Will Pro-HSR Democrats Retake the US House?
Since the beginning of 2011, the Republican Party has been in control of the US House of Representatives. One of the effects has been to bring a halt to any new federal high speed rail funding, as House Republicans are vehemently opposed to it. That gave anti-HSR forces in California a big boost, as it called into question whether any new federal HSR funds would materialize – without which the project would have a hard time getting funded. Reporters generally assumed that Republican control of the House would be a lasting reality, and that therefore the prospect was dim that the federal government would ever give another dime in HSR funds to California.
But as ESPN’s Lee Corso might say, “not so fast, my friend!”
The notion that Republican control of the House was some sort of sure thing was never defensible, and reporters should not have assumed so. And as recent polling now makes clear, Democrats may just retake the House after all:
Since the Democratic National Convention earlier this month, and especially as the Mitt Romney campaign has imploded, Democratic candidates across the country have seen a significant boost in their poll numbers. A lot of this is due to the Democratic base getting energized to vote this November, but swing voters are also starting to break for Democrats. The timing couldn’t be better – this late in the campaign, it’s going to be very difficult for Republicans to reverse a Democratic advantage.
Of course, the poll is just a generic national ballot, and control of the House is decided in 435 races. But the national ballot is a good predictor of partisan control. In 2006 it showed that Democrats were likely to retake the House that year, and they did so. In 2010 it showed that Republicans were likely to win the House, which they also did.
It only takes 25 seats switching from red to blue to make San Francisco Congresswoman and strong HSR advocate Nancy Pelosi the Speaker of the House again. One of the seats they’d need is California’s 10th Congressional District. In 2010 Jeff Denham won that seat and since being in Congress has led the attack on the high speed rail project, even though his constituents would benefit from it. Well, recent polling nows shows Denham trailing his Democratic opponent, Astronaut Jose Hernandez, 46-44.
Earlier this year, President Obama proposed a budget that included nearly $50 billion for high speed rail, more than enough to fund construction of the Central Valley HSR line out to Southern California and allow operation of trains, the key link in bringing in private funding. That’s the same amount of funds House Democrats called for in 2010. California Congressional Democrats are strongly for HSR funding as well.
There’s still six weeks to go until the election. But if everything breaks right, a pro-HSR majority could be back in control of Congress. And it’s clear that President Obama would use that majority to push through a long-term HSR funding package. I don’t want to get too excited, but things could be coming together well for the California HSR project here in 2012.
Did anyone really think Romney had a chance. I’m a registered republican who has been disappointed by his party time and time again. I liked the first moderate Romney, Tea Party Romney is a joke.
How the RNC got behind this guy baffles me….
Alon Levy Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 11:04 am
Until the conventions, the polls suggested Obama was going to win but the Republicans would keep the House and possibly retake the Senate. On the eve of Akin’s legitimate rape gaffe, the 538 (retro-)projection was that the GOP had a 61% chance of retaking the Senate; the current projection is 20%.
joe Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 3:21 pm
538′s Nate Silver would say it’s still too early to forecast the House. Recently, post Akin, I saw 538 projected the Dems at 70% to keep control. Not a contradiction – still 80% seems high given the seats contested.
I spoke with an Obama campaign member (I’m from Chicago so I know one or two working the national campaign) and they think the Media is hooked on a horse race and fully expect the coverage to swing back – if for no other reason then to maintain “balance”.
One issue mentioned is a discrepancy in TV ads between campaigns. The campaign gets a discounted rate but 3rd parties like PACs pay the full amount and it’s the new TV season so ads rates are higher.
Romney is getting large donations but from few people so the campaign limit puts him at a disadvantage where millionaires cannot give more than the personal cap and thus he has less campaign money compared to Obama’s campaign. Romney has more PAC support but that money pays a full rate and his campaign, as all GOP campaigns, is more based on ads than GOTV.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 11:18 am
Tea Party Romney is the moderate candidate in today’s Republican party.
Matthew F. Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 4:58 pm
Who else are they going to pick? Mr. Gold Standard? A guy who speaks CHINESE? Or the cast of lunatics that filled out the stage?
