Political roundup from Pa., N.Y. and the Bay State
A few political stories from around the country with potentially national implications:
From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (which I used to deliver as a kid):
HARRISBURG — A new proposal is pushing the often-forgotten Electoral College into the spotlight as Pennsylvania officials ponder the state’s role in next year’s presidential race.
Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi is trying to gather support to change the state’s “winner-takes-all” approach for awarding electoral votes. Instead, he’s suggesting that Pennsylvania dole them out based on which candidate wins each of the 18 congressional districts, with the final two going to the contender with the most votes statewide.
So far, the idea has received support from colleagues of the Delaware County Republican in the state House and from Republican Gov. Tom Corbett. But Democrats, who have carried the state in presidential contests since 1992, said the shift would erode Pennsylvania’s clout.
The change being pushed by Pennsylvania Republicans — who control the state Legislature and governor’s office — would end the traditional “winner-take-all” approach to the electoral college. Instead of Pennsylvania’s 20 votes going to the person who carries the state — which with rare exceptions has been a Democrat — each congressional district in the state would determine how its electoral vote was cast.
As the Post-Gazette notes:
An analysis by the online news service Capitolwire noted that had the proposed distribution process been in place in Pennsylvania in 2008 before the state lost one congressional district due to a population decline in the 2010 census, Mr. Obama would have won only 11 of the state’s 21 votes.
A simple change in state law subtracts 10 votes from Barack Obama’s electoral count. It’s straight out of the “if you can’t beat ‘em, change the rules on them” approach.
HOWARD BEACH, N.Y. — The Democratic Party’s rare loss of a congressional seat in its urban heartland Tuesday, accompanied by a blowout defeat in a Nevada special election, marked the latest in a string of demoralizing setbacks that threatened to deepen the party’s crisis of confidence and raise concerns about President Barack Obama’s political fortunes.
In New York, Republican Bob Turner soundly defeated Democrat David Weprin in a House contest that – in the view of party leaders, at least — featured an anemic urban machine, distracted labor unions, and disloyal voters….
Even before the polls closed, the recriminations – something short of panic, and considerably more than mere grumbling – had begun. On a high-level campaign conference call Tuesday afternoon, Democratic donors and strategists commiserated over their disappointment in Obama. A source on the call described the mood as “awful.”
As I noted Monday, the results out of New York lend credence to the possibility that come January 2013, the Republican Party could control every lever of power in Washington, including the Supreme Court. And with few effective controls on its ambitions, the consequences could be enormous.
And finally, out of Massachusetts, from the Boston Globe (another paper I used to deliver):
Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard Law School professor and a Wall Street critic, will officially embark this morning on her run for the US Senate seat held by Republican Scott Brown….
“The pressures on middle class families are worse than ever, but it is the big corporations that get their way in Washington,’’ Warren says in a clip of the video (see below). “I want to change that. I will work my heart out to earn the trust of the people of Massachusetts.’’
While her decision to run is not a surprise, Warren’s presence in the race is expected to dramatically reshape and energize the 2012 campaign that will determine whether Brown will get a six-year term in the seat that was held for nearly 46 years by the state’s liberal icon, the late Edward M. Kennedy….
Initial polls show that Warren has her work cut out for her. A Globe survey late last month showed that in a hypothetical matchup against Brown, but no other candidates, Warren would trail the incumbent by 19 points.
Brown would receive 48 percent of the vote, the poll suggested, while Warren would get 29 percent. The results signal early concerns for both candidates: Warren has low name recognition, while Brown has failed to capture more than 50 percent support in a direct matchup with her.
Warren has significant media skills, as she’s demonstrated on The Daily Show and other outlets, but never underestimate the steep learning curve required of a newcomer to hardball politics. On the other hand, her populist message is going to draw a lot of financial support nationwide, and will be closely watched by political professionals on both sides. If her message resonates, it could alter the path of other races as well.
In the end, Senate Republicans may come to rue their decision not to allow a vote on Warren’s nomination to head of a new federal consumer protection agency, a decision that led directly to her decision to seek Brown’s Senate seat.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2012 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
746 comments Add your comment
Libertarian
September 14th, 2011
10:40 am
So many people were spewing hate on the last blog. Atlanta….the city too busy to hate!
