Alright, time to see what happens next!
Tea Party candidates won across America this week and already there's some suggestion that these candidates are going to be resistant to Republican leadership if that leadership intends to compromise with the President. If Boehner and McConnell aren't careful, Republicans will be viewed as "too Tea Party" and too obstructionist, wasting the time of the American people. Most Americans still view the Tea Party in a non-positive light, particularly young voters.
Wait, young voters? But I thought the Tea Party movement started off with a lot of young support; remember all the young faces at Ron Paul rallies in 2008? Once again I'll go back to a post I wrote several weeks ago on the Tea Party Coalition. The two central groups of the Tea Party are Libertarians and recently, the Religious Right. On fiscal issues, these groups have been able to temporarily compromise, but new information seems to suggest that the Libertarian arm of the group is becoming disenfranchised and particularly young people are shaking their head at the Tea Party.
I'm delighted to find another news organization talking about the divisions within the Tea Party, instead of focusing on divisions between the Tea Party and Republican Party. This article from the Huffington Post is basically contending the same thing that I was arguing in that article on the Tea Party Coalition. We'll see if the trend of Libertarian dissatisfaction with the Tea Party continues. Re-read my article, and read the Huff article and see what you think.
Now we enter the Lame Duck session of Congress, which essentially is the legislative period between the election and the swearing-in of the new Congress. Democrats still have their majorities for now, and may or may not act on those majorities while they have them. The main issue facing the Lame Duck session seems to be whether or not to extend the Bush Tax Cuts to the wealthiest 2% of Americans. Not doing so would add 700 billion dollars to the budget over 10 years and theoretically help to pay down the debt, and Obama supports this. Republicans feel very strongly that the Tax Cuts should be extended for all Americans, and contend that it'll help stimulate the economy. I'll keep you updated on how that process will work, but there is some suggestion that Obama will be forced to compromise on the Tax Cut issue. It's unclear exactly what form this compromise will take; it's possible that the tax cuts will be temporarily extended for all Americans, but after a couple years a higher tax for wealthy Americans would kick into effect. I'll keep you updated.
I want to make another quick note on an article that Nate Silver wrote right after the election on the question of an underestimation of the Latino vote in Nevada. I made a note of this as well election morning. Anyway the argument seems to be solidifying.
And finally I want to direct my readers to a worsening situation in Haiti, where tropical storm Tomas threatens to make even MORE terrible the situation for those living in tent camps and suffering from Cholera. Please consider another donation to help out Haitians in need who still are struggling after the earthquake. I like these groups: The Lambi Fund, Partners in Health, and The American Red Cross. You can read more about Tomas and the storm's effects here.
Showing posts with label Midterms 2010. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Midterms 2010. Show all posts
Friday, November 5, 2010
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Election Morning Analysis
When all's said and done, Democrats have done better in the Senate than expected, at this point favored to win 53 total seats with their two caucusing independents, and worse in the House, where they are expected at this point to lose about 65 total seats.
My predictions held up well! That's another piece of good news for this fledgling blogger. In the House, I predicted that Dems would lose between 30 and 80 seats. I also noted in my forecast that since Renee Ellmers DID win in NC-02, knocking off Bob Etheridge, you could expect greater than 54 seats gained in the House by Republicans. And Heath Shuler held out against his opponent in NC-11, as did Price in NC-04, which indicated that Republicans were not destined for an overwhelming victory, and were likely to stay under 70 seats won. This isn't good news for Democrats, and the likely makeup of the new House will be something like 245(R)-190(D). For perspective, this is a huge turn-over, largest in a century. Also for perspective, before this election the House was apportioned like this: 180(R)-255(D). So for all practical purposes the Democrats and Republicans switched places.
In the Senate, all of the races I called turned out as expected. The four races I did not call ended up being the closest of the evening: Washington, Colorado, Illinois, and Nevada. Well there are actually two exceptions to that point. First, as I hinted at in my Senate forecast, Angle's(R) numbers in Nevada were being overstated by polls. Still, I don't think anyone predicted Harry Reid would win so handily, and we'll be wondering for awhile exactly why that occurred in defiance of the +2 or +3 point victory polls were predicting for Angle. Illinois leaned toward Kirk, as expected and Washington looks good for Dems right now, also as expected. In the last week, Colorado seemed to be leaning toward Buck in the polls, but I felt dubious about predicting that he would win, since the Governor's race was likely to depress Republican turnout. It has been suggested by various pundits that Nevada, and perhaps Colorado (not yet, but looking promising) Democratic victories would point to a successful turnout of the Latino populations in those areas. Perhaps that's true.
Overall Dems will end up with 52 or 53 seats in the Senate, it's looking like. This is 1 seat greater than I thought, but then again, that's how coin-flips manifest themselves. I also admittedly gave myself some wiggle room with disclaimers, but overall it was a good night for forecasting.
The biggest surprise for me besides Nevada was the Senate race in Pennsylvania. Democrats had long thought this battle was promising for them, with a strong voter contact and turnout operation, but I never really thought Joe Sestak(D) had a chance in this one. The eventual margin of Toomey(R) +2 is much narrower than most polls were showing, and frankly much narrower than I expected, considering how confident I was that Pennsylvania would go the other way. Everyone seems to be talking about Nevada, but I hope to be able to answer the question of why Sestak performed so well soon in the future.
And in Alaska, we shall soon see if Murkowski can pull it out in the end. Defying the write-in stigma.
John Boehner will be the new Speaker of the House. This will set up an interesting dynamic between him, Reid, and Obama. But for now it'll be interesting to see what Democrats do with the Lame Duck Session.
My predictions held up well! That's another piece of good news for this fledgling blogger. In the House, I predicted that Dems would lose between 30 and 80 seats. I also noted in my forecast that since Renee Ellmers DID win in NC-02, knocking off Bob Etheridge, you could expect greater than 54 seats gained in the House by Republicans. And Heath Shuler held out against his opponent in NC-11, as did Price in NC-04, which indicated that Republicans were not destined for an overwhelming victory, and were likely to stay under 70 seats won. This isn't good news for Democrats, and the likely makeup of the new House will be something like 245(R)-190(D). For perspective, this is a huge turn-over, largest in a century. Also for perspective, before this election the House was apportioned like this: 180(R)-255(D). So for all practical purposes the Democrats and Republicans switched places.
In the Senate, all of the races I called turned out as expected. The four races I did not call ended up being the closest of the evening: Washington, Colorado, Illinois, and Nevada. Well there are actually two exceptions to that point. First, as I hinted at in my Senate forecast, Angle's(R) numbers in Nevada were being overstated by polls. Still, I don't think anyone predicted Harry Reid would win so handily, and we'll be wondering for awhile exactly why that occurred in defiance of the +2 or +3 point victory polls were predicting for Angle. Illinois leaned toward Kirk, as expected and Washington looks good for Dems right now, also as expected. In the last week, Colorado seemed to be leaning toward Buck in the polls, but I felt dubious about predicting that he would win, since the Governor's race was likely to depress Republican turnout. It has been suggested by various pundits that Nevada, and perhaps Colorado (not yet, but looking promising) Democratic victories would point to a successful turnout of the Latino populations in those areas. Perhaps that's true.
Overall Dems will end up with 52 or 53 seats in the Senate, it's looking like. This is 1 seat greater than I thought, but then again, that's how coin-flips manifest themselves. I also admittedly gave myself some wiggle room with disclaimers, but overall it was a good night for forecasting.
The biggest surprise for me besides Nevada was the Senate race in Pennsylvania. Democrats had long thought this battle was promising for them, with a strong voter contact and turnout operation, but I never really thought Joe Sestak(D) had a chance in this one. The eventual margin of Toomey(R) +2 is much narrower than most polls were showing, and frankly much narrower than I expected, considering how confident I was that Pennsylvania would go the other way. Everyone seems to be talking about Nevada, but I hope to be able to answer the question of why Sestak performed so well soon in the future.
And in Alaska, we shall soon see if Murkowski can pull it out in the end. Defying the write-in stigma.
John Boehner will be the new Speaker of the House. This will set up an interesting dynamic between him, Reid, and Obama. But for now it'll be interesting to see what Democrats do with the Lame Duck Session.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
(11/2) Election Forecasts 2010: Senate
I'm not going to do a Governor race forecast, but don't think they're not important. I just don't have the resources. Watch Connecticut to see if Foley(R) will have a come-from-behind win, watch Ohio to see if Strickland(D) can hold his ground and RI, CO, and ME will be interesting. Among others.
In the Senate I've been watching Washington, California, Nevada, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, Colorado, and Illinois-- these were the "competitive" races. Since my last forecast, some polls have diverged, and some polls have tightened; some haven't moved at all.
Remember that Republicans almost certainly will gain 3 Senate seats from Democrats to begin with. North Dakota, Arkansas, and Indiana. But one Republican seat is being added to the "competitive" list. Thus, Republicans need to win 8 more from the competitive list in order to take control of the Senate. Therefore we will begin with a baseline of 42 Republican seats and 48 Democrat seats; I see almost no viable way that either party could end up with less than this number of seats.
I have some hesitancy about this, but given a recent poll out of Alaska, I have re-evaluated the race in a post a few hours ago, and on the virtue of it being a 3-way race, I'll add it to the competitive list.
I will now note very likely Republican gains from the competitive list. I predict with confidence that these three races will end up in Republican hands. Florida (Rubio), Wisconsin (Johnson), and Pennsylvania (Toomey). You can tell your Democratic friends that these races are pretty much a lost cause.
