mary Landrieu defeated

[tef]

Breaking...

[tef]

BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) -- Republican Rep. Bill Cassidy defeated Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu on Saturday, denying her a fourth term and extending the GOP's domination of the 2014 midterm elections that put Republicans in charge of Capitol Hill for the final two years of President Barack Obama's tenure.

With Cassidy's victory, Republicans will hold 54 seats when the Senate convenes in January, nine more than they have now. Republican victories in two Louisiana House districts Saturday - including the seat Cassidy now holds - ensure at least 246 seats, compared to 188 for Democrats, the largest GOP advantage since the Truman administration after World War II. An Arizona recount leaves one race still outstanding.

With nearly all the votes counted, unofficial returns showed Cassidy with a commanding victory.

Landrieu had narrowly led a Nov. 4 primary ballot that included eight candidates from all parties. But at 42 percent, she fell well below her marks in previous races and endured a one-month runoff campaign that Republicans dominated via the air waves while national Democrats financially abandoned her effort.

Landrieu's defeat is a blow for one of Louisiana's most famous political families, leaving her brother, New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu, to carry the banner.

The GOP sweep also denied former Gov. Edwin Edwards a political comeback; the colorful 87-year-old politician, who had served four terms as governor in the past, sought a return to public office after eight years in federal prison on corruption charges.

In the South, Democrats will be left without a single governor or U.S. senator across nine states stretching from the Carolinas to Texas. The House delegations from the same region are divided almost entirely by race, with white Republicans representing majority-white districts, while majority non-white districts are represented by black or Hispanic Democrats.

Cassidy, who spent most of his campaign linking Landrieu to Obama, called his win "the exclamation point" on the message that voters sent nationally on Nov. 4.

"This victory happened because people in Louisiana voted for a government that serves us, that does not tell us what to do," Cassidy said in a brief victory speech in Baton Rouge.

He did not mention Obama or offer any specifics about his agenda in the Senate, but said he believes voters have demanded "a conservative direction" on health care, budgets and energy policy. Cassidy did not take questions after his speech.

Speaking a half hour before in New Orleans, Landrieu struck an upbeat chord. "We may not have won tonight, but we have certainly won some extraordinary victories," she told supporters, citing her role in directing additional oil and gas royalties to Louisiana and securing federal aid after multiple hurricanes and the 2010 Gulf Oil Spill.

"It's been a fight worth waging," she said. "Louisiana will always be worth fighting for."

She also said she was "proud" of her efforts to expand health care access, though she didn't specifically mention the Affordable Care Act.

The Louisiana race mirrored contests in other states Obama lost in 2012, with Landrieu, 59, joining Alaska Sen. Mark Begich, North Carolina Sen. Kay Hagan and Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor in defeat. Democrats ceded seats in Montana, South Dakota and West Virginia after incumbents opted not to run again.

Like victorious Republicans in those races, Cassidy, 57, made his bid against Landrieu more about Obama than about his own vision for the job. An Illinois native, Cassidy made few public appearances during the runoff, seeking to avoid missteps that could change the race.

But in a state where 73 percent of white voters on Nov. 4 told pollsters they "strongly disapproved" of the president, that was enough to prevent Landrieu from finding her footing. Cassidy also enjoyed a prodigious advertising advantage in the runoff: Of every dollar spent by outside groups during the one-month runoff, 97 cents benefited the congressman.

Landrieu tried several messages over the course of her losing effort.

Most recently, she had hammered Cassidy as unfit for the job and more interested in partisanship than helping Louisiana. She directed her most pointed criticism at Cassidy's medical teaching job in Louisiana State University's hospital system. Calling Cassidy "Dr. Double Dip," Landrieu suggested he collected a $20,000, taxpayer-funded salary for little or no work, describing gaps and discrepancies in Cassidy's LSU timesheets. LSU said it's looking into the timesheet questions.

