« Steven Colbert: The Tool of Big Snack | Main | Open Link Thread »

October 29, 2007

Think Big IV

by Nicholas Beaudrot of Electoral Math

It wasn't a great week for the maximalist expansion crowd. To the delight of Atrios, Cosmic Bob Kerrey announced he wouldn't run for the open seat in Nebraska, leaving Big City Mayor (see below) Mike Fahey and Scott Kleeb as the two most likely candidates. In North Carolina, Grier Martin, who's got a young kid at home, has taken a pass in the race against Liddy Dole (R-NC).

But there are a few bright spots out on the horizon. In the New Mexico race, the Draft Udall movement is gaining steam which is good because the current candidate, Marty Chavez, likes kicking the base. Chavez is also the Big City Mayor, which violates Beaudrot's first rule of politics: never run the Big City Mayor for statewide office, unless said mayor already has a track record of improving the city's image in the eyes of suburban or rural voters (see Giuliani, O'Malley, Hickenlooper, Rendell). In Georgia, Max Cleland holds that m#*(&!*(%&#(ing c(*&#(*!&%(*!#er Saxby Chambliss to a 36-24 lead in a rather bizarre poll. In Kentucky, a variety of Dems are within striking distance of Mitch McConnell. And now that Martin is out, state Senator Kay Hagan is reconsidering; she'd still be a solid candidate, if not the recruiting coup that Martin would be.

The amazing thing about this cycle is that there is a scenario under which any GOP seat might endu p in play. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) could get caught in the muck surrounding the Siegelman case. What if Lindsay Graham's (R-SC) might hamper him. Pat Roberts' (R-KS) continued stonewalling on the Senate Intelligence committee could become an issue. The anti-choice right might get tired of Lamar! Alexander (R-TN). Sure, it's unlikely that the stars will align in every single race, but surely between now and, say, August of 2008, at least some of the races that today appear uncompetitive will suddenly become close. And Dems really ought to be prepared with viable candidates in every race, just in case there's another 1980 style wave.

October 29, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

"Beaudrot's first rule of politics: never run the Big City Mayor for statewide office, unless said mayor already has a track record of improving the city's image in the eyes of suburban or rural voters (see Giuliani, O'Malley, Hickenlooper, Rendell)."

Good rule.

-----

"And Dems really ought to be prepared with viable candidates in every race, just in case there's another 1980 style wave."

Get the top of the ticket right, and a 1980 style wave becomes quite likely.

And don't forget Oklahoma and Alaska...

Posted by: Petey | Oct 29, 2007 3:15:18 AM

Well you are preaching to the choir on the top of the ticket business.

Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | Oct 29, 2007 3:24:47 AM

Re: Hickenlooper

Look for Hick to leave Cowtown and run for the governor's office, or perhaps a federal race, in 2014 when he becomes term-limited in the city and county of Denver. His star is clearly in the ascendant and will remain so for quite some time, so there could just as easily be a Cabinet nomination for him in the meantime a la Frederico Peña.

Posted by: Off Colfax | Oct 29, 2007 4:21:16 AM

"Well you are preaching to the choir on the top of the ticket business."

My favorite story about the top of the ticket this cycle is Claire McCaskill's.

McCaskill originally wanted to run for Governor of Missouri in 2008, but decided to run for Senate in 2006 instead because she realized that with Clinton at the top of the ticket in 2008, that Democrats in a state like Missouri would get crushed.

So in an odd sense, we can actually thank the "inevitable" Senator Clinton for our current Senate majority.

Posted by: Petey | Oct 29, 2007 7:36:37 AM

Impolite Political Discourse

I am deeply offended by your use of the term "m#*(&!*(%&#(ing c(*&#(*!&%(*!#er" to describe Saxby Chambliss. The use of such language is highly inappropriate in any forum, let alone one as laden with import as national politics, where a devotion to learning and proper language use should be paramount.



