Things are getting gloomy for the Democrats. Bill White of Texas has switched to the gubernatorial race since Senator Hutchisons prospects against Rick Perry are getting worse. She will most probably not resign. Also, with the health care debate coming to a close, Senator Reid's prospects are nearing toss-up territory. He somehow has to sell a moderate bill to his base. And since 2010 will be a base election it will be very hard - but I believe that not passing a bill at all would be worse.
I don't know what to make of Rasmussen's depressing polls (from a democratic perspective). The Lincoln and Dodd polls are the best examples. These Senators are vulnerable, yes, but probably not as much as Rasmussen suggests. There have been numerous other polls on Sen. Lincoln who at least show her somewhat even to her best challengers. So Rasmussen's continued House-effect/bias/whatever somewhat devalues their results for me.
Yesterday had 2 new polls on the generic ballot, with the Democrats still being on top. The advantage is decreasing however, just like Obamas favorability who is now barely in positive territory on pollster.com. On the other hand, we might finally have job growth in December (holiday season?). While I can imagine that the January and February numbers will be worse again, the light at the end of the tunnel is visible now. So in some ways, 2010 is a race against time. Will the economic recovery kick in fast enough? That would make independents vote for Democrats. However, there is almost no doubt anymore that the Republican base will be more excited than the Democratic base. Luckily, the Republican base is rather small.
There isn't much big news on the recruitment front. Cal Cunningham is going to challenge Richard Burr in North Carolina. That's a good catch. Apart from that, we probably have to wait for the primaries to get some more movement.
Incumbent, State Dem | Rep % change for Dems
Richard Shelby, Alabama 0 100 0
Lisa Murkowski, Alaska 0 100 0
John McCain, Arizona 0 100 0
Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas 50 50 -0,5
Barbara Boxer, California 0 100 0
Michael Bennett, Colorado 80 20 -0,2
Chris Dodd, Connecticut 60 40 -0,4
(Ted Kaufman), Delaware 70 30 -0,3
(Charles LeMieux), Florida 20 80 +0,2
Johnny Isakson, Georgia 0 100 0
Daniel Inouye, Hawai'i 100 0 0
Mike Crapo, Idaho 0 100 0
(Roland Burris), Illinois 80 20 -0,2
Evan Bayh, Indiana 100 0 0
Chuck Grassley, Iowa 10 90 +0,1
(Sam Brownback), Kansas 0 100 0
Jim Bunning, Kentucky 50 50 +0,5
David Vitter, Louisiana 30 70 +0,3
Barbara Mikulski, Maryland 100 0 0
(Kit Bond), Missouri 70 30 +0,7
Harry Reid, Nevada 60 40 -0,4
(Judd Gregg), New Hampshire 60 40 +0,6
Chuck Schumer, New York 100 0 0
Kirsten Gillibrand, New York Jr. 100 0 0
Richard Burr, North Carolina 30 70 +0,3
Byron Dorgan, North Dakota 100 0 0
Tim Coburn, Oklahoma 0 100 0
(George Voinovich), Ohio 50 50 +0,5
Ron Wyden, Oregon 100 0 0
Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania 90 10 -0,1
Jim DeMint, South Carolina 0 100 0
John Thune, South Dakota 0 100 0
Bob Bennett, Utah 0 100 0
Patrick Leahy, Vermont 100 0 0
Patty Murray, Washington 100 0 0
Russ Feingold, Wisconsin 100 0 0
Overall Estimate of Democratic gains: +1,1
Senate Ranking:
1. Missouri (open) -
2. New Hampshire (open) +1
3. Arkansas (Lincoln) +3
4. Kentucky (open) -1
5. Connecticut (Dodd) -
6. Ohio (open) -4
7. Nevada (Reid) -
8. North Carolina (Burr) +5
9. Louisiana (Vitter) -
10. Delaware (open) -
11. Illinois (open) -
12. Colorado (Bennett) -
13. Florida (open) +1
14. Pennsylvania (Specter) new
15. Iowa (Grassley) -1
We have to see the effect of the primaries on the races. For example, Mark Kirk's recent turnaround on climate change and the health-care bill seriously hurt his moderate credentials. The same is true for Mike Castle. Unsurprisingly, both of them have hurt in most recent polls (these polls however are already a few weeks old). Rob Portman has caught up to Lt. Gov. Fisher in Ohio and we have to wait for the economy to recover - but the republican base enthusiasm is a good counterweight. By the way, there are now 15 potentially competetive races. So next month, we might reduce that number even further - which means that I will reduce the top 15 to a top 10.
Tuesday 15 December 2009
Wednesday 30 September 2009
Senate predictions - October edition
Hello,
here's the list for October:
Incumbent, State Dem | Rep % change for Dems
Richard Shelby, Alabama 0 100 0
Lisa Murkowski, Alaska 0 100 0
John McCain, Arizona 10 90 +0,1
Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas 60 40 -0,4
Barbara Boxer, California 0 100 0
Michael Bennett, Colorado 80 20 -0,2
Chris Dodd, Connecticut 60 40 -0,4
(Ted Kaufman), Delaware 70 30 -0,3
(Charles LeMieux), Florida 20 80 +0,2
Johnny Isakson, Georgia 0 100 0
Daniel Inouye, Hawai'i 100 0 0
Mike Crapo, Idaho 0 100 0
(Roland Burris), Illinois 80 20 -0,2
Evan Bayh, Indiana 100 0 0
Chuck Grassley, Iowa 10 90 +0,1
(Sam Brownback), Kansas 0 100 0
Jim Bunning, Kentucky 50 50 +0,5
David Vitter, Louisiana 30 70 +0,3
Barbara Mikulski, Maryland 100 0 0
(Kit Bond), Missouri 70 30 +0,7
Harry Reid, Nevada 70 30 -0,3
(Judd Gregg), New Hampshire 60 40 +0,6
Chuck Schumer, New York 100 0 0
Kirsten Gillibrand, New York Jr. 100 0 0
Richard Burr, North Carolina 20 80 +0,2
Byron Dorgan, North Dakota 100 0 0
Tim Coburn, Oklahoma 0 100 0
(George Voinovich), Ohio 60 40 +0,6
Ron Wyden, Oregon 100 0 0
Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania 90 10 -0,1
Jim DeMint, South Carolina 0 100 0
John Thune, South Dakota 0 100 0
(Kay B. Hutchison), Texas 30 70 +0,3
Bob Bennett, Utah 0 100 0
Patrick Leahy, Vermont 100 0 0
Patty Murray, Washington 100 0 0
Russ Feingold, Wisconsin 100 0 0
Overall Estimate of Democratic gains: +1,7
Senate Ranking:
1. Missouri (open) -
2. Ohio (open) +1
3. New Hampshire (open) -1
4. Kentucky (open) -
5. Connecticut (Dodd) -
6. Arkansas (Lincoln) +2
7. Nevada (Reid) +4
8. Texas (open) -2
9. Louisiana (Vitter) -
10. Delaware (open) -3
11. Illinois (open) -1
12. Colorado (Bennett) -
13. North Carolina -
14. Florida (open) -
15. Iowa (Grassley) -
Alright, my idea of the electorate in 2010 is a little friendlier for the Dems than Rasmussen's idea. I, for one, believe that a meaningful health-care reform will pass, either a trigger with 60 democratic votes, or a public option via reconciliation. That's essentially why I think that the current poll numbers for the Dems are a little lower than they will be in 13 months in general. This leads me to more or less disregard the Rasmussen poll that shows Rob Portman head to head with both Lt. Gov. Fisher and SoS Jennifer Brunner, instead I trust the Quinnipiac, Research2000 and PPP polls that show Portman behind both democratic candidates. Maybe the Republicans have a structural disadvantage in the rust belt at the moment. Some poll numbers from Michigan seem to confirm this - as such, I believe that Portman will have a real structural disadvantage. And so this race becomes the 3rd race in my list where the incumbent party is more likely to lose the seat.
My vision of 2010 also gives endangered Democrats something to show for. That's why I am not yet ready to toss Harry Reid, Blanche Lincoln and Chris Dodd into damnation. Yet, I made the Nevada and Arkansas races a little more competitive. Once again, Rasmussen's Arkansas numbers are really bad for Lincoln, while Research 2000's numbers aren't really good for her, but her opponents lack name recognition and Lincoln (and Reid) has got a LOT of money and she's also the chairman of the Senate agricultural committee now, which gives her another argument of why Arkansans should keep her. So in some ways she is better off than Reid, on the other hand - it's Arkansas, and it's trending red... we'll see...
I downgraded the Delaware race because I think that, if Mike Castle really wanted to run, he wouldn't wait until Beau Biden is back from Iraq. I mean, it has been clear from the very beginning that Biden will run, and there was no other Democrat in the race. Mike Castle has waited and waited and waited... but if his decision depended on Biden, why would he run ONLY after Biden decided to run? That doesn't make sense, Biden is legitimate candidate with lots of name recognition and a White House boost. He would probably be the strongest Democrat available - so why would Castle wait until he knows that his challenge has become greater? My guess: once Biden is in, Mike Castle is out. If Biden is out, Castle is in - he doesn't want another hard campaign, he has probably thought about retirement and would only run if he got an easy race. Maybe he is also appeasing the Republican congressional leadership.
I continue to believe that Marco Rubio has got a good chance of beating Charlie Crist in the Republican Florida primary, and then Rubio would be a slight favorite against likely Democratic nominee Kendrick Meek. That's how I get to a 20% chance of seat-flipping, that's why the race stays in the list. And finally, Chuck Grassley's numbers have suffered from the health-care debate. It's good that he is on the top 15 already, but we have to see if this slide goes on to justify a change
here's the list for October:
Incumbent, State Dem | Rep % change for Dems
Richard Shelby, Alabama 0 100 0
Lisa Murkowski, Alaska 0 100 0
John McCain, Arizona 10 90 +0,1
Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas 60 40 -0,4
Barbara Boxer, California 0 100 0
Michael Bennett, Colorado 80 20 -0,2
Chris Dodd, Connecticut 60 40 -0,4
(Ted Kaufman), Delaware 70 30 -0,3
(Charles LeMieux), Florida 20 80 +0,2
Johnny Isakson, Georgia 0 100 0
Daniel Inouye, Hawai'i 100 0 0
Mike Crapo, Idaho 0 100 0
(Roland Burris), Illinois 80 20 -0,2
Evan Bayh, Indiana 100 0 0
Chuck Grassley, Iowa 10 90 +0,1
(Sam Brownback), Kansas 0 100 0
Jim Bunning, Kentucky 50 50 +0,5
David Vitter, Louisiana 30 70 +0,3
Barbara Mikulski, Maryland 100 0 0
(Kit Bond), Missouri 70 30 +0,7
Harry Reid, Nevada 70 30 -0,3
(Judd Gregg), New Hampshire 60 40 +0,6
Chuck Schumer, New York 100 0 0
Kirsten Gillibrand, New York Jr. 100 0 0
Richard Burr, North Carolina 20 80 +0,2
Byron Dorgan, North Dakota 100 0 0
Tim Coburn, Oklahoma 0 100 0
(George Voinovich), Ohio 60 40 +0,6
Ron Wyden, Oregon 100 0 0
Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania 90 10 -0,1
Jim DeMint, South Carolina 0 100 0
John Thune, South Dakota 0 100 0
(Kay B. Hutchison), Texas 30 70 +0,3
Bob Bennett, Utah 0 100 0
Patrick Leahy, Vermont 100 0 0
Patty Murray, Washington 100 0 0
Russ Feingold, Wisconsin 100 0 0
Overall Estimate of Democratic gains: +1,7
Senate Ranking:
1. Missouri (open) -
2. Ohio (open) +1
3. New Hampshire (open) -1
4. Kentucky (open) -
5. Connecticut (Dodd) -
6. Arkansas (Lincoln) +2
7. Nevada (Reid) +4
8. Texas (open) -2
9. Louisiana (Vitter) -
10. Delaware (open) -3
11. Illinois (open) -1
12. Colorado (Bennett) -
13. North Carolina -
14. Florida (open) -
15. Iowa (Grassley) -
Alright, my idea of the electorate in 2010 is a little friendlier for the Dems than Rasmussen's idea. I, for one, believe that a meaningful health-care reform will pass, either a trigger with 60 democratic votes, or a public option via reconciliation. That's essentially why I think that the current poll numbers for the Dems are a little lower than they will be in 13 months in general. This leads me to more or less disregard the Rasmussen poll that shows Rob Portman head to head with both Lt. Gov. Fisher and SoS Jennifer Brunner, instead I trust the Quinnipiac, Research2000 and PPP polls that show Portman behind both democratic candidates. Maybe the Republicans have a structural disadvantage in the rust belt at the moment. Some poll numbers from Michigan seem to confirm this - as such, I believe that Portman will have a real structural disadvantage. And so this race becomes the 3rd race in my list where the incumbent party is more likely to lose the seat.
My vision of 2010 also gives endangered Democrats something to show for. That's why I am not yet ready to toss Harry Reid, Blanche Lincoln and Chris Dodd into damnation. Yet, I made the Nevada and Arkansas races a little more competitive. Once again, Rasmussen's Arkansas numbers are really bad for Lincoln, while Research 2000's numbers aren't really good for her, but her opponents lack name recognition and Lincoln (and Reid) has got a LOT of money and she's also the chairman of the Senate agricultural committee now, which gives her another argument of why Arkansans should keep her. So in some ways she is better off than Reid, on the other hand - it's Arkansas, and it's trending red... we'll see...
I downgraded the Delaware race because I think that, if Mike Castle really wanted to run, he wouldn't wait until Beau Biden is back from Iraq. I mean, it has been clear from the very beginning that Biden will run, and there was no other Democrat in the race. Mike Castle has waited and waited and waited... but if his decision depended on Biden, why would he run ONLY after Biden decided to run? That doesn't make sense, Biden is legitimate candidate with lots of name recognition and a White House boost. He would probably be the strongest Democrat available - so why would Castle wait until he knows that his challenge has become greater? My guess: once Biden is in, Mike Castle is out. If Biden is out, Castle is in - he doesn't want another hard campaign, he has probably thought about retirement and would only run if he got an easy race. Maybe he is also appeasing the Republican congressional leadership.
I continue to believe that Marco Rubio has got a good chance of beating Charlie Crist in the Republican Florida primary, and then Rubio would be a slight favorite against likely Democratic nominee Kendrick Meek. That's how I get to a 20% chance of seat-flipping, that's why the race stays in the list. And finally, Chuck Grassley's numbers have suffered from the health-care debate. It's good that he is on the top 15 already, but we have to see if this slide goes on to justify a change
Monday 31 August 2009
Senate predictions - September 2009
This month saw several small developments but none of them managed to really shake up a race. Maybe the most signifacnt development was the announcement of Charles Melancon to challenge David Vitter - but this was already a possibility last month. Harry Reid and Richard Burr still poll badly, but without a challenger nothing will change... Blanche Lincoln probably needs to start worrying that all her campaign money won't be enough since she polls even against Republican no-name challengers. In New Hampshire Kelly Ayotte has decided to run as a social conservative - she probably has to because of a primary challenge, but it will harm her in the general election.