She argued that the race shouldn't be about Obama, but also targeted advertising on radio stations geared to the black community, where the president remains popular.

Her anchor argument was that her seniority was a boon for Louisiana, particularly her chairmanship of the Senate's energy committee, an important panel for this oil-rich state. But that argument was gutted on Nov. 4 when Republicans won the Senate majority, meaning Landrieu would have lost her post even had she won.

----

Barrow reported from Atlanta. Plaisance reported from New Orleans. Follow the reporters on Twitter (at)MDeslatte, (at)BillBarrowAP and (at)splaisance.

© 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

[ESF]

My law school commencement speaker.

Honestly, good riddance. She has done nothing but lobby for the oil industry. The party does not need her.

[origami]

"The GOP sweep also denied former Gov. Edwin Edwards a political comeback; the colorful 87-year-old politician, who had served four terms as governor in the past, sought a return to public office after eight years in federal prison on corruption charges."

I'm sorry, what now?

[pamela]

Dec 7, 2014 0:40:41 GMT -5 origami said:

"The GOP sweep also denied former Gov. Edwin Edwards a political comeback; the colorful 87-year-old politician, who had served four terms as governor in the past, sought a return to public office after eight years in federal prison on corruption charges."

I'm sorry, what now?

Welcome to Louisiana. I was really scared he might actually win. Wouldn't be the first. A felony doesn't disqualify you here apparently.

[origami]

Dec 7, 2014 0:59:19 GMT -5 pamela said:

Dec 7, 2014 0:40:41 GMT -5 origami said:

"The GOP sweep also denied former Gov. Edwin Edwards a political comeback; the colorful 87-year-old politician, who had served four terms as governor in the past, sought a return to public office after eight years in federal prison on corruption charges."

I'm sorry, what now?

Welcome to Louisiana. I was really scared he might actually win. Wouldn't be the first. A felony doesn't disqualify you here apparently.

Nor does being having a life expectancy equal to your term of office.


(I'm exaggerating. His life expectancy is probably 5 years.)

[jillboston]

Good riddance. She was a Democrat in name only.

[Cicero]

Woohoo 54.

But still-- how many moderates are there left? Old school moderate Republicans like Dick Lugar lost their seats 2 and 4 years ago. This year's election took out the more middle of the road Dems. We're left with a whole bunch of people on the farther ends of each side of the political spectrum who have neither the desire nor the ability to reach across the aisle and compromise. We are screwed.

[ttt]

Dec 7, 2014 9:59:48 GMT -5 Cicero said:

Woohoo 54.

But still-- how many moderates are there left? Old school moderate Republicans like Dick Lugar lost their seats 2 and 4 years ago. This year's election took out the more middle of the road Dems. We're left with a whole bunch of people on the farther ends of each side of the political spectrum who have neither the desire nor the ability to reach across the aisle and compromise. We are screwed.

Who are the people that are farther to the left?

[Cicero]

Dec 7, 2014 10:01:30 GMT -5 ttt said:

Dec 7, 2014 9:59:48 GMT -5 Cicero said:

Woohoo 54.

But still-- how many moderates are there left? Old school moderate Republicans like Dick Lugar lost their seats 2 and 4 years ago. This year's election took out the more middle of the road Dems. We're left with a whole bunch of people on the farther ends of each side of the political spectrum who have neither the desire nor the ability to reach across the aisle and compromise. We are screwed.

Who are the people that are farther to the left?

Of Mary Landrieu? The majority of her caucus.

ETA: I get that she's farther to the left than most of her constituents, but I seem to recall a study in the run up to '08 finding her to be the most centrist person in the Senate.

[ttt]

Dec 7, 2014 10:03:28 GMT -5 Cicero said:

Dec 7, 2014 10:01:30 GMT -5 ttt said:

Who are the people that are farther to the left?

Of Mary Landrieu? The majority of her caucus.

