Obviously, the new year starts with a bang. The democratic Senators Dorgan and Dodd are going to retire. However, these retirements have different effects. The dust still needs to settle, but it is very likely that their successors will be Richard Blumenthal and John Hoeven - even though it's not a done deal that either of them actually runs. Still, North Dakota will probably get a republican senator soon, and Connecticut will "probably" get a new democratic senator - simply by the virtue of each state's partisan make-up.
Another interesting story is the retirement of Florida GOP-chair Jim Greer. In my opinion, it is obvious now, that Marco Rubio will beat Charlie Crist who just lost the support of the state GOP apparatus. The possibility of another major upheaval is increasing rapidly: either Crist drops out (tries to stay Gov., against Republican Bill McClollum who is a Jeb Bush republican just like Marco Rubio) or he switches his party affiliation. Now, I am making heavy assumptions here, but in 2008 Crist pulled a marriage out of his hat to become a potential VP prospect. He tried to bolster his bipartisan image by supporting the stimulus, and then regretting, and then confirming it. Crist definitely wants to keep his career. I believe that his best chance is to run as a Democrat. If he ran as an independent he would be in a three-way-race and probably get squeezed by the partisan camps. This is why the Florida race gets another bump. Basically, it is on its way to return to the 50-50 status it was before Crist joined. Rubio has solidifed his position, but Crist might very well take some of his republican loyalists into the democratic camp, as a protest vote against Rubio's extreme course (a.k.a. NY-23 reloaded).
Maybe I should wait another week or so to post the January update, but the times are too interesting to pass up on this opportunity. But we might not have seen the last mayor development.
However, Kirsten Gillibrand's seat is absolutely safe now. I had thought of that before, simply because I didn't believe in Rudy Giuliani's chances. Now Giuliani has agreed with me. Peter King might jump in though he would lose...but what else should he do? He's about to lose his house seat after the caucus.
Some new polls out of New Hampshire contain bad news for Paul Hodes who would lose against either Kelly Ayotte or Avide LaMontagne. In my opinion however, it doesn't change the situation a lot because it only makes a LaMontagne campaign more likely. And the New Hampshirites will not accept a teabagger. His unelectability will get obvious during the campaign. Kelly Ayotte is in a different situation. However, I am going to tell another secret: The teabaggers prefer manly candidates. Carly Fiorina will lose to teabagger Chuck DeVore. Kay Bailey Hutchison is losing to secessionist Rick Perry. The republican voters are male and they prefer their female candidates crazy and unhinged (Palin, Bachmann, Virginia Foxx, Lynn Jenkins etc....). Kelly Ayotte will not have the enthusiasm that is necessary to win a primary in a midterm year. I don't want to say that LaMontagne WILL beat Ayotte, but I say that it is getting more likely.
Something about the fundamental trends: The Dems are in the process of losing support. That was almost inevitable. The governing party loses independents during a recession. So far however, the Republican Party has not been able to improve its own standing among the voters. We are "only" seeing a general anti-establishment wave. That WILL hurt Demcorats more than Republicans, but not as much as a Republican wave hurts them. Michael Steele yesterday basically admitted that the Republicans will not take back the House. That was a dumb thing to say of course, because it doesn't ease the financial problems of the party. But it might lead to a more useful allocation of ressources. The Senate is the best place to block the democratic agenda. It remains to be seen if the financial situation of the republicans will have a general effect on the races but as long as we don't see a wave election the Dems can muddle through.
Muddling through is something the Dems have to do anyway until the economy and especially the job situation recovers. The economy will determine the independent vote.
Current worries about Democratic enthusiasm are justified but they will be somewhat alleviated during the course of the campaign. Jon Corzine of New Jersey caught up to Chris Cristie during the campaign. The enthusiasm gap will decrease and the Republicans don't have a lot of room to grow. So the problem is not as bad as it looks now, although it DOES exist. We don't yet know the full scope of that problem.
I am hearing that immigration reform will be THE issue of 2010. That is a good decision I think. And it might solidify latino support for democratic senators in states with latino population (Reid in Nevada, Bennet in Colorado, and what about Florida and a potential Meek vs. Rubio race??) In fact, immigration reform might kill the career of John McCain who might be facing a terrible challenge from extreme conservative J.D. Hayworth. The Dems need to find their Kendrick Meek of Arizona because there is an opportunity.
In other news, Gale Norton of Colorado is declaring health-care reform unconstitutional...just another evidence of the strength of the teabagger movement. Rand Paul is doing good against Trey Grayson, but I just can't see him as a senator. The Dems should nominate Lt. Gov. Conway who is the right hand of still somewhat popular democratic governor Steve Beshear (popular governors are a rarity nowadays...) and get that seat. Daniel Mongiardo would not be that strong in my opinion.
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 50 50 -0,5
Barbara Boxer, California 0 100 0
Michael Bennett, Colorado 80 20 -0,2
(Chris Dodd), Connecticut 80 20 -0,2
(Ted Kaufman), Delaware 70 30 -0,3
(Charles LeMieux), Florida 30 70 +0,3
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 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 20 80 -0,8
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: +0,6
Senate Ranking:
1. North Dakota (open) new
2. Missouri (open) -1
3. Kentucky (open) +1
4. Arkansas (Lincoln) -1
5. Ohio (open) +1
6. Nevada (Reid) +1
7. Florida (open) +6
8. Delaware (open) +2
9. North Carolina (Burr) -1
10. Louisiana (Vitter) -1
11. Colorado (Bennet) +1
12. Illinois (open) -1
13. Connecticut (open) -8
14. Pennsylvania (Specter) -
15. Arizona (McCain) +1
16. Iowa (Grassley) -1
I've added a 16th slot to show the last seat currently in play, too. I don't think that any of the other races has got potential (barring a surprise retirement ;-)). It's also somewhat embarassing to still end up with democratic gains. But I guess the difference here is that I am not afraid of a Toomey challenge in Pennsylvania. And I don't think that Mark Kirk is a 50-50 in Illinois. If I'd change my opinion, I'd come to the conclusion that 2010 is a wash... that is still ok-ish for the democrats I guess. But as the recruitment process is coming to a close (well... we're STILL waiting for Beau Biden....and J.D.Hayworth, Richard Blumenthal and John Hoeven) we end up with a level playing field. The democrats will have to fight to keep their majority and these recent days should have given them the necessary signs. There is not much left to improve for either party. The dems could have come up with a better challenger in North Carolina. Mike Huckabee would have been the best challenger in Arkansas and such... but realistically, we're pretty much looking at the starting field now (you can't expect Harry Reid to drop out, or, Lincoln getting replaced by ...insanely popular Governor Mike Beebe? Bill Clinton? Nah...)
Update: Ah, while I wrote this post, Richard Blumenthal announced his candidacy. Now, that seat is almost safe. I'll wait for PPP to publish their Blumenthal-Simmons matchup but I guess I can take that seat off the list soon.
Wednesday, 6 January 2010
Tuesday, 15 December 2009
Senate predictions - December edition
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)