VA-05

Good coverage from local blogger Waldo Jaquith on the circus that is the 5th District Republican Committee: http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/... Debunking the claim from the GOP that Perriello isn't working overtime like he promised in the campaign. Perriello is holding 21 town halls during August. I dare you to find me a Congressman holding more than five.

And http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/... profiling the odd cast of characters running against Perriello. While all the articles keep name dropping State Senators that sound impressive (although some don't even live in the District!), the actual candidates so far are rather underwhelming.

The very best part of these latest developments is that there are so damned many candidates-the party has so little structure, and the bench is so...well, there is no bench-that they had to hold an informational session for potential candidates, presumably because it was easier to lecture to a crowd than have a series of one-on-one meetings. Where did they hold this session? At the Albemarle County Republican HQ, an abandoned bank-cum-christmas-tree-stand on the fringe of the dying Albemarle Square Shopping Center in Charlottesville. That's the same Charlottesville that Republicans insist that a challenger to Perriello can ignore and still win the race. If they really believe that, this is a hell of a strange geographic center for them to draw their candidates from.

The reason this is all such a mess is that the Fifth District Republican Committee basically consists of Virgil Goode and Tucker Watkins. There was no Fifth District Republican Committee to speak of until Goode switched parties. (What would the point have been?) So the party existed around the concept of getting Goode reelected. (Fun fact: When the prior chair of the Fifth District Democratic Committee retired a few years ago, the guest of honor at the retirement party that he threw for himself was...Rep. Virgil Goode, the very guy he claimed to have been working to unseat.) 5CD Republicans have never had to do anything else, and never prepared for the possibility of doing anything else, other than doing whatever Goode said to do. So now that they're tasked with actually having to run a candidate, they've got no structure, no pecking order, no organization that would allow a Republican in the 5CD to determine if they're a viable candidate or not. The usual rising-through-the-ranks concept doesn't apply. So any dope can up and declare they're running for congress. As they are, in spades, with many more coming, apparently.

---

by: FreeDem @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 07:08:14 AM CDT

My money's on Hurt getting the nomination

If there ends up being 4-5 candidates from the northern part of the district, he'll clean up in the southern part, especially since he represents the most Republican part of the district.

---

by: Johnny Longtorso @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 07:18:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Gotta Say....

I am enjoying these early morning Daily Digests!

My Can Of Contemplation is now open to all for perusal.

---

by: Don't Tase Me, Bro! @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 07:39:29 AM CDT

If healthcare gets passed, and it's a good bill,

the Democrats will sustain only minimal losses (mostly of annoying blue dogs), assuming the economy beings to recover.

But if unemployment is still high, and the healthcare bill stalls, we're going to have a fight.  

---

by: andgarden @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 08:32:56 AM CDT

I'd be willing to take a 20 seat loss, if I get to pick which seats to lose!

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

---

by: TheUnknown285 @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 10:38:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Nate

Wow, I had no idea someone could be more pessimistic then I am.  20-50 and up to 6 would be a horrible mid terms for us, so hopefully we can start working overtime now to prevent that.

---

by: Tekzilla @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 08:40:33 AM CDT

Proof Nat is nuts

Being more pessimistic than Tekzilla takes a lot of vitamins.

Obama is bungling things, but six Senate seats lost is absurd.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

---

by: tommypaine @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 18:38:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Boy, Silver's usually great, but he's lost his marbles......

It's mid-August 2009.

Corzine is in trouble, and I wrote him off for dead only weeks ago, but now he actually has an outside chance.

Deeds is in trouble, but he still has a chance to turn it around and recover and have a chance to win.

Neither of those races is a sure defeat yet, even though we're clear underdogs in both and have no justification to be pollyanish about it.

So Nate is off already predicting a NET LOSS OF 6 in the SENATE?  And he thinks a net loss of 20 in the House is optimistic?

As I said in my subject line, Nate is usually great, his analysis really is spot on, but even the best have the occasional bad day, and he obviously was in irrational panic mode when he spoke.

A year from now the economy will be better, and "health care reform" of SOME kind will have been enacted unless Obama and our Congressional leadership are far more incompetent than I think they are (and I'm not at all pollyanish about their gaming of the debate so far, which has been poor).  Maybe unemployement still will be too high for people's tastes, maybe at the personal level voters still will feel too much pain and fear not to view Democrats somewhat unfavorably, and maybe the "health care reform" enacted will fall short of anything people consider a real accomplishment.  But even with all that we'd still be in a less unfavorable political environment than today.  And even today I DON'T think we'd lose as many as, say, 40 House seats, or as many as 6 Senate seats.

Nate is a stastistical genius who also has a pretty good political analytical instincts, but polling today is unreliabe for November 2010, and it's guaranteed beyond any doubt that the political debate a year from now will be very different from today.

Now, it's very possible NO health care legislation passes at all, and that unemployment tops 10% and stays there all next year, or one or more completely unexpected things happen to hurt us politically.  But Nate isn't predicting ANY of that.  And absent such predictions, you can't really say we're going to lose 6 Senate seats.

---

by: DCCyclone @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 08:45:19 AM CDT

yeah

Nate's gone off the deep end.  I still maintain that no matter how bad the environment becomes next year for Democrats, we still stand to gain seats in the Senate simply due to the nature of the seats up.

---

by: skaje @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 08:59:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's a bit too sanguine, I think

If a real calamity occurs, I could definitely see a net loss. Right now, I don't think that's likely, but as everyone else is saying (and as I've been saying for a while), most of it depends on the state of the economy and whether decent guaranteed national health insurance has passed - but there are also other national issues, like how bad things are in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other trouble sports; and whether there have been acts of terrorism with more than a few casualties (i.e., more like the bombing in Oklahoma City than the shooting at the Holocaust Museum in DC).

---

by: Pan @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 09:05:01 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I wonder if Nate Silver had any hidden motives behind his remark

Face it, the Democratic party base needs to be energized.  By stating a grandiose quote, it may cause the Democratic caucus to look at the bigger picture:  maintaining its members so they can further a progressive agenda.  At the same time, such a remark could take the wind out of our sails, causing us to obtain a self-fullfiling prophecy.

I don't know of any Republican held Senate seat that is definitely in the bag for us.  NH, OH, MO, and KY are promising, but they are far from a done deal.  I could make an argument that none of these states are currently leaning to the Democrats.  Each of these states' candidates are having to fend off our caucus's inability to pass meaningful healthcare legislation.  