It seems like the moderate Democrats have been replaced not with more leftist Democrats but with Republicans. I don't think Congress is getting more polarized to extreme left and right as much it is getting shifted to he right completely, as moderate Dems are replaced with Republicans and moderate Republicans are replaced with extreme rightists.

Was there anyone who won in this election who was more liberal than the person they replaced?

[Cicero]

Dec 7, 2014 10:08:10 GMT -5 ttt said:

Dec 7, 2014 10:03:28 GMT -5 Cicero said:

Of Mary Landrieu? The majority of her caucus.

It seems like the moderate Democrats have been replaced not with more leftist Democrats but with Republicans. I don't think Congress is getting more polarized to extreme left and right as much it is getting shifted to he right completely, as moderate Dems are replaced with Republicans and moderate Republicans are replaced with extreme rightists.

Was there anyone who won in this election who was more liberal than the person they replaced?

I just accidentally reported this. I thought it was a duplicate of mine and I was trying to delete it. I haven't yet had coffee. My apologies.

''08, '10 and '12 saw the Republicans being taken out. Dole and Luger come of mind as losing seats to the left. I know there are more but like I said, no coffee.

The center is gone. Regardless of what party won the seat it wasn't replaced by a moderate. I'd far prefer a moderate of either party to someone who is near either extreme. In today's society the type of actual functioning described here:
www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/03/23/the-story-washington-gridlock-seen-through-eyes-bob-dole/bicDzPfwy1ta6SgirmDRQP/story.html seems impossible. And that is a damn shame.

[jillboston]

Dec 7, 2014 10:22:23 GMT -5 Cicero said:

Dec 7, 2014 10:08:10 GMT -5 ttt said:

It seems like the moderate Democrats have been replaced not with more leftist Democrats but with Republicans. I don't think Congress is getting more polarized to extreme left and right as much it is getting shifted to he right completely, as moderate Dems are replaced with Republicans and moderate Republicans are replaced with extreme rightists.

Was there anyone who won in this election who was more liberal than the person they replaced?

I just accidentally reported this. I thought it was a duplicate of mine and I was trying to delete it. I haven't yet had coffee. My apologies.

''08, '10 and '12 saw the Republicans being taken out. Dole and Luger come of mind as losing seats to the left. I know there are more but like I said, no coffee.

The center is gone. Regardless of what party won the seat it wasn't replaced by a moderate. I'd far prefer a moderate of either party to someone who is near either extreme. In today's society the type of actual functioning described here:
www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/03/23/the-story-washington-gridlock-seen-through-eyes-bob-dole/bicDzPfwy1ta6SgirmDRQP/story.html seems impossible. And that is a damn shame.

Other than Elizabeth Warren (and I think there is strong argument that she is not *more* liberal than Ted Kennedy) I don't see where this has happened on the Democratic side.

[Cicero]

Dec 7, 2014 10:27:13 GMT -5 jillboston said:

Dec 7, 2014 10:22:23 GMT -5 Cicero said:

I just accidentally reported this. I thought it was a duplicate of mine and I was trying to delete it. I haven't yet had coffee. My apologies.

''08, '10 and '12 saw the Republicans being taken out. Dole and Luger come of mind as losing seats to the left. I know there are more but like I said, no coffee.

The center is gone. Regardless of what party won the seat it wasn't replaced by a moderate. I'd far prefer a moderate of either party to someone who is near either extreme. In today's society the type of actual functioning described here:
www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/03/23/the-story-washington-gridlock-seen-through-eyes-bob-dole/bicDzPfwy1ta6SgirmDRQP/story.html seems impossible. And that is a damn shame.

Other than Elizabeth Warren (and I think there is strong argument that she is not *more* liberal than Ted Kennedy) I don't see where this has happened on the Democratic side.