Keep Up the Good Fight!
September 14th, 2011
10:42 am
We need more Elizabeth Warrens!
USinUK
September 14th, 2011
10:43 am
“Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi is trying to gather support to change the state’s “winner-takes-all” approach for awarding electoral votes. Instead, he’s suggesting that Pennsylvania dole them out based on which candidate wins each of the 18 congressional districts, with the final two going to the contender with the most votes statewide.”
I think it’s time for EVERY state to adopt that proposal – the winner-take-all system doesn’t work.
stands for decibels
September 14th, 2011
10:43 am
Go, Elizabeth.
(and Jay, gotcha downstairs on the unholy thing. Consider it retired.)
Matti calls B.S.
September 14th, 2011
10:44 am
Say what? The electoral college can go or it can stay, but it has to be the same for every state, or it’s B.S.
Doggone/GA
September 14th, 2011
10:45 am
“I think it’s time for EVERY state to adopt that proposal – the winner-take-all system doesn’t work”
I’ve been saying that for several years now. All those calls a few years ago to do away with the electoral college altogether were so pointless. It’s MUCH, MUCH easier to just change how the votes are allocated than it is to actually make a Constitutional amendment. Which is what it would take to eliminate it.
getalife
September 14th, 2011
10:45 am
“(which I used to deliver as a kid)”:
You worked your way up.
She will be a lone wolf taking in Wall Street.
“Quite frankly, they own the place” durbin.
I hope she succeeds.
stands for decibels
September 14th, 2011
10:46 am
I think it’s time for EVERY state to adopt that proposal
yes, but if *every* state doesn’t, it’s basically a suicide pact.
Libertarian
September 14th, 2011
10:47 am
“I think it’s time for EVERY state to adopt that proposal – the winner-take-all system doesn’t work.”
Agreed.
Aquagirl
September 14th, 2011
10:48 am
The Founding Fathers knew the Electoral College sucked, but they had bigger fish to fry at the time. We need to stop being lazy and fix it.
USMC
September 14th, 2011
10:49 am
“In the end, Senate Republicans may come to rue their decision not to allow a vote on Warren’s nomination to head of a new federal consumer protection agency, a decision that led directly to her decision to seek Brown’s Senate seat.”–JAY BOOKMAN
It won’t matter because the Republicans will control BOTH houses of Congress AND the Executive Branch after the 2012 elections.
Obama is toast and in the end, Democrats will come to rue their decision to go all in on Obamacare and Chicagoland politics.
Doggone/GA
September 14th, 2011
10:50 am
“but it has to be the same for every state, or it’s B.S.”
Sorry, but no it isn’t. The Constitution requires the electoral college…but CLEARLY gives the allocation of those votes to the states to control. As is, by the by, election laws and standards.
USinUK
September 14th, 2011
10:50 am
dB – 10:46 – I don’t know about a suicide pact, but it’s definitely a game-changer on how / if people campaign in the state.
the US is a purple country, not red / blue – I think this kind of change would make a HUGE difference in how people think of the country as a whole.
Brosephus
September 14th, 2011
10:51 am
USinner
The only way the PA change would work is if all states did it together. Do you really think that either the GOP or the Democratic Party wants to change it that much? I think a system like that would far better match the popular vote and make each person’s vote count that much more. I just don’t see a change like that happening everywhere.
Paul
September 14th, 2011
10:53 am
Pennsylvania: proposals to change the Electoral College are usually made by one side seeking short-term political gain. Problem is, cycles occur and then the change works against them.
Warren: Republicans blocked her appointment, now she challenges for a Senate seat. Unintended consequences. Pennsylvania, are you listening?
NY: one-party control is never good, especially when the party is the Party of Purity and doesn’t take kindly to diversity of thought.
Doggone/GA
September 14th, 2011
10:53 am
“I think this kind of change would make a HUGE difference in how people think of the country as a whole.”
Personally, I don’t know that it would…but what it WOULD do is make the electoral college come out much closer to the actual voting results in virtually all cases.