And very likely Democratic gains include California. You can confidently tell your Republican friends that California is basically out of their hands.
That leaves us with a new baseline of 45 Republicans and 49 Democrats.
Here's how the rest break down. I wouldn't make a bet on this, but evidence points to these results: Republicans gain Alaska (Murkowski or Miller). Democrats gain West Virginia (Manchin).
The final four races are just too hard to predict from my standpoint. Republicans are favored in Illinois, Nevada, and Colorado albeit by small percentages. Democrats are favored in Washington. I think it's just as reasonable to allocate these seats 3-1 as it is to allocate them 2-2. They all might be very close.
I tend to want to call Washington to Murray(D) and Illinois for Kirk(R). Nevada and Colorado are even harder for me. Nevada's polling option to select "none of these candidates" may end up helping Reid(D), or... Angle(R). Angle may win, but if so, I think there's a good chance it'll be more narrowly than about 2 points, as polls now show. Democrats are going to be desperate to win Nevada as a symbolic victory, though I think politically it would help them to have a change in the face of leadership. I tend to think Tancredo's rise in Colorado might un-motivate more moderate Republican voters, which might help Bennet(D). But all of this is conjecture.
I think Dems will end up with 51 or 52 seats. This is consistent with my other forecasts. The margin will be between 50D-50R and 54D-46R (worst and best case scenarios, depending on your position). Thus, I confidently predict Democrats will retain the Senate absent a defection or two from more moderate Democratic caucus members.
On the other hand, Democrats will very likely lose in between 5 and 9 seats, probably closer to the latter number.
I want to make a quick note about the NC Senate race as well. Watch Burr's(R) winning margin. Marshall(D) has run a weak campaign, but Burr hasn't run much of a campaign at all. If Burr wins by less than 11 points then it will be a sign that Democrats may be doing better than expected. If he wins by much more, brace for significant Democratic losses in NC and elsewhere.
In the Senate I've been watching Washington, California, Nevada, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, Colorado, and Illinois-- these were the "competitive" races. Since my last forecast, some polls have diverged, and some polls have tightened; some haven't moved at all.
Remember that Republicans almost certainly will gain 3 Senate seats from Democrats to begin with. North Dakota, Arkansas, and Indiana. But one Republican seat is being added to the "competitive" list. Thus, Republicans need to win 8 more from the competitive list in order to take control of the Senate. Therefore we will begin with a baseline of 42 Republican seats and 48 Democrat seats; I see almost no viable way that either party could end up with less than this number of seats.
I have some hesitancy about this, but given a recent poll out of Alaska, I have re-evaluated the race in a post a few hours ago, and on the virtue of it being a 3-way race, I'll add it to the competitive list.
I will now note very likely Republican gains from the competitive list. I predict with confidence that these three races will end up in Republican hands. Florida (Rubio), Wisconsin (Johnson), and Pennsylvania (Toomey). You can tell your Democratic friends that these races are pretty much a lost cause.
And very likely Democratic gains include California. You can confidently tell your Republican friends that California is basically out of their hands.
That leaves us with a new baseline of 45 Republicans and 49 Democrats.
Here's how the rest break down. I wouldn't make a bet on this, but evidence points to these results: Republicans gain Alaska (Murkowski or Miller). Democrats gain West Virginia (Manchin).
The final four races are just too hard to predict from my standpoint. Republicans are favored in Illinois, Nevada, and Colorado albeit by small percentages. Democrats are favored in Washington. I think it's just as reasonable to allocate these seats 3-1 as it is to allocate them 2-2. They all might be very close.
I tend to want to call Washington to Murray(D) and Illinois for Kirk(R). Nevada and Colorado are even harder for me. Nevada's polling option to select "none of these candidates" may end up helping Reid(D), or... Angle(R). Angle may win, but if so, I think there's a good chance it'll be more narrowly than about 2 points, as polls now show. Democrats are going to be desperate to win Nevada as a symbolic victory, though I think politically it would help them to have a change in the face of leadership. I tend to think Tancredo's rise in Colorado might un-motivate more moderate Republican voters, which might help Bennet(D). But all of this is conjecture.
I think Dems will end up with 51 or 52 seats. This is consistent with my other forecasts. The margin will be between 50D-50R and 54D-46R (worst and best case scenarios, depending on your position). Thus, I confidently predict Democrats will retain the Senate absent a defection or two from more moderate Democratic caucus members.
On the other hand, Democrats will very likely lose in between 5 and 9 seats, probably closer to the latter number.
I want to make a quick note about the NC Senate race as well. Watch Burr's(R) winning margin. Marshall(D) has run a weak campaign, but Burr hasn't run much of a campaign at all. If Burr wins by less than 11 points then it will be a sign that Democrats may be doing better than expected. If he wins by much more, brace for significant Democratic losses in NC and elsewhere.
(11/2) Election Forecasts 2010: House
This will represent my final election projection of the 2010 Midterms, and I'll make it brief.
In the House of Representatives, Democrats will likely lose between 30 and 80 seats. It will either be deafening or reasonably significant, but either way, Dems are in for it. I'm not going to make specific number projections because there just isn't enough robust polling on which to make accurate predictions. Generic House Ballots range from R+15 to R+0 and it's probably somewhere in between. I think most pollsters are beginning to settle on in between 50 and 70 seats lost for the Democrats. Which, if true, would make this the most significant turnover in 100 years.
I like watching NC races for many reasons, so I want to direct your attention to three different contests in NC that I think will represent indicator contests for what kind of gains Republicans are probably going to make in the House. We'll begin to know what these look like starting at 7:30 when polls close. I make these predictions partially with the help of Fivethirtyeight's own House indicators.
In NC-02 (Raleigh suburbs and east), Incumbent Democrat Bob Etheridge is facing what I consider to be a poor Republican opponent and a Libertarian. Recent polling has Republican Renee Ellmers up, but I find a win by her to be unlikely. If Ellmers wins by anything but the slimmest of margins, expect 55+ gains in the House by Republicans. I think Etheridge has about a 65% chance of victory.
In NC-11 (Mountains), Incumbent Democrat Heath Shuler is facing what I consider to be a very generic and relatively inexperienced opponent. If Jeff Miller were to squeak out a win, expect 70+ gains in the House by Republicans. I think Shuler has about an 80% chance of victory
And in NC-04 (Durham, Chapel Hill and west Raleigh), Incumbent Democrat David Price is facing what I consider to be a circumstantially spirited campaign by (C4L endorsed) William Lawson. But if Lawson were to overturn this formidable Incumbent, expect total chaos in the House, upwards of 80 seat turnover. I think Price has about a 95% chance of victory. If all three of these races go south for Dems, we could be looking at up to 100 seats changing hands.
Now if none of these Incumbents is taken out, Republicans could still be on their way to a strong finish, but I expect it to be under 55 seats. Remember, I'm not a professional, and I wouldn't bet anything substantial on any of what I have written above.
In the House of Representatives, Democrats will likely lose between 30 and 80 seats. It will either be deafening or reasonably significant, but either way, Dems are in for it. I'm not going to make specific number projections because there just isn't enough robust polling on which to make accurate predictions. Generic House Ballots range from R+15 to R+0 and it's probably somewhere in between. I think most pollsters are beginning to settle on in between 50 and 70 seats lost for the Democrats. Which, if true, would make this the most significant turnover in 100 years.
I like watching NC races for many reasons, so I want to direct your attention to three different contests in NC that I think will represent indicator contests for what kind of gains Republicans are probably going to make in the House. We'll begin to know what these look like starting at 7:30 when polls close. I make these predictions partially with the help of Fivethirtyeight's own House indicators.
In NC-02 (Raleigh suburbs and east), Incumbent Democrat Bob Etheridge is facing what I consider to be a poor Republican opponent and a Libertarian. Recent polling has Republican Renee Ellmers up, but I find a win by her to be unlikely. If Ellmers wins by anything but the slimmest of margins, expect 55+ gains in the House by Republicans. I think Etheridge has about a 65% chance of victory.
In NC-11 (Mountains), Incumbent Democrat Heath Shuler is facing what I consider to be a very generic and relatively inexperienced opponent. If Jeff Miller were to squeak out a win, expect 70+ gains in the House by Republicans. I think Shuler has about an 80% chance of victory
And in NC-04 (Durham, Chapel Hill and west Raleigh), Incumbent Democrat David Price is facing what I consider to be a circumstantially spirited campaign by (C4L endorsed) William Lawson. But if Lawson were to overturn this formidable Incumbent, expect total chaos in the House, upwards of 80 seat turnover. I think Price has about a 95% chance of victory. If all three of these races go south for Dems, we could be looking at up to 100 seats changing hands.
Now if none of these Incumbents is taken out, Republicans could still be on their way to a strong finish, but I expect it to be under 55 seats. Remember, I'm not a professional, and I wouldn't bet anything substantial on any of what I have written above.
Shakeup in Alaska?
I keep mentioning three way races in my posts, and it's because they're just so fascinating this cycle.
The one race that I have pretty much ignored in my Senate forecasts is Alaska, except to mention that it represents an unprecedented historical situation because Lisa Murkowski is trying to win as a write-in candidate. Write-in candidates just simply don't win historically, so much that many politicians wouldn't even try, as embarrassing as it would be.
