Friday, January 27th 2006
Odds & Ends
Via Volokh: “Gold star mother Cindy Sheehan has decided to run against California Senator Diane Feinstein if Feinstein does not filibuster the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel Alito.” [please run. will do wonders for Berkeley’s image…]
Via Sploid: “After a decade-long crusade the students of Yale have finally convinced the administration to put hand soap in the dormitory bathrooms.” [next item on the agenda: toilet paper]
Via SF Chron, on higher ed: “Keep tuition as low as possible, because I know there are thousands of souls like myself who want to succeed and are surviving on rice and beans to make it happen.” [and ramen. don’t forget ramen]
Via boingboing: 100×100 burger [this is why we need an In-N-Out on campus]
Quote: “I think our [Democrats] slogan should be: ‘They grab your wallet, we grab your wife’” -Paul Begala, The Colbert Report
Quote: “My dad smoked pot at Berkeley, so it’s pretty much ruined for me.” -Seth Cohen, The O.C.
Feel free to add on in the comments.
Cindy Sheehan or Diane Feinstein in the primary? That would mark the first time I’ve ever not voted for any office above dog catcher.
Comment by Donald — 1/27/2006 @ 7:39 pm
Cindy Sheehan in the primary would make Feinstein unbeatable in the general.
Begala’s quote: “‘They grab your wallet, we grab your wife’” for a Democratic slogan is funny, until you realize that the Democrats actually grab both.
Comment by Michael C. Mikulis — 1/29/2006 @ 12:54 pm
She’s already unbeatable.
Comment by Donald — 1/29/2006 @ 4:33 pm
Feinstein’s approval rating is only 52%.
Comment by Michael C. Mikulis — 1/30/2006 @ 12:24 pm
Taking your number at face value, approval ratings rise and fall, but Feinstein consistently polls as one of the most popular politicians in the state. If anything, the 52% partially reflects disatisfaction from segments of the left (case in point: at the ACLU Conference in San Francisco last year, one training on how to approach a politician featured California Senator “Find-a-Mind”).
But don’t take my word for it:
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2006/senate/?state=CA
Sabato has been wrong before, but he bats 1.000 when claiming “solid” status.
Comment by Donald — 1/30/2006 @ 12:34 pm
Feinstein approval rating has been between 49% and 54% this year, one of the lower ones in the senate. She barely won in 1994, and in 2000, she did worse than her approval rating against a complete unknown.
Until I see a strong Republican candidate, I have no problem with Sabato rating the race as solid Democrat (he only uses five categories).
Comment by Michael C. Mikulis — 1/30/2006 @ 1:01 pm
And why the hell do we need a Republican senator from California? to to be another Arlen Specter or Jim Jeffords? to pull the party further left? An election won and money spent for no progress at all. Just a meaningless tally on the Seante roster.
Boxer wiped the floor with Bill Jones, isn’t the conventional wisdom among republican party hoipolloi that Feinstein is more popular/moderate.
Comment by HB — 1/30/2006 @ 2:44 pm
Sabato uses 7 categories actually
Solid D/R
Likely D/R
Leans D/R
Toss Up
And winning 56% to your challenger’s 37% is satisfactory, even against an “unknown”, as its a sign that only 37% of the state will automatically vote Republican regardless of the candidate.
Comment by Donald — 1/30/2006 @ 3:00 pm
We don’t “need” a Republican senator from California, we do need a conservative one.
Bill Jones was pretty uninspiring and relatively unknown. I voted for Judge Gray, the Libertarian.
Comment by patr — 1/30/2006 @ 3:51 pm
“And winning 56% to your challenger’s 37% is satisfactory,
I did not argue it was unsatisfactory. Feinstein got 56% of the vote when her approval rating peaked at 57%. If her approval rating now is only 52%, it is reasonable to expect roughly 51% of the vote.
“even against an “unknown”, as its a sign that only 37% of the state will automatically vote Republican regardless of the candidate.”
It’s a sign that Republican candidates will always got a higher percentage of the vote than just the percentage of voters whom are Republican, even when only 40% of the voters know who that candidate is.
“And why the hell do we need a Republican senator from California?”
Even the most liberal Republican from California would be more conservative than Feinstein. As an example, I don’t especially like Lincoln Chafee in RI, but at least he votes against fillibusters, which is much more than we can expect from any Democrat from that state. And it is better to have Jeffords than Sanders as a Vermont senator, actually I’m surprised that the Democrats don’t plan on seriously fighting for that seat.
Comment by Michael C. Mikulis — 1/30/2006 @ 4:57 pm
Of course, this topic might be a moot point, since Feinstein did vote to fillibuster Alito.
Not surprising, but all of the Democrats running for re-election in conservative states voted to end debate, and all of the Democrats whom are thinking of running for president, voted to fillibuster.
Comment by Michael C. Mikulis — 1/30/2006 @ 5:07 pm
“I did not argue it was unsatisfactory. Feinstein got 56% of the vote when her approval rating peaked at 57%. If her approval rating now is only 52%, it is reasonable to expect roughly 51% of the vote.”
No, that’s not a reasonable expectation. Within 1% is going to be within the margin of error in any opinion poll. Assuming she’s at 52% come election day, she would presumabely get between 49-55% of the vote. In a race that is likely to see third party candidates get 10% of the vote (and I’ll be part of that 10%), she’s in for a cake walk.
As for Democrats not challenging Sanders, they have no reason to. He’ll side with the Dems in caucus. The last thing they want to do is piss off Vermont’s liberal voters by running against someone as popular as Sanders. There’s no state as open to third parties as Vermont, and engendering bitterness now _could_ lead to turmoil in a future race that Democrats would otherwise be guaranteed.
And for what its worth, Chafee is the only Republican in the Senate I would contemplate voting for, depending on his challenger.
Comment by Donald — 1/31/2006 @ 12:04 pm
Roughly 51% is between 49% and 55% of the vote.
In California state elections, third parties get 10% of the vote when either Perot is running, or both the Republican and Democrat candidates are disliked by the voters (neither situation seems likely here). You are also assuming that third party candidates take votes away from challengers with no effect on incumbents.
Even with your assumptions, Feinstein might be leading only 49%-41%. An 8 point margin is certainly not what I would call a sure thing or a cakewalk.
Whether Sanders votes with the Democrats on certain issues or not, he will not be committed to the success of the Democratic party. And they could always put up someone with views they support who will back the party.
The Democrats shoudl be capable of running candidates against Sanders, without angering liberal voters. And not running, signals that either you are scared of being slaughtered or don’t care about the state.
Comment by Michael C. Mikulis — 1/31/2006 @ 2:22 pm