We need to energize our base by passing some meaningful, progressive legislation in the next 6 months.  Without some major accomplishments, we will be in trouble.  The saving grace, at least to me, is that the GOP lacks strong leadership.  Our disappointments have only fueled their base, but I haven't seen anything that shows that they are well enough organized to take advantage of it by November 2010.

---

by: Tarheeman1993 @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 12:06:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If that's the case

Then I've lost nearly all respect for Nate. Because while Nate is very open about the fact that he's a Democrat and a Progressive, he doesn't make projections like that based on what he wants to see or to have some sort of ulterior electoral motive. He makes his projections based on the numbers and that's where he's made his name.

---

by: safi @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 12:19:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I hope you are right

I like Nate Silver (I wished he had done better in the WSOP).  I just can't understand the logic of his predictions.  To me, Nate came off as someone who was saying "the sky is falling" when the sky is still Democratic blue.

---

by: Tarheeman1993 @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 12:28:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Then which numbers are these based on?

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 14:08:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't know

We have 17 seats up, and I think even the most conservative projectors(big c and little c) would say the following would be considered safe: Inouye, Bayh, Mikulski, Schumer, Dorgan, Wyden, Leahy, Murray and Feingold. That leaves 8, assuming we don't flip any seats. But even among those 8, Blanche has mediocre approval ratings but also no real opponent, same story with Harry Reid, Gillibrand has low name ID but also no opponent and does anyone really think a political neophyte like Carly Fiorina is going to beat Barbara Boxer in Cali. The most optimistic, realistic projection for Republicans would probably be +4 holding on to all there seats and winning IL, CO, CT and PA.

As for Silver's projections, I'm guessing he thinks if the election were today, we'd lose the above 4 and the wave sweeps 2nd tier candidates in states like Arkansas or Nevada into office

---

by: safi @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 16:15:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's not how I'm interpreting his quote

From what I have read, he's predicting these losses for next year.  He doesn't state anything about "if the elections were held today...."

That's why I am wondering how Nate is basing these predictions.  It's not logical to me.  Either Nate knows of something else that hasn't come out or there could possibly be a motive behind his words.  I dunno...

---

by: Tarheeman1993 @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 16:24:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

IMO something like that

Is almost implied. Predictions change based on situations changing. I don't know how closely you follow football, but I'm sure you've heard that Brett Favre signed with the Vikings. Because of that many people may have adjusted there predictions on the winner of the NFC North, for some the NFC and for some even the Superbowl. Its the same idea here, if we pass health care, if people really feel like the economy is improving then I expect Nate to change his predictions to take those factors into account.

---

by: safi @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 16:43:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

up to losing 50 seats

is more than a stretch.  I just don't see the logic.

BTW, I'm in a fantasy football league, and last year one of the dudes picked up Favre in the fourth round.  He was great at first, and then badly tailed off in November.

---

by: Tarheeman1993 @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 18:34:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Vikes winning the SB?

They never have before. It never happened and never will ;). But seriously, predictions do change based on situations changing, i absolutely agree. Although i am not confident that health care being passed will necessarily mean all is great for the Democratic Party & Obama. Even in the long term. The health insurance companies are a freakin joke but the federal govt isnt the most efficient entity in the world (referring to the public option here, of course. assuming that is ultimately what is included). If there are initial problems with the public option, in the beginning, due to bureaucratic mismanagement, then the public could sour on it. But Obama admin. seems to be on top of things unlike the Bush admin. Honestly, without even looking at the Bush admin's political ideology, i dont even know if id trust the Bush admin. to handle a public option. They would probably screw it up like they did FEMA.

---

by: HarrisCountyBrian @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 19:01:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What a healthcare bill would do

Is appease a lot of Democrats. And that's really what mid-terms are really about, who can turn out there base better.

---

by: safi @ Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 08:08:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

MO-SEN is definitely leaning D

I don't think there's any question about that right now, is there?

---

by: Pan @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 16:51:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No

And I think Robin could still win while Dems lose elsewhere. Like Mark Pryor in 2002.

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 16:53:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

To be rather blunt here (har har)

I just cant see Roy Blunt winning. Not only was he a former member of a very unpopular House Republican Leadership but has a toxic last name (fair or unfair, he will be judged based on who his son is) and recently has said some rather controversial and stupid things that will piss off many seniors.

---

by: HarrisCountyBrian @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 19:04:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ads

[...]and recently has said some rather controversial and stupid things that will piss off many seniors.

Great point. Expect to see them over and over again in political ads.

---

by: Pan @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 19:47:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Nate is forgetting

that summer vacationtime polling gets really flaky.  Early/mid August is usually the worst.  Moderates and nonpolitical people get pretty arbitrary because they feel no urgency, samples skew all over the place.

I'm looking at the current polling numbers as Republican ceilings.  They're not very impressive and will probably shrink starting around Labor Day.  

So far 2010 looks like a not very complicated partisan clarification election to me, trimming a bunch of the Democratic overshoot in Red areas and continuing the incremental dismantling of Republicans in Blue-tipping ones.

The New Jersey governor race seems to be turning on specific New Jersey executive branch issues, i.e. corruption and what to do about it.  I have no idea where this one goes.

The Virginia governor race seems to be about lack of variety, about little enthusiasm for a third pragmatic Democrat in a row- who, if precedent holds, will be angling for a Beltway job after a year or two anyway.  With Democrats holding majority on the Virginia state Senate and in striking distance of winning majority in the state Assembly, the lesser social harm and regional favoritism and ridiculous Republican fiscal policy arguments that worked for Warner and Kaine have lost pull.  I'm hopeful that Democrats get to majority or a seat or two short of it in the state Assembly.  Deeds support is low but I think he'll recover well and get to 47-48% with a decent amount of work- it shouldn't be a blowout.  The trouble will be those last 2-3%.  Maybe too tall a mountain.

---

by: Baystater @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 14:36:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Flaky summertime polling

How could Nate forget something like that?

I really want to hear more from him on his reasoning.

---

by: Pan @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 16:52:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Baystater, your Virginia prediction is good......

My thought, exactly, since I recovered from my emotional panic from the last SUSA and PPP polls, was that the late July/early August polling represents Deeds' floor, and he'll recover to make it a mid-single digit race.  And just like you, I expect the last few percentage points will be VERY tough to make up.  Basically, I expect the Democratic base to finally get interested enough to show up and vote.  But Deeds also is underperforming with persuadable white suburban independents, and getting them to switch preference from McDonnell to Deeds will be considerably tougher than getting base Democrats simply to care enough to vote at all.