I think you're misunderstanding my point. It's not that the Democratic Party is cannibalizing itself. It is that the reasonable people in the middle are pretty much all gone. It doesn't really matter to what party they lost their seat to because whoever it was isn't a moderate. If you take out the middle you're left with a pretty polarized setting. The Senate has meandered very slowly between party control for its entire history. At the moment it has meandered to the Republican side. Eventually it will go back but I kind of doubt that means with it will come moderates.

From listening to a personal contact (I'm not posting specifics here but I'll be happy to PM it to anyone I know who asks) talk over the past decade, the behind the scenes...idk decorum?...has completely changed. With the disappearance of the old school moderates went the ability to work things through over any sort of middle ground. I can't speak for the House but the Senate no longer bothers to deal with members of the other party. People just stick to their caucus and don't even attempt to branch out.

Apparently it makes me some sort of weirdo that I'd take Landrieu over Cruz and Lugar over Warren any day of the week.

[jillboston]

Dec 7, 2014 10:44:08 GMT -5 Cicero said:

Dec 7, 2014 10:27:13 GMT -5 jillboston said:

Other than Elizabeth Warren (and I think there is strong argument that she is not *more* liberal than Ted Kennedy) I don't see where this has happened on the Democratic side.

I think you're misunderstanding my point. It's not that the Democratic Party is cannibalizing itself. It is that the reasonable people in the middle are pretty much all gone. It doesn't really matter to what party they lost their seat to because whoever it was isn't a moderate. If you take out the middle you're left with a pretty polarized setting. The Senate has meandered very slowly between party control for its entire history. At the moment it has meandered to the Republican side. Eventually it will go back but I kind of doubt that means with it will come moderates.

From listening to a personal contact (I'm not posting specifics here but I'll be happy to PM it to anyone I know who asks) talk over the past decade, the behind the scenes...idk decorum?...has completely changed. With the disappearance of the old school moderates went the ability to work things through over any sort of middle ground. I can't speak for the House but the Senate no longer bothers to deal with members of the other party. People just stick to their caucus and don't even attempt to branch out.

Apparently it makes me some sort of weirdo that I'd take Landrieu over Cruz and Lugar over Warren any day of the week.

I don't think you are a weirdo. I am Democrat who would not prefer Landrieu over Warren. I don't think Warren is that radical - certainly not more than Ted Kennedy. My argument is that there is a middle. It is most of the Democratic senators. Nearly all really. The Republicans have suffered at the hands of the Tea Party and have been drawn to the far right. I don't agree that that has happened to the Democrats. We disagree-  but I certainly don't think you are a weirdo by any means.

[Cicero]

Dec 7, 2014 10:48:23 GMT -5 jillboston said:

Dec 7, 2014 10:44:08 GMT -5 Cicero said:

I think you're misunderstanding my point. It's not that the Democratic Party is cannibalizing itself. It is that the reasonable people in the middle are pretty much all gone. It doesn't really matter to what party they lost their seat to because whoever it was isn't a moderate. If you take out the middle you're left with a pretty polarized setting. The Senate has meandered very slowly between party control for its entire history. At the moment it has meandered to the Republican side. Eventually it will go back but I kind of doubt that means with it will come moderates.

From listening to a personal contact (I'm not posting specifics here but I'll be happy to PM it to anyone I know who asks) talk over the past decade, the behind the scenes...idk decorum?...has completely changed. With the disappearance of the old school moderates went the ability to work things through over any sort of middle ground. I can't speak for the House but the Senate no longer bothers to deal with members of the other party. People just stick to their caucus and don't even attempt to branch out.

Apparently it makes me some sort of weirdo that I'd take Landrieu over Cruz and Lugar over Warren any day of the week.

I don't think you are a weirdo. I am Democrat who would not prefer Landrieu over Warren. I don't think Warren is that radical - certainly not more than Ted Kennedy. My argument is that there is a middle. It is most of the Democratic senators. Nearly all really. The Republicans have suffered at the hands of the Tea Party and have been drawn to the far right. I don't agree that that has happened to the Democrats. We disagree-  but I certainly don't think you are a weirdo by any means.