Incumbent, State Dem | Rep % change for Dems
Richard Shelby, Alabama 0 100 0
Lisa Murkowski, Alaska 0 100 0
John McCain, Arizona 10 90 +0,1
Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas 70 30 -0,3
Barbara Boxer, California 0 100 0
Michael Bennett, Colorado 80 20 -0,2
Chris Dodd, Connecticut 60 40 -0,4
(Ted Kaufman), Delaware 70 30 -0,3
(Charles LeMieux), Florida 20 80 +0,2
Johnny Isakson, Georgia 0 100 0
Daniel Inouye, Hawai'i 100 0 0
Mike Crapo, Idaho 0 100 0
(Roland Burris), Illinois 80 20 -0,2
Evan Bayh, Indiana 100 0 0
Chuck Grassley, Iowa 10 90 +0,1
(Sam Brownback), Kansas 0 100 0
Jim Bunning, Kentucky 50 50 +0,5
David Vitter, Louisiana 30 70 +0,3
Barbara Mikulski, Maryland 100 0 0
(Kit Bond), Missouri 70 30 +0,7
Harry Reid, Nevada 80 20 -0,2
(Judd Gregg), New Hampshire 60 40 +0,6
Chuck Schumer, New York 100 0 0
Kirsten Gillibrand, New York Jr. 100 0 0
Richard Burr, North Carolina 20 80 +0,2
Byron Dorgan, North Dakota 100 0 0
Tim Coburn, Oklahoma 0 100 0
(George Voinovich), Ohio 50 50 +0,5
Ron Wyden, Oregon 100 0 0
Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania 90 10 -0,1
Jim DeMint, South Carolina 0 100 0
John Thune, South Dakota 0 100 0
(Kay B. Hutchison), Texas 30 70 +0,3
Bob Bennett, Utah 0 100 0
Patrick Leahy, Vermont 100 0 0
Patty Murray, Washington 100 0 0
Russ Feingold, Wisconsin 100 0 0
Overall Estimate of Democratic gains: +1,8
Senate Ranking:
1. Missouri (open) -
2. New Hampshire (open) +1
3. Ohio (open) -1
4. Kentucky (open) -
5. Connecticut (Dodd) -
6. Texas (open) -
7. Delaware (open) -
8. Arkansas (Lincoln) +6
9. Louisiana (Vitter) -
10. Illinois (open) -
11. Nevada (Reid) -
12. Colorado (Bennett) -
13. North Carolina -5
14. Florida (open) -1
15. Iowa (Grassley) new
Incumbent, State Dem | Rep % change for Dems
Richard Shelby, Alabama 0 100 0
Lisa Murkowski, Alaska 0 100 0
John McCain, Arizona 10 90 +0,1
Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas 70 30 -0,3
Barbara Boxer, California 0 100 0
Michael Bennett, Colorado 80 20 -0,2
Chris Dodd, Connecticut 60 40 -0,4
(Ted Kaufman), Delaware 70 30 -0,3
(Charles LeMieux), Florida 20 80 +0,2
Johnny Isakson, Georgia 0 100 0
Daniel Inouye, Hawai'i 100 0 0
Mike Crapo, Idaho 0 100 0
(Roland Burris), Illinois 80 20 -0,2
Evan Bayh, Indiana 100 0 0
Chuck Grassley, Iowa 10 90 +0,1
(Sam Brownback), Kansas 0 100 0
Jim Bunning, Kentucky 50 50 +0,5
David Vitter, Louisiana 30 70 +0,3
Barbara Mikulski, Maryland 100 0 0
(Kit Bond), Missouri 70 30 +0,7
Harry Reid, Nevada 80 20 -0,2
(Judd Gregg), New Hampshire 60 40 +0,6
Chuck Schumer, New York 100 0 0
Kirsten Gillibrand, New York Jr. 100 0 0
Richard Burr, North Carolina 20 80 +0,2
Byron Dorgan, North Dakota 100 0 0
Tim Coburn, Oklahoma 0 100 0
(George Voinovich), Ohio 50 50 +0,5
Ron Wyden, Oregon 100 0 0
Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania 90 10 -0,1
Jim DeMint, South Carolina 0 100 0
John Thune, South Dakota 0 100 0
(Kay B. Hutchison), Texas 30 70 +0,3
Bob Bennett, Utah 0 100 0
Patrick Leahy, Vermont 100 0 0
Patty Murray, Washington 100 0 0
Russ Feingold, Wisconsin 100 0 0
Overall Estimate of Democratic gains: +1,8
Senate Ranking:
1. Missouri (open) -
2. New Hampshire (open) +1
3. Ohio (open) -1
4. Kentucky (open) -
5. Connecticut (Dodd) -
6. Texas (open) -
7. Delaware (open) -
8. Arkansas (Lincoln) +6
9. Louisiana (Vitter) -
10. Illinois (open) -
11. Nevada (Reid) -
12. Colorado (Bennett) -
13. North Carolina -5
14. Florida (open) -1
15. Iowa (Grassley) new
Tuesday 25 August 2009
Possibility of reconciliation/health care bill with 50 votes
An estimate of the possible vote count if the Democrats try to get health-care reform done via reconciliation. I assume that the final bill will contain a weak public option that only a limited number of people can buy into. It would be similar to the compromise that was achieved in the House (the one backed by the Blue Dogs).
It is also assumed that all Republican Senators will vote with no except for Senators Snowe, Collins and Isakson.
Republicans:
Senator % yes/no/abstain
Collins 30/70/0
Snowe 50/50/0
Isakson 10/90/0
Republican votes for bill: 0,9
Republican votes against bill: 2,1
Democrats:
Senator % yes/no/abstain
Akaka 100/0/0
Inouye 100/0/0
Begich 80/20/0
Cantwell 90/10/0
Murray 100/0/0
Merkley 100/0/0
Wyden 80/20/0
Feinstein 100/0/0
Boxer 100/0/0
Reid 100/0/0
Baucus 80/20/0
Tester 90/10/0
Conrad 10/90/0
Dorgan 70/30/0
Johnson 80/20/0
Nelson (Neb.) 50/50/0
Udall (Col.) 100/0/0
Bennet 90/10/0
Bingaman 100/0/0
Udall (N.M.) 100/0/0
Klobuchar 90/10/0
Franken 100/0/0
Harkin 100/0/0
McCaskill 90/10/0
Landrieu 20/80/0
Lincoln 20/80/0
Pryor 30/70/0
Burris 100/0/0
Durbin 100/0/0
Feingold 90/10/0
Kohl 100/0/0
Levin 100/0/0
Stabenow 100/0/0
Bayh 70/30/0
Brown 100/0/0
Byrd 60/20/20
Rockefeller 100/0/0
Nelson (Florida) 80/20/0
Hagan 50/50/0
Webb 80/20/0
Warner 70/30/0
Mikulski 100/0/0
Cardin 100/0/0
Carper 60/40/0
Kaufman 100/0/0
Specter 90/10/0
Casey 100/0/0
Menendez 100/0/0
Lautenberg 100/0/0
Schumer 100/0/0
Gillibrand 100/0/0
Lieberman 40/60/0
Dodd 100/0/0
Whitehouse 100/0/0
Reed 100/0/0
Kennedy 50/0/50
Kerry 100/0/0
Leahy 100/0/0
Sanders 100/0/0
Shaheen 100/0/0
Democratic votes for: 51
Democratic votes against: 8,3
Democratic abstentions: 0,7
Endresult:
For the bill: 51 + 0,9 = 51,9
Against the bill: 8,3 + 2,1 + 37 = 47,4
Abstentions: 0,7
Endresult: 52-47-1
So I'd say that such a bill has got the potential to pass although it will be close. Maybe a few concessions to certain states could buy especially decisive votes, like Ben Nelson or Olympia Snowe, Senators who will be, once again, at the center-stage of this debate.
It is also assumed that all Republican Senators will vote with no except for Senators Snowe, Collins and Isakson.
Republicans:
Senator % yes/no/abstain
Collins 30/70/0
Snowe 50/50/0
Isakson 10/90/0
Republican votes for bill: 0,9
Republican votes against bill: 2,1
Democrats:
Senator % yes/no/abstain
Akaka 100/0/0
Inouye 100/0/0
Begich 80/20/0
Cantwell 90/10/0
Murray 100/0/0
Merkley 100/0/0
Wyden 80/20/0
Feinstein 100/0/0
Boxer 100/0/0
Reid 100/0/0
Baucus 80/20/0
Tester 90/10/0
Conrad 10/90/0
Dorgan 70/30/0
Johnson 80/20/0
Nelson (Neb.) 50/50/0
Udall (Col.) 100/0/0
Bennet 90/10/0
Bingaman 100/0/0
Udall (N.M.) 100/0/0
Klobuchar 90/10/0
Franken 100/0/0
Harkin 100/0/0
McCaskill 90/10/0
Landrieu 20/80/0
Lincoln 20/80/0
Pryor 30/70/0
Burris 100/0/0
Durbin 100/0/0
Feingold 90/10/0
Kohl 100/0/0
Levin 100/0/0
Stabenow 100/0/0
Bayh 70/30/0
Brown 100/0/0
Byrd 60/20/20
Rockefeller 100/0/0
Nelson (Florida) 80/20/0
Hagan 50/50/0
Webb 80/20/0
Warner 70/30/0
Mikulski 100/0/0
Cardin 100/0/0
Carper 60/40/0
Kaufman 100/0/0
Specter 90/10/0
Casey 100/0/0
Menendez 100/0/0
Lautenberg 100/0/0
Schumer 100/0/0
Gillibrand 100/0/0
Lieberman 40/60/0
Dodd 100/0/0
Whitehouse 100/0/0
Reed 100/0/0
Kennedy 50/0/50
Kerry 100/0/0
Leahy 100/0/0
Sanders 100/0/0
Shaheen 100/0/0
Democratic votes for: 51
Democratic votes against: 8,3
Democratic abstentions: 0,7
Endresult:
For the bill: 51 + 0,9 = 51,9
Against the bill: 8,3 + 2,1 + 37 = 47,4
Abstentions: 0,7
Endresult: 52-47-1
So I'd say that such a bill has got the potential to pass although it will be close. Maybe a few concessions to certain states could buy especially decisive votes, like Ben Nelson or Olympia Snowe, Senators who will be, once again, at the center-stage of this debate.
Wednesday 29 July 2009
Senate predictions - July/August
Since I couldn't manage to make a list for July, we have 2 months of developments in just one update. The Republican position has improved since May. Their "all-men-on-board" approach is doing its best to prevent another Democratic wave election in the Senate, even though that means a loss of talent elsewhere. For example, Mark Kirk is the only viable republican candidate in the Senate in Illinois, and he runs. Mike Castle would be the only one in Delaware, but I wonder if he still wants to run, after his recent encounter with his birther base. I don't know.... I get the feeling that the 2010 election is mounting up to be a last-stand election. After that, the Republicans have to go through a severe reform process.
Anyway, for now they are not looking THAT bad. Sen. Bunning is going to retire, that's helping, too. And who knows, maybe New Hampshire AG Kelly Aiotte can mount an effective campaign against Paul Hodes.
A lot depends on the status of the Obama presidency, especially the races in the swing states, Florida, Ohio, Missouri.... That's why there's still a lot of uncertainty in some races.
Incumbent, State Dem | Rep % change for Dems
Richard Shelby, Alabama 0 100 0
Lisa Murkowski, Alaska 0 100 0
John McCain, Arizona 10 90 +0,1
Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas 80 20 -0,2
Barbara Boxer, California 90 10 -0,1
Michael Bennett, Colorado 80 20 -0,2
Chris Dodd, Connecticut 60 40 -0,4
(Ted Kaufman), Delaware 70 30 -0,3
(Mel Martinez), Florida 20 80 +0,2
Johnny Isakson, Georgia 0 100 0
Daniel Inouye, Hawai'i 100 0 0
Mike Crapo, Idaho 0 100 0
(Roland Burris), Illinois 80 20 -0,2
Evan Bayh, Indiana 100 0 0
Chuck Grassley, Iowa 0 100 0
(Sam Brownback), Kansas 0 100 0
Jim Bunning, Kentucky 50 50 +0,5
David Vitter, Louisiana 20 80 +0,2
Barbara Mikulski, Maryland 100 0 0
(Kit Bond), Missouri 70 30 +0,7
Harry Reid, Nevada 80 20 -0,2
(Judd Gregg), New Hampshire 50 50 +0,5
Chuck Schumer, New York 100 0 0
Kirsten Gillibrand, New York Jr. 100 0 0
Richard Burr, North Carolina 30 70 +0,3
Byron Dorgan, North Dakota 100 0 0
Tim Coburn, Oklahoma 0 100 0
(George Voinovich), Ohio 50 50 +0,5
Ron Wyden, Oregon 100 0 0
Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania 90 10 -0,1
Jim DeMint, South Carolina 0 100 0
John Thune, South Dakota 0 100 0
(Kay B. Hutchison), Texas 30 70 +0,3
Bob Bennett, Utah 0 100 0
Patrick Leahy, Vermont 100 0 0
Patty Murray, Washington 100 0 0
Russ Feingold, Wisconsin 100 0 0
Overall Estimate of Democratic gains: +1,6
I've realized that only minor changes were necessary. For example, Charlie Melancon's candidacy in Louisiana is countered by the possibility of Bobby Jindal jumping into the race (noone wants to be a governor right now...). Also, I had already expected some of the developments, and there's not much that shocked me. I considered pushing the Democrats to 60% in Ohio after several similar polls, showing Portman behind Fisher AND Brunner, but too much depends on the state of the economy. I had Kentucky as a 50:50 before, and a Grayson vs. Conway race will be just that.
Senate Ranking:
1. Missouri (open) -
2. Ohio (open) +2
3. New Hampshire (open) -1
4. Kentucky (open) -1
5. Connecticut (Dodd) -
6. Texas (open) +2
7. Delaware (open) +3
8. North Carolina (Burr) -2
9. Lousiana (Vitter) +3
10. Illinois (open) new
11. Nevada (Reid) -2
12. Colorado (Bennett) -1
13. Florida (open) -6
14. Arkansas (Lincoln) -
15. Arizona (McCain) -2
Republican improvements in New Hampshire and Connecticut benefit the Ohio race, and the Delaware race continues to climb (maybe I underestimated the potential at the beginning - still, it's more a benefit of Mike Castle being in the news, while the other races, Nevada, Colorado, Arkansas are suspiciously quiet....). The Florida race has dropped by a lot, I can't really quantify it, and maybe it should be higher because of all the endorsements Marco Rubio is getting, but things should go well for Crist....
Anyway, for now they are not looking THAT bad. Sen. Bunning is going to retire, that's helping, too. And who knows, maybe New Hampshire AG Kelly Aiotte can mount an effective campaign against Paul Hodes.
A lot depends on the status of the Obama presidency, especially the races in the swing states, Florida, Ohio, Missouri.... That's why there's still a lot of uncertainty in some races.
Incumbent, State Dem | Rep % change for Dems
Richard Shelby, Alabama 0 100 0
Lisa Murkowski, Alaska 0 100 0
John McCain, Arizona 10 90 +0,1
Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas 80 20 -0,2
Barbara Boxer, California 90 10 -0,1
Michael Bennett, Colorado 80 20 -0,2
Chris Dodd, Connecticut 60 40 -0,4
(Ted Kaufman), Delaware 70 30 -0,3
(Mel Martinez), Florida 20 80 +0,2
Johnny Isakson, Georgia 0 100 0
Daniel Inouye, Hawai'i 100 0 0
Mike Crapo, Idaho 0 100 0
(Roland Burris), Illinois 80 20 -0,2
Evan Bayh, Indiana 100 0 0
Chuck Grassley, Iowa 0 100 0
(Sam Brownback), Kansas 0 100 0
Jim Bunning, Kentucky 50 50 +0,5
David Vitter, Louisiana 20 80 +0,2
Barbara Mikulski, Maryland 100 0 0
(Kit Bond), Missouri 70 30 +0,7
Harry Reid, Nevada 80 20 -0,2
(Judd Gregg), New Hampshire 50 50 +0,5
Chuck Schumer, New York 100 0 0
Kirsten Gillibrand, New York Jr. 100 0 0
Richard Burr, North Carolina 30 70 +0,3
Byron Dorgan, North Dakota 100 0 0
Tim Coburn, Oklahoma 0 100 0
(George Voinovich), Ohio 50 50 +0,5
Ron Wyden, Oregon 100 0 0
Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania 90 10 -0,1
Jim DeMint, South Carolina 0 100 0
John Thune, South Dakota 0 100 0
(Kay B. Hutchison), Texas 30 70 +0,3
Bob Bennett, Utah 0 100 0
Patrick Leahy, Vermont 100 0 0
Patty Murray, Washington 100 0 0
Russ Feingold, Wisconsin 100 0 0
Overall Estimate of Democratic gains: +1,6
I've realized that only minor changes were necessary. For example, Charlie Melancon's candidacy in Louisiana is countered by the possibility of Bobby Jindal jumping into the race (noone wants to be a governor right now...). Also, I had already expected some of the developments, and there's not much that shocked me. I considered pushing the Democrats to 60% in Ohio after several similar polls, showing Portman behind Fisher AND Brunner, but too much depends on the state of the economy. I had Kentucky as a 50:50 before, and a Grayson vs. Conway race will be just that.
Senate Ranking:
1. Missouri (open) -
2. Ohio (open) +2
3. New Hampshire (open) -1
4. Kentucky (open) -1
5. Connecticut (Dodd) -
6. Texas (open) +2
7. Delaware (open) +3
8. North Carolina (Burr) -2
9. Lousiana (Vitter) +3
10. Illinois (open) new
11. Nevada (Reid) -2
12. Colorado (Bennett) -1
13. Florida (open) -6
14. Arkansas (Lincoln) -
15. Arizona (McCain) -2
Republican improvements in New Hampshire and Connecticut benefit the Ohio race, and the Delaware race continues to climb (maybe I underestimated the potential at the beginning - still, it's more a benefit of Mike Castle being in the news, while the other races, Nevada, Colorado, Arkansas are suspiciously quiet....). The Florida race has dropped by a lot, I can't really quantify it, and maybe it should be higher because of all the endorsements Marco Rubio is getting, but things should go well for Crist....
Monday 1 June 2009
Sonia Sotomayor - will she be confirmed?
First answer: yes!
By the time she is going to be confirmed, Al Franken will most likely be a sitting Senator. That means that the Democrats have 60 votes at their disposal, theoretically. Ben Nelson has said that he is open to a filibuster, Blanche Lincoln also said that she doesn't automatically confirm the hispanic judge. Mark Pryor and Mary Landrieu are not facing re-election this year, so I guess they are relatively safe votes in Sotomayor's favor.
That means that there are about 55 safe Democratic votes for Sotomayor.
The chances of confirmation by the few Democratic exceptions stand at:
Ben Nelson 60% (+0,6)
Blanche Lincoln 70% (+0,7)
Al Franken 80% (+0,8 - a small chance that he is not confirmed at that time)
Mark Pryor 90% (+0,9)
Mary Landrieu 90% (+0,9)
Total: 55 + 3,9 = 58,9 Democratic "yes" votes.