Deeds has suffered, IMO, primarily from not having a simply, easily-absorbed argument for his candidacy, i.e., message.  McDonnell's is "Bob's for Jobs," with much of his campaigning elaborating on that simple rhyme.  It reminds me of Gilmore's successful "Axe the Tax" in 1999 when he beat Don Beyer by making abolishment of the "car tax" his central agenda in what then was still a hard-right Virginia electorate where any pandering with tax cuts was working.

If someone asks me what's Deeds' purpose, all I have is that he wants to continue the same good (and very popular) governance of Warner and Kaine.  But that's not personal to Deeds, he needs an argument for DEEDS HIMSELF.

Regarding summertime polling, I think you overstate the seasonal effect right now, and we need to remember ANY polling this far out reflects the current environment, not the environment heading into the actual election.  The political debate will be completely different a year from now.  It probably will be much more favorable to Democrats, it has a chance to be just as bad, but either way voters will be focused on very different things than now.  THAT is the REAL shortcoming of CURRENT polling.

---

by: DCCyclone @ Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 05:52:09 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I hope he posts something explaining these predictions in more detail

Because I agree with you, on the face of it, I don't see how there could be a net loss of 6 Senate seats. I'd like to hear which ones he's predicting losses in, and what statistical basis he's using.

Small point to James L. (and thanks a lot for the digest!):

It's Tom Kean, not Keane.

---

by: Pan @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 09:01:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks dude!

Fixed

---

by: James L. @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 12:47:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Spot on

We have no idea how the 2010 midterms will look.  It all comes down to the economy.

When the GOP has a 17% approval rating (per the Daily Kos/R2K Tracking Poll) and Congressional Republicans are at 10%, it's clearly not going to be a wave for the Republicans.  I'm not saying they can't win seats--in the House, they probably will--but any substantial gain would require the GOP to actually be well-liked, not just a dislike of the Democrats.  They may get a dead cat bounce, but there is no way the public is going to return en mass to the GOP.

That being said, it all comes down to the economy as to the size of the GOP dead cat bounce.  If the economy is recovering, we will have a much better than expected midterm.  If the economy is recovering and some semblance of health care reform has passed, we will have a good midterm.  If the economy is still sluggish, the GOP will gain some seats.  If the economy is still horrid, the GOP will have a big day.

My point is that, 440 days from the midterms, there are simply too many variables to have a good understanding of who will win.  A year from now, we will have a better understanding.

And yeah, I don't know what's happened to Nate.  Losing six Senate seats would require losing CT, NV, IL, DE, AR, and CO, as well as failing to pick up seats like MO, OH, and NH.  In other words, it's a very, very, unlikely scenario.

Mad At Thad:  A Blog Devoted To Ousting Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, Republican - Michigan

---

by: Sean Fitzpatrick @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 09:07:53 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

6 in the Senate?

Where would those 6 Senate seats come from? I could see us losing Connecticut, Colorado, Nevada, maybe  Illinois (unlikely, but possible), and then ... what? We could certainly lose Delaware if Castle gets in, but that doesn't look likely. What would the 6th seat even be? The only one I can think of is Sen. Lincoln's Arkansas seat, and her competition looks tremendously weak.

---

by: armand @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 09:16:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

That was the real head-scratcher

I can contemplate a 20-30 seat loss in the House (and that is the most likely scenario in my view), but a 6-seat loss in the Senate?

Looking back at the previous Senate sweeps (86, 94, 06), most of those were achieved with considerably stronger candidates than the GOP has now in the races armand mentioned. This is particularly true of '86 and '06. The bulk of the '94 gains were made similarly (Snowe, Kyl, pre-911 ad DeWine) or in Southern states that were slipping away or had already slipped (Inhofe, Frist). The victories by Grams and Ashcroft don't count as those were already R-held seats.

There were only, as I see it , two abnormalities: Spencer Abraham in MI, and Man on Dog in PA. I don't know the circumstances of Abraham's victory, apart from outgoing incumbent Don Riegle's involvement in the Keating Five. As for PA, that was the race where the health care debacle meant the most. Harris Wofford, the incumbent D, staked his career on creating universal health care (that's what helped him beat former PA gov and US AG Dick Thornburg 55-45). When that failed, he was considerably weakened. It also helped that Santorum, who had not yet revealed his true craziness, was a Congresscritter from Pittsburgh, which allowed him to cut deeply into Wofford's margin there (Wofford won Allegheny Co by only 50-47 after winning 61% there in 1991) and thereby squeak through 49-47.

This time around, I don't see such a big gain. Plus, aside from IL and DE, all of our weak seats have incumbents (and CT would drop off the list if Dodd retires). It's worth noting that only 2 incumbent D senators lost in 1994 (Sasser and Wofford). The rest were all open seats.

---

by: corran horn @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 09:50:20 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Recent history

They don't have a great record of beating Dem incumbents at all. Even in 2002 and 2004 there pickups were open seats except for Carnahan and Daschle.

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 11:21:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

and Max Cleland

---

by: fatcathobbes @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 11:41:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ah how could I forget

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 11:45:51 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Im not entirely sure CT drops off the list if Dodd retires

If Lamont runs and gets the nomination then he may still have a real fight against Rob Simmons. Alot of Lieberman-supporting Dems and Indies will go to Simmons over Lamont. In an 06 or 08 or neutral year then i would say its very likely Lamont would win against Simmons. But in a GOP year it may be a real fight. But Simmons is not even assured of winning the nom.

---

by: HarrisCountyBrian @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 16:08:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

In Connecticut?

It'll be mildly competitive but the only reason it is dodgy right now is with Dodd himself. Also I doubt it will be Lamont anyway.

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 16:23:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree i doubt itll be Lamont

He had his chance. I think itd be Blumenthal, the CT Sec of State (I wont try spelling her name, LOL) or Rep. Murphy (i dont think hes shown any interest so far but im sure hed consider)

---

by: HarrisCountyBrian @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 16:33:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

North Dakota with Hoeven

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 11:22:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

And PA

Toomey is doing much better.

But come on Nate, it is so blatantly obvious that the polls currently showing us not doing very well with Senate seats only started once the healthcare debate/debacle started.  If we are are still debating healthcare come election season 2010, then sure, these polls will then have some big portraying of our chances.  But our bad numbers are a snapshot of how the people feel about the healthcare debate/debacle, they're pissed (confused) and ready to start tossing out politicians.

And Dodd had better retire.  Im sure he just wants to protect his ego by not having to retire but protect your ego and dont get your ass kicked by a Republican in effing Connecticut.

---

by: Andrew @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 13:38:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Retiring

Better than going the same way as his old man and being defeated.