USinUK
September 14th, 2011
10:53 am
SoCoBro – I TOTALLY agree –
I think the NRC and DNC should totally be into the idea – think about the states that would be in play – CA, NY, VA, etc – both of them could pick up electoral votes in previous strongholds
ragnar danneskjold
September 14th, 2011
10:54 am
Good morning. I believe Republicans would much prefer that the Elizabeth Warrens of the world become minority back-benchers in the Senate rather than wielding the dictator-like power of such an ill-conceived agency as the Federal Consumer Protection Agency. (Dictator-like, meaning Congress cannot affect the funding, and no board controls the agency.)
I also think the Weiner seat election was no big deal, as that seat will be dissolved in reapportionment. The Nevada blow-out was pretty much expected.
I like the idea of the 10 biggest states awarding their electoral votes pro-rata. Small states ought to keep the traditional system, to ensure the oft-mismanaged large states do not destroy the economies of the less powerful.
USinUK
September 14th, 2011
10:55 am
Doggone – absolutely agree with you on the electoral / popular vote
but I think that getting more people to see the country like this: http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/elections/Multiyear3.gif
rather than blue on either side and red in the middle would go a long way
Aquagirl
September 14th, 2011
10:56 am
but it has to be the same for every state, or it’s B.S.
Actually Maine and Nebraska could split their votes, (but haven’t, as far as I know) but we’re talking about States that matter, right?
Matti calls B.S.
September 14th, 2011
10:56 am
Doggone,
I didn’t say it wasn’t legal. I said it was B.S. That was a value judgement on my part. Personally, I don’t like the fact that my vote does not count because I live in Georgia, and I’d be happy to see the EC go away. Next, can we please reform the primary system? That’s also B.S.! The people in Iowa get seven or eight choices, and by the time the race comes to my neighborhood, I get two or three. How is THAT fair?
Brosephus
September 14th, 2011
11:00 am
both of them could pick up electoral votes in previous strongholds
That’s why I don’t think we’ll see it happen. When have you ever seen a politican risk giving up an advantage not knowing whether or not they would keep it afterwards?
Peadawg
September 14th, 2011
11:01 am
It’s funny as hell to hear Democrats saying stuff about how bad the Democrat candidate was in NY yet they shelled out how much money for t.v. ads?
Brosephus™ - Browning America since 1973
September 14th, 2011
11:02 am
I like the idea of the 10 biggest states awarding their electoral votes pro-rata. Small states ought to keep the traditional system, to ensure the oft-mismanaged large states do not destroy the economies of the less powerful.
If one does it, then they all should do it. Glad to also see an avowed conservative acknowledge that Texas is a mismanaged screwup too.
Peadawg
September 14th, 2011
11:02 am
“So many people were spewing hate on the last blog” – Agreed. It was pretty sad to read.
Peadawg
September 14th, 2011
11:05 am
“if you can’t beat ‘em, change the rules on them”
I don’t think they have to worry about beating Obama next November. Hell, I could probably beat Obama if I had the money to campaign. Now the GOP has Obama’s record as President to campaign against. He may finally have some experience, but that’s not saying much if the experience sucks.
md
September 14th, 2011
11:05 am
Well……if we are going to change the system, then let’s make a few more changes:
Like voting for the Vice President as a separate vote…………..
And doing away with party primaries………let all voters vote for whoever they want in the primary to get the 2 most popular candidates in the general.
AmVet - Read my lips. No new Texans!
September 14th, 2011
11:10 am
Aquagirl,
In the 2008 presidential election, Nebraska’s first district – Omaha, Lincoln and eastern part of the state – went to Obama.
The other districts were carried by McCain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NE-districts-109-1.gif
The electoral college is about the ONLY thing that I can think of that should be corrected by Constitutional Amendment
Keep Up the Good Fight!
September 14th, 2011
11:10 am
And Corbett’s electoral giveaway to the GOP is merely the most audacious prong of a nationwide GOP strategy to steal democracy away from the American people. Numerous GOP state legislatures rammed through “voter ID” laws, which disenfranchise thousands of elderly, disabled, and low-income voters. Other states have erected new barriers to voter registration or reduced early voting opportunities — both of which make it more difficult for working class Americans to vote. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) gutted his state’s public financing system for candidates to pay for a voter disenfranchisement law. A 5-4 Supreme Court decision just declared laws enabling publicly financed candidates to defend themselves against unlimited corporate attack ads unconstitutional.
Because in the GOP’s America, We the People can elect anyone we want, so long as they are a Republican.