But Murkowski represents a real possibility for the write-in candidacy, as she has consistently been polling right up next to Joe Miller, the Republican.
And yet I have been ignoring Alaska in my forecasts because it has, until recently, seemed almost certain that either Murkowski or Miller would win, and both candidates are running as Republicans.
Ok. It's really really dangerous to try to make an argument off of a single poll, particularly when its a weekend poll, but because the argument I am about to make has been around for awhile, I'll draw your attention to a PPP poll of the Alaska Senate election. PPP makes the assertion with this poll that, instead of McAdams, the Democrat, being the spoiler for Murkowski, Murkowski may end up being the spoiler for McAdams. Three way races are hard to predict, and three-way races in which there is a write-in candidate don't have a lot of precedent. Joe Miller AND Lisa Murkowski both have dismal approval ratings in the 30s, while McAdams is approved of by 50%. Will Murkowski voters, encountering the difficulty of writing in her name (which is not the easiest to spell) cast their ballots for McAdams, if they can't figure out the write-in process? There is a good argument that this could be the case.
With this poll showing Miller at 37% and McAdams at 30%, it's certainly Miller's race to lose, but there really may be movement at the last moment here in Alaska, with counting of write-ins going well into this week. Can't wait to find out if McAdams or Murkowski will be the exciting upset of this election.
The one race that I have pretty much ignored in my Senate forecasts is Alaska, except to mention that it represents an unprecedented historical situation because Lisa Murkowski is trying to win as a write-in candidate. Write-in candidates just simply don't win historically, so much that many politicians wouldn't even try, as embarrassing as it would be.
But Murkowski represents a real possibility for the write-in candidacy, as she has consistently been polling right up next to Joe Miller, the Republican.
And yet I have been ignoring Alaska in my forecasts because it has, until recently, seemed almost certain that either Murkowski or Miller would win, and both candidates are running as Republicans.
Ok. It's really really dangerous to try to make an argument off of a single poll, particularly when its a weekend poll, but because the argument I am about to make has been around for awhile, I'll draw your attention to a PPP poll of the Alaska Senate election. PPP makes the assertion with this poll that, instead of McAdams, the Democrat, being the spoiler for Murkowski, Murkowski may end up being the spoiler for McAdams. Three way races are hard to predict, and three-way races in which there is a write-in candidate don't have a lot of precedent. Joe Miller AND Lisa Murkowski both have dismal approval ratings in the 30s, while McAdams is approved of by 50%. Will Murkowski voters, encountering the difficulty of writing in her name (which is not the easiest to spell) cast their ballots for McAdams, if they can't figure out the write-in process? There is a good argument that this could be the case.
With this poll showing Miller at 37% and McAdams at 30%, it's certainly Miller's race to lose, but there really may be movement at the last moment here in Alaska, with counting of write-ins going well into this week. Can't wait to find out if McAdams or Murkowski will be the exciting upset of this election.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
The Oddness of Three-way Races
I promise, after the election on Nov. 2 we'll be back to talking about policies, dirty deals, and everything wrong in the news cycle, but for now it seems worthwhile to discuss more regarding the upcoming midterms. But for now let's talk about a few (normally rare in American elections) three-way races that have proved interesting.
In my most recent post last week, I made a note at the bottom that it is difficult to predict the outcome of the Florida Senate race between Independent Governor Charlie Crist, Republican Marco Rubio, and Democrat Kendrick Meek. The news out of the New York Times on Thursday was that Matt McKenna, spokesperson for President Bill Clinton, who had be in Florida campaigning for longtime friend Meek, claimed that Clinton had urged Meek to drop out of the race and endorse Crist. Clinton has a political alliance and friendship with Meek since Meek, a police officer, was assigned to Clinton's detail during Clinton's travels in Florida when he was President. According to the NYT, the two politicians had even agreed upon a time for Meek to drop out and officially endorse the Governor. However, Meek had decided at the last minute not to drop out.
It makes sense that Clinton would urge Meek to drop out; at this point 50% of Florida's Democrats are planning on voting for Crist as opposed to only 10% of Florida's Republicans. If Crist were to win, it seems reasonably likely that he would caucus with the Democrats who got him elected, and there is almost no way for Crist to win unless he were to receive near unanimous Democratic support. Meek dropping out, which has been implicitly or explicitly urged by some Democrats, including Clinton and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., would facilitate this opportunity for Crist.
Interestingly, Meek's campaign has strongly contested this whole story, saying the Mr. Meek had never planned on dropping out and intends to become the next US Senator from Florida. Still, the whole debacle may end up working in Crist's favor, if Democrats can be convinced that a vote for Meek is a vote for Rubio. It is this strategic vote aspect that I have consistently mentioned makes three way races extremely volatile.
Or I should say CAN make them volatile. It may be too soon to say whether there will be a major shift to Crist, but despite all this hullabaloo and pushing back and forth between all three candidates, the Florida race has maintained a relatively static stature in polls with little change for weeks. 6 weeks ago it would have been reasonable to expect Rubio to receive about 40% of the vote, Crist to receive about 35% and Meek to receive about 20%. This same trend has held until now.
This is also true of the Alaska Senate race, in which Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski is mounting a write-in bid for her seat, after narrowly losing the Republican Primary in that state to Joe Miller. Similar to the Florida race, for the last 6 weeks Joe Miller and Lisa Murkowski have polled about even at 35% while the Democrat, McAdams, has about 25% of the vote. There are dynamics in this race which complicate it, like the write-in process, and the fact that mounting a successful write-in candidacy is very unlikely in recent times. Still, something in the Florida and Alaska races is preventing normal strategic volatility that you'd expect in a three way race. Perhaps its the fact that no candidate has been perceived to be gaining ground in these races.
But I suspect the stalled polls are due to the unique situation of these contests. As is turns out, both Crist and Murkowski are well known Republicans who have tacked some to the center in order to fuel their "independent" bids for their respective seats. Both were also knocked off in their primaries by opponents who are seen as "too" conservative by the mainstream electorate. For these reasons it seems unlikely that Democrats would defect to a well known former Republican tacking to the center, unlikely that Tea Partiers and Republican Party regulars would defect to a perceived sore loser and moderate, and unlikely that moderates would defect to the Democrat (because he's likely to lose) or the Tea Party-backed "super" conservative because he's too extreme. The result is a static electorate in polls.
The situation is different in three other notable races this year, all for the Governorship.
I've already discussed the interesting dynamics of the Colorado race in my profile of American Constitution Party candidate Tom Tancredo. In this three party race, strategic voting is evident. Key in the use of strategic voting is the perception that any of the candidates is becoming a "wasted vote". So let's see... First, Tancredo is actually running a campaign a little to the right of Republican Dan Maes. Second, Dan Maes has proved to be a relatively weak candidate and has shown a real ineptitude for campaigning. So as soon as Republicans began to realize that Maes and Tancredo were splitting the vote, many people defected in the polls to Tancredo, which fueled even more support for the independent candidate. Over the last several weeks, Maes has seen his support drop to dismal levels, consistently below 10% and Tancredo is finding himself within striking distance of the Democrat, Hickenlooper. This all occurred because people began to watch polls, which showed Maes in a weak position and after hitting a tipping point, all voters interested in preventing Hickenlooper from attaining the Governorship knew that Tancredo was their man. Interestingly, I'll point out again that this effect would probably not have occurred (or at least not to that degree) except for the modern era of polling.
Another example of this "strategic voting" effect is in Rhode Island, where Democrat Frank Caprio is running against former Senator Linc Chafee who is an independent. In a campaign stop to Rhode Island, Barack Obama (now famously) withheld an endorsement for Caprio, citing a buddy-buddy relationship with Chafee from the President's work in the Senate. As support for Robitaille the Republican has increased (now above 25%), many progressives seem to be concerned that their candidate, Caprio (especially absent an endorsement from the President), might not have enough support to take down both Chafee and Robitaille. Since Chafee is left leaning anyway, he has become the favored candidate between Chafee and Caprio and is now polling around 35%, essentially switching places with Caprio. My guess is this is the beginning of the tipping point, and that Chafee will end up with a respectable lead, now that Caprio is increasingly seen as a candidate who cannot win. This kind of volatility can happen quickly, even within a week, and can seriously change elections, as seems to be the case in RI.
The final race of interest is the Maine Governor's contest, where Paul LePage, the Republican, has been in a neck-and-neck fight with Democrat Libby Mitchell for weeks, and it began to look like Mitchell's campaign had plateaued. Recently however, third-party candidate Eliot Cutler has been gaining ground, drawing even with Mitchell, and desperate to prevent the tea-party-backed LePage from winning, Democrats seem to be abandoning Mitchell's campaign to vote for Cutler. The more polls show that Cutler is drawing closer to LePage, the more there will be defections from the Mitchell campaign because she will be seen as a non-viable candidate. It will be interesting to see how much ground Cutler can make up at the last minute. At this point in the election, it may be too little too late, but a last minute swing is not out of the question.
These kind of last-minute fluctuations are exactly what makes three-way races hard to predict. Any sign of weakness on the part of any candidate can have disastrous results. Right now it can be reasonably expected that Hickenlooper(D) will win in Colorado because Tancedo and Maes are splitting the vote. In Rhode Island, Chafee(I) seems the favorite for victory. And in Maine, LePage(R) seems well on his way to success. Were each of these races between just two candidates, all three would likely be turning out very differently. In Colorado, it's likely that a Republican candidate would be winning (in this environment). Rhode Island would likely elect a Democrat, not an Independent. And Maine would almost certainly reject Tea Party values and elect a Democrat as well.