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 14:08:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

NY

I guess theres always the chance Pataki could beat Gillibrand, based on the polls, but I think, in the end, she would win handily. As Pataki was hardly a popular Governor at the end of his term. He would have been killed by the Spitz had he run for a 4th term. But who knows if he'll even go for the Senate, he doesnt sound enthusiastic by it at all. King is too conservative to win it, I would say. Really the GOP's best bet may be just to get some very moderate state Senator or a very moderate businessman who can self-fund.  

---

by: HarrisCountyBrian @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 16:05:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I suspect it's an "if the election were held today" scenario

Today, the economy is at or near bottom, and R intensity is way up.

If the election were held - today - I could see significant losses in both houses. I think Nate's numbers are consistent with history - based on analogues to today's environment.

But the economy will improve, and R intensity will dissipate (or cause a positive counter reaction among independents).

---

by: tietack @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 10:34:14 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

tietack, the story quotes Nate referring to 2010......

One can legitimately ask if Nate was misquoted, but the quote as-is says Nate was talking about the midterms when they'll actually be held, not "if the election were held today."

I respect Nate's work enough to go into a mild panic at first blush upon reading or hearing of Nate saying something like that.

But after that momentary sinking feeling, reason takes over and it's clear he's overreacting, contrary to his own best political instincts.

---

by: DCCyclone @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 13:22:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Im not sure I would agree with that

The financial market has significantly gone up since Obama has been in office.  While this is that important, it shows that Obama and the dems are getting the country back on its feet. The short term political effects of these stocks going up is that 401Ks are now coming back up to late 2008 levels and look relatively stable.  If the mid-terms were held today, I think that there would be little if any seats changing hands.

Bill Hedrick for Congress

---

by: daman09 @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 13:33:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What is really terrible

is that nobody knows that the economy is picking up because everything is about healthcare!

---

by: Andrew @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 13:42:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

People won't notice period until

Their personal finances get better or when they find a job.

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 14:10:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

To most average folks

Its all about their wages, cost and quality of health insurance, cost of out-of-pocket health expenses, job security (which does mean the unemployment stats, IMO as people will look at the numbers and then either groan or breath a sigh of relief), price of gas/electricity, etc. Like during many of the Bush years when the Stock Market was doing very well...theyll care less about the Stock Market, unless they are personally heavily invested in it, and more about bread and butter issues like the aforementioned.

---

by: HarrisCountyBrian @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 16:14:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Unemployment trends are key

If people feel more secure in their jobs, Ds will gain. But that's not the case at the current rate.

The right time(s) to take that measure starts early next year. If unemployment is going down by that time, we'll be fine.

FWIW, I think Nate was less than precise with what he said.

---

by: tietack @ Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 10:19:09 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I still think

the majority of seats that flip parties are going to be Govs, not Congressional, and the mood is obviously anti-incumbent, not anti-party. Dems will probably have slightly bigger net losses simply because they have more seats up, but Reps won't do terribly well, either. I also see most of the big states especially simply changing party control. (Dems get CA and MN; GOP gets MA, MI, PA and maybe CO; Dems hold IL, MD and NY, assuming no Paterson. Reps hold AZ, GA, and FL. Dems also pick up AL (assuming Sparks), NV and VT, and Chaffee wins in RI. Assuming we lose both 2009 races, that's a net gain of R +1 (+2 with CO, which I think could go either way.)

House trends will be entirely regional, as they've been in the past, with the worst Dem losses (minus outliers like Minnick) being in the Appalachian Kerry/McCain areas and/or purple Bush/Obama areas that either lean Republican or have a very polarized D activist base that's mad at Obama and won't turn out. Same with Senate, only you've also got a handful of races in solid D states (CT, maybe IL) where the Democrat is personally compromised. Agree that Silver seems a bit off today. I can see losing CO, CT, NV, maybe IL and IN. WA and ND are also both worth keeping an eye on. Still, it'd be a truly exceptional year of 1994 proportions for the GOP to run the table AND successfully defend NH, MO, and OH, and Silver himself said in another post that 2010 turning into 1994 just isn't statistically possible with as far as the GOP has fallen.  

---

by: notanothersonofabush @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 09:30:40 AM CDT

Forgot about AR-Sen

But as everybody else says, it's still unlikely. The Arkansas House seats are on the table, but why would Lincoln lose? The only people in Arkansas who have any money are the Waltons, and they all have her back.  

---

by: notanothersonofabush @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 09:35:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Lincoln's problem

Is that the bottom has totally fallen out on her state.  McCain won by 20 points last November, a 10-point greater loss than 4 years ago, at a time when the rest of the nation moved way left.  

I could see a wipeout of mammoth proportions for Dems in Arkansas just based on the partisan trend, all three house seats and the senate seat.  Incumbency is the only advantage Lincoln and the house reps have anymore.

---

by: StephenCLE @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 09:44:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not entirely true

The 20-pt loss was due to 2 factors: 1) Obama's failure to campaign at all in the state (didn't even send Bill there) and 2) Obama's race.

The AR GOP is far weaker than McCain's showing suggests. They are outnumbered 8 to 27 in the state senate and 28 to 72 in the state house--even after McCain's big win there. The AR Dems are WAY stronger than Obama's loss suggests. Mark Pryor won unopposed last year, and the GOP has had no luck in getting anyone to oppose the insanely popular Mike Beebe for governor (78% approval in the latest poll).

Where's ArkDem and ARdem? They did a pretty good rundown of this a few months ago.

---

by: corran horn @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 10:02:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm not so sanguine

Remember New Hampshire in 2006? Big sweeps are not unheard up after a realignment. In a sense, Arkansas is way behind the rest of the south.

I might also be keeping an eye on West Virginia.  

---

by: andgarden @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 10:07:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

WV What?

There isn't a Senate race scheduled until 2012, and Byrd's seat will become Joe Manchin's without any trouble (a lot of Republican business types love Manchin). I haven't heard of any challengers emerging against Rahall or Mollohan.  

---

by: armand @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 10:13:21 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

What are Manchin's positions like?

I assume not too good if he's loved by Republican business types, but will he be Ben Nelson bad?

---

by: clemensol @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 11:34:23 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

National Democrats

Won't like him on a lot of things. But at the same time he's generally unwilling to do much that could be politically costly to him personally - so I don't think he'd become a Ben Nelson, no.

---

by: armand @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 11:45:48 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Apples and oranges

Aside from 2002, NH had been slipping away from the Rs for the better part of 14 years. The big state-level switch in 2006 was, in large part, due to the strength and success of Governor John Lynch and the increasingly Southern flavor of the GOP.

