Mediaboss Marketing

The Liberal Democrats denied that the figures showed a drop in morale in the party or a sign of lack of enthusiasm. Photograph: Chris Ison/PA

The Liberal Democrats have still to select their parliamentary candidates in more than half the seats up for grabs in the general election in four months time, leading Labour to claim that Nick Cleggs party is in danger of forfeiting its right to present itself as a national party.

The Liberal Democrats have selected candidates in only 266 of the 631 seats British parties will contest excluding Northern Ireland, where the party does not fight elections.

By contrast Labour has selected candidates for election in 606 seats, Ukip in 358, the Greens in 310 and the Conservatives for 471. The figures have been compiled by the Political Betting website. The Labour MP for Chesterfield, Toby Perkins, claimed the Liberal Democrats were risking a collapse in their share of the vote.

The Liberal Democrats denied that the figures showed a drop in party morale or a sign of lack of enthusiasm.

An official said the party was behind compared with its progress in getting candidates in place in 2010, but that was partly due to the absence of a fixed-term parliament at the last election. There had also been an expectation in 2009 that Gordon Brown would go for an early election, which meant all the parties rushed to get candidates in place, even if many of them were paper candidates.

But Perkins said: Whether the Liberal Democrats get to a full list of candidates we shall see, but the election is a few months off, and it is revealing that when Labour is presenting a national list of candidates, the Liberal Democrats cannot find anyone to represent them in large parts of the country.

Everyone knows it is important to have a candidate in place for some time if you are to build your vote. It shows the extent to which the Liberal Democrats are likely to see their vote collapse to 30 or less seats. Its all a long way from the new politics of 2010 that the Liberal Democrats offered then.

Liberal Democrat HQ said it was for local parties to select candidates from a list of approved candidates, and had not set a deadline by which parties must select.

The last day for the nomination of candidates is 11 working days before the election itself, so parties can find paper candidates at the last minute that in effect mount no campaign, and expect to lose their deposit.

See the original post:
Liberal Democrats yet to select candidates in more than half of seats

Warning Republicans and Democrats are both Guilty!
Important to listen to last few minutes of the video to see how antichrist Francis will still be able to deceive many here in America.

By: FaithGuy

More here:
Warning Republicans and Democrats are both Guilty! - Video

The passing of Mario Cuomo brought bipartisan tributes appropriate to a rare political figure with a developed inner life. He was Catholic-educated, and it showed. How many other politicians grappled with Thomas Aquinas? Even the loser is dignified by such a duel.

But the intensity of affection for Cuomo, especially among Democrats of a certain age, comes from his ideological clarity. In the history of American rhetoric, there are orators of national unity such as Martin Luther King Jr. There are orators of national purpose such as John F. Kennedy. Cuomo was an orator of ideological definition. His 1984 keynote address at the Democratic National Convention provided progressives with the best version of themselves, as tribunes of the forgotten and excluded.

Populists must have felt similarly stirred at the Democratic convention in 1896, when William Jennings Bryan declared war on idle capital. Conservatives still regard a 1964 Ronald Reagan speech, A Time for Choosing, in much the same category. Cuomos Tale of Two Cities belongs in the company of speeches that defined a creed.

But it is worth recalling that Cuomos version of the liberal faith did not prevail, at least immediately. The year he gave that speech, a progressive Democratic presidential candidate lost 49 states. It was Bill Clintons New Democratic overhaul of liberalism that ended his partys long slump in presidential politics.

Democrats still debate whether this was really an overhaul or more of a facelift. Like most effective party reformers, Clinton made significant shifts in tone and policy, without completely alienating his partys base. Rhetorically, Clinton emphasized growth and opportunity over equality. Substantively, he embraced community policing, strong defense, reinventing government and welfare reform the latter a truly dramatic deviation from progressive orthodoxy.

President Obama has now effectively undone everything that Clinton and the New Democrats did in the 1980s and 90s. Issue by issue, todays Democratic Party is about where it was in 1979.

Obamas initial political appeal was personal rather than ideological; he would transcend ideological debates without actually engaging them in any creative or interesting way. He ran for office in 2008 on the aesthetics of politics rather than policy or political philosophy. But he has governed as an utterly conventional, backbench Senate progressive (which, in retrospect, he was). He won reelection by motivating a fundamentally liberal coalition of minorities, young people, women and the college-educated. And he has fully embraced this strategy as a cause. His second inaugural address is among the strongest assertions of a progressive vision uttered by an American president in a century.

In 2012, Obama demonstrated that the New Democrat accommodation is no longer required to win a national election at least for him. It helped, of course, to face the chief executive of Bain Capital in the aftermath of a financial crisis. It also helped that the Republican economic message was stuck in 1979 as well. But unlike a generation ago, when Obamas liberal record would have cost him dearly, he was able to win reelection easily. We are a different nation. Middle America has shifted on some social issues, and the white portion of the electorate has steadily decreased.

Obamas political triumph has been mainly personal. Since 2009, Democrats are down 70 seats in the House and 14 seats in the Senate. Obamas positioning of his party has involved ceding groups and regions particularly white voters in deep and border South that once were coveted objects of New Democratic appeal. But Obama has demonstrated that a progressive can win a national election without making this outreach. He has proved, it seems, that Clintonism is no longer necessary.

Just as another Clinton (Hillary) has become the Democratic front-runner.

Read more:
Are Democrats stuck in 1979?

The passing of Mario Cuomo brought bipartisan tributes appropriate to a rare political figure with a developed inner life. He was Catholic-educated, and it showed. How many other politicians grappled with Thomas Aquinas? Even the loser is dignified by such a duel.

