Liberal Democrats call for more Welsh powers
Welsh Liberal Democrat leader Kirsty Williams has told the national party conference it was time Wales had a "proper parliament". She said the Scottish referendum had been a lesson that people...
By: World News
Visit link:
Liberal Democrats call for more Welsh powers - Video
Washington Four weeks before Election Day, the specter of President Obama is everywhere Colorado, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia. In debate after debate Tuesday, Republicans inserted the unpopular president into the conversation early and often, goading Democratic Senate candidates into distancing themselves from Mr. Obama.
In races where an incumbent Democrat is running for reelection, the attacks were the same: You voted with the president 99 (or 96 or 97) percent of the time. And in races for open seats, Democrats were still portrayed as Obamas best friend.
The answers also came from a cookie-cutter: You are running against me, not President Obama, Democrats replied in lockstep.
In the North Carolina, Sen. Kay Hagan (D) was asked for ways in which she disagrees with Obama and the Democrats, and had no trouble answering: On the use of military force in Syria, she said, I have called on the president to bring that before Congress.
Senator Hagan, locked in a tight race with state House Speaker Thom Tillis (R), also called on Obama to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, expressed disapproval of trade deals that send too many jobs overseas, and said she had voted against my partys budget because it had too deep of cuts to the military.
In Virginia, Sen. Mark Warner (D) also put some distance between himself and Obama, despite the senators comfortable lead against GOP challenger Ed Gillespie. Like Hagan, Senator Warner voiced support for the Keystone pipeline. And he backed offshore drilling in Virginia, as long as the state shares in the revenue.
In West Virginia, underdog candidate Natalie Tennant (D) joined her Republican opponent, Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R) in opposing proposed regulations by the Environmental Protection Agency that would tighten standards on coal-burning power plants.
Political handicappers give Republicans a small advantage in their quest to retake control of the Senate, but nobody rules out Democrats chances of hanging on. The good news for both parties Tuesday was that nobody committed any major gaffes. The bad news for Democrats is that Obamas low job approvals hang like an anchor around their necks especially in red states.
Obama invited the distancing himself last week when he declared that his policies are on the ballot on Nov. 4. But Obama was already firmly on the ballot, in spirit if not literally, well before he made that remark.
The news wasnt all bad for the president Tuesday. Sen. Mark Udall (D) of Colorado, facing a stiff challenge from Rep. Cory Gardner (R), deflected efforts to get him to criticize the president. And he offered strong support for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the presidents signature initiative.
Read more from the original source:
Barack who? Democrats flee Obama in Tuesday Senate debates.
Senate Armed Services Committee Member U.S. Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC) is pursued by reporters after being briefed by military officials about the prisoner exchange that freed Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl at the U.S. Capitol June 10, 2014 in Washington, D.C. Chip Somodevilla, Getty Images
In 2008, Senate Democrats managed to strengthen its foothold in the South in part by capitalizing on the excitement that President Obama's campaign generated. Democratic Sens. Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana were re-elected, while Democrat Kay Hagan won her first term in North Carolina. All told, Senate Democrats had a breakthrough year, taking eight seats -- the most they'd won since 1986.
Play Video
Analysis from CBS News/New York Times Upshot's Battleground Tracker shows Republicans favored to capture the Senate, but a few states give Democr...
This year, those same Democrats are on the ballot again, and they're trying to keep up the support of the Democratic base that Mr. Obama helped them build. At the same time, politicians like Landrieu and Hagan know full well that a Southern Democrat can't rely solely on the support of liberal voters, particularly when the president has become so unpopular.
"The Democratic incumbents are trying to find the balance between declaring their independence from President Obama to appeal to voters in the middle but also capturing the energy of the Democratic base who still approves of President Obama," Nathan Gonzales, deputy editor of the Rothenberg Political Report, told CBS News. "It's a tough line to walk."
With four weeks left until Election Day, polling suggests some Southern Democrats are pulling off the balancing act better than others. In the past month, Hagan has gained a slight edge against her Republican challenger, North Carolina House Speaker Thomas Tillis. Pryor, however, appears to be slightly trailing his GOP challenger, Rep. Tom Cotton, while Landrieu is in a hard-fought race against Rep. Bill Cassidy that appears headed for a runoff.