In AR, the GOP has no one, other than AR-3 Rep John Boozman. They have no statewide offices, and may not have any candidates either. AR Gov Mike Beebe is hugely popular (78% approval as of this month), and he might end up being unopposed.

It's funny you mention WV, because, even with McCain's 56-42 victory there, Dems still picked up the SOS office, 5 senate seats, and 7 house seats.

WV and AR are special cases in which Dems have had little success at the presidential level, yet win blowouts for nearly everything else, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

---

by: corran horn @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 10:21:36 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

A bigger factor

I think a bigger factor in Obama's landslide loss may have been his primary against Hillary.  

Out of all 50 states, I'd expect Arkansas Democrats to take the most offense at having their home state lady beaten by an african american.  


Check out http://electioninspection.word... for the latest news, election results, poll analysis, and predictions

---

by: skywrnchsr509 @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 11:19:42 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Beautiful point

The Clinton and Obama camps had a certain friction that probably poured out into the Arkansas electorate.  While nominating Obama helped us to pickup Southern states like VA, NC, and FL, his nomination probably hurt us in places like WV, TN, KY, MO and AR.  I think if Hillary had won the Democratic nomination, she would have lost NC and possibly NC and FL, but would have won Arkansas and possibly Missouri and West Virginia.

Race was probably as big of a factor, just as you have stated.  Heck, George Wallace won the state in 1968, so it's not a culturally progressive state.

---

by: Tarheeman1993 @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 11:58:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

HIllary always polled better in FL

than Obama.

---

by: andgarden @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 12:18:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

True

However, the major Democratic candidates agreed not to campaign in Florida during the primary season because the primary date was moved up into January.  Obama wasn't as well known in Florida as Hillary, so that may be a major reason why Hillary polled better.

---

by: Tarheeman1993 @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 12:24:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm talking about in the spring of 2008

---

by: andgarden @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 13:32:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Which is not the same as the general election (eom)

---

by: Tarheeman1993 @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 13:54:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Polls for the GE in the spring

I mean come on, really. It's pretty common ground that Obama and Clinton had different bases of support: she would have had to fight for the pacific northwest but not Ohio or Pennsylvania. There would have been various other differences not  worth going into.  

---

by: andgarden @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 14:01:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Those polls were somewhat useless in Florida

There was a lot of tension in Florida as a result of the potential seating of delegates.  Obama was able to take Florida in the general election in spite of what happened.  He never actively campaigned in Florida until the Democratic nomination was sewn up.  As a result, his ideas and principles were not as well known as Hillary's were.  

I doubt if Hillary would have done as well as Obama did in Florida against McCain, but we will never know...

---

by: Tarheeman1993 @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 15:01:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

How I see Flordia

Hillary performs stronger with the Jewish community on the "Gold Coast" than Obama did, but Obama performed stronger in Orange County than Hillary would have with a stronger showing among African Americans.

The Cuban vote probably would have been about the same.

Hillary might have done slightly better among the conservatives in panhandle, but they would have made up a larger chunk of the electorate had she been the ticket (meaning more net republican votes).

---

by: trowaman @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 15:15:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Good points

I think the enthusiasm for Hillary in Florida would have hurt her with the African-American community, especially after the Democratic primaries.  At the same time, the conservatives would not have been as enthusiastic about voting "against Hillary" as they were for voting "against Obama".

---

by: Tarheeman1993 @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 15:40:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Excellent point

In my mind, there were only a few places where the PUMAs made an impact. One was definitely Arkansas, and maybe parts of suburban NY. The others were, as mentioned by Tarheeman, KY and WV. I think MO would still have been winnable for Obama if he sent Bill and Hill there more often.  

---

by: corran horn @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 12:15:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

True.

Arkansas is the perfect breeding ground for Glenn Beck's sick idea of a "revolution". More Kerry/McCain voters than any other state, center of the Appalachian backlash against Obama, overwhelmingly white, undereducated, low-income.

I think Mike Ross has become such a douchebag recently because he realizes this and is afraid. Very afraid.

Still, the entire state is basically ruled by the Walton family as its own personal feifdom, of which Lincoln is a bought and paid for subsidiary. If she lost, it would truly be an upset. Not saying it can't happen, but saying that, regardless of demographics, never underestimate the power of the world's largest corporation. If Wal-Mart decides Lincoln should win, she'll win, regardless of the mood of her state.  

---

by: notanothersonofabush @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 10:05:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

AR

Maybe you meant culturally simialr to Appalachians but AR, geographically, is west of those mountains. I know one of the mountain chains there is the Ozarks.

---

by: HarrisCountyBrian @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 16:22:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Pubs gonna pick up 3+ small gov mansions

OK, KS, WY just off the top of my head (I know you added the "big states" qualifier, but governor's mansions, of any size, are a big deal).

---

by: Ajax the Greater @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 11:03:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

WY

Has Freudenthal ruled out running for a third term?  (I know Wyoming has a gubernatorial term limit of two terms but for a long while reports have surfaced that Freudenthal will try to overturn this because some other elected offices in the state had their term limits overturned.)

---

by: mdouglas @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 11:12:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Don't think he'll try.

If Freudenthal sued to overturn his own term limits, it'd be the Western equivalent of Dodd moving his family to Iowa.

People in small, rural, non-Eastern states expect their elected officials to be humble. There's a good case for overturning Wyoming's term limits, but Freudenthal would become massively unpopular overnight if he was the one to do it, so he won't.  

---

by: notanothersonofabush @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 12:49:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Right, forgot about those.

I knew I was missing something when I argued that both parties would do badly, but Dems would do worse.

TN is another one. State's been trending Repub lately, and Breseden is basically a Republican in drag. Lots of Kerry/McCain voters, too. Say hello to Governor (ugh) Wamp.  

---

by: notanothersonofabush @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 12:37:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Republican in drag? LOL (eom)

---

by: Tarheeman1993 @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 12:39:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, yes, interesting image.

If you're going to go that route, most of South Carolina's elected officials also spring to mind.  

---

by: notanothersonofabush @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 12:51:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Damn, and to think CA-44 was THAT close to changing hands last election...

Bill Hedrick for Congress

---

by: daman09 @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 13:36:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yeah...

at least we might end up with CA-45 as a consolation prize. If we win any of the horribly gerrymandered CA districts in 2010, it'll be that one.  