Some have suggested that the solution to the problem of three way contests, strategic voting, and a candidate winning with less than 50% of the vote, is a different voting system than our current "first past the post" or "plurality" method. Ideally, we should have a method that protects people from feeling as though they need to strategically vote, and can just express support for the candidate they think is best for the job.
One option to address this problem is the Instant Runoff Voting method, which is being piloted in a number of cities and states including North Carolina this Midterm election. In light of the challenges posed by these three-way races, I'll have a post examining IRV and other election options soon.
In my most recent post last week, I made a note at the bottom that it is difficult to predict the outcome of the Florida Senate race between Independent Governor Charlie Crist, Republican Marco Rubio, and Democrat Kendrick Meek. The news out of the New York Times on Thursday was that Matt McKenna, spokesperson for President Bill Clinton, who had be in Florida campaigning for longtime friend Meek, claimed that Clinton had urged Meek to drop out of the race and endorse Crist. Clinton has a political alliance and friendship with Meek since Meek, a police officer, was assigned to Clinton's detail during Clinton's travels in Florida when he was President. According to the NYT, the two politicians had even agreed upon a time for Meek to drop out and officially endorse the Governor. However, Meek had decided at the last minute not to drop out.
It makes sense that Clinton would urge Meek to drop out; at this point 50% of Florida's Democrats are planning on voting for Crist as opposed to only 10% of Florida's Republicans. If Crist were to win, it seems reasonably likely that he would caucus with the Democrats who got him elected, and there is almost no way for Crist to win unless he were to receive near unanimous Democratic support. Meek dropping out, which has been implicitly or explicitly urged by some Democrats, including Clinton and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., would facilitate this opportunity for Crist.
Interestingly, Meek's campaign has strongly contested this whole story, saying the Mr. Meek had never planned on dropping out and intends to become the next US Senator from Florida. Still, the whole debacle may end up working in Crist's favor, if Democrats can be convinced that a vote for Meek is a vote for Rubio. It is this strategic vote aspect that I have consistently mentioned makes three way races extremely volatile.
Or I should say CAN make them volatile. It may be too soon to say whether there will be a major shift to Crist, but despite all this hullabaloo and pushing back and forth between all three candidates, the Florida race has maintained a relatively static stature in polls with little change for weeks. 6 weeks ago it would have been reasonable to expect Rubio to receive about 40% of the vote, Crist to receive about 35% and Meek to receive about 20%. This same trend has held until now.
This is also true of the Alaska Senate race, in which Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski is mounting a write-in bid for her seat, after narrowly losing the Republican Primary in that state to Joe Miller. Similar to the Florida race, for the last 6 weeks Joe Miller and Lisa Murkowski have polled about even at 35% while the Democrat, McAdams, has about 25% of the vote. There are dynamics in this race which complicate it, like the write-in process, and the fact that mounting a successful write-in candidacy is very unlikely in recent times. Still, something in the Florida and Alaska races is preventing normal strategic volatility that you'd expect in a three way race. Perhaps its the fact that no candidate has been perceived to be gaining ground in these races.
But I suspect the stalled polls are due to the unique situation of these contests. As is turns out, both Crist and Murkowski are well known Republicans who have tacked some to the center in order to fuel their "independent" bids for their respective seats. Both were also knocked off in their primaries by opponents who are seen as "too" conservative by the mainstream electorate. For these reasons it seems unlikely that Democrats would defect to a well known former Republican tacking to the center, unlikely that Tea Partiers and Republican Party regulars would defect to a perceived sore loser and moderate, and unlikely that moderates would defect to the Democrat (because he's likely to lose) or the Tea Party-backed "super" conservative because he's too extreme. The result is a static electorate in polls.
The situation is different in three other notable races this year, all for the Governorship.
I've already discussed the interesting dynamics of the Colorado race in my profile of American Constitution Party candidate Tom Tancredo. In this three party race, strategic voting is evident. Key in the use of strategic voting is the perception that any of the candidates is becoming a "wasted vote". So let's see... First, Tancredo is actually running a campaign a little to the right of Republican Dan Maes. Second, Dan Maes has proved to be a relatively weak candidate and has shown a real ineptitude for campaigning. So as soon as Republicans began to realize that Maes and Tancredo were splitting the vote, many people defected in the polls to Tancredo, which fueled even more support for the independent candidate. Over the last several weeks, Maes has seen his support drop to dismal levels, consistently below 10% and Tancredo is finding himself within striking distance of the Democrat, Hickenlooper. This all occurred because people began to watch polls, which showed Maes in a weak position and after hitting a tipping point, all voters interested in preventing Hickenlooper from attaining the Governorship knew that Tancredo was their man. Interestingly, I'll point out again that this effect would probably not have occurred (or at least not to that degree) except for the modern era of polling.
Another example of this "strategic voting" effect is in Rhode Island, where Democrat Frank Caprio is running against former Senator Linc Chafee who is an independent. In a campaign stop to Rhode Island, Barack Obama (now famously) withheld an endorsement for Caprio, citing a buddy-buddy relationship with Chafee from the President's work in the Senate. As support for Robitaille the Republican has increased (now above 25%), many progressives seem to be concerned that their candidate, Caprio (especially absent an endorsement from the President), might not have enough support to take down both Chafee and Robitaille. Since Chafee is left leaning anyway, he has become the favored candidate between Chafee and Caprio and is now polling around 35%, essentially switching places with Caprio. My guess is this is the beginning of the tipping point, and that Chafee will end up with a respectable lead, now that Caprio is increasingly seen as a candidate who cannot win. This kind of volatility can happen quickly, even within a week, and can seriously change elections, as seems to be the case in RI.
The final race of interest is the Maine Governor's contest, where Paul LePage, the Republican, has been in a neck-and-neck fight with Democrat Libby Mitchell for weeks, and it began to look like Mitchell's campaign had plateaued. Recently however, third-party candidate Eliot Cutler has been gaining ground, drawing even with Mitchell, and desperate to prevent the tea-party-backed LePage from winning, Democrats seem to be abandoning Mitchell's campaign to vote for Cutler. The more polls show that Cutler is drawing closer to LePage, the more there will be defections from the Mitchell campaign because she will be seen as a non-viable candidate. It will be interesting to see how much ground Cutler can make up at the last minute. At this point in the election, it may be too little too late, but a last minute swing is not out of the question.
These kind of last-minute fluctuations are exactly what makes three-way races hard to predict. Any sign of weakness on the part of any candidate can have disastrous results. Right now it can be reasonably expected that Hickenlooper(D) will win in Colorado because Tancedo and Maes are splitting the vote. In Rhode Island, Chafee(I) seems the favorite for victory. And in Maine, LePage(R) seems well on his way to success. Were each of these races between just two candidates, all three would likely be turning out very differently. In Colorado, it's likely that a Republican candidate would be winning (in this environment). Rhode Island would likely elect a Democrat, not an Independent. And Maine would almost certainly reject Tea Party values and elect a Democrat as well.
Some have suggested that the solution to the problem of three way contests, strategic voting, and a candidate winning with less than 50% of the vote, is a different voting system than our current "first past the post" or "plurality" method. Ideally, we should have a method that protects people from feeling as though they need to strategically vote, and can just express support for the candidate they think is best for the job.
One option to address this problem is the Instant Runoff Voting method, which is being piloted in a number of cities and states including North Carolina this Midterm election. In light of the challenges posed by these three-way races, I'll have a post examining IRV and other election options soon.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
(10/21) Election Forecasts 2010: Senate and House
In a previous post on 9/29 I developed my election forecasts for the 2010 Senate Election; this is an update to that post. But first, let's talk the U.S. House.
For those of you who are tuning in late to politics, remember that there are 435 House seats, apportioned to states according to population; all 435 seats are up for election every 2 years. This makes the House a volatile and sometimes rapidly changing group of people. Unlike other major forecast sites, (see CQ Politics, Cook Political Report, Real Clear Politics, Pollster, Fivethirtyeight/NYT, etc) I don't have the resources to make forecasts on individual House races. But I do have the time to make general statements about the House based on these forecasts, where it's likely Democrats will lose somewhere between 25 and 75 "net" seats. That may seem like a huge margin of error, but there are substantial issues with forecasting House races this year, as has been mentioned and reiterated almost constantly by Nate Silver; his argument is hard to refute. Still, Republicans need to take 40 seats from their current position to obtain a majority, which seems increasingly likely. Of the 150 or so House seats that are being "seriously" contested this election, 90% are Democratic incumbents or Democratic seats. This really gives some perspective on why Democrats have such a problem this year in the House; it may turn out to be the greatest turnover of House seats in history.
The Senate race actually tells us a slightly different story. Democrats are actually well positioned in the Senate comparative to the House, meaning that they are at this time very unlikely to lose control of the Senate chamber. Again, for those of you who are coming into politics late, remember, each state gets 2 Senate seats, each Senator serves for a 6 year term, and only 1/3 of the Senate gets elected every 2 years. Thus only 2/3 of states have senate elections every 2 years, in this case there are 37 Senators being elected (2 from NY). Republicans now at 41 seats, need to have a net gain of 10 seats in order to be reasonably confident of taking control of the Senate with 51 seats. (In the case of a tie, 50-50, Democrats would still be considered "in control" because Vice President Joe Biden would cast any tie-breaking votes).
