Do Democrats have a major corruption problem Fox News Video - Latest News US
By: U.S.A TODAY
Excerpt from:
Do Democrats have a major corruption problem Fox News Video - Latest News US - Video
A general view of the US Capitol in Washington, D.C. Photo by Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images.
WASHINGTON Democrats are turning to some proven election losers as they aim to retake control of the Senate in 2016.
In Ohio, Ted Strickland, who lost his bid for a second term as governor to former Rep. John Kasich in 2010, is running against Republican Sen. Rob Portman.
In Pennsylvania, former Rep. Joe Sestak wants another shot at Pat Toomey, the onetime Republican congressman who defeated him five years ago.
In Wisconsin, former Sen. Russ Feingold is considered the likeliest Democratic candidate to take on GOP Sen. Ron Johnson, in what would be another 2010 rematch.
Democrats do not have a candidate yet in North Carolina, Alaska or Georgia. But mentioned most often are the partys losing Senate nominees from 2014: Michelle Nunn in Georgia and former Sens. Kay Hagan in North Carolina and Mark Begich in Alaska.
Democrat campaign officials note that in Illinois, California, Missouri, Florida and elsewhere, they are putting up fresh candidates, and they say that Strickland, in particular, is a formidable politician who lost narrowly in a difficult year for Democrats.
Losing in 2010 or 2014, for that matter, I dont think that makes you a bad candidate Democrats lost everywhere in those years and a guy like Ted Strickland actually ran a much more competitive race than Democrats did all over the country, said Justin Barasky, communications director for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
Those were nonpresidential election years, when Democratic President Barack Obama was not on the ballot.
Still, even some Democrats acknowledge that turning to candidates who last ran and lost reflects a spotty bench for a party struggling to win statewide races in contested states. It also shows the difficulty, for either party, of recruiting a candidate willing to take on a solid incumbent such as Portman or Toomey.
See the original post:
To win Senate, Democrats turn to candidates who have lost before
So, lets assume that Hillary doesnt run for the White House, for a second.
She wiped her servers clean, she lied to the public about wanting to to send e-mails from only one device, her top staffer had an unusually cozy and lucrative relationship with a shadowy PR front group that is being probed by the Senate, the relationship between her and her husband is a bit unique, and her husbands former paramour and intern is now starring on The View.
So, let just posit that Hillary becomes untenable as a presidential candidate. The one thing that is propping her up is the sad fact that the Democrats have no bench. Who will run if Hillary doesnt run, the question goes.
Here are my power Top 10 rankings about the Democratic field, sans Hillary.
10) Amy Klobuchar: The Minnesota Democratic senator is widely viewed as whip-smart and she fits a key demographic for the Democrats, being a woman and all. She doesnt have a particular constituency and she doesnt have much of a national constituency, but she still deserves a spot on the Top 10..
9) Deval Patrick: Former governor, African-American, friend of Barack, former client of David Axelrod. He did such a good job as governor that the Republicans took back the governors mansion after he left.
8) Andrew Cuomo: Cuomo should be higher on the list, but he is so unlikeable, he is stuck at No. 8. A nasty divorce with a member of the Kennedy Family doesnt help things. But he is tough and will have access to New York money.
7) Antonio Ramon Villaraigosa: The former Mayor of Los Angeles is smart, good-looking and probably the leading Hispanic Democratic possibility. He is a good fundraiser and if he decides to run, he could make a splash with a key Democratic constituency.
6)Kirsten Gillibrand: Harry Reid once described her as the hottest United States senator which I am sure made the New York Democrat blush. Either that or turn red in anger. Gillibrand is ambitious, plenty smart, and tough as nails. Also would have access to New York money.
5. Jerry Brown: As the successful governor of the largest economy west of the Mississippi, Brown has a real record he could point to. He has fixed the California budget problem (largely) and by comparison, he looks rational. He is old, but so is the vice president.
Read more from the original source:
If Hillary doesn't run in 2016, here are 10 Democrats who could
WASHINGTON Democrats are turning to some proven election losers as they aim to retake control of the Senate in 2016.
In Ohio, Ted Strickland, who lost his bid for a second term as governor to former Rep. John Kasich in 2010, is running against Republican Sen. Rob Portman.
In Pennsylvania, former Rep. Joe Sestak wants another shot at Pat Toomey, the onetime Republican congressman who defeated him five years ago.
In Wisconsin, former Sen. Russ Feingold is considered the likeliest Democratic candidate to take on GOP Sen. Ron Johnson, in what would be another 2010 rematch.
Democrats do not have a candidate yet in North Carolina, Alaska or Georgia. But mentioned most often are the partys losing Senate nominees from 2014: Michelle Nunn in Georgia and former Sens. Kay Hagan in North Carolina and Mark Begich in Alaska.
Democratic campaign officials note that in Illinois, California, Missouri, Florida and elsewhere, they are putting up fresh candidates, and they say that Strickland, in particular, is a formidable politician who lost narrowly in a difficult year for Democrats. And although Strickland, Feingold and Sestak came up short in their most recent races, all have won more campaigns than they lost.
Losing in 2010 or 2014, for that matter, I dont think that makes you a bad candidate Democrats lost everywhere in those years and a guy like Ted Strickland actually ran a much more competitive race than Democrats did all over the country, said Justin Barasky, communications director for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
Those were nonpresidential election years, when Democratic President Barack Obama was not on the ballot.
Still, even some Democrats acknowledge that turning to candidates who last ran and lost reflects a spotty bench for a party struggling to win statewide races in contested states. It also shows the difficulty, for either party, of recruiting a candidate willing to take on a solid incumbent such as Portman or Toomey.
Its evidence, too, of the challenge for Democrats struggling to reclaim the Senate, even in a presidential election year where a younger, more diverse electorate will help their party.
See the original post:
Democrats turn to proven losers in effort to retake Senate
CONCORD The day after the House approved an $11.2 billion vote with almost no Democratic support, Senate Democrats said at a news conference that they want to continue Medicaid expansion, restore the Rainy Day Fund and eliminate cuts to health and human service programs without raiding renewable energy funds.
But after Wednesdays House vote, Senate President Chuck Morse said Medicaid expansion will not be included in the Senates budget, but will be debated next session. Morse also ruled out new taxes and fees to pay for more spending.
As we go through the process, we intend to live within our means no new taxes or fees, Morse said. We have several priorities, growing the Rainy Day Fund, and two to reduce business taxes.
He said the Senate has always set priorities especially for the states most vulnerable citizens.
At Thursdays news conference, Senate Minority Leader Jeff Woodburn, D-Dalton, called the House budget partisan and made to appeal to the Koch Brothers and former House Speaker Bill OBrien and his supporters.
We need a practical, not ideological, budget that builds a strong economy from the bottom up, not the top down, Woodburn said.
Democrats have a simple message, he said: They want to work with their Republican colleagues to produce a bipartisan budget that will move the state forward and lays a foundation for future growth.
Senate Finance Committee member Sen. Andrew Hosmer, D-Laconia, said the House plan is reckless with Draconian cuts, raids $50 million from the renewable energy fund, downshifts millions of dollars to local property taxes and leaves hundreds of millions of federal dollars on the table.
Democrats were also critical of taking all the money from the Rainy Day Fund and what they called budget gimmicks that hide the fact revenues are not enough to cover spending.
And Sen. Donna Soucy, D-Manchester, said Democrats do not favor more tax giveaways to big, out-of-state businesses and hide the costs by pushing them off to future years.
Excerpt from:
Senate Democrats call for bipartisan NH budget plan