AmVet - Read my lips. No new Texans!
September 14th, 2011
11:12 am
Excuse me, “metropolitan” Omaha is in District 2…
Paulo977
September 14th, 2011
11:13 am
Peadawg
“Democrat candidate was in NY yet they shelled out how much money for t.v. ads?”
What do we call this figure of speech? Someone help me?
USinUK
September 14th, 2011
11:14 am
AmVet – I’m sorry, did you say Mutual of Omaha is District 2?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnMd7tD7HhE
Mick
September 14th, 2011
11:19 am
**the results out of New York lend credence to the possibility that come January 2013, the Republican Party could control every lever of power in Washington, including the Supreme Court. And with few effective controls on its ambitions, the consequences could be enormous.88
Bring it on! If people don’t remember the last go round then they deserve what they get…
Matti calls B.S.
September 14th, 2011
11:19 am
“Because in the GOP’s America, We the People can elect anyone we want, so long as they are a Republican.”
Soooo, Georgia isn’t a backwater state; we’re ahead of the fascist curve! We’ll probably be one of the first convert completely to modern corporate feudalism. Cool!
Paul
September 14th, 2011
11:20 am
If this is going to devolve into an electoral college discussion, it might be a good idea to have an understanding of why we have it and why and how it’s been altered.
http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_history.php
AmVet
Get new wheels? Happy?
Peadawg
September 14th, 2011
11:22 am
The problem is, Mick, the Democrats haven’t done much better when they’ve had control. It seems the American people are stuck w/ 2 sh*tty parties to chose from right now. An Independent hardly has a chance to win an election b/c so much people follow their respective party so blindly it’s sickening.
Adam
September 14th, 2011
11:25 am
Oof. The Times, they are a Changin’….
Of PA wants to do that with electoral college votes, they certainly can. Other states have. It may not be as smart as they would like. One state can do very little to influence the outcome of an entire national election. But it is gonna be fun to see them try. Does this make PA a swing state?
Dave R.
September 14th, 2011
11:25 am
“And with few effective controls on its ambitions, the consequences could be enormous.”
Funny, didn’t hear that sentiment in January of 2009.
Go figure.
stands for decibels
September 14th, 2011
11:27 am
Funny, didn’t hear that sentiment in January of 2009.
Republicans controlled, and continue to control, the Judicial branch.
Tommy Maddox
September 14th, 2011
11:30 am
“…if you can’t beat ‘em, change the rules on them”.
Isn’t that how we got Obamacare?
Bosch
September 14th, 2011
11:30 am
Is Peadawg, aka, Mr. “democrats are pro-abortion” still blabbering on about being sn Independent?
Tommy Maddox
September 14th, 2011
11:33 am
3000 babies a day Bosch.
ty webb
September 14th, 2011
11:33 am
What’s with the libs’ and their obsession with “the daily show” and cartoonists…I will concede that both are more credible than “think progress”…and the “SPLC”…but then, that’s not really saying much.
JohnnyReb
September 14th, 2011
11:35 am
People, all people, deserve for their vote to count. What Penn proposes supports that concept. I live in Clayton County where my vote always opposes the local majority but most always agrees with the Nation as a whole. I am sure the proposed change in Penn is due to similar circumstances.
Scott Brown will not enjoy the financial support this round he did on initial election. People outside his state contributed last time due to wanting to defeat Obamacare.
BTW, Democrats ignored the Scott Brown message just like they are now trying to ignore and excuse their way around yesterday’s thrashing. Obama has been the biggest boost to Republicans since Reagan; too bad he has caused soo much damage.
stands for decibels
September 14th, 2011
11:35 am
3000 babies a day Bosch.
Embryos are not babies Tommy.
If you believe otherwise, amend the Constitution. Until then you can go on sucking it.
Mary Elizabeth
September 14th, 2011
11:35 am
“. . . the possibility that come January 2013, the Republican Party could control every lever of power in Washington, including the Supreme Court. And with few effective controls on its ambitions, the consequences could be enormous.”
—————————————————————–
Here are a few facts for readers to consider today:
- 1 in 6 Americans is now in poverty
- American paychecks are lower than they have been in 15 years, under $50,000. per year
- 15% of Americans are in poverty; 46 million Americans in poverty
- 16.3% of Americans have no medical insurance
- The lowest 20% in income in our nation, die 6 1/2 years earlier than others (averaged)
Source for all the above: MSNBC, this a.m.
