I'd get to talk everyone's ear off about my pet issues.

You make a strong case there

Once I recovered, I'd be all "yeah, that hurt, but let's invest in clean energy" or "Hey, I've got a hole in my chest; let's prosecute big banks".

Well, since it's plausible that I'd get the same doctors to save my life that the President gets, yeah, I'd probably do it. Especially since if I survived with no mental damage (also plausible), I'd get to talk everyone's ear off about my pet issues.

But seriously, no, I probably wouldn't. I'm a coward at heart, and though I respect the president, I wouldn't want to die to save the life of someone who I don't know.

And in any case, why would the President (assuming it's Obama or another Democrat) be speaking in Utah?

Whoever is going to be least like Bloomberg has my support. Whether it's Weiner, DeBlasio, or whomever, as long as it isn't an openly corrupt idiot or Quinn (who from what I understand is a Bloomberg devotee?), whichever Democrat wins is a-okay with me.

I think that Mia Love will lose again narrowly (though by a bigger margin than 2012), and that she will try either for Governor in 2016 or Hatch's seat in 2018.

Jim Matheson is a survivor. She will lose!

This is essentially my view (combined with my dislike for Matheson's political stances). He's just too good at campaigning to lose. He's probably the best politician (in terms of winning when the odds are against him) in modern times.

Why do you lislike him? I agree with the fact that he's far more on the right that many typical democrats, but it's Utah! Mia Love is worst!

Because he chooses to vote like a Tea Partier when he knows he doesn't have to; see his vote for the "Working Families Flexibility Act" (the kill overtime in favor of employer-controlled comp time legislation) and a crapload of other far-right legislation. Nobody pays that much attention to how he votes as long as it isn't high-profile liberal-leaning legislation publicly pushed by Pelosi or Obama. He doesn't need to be as conservative as Chaffetz or Bishop. I don't mind a moderate or even vaguely center-right Democrat, but Matheson goes too far to the right.

Jim Matheson is a survivor. She will lose!

This is essentially my view (combined with my dislike for Matheson's political stances). He's just too good at campaigning to lose. He's probably the best politician (in terms of winning when the odds are against him) in modern times.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865580306/Mia-Love-announces-shes-officially-running-against-Matheson-2-again.html

Completely expected of course, but still notable. My prediction as a Utahn is that she's going to lose again, and this time by 2-3%.

Yeah, sadly this is further proof that the successful 50 state strategy is dead.

That's a shame.  The 50-state strategy is essential to our long-term success.  People in deep red states need to hear Democratic arguments.

We really do, it's an absolute travesty that any Democrat in Utah or the South is effectively silenced by the media's lack of desire to cover them and the national party's lack of desire to promote them. We need the 50-state strategy back.

DNC: Madison, WI

RNC: Provo, UT

Darn, you took the joke I was going to make, only I was going to say San Francisco for the GOP.

Anyways, Tuscon for the Dems and Columbus for the GOP sounds good.

Hmm, if she wins the nomination and Michelle Nunn runs on the Democratic side, will it be the first woman vs woman Senate race in the South?

Also, supporting Nunn because the Tea Party in any form is unacceptable.

Who are some members of your party that you wouldn't vote for in an election (whether President, Congress/Parliament, PM, etc.)

For me, I probably couldn't bring myself to vote for a California Democrat or someone who has a history of corruption.

Why not a California Democrat?

Anyway, I voted once for Jim Matheson, but never again. I won't vote for Blue Dog types (though I'm not counting the statewide Dem candidates here in Utah, even though they are Blue Dogs).

Sestak will destroy Toomey, what are you guys on about?

Whoops. Barrow's out. Most likely candidates are Jason Carter, Michelle Nunn, and Scott Holcomb. They have a small chance at winning if Broun or Gingrey win, but this seat now Leans R.

Actually, check out this survey. Nunn seems to have pretty good numbers here.

Probably not, since I think he gave pagan sacrifices near the end of his life.

Well, there's already a (supposedly celibate) gay LDS man in a leadership position in an LDS congregation in San Fransisco. Look up Mitch Mayne. So to be honest, it won't take long. And as a Mormon who's a believer in marriage equality, I welcome that.

The only thing worse than moderate Democrat heroism is faux-moderate Republican heroism.

Begich actually has some lefty populist stances (like protecting Medicare and Social Security, and speaking out against a few right-wing issues), so easily him.

Oklahoma or Alabama no doubt.


As several have pointed out, mormons might be solidly Republican, (and I know prop 8 and stuff) but they're more educated than their evangilical brothers, and they like to not be too out of the mainstream. So Utah, WY, or Idaho will not be last.  

This; there's already a small but growing group of Mormons pushing for gay rights (mostly nondiscrimination policies, but many want civil unions, and a few are even okay with same-sex marriage).

And don't forget that the largest city in the state is very gay-friendly and has been so for a decade.

Wyoming might actually be soon-ish, I hear, since there seems to be a libertarian trend over there.

I'm probably the least well-informed about labor, banking, environmental (though I see myself as reasonably well-informed on energy issues themselves), social security, the War and Iraq, and a couple of other issues.

I pride myself on my knowledge of electoral history, LDS history, general bits of cultural history, European and some Hawaiian history, campaign finance issues, the history of institutional racism (I'm not proud of racism, I'm just proud that I can identify it and know how it still exists in America these days),

I want to learn more about French-Canadian history, healthcare issues, Hispanic culture (particularly Chicano and Puerto Rican culture), and a few others I can't remember right now.

Okay, I must admit myself a hypocrite, since I have differing opinions on two similar issues: Corbett's challenge to Swalwell vs Hanabusa's challenge to Schatz in Hawaii. Remember how I've been a critic of Hanabusa's challenge to Schatz, because I didn't see any reason for Hanabusa to run? Well, there doesn't seem to be any reason for Corbett to challenge Swalwell either (though from I've been hearing, Swalwell is too overly pro-big-business for my tastes), but I like the idea of Swalwell getting challenged. Something about him is a bit.. suspicious that I can't explain. I like that he took out Stark, but he seems like he should be a placeholder for a more capable and proactive politician.

I'm fine with Corbett taking on Swalwell for no reason because of that.

I'm a Democrat, and this is utter nonsense, but do Democrats not remember that they also threw around the "I-word" during President Bush's administration?  Is that somehow justified because he was a Republican, not a Democrat?

How many Democrats actually called for Bush's impeachment? Were they fringe or mainstream? And did they actually introduce articles of impeachment? Did impeachment actually come to a vote? If so, then they're as bad as the Clinton-era Republicans. If not, you can't even compare the two.

Link, Dem voters on this very site have said it should be left alone, and that's me paraphrasing them politely. I'm not talking about politicians, outside of Clinton herself.

There were people who were not allowed to testify up until this point.

I still do not see what this has to do with Bush. It is a separate matter.

Gravis, This administration is anything but squeaky clean. The administration is run nothing short of "Chicago-style" politics. Obama could not even fill up his initial administration, without running into controversy. There was even an issue with his dog. We do not know how deep the rabbit hole is.

Nope, you're wrong, sorry. The Obama administration might not be squeaky clean, but it basically is compared to the last administration.

Doesn't CNN realize how stupid they look with all the stunts they pull?

[awesome]

NRSC Ad against Markey

LOL. "Oh yeah, he's bad!"

Horrible ad.

This is one of the greatest ads I have ever seen. So terribly awesome. And terrible.

So killing fake people is worse than killing real people?

If so, I know a lot of mass murderers who play video games.

What are you even talking about?