Matthew F. Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 5:12 pm
P.S. the bit about speaking Chinese is a dig at Republican xenophobia – I think Huntsman was by far the most suitable of the Republican candidates to be a decent president.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 5:27 pm
Well they don’t want to bring up how well Mitt speaks French, how long he spent in France or how neatly that arranged his deferments. Do they?
Alon Levy Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 5:41 pm
Before the “Oops” gaffe, Perry looked like a stronger candidate. I still think he’d have been a stronger candidate long-term, because he attracts Hispanic voters while Romney repels them.
joe Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 6:00 pm
1. Looked like in the media teevee show, sure. Gov Perry could not withstand even modest scrutiny. Primaries, even the GOP, filter out weak candidates. He was drugged and could not coherently debate.
2. Perry’s appeal to hispanic voters was his stance on pro-immigration reform in Texas. Like Romney who had to run against RomneyCare, Perry can’t win his party and run on immigration reform to appeal to hispanic voters.
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2011/09/can-rick-perry-win-hispanic-vo.html/
Rove’s strategy with Bush was to dog whistle to bigots and build a base with Hispanic value voters. But GOP bigots hate Hispanics too. No GOP candidate can turn about on Immigration reform.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 7:10 pm
Except that Perry defended giving in-state tuition to illegal immigrants in the primary and said Romney’s attacks on him for that were heartless.
BMF from San Diego Reply:
September 23rd, 2012 at 11:33 am
No, I did not take the GOP seriously or feel they had a chance. None of the candidates seemed electable. And, the best the GOP could hope for is that Dems feel over confident and don’t show up on election day.
Rep. Denham has doubled down on his opposition to High Speed Rail.
Because Denham is on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and part of the California delegation he has gotten nation press attention as a constant critic of CA High Speed Rail. His removal would silence that negative attention.
VBobier Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 12:13 pm
Agreed, November 6th can’t come soon enough, then We’ll find out which future comes true a fascist nightmare or a Democratic Victory…
John Nachtigall Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 12:24 pm
That’s one step too far. You can’t call the republicans fascist without getting called on it. I doubt you even understand the term. Your name calling only serves to show your bitter ignorance
Derek Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 12:52 pm
Republicans are most definitely dirisgistic when it comes to things like zoning laws, and dirigisme is commonly associated with fascism.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 1:06 pm
Dirigisme is even more commonly associated with Gaullism.
John Nachtigall Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 1:23 pm
First of all, congratulations on buying that “word a day” calendar, it is always good to see anyone trying to improve their knowledge.
Unfortunately, you are 180 degrees wrong. Dirisgistic is for socialist economies, basically 1 step past just regulatory control of the economy. It is the opposite of laissez-faire economies, which would be closer to the republican position.
Keep it up, however, it takes awhile to get the hang of using those fancy words
Alon Levy Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 2:08 pm
Your level of understanding of French politics is Dead Sea low.
Derek Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 2:28 pm
That’s a good one!
Clem Reply:
September 23rd, 2012 at 11:38 am
It’s all well and good to drop all these French words, when the French don’t even have a word for entrepreneur.
VBobier Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 5:20 pm
Lets see according to Benito Mussolini of Italy, Corporatism = Fascism, this Man was head of the Fascist Party in Italy between 1922-1943…
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 5:29 pm
how many of these characteristics does the current Republican Party show?
http://rense.com/general37/char.htm
VBobier Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 5:38 pm
Sounds like the Repugs to a T…
John Nachtigall Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 8:18 pm
I was going to respond, because it does not fit the republicans. But then I went to the home page of your source. That was enough to discredit your argument alone. Ads for quitting smoking right there with hollow point ammo ads. But they are normal compared to the “black helicopter” crap that is on there.
I understand you don’t like republicans but can we disagree without comparing everything we don’t like to fascist/nazi/evil.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 5:39 pm
The full quote is “The first stage of fascism is corporatism.” It is not “Fascism is corporatism.”