I would submit that where the middle actually is for the country is farther right than you perceive it to be.

[jillboston]

Dec 7, 2014 10:55:40 GMT -5 Cicero said:

Dec 7, 2014 10:48:23 GMT -5 jillboston said:

I don't think you are a weirdo. I am Democrat who would not prefer Landrieu over Warren. I don't think Warren is that radical - certainly not more than Ted Kennedy. My argument is that there is a middle. It is most of the Democratic senators. Nearly all really. The Republicans have suffered at the hands of the Tea Party and have been drawn to the far right. I don't agree that that has happened to the Democrats. We disagree-  but I certainly don't think you are a weirdo by any means.

I would submit that where the middle actually is for the country is farther right than you perceive it to be.

And I disagree. The national polls on gun control, marriage equality, abortion and particularly the issue of whether life begins at conception are far to the left of the current Republican party.

[Cicero]

Dec 7, 2014 11:00:52 GMT -5 jillboston said:

Dec 7, 2014 10:55:40 GMT -5 Cicero said:

I would submit that where the middle actually is for the country is farther right than you perceive it to be.

And I disagree. The national polls on gun control, marriage equality, abortion and particularly the issue of whether life begins at conception are far to the left of the current Republican party.

And far to the right of the stance of the Dems. Not social issues are the only thing that matters.

[jillboston]

Dec 7, 2014 11:04:28 GMT -5 Cicero said:

Dec 7, 2014 11:00:52 GMT -5 jillboston said:

And I disagree. The national polls on gun control, marriage equality, abortion and particularly the issue of whether life begins at conception are far to the left of the current Republican party.

And far to the right of the stance of the Dems. Not social issues are the only thing that matters.

How so? Dems are for background checks and the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban (majority of Americans are as well) ; keeping Roe v. Wade in place and marriage equality - all supported by the majority of Americans.

[Cicero]

Disclaimer: I'm heading out now and will be gone for most of the day. So I'm not ignoring responses in the event that I've started something here without meaning to.

[jillboston]

Dec 7, 2014 11:10:02 GMT -5 Cicero said:

Disclaimer: I'm heading out now and will be gone for most of the day. So I'm not ignoring responses in the event that I've started something here without meaning to.

As am I  - have a good day and thanks for the discussion.

[ttt]

Dec 7, 2014 10:44:08 GMT -5 Cicero said:

Dec 7, 2014 10:27:13 GMT -5 jillboston said:

Other than Elizabeth Warren (and I think there is strong argument that she is not *more* liberal than Ted Kennedy) I don't see where this has happened on the Democratic side.

I think you're misunderstanding my point. It's not that the Democratic Party is cannibalizing itself. It is that the reasonable people in the middle are pretty much all gone. It doesn't really matter to what party they lost their seat to because whoever it was isn't a moderate. If you take out the middle you're left with a pretty polarized setting. The Senate has meandered very slowly between party control for its entire history. At the moment it has meandered to the Republican side. Eventually it will go back but I kind of doubt that means with it will come moderates.

From listening to a personal contact (I'm not posting specifics here but I'll be happy to PM it to anyone I know who asks) talk over the past decade, the behind the scenes...idk decorum?...has completely changed. With the disappearance of the old school moderates went the ability to work things through over any sort of middle ground. I can't speak for the House but the Senate no longer bothers to deal with members of the other party. People just stick to their caucus and don't even attempt to branch out.

Apparently it makes me some sort of weirdo that I'd take Landrieu over Cruz and Lugar over Warren any day of the week.

The right has gotten extreme and the left has moved right.

Who are the extremists in the left? Who is the D equivalent to Ted Cruz or Tim Walberg or Allen West? You can't tell me Elizabeth Warren Is somehow an extreme socialist.

