but very obvious and very transparent."
Democrats have been planning to deal with immigration reform and the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell legislation during the lame duck session. A continuing resolution for the budget was on the docket, as was one for tax cuts. But there was no sense about prioritizing those two before the former measures.

Story continues below

How Reid and the White House respond to the letter could give observers a fairly strong sense, not only about how the lame duck session will play out, but also how bipartisanship will be defined in the closing years of Obama's first term in office.
FULL LETTER:

priority letters
UPDATE: The Associated Press reports that the START treaty -- a nuclear arms pact with Russia -- will no be affected by the new GOP pledge. And Mark Helmke, a senior adviser to Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.), the main Republican Senator behind START, tells Amanda Terkel of the Huffington Post that the treaty is not endangered.
"We're still pushing for the START Treaty to move forward. We're hoping to do that the week of the 13th," Helmke said. "We don't need to have the House in session for the treaty. ... This is assuming we're going to get these things [budget, tax issues] done in the next two weeks, then we take up START in the third week."

FURTHER UPDATE: McConnell took the floor shortly after Reid delivering the following remarks:

With just a few weeks to go before the end of the session, Democrats continue to place their own priorities over the priorities of the American people. These are the things Democrats have chosen to do instead of preventing a massive tax hike that economists tell us would stifle the economy. Republicans have pleaded with Democrats to put aside their wish-list -- to focus on the things Americans want us to focus on. They've ignored us. The voters repudiated their agenda at the polls. They've ignored them. Time is running out. They're ignoring that.

UPDATED 10:15 AM: HuffPost's Howard Fineman reports:
"Senator Reid keeps stalling and we're looking at another week of dealing with issues that aren't the central ones," said one top GOP aide. "He's had months and months to deal with this other stuff."
The surprisingly easy passage of the Food Safety Bill -- hailed as a hopeful sign of bipartisanship -- made the GOP leadership all the more determined to take control of the timetable.
The unified pledge also helps GOP leader Mitch McConnell keep control of Republicans willing to work on side deals -- among them Sen. John McCain, who has expressed optimism about passage of the New START treaty.

Former Republican Sen. Warns GOP May ‘Have Gone So Far Overboard That We Are Beyond Redemption’ from THINKPROGRESS 27NOV10

REALIZATION of the monster they have created is finally sinking in with some in the gop.....and their fear of not being able to control the tea-baggers and their corporate masters will be the gop's undoing unless they completely renounce and reject their irrational "platform" for the nation....from ThinkProgress..
In an age when far-right tea party activists have taken over the Republican Party and demanded lockstep allegiance, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) has been one of the few GOP lawmakers to step out of line. In particular, Lugar, the ranking GOP member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has blasted his own party for relentlessly blocking ratification of the New START nuclear arms treaty with Russia, calling on his fellow GOP senators to “do your duty for your country” and complete the pact.
Not surprisingly, this insubordination has earned Lugar significant scorn within the Republican base, which now seems to value blind obedience over principled independent decision-making. In a New York Times profile of Lugar published today, former GOP Sen. John Danforth feared that the backlash against Lugar from his own party signals that the GOP has gone “far overboard” with no hope of turning back:

“If Dick Lugar,” said John C. Danforth, a former Republican senator from Missouri, “having served five terms in the U.S. Senate and being the most respected person in the Senate and the leading authority on foreign policy, is seriously challenged by anybody in the Republican Party, we have gone so far overboard that we are beyond redemption.”
Mr. Danforth, who was first elected the same year as Mr. Lugar, added, “I’m glad Lugar’s there and I’m not.”

Danforth’s fears are not unfounded. Lugar, who is up for reelection in 2012, has already been targeted by tea party groups. “If I was Dick Lugar, I would certainly expect a challenge,” noted veteran political analyst Stuart Rothenberg. As Diane Hubbard, a spokeswoman for the Indianapolis Tea Party, told the Times, removing Lugar “will be a difficult challenge. But we do believe it’s doable, and we think the climate is right for it and we believe it is a must.”
Indeed, asked about a potential tea party challenge motivated by his breaks with the GOP on START and other issues, Lugar suggested the party has drifted to the right while he has stayed steady, saying, “These are just areas where I’ve had stances for a long time.”