But the intensity of affection for Cuomo, especially among Democrats of a certain age, comes from his ideological clarity. In the history of American rhetoric, there are orators of national unity such as Martin Luther King Jr. There are orators of national purpose such as John F. Kennedy. Cuomo was an orator of ideological definition. His 1984 keynote address at the Democratic National Convention provided progressives with the best version of themselves, as tribunes of the forgotten and excluded.

Populists must have felt similarly stirred at the Democratic convention in 1896, when William Jennings Bryan declared war on idle capital. Conservatives still regard a 1964 Ronald Reagan speech, A Time for Choosing, in much the same category. Cuomos Tale of Two Cities belongs in the company of speeches that defined a creed.

But it is worth recalling that Cuomos version of the liberal faith did not prevail, at least immediately. The year he gave that speech, a progressive Democratic presidential candidate lost 49 states. It was Bill Clintons New Democratic overhaul of liberalism that ended his partys long slump in presidential politics.

Democrats still debate whether this was really an overhaul or more of a facelift. Like most effective party reformers, Clinton made significant shifts in tone and policy, without completely alienating his partys base. Rhetorically, Clinton emphasized growth and opportunity over equality. Substantively, he embraced community policing, strong defense, reinventing government and welfare reform the latter a truly dramatic deviation from progressive orthodoxy.

President Obama has now effectively undone everything that Clinton and the New Democrats did in the 1980s and 90s. Issue by issue, todays Democratic Party is about where it was in 1979.

Obamas initial political appeal was personal rather than ideological; he would transcend ideological debates without actually engaging them in any creative or interesting way. He ran for office in 2008 on the aesthetics of politics rather than policy or political philosophy. But he has governed as an utterly conventional, backbench Senate progressive (which, in retrospect, he was). He won reelection by motivating a fundamentally liberal coalition of minorities, young people, women and the college-educated. And he has fully embraced this strategy as a cause. His second inaugural address is among the strongest assertions of a progressive vision uttered by an American president in a century.

In 2012, Obama demonstrated that the New Democrat accommodation is no longer required to win a national election at least for him. It helped, of course, to face the chief executive of Bain Capital in the aftermath of a financial crisis. It also helped that the Republican economic message was stuck in 1979 as well. But unlike a generation ago, when Obamas liberal record would have cost him dearly, he was able to win reelection easily. We are a different nation. Middle America has shifted on some social issues, and the white portion of the electorate has steadily decreased.

Obamas political triumph has been mainly personal. Since 2009, Democrats are down 70 seats in the House and 14 seats in the Senate. Obamas positioning of his party has involved ceding groups and regions particularly white voters in deep and border South that once were coveted objects of New Democratic appeal. But Obama has demonstrated that a progressive can win a national election without making this outreach. He has proved, it seems, that Clintonism is no longer necessary.

Just as another Clinton (Hillary) has become the Democratic front-runner.

More here:
Gerson: Are Democrats stuck in 1979?

Gary Cameron/Reuters

Democrats are looking to reclaim their Senate majority in two years, but after losing nine Senate seats in 2014, their path back to that majority won't be easy.

Democrats will be benefiting from a favorable landscape, with Republicans defending 24 seats (many of them in blue territory) while Democrats will be defending only 10. To leverage that advantage into control of the Senate, however, Democrats need to net at least four seats (five, if Republicans win the presidency). That requires sweeping out blue-state freshman Republicans in states such as Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin while also defeating a couple of brand-name senators, such as Rob Portman or Marco Rubio, in perennial swing states.

So to kick off the new year, here is National Journal's preview of the seven most compelling Senate races in 2016, with the most pressing question that will determine the race's outcome listed below:

Nevada: Does Governor Brian Sandoval run against Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid?

Despite sporting the worst approval ratings of any senator running for reelection in 2016, Reid is as well prepared as anyone to take on his competitionor at least to scare them away from running in the first place. The GOP's dream candidate, Governor Brian Sandoval, would probably start out ahead, thanks to his statewide political profile, moderate reputation, and Hispanic background. But he's far from a sure thing to run, knowing Reid's excellent track record in pulverizing his opposition. Giving up an influential job where he's become one of the GOP's nationally compelling politicians to wrestle in the mud with the Senate minority leader isn't exactly a no-brainer of a decision.

Reid, however, is looking vulnerable enough that Nevada political analyst Jon Ralston rates his chances as no better than 55 percent, no matter whom the Republicans run against him. But if Sandoval passes on the race, there's a greater chance that a hard-right candidate could emerge in a primaryand that's proven to be a surefire path to victory for Reid in the past. And the presidential-year electorate in 2016, with higher Hispanic turnout, should be very beneficial for Reid. That's one reason he was such an enthusiastic champion of President Obama's executive orders on immigration. It's no coincidence that Obama announced the decision, Reid by his side, in Las Vegas.

Wisconsin: If Russ Feingold runs, will he welcome the financial support of outside groups, including the DSCC?

During his time in the Senate, Feingold was the Democrats' leading campaign finance scoldand he lived up to his principles in practice. He refused any outside spending from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in his unsuccessful 2010 campaign, and from any other outside super PACs. But a lot has changed in the past four years, and without the assistance of outside groups, Feingold would be badly outspent. Senator Ron Johnson, who self-financed his way to a comfortable victory to win the seat, has the resources to do so again in two years.

Feingold has been coy about his future plans, but Democrats expect him to consider a comeback against Johnson. Feingold is a favorite of progressives, and his candidacy would be a reliable way to energize the grassroots base. But some Democrats would prefer a more-moderate nominee with a better relationship with party leaders, such as Representative Ron Kind.

Go here to see the original:
Democrats' Narrow Path Back to Senate Control