The Republican abilities to vote against her confirmation are severely limited by electoral calculations. Some Senators simply cannot affort to disenfranchise hispanic voters, either out of consideration for the whole party or out of personal consideration of their future. Additionally, Sonia Sotomayor was originally appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by President George H.W.Bush. Some of the current Republican Senators already voted to confirm her back then. The same happened again with her confirmation to the U.S. court of appeals in 1997 by Bill Clinton. Additionally, many Republicans cannot legitimately claim a right to filibuster a judge since they rejected that position during the Bush administration.
So the likelihood of a vote against Sotomayor's confirmation is impacted by:
- the partisan make-up of the state of said Senator (as always)
- personal preferences
- percentage of hispanic population in the state
- position on Sotomayor's earlier confirmations
- position on up-and-down vote of judicial nominees
Now, let's list all the Republican Senators and their likelihood of voting "nay"
Alexander 60% (+0,6)
Barrasso 80% (+0,8)
Bennett 40% (+0,4)
Bond 60% (+0,6)
Brownback 90% (+0,9)
Bunning 90% (+0,9)
Burr 50% (+0,5)
Chambliss 100% (+1)
Coburn 100% (+1)
Cochran 60% (+0,6)
Collins 30% (+0,3)
Corker 70% (+0,7)
Cornyn 70% (+0,7)
Crapo 100% (+1,0)
DeMint 100% (+1,0)
Ensign 60% (+0,6)
Enzi 100% (+1,0)
Graham 50% (+0,5)
Grassley 80% (+0,8)
Gregg 50% (+0,5)
Hatch 40% (+0,4)
Hutchison 60% (+0,6)
Inhofe 100% (+1)
Isakson 80% (+0,8)
Johanns 90% (+0,9)
Kyl 80% (+0,8)
Lugar 40% (+0,4)
Martinez 40% (+0,4)
McCain 50% (+0,5)
McConnell 80% (+0,8)
Murkowski 80% (+0,8)
Risch 100% (+1)
Roberts 100% (+1)
Sessions 100% (+1)
Shelby 100% (+1)
Snowe 20% (+0,2)
Thune 100% (+1)
Vitter 100% (+1)
Voinovich 80% (+0,8)
Wicker 90% (+0,9)
Total: 29,8 votes
Combine these 29,8 republican "nay" votes with the 1,1 Democratic "nay" votes (5,0-3,9=1,1) and you get a total of 31 votes against Sonia Sotomayor and 69 votes in her favor. I guess there might be a few (one or two) abstentions, so my final prediction is: 68-30.
By the time she is going to be confirmed, Al Franken will most likely be a sitting Senator. That means that the Democrats have 60 votes at their disposal, theoretically. Ben Nelson has said that he is open to a filibuster, Blanche Lincoln also said that she doesn't automatically confirm the hispanic judge. Mark Pryor and Mary Landrieu are not facing re-election this year, so I guess they are relatively safe votes in Sotomayor's favor.
That means that there are about 55 safe Democratic votes for Sotomayor.
The chances of confirmation by the few Democratic exceptions stand at:
Ben Nelson 60% (+0,6)
Blanche Lincoln 70% (+0,7)
Al Franken 80% (+0,8 - a small chance that he is not confirmed at that time)
Mark Pryor 90% (+0,9)
Mary Landrieu 90% (+0,9)
Total: 55 + 3,9 = 58,9 Democratic "yes" votes.
The Republican abilities to vote against her confirmation are severely limited by electoral calculations. Some Senators simply cannot affort to disenfranchise hispanic voters, either out of consideration for the whole party or out of personal consideration of their future. Additionally, Sonia Sotomayor was originally appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by President George H.W.Bush. Some of the current Republican Senators already voted to confirm her back then. The same happened again with her confirmation to the U.S. court of appeals in 1997 by Bill Clinton. Additionally, many Republicans cannot legitimately claim a right to filibuster a judge since they rejected that position during the Bush administration.
So the likelihood of a vote against Sotomayor's confirmation is impacted by:
- the partisan make-up of the state of said Senator (as always)
- personal preferences
- percentage of hispanic population in the state
- position on Sotomayor's earlier confirmations
- position on up-and-down vote of judicial nominees
Now, let's list all the Republican Senators and their likelihood of voting "nay"
Alexander 60% (+0,6)
Barrasso 80% (+0,8)
Bennett 40% (+0,4)
Bond 60% (+0,6)
Brownback 90% (+0,9)
Bunning 90% (+0,9)
Burr 50% (+0,5)
Chambliss 100% (+1)
Coburn 100% (+1)
Cochran 60% (+0,6)
Collins 30% (+0,3)
Corker 70% (+0,7)
Cornyn 70% (+0,7)
Crapo 100% (+1,0)
DeMint 100% (+1,0)
Ensign 60% (+0,6)
Enzi 100% (+1,0)
Graham 50% (+0,5)
Grassley 80% (+0,8)
Gregg 50% (+0,5)
Hatch 40% (+0,4)
Hutchison 60% (+0,6)
Inhofe 100% (+1)
Isakson 80% (+0,8)
Johanns 90% (+0,9)
Kyl 80% (+0,8)
Lugar 40% (+0,4)
Martinez 40% (+0,4)
McCain 50% (+0,5)
McConnell 80% (+0,8)
Murkowski 80% (+0,8)
Risch 100% (+1)
Roberts 100% (+1)
Sessions 100% (+1)
Shelby 100% (+1)
Snowe 20% (+0,2)
Thune 100% (+1)
Vitter 100% (+1)
Voinovich 80% (+0,8)
Wicker 90% (+0,9)
Total: 29,8 votes
Combine these 29,8 republican "nay" votes with the 1,1 Democratic "nay" votes (5,0-3,9=1,1) and you get a total of 31 votes against Sonia Sotomayor and 69 votes in her favor. I guess there might be a few (one or two) abstentions, so my final prediction is: 68-30.
Senate predictions - June
Time for new Senate rankings!
Incumbent, State Dem | Rep % change for Dems
Richard Shelby, Alabama 0 100 0
Lisa Murkowski, Alaska 0 100 0
John McCain, Arizona 20 80 +0,2
Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas 80 20 -0,2
Barbara Boxer, California 90 10 -0,1
Michael Bennett, Colorado 80 20 -0,2
Chris Dodd, Connecticut 60 40 -0,4
(Ted Kaufman), Delaware 80 20 -0,2
(Mel Martinez), Florida 70 30 +0,3
Johnny Isakson, Georgia 0 100 0
Daniel Inouye, Hawai'i 100 0 0
Mike Crapo, Idaho 0 100 0
(Roland Burris), Illinois 90 10 -0,1
Evan Bayh, Indiana 100 0 0
Chuck Grassley, Iowa 10 90 +0,1
(Sam Brownback), Kansas 0 100 0
Jim Bunning, Kentucky 50 50 +0,5
David Vitter, Louisiana 20 80 +0,2
Barbara Mikulski, Maryland 100 0 0
(Kit Bond), Missouri 70 30 +0,7
Harry Reid, Nevada 80 20 -0,2
(Judd Gregg), New Hampshire 70 30 +0,7
Chuck Schumer, New York 100 0 0
Kirsten Gillibrand, New York Jr. 100 0 0
Richard Burr, North Carolina 30 70 +0,3
Byron Dorgan, North Dakota 100 0 0
Tim Coburn, Oklahoma 10 90 +0,1
(George Voinovich), Ohio 50 50 +0,5
Ron Wyden, Oregon 100 0 0
Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania 90 10 -0,1
Jim DeMint, South Carolina 0 100 0
John Thune, South Dakota 0 100 0
(Kay B. Hutchison), Texas 30 70 +0,3
Bob Bennett, Utah 0 100 0
Patrick Leahy, Vermont 100 0 0
Patty Murray, Washington 100 0 0
Russ Feingold, Wisconsin 100 0 0
Overall Estimate of Democratic gains: +2,6
Senate Ranking:
1. Missouri (open) -
2. New Hampshire (open) -
3. Kentucky (Bunning) -
4. Ohio (open) -
5. Connecticut (Dodd) +1
6. North Carolina (Burr) +1
7. Florida (open) -2
8. Texas (open) +2
9. Nevada (Reid) -
10. Delaware (open) +6
11. Colorado (Bennet) -3
12. Louisiana (Vitter) -1
13. Arizona (McCain) -
14. Arkansas (Lincoln) -3
15. Oklahoma (open?) new
There were a few big announcements last month, Crist's run for the Senate and Roy Cooper's decision not to do the same in North Carolina. Ironically, the North Carolina race moved up even further in my ranking, even though the likelihood of a seat change has decreased. Well... I still think that Burr is very vulnerable, and Heath Shuler is reconsidering a run. But Cooper was the Democrats' best chance of getting that seat. We have to see if there is another major development in this race. If not, it's going to drop a lot. Florida has already dropped. I think it's possible that Rubio defeats Charlie Crist in a primary, especially if he is backed by the Jeb Bush-camp (and Huckabee's evangelical support doesn't hurt either). Also, the midterm elections will give a boost to the more partisan primary candidates and their more active supporters. Still, Crist would be a heavy favorite in the general election against presumable Democratic nominee Kendrick Meek. In any case, the republican primary will be interesting to watch, it's the kind of primary we didn't get in Pennsylvania.
At the top of the ranking, everything stays the same. Carnahan is the best possible candidate in the Missouri race, no matter which Republican runs. Paul Hodes continues to be the only candidate in New Hampshire. Jim Bunning is still not retiring.... Dodd is somewhat rebounding and getting heavy boosts from Obama. Time will tell if the anti-Dodd sentiment is going to prevail. Texas moves to a new record standing, mainly because other races with a similar likelihood of change are getting less interesting, and that Texas seat is still looking like a real battle, once it is open. On the other hand, Blanche Lincoln will not face Tim Griffin, Reid and Bennet continue to poll badly but don't face serious challengers, and Chuck Grassley is not retiring either.
These minor changes in probability also affect the open race for the Delaware Senate seat - a race without any candidate at all so far! Mike Castle hasn't decided yet and might be waiting for the return of Beau Biden and his reception (Biden's standing will depend on the standing of the Obama government like noone else). No other Republican has a chance to win, and no Democrat wants to piss off the Vice President by jumping in.
I wonder if the nomination of Sotomayor is creating any trouble for Sen. McCain. I guess he has to reject her because of his anti-immigrant challenger. That would severe his relatively good ties with hispanics and make a Democratic challenge more promising. But who is going to run?
At the very end, the Oklahoma seat makes a first entrance into the ranking, but it might very well be the only appearance, since Tom Coburn is going to announce his plans for the future today. If he retires, Democrats have 2 very good candidates, but since it's Oklahoma, even that might not be enough. If Coburn doesn't retire, the seat is his.
Taken all together, the Republicans enjoy a breath of fresh air after a series of misfortunes. They can continue their good streak by recruiting Mike Castle and Bob Beauprez. However, their improved outlook comes at a price of moderation. Charlie Crist and Mike Castle would be fairly moderate Senators, voting with the Democrats maybe half of the time or so. They'd gain more support for their agenda from Delaware, but they'd lose some in Florida. And since the Democrats already have their 60 seats, these new Republican senators would merely counter the conservative Democrats Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor and Mary Landrieu.
If you pointed a gun at my head, I'd say that Carnahan, Hodes, Conway and Fisher flip their seats, and Castle wins the Delaware seat if he runs. The Republicans "should" be focussing on Nevada and Colorado, since they can change the partisan makeup of the Senate much more in these states than in New Hampshire or Florida (with Crist). At best (for Republicans), the 2010 elections will be a draw, with Carnahan winning in Missouri, Castle winning in Delaware, the Democrats picking up one seat ...somewhere.... (NH, OH, KT) and the Republicans also picking up one seat ...somewhere... (CO, NV, CT).
Incumbent, State Dem | Rep % change for Dems
Richard Shelby, Alabama 0 100 0
Lisa Murkowski, Alaska 0 100 0
John McCain, Arizona 20 80 +0,2
Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas 80 20 -0,2
Barbara Boxer, California 90 10 -0,1
Michael Bennett, Colorado 80 20 -0,2
Chris Dodd, Connecticut 60 40 -0,4
(Ted Kaufman), Delaware 80 20 -0,2
(Mel Martinez), Florida 70 30 +0,3
Johnny Isakson, Georgia 0 100 0
Daniel Inouye, Hawai'i 100 0 0
Mike Crapo, Idaho 0 100 0
(Roland Burris), Illinois 90 10 -0,1
Evan Bayh, Indiana 100 0 0
Chuck Grassley, Iowa 10 90 +0,1
(Sam Brownback), Kansas 0 100 0
Jim Bunning, Kentucky 50 50 +0,5
David Vitter, Louisiana 20 80 +0,2
Barbara Mikulski, Maryland 100 0 0
(Kit Bond), Missouri 70 30 +0,7
Harry Reid, Nevada 80 20 -0,2
(Judd Gregg), New Hampshire 70 30 +0,7
Chuck Schumer, New York 100 0 0
Kirsten Gillibrand, New York Jr. 100 0 0
Richard Burr, North Carolina 30 70 +0,3
Byron Dorgan, North Dakota 100 0 0
Tim Coburn, Oklahoma 10 90 +0,1
(George Voinovich), Ohio 50 50 +0,5
Ron Wyden, Oregon 100 0 0
Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania 90 10 -0,1
Jim DeMint, South Carolina 0 100 0
John Thune, South Dakota 0 100 0
(Kay B. Hutchison), Texas 30 70 +0,3
Bob Bennett, Utah 0 100 0
Patrick Leahy, Vermont 100 0 0
Patty Murray, Washington 100 0 0
Russ Feingold, Wisconsin 100 0 0
Overall Estimate of Democratic gains: +2,6
Senate Ranking:
1. Missouri (open) -
2. New Hampshire (open) -
3. Kentucky (Bunning) -
4. Ohio (open) -
5. Connecticut (Dodd) +1
6. North Carolina (Burr) +1
7. Florida (open) -2
8. Texas (open) +2
9. Nevada (Reid) -
10. Delaware (open) +6
11. Colorado (Bennet) -3
12. Louisiana (Vitter) -1
13. Arizona (McCain) -
14. Arkansas (Lincoln) -3
15. Oklahoma (open?) new
There were a few big announcements last month, Crist's run for the Senate and Roy Cooper's decision not to do the same in North Carolina. Ironically, the North Carolina race moved up even further in my ranking, even though the likelihood of a seat change has decreased. Well... I still think that Burr is very vulnerable, and Heath Shuler is reconsidering a run. But Cooper was the Democrats' best chance of getting that seat. We have to see if there is another major development in this race. If not, it's going to drop a lot. Florida has already dropped. I think it's possible that Rubio defeats Charlie Crist in a primary, especially if he is backed by the Jeb Bush-camp (and Huckabee's evangelical support doesn't hurt either). Also, the midterm elections will give a boost to the more partisan primary candidates and their more active supporters. Still, Crist would be a heavy favorite in the general election against presumable Democratic nominee Kendrick Meek. In any case, the republican primary will be interesting to watch, it's the kind of primary we didn't get in Pennsylvania.
At the top of the ranking, everything stays the same. Carnahan is the best possible candidate in the Missouri race, no matter which Republican runs. Paul Hodes continues to be the only candidate in New Hampshire. Jim Bunning is still not retiring.... Dodd is somewhat rebounding and getting heavy boosts from Obama. Time will tell if the anti-Dodd sentiment is going to prevail. Texas moves to a new record standing, mainly because other races with a similar likelihood of change are getting less interesting, and that Texas seat is still looking like a real battle, once it is open. On the other hand, Blanche Lincoln will not face Tim Griffin, Reid and Bennet continue to poll badly but don't face serious challengers, and Chuck Grassley is not retiring either.
These minor changes in probability also affect the open race for the Delaware Senate seat - a race without any candidate at all so far! Mike Castle hasn't decided yet and might be waiting for the return of Beau Biden and his reception (Biden's standing will depend on the standing of the Obama government like noone else). No other Republican has a chance to win, and no Democrat wants to piss off the Vice President by jumping in.
I wonder if the nomination of Sotomayor is creating any trouble for Sen. McCain. I guess he has to reject her because of his anti-immigrant challenger. That would severe his relatively good ties with hispanics and make a Democratic challenge more promising. But who is going to run?
At the very end, the Oklahoma seat makes a first entrance into the ranking, but it might very well be the only appearance, since Tom Coburn is going to announce his plans for the future today. If he retires, Democrats have 2 very good candidates, but since it's Oklahoma, even that might not be enough. If Coburn doesn't retire, the seat is his.
Taken all together, the Republicans enjoy a breath of fresh air after a series of misfortunes. They can continue their good streak by recruiting Mike Castle and Bob Beauprez. However, their improved outlook comes at a price of moderation. Charlie Crist and Mike Castle would be fairly moderate Senators, voting with the Democrats maybe half of the time or so. They'd gain more support for their agenda from Delaware, but they'd lose some in Florida. And since the Democrats already have their 60 seats, these new Republican senators would merely counter the conservative Democrats Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor and Mary Landrieu.
If you pointed a gun at my head, I'd say that Carnahan, Hodes, Conway and Fisher flip their seats, and Castle wins the Delaware seat if he runs. The Republicans "should" be focussing on Nevada and Colorado, since they can change the partisan makeup of the Senate much more in these states than in New Hampshire or Florida (with Crist). At best (for Republicans), the 2010 elections will be a draw, with Carnahan winning in Missouri, Castle winning in Delaware, the Democrats picking up one seat ...somewhere.... (NH, OH, KT) and the Republicans also picking up one seat ...somewhere... (CO, NV, CT).
