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.
Showing posts with label US Senate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US Senate. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Future of PL and Future of the Nation
First, a note on important posts coming up. As requested, there will be a post regarding the recent Supreme Court decision about campaign finance, one on Afghanistan specifically, and one on war policy conceptualization. First however I will post comments on the State of the Union, noting in particular where Obama seems to be hedging/pivoting, and where he is not, referencing a question posed: from where exactly is Obama governing?
For now though I thought I would be right up on the news cycles, drawing attention to a (9 hours ago) fresh off the press CNN/Opinion Research Poll that deals with the health care legislation options. It will, in some clear measure answer some of the questions I've asked earlier about what it is the American people actually want by this "change" they have supposedly been voting for. And whether or not Massachusetts has signaled some significant shift on health care opinion.
Here's the rundown:
38% "generally favor" legislation that Congress has been considering
58% "generally oppose" the same legislation
While I would be someone who "generally favors" Congress' considerations, I can see it as reasonably possible that some disenfranchised liberals would fall into the "generally opposed" category, especially because it's only recently that I've even come into that general favorability myself.
48% thinks Congress should start over on health care
30% thinks Congress should continue with what they've got
and only 21% thinks Congress should just stop with this health care stuff
This is good news! Only 21% of people in the nation seem to be of the opinion that we shouldn't mess with health care, so if Congress passes something, they will be (hopefully) satisfying 80% of the public.
The rest of the poll doesn't do a good job of answering the important questions I've posed after all... The problem inherent in the whole thing is that Americans want a very large diversity of things with regard to health care, but mainly they want something positive to happen, and to conclude, 51% seem to look quite kindly upon the idea of health care reform that does substantially increase the number of people covered, as opposed to a health care bill that only changes industry regulations. What this doesn't say is how the American people would like more coverage to happen. What a mess.
Senate Democrats in particular aren't showing leadership on this issue, mainly because they're running terrified of what to do when the American people don't seem to know either. In the House, apparently, there is a growing consensus, particularly in the CPC (Congressional Progressive Caucus) that if the Senate can jump onto the reconciliation bandwagon, a few minor changes can be made to the Senate bill without branding the entirety of health care under reconciliation... this would circumnavigate the so called Byrd Rule which governs what is "budget" and not. In that regard still, health care is a stretch, y'all. Good luck to the House, but the Senate will always be the big dog on the hill : (.
This might be an appropriate time to rail against whoever the hell decided that we'd have a powerful bureaucratic Federal Government with silly checks like every state gets the same representation regardless of population in arguably the most powerful legislative body in the world. Imagine if all of Europe was a country (becoming less and less difficult as time goes on) and a country the size of Luxembourg or Greek Cyprus has as much power (literally EQUAL power) to a country the size of Spain or France. This is a rough estimate to the relative differences between the populations of Wyoming and California. This is a 1 to 70 difference; one person in Wyoming has the same voice as 70 people in California, and most importantly receives 70 times more federal funding. I'll have a longer rant to this degree in the future as well. There is an easy way to dramatically improve our legislative body without significantly revamping it, (though that's what we're owed by now as our old creaky system approaches 225 years of age) including our voting system, voting days and much more... but that is a subject for another day.
In closing I just wanted to make a somewhat unrelated additional note. I would like to remind my readers that in one (twisted?) way it is a damn good thing that the Democrats are scared of what happened in Massachusetts. No, I don't mean because they'll get their act together. I mean I'm glad Democrats and Republicans are still scared to death of the whims of the voter. It means that they are not comfortable enough with their position and power to brush off the (alleged) feelings of the people, and that corporate money can only go so far with an angered public. How wonderful that we live in a country where every once in a while we get to remind our leaders that even the most powerful among them must beware the ire of the temporarily all powerful voters. That reminder, though in this case provoking a truly misguided reaction by the leaders, is almost enough to be proud of the capability of the American people to defy expectations and terrify the establishment, even if that reminder is represented by a Republican being elected in Massachusetts.
Almost : ).
For now though I thought I would be right up on the news cycles, drawing attention to a (9 hours ago) fresh off the press CNN/Opinion Research Poll that deals with the health care legislation options. It will, in some clear measure answer some of the questions I've asked earlier about what it is the American people actually want by this "change" they have supposedly been voting for. And whether or not Massachusetts has signaled some significant shift on health care opinion.
Here's the rundown:
38% "generally favor" legislation that Congress has been considering
58% "generally oppose" the same legislation
While I would be someone who "generally favors" Congress' considerations, I can see it as reasonably possible that some disenfranchised liberals would fall into the "generally opposed" category, especially because it's only recently that I've even come into that general favorability myself.
48% thinks Congress should start over on health care
30% thinks Congress should continue with what they've got
and only 21% thinks Congress should just stop with this health care stuff
This is good news! Only 21% of people in the nation seem to be of the opinion that we shouldn't mess with health care, so if Congress passes something, they will be (hopefully) satisfying 80% of the public.
The rest of the poll doesn't do a good job of answering the important questions I've posed after all... The problem inherent in the whole thing is that Americans want a very large diversity of things with regard to health care, but mainly they want something positive to happen, and to conclude, 51% seem to look quite kindly upon the idea of health care reform that does substantially increase the number of people covered, as opposed to a health care bill that only changes industry regulations. What this doesn't say is how the American people would like more coverage to happen. What a mess.
Senate Democrats in particular aren't showing leadership on this issue, mainly because they're running terrified of what to do when the American people don't seem to know either. In the House, apparently, there is a growing consensus, particularly in the CPC (Congressional Progressive Caucus) that if the Senate can jump onto the reconciliation bandwagon, a few minor changes can be made to the Senate bill without branding the entirety of health care under reconciliation... this would circumnavigate the so called Byrd Rule which governs what is "budget" and not. In that regard still, health care is a stretch, y'all. Good luck to the House, but the Senate will always be the big dog on the hill : (.
This might be an appropriate time to rail against whoever the hell decided that we'd have a powerful bureaucratic Federal Government with silly checks like every state gets the same representation regardless of population in arguably the most powerful legislative body in the world. Imagine if all of Europe was a country (becoming less and less difficult as time goes on) and a country the size of Luxembourg or Greek Cyprus has as much power (literally EQUAL power) to a country the size of Spain or France. This is a rough estimate to the relative differences between the populations of Wyoming and California. This is a 1 to 70 difference; one person in Wyoming has the same voice as 70 people in California, and most importantly receives 70 times more federal funding. I'll have a longer rant to this degree in the future as well. There is an easy way to dramatically improve our legislative body without significantly revamping it, (though that's what we're owed by now as our old creaky system approaches 225 years of age) including our voting system, voting days and much more... but that is a subject for another day.
In closing I just wanted to make a somewhat unrelated additional note. I would like to remind my readers that in one (twisted?) way it is a damn good thing that the Democrats are scared of what happened in Massachusetts. No, I don't mean because they'll get their act together. I mean I'm glad Democrats and Republicans are still scared to death of the whims of the voter. It means that they are not comfortable enough with their position and power to brush off the (alleged) feelings of the people, and that corporate money can only go so far with an angered public. How wonderful that we live in a country where every once in a while we get to remind our leaders that even the most powerful among them must beware the ire of the temporarily all powerful voters. That reminder, though in this case provoking a truly misguided reaction by the leaders, is almost enough to be proud of the capability of the American people to defy expectations and terrify the establishment, even if that reminder is represented by a Republican being elected in Massachusetts.
Almost : ).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)