3 point Sanford win is my guess. Or a recount that gives Sanford a very narrow win.

[is]

Why do they keep bringing Benghazi up when nobody except their partisans (and of course the families of the deceased) cares anymore? Heck, most everyone doesn't even know what Benghazi is. I don't understand their obsession.

Ted Cruz is not Hispanic.... Says the guy with the incredibly Anglo name.

The poor guy really died from a punch? Jesus. That's pretty unbelievable.

What a terrible situation.

It's not being reported (as the media is not releasing the kid's identity), but the (racist) rumor is that the kid is Polynesian, who are heavily recruited for sports in Utah, and who are considered to be a lot stronger than white/Latino/etc people.

I'm pretty sure that the guy didn't intend to kill the coach, and probably wasn't thinking at the time (much less thinking that one punch would kill someone).

Problem is, from what I've heard, the killer didn't know his own strength. Sometimes the kids who are recruited for sports have a problem with that. Possibly he was raised in a family that liked fighting, and could take a punch like that.

EDIT: Not that I'm justifying him, just explaining.

I'd like a slightly less old House Democratic Leader, mainly for technology issues, and to throw off the Republicans' focus (they've been so primed and ready to criticize/target other Dems on Pelosi for years that if a new House Dem leader were elected, they wouldn't know how to handle it).

Hmm... Do they have to be at a reasonably young age? Or (obviously both having to be alive for this) can they be at their "current" ages? Because if LaRouche had a less crazy VP and then died, that could affect my vote.

Mulcair, obviously. Harper is Harper, and Trudeau seems too much like a celebrity coasting on charisma and his family name for my tastes.

[why]

My question is, if Schatz hasn't had any problematic votes, if he hasn't had any questionable personal behavior, if he hasn't embarrassed the party, if he's on the right track to seniority and a chairmanship (probably) if he hasn't said anything bad, if he hasn't been a part of any controversy (besides his appointment), then why primary him? I just don't see any real justification for Hanabusa to primary Schatz. Yes, she can do it if she wants, but why?

EDIT: Yeah, there's the "we need more women/people of minority descent in the Senate" argument, but beyond that, nothing.

Because she wants to be Senator! It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Okay, I completely understand, but usually when a candidate for any office runs for that office, they provide a justification for why the current person sucks at their job, or isn't right for the job. Most candidates don't simply run on "I wanted to". Hanbusa may clarify why she's running, but as it is, I don't see anything she could target Schatz on.

Oh boy, Stewart is going to have fun next week. Trump is going to turn into even more of a laughingstock then he already is.

Schatz because Hanabusa hasn't given a valid reason for why she deserves to be senator.

[why]

My question is, if Schatz hasn't had any problematic votes, if he hasn't had any questionable personal behavior, if he hasn't embarrassed the party, if he's on the right track to seniority and a chairmanship (probably) if he hasn't said anything bad, if he hasn't been a part of any controversy (besides his appointment), then why primary him? I just don't see any real justification for Hanabusa to primary Schatz. Yes, she can do it if she wants, but why?

EDIT: Yeah, there's the "we need more women/people of minority descent in the Senate" argument, but beyond that, nothing.

That's a reason for you not to vote for her, not a reason for her not to run.

I think the personal-vendetta part of this is ridiculous. Hanabusa certainly wasn't "entitled" to the seat, and every time her supporters whine about that, she loses legitimacy. But there's nothing wrong with running in a primary against a decent incumbent. Doesn't mean I'll vote for you if I prefer the incumbent on the issues (or competence), but the fact that Hanabusa isn't the incumbent should not, by itself, stop anyone from supporting her. Schatz is no more entitled to the seat than Hanabusa is.

Well, sure, that's fine for her to run, I'm not disputing that. And Schatz isn't entitled to the seat either. It's just that I think there needs to be a reason for running, however flimsy it may be. You can go "blah blah blah we need leadership in Washington, the incumbent hasn't provided leadership" or "My opponent voted no on giving orphans a hug" or whatever, I just think that if you're running for a seat, you need to provide a legitimate reason for why you're better than the current holder. And that applies to both parties. I'm not in favor of needless incumbency, but if Schatz has proved to be a decent incumbent, then what specific reason does she have for challenging him?

There has to be something she can run against Schatz if she's going to primary him. I just don't like the idea of running for barely-disguised ambition. If Hanabusa can give one reason why Schatz must go, then fine, my objections will vanish. If she's running against him from the right, fine. If she's running against him from the left, fine. If she's running on a single issue, fine. If she doesn't think Schatz has pushed hard enough on something, okay. If she thinks he's been embarrassing to Hawaii, alright.

But to challenge him for no reason other than advancement is silly.

[why]

My question is, if Schatz hasn't had any problematic votes, if he hasn't had any questionable personal behavior, if he hasn't embarrassed the party, if he's on the right track to seniority and a chairmanship (probably) if he hasn't said anything bad, if he hasn't been a part of any controversy (besides his appointment), then why primary him? I just don't see any real justification for Hanabusa to primary Schatz. Yes, she can do it if she wants, but why?

EDIT: Yeah, there's the "we need more women/people of minority descent in the Senate" argument, but beyond that, nothing.

I still honestly do not understand why Hanabusa is running beyond "Inouye said so".

Well, first I'd reveal to the public that Nixon is literally a traitor (remember, Humphrey knew this), then I'd probably pick Ribicoff. Or Muskie.

Yeah, I'll be surprised if Colbert Bush wins reelection in 2014, but at last this should hopefully give the Democrats some momentum.  Living in a one-party state is not fun, no matter which party it is.

Agreed.

Yes, leftists screeched the same nonsense 3 years ago. Then Corbett administered a big thrashing.

Do you even listen to yourself, krazen?

He's going to lose so badly.

Gomez seems to be the brown Brown.

If Schweitzer doesn't run, I think Denise Juneau would be a good candidate. First, she's won statewide twice, with a decent amount of the vote both times. Second, if I recall correctly, Montana's Native American population is a significant factor in elections, and she could mobilize that vote pretty well.

Though I think she'd be a better candidate for Governor after Bullock is re-elected/loses (unlikely). Her job sounds like more of an executive position anyway.

Right, right, the only time it doesn't matter to lefties when it's their Democratic Party President who does it.  

Acting like the pubs is a winning strategy for Ms. Colbert

This is AshleyMadison.com cashing in on Sanford and not the Dems, no?

True, but I said it didn't matter to the "lefties" which I'm more than confident this crew is.

Nope, read the rest of the article; the founder of the company prefers Sanford.

Also, Sanford spent taxpayer money and was out of the loop for a week (what would've happened if there was a crisis while he was out of the country?), so I think that's a little more serious than Clinton's affair.

No.

Calvin Rampton

No, it's plain and simple murder. You could argue that abortion isn't, but after birth the baby is a fully-formed human being, and killing that being is murder.

Seriously? It's been one of the biggest issues for the past few years. How can people know basically nothing about it?

Seems a bit low for Schweitzer.