Althouse: "It's not a good sign when their anointed choice for Senator, a well-known three-term incumbent..."

June 9, 2010

"It's not a good sign when their anointed choice for Senator, a well-known three-term incumbent..."

"... loses 20% of the vote in their own primary against a couple of complete unknowns--after two transcontinental trips by President Obama to support her."

Mickey Kaus, about Barbara Boxer, to whom he had to concede.

65 comments:

kent said...: "I'm a blogger. I spent about $40,000. I had one part-time aide, a recent college grad who was prepping for his LSATs. We had no headquarters, no pollsters, no highly paid strategists and consultants. We had a couple of laptops and an old Volvo. And we still ripped off more than 100,000 votes from a three term incumbent because there is a large group of voters who are dissatisfied with the prevailing dogma of the Democratic party."

Oh, that is SO going to leave a mark. ;); 6/9/10, 7:57 AM
Phil 314 said...: We had a couple of laptops and an old Volvo.

Maybe it was the old Volvo that did him in?; 6/9/10, 7:58 AM
Phil 314 said...: And this result might be a bit more disconcerting to the national Democratic Party; 6/9/10, 8:01 AM
kent said...: I spent about $40,000 [...] we still ripped off more than 100,000 votes from a three term incumbent

At a miserly 2.5 cents per vote garnered, quite possibly Mickey should switch from blogging to campaign consulting. ;); 6/9/10, 8:02 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "Uh General, can you please call me Senator, I worked so hard for that title yes, thank you."; 6/9/10, 8:02 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: On a side note, can someone tell Blanche Lincoln that it isn't 1958 anymore and to get a new hairdo?

Just sayin.; 6/9/10, 8:03 AM
Chase said...: I will never forget the first election night that Barbara Boxer won for Senate. I heard a slightly left-wing Oakland Radio Talk Host actually say these words: 'Barbara Boxer? Barbara BOXER? I'm a liberal, but c'mon, California! What are you, nuts?"; 6/9/10, 8:07 AM
Original Mike said...: From C3's link: "Democratic Party Chairwoman Carol Fowler says people who didn't know either candidate and voted alphabetically may help explain Greene's win."

Any port in a storm, I guess.; 6/9/10, 8:09 AM
kent said...: c3: "Greene raised no money in the contest, had no signs and no website."

The 'rat corruptocrat of choice... resoundingly thumped by a Greene candidate. Quelle ironic. ;); 6/9/10, 8:10 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Democratic Party Chairwoman Carol Fowler says people who didn't know either candidate and voted alphabetically may help explain Greene's win."

I know how this will sound to some people but honestly this is not exactly a ringing endorsement of democracy or at minimum, universal suffrage.

I mean I personally take voting for elected officials seriously and take some time and effort to be aprised of the issues and where the candidate stands. But when a significant portion of the electorate starts voting in the same manner as someone frantically filling in the ovals of a test before the teacher says Pencils Down, I do fear for the survival of the Republic.; 6/9/10, 8:14 AM
MadisonMan said...: I have absolutely no problem with Barbara Boxer's coming loss, if it happens. I think her opponent could be a worthwhile addition to the Senate (a low bar, to be sure).

Democratic Party Chairwoman Carol Fowler says people who didn't know either candidate and voted alphabetically may help explain Greene's win

She offers no evidence to support this claim, however. In polite circles, this is called talking out your ass.; 6/9/10, 8:19 AM
Opus One Media said...: In a State where Orly Taitz wins a quarter of the primary vote I think there are bigger issues for Ms. Boxer to contemplate.; 6/9/10, 8:20 AM
A.Worthing said...: Its a good, harsh statement, except... except in my book concessions should be a little more conciliatory. how can i say this? If Ann Althouse wrote that line it would be brilliant. But for Mickey Kaus to say it, it reads a little like sour grapes.

