Quantcast FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Missouri's Bond Will Retire, Creating Showdown in Show-Me State

1.08.2009

Missouri's Bond Will Retire, Creating Showdown in Show-Me State

Missouri's Kit Bond, in a move that was not entirely unexpected, announced today that he will retire from the Senate after 2010. Bond joins Kansas' Sam Brownback and Florida's Mel Martinez as other retiring Republicans; these things can sometimes come in waves when a party is having a rough year. Democrats have significant opportunities in all three states, although the Kansas one is probably contingent on Kathleen Sebelius running.

Off-hand, indeed, it appears that the Democrats might be slightly favored in this race because of the potential candidacy of Robin Carnahan, the popular Secretary of State from the dynastic Carnahan family who won re-election with 62 percent of the vote in November. The Republican field, by contrast, is a bit less clear. Chris Cillizza speculates that former Senator Jim Talent, who lost to Claire McCaskill in 2006, may be their leading candidate. My reaction to that is that having a guy who lost his last race at the top of your list is usually not an indicator of a terrific bench, although Talent's loss was close and came in a very Demcoratic year.

We can also look toward Missouri's Congressional Delegation for potential candidates; it presently contains 5 Republicans and 4 Democrats. One very basic indicator of strength that I like to look at is to compare a Congressman's performance in his last election against that predicted by the partisan makeup of his district. For instnace, Todd Akin just won re-election with 63.8 percent of the two-way vote in a district with a PVI of Republican +9. On average, we'd have expected the Republican to have 56.2 percent of the vote in an R+9 district in 2008 (as determined by regression analysis), meaning that Akin overperformed his projection by 7.6 points, a roughly average score for a candidate winning his election. The power rankings for each of Missouri's nine Congressmen are below:



The most impressive performance among the Republicans came from MO-8's Jo Ann Emerson, who won overwhelmingly in a district that is solidly but not incredibly Republican. Emerson, who was reportedly considering a bid for governor in 2008, is somewhat moderate on issues like stem cell research, perhaps making her more appealing to voters in swing areas like the Kansas City suburbs.

Roy Blunt, the Republican Whip in the 110th Congress, may also consider a bid. He too won re-election easily, although since his district is more strongly Republican than Emerson's, his performance was a bit less impressive. It's also unclear whether having held a position in the House leadership would be an asset or a liability to his candidacy.

On the Democratic side, Blue Dog Ike Skeleton would theoretically be an interesting candidate -- but only theoretically, as he's 77 years old. Otherwise, there is nobody who jumps out as obviously having more upside than Robin Carnahan, including her brother Russ.

54 comments

e3323 said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Juris said...

"will retire from the Senate from the Senate after 2010."

I guess that makes it doubly certain.

Cugel said...

"One very basic indicator of strength that I like to look at is to compare a Congressman's performance in his last election against that predicted by the partisan makeup of his district."

That gives you an indication of how popular he is in his district, NOT necessarily how popular he might be in the state as a whole.

For example, in the liberal 2nd district in Colo. even Republicans tend to be more liberal than Republicans statewide. So, how a candidate does in such a district is not a good indication of how he'd do statewide (something that didn't stop Udall from becoming the Senator).

Acknowledging this, Bob Shaffer, his opponent ran an endless series of ads attacking "Boulder liberal Mark Udall." It didn't work in this economic climate, but the theme was that the district (which is centered around Boulder Colo with C.U. the local university) is much more liberal than the Colorado as a whole.

Same thing is true in a lot of states, so the "carryover effect" would depend on whether the state as a whole was more or less like the district.

Peter Wolf said...

Nate, Ike Skelton, D+8 - should the predicted vote share only be 41.3%? I'm obviously missing something here or there's a mistake.

Cheers

Redshift said...

Hey, Nate, OT -- do you have any plans to look at the Democratic primary for the Virginia governor's race? this post about the demographics by Kenton Ngo, one of the best Northern Virginia bloggers, seems right up your alley, and I'd be interested to see your analysis of it.

PeixeGato said...

How long will the Repubs and other media people claim that the reason Dems are winning is because "it was a very Dem year"? We heard that in 2006 and again in 2008. Now it looks like we'll hear it yet again in 2010. When will people get real and say that the Repub party is marginalizing itself and becoming the party of the far right?

The Repubs are on the verge of losing ALL representation in the House in parts of the country north of MD and east of PA (with the exception of a few districts in NY), they are losing their grip on the "suburbian white-flight" voters (even in the South and Midwest), and their representation in the Senate looks like it could drop to a record low for a major party (does anyone have the stat on this?).

My bet is that after 2010 cycle, the Repub representation in the Senate will be non-existent in states north of SC (yes, 2 Dems in NC), and east of KY/IN. The only exception will be in ME. They also won't have any representation west of Utah/Idaho. The repubs will represent states that make up a relatively small percentage of the US population.

nkpolitics1279 said...

