Paul Waldman

Paul Waldman is the Prospect's daily blogger and senior writer. He also blogs for the Plum Line at the Washington Post, and is the author of Being Right is Not Enough: What Progressives Must Learn From Conservative Success.

Recent Articles

The 2016 Republican Primary Is Getting More Interesting All The Time

Flickr/Gage Skidmore
Is it wrong of me to feel a little giddy thinking about the 2016 Republican presidential primaries? It is going to be a hoot and a holler, and with the midterms now behind us, potential candidates are moving quickly. The latest is a certain smooth-talking Baptist minister from Arkansas who is guaranteed to liven up the proceedings : Advisers are already scouting real estate in Little Rock, Ark., for a possible presidential campaign headquarters. Huckabee is scheduled to spend part of November holding private meetings with powerful GOP financiers in Las Vegas, New York, and California, gauging their interest in being bundlers for his possible campaign and asking for pledges of five-to six-figure donations to his aligned organizations. And he is planning two strategy sessions in December, in Little Rock and Destin, Fla., near his new Gulf Coast home, to discuss timing, potential staffing, and an opening pitch to voters. In January, Huckabee will publish "God, Guns, Grits, and Gravy,"...

Chart of the Day: What Republicans Really Want

(AP Photo/Dennis Brack)
In case you were wondering just how inclined Republicans will be to find ways to work with President Obama, here's the chart of the day, from a new Pew Research Center poll . Victory, it seems, does not make the GOP electorate magnanimous: This isn't a new story, but it's still striking. While the Ron Fourniers of the world will tell you that "the American people" want the two parties to come together to get things done, that isn't actually true. Many Americans want that, but they're mostly Democrats and independents. Most Republicans, on the other hand, don't want that at all. What they want is a fight. They want the officials they elected to shake their fists at that radical Kenyan socialist in the White House and tell him where he can shove it. Since that's what most of those officials are inclined to do anyway, the decision is simple for them. When there's a choice between compromising to get something accomplished and "standing up" to Barack Obama to make a point, they're going...

This Year's Biggest Spenders

Flickr/Ervins Strauhmanis
The Center for Responsive Politics is out with what I assume are final numbers on spending in the 2014 election , and it's some eye-popping stuff. The headline is that the North Carolina Senate race between Kay Hagan and Thom Tillis did indeed turn out to be the most expensive in history, with an amazing $116 million spent overall, $84 million of which was from outside sources. This tops the previous record-holder, Hillary Clinton's 2000 race, in which $70 million (or $97 million in today's money) was spent. Let's take a look at the top ten: There was $709 million spent on these ten races. You'll also notice that Republicans won seven, Democrats won two (New Hampshire and Michigan), and there's one (Louisiana) to be decided in a runoff. Much of that money went down the toilet via television ads, but if you're a Democrat you're hoping that at least some of it went into building an infrastructure that could form the basis of future campaigns. And what about the House? Here are the top...

Exit Polls and the Extrapolation Mistake

Not looking too busy. (Flickr/Stephen Velasco)
Talking about turnout in the 2014 election can look an awful lot like making excuses for the Democrats' loss, which I wouldn't want to do. Democrats don't need to feel better about what happened last Tuesday. They ought to feel bad, not just over how their party performed but about the very real consequences to people's lives that might occur as a result. But now that the data are coming in, we're seeing just how it was Republicans won. It wasn't because they did such a terrific job of persuading people to support their dynamic agenda for change, it was because their voters came to the polls and the Democrats' voters didn't. That was made possible by the fact that turnout overall was so abysmal. According to the United States Election Project, turnout this year was 36.4 percent of the voting-eligible population, the lowest of any election since 1942. Among those who did vote, exit polls showed that Republicans outnumbered Democrats 36 to 35 percent, with the rest calling themselves...

Can Democrats Get to a True Blue Majority?

These two are totally not speaking to each other. (Flickr/Beverley Goodwin)
Everyone knew that the 2014 Senate election was going to be a tough one for Democrats, in large part because they were defending more seats than Republicans, and many of those seats were in red states. And of course, Democrats lost all the close races, with the exception of the one in New Hampshire. This is going to have an effect on the Democratic caucus in the Senate that we haven't really been talking about since last Tuesday: it's going to make it more liberal. In fact, the red state Democratic senator is a nearly extinct species. Look at the incumbents who lost: Mark Begich in Alaska, Mark Pryor in Arkansas, Mark Udall in Colorado, Kay Hagan in North Carolina, and possibly Mary Landrieu in Louisiana, who is headed for a run-off. That's three red-state senators, and two from swing states. Democrats also lost vacated seats in Iowa (swing), Montana (basically red), South Dakota (red), and West Virginia (red). If Landrieu loses, there will be no more Southern Democratic senators...

Pages