Which doesn't change the fact that he did do something impressive and that he is making an excellent point. I guess i am just saying the message is sharp, and correct, but the wrong messenger.; 6/9/10, 8:22 AM
Fred4Pres said...: Mickey is a closet conservative.; 6/9/10, 8:23 AM
Hagar said...: "Democracy is that system by which the people get the kind of government they deserve."

W. Churchill

How about Obama as the Pied Piper of Hamelin?; 6/9/10, 8:24 AM
MadisonMan said...: "The democratic theory is that if you accumulate enough ignorance at the polls, you produce intelligence."

(Philo Vance); 6/9/10, 8:27 AM
The Drill SGT said...: Fred4Pres said...
Mickey is a closet conservative.

In the spectrum of California Democratic politics, Mickey is far right, that's for sure.; 6/9/10, 8:31 AM
AllenS said...: Kaus needs to find a different political party.; 6/9/10, 8:33 AM
bagoh20 said...: The relative success of the nobodies is a reality check for the somebodies that says we ain't impressed anymore, Ma'am.

Of course, that's how we got or current President and that has not worked so well, but I'm very excited about the smashing of the incumbency barrier that seems imminent.; 6/9/10, 8:34 AM
Chase said...: Cannot wait for Obama to be gone. I attended a rather large prayer meeting at a rather large church Sunday evening that prayed fervently for Obama to have wisdom, do the right thing, and by God's grace be a one-term President.

He can go back to writing books, Michele can model for Vogue and Esquire, the daughters can become attorneys and journalists, Rahm can have his sure-to-happen heart attack (pent-up stress - he needs to curse at somebody) and disappear form the lime-light, and the country can hopefully go back to having an administration run by adults with experience.

Which amazingly Barbara Boxer has yet to become even ion her 60's.; 6/9/10, 8:40 AM
lemondog said...: ...but c'mon, California! What are you, nuts?"

So, did anyone call in to answer the question?

BTW did the California Wealth Initiative get on the primary ballot?; 6/9/10, 8:45 AM
kent said...: He can go back to writing books

Insert Joke Here. ;); 6/9/10, 8:47 AM
former law student said...: Mickey should at least have sent a postcard to every likely Dem voter. Instead, he didn't even go to the trouble to create a ballot statement, which would have been printed for free in the sample ballots that go to every voter in the state.

Boxer has been extremely lucky with the opponents the Republicans have chosen to date.

I'm still trying to figure out why my fellow Republicans selected a fired, disgraced, businesswoman over the proven legislator Tom Campbell. Is it that money is the mark of God's favor, a Calvinist belief?

And what is the appeal of the total political virgin -- Fiorina voted in only five elections in thirty years?; 6/9/10, 8:49 AM
chuck b. said...: The other unknown guy spanked Kaus. And that other guy I have really never heard of. http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/ussen/59.htm; 6/9/10, 8:52 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: I'm still trying to figure out why my fellow Republicans...

Well there is my bellylaugh of the day.; 6/9/10, 9:06 AM
former law student said...: The other unknown guy spanked Kaus. And that other guy I have really never heard of.

Brian Quintana went to the trouble of providing a ballot statement. A political activist and Hollywood producer (as well as Berkeley grad and native Angeleno), his top priorities as Senator would have been Creating Jobs, Improving the Economy, and
Improving Education; 6/9/10, 9:16 AM
chuck b. said...: "I know many people who are registered as Independent in Calif and they ALL voted for Kaus."

You can vote in the Democratic primary if you're registered as an Independent?; 6/9/10, 9:27 AM
AllenS said...: How do you improve education? Spend more money, is that it? How has that worked out?; 6/9/10, 9:27 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: BTW did the California Wealth Initiative get on the primary ballot?

Nope.; 6/9/10, 9:27 AM
gk1 said...: In a way its good Boxer sailed through the primary with a win. That will make her numerous campaign gaffes against a real opponent more enjoyable. My dog has more brains in her ass than that woman has in her whole body.; 6/9/10, 9:27 AM
AllenS said...: How does one improve the economy? What is the best way to create jobs?; 6/9/10, 9:29 AM
gk1 said...: chuckb, I am an independent and simply asked for a democratic ballot so I could vote for Kaus. Although It appears the "decline to state" initiative has passed in California so we can have open primarys (for now) I am sure the two partys will get together to undermine that law somehow. Feh.; 6/9/10, 9:30 AM
X said...: I'm still trying to figure out why my fellow Republicans...