In the coming paragraphs, I use the term "competitive" to mean that either party has a chance of winning, and the term "almost certain" to mean that I am as certain as is possible, under the circumstances of prediction. I use the term "tossup" to mean that based on polling, spending, and state specifics it is virtually impossible to predict a winner- it might as well be a coin toss. In this update, Democrats have made some slight gains since my last forecast; let's take a look.
Last time I pointed out that Democrats "almost certainly" will not take any Republican-held seats (Florida is a possible exception that I will discuss at the end), so every "competitive" seat is Democratically held (Democrats have everything to lose, nothing to gain this election). This factor is unchanged. Moreover, I pointed out that Republicans were "almost certainly" going to win North Dakota, Arkansas, Indiana, and Pennsylvania, turning those states Red. Pennsylvania has been removed from this column in this update. This leaves us with a baseline of 48 Democrats and 43 Republicans. I am "almost certain" that Democrats will not have less than 48 seats, and that Republicans will not have less than 43 seats after this election.
Last time I also established that there were 9 seats that I considered "competitive", where either party has a notable chance of winning. These seats were Washington, California, Nevada, Colorado, Illinois, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Florida, and Connecticut. Since that time, Connecticut has proven non-competitive; an apparent surge by Republican Linda McMahon has evaporated (it may have just been coincidental polling noise, media attention, or a temporary effect of McMahon's sizable personal contributions to her own race), leaving Democrat Richard Blumenthal with a commanding lead.
Meanwhile, as mentioned earlier, I would like to add 1 new state to the "competitive" list: Pennsylvania, which was formerly an "almost certain" win by Republicans.This leaves us with 9 "competitive" Senate seats.
Washington and California have been polling Democratic, so we'll put them in the D column. Florida, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin have been polling Republican, so we'll put them in the R column. This leaves Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, and West Virginia as "tossups". I gave Republicans a 2/3 edge amongst the tossups last time; this time, coin-flips as these races are, I'll assign these seats half and half for this forecast. This leaves us with 52 Democrats and 48 Republicans, a one-seat gain for Democrats since my last forecast. Remember, though, I still think there is a reasonable margin of error with this forecast of four seats, which means the numbers could range from 50D-50R to 54D-46R. This good news for Democrats, but not great news- still, it seems highly unlikely that Republicans will take control of the Senate at this time.
I want to make an additional note on a few individual races.
First, Wisconsin has shown stronger and stronger polling for Russ Feingold's (D) opponent Ron Johnson (R). If Johnson continues in this fashion, I will remove Wisconsin from the "competitive" races, despite my tendency to give an incumbent Senator the benefit of the doubt.
Second, Pennsylvania has shown some very good numbers recently for Democratic candidate Joe Sestak. Since Pat Toomey (R) has held such a strong lead for so long, I am dubious about these numbers. I'll be paying close attention to this race in the future.
Third, Kentucky's race has seemed to be tightening recently. Kentucky is the one Republican-held seat that might seriously be vulnerable this year, besides Florida which I'll discuss below. Despite Rand Paul's (R) libertarian-leaning positions on a lot of issues, I have remained highly skeptical that conservative Democrat Attorney General Jack Conway can beat him. While RCP continues to consider Kentucky to be a tossup, and other forecasters say it only leans Republican, I haven't been convinced by the polling or the other dynamics of the race. Thus I still do not consider Kentucky in my list of "competitive" races. The same remains true for my forecast on Missouri, which is considered by most to be less close than Kentucky, but still in the running. I am not convinced by Robin Carnahan's (D) numbers either.
Fourth, Colorado, California, and Washington have consistently shown very close numbers. Despite some reservations, I have moved Colorado into the "tossup" section because the race seems to have tightened even further. California and Washington's numbers are not so different from Colorado, but due to the incumbency effect, deep respect for Fivethirtyeight's methods, and some local dynamics like, say, Prop 19 in California, and mail-in voting in Washington, I have retained these West coast states' positions on the D side.
Fifth, and finally, Florida has shown a consistent double-digit lead for Republican Marco Rubio for many weeks now. Florida's race is interesting because popular incumbent Republican Governor Charlie Crist has entered the race as an Independent. Crist (I) has been polling around 30%, Rubio (R) around 40% and Kendrick Meek, the Democrat at around 20%. Polls have shown that at this point Crist is getting a lot of his support from Democrats, rather than Republicans, with about 50% of Democrats supporting him, and only 10% of Republicans. Three-way races are hard to predict, as people tend to vote strategically, rather than with their conscience, and it's hard to reflect this in polls. Also with three-way races, just a little gain at the expense of one candidate can cause another candidate to spring, suddenly, into the lead. It is for these reasons that I have kept Florida on the list of possible Democratic takeovers. It is highly unlikely that Meek can beat Rubio, but Crist still might be able to beat Rubio if a lot of Meek voters defect from him at the last moment and vote for Crist in order to keep Rubio, seen as an ultra-conservative, from winning. It's hard to know if, and to what degree, this might happen. Right now it doesn't look likely. But if it were to happen, and Crist won, he would have to decide to caucus with the Democrats or the Republicans. Since, at that point, it would have been Democrats who had propelled him into office, I think there's a good chance that Crist would caucus with the Democrats, thus sending Florida into the D column. There are a lot of "what-ifs" in this scenario, which is why I keep Florida on the "competitive" list, but I also still assume it'll go Republican for now, since the chances are slim.
For those of you who are tuning in late to politics, remember that there are 435 House seats, apportioned to states according to population; all 435 seats are up for election every 2 years. This makes the House a volatile and sometimes rapidly changing group of people. Unlike other major forecast sites, (see CQ Politics, Cook Political Report, Real Clear Politics, Pollster, Fivethirtyeight/NYT, etc) I don't have the resources to make forecasts on individual House races. But I do have the time to make general statements about the House based on these forecasts, where it's likely Democrats will lose somewhere between 25 and 75 "net" seats. That may seem like a huge margin of error, but there are substantial issues with forecasting House races this year, as has been mentioned and reiterated almost constantly by Nate Silver; his argument is hard to refute. Still, Republicans need to take 40 seats from their current position to obtain a majority, which seems increasingly likely. Of the 150 or so House seats that are being "seriously" contested this election, 90% are Democratic incumbents or Democratic seats. This really gives some perspective on why Democrats have such a problem this year in the House; it may turn out to be the greatest turnover of House seats in history.
The Senate race actually tells us a slightly different story. Democrats are actually well positioned in the Senate comparative to the House, meaning that they are at this time very unlikely to lose control of the Senate chamber. Again, for those of you who are coming into politics late, remember, each state gets 2 Senate seats, each Senator serves for a 6 year term, and only 1/3 of the Senate gets elected every 2 years. Thus only 2/3 of states have senate elections every 2 years, in this case there are 37 Senators being elected (2 from NY). Republicans now at 41 seats, need to have a net gain of 10 seats in order to be reasonably confident of taking control of the Senate with 51 seats. (In the case of a tie, 50-50, Democrats would still be considered "in control" because Vice President Joe Biden would cast any tie-breaking votes).
In the coming paragraphs, I use the term "competitive" to mean that either party has a chance of winning, and the term "almost certain" to mean that I am as certain as is possible, under the circumstances of prediction. I use the term "tossup" to mean that based on polling, spending, and state specifics it is virtually impossible to predict a winner- it might as well be a coin toss. In this update, Democrats have made some slight gains since my last forecast; let's take a look.
Last time I pointed out that Democrats "almost certainly" will not take any Republican-held seats (Florida is a possible exception that I will discuss at the end), so every "competitive" seat is Democratically held (Democrats have everything to lose, nothing to gain this election). This factor is unchanged. Moreover, I pointed out that Republicans were "almost certainly" going to win North Dakota, Arkansas, Indiana, and Pennsylvania, turning those states Red. Pennsylvania has been removed from this column in this update. This leaves us with a baseline of 48 Democrats and 43 Republicans. I am "almost certain" that Democrats will not have less than 48 seats, and that Republicans will not have less than 43 seats after this election.
Last time I also established that there were 9 seats that I considered "competitive", where either party has a notable chance of winning. These seats were Washington, California, Nevada, Colorado, Illinois, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Florida, and Connecticut. Since that time, Connecticut has proven non-competitive; an apparent surge by Republican Linda McMahon has evaporated (it may have just been coincidental polling noise, media attention, or a temporary effect of McMahon's sizable personal contributions to her own race), leaving Democrat Richard Blumenthal with a commanding lead.
Meanwhile, as mentioned earlier, I would like to add 1 new state to the "competitive" list: Pennsylvania, which was formerly an "almost certain" win by Republicans.This leaves us with 9 "competitive" Senate seats.
Washington and California have been polling Democratic, so we'll put them in the D column. Florida, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin have been polling Republican, so we'll put them in the R column. This leaves Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, and West Virginia as "tossups". I gave Republicans a 2/3 edge amongst the tossups last time; this time, coin-flips as these races are, I'll assign these seats half and half for this forecast. This leaves us with 52 Democrats and 48 Republicans, a one-seat gain for Democrats since my last forecast. Remember, though, I still think there is a reasonable margin of error with this forecast of four seats, which means the numbers could range from 50D-50R to 54D-46R. This good news for Democrats, but not great news- still, it seems highly unlikely that Republicans will take control of the Senate at this time.
I want to make an additional note on a few individual races.