Seriously, people. Bushitler jokes can be fun (at least, they were in 2002 – nowadays they’re old hat), but when you’re actually defending them as serious political analysis, it’s grating.
nslander Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 7:14 pm
What’s even more grating are reflexive accusations of Godwinizing, particularly from those claiming a privileged position of detachment. Although those features can describe our politics and culture at large, please review the 14 characteristics identified on adirondacker’s link and then tell me they describe both of our major political parties equally. John Dean used “authoritarianism” because it it has more syllables and would fly over the heads of folks who’d otherwise get butt-hurt over the word “fascism”.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 9:41 pm
You know, maybe I actually have read Eco’s 14 characteristics article, and not the sad Free Inquiry version posted above. Maybe I’m actually somewhat familiar (no, not terribly closely, I’ll admit) with the academic debate about whether to try to think in terms of fascism or in more general terms of totalitarianism, which includes communism. Maybe I think that there’s an enormous difference between “the Democrats and Republicans are not equally far from fascism” and “GOP = dirigisme = fascism” and that’s the source of my initial outburst. Maybe I also recognize that the psychological literature on authoritarian and social dominator personality types is very much not the same as the political movement that is fascism.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 7:12 pm
The local paper where I live has an anonymous call-in column, with a lot of goofy comments thanks to the cloak of not revealing your name. Occasionally a minor jewel shows up, though:
“There is a choice, this election. I am told it’s either the godless socialist or the economic rapist. But as any good American, I believe in being on the winning side, so which is the greater evil to vote for?”
jonathan Reply:
September 24th, 2012 at 8:15 pm
How is it “one step too far” to describe Pat Buchanan as fascist? Someone who railed against being pro-democracy, and panegyrics for Franco and Pinochet?
where do you think does today’s GOP lie, relative to Buchanan? (Serious question)
Derek Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 12:49 pm
There are few if any true fiscal conservatives in Washington:
source
John Nachtigall Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 1:24 pm
Which makes nether party fascist.
Derek Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 2:27 pm
No, this quote is unrelated to fascism.
Matthew F. Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 4:53 pm
Gee lets just bandy about emotionally charged labels so that nobody bothers to consider actual policies and their potential effects.
joe Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 9:40 pm
His opponent is out of this world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Hern%C3%A1ndez_%28astronaut%29
and
Hernández, along with a commercial colleague, developed the first full-field digital mammography imaging system. This invention aids in the early detection of breast cancer.
Robert, be careful with the pro-HSR majority. Although if the election breaks as per today’s poll average the Democrats will indeed retake the House, the Democratic caucus always includes Blue Dogs and general party poopers, and this means that $50 billion for HSR is an unlikely hope. Fight for it, but expect to only wrangle $10 billion.
Jack Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 11:26 am
Maybe not $50b for HSR; but if we get the $50B Infrastructure bank…
John Nachtigall Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 12:25 pm
Let him dream. If you are going to dream you are taking the house based on a generic ballot you might as well dream that all Dems support HSR also.
jim Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 12:41 pm
Recognize that any money for HSR will have to be split between the Northeast, the Southeast, the Midwest, the Pacific Northwest and California, and possibly Texas, too. $50B won’t go that far!
Alon Levy Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 1:11 pm
Sure, but California can expect a very large share, since its is the only HSR project, as opposed to 110 mph diesel trains. (Well, California and the NEC, but Amtrak’s looking for money for Gateway.)
joe Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 3:08 pm
And…If the White House and Dems want to stick it to the GOP they will ask for cost sharing.
HSR money is conditional on some fraction of cost sharing like 1:4 or some token amount. Then the opponents of spending that would also gladly accept free money would have a choice.
Forgo the funding and stimulus or eat crow and allocate State money – thereby endorsing the spending and HSR.
Pro rail states would benefit from the larger slice of the pie and anti-rail states sit it out and live with the consequences of their dumb-ass obstructionism.
jim Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 3:42 pm
I dunno. It’s not clear to me that anyone in Washington cares about “genuine HSR” vs. 110 mph diesel. I’d expect California to get on the order of 30% (which is what it got out of the previous HSR money). If there really is $50B, that would be enough to get to a Merced-Palmdale IOS.