I have two principled objections to this language:
1) Your character substitution should be consistent; i.e., the same character should substituted for the same letter throughout the term. Thus, for example, when you refer to Saxby Chambliss' status as a motherfucking cocksucker, the "o" in "motherfucking" should be replaced by the same character as the "o" in "cocksucker." You replace "o" with "(" when you note that Chambliss is a cocksucker; this is inconsistent with your earlier use of "#" for "o" when you qualify his cocksucking as being of the motherfucking variety.
2) While I understand that some might see my first criticism as somewhat overly precise, I'm sure all would agree that you should at least use the correct number of symbols to replace the corresponding letters. "[M]#*(&!*(%&#(ing" has 15 symbols/letters, while "motherfucking" has 13 letters. Similarly, "c(*&#(*!&%(*!#er" has 16 symbols/letters, while "cocksucker" has only 10 -- a 60% deviation! An attentive reader could easily be mislead into thinking you weare calling Saxby Chambliss a manmeatcruising cocknobswallower. He may well be one, but that misinterpretation would likely detract from your primary purpose; to identify him precisely (if discreetly) as a motherfucking cocksucker.


A correct method of referring to Saxby Chambliss as a motherfucking cocksucker would be "m}^#/?%*~;!-& (}(;$*(;/?," or something analogous. The precise substitutions are, of course, discretionary, but failing to adhere to the unities of number and identity obscure your central point: that Saxby Chambliss is a motherfucking cocksucker.


Setting aside these rhetorical consequences, you should consider the practical effect; any search engine user seeking information about that motherfucking cocksucker Saxby Chambliss who uses an orthographically correct search term like "m@^#/?%*~;!-& (@(;$*(;/?" would not successfully be directed to your post, and would thus miss the opportunity to explore your insights into Saxby Chambliss's status as a motherfucking cocksucker. Surely this tragic outcome is to be avoided.


Frankly, I'm a bit disappointed at your inattention to a detail that would have been obvious to even a journeyman cartoonist. Careful attention to the correct usage of language is a hallmark of participation in polite society; I hope you will be more careful in the future.
Yours,

Posted by: Politenessman | Oct 29, 2007 8:44:10 AM

A more detailed problem . . . Lindsay Graham's what?

Posted by: Justin | Oct 29, 2007 9:14:54 AM

Right now the only thing keeping Udall from declaring - indeed what has kept him out of the Senate race the whole time - is the chance that Richardson will declare for the Senate once he has to drop out of the presidential race.

Denish is measuring drapes for the governor's mansion, as she should, and Chavez has problems that go waaaay beyond kicking the base and being the Big City Mayor, so we need either Udall or Richardson or we'll be looking at Senator Pearce. Everyone knows that Wilson is running less for Senate than she is away from an inevitable loss of her House seat. She won't beat Pearce in the primary.

Posted by: Stephen | Oct 29, 2007 9:37:12 AM

"Look for Hick to leave Cowtown and run for the governor's office"

Didn't he make some deal with his family that he would only stay in politics for 10 years?

"Lindsay Graham's What?"

Sorry ... Graham's support for comprehensive immigration reform.

Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | Oct 29, 2007 11:46:32 AM

I endorse your rule about Big City Mayors, which has held true in North Carolina (see Harvey Gantt and Eddie Knox, Democratic ex-mayors of Charlotte). Raleigh's mayor Charles Meeker has been mentioned for the Liddy Dole race, but has the dreaded BCM status.

Posted by: Dix Hill | Oct 29, 2007 11:53:15 AM

never run the Big City Mayor for statewide office, unless said mayor already has a track record of improving the city's image in the eyes of suburban or rural voters (see Giuliani, O'Malley, Hickenlooper, Rendell).

You left DiFi off the list.

Posted by: flory | Oct 29, 2007 1:26:55 PM

Feinstein had run for Governor and lost before winning a Senate seat. So, she fits the rule!

Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | Oct 29, 2007 2:20:17 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.