Friday 1 May 2009
Senate predictions - May
Sigh.... busy with work at the moment... better times are going to come by June...
Anyway... lots of things happened in April. The fundraising for the first quarter has been released and Arlen Specter switched to the Democrats, sending SHOCKWAVES throughout the political world. Maybe this switch has made Jim Bunning realize that there is no space for his ego as he has apparently "endorsed" the exploratory commitee of Kentucky SoS and personal friend Trey Grayson. Grayson is more popular than Bunning, but he is just as popular as the best democratic challenger Jack Conway. So the race moves back into the toss-up category.
Also, John McCain gets a primary challenger with Chris Simcox, basically a one-issue candidacy against McCain's stance on immigration. It is a somewhat dangerous challenge, we have to see if the Republican base is just as tired of McCain as they were of Specter, that is, if the anti-incumbency mood is stronger that electoral considerations.
Specter's switch changes the situation in Pennsylvania, of course. The seat will most probably remain democratic, even if Rep. Jim Gerlach runs. However, Specter might consider supporting an amended version of EFCA or he will face serious pressure from the left and the unions. Other changes in this month's chart are related to the results of the fundraising.
Incumbent, State Dem | Rep % change for Dems
Richard Shelby, Alabama 0 100 0
Lisa Murkowski, Alaska 10 90 +0,1
John McCain, Arizona 20 80 +0,2
Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas 80 20 -0,2
Barbara Boxer, California 90 10 -0,1
Michael Bennett, Colorado 80 20 -0,2
Chris Dodd, Connecticut 60 40 -0,4
(Ted Kaufman), Delaware 90 10 -0,1
(Mel Martinez), Florida 50 50 +0,5
Johnny Isakson, Georgia 0 100 0
Daniel Inouye, Hawai'i 100 0 0
Mike Crapo, Idaho 0 100 0
(Roland Burris), Illinois 90 10 -0,1
Evan Bayh, Indiana 100 0 0
Chuck Grassley, Iowa 20 80 +0,2
(Sam Brownback), Kansas 0 100 0
Jim Bunning, Kentucky 50 50 +0,5
David Vitter, Louisiana 20 80 +0,2
Barbara Mikulski, Maryland 100 0 0
(Kit Bond), Missouri 70 30 +0,7
Harry Reid, Nevada 80 20 -0,2
(Judd Gregg), New Hampshire 70 30 +0,7
Chuck Schumer, New York 100 0 0
Kirsten Gillibrand, New York Jr. 100 0 0
Richard Burr, North Carolina 40 60 +0,4
Byron Dorgan, North Dakota 90 10 -0,1
Tim Coburn, Oklahoma 10 90 +0,1
(George Voinovich), Ohio 50 50 +0,5
Ron Wyden, Oregon 100 0 0
Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania 90 10 -0,1
Jim DeMint, South Carolina 0 100 0
John Thune, South Dakota 0 100 0
(Kay B. Hutchison), Texas 20 80 +0,2
Bob Bennett, Utah 0 100 0
Patrick Leahy, Vermont 100 0 0
Patty Murray, Washington 100 0 0
Russ Feingold, Wisconsin 100 0 0
Overall Estimate of Democratic gains: +2,8
Senate Ranking:
1. Missouri (open) +3
2. New Hampshire (open) -1
3. Kentucky (open?) -1
4. Ohio (open) +1
5. Florida (open) +1
6. Connecticut (Dodd) +1
7. North Carolina (Burr) +1
8. Colorado (Bennet) +2
9. Nevada (Reid) -
10. Texas (open) +3
11. Arkansas (Lincoln) +3
12. Louisiana (Vitter) -1
13. Arizona (McCain) new
14. Illinois (Burris) +1
15. Iowa (Grassley) -3
The ranking suffers from the contradiction between vulnerable incumbents and incumbent fundraising advantage. Incumbents like Blanche Lincoln, Harry Reid and Michael Bennet really raised a lot of money, even though they are certainly vulnerable from a polling perspective. Blanche Lincoln is probably going to have 2 republican challengers, but none of them with her fundraising powers. The same is true for Michaee Bennet, and Harry Reid doesn't even have a challenger at the moment.
Missouri moves into the top spot because of Sarah Steelman's incoming primary challenge to Matt Blunt and Blunt's disappointing fundraising numbers, especially in comparison to Robin Carnahan's result. Carnahan has to be regarded as a favorite now.
New Hampshire loses its top position because of Paul Hodes' rather bad fundraising effort. But honestly, I think it is more of a "foregone-conclusion"-effect. There is still no challenger to Hodes.
Kentucky is a pure toss-up at the moment, just like Ohio where Lee Fisher would be a small favorite, but he has a small fundraising disadvantage against Republican candidate Rob Portman. This will allow Portman to catch up in name recognition while Fisher probably has to spend some of his money to defeat or intimidate primary challenger Jennifer Brunner. The Portman/Fisher race is going to be highly competitive.
In Florida, a lot still depends on Charlie Crist. Now that the Republicans have lost their 41st seat, it is somewhat less likely that Crist still runs. And he would probably have to come out against Obama's health care proposal which is going to dominate the political scene this fall. Still, Marco Rubio is a respectable Republican candidate on his own already, even though Rep. Kendrick Meek is enjoying heavy promotion from Bill Clinton which has had a great effect on his campaign account.
North Carolina is still waiting for Roy Cooper's announcement to run for the Senate which would elevate this race into the top ranks. The same is true for the yet-nonexisting Texas race for Kai Bailey Hutchison's seat. Bill White raised a formidable amount of money making him competitive against every possible Republican challenger. But well, the wheels need to start moving first.
Anyway... lots of things happened in April. The fundraising for the first quarter has been released and Arlen Specter switched to the Democrats, sending SHOCKWAVES throughout the political world. Maybe this switch has made Jim Bunning realize that there is no space for his ego as he has apparently "endorsed" the exploratory commitee of Kentucky SoS and personal friend Trey Grayson. Grayson is more popular than Bunning, but he is just as popular as the best democratic challenger Jack Conway. So the race moves back into the toss-up category.
Also, John McCain gets a primary challenger with Chris Simcox, basically a one-issue candidacy against McCain's stance on immigration. It is a somewhat dangerous challenge, we have to see if the Republican base is just as tired of McCain as they were of Specter, that is, if the anti-incumbency mood is stronger that electoral considerations.
Specter's switch changes the situation in Pennsylvania, of course. The seat will most probably remain democratic, even if Rep. Jim Gerlach runs. However, Specter might consider supporting an amended version of EFCA or he will face serious pressure from the left and the unions. Other changes in this month's chart are related to the results of the fundraising.
Incumbent, State Dem | Rep % change for Dems
Richard Shelby, Alabama 0 100 0
Lisa Murkowski, Alaska 10 90 +0,1
John McCain, Arizona 20 80 +0,2
Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas 80 20 -0,2
Barbara Boxer, California 90 10 -0,1
Michael Bennett, Colorado 80 20 -0,2
Chris Dodd, Connecticut 60 40 -0,4
(Ted Kaufman), Delaware 90 10 -0,1
(Mel Martinez), Florida 50 50 +0,5
Johnny Isakson, Georgia 0 100 0
Daniel Inouye, Hawai'i 100 0 0
Mike Crapo, Idaho 0 100 0
(Roland Burris), Illinois 90 10 -0,1
Evan Bayh, Indiana 100 0 0
Chuck Grassley, Iowa 20 80 +0,2
(Sam Brownback), Kansas 0 100 0
Jim Bunning, Kentucky 50 50 +0,5
David Vitter, Louisiana 20 80 +0,2
Barbara Mikulski, Maryland 100 0 0
(Kit Bond), Missouri 70 30 +0,7
Harry Reid, Nevada 80 20 -0,2
(Judd Gregg), New Hampshire 70 30 +0,7
Chuck Schumer, New York 100 0 0
Kirsten Gillibrand, New York Jr. 100 0 0
Richard Burr, North Carolina 40 60 +0,4
Byron Dorgan, North Dakota 90 10 -0,1
Tim Coburn, Oklahoma 10 90 +0,1
(George Voinovich), Ohio 50 50 +0,5
Ron Wyden, Oregon 100 0 0
Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania 90 10 -0,1
Jim DeMint, South Carolina 0 100 0
John Thune, South Dakota 0 100 0
(Kay B. Hutchison), Texas 20 80 +0,2
Bob Bennett, Utah 0 100 0
Patrick Leahy, Vermont 100 0 0
Patty Murray, Washington 100 0 0
Russ Feingold, Wisconsin 100 0 0
Overall Estimate of Democratic gains: +2,8
Senate Ranking:
1. Missouri (open) +3
2. New Hampshire (open) -1
3. Kentucky (open?) -1
4. Ohio (open) +1
5. Florida (open) +1
6. Connecticut (Dodd) +1
7. North Carolina (Burr) +1
8. Colorado (Bennet) +2
9. Nevada (Reid) -
10. Texas (open) +3
11. Arkansas (Lincoln) +3
12. Louisiana (Vitter) -1
13. Arizona (McCain) new
14. Illinois (Burris) +1
15. Iowa (Grassley) -3
The ranking suffers from the contradiction between vulnerable incumbents and incumbent fundraising advantage. Incumbents like Blanche Lincoln, Harry Reid and Michael Bennet really raised a lot of money, even though they are certainly vulnerable from a polling perspective. Blanche Lincoln is probably going to have 2 republican challengers, but none of them with her fundraising powers. The same is true for Michaee Bennet, and Harry Reid doesn't even have a challenger at the moment.
Missouri moves into the top spot because of Sarah Steelman's incoming primary challenge to Matt Blunt and Blunt's disappointing fundraising numbers, especially in comparison to Robin Carnahan's result. Carnahan has to be regarded as a favorite now.
New Hampshire loses its top position because of Paul Hodes' rather bad fundraising effort. But honestly, I think it is more of a "foregone-conclusion"-effect. There is still no challenger to Hodes.
Kentucky is a pure toss-up at the moment, just like Ohio where Lee Fisher would be a small favorite, but he has a small fundraising disadvantage against Republican candidate Rob Portman. This will allow Portman to catch up in name recognition while Fisher probably has to spend some of his money to defeat or intimidate primary challenger Jennifer Brunner. The Portman/Fisher race is going to be highly competitive.
In Florida, a lot still depends on Charlie Crist. Now that the Republicans have lost their 41st seat, it is somewhat less likely that Crist still runs. And he would probably have to come out against Obama's health care proposal which is going to dominate the political scene this fall. Still, Marco Rubio is a respectable Republican candidate on his own already, even though Rep. Kendrick Meek is enjoying heavy promotion from Bill Clinton which has had a great effect on his campaign account.
North Carolina is still waiting for Roy Cooper's announcement to run for the Senate which would elevate this race into the top ranks. The same is true for the yet-nonexisting Texas race for Kai Bailey Hutchison's seat. Bill White raised a formidable amount of money making him competitive against every possible Republican challenger. But well, the wheels need to start moving first.
Thursday 2 April 2009
I didn't have a lot of time in the past 3 weeks, I'll try to post more frequently in the future. Anyway, here's the updated list:
Incumbent, State Dem | Rep % change for Dems
Richard Shelby, Alabama 0 100 0
Lisa Murkowski, Alaska 10 90 +0,1
John McCain, Arizona 10 90 +0,1
Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas 80 20 -0,2
Barbara Boxer, California 90 10 -0,1
Michael Bennett, Colorado 80 20 -0,2
Chris Dodd, Connecticut 60 40 -0,4
(Ted Kaufman), Delaware 90 10 -0,1
(Mel Martinez), Florida 50 50 +0,5
Johnny Isakson, Georgia 0 100 0
Daniel Inouye, Hawai'i 100 0 0
Mike Crapo, Idaho 0 100 0
(Roland Burris), Illinois 90 10 -0,1
Evan Bayh, Indiana 100 0 0
Chuck Grassley, Iowa 20 80 +0,2
(Sam Brownback), Kansas 0 100 0
Jim Bunning, Kentucky 60 40 +0,6
David Vitter, Louisiana 20 80 +0,2
Barbara Mikulski, Maryland 100 0 0
(Kit Bond), Missouri 60 40 +0,6
Harry Reid, Nevada 80 20 -0,2
(Bonnie Newman), New Hampshire 70 30 +0,7
Chuck Schumer, New York 100 0 0
Kirsten Gillibrand, New York Jr. 100 0 0
Richard Burr, North Carolina 40 60 +0,4
Byron Dorgan, North Dakota 90 10 -0,1
Tim Coburn, Oklahoma 0 100 0
(George Voinovich), Ohio 50 50 +0,5
Ron Wyden, Oregon 100 0 0
Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania 60 40 +0,6
Jim DeMint, South Carolina 0 100 0
John Thune, South Dakota 0 100 0
(Kay B. Hutchison), Texas 20 80 +0,2
Bob Bennett, Utah 0 100 0
Patrick Leahy, Vermont 100 0 0
Patty Murray, Washington 100 0 0
Russ Feingold, Wisconsin 100 0 0
Overall Estimate of Democratic gains: +3,3
Some new polls have changed the situation slightly. Chris Dodd is in serious trouble against Rob Simmons. A seat in Connecticut is something the Democrats can't afford to lose, especially since there are enough possible contenders to replace Dodd. If he runs in the general, he will have to rely on people's short memories and the support of the Democratic machine - not impossible, but very hard. Arlen Specter is poised to lose the primary at the moment and the campaigns have already begun with Specter's first anti-Toomey ad. I also think that Specter's rejection of EFCA is not going to help his chances in a general election, so the seat might be slipping out of the Republicans' hands.
In New Hampshire, Paul Hodes leads in a hypothetical matchup against his strongest opponent, ex-Senator John Sununu (almost a quasi-incumbent). It is looking really good for him. Jim Bunning's situation remains essentially unchanged and pessimistic. Richard Burr shows signs of vulnerability. His approval rating is below 50%. The strongest Democratic challenger, Roy Cooper, would have a good chance at beating him, but he needs to enter first. Even if he doesn't, Burr will have to fight for his reelection.
Senate Ranking
1. New Hampshire (open) -
2. Kentucky (Bunning) -
3. Pennsylvania (Specter) +5
4. Missouri (open) -1
5. Ohio (open) -1
6. Florida (open) -1
7. Connecticut (Dodd) +5
8. North Carolina (Burr) -2
9. Nevada (Reid) -1
10. Colorado (Bennett) -1
11. Louisiana (Vitter) -1
12. Iowa (Grassley) -1
13. (Texas - open) -
14. Arkansas (Lincoln) -
15. Illinois (Burris) -
Incumbent, State Dem | Rep % change for Dems
Richard Shelby, Alabama 0 100 0
Lisa Murkowski, Alaska 10 90 +0,1
John McCain, Arizona 10 90 +0,1
Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas 80 20 -0,2
Barbara Boxer, California 90 10 -0,1
Michael Bennett, Colorado 80 20 -0,2
Chris Dodd, Connecticut 60 40 -0,4
(Ted Kaufman), Delaware 90 10 -0,1
(Mel Martinez), Florida 50 50 +0,5
Johnny Isakson, Georgia 0 100 0
Daniel Inouye, Hawai'i 100 0 0
Mike Crapo, Idaho 0 100 0
(Roland Burris), Illinois 90 10 -0,1
Evan Bayh, Indiana 100 0 0
Chuck Grassley, Iowa 20 80 +0,2
(Sam Brownback), Kansas 0 100 0
Jim Bunning, Kentucky 60 40 +0,6
David Vitter, Louisiana 20 80 +0,2
Barbara Mikulski, Maryland 100 0 0
(Kit Bond), Missouri 60 40 +0,6
Harry Reid, Nevada 80 20 -0,2
(Bonnie Newman), New Hampshire 70 30 +0,7
Chuck Schumer, New York 100 0 0
Kirsten Gillibrand, New York Jr. 100 0 0
Richard Burr, North Carolina 40 60 +0,4
Byron Dorgan, North Dakota 90 10 -0,1
Tim Coburn, Oklahoma 0 100 0
(George Voinovich), Ohio 50 50 +0,5
Ron Wyden, Oregon 100 0 0
Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania 60 40 +0,6
Jim DeMint, South Carolina 0 100 0
John Thune, South Dakota 0 100 0
(Kay B. Hutchison), Texas 20 80 +0,2
Bob Bennett, Utah 0 100 0
Patrick Leahy, Vermont 100 0 0
Patty Murray, Washington 100 0 0
Russ Feingold, Wisconsin 100 0 0
Overall Estimate of Democratic gains: +3,3
Some new polls have changed the situation slightly. Chris Dodd is in serious trouble against Rob Simmons. A seat in Connecticut is something the Democrats can't afford to lose, especially since there are enough possible contenders to replace Dodd. If he runs in the general, he will have to rely on people's short memories and the support of the Democratic machine - not impossible, but very hard. Arlen Specter is poised to lose the primary at the moment and the campaigns have already begun with Specter's first anti-Toomey ad. I also think that Specter's rejection of EFCA is not going to help his chances in a general election, so the seat might be slipping out of the Republicans' hands.