I think he's outing himself as a Titus Republican. NTTAWWT.; 6/9/10, 9:31 AM
MadisonMan said...: his top priorities as Senator would have been Creating Jobs, Improving the Economy, and Improving Education

Well, that certainly differentiates him from other Candidates.; 6/9/10, 9:32 AM
Original Mike said...: "Well, that certainly differentiates him from other Candidates."

Right {/snark}. Maybe MM's observation gives some insight as to why Kaus didn't bother with a statement, FLS.; 6/9/10, 9:37 AM
Invisible Man said...: I attended a rather large prayer meeting at a rather large church Sunday evening that prayed fervently for Obama to have wisdom, do the right thing, and by God's grace be a one-term President.

I hope you also prayed for lower toll charges in NJ. I mean $4 every toll. Come on!; 6/9/10, 9:39 AM
Anonymous said...: Boxer has a way of ducking debates and only doing interviews with friendly journalists.

I HOPE that Proposition 14 is challenged in court ....; 6/9/10, 9:40 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: You can vote in the Democratic primary if you're registered as an Independent?

Yes. You can choose to vote in either primary....but only one :-D

That is moot now, since the retards in California passed prop 14 which now allows a completly open primary.; 6/9/10, 9:43 AM
Unknown said...: Someone in CA can tell me for sure, but isn't it true Call Me Senator wouldn't be where she is without hubbo's original monetary backing and influence?

That Kaus got as far as he did speaks strongly to the fact voters on the Left Coast may be waking up.

former law student said...

...

I'm still trying to figure out why my fellow Republicans selected a fired, disgraced, businesswoman over the proven legislator Tom Campbell. Is it that money is the mark of God's favor, a Calvinist belief?

Not a fan of Fiorina's, but I don't know I'd use the word disgraced. (And, yes, I am aware of her adventures at HP).

As to Protestants' belief that money is the mark of God's favor, I know Jimmy Carter and his friends saw it that way.; 6/9/10, 9:43 AM
Bob From Ohio said...: "I'm still trying to figure out why my fellow Republicans selected a fired, disgraced, businesswoman over the proven legislator Tom Campbell."

Campbell is anti-Israel for starters.

He is to the left of Fiorna while the party is to her right.

Plus, he is a professional politician, those are not in vogue right now.; 6/9/10, 9:43 AM
Bob From Ohio said...: One more reason for Campbell's defeat. Sarah Palin.; 6/9/10, 9:48 AM
lemondog said...: Dust Bunny Queen said...

BTW did the California Wealth Initiative get on the primary ballot?

Nope.

Good.

I notice that initiative proponent CPA Paul McCauley previously proposed a similar initiative. I assume this will not be the last he will be heard from on the subject.; 6/9/10, 9:49 AM
Anonymous said...: "Its a good, harsh statement, except... except in my book concessions should be a little more conciliatory. how can i say this? If Ann Althouse wrote that line it would be brilliant. But for Mickey Kaus to say it, it reads a little like sour grapes."

Wasn't the whole point of his campaign that he's tired of the political machine there in CA? When your campaign is an attempt to make a statement that the system is broken, I don't see it being sour grapes when you use whatever minor success you had as a way to make a point that there is something wrong.

The little guy doesn't need to be respectful of the big guy.; 6/9/10, 9:54 AM
Paddy O said...: I don't know...

Seems to me like this shows the extent of the reach of blogs. Kaus is pretty popular on the internet, getting all kinds of links, and invited to join in with conversations with other important bloggers. He got links about his campaign in all kinds of places online.

But, in a year that sees significant primary challenges in other states, such as Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas, Kaus can't get even close to being competitive. His small staff is not testimony to some sort of heroic pluckiness, but seems more an indication that despite all his web popularity no one had any interest in significantly funding his campaign.