[Velar Fricative]

Dec 7, 2014 11:19:51 GMT -5 ttt said:

Dec 7, 2014 10:44:08 GMT -5 Cicero said:

I think you're misunderstanding my point. It's not that the Democratic Party is cannibalizing itself. It is that the reasonable people in the middle are pretty much all gone. It doesn't really matter to what party they lost their seat to because whoever it was isn't a moderate. If you take out the middle you're left with a pretty polarized setting. The Senate has meandered very slowly between party control for its entire history. At the moment it has meandered to the Republican side. Eventually it will go back but I kind of doubt that means with it will come moderates.

From listening to a personal contact (I'm not posting specifics here but I'll be happy to PM it to anyone I know who asks) talk over the past decade, the behind the scenes...idk decorum?...has completely changed. With the disappearance of the old school moderates went the ability to work things through over any sort of middle ground. I can't speak for the House but the Senate no longer bothers to deal with members of the other party. People just stick to their caucus and don't even attempt to branch out.

Apparently it makes me some sort of weirdo that I'd take Landrieu over Cruz and Lugar over Warren any day of the week.

The right has gotten extreme and the left has moved right.

Who are the extremists in the left? Who is the D equivalent to Ted Cruz or Tim Walberg or Allen West? You can't tell me Elizabeth Warren Is somehow an extreme socialist.

Bernie Sanders, though he's not actually a D! 

Angus King is the other Independent but I'm not as familiar with his politics beyond knowing that he caucuses with the Ds. In other words, I don't know if he considers himself a socialist as Sanders does.

But yeah, the two extreme-left Senators (if King is indeed a socialist) don't even call themselves Ds. And now I have to go read up on King.

[Velar Fricative]

As for far left Ds - Schumer? To me he doesn't seem far left (he's pretty par for the course for Ds in this city), but I assume compared to the rest of the country he is.

Duh, and Al Franken.

[ttt]

Dec 7, 2014 11:29:51 GMT -5 Velar Fricative said:

As for far left Ds - Schumer? To me he doesn't seem far left (he's pretty par for the course for Ds in this city), but I assume compared to the rest of the country he is.

Duh, and Al Franken.

You have Allen West flat out saying that Muslims are savages that need to be destroyed, that illegal immigrants should be denied emergency medical care, that wrote for a magazine calling women "oral relief stations." Schumer may be liberal but he is not the equivalent of this.

[Velar Fricative]

Dec 7, 2014 11:35:48 GMT -5 ttt said:

Dec 7, 2014 11:29:51 GMT -5 Velar Fricative said:

As for far left Ds - Schumer? To me he doesn't seem far left (he's pretty par for the course for Ds in this city), but I assume compared to the rest of the country he is.

Duh, and Al Franken.

You have Allen West flat out saying that Muslims are savages that need to be destroyed, that illegal immigrants should be denied emergency medical care, that wrote for a magazine calling women "oral relief stations." Schumer may be liberal but he is not the equivalent of this.

This is true. I was thinking in general terms but you're right, I am having a hard time thinking of an equivalent leftist in the Senate. But in case this is my bias talking, I'm open to examples from others.

[laurenpetro]

Dec 7, 2014 0:40:41 GMT -5 origami said:

"The GOP sweep also denied former Gov. Edwin Edwards a political comeback; the colorful 87-year-old politician, who had served four terms as governor in the past, sought a return to public office after eight years in federal prison on corruption charges."

I'm sorry, what now?

Classy!

[ESF]

Dec 7, 2014 11:38:40 GMT -5 Velar Fricative said:

Dec 7, 2014 11:35:48 GMT -5 ttt said:

You have Allen West flat out saying that Muslims are savages that need to be destroyed, that illegal immigrants should be denied emergency medical care, that wrote for a magazine calling women "oral relief stations." Schumer may be liberal but he is not the equivalent of this.

This is true. I was thinking in general terms but you're right, I am having a hard time thinking of an equivalent leftist in the Senate. But in case this is my bias talking, I'm open to examples from others.

Exactly.

