I've been invited to do some writing for Symposium Magazine, which has as its mission the connection of academics to the public sphere. This is something I have long advocated--and really is at the heart of my work as a teacher-scholar. I'm excited about this opportunity.
Here's a link to the latest issue with my article on the 2014 midterms. For those of you wanting to know why I'm not terribly bullish on Democrats in the Montana, this piece about the broader environment serves as an explanation at the macro-level.
Check out the article, check out the magazine. They are doing some compelling and thought-provoking stuff.
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Monday, September 9, 2013
Monday, December 13, 2010
Democrats face big challenges in 2012 here in Montana
A quick piece from Campaigns and Elections Magazine on the challenges Montana Democrats face here in 2012. Read it here.
One quick note: the piece says that Governor Schweitzer is up for reelection in 2012. That's not the case; Governor Schweitzer is term-limited, so the race is wide-open.
One quick note: the piece says that Governor Schweitzer is up for reelection in 2012. That's not the case; Governor Schweitzer is term-limited, so the race is wide-open.
Friday, November 19, 2010
The Difference Between 1994 and 2010? Democrats Saw the Wave
An interesting piece on the 2010 midterms from MSNBC today on the debt Democrats took on to prevent even larger losses in the House. Some key points to consider:
In 1994, The Democrats were caught unawares when the GOP tidal wave hit. Now, because of the proliferation of polling, the Democrats not only knew they were in trouble, they had a good idea where and could shift resources appropriately. The same thing happened in 2006 when the Republicans lost their majority. In both cases, it seems the losses could have been much worse. Because of the ability to use polls to target with sophistication and partisan-motivated redistricting, large wave elections like '94 and '10 are much rarer today.
Second, the large debt combined with the loss of the House majority weakens considerable the Democrats going into the 2012 congressional election cycle. It's much hard to raise money when you aren't in the majority. Add to this the monumental drubbing the Democrats took in state gubernatorial and legislative races--which give the GOP a big leg up in redistricting, and forget about the Democrats winning back the House. Indeed, we'll probably see Republican gains in 2012.
In 1994, The Democrats were caught unawares when the GOP tidal wave hit. Now, because of the proliferation of polling, the Democrats not only knew they were in trouble, they had a good idea where and could shift resources appropriately. The same thing happened in 2006 when the Republicans lost their majority. In both cases, it seems the losses could have been much worse. Because of the ability to use polls to target with sophistication and partisan-motivated redistricting, large wave elections like '94 and '10 are much rarer today.
Second, the large debt combined with the loss of the House majority weakens considerable the Democrats going into the 2012 congressional election cycle. It's much hard to raise money when you aren't in the majority. Add to this the monumental drubbing the Democrats took in state gubernatorial and legislative races--which give the GOP a big leg up in redistricting, and forget about the Democrats winning back the House. Indeed, we'll probably see Republican gains in 2012.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