---

by: notanothersonofabush @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 13:46:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

where is that nate silver quote from?

because it looks like bullshit.

nate's 538 has 6 of the top ten most likely seats to switch as republican and the top 3 are GOP.  i'm no math major, but that doesn't match at all.

approval ratings would have to be consistently in the low 40s for those kinds of losses.

the economy would have to stay bad or get worse.  

we would have to have no health care bill at all.

afghanistan would have to explode.

i'd say we lose 5-10 in the house.  gain 1 or 2 in the senate.

---

by: st paul sage @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 10:17:02 AM CDT

Yeah

He does keep saying stuff like there is 1 in 4 chance of losing the House but I don't know what he is basing it on. Certainly not numbers.

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 11:11:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Wait till Feb '10

to start predicting. I feel like 2010 is gonna hinge a lot on what happens with the health care bill and the economy and we won't get a good enough feeling of how that went over with the bulk of voters until February 2010. My theory is that we might lose 3 house seats and pick up 5 senate seats.

---

by: jmartin4s @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 11:50:23 AM CDT

Agreed

I might push the starting point until April or May, but you have the right idea. I think all this speculation is bourne out of a couple factors: 1) the health care free-for-all, 2) our nature as progressives to be hand-wringers (not all of us or all the time, but it is prevalent), and 3) sheer boredom/obsession. Being a political junkie can be fun on election day, primary day, and/or the immediate lead-up to both, but when there isn't anything concrete going on, one tends to speculate and extrapolate for want of something to do.

---

by: corran horn @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 12:10:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

ditto

Heck, I remember in August of 2001 that many pundits felt that the Democrats would be energized and take back the House in 2002, plus pick up some seats in the Senate.  Of course, September 11th occurred, and all prior predictions were moot.  The GOP became energized, the Democrats stopped being as upset about the 2000 Florida debacle, and the result was that the GOP gained in the House and claimed a small majority in the Senate.

I just pray that we don't have anything close to a September 11th terrorist attack to occur.  

---

by: Tarheeman1993 @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 12:17:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Even at this point in 2005...

I don't recall ANYONE predicting the Dems would take the Senate in 2006. The bottom didn't fall out for the Repubs until the Iraq War worsened, Macaca-gate and Mark Foley all happened, well into 2006. I think we're all freaking out a bit early.

---

by: greg91020 @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 12:23:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

and don't forget

Hurricane Katrina and the fiasco of a federal response.  

---

by: Tarheeman1993 @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 12:25:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think that was what pushed the R's over the cliff ...

---

by: IndianaProgressive @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 12:39:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

greg91020, you actually overstate our strength in August 2005......

Forget the Senate, no one in August 2005 thought we'd take the House.  We were confident enough at that point of gaining seats, but not confident of taking the House.  It was really late winter/early spring 2006 when I seriously thought we could take the House, and neutral analysts were slower to jump on that as a serious possibility.

And it wasn't until September 2006, less than 2 months before the election, that analysts started talking seriously about Democrats taking the Senate.  And even on election day it was only 50-50 at best that we'd pull it off, with McCaskill, Webb, and Tester all in pure toss-up territory, and the odds long that we'd pull out all 3.

But the bottom line is you're dead-on right that people are freaking out too early.

---

by: DCCyclone @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 13:45:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

yep

The thing about the House was what the '04 House elections showed: Republicans were maxed out.  The 2002 redistrictings was favorable to Republicans almost everywhere; in 2004 they won an election but if it hadn't been for the 2003 Texas DeLaymander they would have net lost House seats.  (And the open Senate seat contests all decided according to the Red/Blue state split.)

That election and probably the 2008 one decided when the moderate Republicans went into hysterics and cognitive dissonance about the failing right wing policies they had been supporting in early 2006- from roughly January to early March.  (Republican-leaning centrists had their dissonance, hysterics, and crackup episodes after the Terry Schiavo affair and then Hurricane Katrina.  But they waited to see what what their right flank- moderate Republicans- were going to do.)  Polling in late March 2006 showed all the generic polling numbers tipping Democratic and Republicans tanking.

April and May of 2006 the Republican leadership decided to try an immigration bill to rally their side to unity against the Democrats and appease their moderates.  But they didn't have the control of their hardcore grassroots they thought they had.  And that was pretty much it for them- they knew they couldn't save a lot of their House Reps in Blue districts.  They fought hard for their House Reps in districts they thought they could hold, they tried hard to hold the Senate seats.  But they were in quicksand with the electorate...from March to September the generic numbers stayed the same, one Republican incumbent after another saw their numbers erode relentlessly.

That erosion seemed to stall in early October.  Republican strategists took the undecideds to be Republican leaners (which was usually the case in elections for a long time...since the Eighties or maybe earlier) and started talking victory aka keeping both majorities.  Election Day the bottom just fell out for them.  

---

by: Baystater @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 15:22:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

1. We are going to pay for the senate placeholders in CO, DE and IL.

Certainly in resources. They will cost us dear. I hated those 3 appointments. The stupidest in memory.

2. We are doing badly in the VA gov election. How about the state senate and the assembly. I am more worried about these two. And Kooch as AG will be a big headache.

3. Any news about Deval Patrick? Paterson seems to get all the headlines.

4. Please put up a post about the midday (PST) big news - Christie did not report a loan. Corzine is looking better but not out of the woods yet.

---

by: fai calif @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 13:11:04 PM CDT

VA State Senate is safe

Not up for re-election in 2010. So, we got 1 part of the redistricting board in 2011 AT LEAST which is one more than we had in 2001.

I'm giving up my original hopes of taking the state assembly and will be amazed if we hold even a tthis point.

And HOLY F***!!! Cooch just might win based on coat tails. F***!!!!!!!!!!! >:0

---

by: trowaman @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 13:40:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

2010?

State elections in Virginia are in odd-numbered years.

---

by: davybaby @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 13:47:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hmm..

1. CO and IL are problematic, in that order. We could be seriously screwed in CO depending on how things go. IL is only a problem if Giannoulis' corruption surfaces and Kirk takes on the Bush 2000 "Squeaky Clean Outsider" facade, which is surprisingly effective on moderate upper middle class voters who think they know the issues better than they actually do.  

I don't think DE is a problem. Castle is the only viable GOP'er, and he's dreaming of Florida beaches, not running for Senate.

3. I seriously doubt that Patrick is going to win re-election with such high negatives, facing a split field, and trying to live down the Massachusetts myth that Republicans should always be elected governor to counterbalance the Dem legislative supermajority. Also, a real Republican, Charlie Baker (CEO of Harvard Pilgrim) is in the race now, meaning Indy-turned-Gooper Christy Mihos has problems. With Baker probably winning the GOP primary and Cahill running as a Dem-leading Independent, it'll be like the Pawlenty situation in Minnesota all over again.  