In New Hampshire, Paul Hodes leads in a hypothetical matchup against his strongest opponent, ex-Senator John Sununu (almost a quasi-incumbent). It is looking really good for him. Jim Bunning's situation remains essentially unchanged and pessimistic. Richard Burr shows signs of vulnerability. His approval rating is below 50%. The strongest Democratic challenger, Roy Cooper, would have a good chance at beating him, but he needs to enter first. Even if he doesn't, Burr will have to fight for his reelection.
Senate Ranking
1. New Hampshire (open) -
2. Kentucky (Bunning) -
3. Pennsylvania (Specter) +5
4. Missouri (open) -1
5. Ohio (open) -1
6. Florida (open) -1
7. Connecticut (Dodd) +5
8. North Carolina (Burr) -2
9. Nevada (Reid) -1
10. Colorado (Bennett) -1
11. Louisiana (Vitter) -1
12. Iowa (Grassley) -1
13. (Texas - open) -
14. Arkansas (Lincoln) -
15. Illinois (Burris) -
Saturday 28 February 2009
Obama's opponent in 2012 - First edition
Here's another popular prediction game to play. Who will be the republican challenger for the presidency? I am assuming that the USA will have somewhat recovered by then (if not, we're in serious trouble and predictions would get pretty hard), so Obama will easily get the democratic nomination.
Several aspects have to be considered: the candidates - of course, the party structure, the primary election system, polls, and other minor factors.
The Republican Party changed their primary system. They will divide the states into three tiers, early states, small states and big states. So all the traditional early states will vote at the same time: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada. These states can give the winner a lot of momentum so we have to prefer candidates that can do well in these states.
We also have to follow the way the Republican Party is going. Will they go back to their conservative roots, that is, becoming even more conservative, or will we see a move to the center? At the moment by the way, I'd say it's the former, but it's not impossible that this is going to change at some point.
We're also getting the first polls now. The CPAC straw poll for example, showed a wide field of candidates, with Mitt Romney getting the most votes (but only 20%). A similar CNN poll a few days ago, saw Sarah Palin at the top, with Romney and Huckabee close behind, Jindal a distant 4th. But it's also very early, so the polls don't tell much yet.
At the beginning, I will give a list of the potential candidates (in my opinion) and make a few remarks about their chances in general:
Former governor Mitt Romney: As governor of Massachusetts, he proved that he could work across the aisle and he wasn't the hardcore conservative he tried to be during the 2008 primaries. There is some genuine appeal to him that seems to attract moderate republicans, pro-small business republicans, libertarians and hispanics. In fact, he has a natural appeal to every republican but the core republicans, and that's his problem. He has serious relevance problems. He needs to stay in the public eye and he needs to define his brand which is almost destroyed by his pandering. As a mormon, he can probably do whatever he wants, he will not win every single evangelical and further pandering will only hurt him. He is trying to build an intra-party network now by giving money to friendly congressmen. It reminds me of Nixon's post 1962-strategy to stay relevant. But Romney is going to collide with other Republicans there.
Former governor Mike Huckabee: As governor of Arkansas, he proved that he could work across the aisle and he wasn't the hardcore conserva... wait.... Well, Huckabee raised taxes, he isn't your ordinary fiscal conservative, but of course, he is a social conservative, probably THE social conservative in the field. He truly believes in what he says, and I suspect that this is why the republican establishment never really supported him. He is an honest man, with stern beliefs and that makes him one of the most popular republicans, with people that are no republicans. He is a good campaigner with a platform (his show on Fox News) so we can expect him to stay in the public eye for a while. Still, some very important conservative voices, Grover Norquist and every Republican who is against the strong emphasis on social conservatism, is not going to support him.
Governor Sarah Palin: She had to take a serious drubbing during the election. She missed the CPAC and an energy conference she was supposed to host along with Gov. Brian Schweitzer. Still, her popularity with the base is unrivaled. I suspect that she will focus on Alaska now, avoid the spotlight and try to get something done. Her job will be hard enough anyway. The collapse of the oil price could kill her ambitions, but most of the stuff that happens in Alaska doesn't get out. It will never be as it once was, but there is still tremendous potential in her rabid populist style and maybe she'll be a little better prepared next time.
Governor Bobby Jindal: His reply to the president's non-SOTU was not good, it was really bad. I'd go so far and say that it kills his chances for 2012. Yes, he is the conservative hope and future and all that, but there will be no Bobby Jindal-fraction within the party, not yet. If his false Katrina-story works against him he will be done for quite some time. Sometimes things change so fast....
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich: A very interesting case. Gingrich has got the network that Mitt Romney only dreams of. He can have an idea that electrifies the whole conservative movement as long as it gets out next to 10 other, not so good ideas. Of course, he has to carry his problematic biography around: his divorces, infidelity and unpopularity at the end of his House career. Still, if the Republicans need a leader with more experience than personality, with more ideas than slogans, they will turn towards him. Maybe he'll prefer to stay behind the scenes and to lead someone else through the campaign, that's what I actually think, but if there is no such leader, he might be very tempted to run. He could be a very good compromise candidate. Evangelicals won't like him, but they'll prefer him over Romney. Movement conservatives can support him if Jindal implodes. And well, he is a southern white conservative - that might be a rarity in 2012 (and so, if Republicans choose Newt they will walk into the past).
Governor Charlie Crist: At the moment, it is pretty much impossible for him to win a republican primary. However, if the party moves towards the center he becomes the Nr. 1 choice VERY quickly. There is almost no other possible moderate choice (Utah Gov. Huntsman aspires to fill the void). If he wins the nomination, we will know that the Reaganite Republican Party is dead and something new is in the making. It requires that the influence of social conservatives and movement conservatives has waned. Well, we need to keep an eye on him.
The field: There are other potential candidates, and there is still a lot of time - well, not so much time if you still have to make up your mind, but enough time for a long-shot candidate already in the running to jump into the spotlight. I will write about them when I think that they are "worth" it, in terms of relevance. Here is a list of the people that I consider to be these potential long-shot candidates: Mark Sanford, Haley Barbour, Jon Huntsman, Eric Cantor, Jeb Bush, Tim Pawlenty, John Thune.
And so, my first, very basic ranking would look like this:
1. Mitt Romney (25%)
2. Sarah Palin (20%)
3. Newt Gingrich (20%)
4. Mike Huckabee (15%)
5. Bobby Jindal (5%)
6. Charlie Crist (5%)
7. The field (10%)
Romney has got the money and something of a hereditary right for the candidacy (he finished 2nd in 2008, which seems to be very good in a Republican primary under the aspect of future candidacies). The economy is his area of expertise. He is a relentless optimist, not unlike Obama, but he needs to get some authenticity, or else it looks a little phony. And of course, 25% are not that much. It's actually a rather bad sign for any party if there is no leader and no obvious successor. Romney tries to become that leader, and that's actually his only chance to stay relevant.
Several aspects have to be considered: the candidates - of course, the party structure, the primary election system, polls, and other minor factors.
The Republican Party changed their primary system. They will divide the states into three tiers, early states, small states and big states. So all the traditional early states will vote at the same time: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada. These states can give the winner a lot of momentum so we have to prefer candidates that can do well in these states.
We also have to follow the way the Republican Party is going. Will they go back to their conservative roots, that is, becoming even more conservative, or will we see a move to the center? At the moment by the way, I'd say it's the former, but it's not impossible that this is going to change at some point.
We're also getting the first polls now. The CPAC straw poll for example, showed a wide field of candidates, with Mitt Romney getting the most votes (but only 20%). A similar CNN poll a few days ago, saw Sarah Palin at the top, with Romney and Huckabee close behind, Jindal a distant 4th. But it's also very early, so the polls don't tell much yet.
At the beginning, I will give a list of the potential candidates (in my opinion) and make a few remarks about their chances in general:
Former governor Mitt Romney: As governor of Massachusetts, he proved that he could work across the aisle and he wasn't the hardcore conservative he tried to be during the 2008 primaries. There is some genuine appeal to him that seems to attract moderate republicans, pro-small business republicans, libertarians and hispanics. In fact, he has a natural appeal to every republican but the core republicans, and that's his problem. He has serious relevance problems. He needs to stay in the public eye and he needs to define his brand which is almost destroyed by his pandering. As a mormon, he can probably do whatever he wants, he will not win every single evangelical and further pandering will only hurt him. He is trying to build an intra-party network now by giving money to friendly congressmen. It reminds me of Nixon's post 1962-strategy to stay relevant. But Romney is going to collide with other Republicans there.
Former governor Mike Huckabee: As governor of Arkansas, he proved that he could work across the aisle and he wasn't the hardcore conserva... wait.... Well, Huckabee raised taxes, he isn't your ordinary fiscal conservative, but of course, he is a social conservative, probably THE social conservative in the field. He truly believes in what he says, and I suspect that this is why the republican establishment never really supported him. He is an honest man, with stern beliefs and that makes him one of the most popular republicans, with people that are no republicans. He is a good campaigner with a platform (his show on Fox News) so we can expect him to stay in the public eye for a while. Still, some very important conservative voices, Grover Norquist and every Republican who is against the strong emphasis on social conservatism, is not going to support him.
Governor Sarah Palin: She had to take a serious drubbing during the election. She missed the CPAC and an energy conference she was supposed to host along with Gov. Brian Schweitzer. Still, her popularity with the base is unrivaled. I suspect that she will focus on Alaska now, avoid the spotlight and try to get something done. Her job will be hard enough anyway. The collapse of the oil price could kill her ambitions, but most of the stuff that happens in Alaska doesn't get out. It will never be as it once was, but there is still tremendous potential in her rabid populist style and maybe she'll be a little better prepared next time.
Governor Bobby Jindal: His reply to the president's non-SOTU was not good, it was really bad. I'd go so far and say that it kills his chances for 2012. Yes, he is the conservative hope and future and all that, but there will be no Bobby Jindal-fraction within the party, not yet. If his false Katrina-story works against him he will be done for quite some time. Sometimes things change so fast....
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich: A very interesting case. Gingrich has got the network that Mitt Romney only dreams of. He can have an idea that electrifies the whole conservative movement as long as it gets out next to 10 other, not so good ideas. Of course, he has to carry his problematic biography around: his divorces, infidelity and unpopularity at the end of his House career. Still, if the Republicans need a leader with more experience than personality, with more ideas than slogans, they will turn towards him. Maybe he'll prefer to stay behind the scenes and to lead someone else through the campaign, that's what I actually think, but if there is no such leader, he might be very tempted to run. He could be a very good compromise candidate. Evangelicals won't like him, but they'll prefer him over Romney. Movement conservatives can support him if Jindal implodes. And well, he is a southern white conservative - that might be a rarity in 2012 (and so, if Republicans choose Newt they will walk into the past).
Governor Charlie Crist: At the moment, it is pretty much impossible for him to win a republican primary. However, if the party moves towards the center he becomes the Nr. 1 choice VERY quickly. There is almost no other possible moderate choice (Utah Gov. Huntsman aspires to fill the void). If he wins the nomination, we will know that the Reaganite Republican Party is dead and something new is in the making. It requires that the influence of social conservatives and movement conservatives has waned. Well, we need to keep an eye on him.
The field: There are other potential candidates, and there is still a lot of time - well, not so much time if you still have to make up your mind, but enough time for a long-shot candidate already in the running to jump into the spotlight. I will write about them when I think that they are "worth" it, in terms of relevance. Here is a list of the people that I consider to be these potential long-shot candidates: Mark Sanford, Haley Barbour, Jon Huntsman, Eric Cantor, Jeb Bush, Tim Pawlenty, John Thune.
And so, my first, very basic ranking would look like this:
1. Mitt Romney (25%)
2. Sarah Palin (20%)
3. Newt Gingrich (20%)
4. Mike Huckabee (15%)
5. Bobby Jindal (5%)
6. Charlie Crist (5%)
7. The field (10%)
Romney has got the money and something of a hereditary right for the candidacy (he finished 2nd in 2008, which seems to be very good in a Republican primary under the aspect of future candidacies). The economy is his area of expertise. He is a relentless optimist, not unlike Obama, but he needs to get some authenticity, or else it looks a little phony. And of course, 25% are not that much. It's actually a rather bad sign for any party if there is no leader and no obvious successor. Romney tries to become that leader, and that's actually his only chance to stay relevant.
Senate predictions - March
I plan to update my predictions as close as possible to the 1st day of a new month.
Incumbent, State Dem | Rep % change for Dems
Richard Shelby, Alabama 0 100 0
Lisa Murkowski, Alaska 10 90 +0,1
John McCain, Arizona 10 90 +0,1
Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas 80 20 -0,2
Barbara Boxer, California 90 10 -0,1
Michael Bennett, Colorado 80 20 -0,2
Chris Dodd, Connecticut 80 20 -0,2
(Ted Kaufman), Delaware 90 10 -0,1
(Mel Martinez), Florida 50 50 +0,5
Johnny Isakson, Georgia 0 100 0
Daniel Inouye, Hawai'i 90 10 -0,1
Mike Crapo, Idaho 0 100 0
(Roland Burris), Illinois 90 10 -0,1
Evan Bayh, Indiana 100 0 0
Chuck Grassley, Iowa 20 80 +0,2
(Sam Brownback), Kansas 0 100 0
Jim Bunning, Kentucky 60 40 +0,6
David Vitter, Louisiana 20 80 +0,2
Barbara Mikulski, Maryland 100 0 0
(Kit Bond), Missouri 60 40 +0,6
Harry Reid, Nevada 80 20 -0,2
(Bonnie Newman), New Hampshire 60 40 +0,6
Chuck Schumer, New York 100 0 0
Kirsten Gillibrand, New York Jr. 100 0 0
Richard Burr, North Carolina 30 70 +0,3
Byron Dorgan, North Dakota 90 10 -0,1
Tim Coburn, Oklahoma 0 100 0
(George Voinovich), Ohio 50 50 +0,5
Ron Wyden, Oregon 100 0 0
Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania 30 70 +0,3
Jim DeMint, South Carolina 0 100 0
John Thune, South Dakota 0 100 0
(Kay B. Hutchison), Texas 20 80 +0,2
Bob Bennett, Utah 0 100 0
Patrick Leahy, Vermont 100 0 0
Patty Murray, Washington 100 0 0
Russ Feingold, Wisconsin 100 0 0
Overall Estimate of Democratic gains: +2,9
Senate Ranking (after stimulus bill compromise)
1. New Hampshire (open) -
2. Kentucky (Bunning) +2
3. Missouri (open) -1
4. Ohio (open) -1
5. Florida (open) -
6. North Carolina (Burr) +2
7. Pennsylvania (Specter) +2
8. Nevada (Reid) -2
9. Colorado (Bennett) -
10. Louisiana (Vitter) new
11. Iowa (Grassley) -
12. Connecticut (Dodd) new
13. (Texas - open) new
14. Arkansas (Lincoln) new
15. Illinois (Burris) -2
Incumbent, State Dem | Rep % change for Dems
Richard Shelby, Alabama 0 100 0
Lisa Murkowski, Alaska 10 90 +0,1
John McCain, Arizona 10 90 +0,1
Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas 80 20 -0,2
Barbara Boxer, California 90 10 -0,1
Michael Bennett, Colorado 80 20 -0,2
Chris Dodd, Connecticut 80 20 -0,2
(Ted Kaufman), Delaware 90 10 -0,1
(Mel Martinez), Florida 50 50 +0,5
Johnny Isakson, Georgia 0 100 0
Daniel Inouye, Hawai'i 90 10 -0,1
Mike Crapo, Idaho 0 100 0
(Roland Burris), Illinois 90 10 -0,1
Evan Bayh, Indiana 100 0 0
Chuck Grassley, Iowa 20 80 +0,2
(Sam Brownback), Kansas 0 100 0
Jim Bunning, Kentucky 60 40 +0,6
David Vitter, Louisiana 20 80 +0,2
Barbara Mikulski, Maryland 100 0 0
(Kit Bond), Missouri 60 40 +0,6
Harry Reid, Nevada 80 20 -0,2
(Bonnie Newman), New Hampshire 60 40 +0,6
Chuck Schumer, New York 100 0 0
Kirsten Gillibrand, New York Jr. 100 0 0
Richard Burr, North Carolina 30 70 +0,3
Byron Dorgan, North Dakota 90 10 -0,1
Tim Coburn, Oklahoma 0 100 0
(George Voinovich), Ohio 50 50 +0,5
Ron Wyden, Oregon 100 0 0
Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania 30 70 +0,3
Jim DeMint, South Carolina 0 100 0
John Thune, South Dakota 0 100 0
(Kay B. Hutchison), Texas 20 80 +0,2
Bob Bennett, Utah 0 100 0
Patrick Leahy, Vermont 100 0 0
Patty Murray, Washington 100 0 0
Russ Feingold, Wisconsin 100 0 0
Overall Estimate of Democratic gains: +2,9
I just heard the news of Kathleen Sebelius nomination. That makes the Kansas seat completely safe for the GOP. A Dorgan vs. Hoeven match in North Dakota is also getting unlikely. A recent R2000 poll showed that Dorgan would beat Hoeven by a mile, not because Hoeven is unpopular, but because North Dakotans want him to stay right where he is, in the governor's mansion. I had almost lowered Bunning's chances to 30% after his kamikaze threat, but I am not quite there yet. Still, Bunning is essentially bankrupt and unpopular (and erratic). If things don't change it's looking pretty grim for him and the Republicans that cannot put up a primary challenger if they want to keep their 41st seat. Actually, barring a major change of trajectory, the seats in Kentucky and New Hampshire are moving into Democratic territory (because the Republicans don't have a first-tier candidate that could face their opponent. Missouri is a different case, by the way.) and I will gradually change my projection.