Since the Republican money stoppage, North Carolina has almost completed its NEPA process for Richmond to Charlotte, Minnesota and Connecticut have come a long way, Amtrak has leased New York-Albany and Massachusetts has bought Worcester-Framingham and made agreements with CSX over the rest of the Inland Route, Pennsylvania has Keystone East ready to be upgraded to 125 mph and is nearly done with the Keystone West study. Even DC has started a study of the Long Bridge. And Amtrak has started the NEC Future process: Gateway won’t have completed NEPA in time to get funded this go-round, but there will be lots of low-hanging fruit that will have come out of NEC Future requiring just a Tier 2 FONSI. Lots of actors have positioned themselves so that if and when HSR money starts flowing again, they’re ready to spend it. California will have more competition in 2014 (assuming son of PRIIA is the vehicle) than it did back in 09.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 5:20 pm
Obama seems to be way more excited about this than about any of the 110 mph Amtrak-plus lines in the Midwest, but I could be suffering from selection bias reading this blog and not a hypothetical Midwest High Speed Rail Blog.
joe Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 9:36 pm
I agree. The speed and scope of the CA project will draw more Federal money. Reid and Pelosi will also help. One advantage of upgrading Amtrak to 110MPH service like between Chicago and St Louis, is it was budgeted at only 1 Billion total.
From 3/2011 http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=8028232
swing hanger Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 9:54 pm
At least the diversion of funds (hopefully) concentrates it on a route with strong political support that can subsequently show tangible improvements even to the general public, rather than the ultimately miniscule improvements that would have resulted from the original, politically expedient “shotgun” appropriation of funds the various and sundry projects scattered here and there.
Dream on Robert!!!
VBobier Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 12:16 pm
Let Me guess You think it will be like November 2010? Democrats historically come out in droves in Presidential elections, often riding on the coattails of a Presidential Victory.
YESONHSR Reply:
September 23rd, 2012 at 10:21 am
He said that about Prop1A also…and woke up with a headache in Nov4 2008!!
Having Democrats back in the House would help advance national transportation priorities and we could finally have a long-term package that moves the nation toward mass-transit and rail based transportation by incentives for Transit Oriented Development. However, I am concerned on the overall picture due to excessive regulation that effects major construction projects like this one. the Republicans would have done themselves a favor energizing their base around getting rid of ridiculous regulations instead of blaming everything on the President like a bunch of Kindergarteners.
Matthew F. Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 4:49 pm
I wish Democrats would turn out in the same droves in primaries and off-year elections too.
Matthew F. Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 4:50 pm
Arg, I posted this in reply to the wrong post! Meant for that to go under VBobier, above.
YESONHSR Reply:
September 23rd, 2012 at 10:25 am
Very true..we would not have this drama over this project..just look at that fool Denham..he would have no power had all the voters of2008 would have cared enough to show up in 2010 and we would have had Oberstars 50 billion for HSR
Unrelated point 1: I seem to remember Larry Sabato or Nate Silver or one of those polling analysts saying that Democrats need about a 3% advantage in the generic ballot to see a meaningful shift in power in the House. Let’s hope that comes to fruition.
Unrelated point 2: One of those seats we need for a Democratic majority unfortunately is CA-47 – Alan Lowenthal. It’s hard to imagine he wouldn’t be a thorn in the side of this undertaking.
joe Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 3:02 pm
I’d love to see him try. Nancy Pelosi would kick Alan’s ass if he decided to be a thorn to the HSR project.
She’s a massively powerful Rep for her ability to 1) raise money and 2) share with Reps in tight races. He’s going to be a freshmen Rep wanting good committee assignments and allocation of projects to his district. Picking a fight with Obama, Pelosi and Reid behind this project would 1-term him. He’d have a well funded DCCC backed primary opponent.
VBobier Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 5:25 pm
If Nancy Pelosi does become Speaker again, Alan Lowenthal should not be in any Transportation related Committee, put Him in a Military one or maybe NOAA related one…
That’s if He even gets elected that is.
StevieB Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 5:36 pm
Since Alan Lowenthal is in a district with one of the worlds largest ports it would make sense for him to be on the ports committee.
BMF from San Diego Reply:
September 23rd, 2012 at 11:43 am
Agreed. Maybe there is a climate or global warming committee too… Anything to argue that his time would be better served elsewhere.
Matthew F. Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 5:00 pm
Just read the updated Sabato House predictions, dated 9/20:
Matthew F. Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 5:05 pm
I really wish we could edit posts!