- Georgia’s poverty rate is the highest since 1983
- 1.83 million Georgians in poverty
Source for these two points: AJC today, p. 1
——————————————————————————————–
About Rick Perry’s ties with Merck Pharmaceuticals:
- Perry’s former chief of staff, Mike Toomey, became a chief lobbyist for Merck. Emails from Toomey’s office to Perry’s aids were ongoing when Perry’s executive order for having all 6th grade girls in Texas be innoculated against cervical cancer was being written.
- Merck contributed $5,000. to Perry’s campaign in one year only. Overall, Merck has contributed
$29,500. in the last several years to Perry’s campaigns.
- Perry became the Chair of the Republican Governor’s Association (RGA) about the same time that Merck was lobbying governors to accept their newly developed immunization against cervical cancer.
- Merck made a contribution of $377, 500. to the RGA about that time.
- The RGA made a $4,000,000. contribution to Perry’s campaign about that time.
- Mike Toomey has started a SuperPac whose goal is to raise 55 million dollars for the election of Perry as President of the U.S. It is called “Make Us Great Again.”
Source for the above,(in which the above was stated to be legal): “Lawrence O’Donnell’s Show,” 9/13/11
We can expect more of the same if Perry is elected President.
The people must start to see how the very wealthy and powerful have enhanced their own wealth, often through government, while at the same time advocating against government. The government was designed by our forefathers to serve the people. If people were perfect, so said Jefferson, there would be no need for government; we need government, he said, precisely because people are imperfect.
We need honest government and honest polilticians who serve the people’s interest more than ever today. First, the people must see how they have been manipulated to think, erroneously, that government is the problem, instead of the solution.
Dave R.
September 14th, 2011
11:37 am
Warren is an uber-liberal in a state growing increasingly moderate. And while she’s no “Marsha” Coakley, she’s politically inexperienced and going up against one of the most charismatic Senators in MA history since JFK.
She may play well enough, but in an expected GOP year, it’s going to be another close one.
In the end, it likely won’t matter given the Dems problems with the other 23 Senate seats they have to defend.
Hootinanny Yum Yum
September 14th, 2011
11:37 am
I like the idea of allocating Electoral College votes being proposed in PA. I believe it would better reflect what “We the People” truly intend when we vote.
As far as every state being required to do the same, I believe that is up to the state. If it is the right thing to do, I’d hope that all the states would eventually adopt a similar plan.
You mentioning papers you delivered when you were younger caused me to reflect on what I did when I was younger.
In ‘68 and ‘69 at the ripe young age of 9 and 10, I washed tables at lunch time at Ranchvale Elementary School in New Mexico so I could get my lunch free.
Also, at the age of 9 and 10, I did yard work at Cannon AFB, NM, with an ancient reel lawn mower and hand clippers. Fortunately, lawns were sparse and small on the AFB. I also sold seed packets door-to-door. Got the seeds from a company that advertised in Boy’s Life magazine. Didn’t earn any money, bud did get a chemistry set.
My dad retired when I was 11 and we moved to Atlanta. I started throwing the Atlanta Journal in Shamrock Garden Apartments off of Campbellton Rd. I also walked to Venetian Hills Elementary instead of taking the bus. I saved the bus money to take clarinet lessons after school.
When we moved to South Fulton, I painted interior walls and cleaned gutters in rental properties for the man we rented our house from. Also, worked one summer helping a neighbor across the street build a barn in his backyard.
Those were the days. Be glad when things begin to recover. If you told me then, at the age of 51, I would have been unemployed for two years I would have said no way. At this point, I don’t really care who is running the show. I just want things to get better.
md
September 14th, 2011
11:37 am
Am I the only one that sees a problem with an entire country voting for a President, but one man choosing his own successor?
Where is the democracy in that?
stands for decibels
September 14th, 2011
11:38 am
We can expect more of the same if Perry is elected President.
Obama beats Perry like a yard dog. He beats Romney just regular.
According to this far-left news resource, anyway…
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/mitt-romney-rick-perry/2011/09/13/id/410836