First, Wisconsin has shown stronger and stronger polling for Russ Feingold's (D) opponent Ron Johnson (R). If Johnson continues in this fashion, I will remove Wisconsin from the "competitive" races, despite my tendency to give an incumbent Senator the benefit of the doubt.
Second, Pennsylvania has shown some very good numbers recently for Democratic candidate Joe Sestak. Since Pat Toomey (R) has held such a strong lead for so long, I am dubious about these numbers. I'll be paying close attention to this race in the future.
Third, Kentucky's race has seemed to be tightening recently. Kentucky is the one Republican-held seat that might seriously be vulnerable this year, besides Florida which I'll discuss below. Despite Rand Paul's (R) libertarian-leaning positions on a lot of issues, I have remained highly skeptical that conservative Democrat Attorney General Jack Conway can beat him. While RCP continues to consider Kentucky to be a tossup, and other forecasters say it only leans Republican, I haven't been convinced by the polling or the other dynamics of the race. Thus I still do not consider Kentucky in my list of "competitive" races. The same remains true for my forecast on Missouri, which is considered by most to be less close than Kentucky, but still in the running. I am not convinced by Robin Carnahan's (D) numbers either.
Fourth, Colorado, California, and Washington have consistently shown very close numbers. Despite some reservations, I have moved Colorado into the "tossup" section because the race seems to have tightened even further. California and Washington's numbers are not so different from Colorado, but due to the incumbency effect, deep respect for Fivethirtyeight's methods, and some local dynamics like, say, Prop 19 in California, and mail-in voting in Washington, I have retained these West coast states' positions on the D side.
Fifth, and finally, Florida has shown a consistent double-digit lead for Republican Marco Rubio for many weeks now. Florida's race is interesting because popular incumbent Republican Governor Charlie Crist has entered the race as an Independent. Crist (I) has been polling around 30%, Rubio (R) around 40% and Kendrick Meek, the Democrat at around 20%. Polls have shown that at this point Crist is getting a lot of his support from Democrats, rather than Republicans, with about 50% of Democrats supporting him, and only 10% of Republicans. Three-way races are hard to predict, as people tend to vote strategically, rather than with their conscience, and it's hard to reflect this in polls. Also with three-way races, just a little gain at the expense of one candidate can cause another candidate to spring, suddenly, into the lead. It is for these reasons that I have kept Florida on the list of possible Democratic takeovers. It is highly unlikely that Meek can beat Rubio, but Crist still might be able to beat Rubio if a lot of Meek voters defect from him at the last moment and vote for Crist in order to keep Rubio, seen as an ultra-conservative, from winning. It's hard to know if, and to what degree, this might happen. Right now it doesn't look likely. But if it were to happen, and Crist won, he would have to decide to caucus with the Democrats or the Republicans. Since, at that point, it would have been Democrats who had propelled him into office, I think there's a good chance that Crist would caucus with the Democrats, thus sending Florida into the D column. There are a lot of "what-ifs" in this scenario, which is why I keep Florida on the "competitive" list, but I also still assume it'll go Republican for now, since the chances are slim.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Let Republicans take control of Congress, PLEASE?
Do I speak heresy for a Democratic voter, or the first bit of common sense in a Republican wave year?
This post will contain clear and inherent bias, as it is intended as a suggested Democratic perspective on the Midterm elections.
Let me level with you. Republicans are going to win and they are going to win big this year. In the House, it would not be out of possibility for them to sweep the system, taking out 70 incumbent Democrats. In the Senate it is conceivable for them to overturn as many as 10 seats, a roughly equivalent proportion as wins in the House. And while those numbers represent very worst case scenarios, Democrats are playing defense and right now and it'll be considered a significant UPSET if Democrats are able to hold onto simple majorities in both the House and the Senate.
I can already hear the leagues of Democratic voters wailing in self-righteous desperation. Must think! Who's to blame? Right! Its all the fault of those perennial enthusiasts, those formerly loyal Obama supporters who have the nerve to abandon the Party when they're really needed. Damn those pollsters and their likely voter models! Fools! All of them!
But wait! Before you torch the house of the nearest racial minority or young adult who you think is too lazy or uninformed to go to the polls, hear me out! There are hate crime statues to consider!
Instead look at it this way: If Republicans want Congress, let's give it to 'em. But just barely. Or just in one chamber of Congress as its looking to become currently. Fight for seats, yes, but hold off some of that strategic money till 2012.
How about this instead? It's about damn time that the American people see what kinds of proposals Republicans have to put forward. Obama is still President for the next 2 years, let him use his bully pulpit to show Republicans up for how hypocritical most of their debt-reducing-yet-tax-reducing proposals are. To expose on a National stage the extreme positions of Tea Partiers and the chaos of a truly gridlocked government.
In the meantime, let's keep Democrats in the best non-majority position that we can, and use that magic filibuster tactic against the Republicans who seem to like it so much. Or, even better, just let Obama veto anything that comes across his desk that he can't take explicit credit for. If Republicans do pass anything, make sure its branded "Obama" so strongly that the American people begin seeing the President as the great uniter that he promised to be.
Meanwhile, all fingers crossed, the economy is getting better, helped in no small part by increased confidence in legislative stability with Republicans in control and (quite honestly) the historically relative cyclical nature of these recessions. Obama can take credit for the economy rebounding as well, if he likes; who cares whether or not the Recovery Act was actually what swung America out of a downturn, the point is that the economy arrow went up during the Obama Administration. Tout, tout, tout! If Clinton could get through it in 1995, Obama can handle it in 2011. And good news for Dems: Clinton went on to get re-elected; Obama's got a good shot at that too.
Of course if Democrats stay in control, Republicans can continue to use the same stalling tactics and blame an even weaker Democratic Party for not getting anything done. They'll likely have the momentum in 2012, telling voters to send 'em all packin', including the President so that the Government works again. If Republicans take some control, it's possible the Government will also come to a standstill, but this time, Republicans get their share of the blame.
But hold on a minute. If things are made so good by Democrats "letting" Republicans take some control, why isn't that the Democratic strategy, at least secretly?
Well there is a lot of conventional wisdom in trying to maintain Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate. Regardless of what the Government does at this point, the economy is liable to get better, as is the way with these things. Democrats are reasonably confident that they can take credit for the good economy if they can just hold on long enough for the economy to actually improve. Then there's the incumbency factor. The same reason that Obama is already nominally favored to win the 2012 election, as mentioned above, also favors all currently sitting politicians. Name recognition is already higher with incumbents, not to mention the great fundraising platform incumbency affords. This Democrats figure they'll have a lot of hurdles to overcome in the next 3 election cycles if they lose the incumbency factor in this one election. And finally there's the policy considerations. With less power, Democrats have less control over policy, Republican proposals are more likely to be adopted and signed into law.
The point of this article is to recognize some serious advantages on which Democrats might be able to capitalize if Republicans take control of either the House, or Senate, or both. Since at least one of those scenarios is likely, it will be interesting to see if Democrats use any of the strategies outlined in this piece.
I'll have a different discussion on Republican strategies in the near future.
This post will contain clear and inherent bias, as it is intended as a suggested Democratic perspective on the Midterm elections.
Let me level with you. Republicans are going to win and they are going to win big this year. In the House, it would not be out of possibility for them to sweep the system, taking out 70 incumbent Democrats. In the Senate it is conceivable for them to overturn as many as 10 seats, a roughly equivalent proportion as wins in the House. And while those numbers represent very worst case scenarios, Democrats are playing defense and right now and it'll be considered a significant UPSET if Democrats are able to hold onto simple majorities in both the House and the Senate.
I can already hear the leagues of Democratic voters wailing in self-righteous desperation. Must think! Who's to blame? Right! Its all the fault of those perennial enthusiasts, those formerly loyal Obama supporters who have the nerve to abandon the Party when they're really needed. Damn those pollsters and their likely voter models! Fools! All of them!
But wait! Before you torch the house of the nearest racial minority or young adult who you think is too lazy or uninformed to go to the polls, hear me out! There are hate crime statues to consider!
Instead look at it this way: If Republicans want Congress, let's give it to 'em. But just barely. Or just in one chamber of Congress as its looking to become currently. Fight for seats, yes, but hold off some of that strategic money till 2012.
How about this instead? It's about damn time that the American people see what kinds of proposals Republicans have to put forward. Obama is still President for the next 2 years, let him use his bully pulpit to show Republicans up for how hypocritical most of their debt-reducing-yet-tax-reducing proposals are. To expose on a National stage the extreme positions of Tea Partiers and the chaos of a truly gridlocked government.
In the meantime, let's keep Democrats in the best non-majority position that we can, and use that magic filibuster tactic against the Republicans who seem to like it so much. Or, even better, just let Obama veto anything that comes across his desk that he can't take explicit credit for. If Republicans do pass anything, make sure its branded "Obama" so strongly that the American people begin seeing the President as the great uniter that he promised to be.
Meanwhile, all fingers crossed, the economy is getting better, helped in no small part by increased confidence in legislative stability with Republicans in control and (quite honestly) the historically relative cyclical nature of these recessions. Obama can take credit for the economy rebounding as well, if he likes; who cares whether or not the Recovery Act was actually what swung America out of a downturn, the point is that the economy arrow went up during the Obama Administration. Tout, tout, tout! If Clinton could get through it in 1995, Obama can handle it in 2011. And good news for Dems: Clinton went on to get re-elected; Obama's got a good shot at that too.