I also made some other changes, caused by the vote on Obama's stimulus bill and the decreasing chance that some of these candidates have to face credible primary challengers (Lincoln, Burr), so the ranking and the probability is synchronized again. Oh, and it seems that David Vitter is going to have a relatively hard time. There are rumors of a (serious) primary challenge, of a credible democratic challenger, and of course Stormy Daniels.
Although the trouble doesn't end for Roland Burris, the seat in Illinois is looking very safe for the Democrats, now that Obama's basketball pal Alexi Giannoulias has announced his bid for the seat.
I also made some other changes, caused by the vote on Obama's stimulus bill and the decreasing chance that some of these candidates have to face credible primary challengers (Lincoln, Burr), so the ranking and the probability is synchronized again. Oh, and it seems that David Vitter is going to have a relatively hard time. There are rumors of a (serious) primary challenge, of a credible democratic challenger, and of course Stormy Daniels.
Although the trouble doesn't end for Roland Burris, the seat in Illinois is looking very safe for the Democrats, now that Obama's basketball pal Alexi Giannoulias has announced his bid for the seat.
Senate Ranking (after stimulus bill compromise)
1. New Hampshire (open) -
2. Kentucky (Bunning) +2
3. Missouri (open) -1
4. Ohio (open) -1
5. Florida (open) -
6. North Carolina (Burr) +2
7. Pennsylvania (Specter) +2
8. Nevada (Reid) -2
9. Colorado (Bennett) -
10. Louisiana (Vitter) new
11. Iowa (Grassley) -
12. Connecticut (Dodd) new
13. (Texas - open) new
14. Arkansas (Lincoln) new
15. Illinois (Burris) -2
Friday 6 February 2009
Senate Stimulus Bill - vote calculation
Just an experiment... it's the second edition of the calculation.
Safe Democratic "yea" votes: 53
Likelihood of "yea" on Democratic side:
Evan Bayh: 80%
Blanche Lincoln: 90%
Ben Nelson: 70%
Jon Tester: 90%
Al Franken (not there
)
Ted Kennedy: 80% (abstain 20%)
Total: 4,1 votes = 57,1 votes
Safe Republican "nay" votes: 33
Likelihood of "nay" on Republican side:
Jim Bunning: 90% (abstain: 10%)
Susan Collins: 50% (abstain: 10%)
Judd Gregg: 0% (abstain 100%)
Lisa Murkowski: 90%
Olympia Snowe: 30%
Arlen Specter: 60%
George Voinovich: 70%
Kai Bailey Hutchison: 90%
Total: 4,8 votes = 37,8
Possible democratic "nay" votes: 0,7 (37,8 + 0,7 = 38,5)
Possible republican "yea" votes: 1,8 (57,1 + 1,8 = 58,9)
Result: 59-39, 1 abstain + Al Franken not seated
Safe Democratic "yea" votes: 53
Likelihood of "yea" on Democratic side:
Evan Bayh: 80%
Blanche Lincoln: 90%
Ben Nelson: 70%
Jon Tester: 90%
Al Franken (not there
)Ted Kennedy: 80% (abstain 20%)
Total: 4,1 votes = 57,1 votes
Safe Republican "nay" votes: 33
Likelihood of "nay" on Republican side:
Jim Bunning: 90% (abstain: 10%)
Susan Collins: 50% (abstain: 10%)
Judd Gregg: 0% (abstain 100%)
Lisa Murkowski: 90%
Olympia Snowe: 30%
Arlen Specter: 60%
George Voinovich: 70%
Kai Bailey Hutchison: 90%
Total: 4,8 votes = 37,8
Possible democratic "nay" votes: 0,7 (37,8 + 0,7 = 38,5)
Possible republican "yea" votes: 1,8 (57,1 + 1,8 = 58,9)
Result: 59-39, 1 abstain + Al Franken not seated
Tuesday 3 February 2009
US Senate Predictions - February
February edition.
A few changes: Michael Bennett will not face the strongest Republican challenger, making his seat almost safe.
Kirsten Gillibrand is a perfect pick in my opinion. She will recieve enough support from the Democratic leadership to fend off a primary challenge and Republicans will have no chance to beat her.
Harry Reid's weakness was just momentarily. His seat would be endangered if Reid's leadership were a serious failure, a failure extending beyond technicalities only partisans care about. Seriously, the more boring Reid appears, the less people will care about anything he does. And let's face it, Obama won Nevada by 14%. Anyway, my prediction changed from 70:30 to 80:20, it could be even better for him in a few months.
The biggest change happened in New Hampshire. It seems that moderate Republican Bonnie Newman is going to replace Judd Gregg. She does not intend to run in 2010, making it an open seat. There is just one Republican left who has got a serious chance against Carol Shea-Porter or Paul Hodes, that is John Sununu who just lost against Jeanne Shaheen. Not promising. Paul Hodes is said to announce his candidacy in a week. If that happens, and if there is no primary, Hodes is the clear favorite, making this seat the biggest pick-up chance of the cycle.
Incumbent, State Dem | Rep % change for Dems
Richard Shelby, Alabama 0 100 0
Lisa Murkowski, Alaska 10 90 +0,1
John McCain, Arizona 10 90 +0,1
Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas 70 30 -0,3
Barbara Boxer, California 90 10 -0,1
Michael Bennett, Colorado 80 20 -0,2
Chris Dodd, Connecticut 90 10 -0,1
(Ted Kaufman), Delaware 90 10 -0,1
(Mel Martinez), Florida 50 50 +0,5
Johnny Isakson, Georgia 0 100 0
Daniel Inouye, Hawai'i 90 10 -0,1
Mike Crapo, Idaho 0 100 0
(Roland Burris), Illinois 10 90 -0,1
Evan Bayh, Indiana 100 0 0
Chuck Grassley, Iowa 20 80 +0,2
(Sam Brownback), Kansas 30 70 +0,3
Jim Bunning, Kentucky 50 50 +0,5
David Vitter, Louisiana 20 80 +0,2
Barbara Mikulski, Maryland 100 0 0
(Kit Bond), Missouri 60 40 +0,6
Harry Reid, Nevada 80 20 -0,2
(Bonnie Newman), New Hampshire 60 40 +0,6
Chuck Schumer, New York 100 0 0
Kirsten Gillibrand, New York Jr. 100 0 0
Richard Burr, North Carolina 40 60 +0,4
Byron Dorgan, North Dakota 80 20 -0,2
Tim Coburn, Oklahoma 100 0 0
(George Voinovich), Ohio 50 50 +0,5
Ron Wyden, Oregon 100 0 0
Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania 50 50 +0,5
Jim DeMint, South Carolina 0 100 0
John Thune, South Dakota 0 100 0
(Kay B. Hutchison), Texas 20 80 +0,2
Bob Bennett, Utah 0 100 0
Patrick Leahy, Vermont 100 0 0
Patty Murray, Washington 100 0 0
Russ Feingold, Wisconsin 100 0 0
Overall Estimate of Democratic gains: +3,3
We still need basic information about:
whether Kathleen Sebelius is going to run in Kansas
whether Kay Bailey Hutchison is going to run for governor in Texas (Sarah Palin just endorsed incumbent Perry. Is this a move to keep Hutchison in the Senate?)
whether John Hoeven is going to run against Byron Dorgan, and it gets less likely with each day
whether Blanche Lincoln is going to face a credible opponent.
whether Roy Blunt wins the Republican primary in Missouri, pulling the race back to a toss-up.
whether Charlie Crist is going to run for the seat in Florida... I really can't imagine this to happen
Next month we might also be able to put a few of those 90% races into the 100% column. Many of these races contain a certain chance of a primary challenge against a popular incumbent or potential health problems. Candidacies are usually announced in February or March of the off-cycle year.
Senate Ranking (after stimulus bill compromise)
1. New Hampshire (open)
2. Missouri (open)
3. Ohio (open)
4. Kentucky (Bunning)
5. Florida (open)
6. Nevada (Reid)
7. Kansas (open)
8. North Carolina (Burr)
9. Colorado (Bennett)
10. Pennsylvania (Specter)
11. Iowa (Grassley)
12. Arizona (McCain)
13. Illinois (Burris)
A few changes: Michael Bennett will not face the strongest Republican challenger, making his seat almost safe.
Kirsten Gillibrand is a perfect pick in my opinion. She will recieve enough support from the Democratic leadership to fend off a primary challenge and Republicans will have no chance to beat her.
Harry Reid's weakness was just momentarily. His seat would be endangered if Reid's leadership were a serious failure, a failure extending beyond technicalities only partisans care about. Seriously, the more boring Reid appears, the less people will care about anything he does. And let's face it, Obama won Nevada by 14%. Anyway, my prediction changed from 70:30 to 80:20, it could be even better for him in a few months.
The biggest change happened in New Hampshire. It seems that moderate Republican Bonnie Newman is going to replace Judd Gregg. She does not intend to run in 2010, making it an open seat. There is just one Republican left who has got a serious chance against Carol Shea-Porter or Paul Hodes, that is John Sununu who just lost against Jeanne Shaheen. Not promising. Paul Hodes is said to announce his candidacy in a week. If that happens, and if there is no primary, Hodes is the clear favorite, making this seat the biggest pick-up chance of the cycle.
Incumbent, State Dem | Rep % change for Dems
Richard Shelby, Alabama 0 100 0
Lisa Murkowski, Alaska 10 90 +0,1
John McCain, Arizona 10 90 +0,1
Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas 70 30 -0,3
Barbara Boxer, California 90 10 -0,1
Michael Bennett, Colorado 80 20 -0,2
Chris Dodd, Connecticut 90 10 -0,1
(Ted Kaufman), Delaware 90 10 -0,1
(Mel Martinez), Florida 50 50 +0,5
Johnny Isakson, Georgia 0 100 0
Daniel Inouye, Hawai'i 90 10 -0,1
Mike Crapo, Idaho 0 100 0
(Roland Burris), Illinois 10 90 -0,1
Evan Bayh, Indiana 100 0 0
Chuck Grassley, Iowa 20 80 +0,2
(Sam Brownback), Kansas 30 70 +0,3
Jim Bunning, Kentucky 50 50 +0,5
David Vitter, Louisiana 20 80 +0,2
Barbara Mikulski, Maryland 100 0 0
(Kit Bond), Missouri 60 40 +0,6
Harry Reid, Nevada 80 20 -0,2
(Bonnie Newman), New Hampshire 60 40 +0,6
Chuck Schumer, New York 100 0 0
Kirsten Gillibrand, New York Jr. 100 0 0
Richard Burr, North Carolina 40 60 +0,4
Byron Dorgan, North Dakota 80 20 -0,2
Tim Coburn, Oklahoma 100 0 0
(George Voinovich), Ohio 50 50 +0,5
Ron Wyden, Oregon 100 0 0
Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania 50 50 +0,5
Jim DeMint, South Carolina 0 100 0
John Thune, South Dakota 0 100 0
(Kay B. Hutchison), Texas 20 80 +0,2
Bob Bennett, Utah 0 100 0
Patrick Leahy, Vermont 100 0 0
Patty Murray, Washington 100 0 0
Russ Feingold, Wisconsin 100 0 0
Overall Estimate of Democratic gains: +3,3
We still need basic information about:
whether Kathleen Sebelius is going to run in Kansas
whether Kay Bailey Hutchison is going to run for governor in Texas (Sarah Palin just endorsed incumbent Perry. Is this a move to keep Hutchison in the Senate?)
whether John Hoeven is going to run against Byron Dorgan, and it gets less likely with each day
whether Blanche Lincoln is going to face a credible opponent.
whether Roy Blunt wins the Republican primary in Missouri, pulling the race back to a toss-up.
whether Charlie Crist is going to run for the seat in Florida... I really can't imagine this to happen
Next month we might also be able to put a few of those 90% races into the 100% column. Many of these races contain a certain chance of a primary challenge against a popular incumbent or potential health problems. Candidacies are usually announced in February or March of the off-cycle year.
Senate Ranking (after stimulus bill compromise)
1. New Hampshire (open)
2. Missouri (open)
3. Ohio (open)
4. Kentucky (Bunning)
5. Florida (open)
6. Nevada (Reid)
7. Kansas (open)
8. North Carolina (Burr)
9. Colorado (Bennett)
10. Pennsylvania (Specter)
11. Iowa (Grassley)
12. Arizona (McCain)
13. Illinois (Burris)
Friday 16 January 2009
The pundits´ pundit Vol. I
A commentary on Charles Krauthammer's editorial in the Washington Post, 16th January 2009:
"Except for Richard Nixon, no president since Harry Truman has left office more unloved than George W. Bush. Truman's rehabilitation took decades. Bush's will come sooner. Indeed, it has already begun. The chief revisionist? Barack Obama."
It's true that Nixon's approval rating at the time of his exit was worse than Bush's. Bush's approval rating is worse than Truman's though - that's why Krauthammer has to take Truman out of the list ("since"). This is problematic because Truman is the conservatives' favorite example of a president who was redeemed by history. So, Bush's way to rehabilition is probably longer - even though Krauthammer says that it will come sooner.
"Vindication is being expressed not in words but in deeds -- the tacit endorsement conveyed by the Obama continuity-we-can-believe-in transition."
Yes, especially since, at the time Krauthammer wrote his article, Obama STILL wasn't president. So every indication of continuity is just a word, not a deed.
"It's not just the retention of such key figures as Defense Secretary Bob Gates or Treasury Secretary nominee Timothy Geithner, who, as president of the New York Fed, has been instrumental in guiding the Bush financial rescue over the past year. It's the continuity of policy."
Yes, Bush did his best to fix his own errors. Now, why did he listen to Rumsfeld in the first place? And why didn't he dismiss him after his confrontations with Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell? Or after Abu Ghraib? And the Bush financial rescue... I am sure that Bush loved to do it, that he wanted to increase the role of the government all the time... suuure........ I guess the financial breakdown was just a small, temporary setback for Bush's strategic policies that Obama is going to continue...
"It is the repeated pledge to conduct a withdrawal from Iraq that does not destabilize its new democracy and that, as Vice President-elect Joe Biden said just this week in Baghdad, adheres to the Bush-negotiated status-of-forces agreement that envisions a U.S. withdrawal over three years, not the 16-month timetable on which Obama campaigned."
Yeah, I am sure historians will acknowledge Bush's almost visionary plan not to destabilize Iraq after he ordered to conquer it... if only we had had enough troops in there at the first place....
"Which is why Obama is consciously creating a gulf between what he now dismissively calls "campaign rhetoric" and the policy choices he must make as president. Accordingly, Newsweek -- Obama acolyte and scourge of everything Bush/Cheney -- has on the eve of the Democratic restoration miraculously discovered the arguments for warrantless wiretaps, enhanced interrogation and detention without trial. Indeed, Newsweek's neck-snapping cover declares, "Why Obama May Soon Find Virtue in Cheney's Vision of Power.""
Show me that gulf! Show me where Obama himself has used that rhetoric without intending to exercise it. Just because you might be surprised now that Obama is not turning out to be the secret muslim who was radicalized in Reverend Wright's church, then married an angry resentful black woman and is soo soft on foreign policy that he gets called "Obambi", just because Obama turns out to be someone you cannot condemn to hell he is not approaching Cheney's "Vision of Power". You probably perceived Obama to be moving away from the left fringe when in fact, he had never been there...
"Obama will be loath to throw away the tools that have kept the homeland safe. Just as he will be loath to jeopardize the remarkable turnaround in American fortunes in Iraq. "
Remarkable turnaround? Yeah, who might have thought that we thought about actually leaving the country in a peaceful state after the disastrous years 2003-2006.
"Obama opposed the war. But the war is all but over. What remains is an Iraq turned from aggressive, hostile power in the heart of the Middle East to an emerging democracy openly allied with the United States. No president would want to be responsible for undoing that success."
Ok, you can see it that way. However, some would also argue that Iraq turned from a powerless, surrounded puppet dictatorship to a bulwark of Iranian influence and 2nd front for the Mujaheddin.
"In Iraq, Bush rightly took criticism for all that went wrong -- the WMD fiasco, Abu Ghraib, the descent into bloody chaos in 2005-06. Then Bush goes to Baghdad to ratify the ultimate post-surge success of that troubled campaign -- the signing of a strategic partnership between the United States and Iraq -- and ends up dodging two size 10 shoes for his pains."
I am not sure if Bush ever took that criticism. It might have been offered to him, but he turned away, disappointed that things weren't the way he thought they were. By the way, maybe the shoe story tells you something about the relevance of that strategic partnership. True, treaties really meant something, back in Bismarck's times. But that paleoconservative view of foreign relations doesn't get you very far today. Countries are not governed by a monarch anymore. Iraq is far away from showing the stability of the colonial empires of Europe. I am sounding a bit bitter, but well, in this regard, I really wish Krauthammer was right...