---

by: notanothersonofabush @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 14:01:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

2010 is still a ways away

I concur with some of the previous posts to wait at least till Spring 2010 to get a clearer picture. We have a rich enough election history to know that, barring some egregious faux pas, a bad off year summer does not a disastrous fall election make. While both parties had exposures and targets all around the country pre-1994, the GOP today is heavily invested in the South while we really don't have that many weak White Dems in the south; so the GOP's reach is very regional. In 1994, we lost 34 incumbents: 12 each in the West and Mid-West; 7 in the South (before 5 party switches) and 3 in the East Coast. The remaining 20 seat GOP pickups were from open seats here and there.

I don't expect us to have that many open seats or retirements in 2010. In the West, maybe we are at best less than 10 seats exposed (mostly interior west) and frankly, in a worst case, we lose half of those. In the South, with the exception of the ever-endangered but deft Chet Edwards, the incompetent John Barrow (his district is the mirror image of Sanford Bishop's, yet he tries to run like he's Jim Marshall) and a few of the freshmen there, most of the white Dems fit their districts well and even in 1994, our incumbents there held up well. The real problem will be the Industrial Midwest, which pretty much is the swinger in the mix (no pun  intended). So as long as enough $$ are flowing there and Obama at least looks like he is doing something serious about the economy, we should be fine.

I don't see any significant loss in the Senate; honestly, I'm saying so with a straight face. With the exception of Burr, all the GOP incumbents are safe, but their open seat exposure is just downright awful. We have the reverse but frankly, I don't see more than 2-3 seats flipping, which we should easily make up in NH, KY and MO (the GOP nominees are really weak). So all in all, I wouldn't be a wringer, but in the abundance of caution, I'd wait till Spring 2010 to get a clearer picture.

One more thing: The health care debacle (which is what it is since Obama, trying to avoid Clinton's 1993 mistake seems to have walked into the same foreseeable trap) will pass. There are other issues on the table, but there has to be a bill and while it may not be perfect, it has to be good. The GOP doesn't want a bill b/c the absence of ANY Democratic accomplishment is a more powerful recruiting tool than a non-perfect record. So the sooner we get his shit rolling the better.

---

by: Shinigami @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 13:46:48 PM CDT

Totally agree on all points

Particularly on health care which is why I sincerly hope the left doesn't fall into the trap of killing an imperfect bill. Politically it would kill the party for 2010.

The way I currently see the House is that Repubs will do very well to get 20 seats back which is half the 40 they actually need to get control. The senate is odd where people like Robin Carnahan and Paul Hodes could win even when Dem incumbents are losing elsewhere.

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 14:19:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

why does the left get singled out?

Under you logic, aren't conservative dems equally to blame for threatening to kill a bill that is imperfect in their view?

---

by: clemensol @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 14:45:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Both as bad as the other

The whole thing has been handled badly. The path at the outset should have been to get something that could get 60 votes. The idea of killing a bill without a public option is suicidal.

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 14:48:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I completely disagree

If the conservative dems talk about how they are willing to kill a bill that doesn't give them everything they want, then you are faced with the options of A) giving them everything, getting a crap bill, and getting a bit of political cover (until the bill totally fails to lower costs) or B)  Fighting back and giving them a taste of their own medicine.  

If liberals cave on this, they are essentially saying that the conservative dems rule congress.  Passing a bill should be about finding middle ground among 60 senators.  Not giving the 40th-45th most conservative senators free reign to dictate the terms of a bill because the liberal half of the senate is too afraid of electoral results to demand a single place at the table.

---

by: clemensol @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 19:12:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Public option

I actually dont think the Progressive Caucus is bluffing on the public option. Sure many will vote for a bill even if it doesnt include the option but i think most will vote 'nay'. Especially the most liberal & outspoken such as Woolsey, Waters, Kucinich, Stark, etc.

---

by: HarrisCountyBrian @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 23:26:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well there are gonna be two votes

I imagine some won't vote even for the public option first time around like Kucinich. What matters is the conference bill and I simply can't imagine Pelosi and Hoyer losing that vote.

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 05:11:33 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't think we actually disagree

"Passing a bill should be about finding middle ground among 60 senators".

That should have been the strategy from the outset.

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 05:13:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

How can you say

Greyson is really weak? I agree Roy Blunt is, but not Greyson.

A cat can have kittens in an oven but that doesn't make them biscuits.

---

by: Kyle98632 @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 14:28:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Nobody knows who he is

That makes him not particularly strong but I agree not really weak at least in comparison to Blunt and the history Portman has to deal with.

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 14:38:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What do you base this on?

People know him enough that they have elected him more times to statewide office than either of the major Democrats running, including being well known enough that he was able to win re-election by 14 points in 2007 in a horrible year for the GOP in KY.

A cat can have kittens in an oven but that doesn't make them biscuits.

---

by: Kyle98632 @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 14:46:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm going on the polling

He didn't have particularly good name recognition in either the PPP or R2K numbers.

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 14:53:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Averaged about 40% no opinion/not sure

http://www.publicpolicypolling...

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo...

As I said neither weak or strong. At least to start with.

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 15:01:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, let's be honest

Yeah, it wasn't a good year for the KY GOP, but Grayson wasn't exactly facing a challenging campaign in the least.

That said, I do think he's probably the strongest candidate the GOP could cough up here.

---

by: James L. @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 18:39:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Take all early polls with a grain of salt

If there's anything I've learned over 40 years of closely following politics it's that polls taken more than a few weeks before an election rarely accurately predict the result.  Face it, most people don't start paying attention to elections until a month or so before they vote, so any polls taken now have no real meaning - most responders don't know anything about the candidates.

Nate does a great job doing statistical trend analyses, but don't forget, even his model showed McCain ahead in September, even though there was never any chance that he'd win.  Sabato's predictions in July, based on nothing but environment, proved to be right on the money.

Yes, people may be frustrated with the Democrats right now, but that doesn't mean they're ready to turn to the Republicans.  I mean, a decade plus of Republican misrule isn't going to be forgotten overnight.  And while there may be a pro-Republican enthusiasm gap right now, there's no guarantee it will still be there in November, 2010.  Let's see how things look next September before anyone starts panicking!

---

by: LanceS @ Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 08:29:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Here's what terrifies the shit out of me

After healthcare comes the global warming/cap and trade bill.

The polls will only get worse from there as that is something extremely tangible to attack because our utility bills WILL go up.  How much they'll go up by is of course the scare tactic that will be used and people will think it'll be thousands or something.  Granted, I doubt that bill will be able to overcome a filibuster anyway but nonetheless, another HUGE stain on the Obama's record to the progressives.