I think Kaus is a sign of the lack of real impact blogs have. Which is very little in the real world.

Even as they can in fact be part of larger movements they're not really all that influential.; 6/9/10, 10:28 AM
Anonymous said...: "I'm still trying to figure out why my fellow Republicans selected a fired, disgraced, businesswoman over the proven legislator Tom Campbell. Is it that money is the mark of God's favor, a Calvinist belief?"

After HP's board fired Fiorina, she started speaking at Christian conferences on leadership and things like that. I had no idea that she claimed to be a Christian before then. Laying the groundwork to run, perhaps.

I don't think I saw a television ad for Campbell or DeVore during the campaign, but I saw numerous ads for Fiorina.; 6/9/10, 10:44 AM
Anonymous said...: I like Kaus, but (as I first noticed back in the days when he was all Ron Burkle, all the time) he seems to have been born without the able-to-tell-when-no-one-else-gives-a-fuck gene.; 6/9/10, 10:51 AM
Big Mike said...: We had a couple of laptops and an old Volvo

He should have replaced the Volvo with a Chevy S10, preferrably in black with a window decal proclaiming his coolness to the world.

Or not ...; 6/9/10, 10:56 AM
Scott M said...: Democrats should always be re-elected because they go after the rich pigs.

First...how many Democrats in the Senate aren't "rich"? Let's just say $500k per year and up for argument's sake.

Second...please elucidate your reasoning between someone that makes $500k a year and is a pig versus someone that makes $500k a year and isn't. I.E., what are your pork prerequisites?; 6/9/10, 10:58 AM
Scott M said...: Not up to me to decide.

So, you can't speak intelligently as to why this Senator should remain a Senator?; 6/9/10, 11:03 AM
former law student said...: Well there is my bellylaugh of the day.

Hey I voted for Matt Fong and my hero, Bill Jones.; 6/9/10, 11:22 AM
Phil 314 said...: Kaus needs to find a different political party.

Yes, and seek public office as a Republican, win and then be berated as a RINO.

Yes, that's a future anyone would look forward to.; 6/9/10, 11:37 AM
AlphaLiberal said...: IOW, Mickey got his ass handed to him and was soundly rejected as the vainglorious gadfly he is.

Suck it up, Mickey.; 6/9/10, 1:52 PM
A.Worthing said...: this article cuts across several themes today.

You might have heard of the SC dem senatorial candidate who won pretty much without campaigning. weird.

Well, another shoe dropped. the man has pending felony charge... for sending porn to some college student. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/sc-democrat-senate-nominee-faces-felony-charge-95979754.html

weird.; 6/9/10, 3:21 PM
Phil 314 said...: weird.

More than weird. This looks bad, really bad. Next we're going to hear about some young white guy dressed as pimp who walks into the SC Democratic Party Headquarters says he doesn't live in the state but wants to be in politics so he thought he could just come down to SC and sign up as the Democratic Senatorial candidate for 2010.

(PS Fritz Hollings turning over in his grave); 6/9/10, 4:17 PM
Revenant said...: I'm still trying to figure out why my fellow Republicans selected a fired, disgraced, businesswoman over the proven legislator Tom Campbell.

Because the last time "proven legislator Tom Campbell" tried running for office, he did five points worse with Californians than George Bush did.

And what is the appeal of the total political virgin -- Fiorina voted in only five elections in thirty years?

What an odd remark. It implies that political experience is obtained by voting.; 6/9/10, 4:57 PM
Kev said...: Democrats should always be re-elected because they go after the rich pigs.

I can't find this quote in any previous comment in this thread. Where did it come from? The only thing I can guess is that you're doing a blunt paraphrase of this portion of Kaus's concession:

Those common sense policies don't mean abandoning the traditional Democratic ideal of equal respect for all citizens, regardless of income. They're the only way we are going to achieve that ideal.