Of course if Democrats stay in control, Republicans can continue to use the same stalling tactics and blame an even weaker Democratic Party for not getting anything done. They'll likely have the momentum in 2012, telling voters to send 'em all packin', including the President so that the Government works again. If Republicans take some control, it's possible the Government will also come to a standstill, but this time, Republicans get their share of the blame.
But hold on a minute. If things are made so good by Democrats "letting" Republicans take some control, why isn't that the Democratic strategy, at least secretly?
Well there is a lot of conventional wisdom in trying to maintain Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate. Regardless of what the Government does at this point, the economy is liable to get better, as is the way with these things. Democrats are reasonably confident that they can take credit for the good economy if they can just hold on long enough for the economy to actually improve. Then there's the incumbency factor. The same reason that Obama is already nominally favored to win the 2012 election, as mentioned above, also favors all currently sitting politicians. Name recognition is already higher with incumbents, not to mention the great fundraising platform incumbency affords. This Democrats figure they'll have a lot of hurdles to overcome in the next 3 election cycles if they lose the incumbency factor in this one election. And finally there's the policy considerations. With less power, Democrats have less control over policy, Republican proposals are more likely to be adopted and signed into law.
The point of this article is to recognize some serious advantages on which Democrats might be able to capitalize if Republicans take control of either the House, or Senate, or both. Since at least one of those scenarios is likely, it will be interesting to see if Democrats use any of the strategies outlined in this piece.
I'll have a different discussion on Republican strategies in the near future.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Election Forecasts 2010: Senate
I will be, over the next several days and weeks, producing my own forecasts for the new makeup of the U.S. Senate. I will admit, I rely on my own research and instincts for different races, but I also rely on Nate Silver's calculations over at Fivethirtyeight.com, polling calculations provided by Real Clear Politics, and other varied sources. I AM NOT a statistician, nor a polling professional, but I do have a reasonably astute understanding of the political environment. Eventually I'll be attaching maps of these races.
There are 37 seats up for election; only 15 to 20 are considered to be "in play". The Republicans need to win a minimum of 9 seats of those 15 or so in order to win control of the Senate, and this is if Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I) from CT decides to caucus with the Republicans (unlikely). Therefore to be reasonably assured of Senate control, Republicans should make sure at least 10 seats are in their column. At this time, there is not evidence to support that case.
At this time there are only 9 seats that I would consider to be competitive, they are as follows: WA, CA, NV, CO, IL, WI, WV, FL, CT. If you don't live in these states, sorry, the election's pretty much been closed out. Only one of these seats, Florida, is currently a Republican-held seat.
That means that the remainder of the seats are relatively safe. Given this assumption, Republicans will almost certainly win (overturn) 4 Democratic seats in the Senate; ND, AR, PA, and IN. So it is almost certain that our baseline makeup of the Senate is 47 Democrats and 44 Republicans. This means that there will not be less than 47 Democrats or less than 44 Republicans.
According to my understanding of the races, it is likely that WA, CA, and CT will go to the Democrats. It is also likely that CO, WI, and FL will go to the Republicans. That brings our (reasonably confident) baseline to 50D to 47R.
That leaves 3 races that are too close to call: WV, IL, and NV. I think one way or another they'll probably break 2-1 for the R's. That leaves us with a forecast of 51 Democrats and 49 Republicans. This is within the consensus of most political analysts. It should be noted though that my own forecast carries a swing of three seats. I think it's possible that the Senate could end up like this: 53D to 47R, or like this: 50D to 50R.
The good news for the Democrats in this is that it is highly UNLIKELY that Republicans will manage to retake the Senate. Even if there is a tie, VP Joe Biden can cast a tie-breaking vote. The bad news for Democrats is that if they had trouble getting things accomplished with 59 seats, they'll certainly find themselves in gridlock with only 51 seats. Couple that with the significant possibility that Republicans DO take over the House, and you can expect our government to come to a screeching halt this January.
I'll have a closer look at some of these races in the future, particularly the 9 races I've focused on for this post.
There are 37 seats up for election; only 15 to 20 are considered to be "in play". The Republicans need to win a minimum of 9 seats of those 15 or so in order to win control of the Senate, and this is if Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I) from CT decides to caucus with the Republicans (unlikely). Therefore to be reasonably assured of Senate control, Republicans should make sure at least 10 seats are in their column. At this time, there is not evidence to support that case.
At this time there are only 9 seats that I would consider to be competitive, they are as follows: WA, CA, NV, CO, IL, WI, WV, FL, CT. If you don't live in these states, sorry, the election's pretty much been closed out. Only one of these seats, Florida, is currently a Republican-held seat.
That means that the remainder of the seats are relatively safe. Given this assumption, Republicans will almost certainly win (overturn) 4 Democratic seats in the Senate; ND, AR, PA, and IN. So it is almost certain that our baseline makeup of the Senate is 47 Democrats and 44 Republicans. This means that there will not be less than 47 Democrats or less than 44 Republicans.
According to my understanding of the races, it is likely that WA, CA, and CT will go to the Democrats. It is also likely that CO, WI, and FL will go to the Republicans. That brings our (reasonably confident) baseline to 50D to 47R.
That leaves 3 races that are too close to call: WV, IL, and NV. I think one way or another they'll probably break 2-1 for the R's. That leaves us with a forecast of 51 Democrats and 49 Republicans. This is within the consensus of most political analysts. It should be noted though that my own forecast carries a swing of three seats. I think it's possible that the Senate could end up like this: 53D to 47R, or like this: 50D to 50R.
The good news for the Democrats in this is that it is highly UNLIKELY that Republicans will manage to retake the Senate. Even if there is a tie, VP Joe Biden can cast a tie-breaking vote. The bad news for Democrats is that if they had trouble getting things accomplished with 59 seats, they'll certainly find themselves in gridlock with only 51 seats. Couple that with the significant possibility that Republicans DO take over the House, and you can expect our government to come to a screeching halt this January.
I'll have a closer look at some of these races in the future, particularly the 9 races I've focused on for this post.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Back to Work
The Midterms are Coming, the Midterms are coming!
And I've been remiss! The couple of people who actually pay attention to this blog are finding themselves absent fantastic political dialogue! Well excuse yourself no more from those quirky office and classroom conversations: the blog emerges again!
And just in time too, we have a lot to talk about now that the world is coming back into focus (for politics) and according to Rachel Maddow, "I have yet to be bored" for the Midterm cycle. They're supposed to be boring!
But here's the rundown of things to watch and/or things I'll be commenting on in the future...
1. Ok this never (EVER) happens in politics (at least not successfully): Lisa Murkowski, Republican Senator from Alaska officially has begun a write-in bid for her own Senate seat after Joe Miller, backed by the Tea Party Express (whoo whoo... it's actually a bus, not a train-- wait, the Tea Party lives on a bus?) drove several hundred thousand dollars up there to Mr. Miller and Sarah Palin gave him the wink and a nod (he beat Murkowski in the primary). Murkowski is running as a, and get this, Republican (sort of) even though Joe Miller is already a Republican, and the party, though publicly supporting Miller, has refused to punish Murkowski and is trying to pretend as though the whole thing isn't really happening. Murkowski, amazingly, has a chance, Mr. Silver's model over at 538 is giving her around 20% chance which is unprecedented for something like the last 50 years. Not that it really matters who wins-- Alaska is so Republican that even with Murkowski and Miller splitting the vote, it's unlikely that the Democrat in the race will be able to pull in much better than 25% of the vote. Win-win for Republicans here. Of course the thing gets even more epic when we wander over to Delaware and find out that Mr. Castle, (an entrenched moderate Republican who also lost his primary) is apparently considering a write-in bid himself! Surprisingly, he ALSO has a chance, according to Mr. Silver, perhaps even better than Murkowski because of O'Donnell's (the Republican nominee in Delaware, also backed by the Palin wink and nod) dismal numbers in Delaware. If you're not excited it means I've lost you. Which makes me excited. Because it's that freakin complex. Go politics!
2. Expiring Bush tax cuts: Obama says "please, base, don't abandon me, at least we're not them!" by slapping Congress with a proposal to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for people making under $250,000 a year. (Ok, this amounts to raising taxes on about 2% of the population in the land of dividends and capital gains, and for some really rich people, also income) Congress is running so scared of the Midterms that they'll probably ignore the vote on this measure, not like that'll help 'em that much come November. Which brings us to...
3. DADT. (That's Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the controversial legislation that allowed Gays and Lesbians to serve in the military as long as they... pretended they were straight) Reid had the votes, apparently, and then lost them, and then called for a vote anyway just to see what would happen, and then lost, 56-43. Now for those who haven't followed politics in awhile, you'd think that the 43 number would be Yes, repeal DADT, and the 56 number would correspond to No, keep DADT in place. Well turns out that with the procedural filibuster (cue angelic music), anyone can stop legislation in its tracks unless someone can muster a 60 person block to invoke cloture (stop the filibuster). So Johnny McCain, friend of the Military, managed to defeat a measure supported by 57 Senators (57 wanted to repeal the law) with 42 of his own guys. Fun! Wait, those numbers are off, what happened to that? Oh well fun rules in the Senate time, if Mr. Reid, who brought up the vote, changes his vote to "nay" it allows him to bring up the legislation again in the future. Don't you all just love the convoluted nature of our politics? Thus we come to 56yes-43no and homos get the finger. Not like that, people. Of course, none of this really matters in the long run because Congress is running so scared of the Midterms that they'll probably ignore an additional vote on this measure for awhile, not like that'll help 'em that much come November. Which brings us to...