---

by: Andrew @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 14:09:36 PM CDT

Progressives need to wake up

And smell the coffee. In other words recognize the senate is set up to block or at the very least water down legislation. The behavior in much of the netroots is, in some ways, more frightening than the teabaggers. "Reality-based" my ass.

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 14:22:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hold up

Progressives base our anger and desire for stringently liberal and progressive legislation off of facts, science, logic, and intelligence.

Tea baggers base theirs off of Fox News.  nuff said.

---

by: Andrew @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 19:59:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That was my point about being supposedly

The reality based community. With regard to the realities of the senate in particular.

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 05:17:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think the Senate will be smart enough not to even take up...

...cap-and-trade before the midterms.

Cap-and-trade is certainly a good idea, and Obama favors it, and the House voted for it by the skin of its teeth, but the Senate will never take it up this year or next.  It will just die in committee.  Just like EFCA.

We have 60 Democratic Senators, but we don't have 60 liberal Senators.  We have more than 50 liberals in the Senate, but it's only a bare majority.

The health care fight will have been too exhausting, and eventually they'll pass something, call it victory, and spend the rest of the 111th Congress on incremental things that are popular to beef up reelection prospects.

And I'm perfectly happy with that approach.

I've been thinking lately that the reality has to be that we take up one major controversial legislative effort in each Congress, and that's about all we can do.

The reality is that we need continued demographic change, i.e., more people of color in the electorate, before we can elect a truly liberal Congress.  I don't know that people realize how far right America veered in the 80s and 90s, with a big majority of white voters abandoning Democratic candidates, at least at the federal level, permanently.  We're far from getting all the way back from that.  Yes we have young white voters who also are on our side for the time being, and hopefully they will stick, but they, too, will take a generation to dominate the electorate.

---

by: DCCyclone @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 15:38:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Immigration!

That should be next, period.  It can certainly pass now and is viewed as a compromise, as bi-partisan, and I'd love to see polling amongst the electorate to see how popular it would be.  Immigration reform is where we need to go next.

Repealing DADT would be another good one, its repeal is supported by well over 70% of Americans already and if IIRC, even a plurality/majority of Republicans.

And No Child Left Behind, that'd be the PERFECT next step, everyone hates it, everyone thinks its ridiculous, most Republicans are even on board in that it needs to change.  While we will certainly disagree on how to change it, we can agree that it needs to be scrapped pretty much.

---

by: Andrew @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 20:06:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Immigration

Yes, definitely after Sotomayor.

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 05:18:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No way, immigration is like health care......

It stokes too many strong emotions, and frankly much stronger than emotions over health care legislation.  That's exactly what Congressional Democrats will commit to avoiding next year, if they're smart and I think they're smart enough at least to do that.

I'm with my fellow liberals on what government should and shouldn't do, but we can't have it all exactly WHEN we want it, and we have to keep winning elections to get it over time.  So let's give the American people a break every other year on stuff that raises high anxiety.

---

by: DCCyclone @ Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 15:34:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Certainly needs doing before November 2012

If Dems want to lock up the Hispanic vote.

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 15:39:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Before 2012

but after the midterm elections, I think.

---

by: Pan @ Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 15:49:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Exactly, Pan is correct.

Start immigration reform and go hard and fast starting in January 2011.  Fortunately Bush, in one of the rare few good things he did, at least got the debate started and discussions going in Congress way back when, and Congressional leaders have a decent sense of the lay of the land as a result of that recent failed effort (contrasting to the failed health care effort in 1993-94 which was very long ago with a lot of turnover in each party's caucuses since then).

Cap-and-trade probably should be pursued only then, too, although that will be harder if in the midterms we don't gain Senate seats and keep House losses to a minimum...which, by the way, I still picture as the most likely scenario in November 2010.

---

by: DCCyclone @ Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 21:07:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Lose 50 House seats?

I...just dont see that happening. The Dems only won like 30 in 2006 and the GOP probably wont have that good of a year. They will probably have a good year (and one of the reasons they have a real chance in some blue-leaning open seats for example) but it wont be like 06, IMO.

---

by: HarrisCountyBrian @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 15:50:43 PM CDT

The only reason they got over that in '94

Was all the open seats.

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 16:22:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

'94

Also, in '94 there were a boatload of conservative southern districts with Democratic representatives.  That dynamic is now gone.

---

by: LanceS @ Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 08:31:09 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

NJ-Gov

Normally I'd pissed at Sierra but if it helps Daggett get visability I'm all for it. The better he does the better chance Corzine has.

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 16:28:01 PM CDT

Nate's predictions are wrong.

For the simple reason, that the voters in general are still thoroughly disgusted with the Republican party, and that isn't going to change by next year. Can you imagine a whole bunch of voters changing their minds and deciding that what this country needs is to have the Republicans in charge again?

---

by: jward373 @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 16:44:00 PM CDT

I don't really think

that it's a question of people changing their minds, but rather a question of who shows up to vote.

---

by: James L. @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 17:36:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Quite right

And that's where the need for a decent guaranteed health insurance program and a sufficiently solid economic recovery come in. It really is the "economy, stupid."

---

by: Pan @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 19:48:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Fiorina Opens Exploratory Comitee;Colorado Polls

http://thehill.com/campaign-20...
Colorado Senate Poll-
http://publicpolicypolling.blo...

---

by: GOPVOTER @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 19:58:04 PM CDT

Per Silver: "Unlikely Scenario"

Seems like people think the "sky is falling" based on the comments quoted from Nate Silver. He calls the losses suggested in this diary an 'unlikely scenario' per http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...  

---

by: tietack @ Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 15:01:21 PM CDT

I knew something was wrong

Thanks. Here's the money quote:

Is it possible that the electorate which is voting in November 2010 will be so down on the Democrats that they trust Republicans more on issues like these? Sure, it is possible -- if the enthusiasm gap is wide enough, if Obama's approval is low enough, if the health care debate has been bungled enough, and if the economy is still hemorrhaging jobs. But I'd consider it something of a worst-case scenario. That's probably the best way to regard these Rasmussen polls for the time being.

And in that context:

The Senate picture is a bit brighter for them, but they are probably more likely now to lose seats in the chamber than to add to their majority, in spite of the spate of Republican retirements in Ohio, Missouri and other states. In a wave-type election, a net loss of as many as 4-6 seats is conceivable.

"More likely now." "In a wave-type election."

Do you all feel a little better about Nate now?

---

by: Pan @ Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 15:52:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]