That's pretty much the only thing that Kaus has said recently that disappoints me. But he's still far superior to Senator Don't Call Me Ma'am, IMHO.; 6/9/10, 4:59 PM
former law student said...: What an odd remark. It implies that political experience is obtained by voting.

Voting is a political act, because one selects the politician one prefers for a political office. I wish I could offer more evidence of Fiorina's political experience; unfortunately, voting is the only brush with politics that Fiorina ever had (until her gaffe-filled stint with McCain's campaign). She has neither held office or run for office. I conclude Fiorina cared little for politics up until now.; 6/9/10, 5:42 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: And what is the appeal of the total political virgin -- Fiorina voted in only five elections in thirty years?

As most Californians well know. 90% of the time there isn't anyone worth voting FOR. Most of my votes are cast against....or I just don't vote if I don't have a good reason to vote for OR against.

The fact that she is more selective about her votes, instead of voting just..because... gives me a better feeling about her.; 6/9/10, 5:54 PM
former law student said...: the man has pending felony charge... for sending porn to some college student.

I guess you have to be pretty straight-arrow to live in South Carolina -- no wonder their governor went to Argentina to cheat on his wife.

Anybody who likes non-vanilla sex runs the risk of a felony charge:

SECTION 16-15-120. Buggery.
Whoever shall commit the abominable crime of buggery, whether with mankind or with beast, shall, on conviction, be guilty of felony and shall be imprisoned in the Penitentiary for five years or shall pay a fine of not less than five hundred dollars, or both, at the discretion of the court.

And here is the statute I guess Al Greene http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lus8OTnLo7w was arrested for violating. Note that a picture of a naked (female) nipple is enough to put you away for five years:

ARTICLE 3.
OBSCENITY, MATERIAL HARMFUL TO MINORS, CHILD EXPLOITATION, AND CHILD PROSTITUTION

SECTION 16-15-305. Disseminating, procuring or promoting obscenity unlawful; definitions; penalties; obscene material designated contraband.
(A) It is unlawful for any person knowingly to disseminate obscenity. A person disseminates obscenity within the meaning of this article if he:

(1) sells, delivers, or provides or offers or agrees to sell, deliver, or provide any obscene writing, picture, record, digital electronic file, or other representation or description of the obscene;

...
(B) For purposes of this article any material is obscene if:

(1) to the average person applying contemporary community standards, the material depicts or describes in a patently offensive way sexual conduct specifically defined by subsection (C) of this section;

(2) the average person applying contemporary community standards relating to the depiction or description of sexual conduct would find that the material taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest in sex;

(3) to a reasonable person, the material taken as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value; and

(4) the material as used is not otherwise protected or privileged under the Constitutions of the United States or of this State.

((H) A person who violates this section is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be imprisoned not more than five years or fined not more than ten thousand dollars, or both.; 6/9/10, 6:09 PM
former law student said...: Definitions from the statute:

C) As used in this article:

(1) "sexual conduct" means:

(a) vaginal, anal, or oral intercourse, whether actual or simulated, normal or perverted, whether between human beings, animals, or a combination thereof;

(b) masturbation, excretory functions, or lewd exhibition, actual or simulated, of the genitals, pubic hair, anus, vulva, or female breast nipples including male or female genitals in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal or covered male genitals in a discernably turgid state;

(c) (S&M)

(d) an act or condition that depicts actual or simulated touching, caressing, or fondling of, or other similar physical contact with, the covered or exposed genitals, pubic or anal regions, or female breast nipple, whether alone or between humans, animals, or a human and an animal, of the same or opposite sex, in an act of actual or apparent sexual stimulation or gratification; or

(e)... (Dildoing -- but rectal thermometry is A-OK)

(2) "patently offensive" means obviously and clearly disagreeable, objectionable, repugnant, displeasing, distasteful, or obnoxious to contemporary standards of decency and propriety within the community.

(3) "prurient interest" means a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion and is reflective of an arousal of lewd and lascivious desires and thoughts.

(4) "person" means any individual, corporation, partnership, association, firm, club, or other legal or commercial entity.