"Absorbing that insult was Bush's final service on Iraq. Whatever venom the war generated is concentrated on Bush himself. By having personalized the responsibility for the awfulness of the war, Bush has done his successor a favor. Obama enters office with a strategic success on his hands -- while Bush leaves the scene taking a shoe for his country.
"Except for Richard Nixon, no president since Harry Truman has left office more unloved than George W. Bush. Truman's rehabilitation took decades. Bush's will come sooner. Indeed, it has already begun. The chief revisionist? Barack Obama."
It's true that Nixon's approval rating at the time of his exit was worse than Bush's. Bush's approval rating is worse than Truman's though - that's why Krauthammer has to take Truman out of the list ("since"). This is problematic because Truman is the conservatives' favorite example of a president who was redeemed by history. So, Bush's way to rehabilition is probably longer - even though Krauthammer says that it will come sooner.
"Vindication is being expressed not in words but in deeds -- the tacit endorsement conveyed by the Obama continuity-we-can-believe-in transition."
Yes, especially since, at the time Krauthammer wrote his article, Obama STILL wasn't president. So every indication of continuity is just a word, not a deed.
"It's not just the retention of such key figures as Defense Secretary Bob Gates or Treasury Secretary nominee Timothy Geithner, who, as president of the New York Fed, has been instrumental in guiding the Bush financial rescue over the past year. It's the continuity of policy."
Yes, Bush did his best to fix his own errors. Now, why did he listen to Rumsfeld in the first place? And why didn't he dismiss him after his confrontations with Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell? Or after Abu Ghraib? And the Bush financial rescue... I am sure that Bush loved to do it, that he wanted to increase the role of the government all the time... suuure........ I guess the financial breakdown was just a small, temporary setback for Bush's strategic policies that Obama is going to continue...
"It is the repeated pledge to conduct a withdrawal from Iraq that does not destabilize its new democracy and that, as Vice President-elect Joe Biden said just this week in Baghdad, adheres to the Bush-negotiated status-of-forces agreement that envisions a U.S. withdrawal over three years, not the 16-month timetable on which Obama campaigned."
Yeah, I am sure historians will acknowledge Bush's almost visionary plan not to destabilize Iraq after he ordered to conquer it... if only we had had enough troops in there at the first place....
"Which is why Obama is consciously creating a gulf between what he now dismissively calls "campaign rhetoric" and the policy choices he must make as president. Accordingly, Newsweek -- Obama acolyte and scourge of everything Bush/Cheney -- has on the eve of the Democratic restoration miraculously discovered the arguments for warrantless wiretaps, enhanced interrogation and detention without trial. Indeed, Newsweek's neck-snapping cover declares, "Why Obama May Soon Find Virtue in Cheney's Vision of Power.""
Show me that gulf! Show me where Obama himself has used that rhetoric without intending to exercise it. Just because you might be surprised now that Obama is not turning out to be the secret muslim who was radicalized in Reverend Wright's church, then married an angry resentful black woman and is soo soft on foreign policy that he gets called "Obambi", just because Obama turns out to be someone you cannot condemn to hell he is not approaching Cheney's "Vision of Power". You probably perceived Obama to be moving away from the left fringe when in fact, he had never been there...
"Obama will be loath to throw away the tools that have kept the homeland safe. Just as he will be loath to jeopardize the remarkable turnaround in American fortunes in Iraq. "
Remarkable turnaround? Yeah, who might have thought that we thought about actually leaving the country in a peaceful state after the disastrous years 2003-2006.
"Obama opposed the war. But the war is all but over. What remains is an Iraq turned from aggressive, hostile power in the heart of the Middle East to an emerging democracy openly allied with the United States. No president would want to be responsible for undoing that success."
Ok, you can see it that way. However, some would also argue that Iraq turned from a powerless, surrounded puppet dictatorship to a bulwark of Iranian influence and 2nd front for the Mujaheddin.
"In Iraq, Bush rightly took criticism for all that went wrong -- the WMD fiasco, Abu Ghraib, the descent into bloody chaos in 2005-06. Then Bush goes to Baghdad to ratify the ultimate post-surge success of that troubled campaign -- the signing of a strategic partnership between the United States and Iraq -- and ends up dodging two size 10 shoes for his pains."
I am not sure if Bush ever took that criticism. It might have been offered to him, but he turned away, disappointed that things weren't the way he thought they were. By the way, maybe the shoe story tells you something about the relevance of that strategic partnership. True, treaties really meant something, back in Bismarck's times. But that paleoconservative view of foreign relations doesn't get you very far today. Countries are not governed by a monarch anymore. Iraq is far away from showing the stability of the colonial empires of Europe. I am sounding a bit bitter, but well, in this regard, I really wish Krauthammer was right...
"Absorbing that insult was Bush's final service on Iraq. Whatever venom the war generated is concentrated on Bush himself. By having personalized the responsibility for the awfulness of the war, Bush has done his successor a favor. Obama enters office with a strategic success on his hands -- while Bush leaves the scene taking a shoe for his country.
Which I suspect is why Bush showed such equanimity during a private farewell interview at the White House a few weeks ago. He leaves behind the sinews of war, for the creation of which he has been so vilified but which will serve his successor -- and his country -- well over the coming years. The very continuation by Democrats of Bush's policies will be grudging, if silent, acknowledgment of how much he got right."
LOL! Let's be glad that Bush just absorbed that insult, he might as well have retaliated it and declared war or something. Oh and I believe, the Iraqi people are thankful for Bush having avoided these shoes. And Bush did NOT personalize the responsibility! He blamed the CIA, Iran, Al-Qaida, wrong stagecraft ("mission accomplished" banner), but he never, never, NEVER, personalized the responsibility. He never accepted it. If the blame focused on Bush, it's because the people focused it on him, not because he did it by himself.
Well, no comment on the final paragraph... it's quite obvious that I cannot share Krauthammer's conclusion, because I didn't follow his argumentation.
P.S. Krauthammer calls Obama "The chief revisionist". How ironic... considering we will have to endure decades of revisionism from the former Bush circles that continue to linger around in the press, on Fox, and right-wing political organizations.
Wednesday 14 January 2009
The Bush Legacy, Vol. I
This is a list that simply shows all the positive actions and all the negative actions of President George W. Bush. Of course, it's my decision to decide what's good or bad. And there are some things I don't mention because they are somewhat neutral, like Bush's non-vetoing of the next stage of medicare. Anyway, this is the first version of the list. I will update the list over time.
The good things:
- his commitment to fight diseases and poverty in Africa
- tried to combat the extremist tendencies of his own party on immigration and race
- the attempt to centralize intelligence at the Department of Homeland Security
- cooperated with the Democrats during the financial crisis
- attempted to improve the education system with No Child Left Behind
- very good immediate response to the terror attacks of 9/11
- effective Afghanistan strategy until the Taliban were out of power
- avoidance of a new Cold War with China by cooperation
- creating marine reserves of previously unmatched size
The bad things:
- inadequate funding of No Child Left Behind
- inadequate funding of Infrastructure
- unsuccessful at enacting Immigration Reform
- confused structure of the Department of Homeland Security
- negligence of Afghanistan after the Iraq war
- Careless reshifting of power by the Iraq war
- deceiving the world and the American people about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
- emphasizing not existing relations between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaida
- giving Al-Qaida a retreat in Iraq
- not having an occupation strategy after the fall of Saddam Hussein
- limiting Civil Rights to combat terrorism
- inadequate response to torture in Abu-Ghraib
- creating a lawless room at Guantanamo
- not dismissing Rumsfeld immediately
- allowing Dick Cheney to place himself above the Constitution
- inadequate response and completely lacking analytic skills to Katrina
- disregarding international relations before and after the Iraq War
- not signing the Kyoto protocol
- lifting enviromental protection laws
- not regulating Wall-Street
- disregard of the trade deficit
- disregard of the mounting economic problems in the years 2007 and 2008
- not having caught either Osama Bin Laden or Mullah Omar
- Sex scandal between lobbyists and the Department of the Interior
- Ideological infiltration of the Justice Department
- increasing the dependency on foreign oil
- letting North Korea acquire Nuclear Weapons
- increasing Iranian power in Iraq and Afghanistan
- not perescuting the responsible people for the outing of Valerie Plame
- no response to Darfur
- unsuccessful at creating new jobs
- escalating federal debt
- failure to curb goverment spending
The good things:
- his commitment to fight diseases and poverty in Africa
- tried to combat the extremist tendencies of his own party on immigration and race
- the attempt to centralize intelligence at the Department of Homeland Security
- cooperated with the Democrats during the financial crisis
- attempted to improve the education system with No Child Left Behind
- very good immediate response to the terror attacks of 9/11
- effective Afghanistan strategy until the Taliban were out of power
- avoidance of a new Cold War with China by cooperation
- creating marine reserves of previously unmatched size
The bad things:
- inadequate funding of No Child Left Behind
- inadequate funding of Infrastructure
- unsuccessful at enacting Immigration Reform
- confused structure of the Department of Homeland Security
- negligence of Afghanistan after the Iraq war
- Careless reshifting of power by the Iraq war
- deceiving the world and the American people about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
- emphasizing not existing relations between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaida
- giving Al-Qaida a retreat in Iraq
- not having an occupation strategy after the fall of Saddam Hussein
- limiting Civil Rights to combat terrorism
- inadequate response to torture in Abu-Ghraib
- creating a lawless room at Guantanamo
- not dismissing Rumsfeld immediately
- allowing Dick Cheney to place himself above the Constitution
- inadequate response and completely lacking analytic skills to Katrina
- disregarding international relations before and after the Iraq War
- not signing the Kyoto protocol
- lifting enviromental protection laws
- not regulating Wall-Street
- disregard of the trade deficit
- disregard of the mounting economic problems in the years 2007 and 2008
- not having caught either Osama Bin Laden or Mullah Omar
- Sex scandal between lobbyists and the Department of the Interior
- Ideological infiltration of the Justice Department
- increasing the dependency on foreign oil
- letting North Korea acquire Nuclear Weapons
- increasing Iranian power in Iraq and Afghanistan
- not perescuting the responsible people for the outing of Valerie Plame
- no response to Darfur
- unsuccessful at creating new jobs
- escalating federal debt
- failure to curb goverment spending
Oh Laura,
George and Laura Bush on Larry King:
"KING: Do you like him?
G. BUSH: I do. Yes, I do like him. And you'd like him, too.
KING: Oh, I know him. He was -- but he was so critical of you. Do you take that personally or you don't?
L. BUSH: I did."
But Laura, there is nothing that you can take personally, because Obama never talked about you...
"KING: Do you like him?
G. BUSH: I do. Yes, I do like him. And you'd like him, too.
KING: Oh, I know him. He was -- but he was so critical of you. Do you take that personally or you don't?
L. BUSH: I did."
But Laura, there is nothing that you can take personally, because Obama never talked about you...
Tuesday 13 January 2009
The Neoconservative Agenda
I have thought about posting something like this for a while. I have probably waited too long and it has lost something of its relevance. Because, luckily, George W. Bush's term is about to end and there is no neo-conservative president-elect succeeding him, so my theory is not as frightening as it once might have been. But keep in mind that it would have taken just one more conservative Supreme Court Justice and the agenda would not have met a lot of resistance anymore.. But the voting people as a majority didn't fall for the same old strategy this time. Now Barack Obama has to clean up the mess, the mess that probably was not entirely unwanted by the Neo-Conservatives.
Remember the tell-all book by former Bush press secretary Scott McClellan? The permanent campaign? Well, what differenciates the campaign from the political climate we are used to? Certainly, a campaign is a time of simplified messages. You need to get your message through, you need to establish an image of yourself, people need to know why they should vote for you, and why not for the other guy. It doesn't have to be much. 2-3 keywords and a little bit of context. For example, in the end, Barack Obama's campaign came down to the word "change" and the message "John McCain is like George W. Bush".
However, there was always more to Obama's message than this - and it became obvious with the collapse of the housing bubble at the end of the campaign. The criticism of the whole neo-conservative economic theory that had lingered under the radar, suddenly moved to the forefront. John McCain never had an adequate response apart from planless actionism. Sarah Palin campaigned on as if the collapse had never happened. She continued to throw out her one-liners and hateful rhetorics that reduced McCain's platform to a raging anti-movement against intellectualism, science, cities, race, religious tolerance, social tolerance, and economic changes. It was as if Sarah Palin had no clue what was going on...
Maybe she didn't, maybe she did... remember that she couldn't answer Katie Couric's question about the newspapers she reads? Well, it's not that she didn't read at all, but what she read. It was material from the extreme right-wing, from the John Birch society, for example. Of course, that didn't quite fit to the small-town major from Alaska, the hockey mom. But make no mistake, she was, and is, a member of the neo-conservative circles, either a real player or just a rather clueless product of it, that have ruled the USA for the past 28 years.
It's common knowledge now that the Republican Party uses social wedge issues to get people to vote against their economic interests. But I want to emphasize just how strong the grip of the GOP on the people was. The Reagan coalition was a combination of several distinctive developments that all came together under the grandfather personality of Reagan: the Southern Strategy of Nixon, racism as the main argument against the Democrats; the evangelical movement that emerged as a counter-culture to the counter-culture of 1968; and the neo-realistic school of international policy as exemplified by Henry Kissinger, the Nixon/Ford administration, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. Also, don't forget that the Republican Party never accepted the New Deal and the bigger role of the federal government since then. The Republicans saw the New Deal as a historic mistake that needed to be undone.
So, if you were not a Republican you could be labelled a traitor, a heathen, a terrorist, a socialist or communist, a troublemaker, soft on crime, a weakling, wavering, french, soft on foreign policy and maybe against your own race, if you were white. And if not, you were lazy, probably an illegal immigrant or in a different conflict with the law, either related to burglary or drugs. That's how the Republican Party fought their way back to power, from Nixon, to Lee Atwater, to Karl Rove. It was all timed to reverse the course of the nation, once there was a neo-conservative majority in every branch of government.
With Reagan it all came together. With the moral superiority of the evangelicals, the conservatives tried to turn back the clock. The social progress of the 60's had to be reversed, social programs were attacked, the tax system was changed, the old New Deal regulatory systems were weakened or destroyed. Government became the enemy, and in a way, the Reagan/Bush/Bush governments fought against themselves (the Clinton government wasn't quite innocent either). In a way, the government wasn't meant to succeed. To cover up weak economic performance, foreign policy served as the device to stay in power, from the aimless Star Wars Defence program, the fight against the evil empire, the Axis of evil, to the unjustified 2nd Iraq war.
A conservative government simply wasn't meant to be successful as an economic player, or it would have justified the New Deal programs. Remember that, according to Reagan, goverment never was the solution it always was the problem. So a successful economic policy would have destroyed that belief. No wonder that Reagan and Bush Jr. let the debt explode. The government HAD to be rendered unable to act if the ideology was meant to succeed. And of course, the massive debt helped to justify any further reduction of the welfare state. Neo-conservatism was a self-justifying ideology.
Another popular slogan of the neoconservatives was/is the call for tax-cuts, at best down to zero. It is still being promoted by Grover Norquist and Newt Gingrich, the pair that basically represents the 2nd generation of Reaganomics. Well,of course, everyone wants to have more money, but it's also no wonder that the gap between the rich and the poor got bigger, because as a wealthy person, you have more options to increase your wealth, especially in an unregulated financial market. Your average Joe probably doesn't see that the massive amount of debt leads to inflation, that the crumbling infrastructure makes transportation more expensive, that many of the benefits of the tax-cuts are taken away at another point and the best the middle-class can hope for, is for things not to change.
Neo-conservatism actively worked to change the electorate. Remember, people are most attracted to populism when they are in danger of losing the most. The upper middle-class had no problem to vote for Obama because they could afford a slight rise of taxes. But the lower middle-class couldn't afford it so their fears could be instrumentalized to make these people vote against their economic interests. The bulwarks of conservatism are in places that are under siege, like the white South, fearing to lose its jobs to minorities. It's in neighborhoods with older people, and less educated people, that see the effects of immigration and thus, try to augment the differences between themselves and these immigrants, although, socially, they are on the same level. And while the tax system will never allow these people to climb up the ladder, because the people above them are always able to move quicker, they still have to have got something they can lose to be attracted to conservatism. If you have got nothing to lose anymore, you will probably not vote at all, or you will vote for more social programs. Maybe you see where I am going, the one possession that turned people into conservatives, was the house.
The housing bubble was a product of the Bush Jr. goverment that wanted to keep people in the suburbs and on the countryside, because the Republican Party had lost the urban areas by the 2000's. Urban areas also force people to get along with their neighbors. They concentrate lots of social and ethnic backgrounds. They require infrastructure and flexibility - everything that works against conservatism.
So you see, for the suburban and rural conservative losing the house was a constant possibility, so any tax increase, any social program was a threat to the own existence. The spread of the population across huge suburban and rural areas, which is a true American tradition actually, also worked to idolize the typically big American cars. It is a waste of energy and nurtures the fossil fuel fetish.