Link: House Battle at Relative Standstill, but Watch Generic Ballot.
Salient points: During the Wave elections of 2006/2008, the Congressional generic ballot showed Democrats with 6.5 and 6.1 percent leads on 9/19, respectively, and 11.5 and 9 percent leads on election day, and came up with 30 and 21 seats in those elections. Republicans showed a 4.5 percent lead on 9/19 in 2010, 9.4% on election day, and hauled back 63 seats. So, from that perspective, a 2% lead in the generic ballot is very lukewarm for Democrats’ chances, and although the momentum is in the right direction, there’s really a LONG way to go before any who is hoping for Democrats to take the house should get their hopes up.
StevieB Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 5:42 pm
Much depends on House candidates ability to raise money. To raise money donors must believe that victory is possible. This is why House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said there is a “60 percent” chance that Democrats can pick up the 25 seats they need.
VBobier Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 5:45 pm
Hopefully the effort to elect Mittens and Ryan will sop up so much money that locals will be starving for money…
J. Wong Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 8:23 pm
Unfortunately, it seems that the super-PAC’s aren’t putting their money behind Romney but are putting it behind Republican Senate and House races in an effort to keep the House and gain the Senate.
My prediction: Democrats keep the Senate and gain seats in the House but not enough to takeover the House.
joe Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 9:22 pm
Dems invested in Grassroots GetOutTheVote vs GOP & SuperPac carpet bombing TeeVee ads.
What if the top of the ticket is a lost cause ? Say first week of Nov the electoral college math just isn’t there. IMHO, GOTV is going get more people motivated for local races than the TV.
StevieB Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 9:45 pm
People are more motivated to vote for president than for congress. The low turnout for the midterm elections is evidence of this. If Romney is seen as having less and less of a chance of winning it could drag down congressional candidates with him. It is entirely possible that a low republican turnout will lose them control of the House.
VBobier Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 10:07 pm
All is needed is to get to at least 218 seats in the house…
A restored Democratic majority would at least mean no more House Committee hearings under Chairman Mica, examining the cost-price ratio of the cheeseburgers sold on board Amtrak’s trains, but would probably include other examples of Cpongressional micromanaging and nitpicking.
A restored Speaker Pelosi will look out for Cashr, more seriously, while “Amtrak Joe” Biden will look out for improving regular rail.
Beyond HSR in CA and on the NEC, the heavy lifting needed will be to allow Amtrak to order hundreds of new coaches and dozens of new locomotives. New equipment is required to replace the oldest of the aging fleet, and possibly down the line to add more capacity, new frequencies, and new routes to respond to pent-up demand and meet growing needs.
The passenger rail to-do list could easily eat up a $50 billion budget. But like the $10 billion in the stimulus, it would be another good step.
I’m disappointed at the sudden change of topic. Learning how oil and water (FRA compliant and HSR) aka the blended plan would work was starting to be interesting. Planners in L.A. are designing cross platform interchanges at a hypothetical Burbank Airport Station so that pax can take a leisurely 25 minutes to transfer to an oh so delightful Metrolink experience. Just how many people per day will fork out hard earned funds for such a convenient and extended trip , presumably mirrored at the north end, is hard to predict but it might just about fill a couple of trains per day.
Off topic, but something fun for the weekend–
First, a GM sponsored film on bus conversion in Philadelphia, which says a lot of interesting things (and leaves some others unusaid):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29i_DTIEGNg&feature=related
And a Los Angeles training film for trolley and bus operators from 1947:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=tNRA5LAVVD0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cZymOIGNJA&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OH0gF7v1ol4&feature=relmfu
Have fun.
When you talk about the House Of Representatives, a couple of reminders:
– this is the first election using the 2010 census
– this is the first time since California became a state that California didn’t get more representatives from the census reapportionment.
– Texas got four more representatives, Florida got two more representatives. AZ, SC,
GA, NV, UT, WA all gained one representatives.
– The ten states that lost representatives were all Demcratic strongholds or Democratic leaning. OH and NY each lost two representatives. IL, IA, LA, MA, MI, MO, NJ, PA all lost one representative.
joe Reply:
September 23rd, 2012 at 6:11 pm
1. The population gains that resulted in increased representation are demographic increases that historically vote Democratic.