4. November. Republicans are poised to break records in the number of seats gained in one cycle, with some predictions offering them a whopping 60 seat gain in the House and 10 seat gain in the Senate. This is probably a little over the top, but as it stands the Dems are unlikely to hold on to the House of Representatives (Republicans will elect a new Speaker of the House), so bid your farewells to Pelosi. [I have to say, in contrast to the overwhelming majority of Americans, Pelosi is probably my favorite person in politics right now, so I'm all frowny-face about this (i mean honestly, who can see this old lady laugh and not bust out laughing oneself?, she's so awkwardly entertaining-- ok I'll give her 'principled' too)] The Senate will probably end up with a 1 or two member majority for Democrats, but Reid (This refers to Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, by the way) may also lose his job (and his seat) because of a handy-dandy election in Nevada. Pelosi, on the other hand, is from San Fransisco, she's fine no matter what the climate, so she'll keep her seat at least. Regardless of my silly crush on certain members of Congress, Democrats are in for it this November, and everyone, especially a disheartened Dem base is to blame. Turnout will be interesting to watch, I'll keep you updated.
5. Obama. President Obama that is. His approval ratings are hovering around 42%, which is about what President Clinton's numbers were around this stage of his Presidency. We won't know for quite awhile what these numbers might mean for his re-election chances in 2012, but we do know that something better happen to the unemployment soon (down, preferably), or Obama's in trouble.
6. Afghanistan. It's taken a back-burner to other subjects for now, but Afghanistan remains an incredibly volatile region that just (semi-successfully) held elections for Parliament. It's unlikely that US/NATO forces in the area will be able to calm the violence before Obama's planned withdrawal beginning in about 10 months. This means either an extension of the war, or a deal with the Taliban, neither of which will be popular with the public (here or in Afghanistan).
7. Mideast (and by this everyone means Israel-Palestine, we're not concerned with talking to the other scary player in the region, Iran) Peace Talks are a give and take of ridiculously silly rhetorical bickering from both sides. Despite some essentially immaterial gains by Sec. State Clinton in the process, it's clear that the US is powerless to bring Israeli leaders into line. I have said before, and I'll say again that I have a hard time sympathizing with Netayahu's government's position on settlement construction; Mahmoud Abbas has been more than patient with the process and it's time that Israel be the 'bigger man' on this issue. Israeli nationalistic pride is almost as scary as American nationalistic pride because it blinds all parties to easy pragmatic solutions. Let us hope that Clinton can make some kind of substantial breakthrough soon, and that both sides will continue to be open to compromise.
8. Given the strangely influential rise of Tea Party groups in the United States, it's about time that all members of this nation begin to prepare themselves for Sarah Palin to become President or Vice President of our Republic within the next decade. Newt Gingrich, Mike Pence, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and some other quiet up-and-comers require watching as well. I'm very serious though. Begin mentally preparing yourselves. It could happen as soon as 2.5 years from now.
And I've been remiss! The couple of people who actually pay attention to this blog are finding themselves absent fantastic political dialogue! Well excuse yourself no more from those quirky office and classroom conversations: the blog emerges again!
And just in time too, we have a lot to talk about now that the world is coming back into focus (for politics) and according to Rachel Maddow, "I have yet to be bored" for the Midterm cycle. They're supposed to be boring!
But here's the rundown of things to watch and/or things I'll be commenting on in the future...
1. Ok this never (EVER) happens in politics (at least not successfully): Lisa Murkowski, Republican Senator from Alaska officially has begun a write-in bid for her own Senate seat after Joe Miller, backed by the Tea Party Express (whoo whoo... it's actually a bus, not a train-- wait, the Tea Party lives on a bus?) drove several hundred thousand dollars up there to Mr. Miller and Sarah Palin gave him the wink and a nod (he beat Murkowski in the primary). Murkowski is running as a, and get this, Republican (sort of) even though Joe Miller is already a Republican, and the party, though publicly supporting Miller, has refused to punish Murkowski and is trying to pretend as though the whole thing isn't really happening. Murkowski, amazingly, has a chance, Mr. Silver's model over at 538 is giving her around 20% chance which is unprecedented for something like the last 50 years. Not that it really matters who wins-- Alaska is so Republican that even with Murkowski and Miller splitting the vote, it's unlikely that the Democrat in the race will be able to pull in much better than 25% of the vote. Win-win for Republicans here. Of course the thing gets even more epic when we wander over to Delaware and find out that Mr. Castle, (an entrenched moderate Republican who also lost his primary) is apparently considering a write-in bid himself! Surprisingly, he ALSO has a chance, according to Mr. Silver, perhaps even better than Murkowski because of O'Donnell's (the Republican nominee in Delaware, also backed by the Palin wink and nod) dismal numbers in Delaware. If you're not excited it means I've lost you. Which makes me excited. Because it's that freakin complex. Go politics!
2. Expiring Bush tax cuts: Obama says "please, base, don't abandon me, at least we're not them!" by slapping Congress with a proposal to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for people making under $250,000 a year. (Ok, this amounts to raising taxes on about 2% of the population in the land of dividends and capital gains, and for some really rich people, also income) Congress is running so scared of the Midterms that they'll probably ignore the vote on this measure, not like that'll help 'em that much come November. Which brings us to...
3. DADT. (That's Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the controversial legislation that allowed Gays and Lesbians to serve in the military as long as they... pretended they were straight) Reid had the votes, apparently, and then lost them, and then called for a vote anyway just to see what would happen, and then lost, 56-43. Now for those who haven't followed politics in awhile, you'd think that the 43 number would be Yes, repeal DADT, and the 56 number would correspond to No, keep DADT in place. Well turns out that with the procedural filibuster (cue angelic music), anyone can stop legislation in its tracks unless someone can muster a 60 person block to invoke cloture (stop the filibuster). So Johnny McCain, friend of the Military, managed to defeat a measure supported by 57 Senators (57 wanted to repeal the law) with 42 of his own guys. Fun! Wait, those numbers are off, what happened to that? Oh well fun rules in the Senate time, if Mr. Reid, who brought up the vote, changes his vote to "nay" it allows him to bring up the legislation again in the future. Don't you all just love the convoluted nature of our politics? Thus we come to 56yes-43no and homos get the finger. Not like that, people. Of course, none of this really matters in the long run because Congress is running so scared of the Midterms that they'll probably ignore an additional vote on this measure for awhile, not like that'll help 'em that much come November. Which brings us to...
4. November. Republicans are poised to break records in the number of seats gained in one cycle, with some predictions offering them a whopping 60 seat gain in the House and 10 seat gain in the Senate. This is probably a little over the top, but as it stands the Dems are unlikely to hold on to the House of Representatives (Republicans will elect a new Speaker of the House), so bid your farewells to Pelosi. [I have to say, in contrast to the overwhelming majority of Americans, Pelosi is probably my favorite person in politics right now, so I'm all frowny-face about this (i mean honestly, who can see this old lady laugh and not bust out laughing oneself?, she's so awkwardly entertaining-- ok I'll give her 'principled' too)] The Senate will probably end up with a 1 or two member majority for Democrats, but Reid (This refers to Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, by the way) may also lose his job (and his seat) because of a handy-dandy election in Nevada. Pelosi, on the other hand, is from San Fransisco, she's fine no matter what the climate, so she'll keep her seat at least. Regardless of my silly crush on certain members of Congress, Democrats are in for it this November, and everyone, especially a disheartened Dem base is to blame. Turnout will be interesting to watch, I'll keep you updated.
5. Obama. President Obama that is. His approval ratings are hovering around 42%, which is about what President Clinton's numbers were around this stage of his Presidency. We won't know for quite awhile what these numbers might mean for his re-election chances in 2012, but we do know that something better happen to the unemployment soon (down, preferably), or Obama's in trouble.
6. Afghanistan. It's taken a back-burner to other subjects for now, but Afghanistan remains an incredibly volatile region that just (semi-successfully) held elections for Parliament. It's unlikely that US/NATO forces in the area will be able to calm the violence before Obama's planned withdrawal beginning in about 10 months. This means either an extension of the war, or a deal with the Taliban, neither of which will be popular with the public (here or in Afghanistan).
7. Mideast (and by this everyone means Israel-Palestine, we're not concerned with talking to the other scary player in the region, Iran) Peace Talks are a give and take of ridiculously silly rhetorical bickering from both sides. Despite some essentially immaterial gains by Sec. State Clinton in the process, it's clear that the US is powerless to bring Israeli leaders into line. I have said before, and I'll say again that I have a hard time sympathizing with Netayahu's government's position on settlement construction; Mahmoud Abbas has been more than patient with the process and it's time that Israel be the 'bigger man' on this issue. Israeli nationalistic pride is almost as scary as American nationalistic pride because it blinds all parties to easy pragmatic solutions. Let us hope that Clinton can make some kind of substantial breakthrough soon, and that both sides will continue to be open to compromise.
8. Given the strangely influential rise of Tea Party groups in the United States, it's about time that all members of this nation begin to prepare themselves for Sarah Palin to become President or Vice President of our Republic within the next decade. Newt Gingrich, Mike Pence, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and some other quiet up-and-comers require watching as well. I'm very serious though. Begin mentally preparing yourselves. It could happen as soon as 2.5 years from now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)