But there is another reason why the middle-class had to be on the brink of losing everything. The Republican Party, and the Neoconservatives especially, have always depended on the only government sector they didn't want to shrink - the military. From "Top Gun" to President Bush in front of the "Mission Accomplished"-banner, the heroification of the military under any circumstances was another compagnon of the Neoconservative era. The Army had to be an attractive place to work to get enough voluntary recruits. It had to be a stable job in unstable times. It needed to be a good place to work, even if you had to go to prison for a joint or a similarly petty crime. Yes, for many young people, the Army had to be the only place left to work at. Otherwise, the hawkish neoconservative foreign policy would have lacked the human ressources to wage their blending wars - and a draft would have been a far too big role of the government, so there had to be a system of "forced voluntarism".
In short, The Neoconservative agenda worked to remodel the electorate into a highly conservative state. The Reagan Revolution was a true ideology that offered easy answers on every subject of policy: Strong on foreign policy, up to the point that the removal of a foreign dictator is justified by itself, against EVERY counterargument. Smaller government in every sector, except from the military, re-christianization to strengthen social wedge issues, racism in the South, evangelicalism in the plains states, libertarianism in the West, trickle-down economics in the north-east. It all worked together to ensure the electoral support until the expansion of the government after the Great Depression was reversed, even if it meant destroying the functionality of the government. In the end, America would have looked like a voluntarily fascist state. The army would have provided the safest jobs. There would always be an enemy to fight, Communism, Muslims, terrorists, Iran, Palestine, Syria, and who knows what next. The tax system and radically free market would have ensured that a small elite remains at power indefinitely. There would not have been a real political alternative, because of ideological litmus tests at every stage of the way (the Justice Department, Sunday mornings, what you eat, if you respect the flag, and so on and on...).
I believe that Obama would have won even without the economic collapse, but we are now facing a repetition of history. 1929 has come back, although the situation is not as bad as it was back then, not yet. As long as foreign countries are willing to buy American debt it will be fine. Government is about to expand massively, Obama is already building a new New Deal. Let's see if the Republican Party, once again, disappears into the political wilderness for a few decades.
Remember the tell-all book by former Bush press secretary Scott McClellan? The permanent campaign? Well, what differenciates the campaign from the political climate we are used to? Certainly, a campaign is a time of simplified messages. You need to get your message through, you need to establish an image of yourself, people need to know why they should vote for you, and why not for the other guy. It doesn't have to be much. 2-3 keywords and a little bit of context. For example, in the end, Barack Obama's campaign came down to the word "change" and the message "John McCain is like George W. Bush".
However, there was always more to Obama's message than this - and it became obvious with the collapse of the housing bubble at the end of the campaign. The criticism of the whole neo-conservative economic theory that had lingered under the radar, suddenly moved to the forefront. John McCain never had an adequate response apart from planless actionism. Sarah Palin campaigned on as if the collapse had never happened. She continued to throw out her one-liners and hateful rhetorics that reduced McCain's platform to a raging anti-movement against intellectualism, science, cities, race, religious tolerance, social tolerance, and economic changes. It was as if Sarah Palin had no clue what was going on...
Maybe she didn't, maybe she did... remember that she couldn't answer Katie Couric's question about the newspapers she reads? Well, it's not that she didn't read at all, but what she read. It was material from the extreme right-wing, from the John Birch society, for example. Of course, that didn't quite fit to the small-town major from Alaska, the hockey mom. But make no mistake, she was, and is, a member of the neo-conservative circles, either a real player or just a rather clueless product of it, that have ruled the USA for the past 28 years.
It's common knowledge now that the Republican Party uses social wedge issues to get people to vote against their economic interests. But I want to emphasize just how strong the grip of the GOP on the people was. The Reagan coalition was a combination of several distinctive developments that all came together under the grandfather personality of Reagan: the Southern Strategy of Nixon, racism as the main argument against the Democrats; the evangelical movement that emerged as a counter-culture to the counter-culture of 1968; and the neo-realistic school of international policy as exemplified by Henry Kissinger, the Nixon/Ford administration, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. Also, don't forget that the Republican Party never accepted the New Deal and the bigger role of the federal government since then. The Republicans saw the New Deal as a historic mistake that needed to be undone.
So, if you were not a Republican you could be labelled a traitor, a heathen, a terrorist, a socialist or communist, a troublemaker, soft on crime, a weakling, wavering, french, soft on foreign policy and maybe against your own race, if you were white. And if not, you were lazy, probably an illegal immigrant or in a different conflict with the law, either related to burglary or drugs. That's how the Republican Party fought their way back to power, from Nixon, to Lee Atwater, to Karl Rove. It was all timed to reverse the course of the nation, once there was a neo-conservative majority in every branch of government.
With Reagan it all came together. With the moral superiority of the evangelicals, the conservatives tried to turn back the clock. The social progress of the 60's had to be reversed, social programs were attacked, the tax system was changed, the old New Deal regulatory systems were weakened or destroyed. Government became the enemy, and in a way, the Reagan/Bush/Bush governments fought against themselves (the Clinton government wasn't quite innocent either). In a way, the government wasn't meant to succeed. To cover up weak economic performance, foreign policy served as the device to stay in power, from the aimless Star Wars Defence program, the fight against the evil empire, the Axis of evil, to the unjustified 2nd Iraq war.
A conservative government simply wasn't meant to be successful as an economic player, or it would have justified the New Deal programs. Remember that, according to Reagan, goverment never was the solution it always was the problem. So a successful economic policy would have destroyed that belief. No wonder that Reagan and Bush Jr. let the debt explode. The government HAD to be rendered unable to act if the ideology was meant to succeed. And of course, the massive debt helped to justify any further reduction of the welfare state. Neo-conservatism was a self-justifying ideology.
Another popular slogan of the neoconservatives was/is the call for tax-cuts, at best down to zero. It is still being promoted by Grover Norquist and Newt Gingrich, the pair that basically represents the 2nd generation of Reaganomics. Well,of course, everyone wants to have more money, but it's also no wonder that the gap between the rich and the poor got bigger, because as a wealthy person, you have more options to increase your wealth, especially in an unregulated financial market. Your average Joe probably doesn't see that the massive amount of debt leads to inflation, that the crumbling infrastructure makes transportation more expensive, that many of the benefits of the tax-cuts are taken away at another point and the best the middle-class can hope for, is for things not to change.
Neo-conservatism actively worked to change the electorate. Remember, people are most attracted to populism when they are in danger of losing the most. The upper middle-class had no problem to vote for Obama because they could afford a slight rise of taxes. But the lower middle-class couldn't afford it so their fears could be instrumentalized to make these people vote against their economic interests. The bulwarks of conservatism are in places that are under siege, like the white South, fearing to lose its jobs to minorities. It's in neighborhoods with older people, and less educated people, that see the effects of immigration and thus, try to augment the differences between themselves and these immigrants, although, socially, they are on the same level. And while the tax system will never allow these people to climb up the ladder, because the people above them are always able to move quicker, they still have to have got something they can lose to be attracted to conservatism. If you have got nothing to lose anymore, you will probably not vote at all, or you will vote for more social programs. Maybe you see where I am going, the one possession that turned people into conservatives, was the house.
The housing bubble was a product of the Bush Jr. goverment that wanted to keep people in the suburbs and on the countryside, because the Republican Party had lost the urban areas by the 2000's. Urban areas also force people to get along with their neighbors. They concentrate lots of social and ethnic backgrounds. They require infrastructure and flexibility - everything that works against conservatism.
So you see, for the suburban and rural conservative losing the house was a constant possibility, so any tax increase, any social program was a threat to the own existence. The spread of the population across huge suburban and rural areas, which is a true American tradition actually, also worked to idolize the typically big American cars. It is a waste of energy and nurtures the fossil fuel fetish.
But there is another reason why the middle-class had to be on the brink of losing everything. The Republican Party, and the Neoconservatives especially, have always depended on the only government sector they didn't want to shrink - the military. From "Top Gun" to President Bush in front of the "Mission Accomplished"-banner, the heroification of the military under any circumstances was another compagnon of the Neoconservative era. The Army had to be an attractive place to work to get enough voluntary recruits. It had to be a stable job in unstable times. It needed to be a good place to work, even if you had to go to prison for a joint or a similarly petty crime. Yes, for many young people, the Army had to be the only place left to work at. Otherwise, the hawkish neoconservative foreign policy would have lacked the human ressources to wage their blending wars - and a draft would have been a far too big role of the government, so there had to be a system of "forced voluntarism".
In short, The Neoconservative agenda worked to remodel the electorate into a highly conservative state. The Reagan Revolution was a true ideology that offered easy answers on every subject of policy: Strong on foreign policy, up to the point that the removal of a foreign dictator is justified by itself, against EVERY counterargument. Smaller government in every sector, except from the military, re-christianization to strengthen social wedge issues, racism in the South, evangelicalism in the plains states, libertarianism in the West, trickle-down economics in the north-east. It all worked together to ensure the electoral support until the expansion of the government after the Great Depression was reversed, even if it meant destroying the functionality of the government. In the end, America would have looked like a voluntarily fascist state. The army would have provided the safest jobs. There would always be an enemy to fight, Communism, Muslims, terrorists, Iran, Palestine, Syria, and who knows what next. The tax system and radically free market would have ensured that a small elite remains at power indefinitely. There would not have been a real political alternative, because of ideological litmus tests at every stage of the way (the Justice Department, Sunday mornings, what you eat, if you respect the flag, and so on and on...).
I believe that Obama would have won even without the economic collapse, but we are now facing a repetition of history. 1929 has come back, although the situation is not as bad as it was back then, not yet. As long as foreign countries are willing to buy American debt it will be fine. Government is about to expand massively, Obama is already building a new New Deal. Let's see if the Republican Party, once again, disappears into the political wilderness for a few decades.
US Senate predictions - January
Here's a first outlook at the upcoming US senate elections of 2010.
Since it's extremely early to do this, I will just give a rough estimate on the probability of each seat to go to either the Democrats or the Republicans. I will do this in steps of 10 percent - 90:10, 80:20 etc.... This probability then translates into a decimal gain or loss of seats for the Democrats. For example, a republican seat with a probability of 80% to stay in the republican column still means a 0,2 seat gain for the Democrats. At this stage of the cycle my result just gives a general outlook on the structural possibilities of the parties. Several races could still change fundamentally if a single outstanding politician makes a decision to either join the race or retires. For example, the Iowa seat currently occupied by Chuck Grassley is a safe republican seat, as long as Chuck Grassley doesn't retire. He still might do this though, and all of a sudden, the Democrats would have a very good pick-up opportunity.
Anyway, here are my estimates:
Incumbent, State Dem | Rep % change for Dems
Richard Shelby, Alabama 0 100 0
Lisa Murkowski, Alaska 10 90 +0,1
John McCain, Arizona 10 90 +0,1
Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas 70 30 -0,3
Barbara Boxer, California 90 10 -0,1
Michael Bennett, Colorado 60 40 -0,4
Chris Dodd, Connecticut 90 10 -0,1
(Ted Kaufman), Delaware 90 10 -0,1
(Mel Martinez), Florida 50 50 +0,5
Johnny Isakson, Georgia 0 100 0
Daniel Inouye, Hawai'i 90 10 -0,1
Mike Crapo, Idaho 0 100 0
(Roland Burris), Illinois 10 90 -0,1
Evan Bayh, Indiana 100 0 0
Chuck Grassley, Iowa 20 80 +0,2
(Sam Brownback), Kansas 30 70 +0,3
Jim Bunning, Kentucky 50 50 +0,5
David Vitter, Louisiana 20 80 +0,2
Barbara Mikulski, Maryland 100 0 0
(Kit Bond), Missouri 60 40 +0,6
Harry Reid, Nevada 70 30 -0,3
Judd Gregg, New Hampshire 30 70 +0,3
Chuck Schumer, New York 100 0 0
(???), New York Jr. 90 10 -0,1
Richard Burr, North Carolina 40 60 +0,4
Byron Dorgan, North Dakota 80 20 -0,2
Tim Coburn, Oklahoma 100 0 0
(George Voinovich), Ohio 50 50 +0,5
Ron Wyden, Oregon 100 0 0
Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania 50 50 +0,5
Jim DeMint, South Carolina 0 100 0
John Thune, South Dakota 0 100 0
(Kay B. Hutchison), Texas 20 80 +0,2
Bob Bennett, Utah 0 100 0
Patrick Leahy, Vermont 100 0 0
Patty Murray, Washington 100 0 0
Russ Feingold, Wisconsin 100 0 0
Overall Estimate of Democratic gains: +2,6
A few comments:
- We still need to hear from a few politicians and their plans for the cycle. They are: Mike Huckabee in Arkansas, Chuck Grassley in Iowa, Kathleen Sebelius in Kansas, Mitch Landrieu in Louisiana, John Hoeven in North Dakota and Kay Bailey Hutchison in Texas. These people have a tremendous effect on the race in their state in the sense that their decision to run or not to run can flip a seat. Sen. Hutchison is a special case because her "retirement" to run for Governor would trigger the special election that would give the Democrats a fair chance to get the seat.
- Polling has just started and the estimates will soon change. I already had to adjust my estimate for North Carolina because of the vulnerability of Sen. Burr. Once again, my estimate can only demonstrate the structural problems of the Republicans, who are hurt by the retirements and their slightly higher number of seats to defend. The polls will soon show how the national climate effects the elections.
- Although my estimate is looking good for the Democrats, there is just one seat more likely to change party than not, Missouri. It could still be possible that we don't have any changes at all. On the other hand, the Democrats will be very happy with "only" 60-61 seats, and that result is a very likely one.
Since it's extremely early to do this, I will just give a rough estimate on the probability of each seat to go to either the Democrats or the Republicans. I will do this in steps of 10 percent - 90:10, 80:20 etc.... This probability then translates into a decimal gain or loss of seats for the Democrats. For example, a republican seat with a probability of 80% to stay in the republican column still means a 0,2 seat gain for the Democrats. At this stage of the cycle my result just gives a general outlook on the structural possibilities of the parties. Several races could still change fundamentally if a single outstanding politician makes a decision to either join the race or retires. For example, the Iowa seat currently occupied by Chuck Grassley is a safe republican seat, as long as Chuck Grassley doesn't retire. He still might do this though, and all of a sudden, the Democrats would have a very good pick-up opportunity.
Anyway, here are my estimates:
Incumbent, State Dem | Rep % change for Dems
Richard Shelby, Alabama 0 100 0
Lisa Murkowski, Alaska 10 90 +0,1
John McCain, Arizona 10 90 +0,1
Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas 70 30 -0,3
Barbara Boxer, California 90 10 -0,1
Michael Bennett, Colorado 60 40 -0,4
Chris Dodd, Connecticut 90 10 -0,1
(Ted Kaufman), Delaware 90 10 -0,1
(Mel Martinez), Florida 50 50 +0,5
Johnny Isakson, Georgia 0 100 0
Daniel Inouye, Hawai'i 90 10 -0,1
Mike Crapo, Idaho 0 100 0
(Roland Burris), Illinois 10 90 -0,1
Evan Bayh, Indiana 100 0 0
Chuck Grassley, Iowa 20 80 +0,2
(Sam Brownback), Kansas 30 70 +0,3
Jim Bunning, Kentucky 50 50 +0,5
David Vitter, Louisiana 20 80 +0,2
Barbara Mikulski, Maryland 100 0 0
(Kit Bond), Missouri 60 40 +0,6
Harry Reid, Nevada 70 30 -0,3
Judd Gregg, New Hampshire 30 70 +0,3
Chuck Schumer, New York 100 0 0
(???), New York Jr. 90 10 -0,1
Richard Burr, North Carolina 40 60 +0,4
Byron Dorgan, North Dakota 80 20 -0,2
Tim Coburn, Oklahoma 100 0 0
(George Voinovich), Ohio 50 50 +0,5
Ron Wyden, Oregon 100 0 0
Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania 50 50 +0,5
Jim DeMint, South Carolina 0 100 0
John Thune, South Dakota 0 100 0
(Kay B. Hutchison), Texas 20 80 +0,2
Bob Bennett, Utah 0 100 0
Patrick Leahy, Vermont 100 0 0
Patty Murray, Washington 100 0 0
Russ Feingold, Wisconsin 100 0 0
Overall Estimate of Democratic gains: +2,6
A few comments:
- We still need to hear from a few politicians and their plans for the cycle. They are: Mike Huckabee in Arkansas, Chuck Grassley in Iowa, Kathleen Sebelius in Kansas, Mitch Landrieu in Louisiana, John Hoeven in North Dakota and Kay Bailey Hutchison in Texas. These people have a tremendous effect on the race in their state in the sense that their decision to run or not to run can flip a seat. Sen. Hutchison is a special case because her "retirement" to run for Governor would trigger the special election that would give the Democrats a fair chance to get the seat.
- Polling has just started and the estimates will soon change. I already had to adjust my estimate for North Carolina because of the vulnerability of Sen. Burr. Once again, my estimate can only demonstrate the structural problems of the Republicans, who are hurt by the retirements and their slightly higher number of seats to defend. The polls will soon show how the national climate effects the elections.
- Although my estimate is looking good for the Democrats, there is just one seat more likely to change party than not, Missouri. It could still be possible that we don't have any changes at all. On the other hand, the Democrats will be very happy with "only" 60-61 seats, and that result is a very likely one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)