Play Video
With just over four weeks before Election Day, several key races across the country are tightening up. CBS News Elections Director Anthony Salvan...
Meanwhile, Democratic Senate candidate Michelle Nunn is putting up a surprisingly strong challenge in Georgia Republican David Perdue in the open race to replace retiring Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss. Nunn appears to be trailing Perdue, but she is within striking distance in the red state.
See the rest here:
Without Obama, Southern Democrats try to hang on
Most people dont like to discuss their failures. The Democrats, however, seem unwilling to discuss their successes. This is the story of Obamacare.
For those who have forgotten, the Affordable Care Act was pushed through Congress almost entirely with Democratic votes. The Republicans objected, insisting the bill would destroy the health care system and the economy.
On the health care side, the Republicans issued dire warnings that the bill would lead to rationing of services, socialized medicine and death panels.
On the economics, they called the bill a massive job killer. It would deter businesses from hiring workers, and the workers they did hire would be part-time. Exploding health care costs would both break the budget and the economy. The deficit would explode, and insurance premiums would soar.
The widely predicted disaster did not happen.
In the data available so far, enrollment in the exchanges and Medicaid was higher than projected.
Over 8 million people enrolled in the exchanges through the first four months of 2014, far more than the 6 million that had been projected. Almost 5 million more benefited through the expansion of Medicaid. The percentage of people uninsured fell to the lowest level since 1997 in the first quarter of 2014 and is virtually certain to fall much farther as enrollment continues to rise.
Costs have been far lower than expected. The Congressional Budget Office has repeatedly lowered its cost projections for the ACA and health care more generally. The savings for Medicare alone are projected to be well over $1 trillion in the next decade.
Private health care costs have also risen at their slowest pace on record in the last five years, saving most families thousands of dollars on costs. All of the savings cannot be attributed to the ACA, but can anyone doubt that if cost growth had accelerated, the Republicans would blame the ACA regardless of the actual cause?
The story of the ACA as a job killer also doesnt hold water. No one can be happy about the current state of the labor market we still have a long way to go to recover from the collapse of the housing bubble but the weak economy cant be blamed on the ACA.
See more here:
Dean Baker: Democrats must stand up for Obamacare
There are a number of reasons the Democrats will almost certainly not win back the House of Representatives in 2014: Congressional redistricting after the 2010 Census favored the Republicans. The GOP has a small army of well-heeled incumbents on the fall ballot. And this years primaries did not roil the waters; they sent only three Republican House members (and one Democrat) to the sidelines.
But arguably the most compelling factor working against House Democrats is history. They need a net gain of 17 seats in November to reach a majority of 218. That, in itself, is not a particularly daunting number.
But it is when one looks at the midterm election results of the past century and a half.
Only four times since 1862 has the presidents party netted a gain of even one House seat in a midterm election. And in no midterm since the Civil War has the net gain by the presidents party exceeded nine seats, barely half of what the Democrats would need to win control of the House next month. This, according to data published in Vital Statistics on American Politics 2011-2012.
On all four of these occasions that the presidents party scored midterm House gains, the occupant of the White House was near the height of his popularity: Theodore Roosevelt in 1902, when the GOP posted midterm gains after the House had undergone a major expansion; Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1934, his first midterm held in the initial stages of the New Deal; Bill Clinton in 1998, when congressional Republicans made an ill-starred attempt to impeach him; and George W. Bush in the 2002 midterm, which was held between the 9/11 attacks and the launch of the war in Iraq.
Barack Obamas position these days is much weaker. His presidential approval rating is well under 50%, down in the arid terrain where the presidents party invariably loses House seats.
To be sure, no one is predicting huge House losses for the Democrats this timethey dont have that many vulnerable seats left after losing 63 in 2010. But hardly anyone is predicting that they will win a House majority next month either. If you find someone who does, take the bet. History says that it should be a safe one.
Rhodes Cook is a political analyst and publisher of a bimonthly political newsletter.
RELATED IN THINK TANK:
How Would a Narrow Republican Majority Pass Its Agenda?
More here:
Could Democrats Win the House in November? History Says No.