(5) "knowingly" [defined]

(D) Obscenity must be judged with reference to ordinary adults [except for porn meant to appeal to children or weirdoes]

(E) As used in this article, "community standards" used in determining prurient appeal and patent offensiveness are the standards of the area from which the jury is drawn.

...; 6/9/10, 6:10 PM
Revenant said...: Voting is a political act, because one selects the politician one prefers for a political office.

That's a silly argument. Voting is anonymous; knowing that one person voted 100 times and a second person voted only once tells you nothing about either person's desirability as an elected official. For all you know, the first person voted for David Duke all 100 times.

She has neither held office or run for office.

Well, yes. That's one of her biggest selling points, isn't it? There isn't a politician in California voters actually like. Even Saint Dianne of Feinstein is below 50% these days.

I conclude Fiorina cared little for politics up until now.

That's a pretty senseless thing to say, considering she's been publicly active in state and national politics for over two years.

Prior to 2000 she never voted. In 2000 she began voting. From 2000 to 2009 she voted five times, i.e. once per major election. In 2008 she became an active participant in state Republican Party activities. The intelligent conclusion to draw from this is that she had no interest in politics prior to 2000 but became steadily more politically interested and active thereafter.; 6/9/10, 7:53 PM
former law student said...: I conclude Fiorina cared little for politics up until now.

That's a pretty senseless thing to say, considering she's been publicly active in state and national politics for over two years.

Amended: I conclude Fiorian cared little for politics before she got shitcanned from her Fortune 50 CEO job.

knowing that one person voted 100 times and a second person voted only once tells you nothing about either person's desirability as an elected official.

Who's more knowledgeable about sex? Someone who's had sex 100 times or someone who only had it once, when they were over 45?; 6/9/10, 10:19 PM
Revenant said...: FLS, I realize you're just mobying, but I will continue to humor you because you amuse me.

Amended: I conclude Fiorian cared little for politics before she got shitcanned from her Fortune 50 CEO job.

You mean "six months after she got her Fortune 50 CEO job". Like I noted before, she's been voting regularly since 2000.

Who's more knowledgeable about sex? Someone who's had sex 100 times or someone who only had it once, when they were over 45?

I concede that Carly Fiorina is inexperienced in the act of punching out the little chads on pieces of paper in a ballot booth. And if that was useful experience for the Senate, that would worry me. But like I pointed out before, the part of a politician's personal voting habits that actually tells you something about the kind of Senator they would be is the anonymous part -- who they voted for and why.

Now, what we do know quite well are the Senatorial voting habits of Barbara Boxer. Which allows us to determine that if, in November of 1992, she had suffered a massive stroke which caused her voting habits to be entirely random and unpredictable, her job performance over the past 18 years would have been dramatically superior to what it has actually been.

If it turns out that Fiorina wins and proves to be a completely unqualified dolt who routinely votes in favor of one asinine law after another while just as routinely opposing positive changes in government, I'll smack my head and say "good grief, she's just as bad as Boxer was".

But the idea that she might be worse than Boxer? That's as silly as the notion that you're a Republican. :); 6/10/10, 1:39 AM
former law student said...: Like I noted before, she's been voting regularly since 2000.

Hey, once I've conceded your argument -- voting doesn't count --is superior, it's hardly cricket to adopt my argument. Voting doesn't count.

But your sub-argument that numbers don't matter sucked, so I pointed out why.; 6/10/10, 9:26 AM
Revenant said...: Hey, once I've conceded your argument -- voting doesn't count --is superior, it's hardly cricket to adopt my argument.

It goes without saying that I wasn't. But if you're conceding that Fiorina's voting habits are irrelevant then you claim that she didn't care about politics prior to "now" or "four years ago" or whatever you've changed your story to today has no supporting evidence at all, and hence can be ignored. :)

But your sub-argument that numbers don't matter sucked, so I pointed out why.

Now, now. You can't concede that your argument was nonsense and then argue that your "the number of votes is important" argument wasn't.; 6/10/10, 1:35 PM