The most "liberal" Senators are probably Warren and Franken. But I'm not sure what about their views are way out there and inconsistent with most of America's. I'm hard pressed to think of what voters think America is doing a bang up job regulating banks, or who in America thinks that the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial can and should be systematically be eliminated through the use of fine print contracts. Are those seriously far-left concepts? The former seems like something the Tea Party agrees with, and the latter isn't something people understand. The opposition to both those things comes from banks and other mega-corporations, not voters. That doesn't make the idea far-left.

Meanwhile, Schumer and other "liberal" Senators are running from the ACA, which was modeled on a Republican plan, because it's seen as too liberal.

So no, I don't think the Democratic Party has moved too far to the left and has no centrists.

Our perceptions of left and right are warped by the current Republican congregation and the far-right leanings of the Supreme Court.

[Cicero]

Dec 7, 2014 11:09:15 GMT -5 jillboston said:

Dec 7, 2014 11:04:28 GMT -5 Cicero said:

And far to the right of the stance of the Dems. Not social issues are the only thing that matters.

How so? Dems are for background checks and the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban (majority of Americans are as well) ; keeping Roe v. Wade in place and marriage equality - all supported by the majority of Americans.

Taking abortion for instance (not something I would have brought up but since it's on the table).  28% of people think it should be legal in all circumstances 21% think that it should be illegal in all.  Then you have half of the country's population in between who think it should be legal only under certain circumstances.  I'd love to see the breakdown on "certain circumstances" but if you look at it in the number s middle of the road on the issue is actually supporting certain reasonable restrictions.  

I've not looked lately but the only Dem Senators I remember having a less than 100% NARAL rating were Pryor (gone) Landrieu (gone) and Casey.  


www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

[ESF]

Dec 7, 2014 16:38:33 GMT -5 Cicero said:

Dec 7, 2014 11:09:15 GMT -5 jillboston said:

How so? Dems are for background checks and the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban (majority of Americans are as well) ; keeping Roe v. Wade in place and marriage equality - all supported by the majority of Americans.

Taking abortion for instance (not something I would have brought up but since it's on the table).  28% of people think it should be legal in all circumstances 21% think that it should be illegal in all.  Then you have half of the country's population in between who think it should be legal only under certain circumstances.  I'd love to see the breakdown on "certain circumstances" but if you look at it in the number s middle of the road on the issue is actually supporting certain reasonable restrictions.  

I've not looked lately but the only Dem Senators I remember having a less than 100% NARAL rating were Pryor (gone) Landrieu (gone) and Casey.  


www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

There are at least a couple problems with your example.

First, as I understand them, NARAL's ratings are based on how the candidates voted on issues that were up for debate in a given congressional term, not their general positions on a few issues of utmost importance to NARAL. In other words, it is not grading whether the senators support abortion in every single instance. To me, the fact that every Democratic senator voting to confirm Elena Kagan and for expanded birth control coverage doesn't suggest that they are so far radically to the left as to only be in sync with 21% of Americans.

The NARAL thing would only be interesting if everything that came up for a vote was radically left or radically right. But most bills are just things that tinker with marginal regulations and don't really move the ball in either direction. What was the last issue relating to reproductive rights to come out of Congress that Democrats broadly supported, but seems very far-left and out of step with main stream America? I am struggling to think of a good one - IIRC, even the 2003 ban had some Democratic support.

Second, abortion is the bread and butter of both parties' base, so to win primaries, candidates have to take far left or right positions on that issue. That will probably always be the case. Gun control, environmental issues, economic issues, etc - the is more variation. The rest of it, you will probably see more nuance.

I do agree in general that the country is becoming more polarized. But I don't think the Democrats are moving farther to the left. I think the Republicans have shifted much farther to the right, which has forced Democrats to be more solidly unified in their opposition. As the Republican Party moves further right, people are jumping ship and Democrats are moving to the right to try to pick them up.