2. Texas redistricting to favor the GOP failed: http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2012/09/national-gops-redistricting-gurus-paint-texas-mapmakers-as-blundering-know-it-alls.html/
“Well, the Texas Legislature basically told me, ’We’re Texas, and we’re gonna handle our maps,’” Westmoreland said. “You know, I’m just saying that when you have a population increase of 4 million, and the majority of that is minority, you’d better take that into consideration.”
2b. Texas Voter ID laws were not approved.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-08-30/Texas-voter-ID-law/57454218/1
The Texas secretary of State issued a statement Thursday saying the election would proceed under current state law.
3. CA districts are not party drawn anymore which puts minority GOP candidates at a disadvantage. They had gerrymandered districts that kept them and Dems safe.
4. PA, MI LA, IA, MO and OH are mostly swing states. For example, The GOP Speaker is from OH.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 23rd, 2012 at 11:03 pm
LA hasn’t been a swing state in 20 years.
Pelosi sketches path to House majority.
Her explanation is that the selection of Ryan and Republican gaffes created the recent swing toward the Democrats.
Republican PACs will be throwing big money to advertisements to shore up their House races.
joe Reply:
September 23rd, 2012 at 5:59 pm
Her explanation is that the selection of Ryan and Republican gaffes created the recent swing toward the Democrats.
And both the GOP redistricting and voter ID law in Texas were blocked.
John Nachtigall Reply:
September 24th, 2012 at 7:33 am
she predicted teh Dems would hold the House in the 2010 election
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/1110/Pelosi_Van_Hollen_predict_victory_for_Dems.html
after that how can you take any of her “predictions” seriously
Woody Reply:
September 26th, 2012 at 10:19 am
Only 25 needed to re-elect Speaker Pelosi. “There are 63 seats held by Republicans that were won by President Obama (in 2008). Of those 63 seats, 18 were also won by John Kerry (in 2004).” Pelosi aims to take 12 of those. “Of the 45 remaining, … give them two-thirds … Give them 30, we’ll take 15. Fifteen plus 12, 27.”
Yes, she predicted that Democrats would win in 2010. “You know, we lost the House by 250,000 votes last time. You would have thought it was 25 million or something, right? Eight hundred here, 200 here, 189 here. And then a few thousand in some of the districts.”
Too many Democrats were lazy before Election Day in 2010, but that does not appear to be our problem this time. And Pelosi’s analysis of the races looks better this year as well.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/05/1127734/-Pelosi-on-retaking-the-House-We-feel-pretty-good-about-it
Off topic but perhaps of interest, even if William Draves may be overoptimistic in saying cars are dead:
http://nineshift.typepad.com/weblog/2012/09/light-rail-replaces-school-buses-in-minneapolis.html#comments\
http://nineshift.typepad.com/weblog/2012/09/long-term-effects-of-light-rail-replacing-school-buses.html#comments
http://nineshift.typepad.com/weblog/2012/09/2012-big-train-year-for-united-states.html#comments
http://nineshift.typepad.com/weblog/2012/09/trains-are-winning-cars-are-losing-.html#comments
Note that his estimates regarding intercity travel refer to business travel, as opposed to total travel, and would be at least somewhat region-specific. This seems to be borne out in the New York Times story that Draves links to in the last post, and which has also been discussed here. Judging from the California stories that have also been linked and discussed on this page, this would also seem to be the case for the west coast, i.e., many of California’s rail travelers are businesspeople who use the time on the train to work. This also ties in as an adult version of being connected via the internet while in transit, something you can’t normally do in an automobile, and certainly don’t want to do if you are driving the automobile.
No matter what, I don’t expect a single penny from DC. That should be California’s attitude regarding HSR. We cannot sit here and hope that Congress would come to grips and do what every other civilized nation has already done, that is pay a good portion of the construction of the high speed rail network. It’s a shame but what can we do. The good thing is, we will eventually have a Congress between 2012 and 2033 that actually supports HSR.
Joey Reply:
September 24th, 2012 at 4:55 pm
All the more reason to put some basic cost controls in place.