The Carnahan's are going to have a family conference in deciding which won will run for the US Senate.

On the Republican side.
Blunts,Talent,Hulshof,Steelman,Akin,Graves,and Emerson are second tier candidates- They represent the Missoura part of Missouri

Ickey said...

What about Dick Gephardt? He's not doing anything right now and would love to be a US Senator. Very viable choice, if you ask me.
-Jeff

Jen said...

PeixeGato said...
How long will the Repubs and other media people claim that the reason Dems are winning is because "it was a very Dem year"? We heard that in 2006 and again in 2008. Now it looks like we'll hear it yet again in 2010. When will people get real and say that the Repub party is marginalizing itself and becoming the party of the far right?

The Repubs are on the verge of losing ALL representation in the House in parts of the country north of MD and east of PA (with the exception of a few districts in NY), they are losing their grip on the "suburbian white-flight" voters (even in the South and Midwest), and their representation in the Senate looks like it could drop to a record low for a major party (does anyone have the stat on this?).

My bet is that after 2010 cycle, the Repub representation in the Senate will be non-existent in states north of SC (yes, 2 Dems in NC), and east of KY/IN. The only exception will be in ME. They also won't have any representation west of Utah/Idaho. The repubs will represent states that make up a relatively small percentage of the US population.

__________________________________

I think the Dems should be careful about crowing too much about a "sea change". Demographics are changing, yes, but we should keep in mind the Republicans were saying stuff like this after 2002 and 2004 (less so). I remember hearing something about Democrats being confined to the West Coast and Upper East Coast and shrinking fast. Things can change pretty fast and if you do not stay on top of it, you will be left behind wondering where you went wrong (see Republicans post 2008).

Peter Wolf said...

it's dangerous to talk about sea changes. In the uk rumours of the conservative parties death around 2001 were greatly exaggerated.

Sooner or later the democrats will screw up. The hope is that it's not for a good long while so they can fix the republican mess first.

Alex S. said...

If Chuck Grassley also joins the wave of retirements this will be another really bad cycle for the Republicans. Just by probability, it is safe to say that the Democrats will end up with at least 60 seats after 2010. The Republicans have just got one chance: they need to change the national climate. They need to get the Obama government down to a point where the generic Republican beats the generic Democrat. That's the mathematical way for them to keep ALL of the seats in swing states: open-FL, Vojnovich, Burr, open-MO. And if you take into account the dominance of the radical partisan fractions of the GOP in the current House and Senate delegations, you know that the next 2 years will be extremely confrontational. They simply have to do it if they don't want the Democrats to have a cloture-free ride 2010-2012.
I know, 2006 and 2008 were extremely good years for Democrats, but 2008 saw the collapse of the republican economic philosophy, that fact isn't going to change. I don't think that 2010 will necessarily be a "back-to-normal" that could make the races in North Carolina and Missouri too difficult for Democrats.
And Obama has got a few "bonus cards" to play to keep his approval rating high, even if the economy doesn't recover. He can, and will, announce the withdrawal from Iraq when it suits him best. He can also shut down Guantanamo at the moment he needs good news. If he really needs it, he can try to prosecute members of the Bush-government. These things are all measures that aren't hard to do, but they match the will of the people and they help to keep the public behind the Obama government.
So we have desperate times for Republicans and the next two years will be brutal. (It didn't have to be this way, Jeb Bush could have run, just like Sam Brownback, Kay Bailey Hutchison or even Kit Bond)

Redshift said...

How long will the Repubs and other media people claim that the reason Dems are winning is because "it was a very Dem year"?

The other claim I find amusing is that Republicans excusing their performance as only being "because Obama had so much money." As if the money just fell from the sky, and had nothing to do with the breadth of his support or anything he did!

DCM in FL said...

NATE

I agree that the results in the last 2 election cycles have been evidence of "...a very 'Demcoratic' year."

liking the new terminology, since many of the winning DEM candidates hardly qualify as progressive imho

Begich, Tester, Webb et al could be Demcorats [possibly even Obama]... better than Blue Dawgs

WV - prater [too easy...]

fred said...

You miss the current gov - he is a baby and a real prick but he is popular with the Sarah Palin loving crowd that is very powerful in the bass ackward state of MO.

Matt Blunt for Senate! He is an inexperienced and backward thinking as someone from MO should be!

http://governor.mo.gov/

EmilyRSVP said...

Two words: Jackson County.

Jackson County is populated suburban Kansas City area and if went Red in 2008, but it's not solid Red and if it went Blue, Barack Obama would have won Missouri's Electoral Votes. Jackson County needs to be a focus for the Democrats and Republicans if they want to win a major statewide election.

Correct me if I got this wrong...

Redshift said...

it's dangerous to talk about sea changes. In the uk rumours of the conservative parties death around 2001 were greatly exaggerated.

It's only dangerous to talk about sea changes if you assume they're going to continue without action on your part. If you approach them as an opportunity to press your advantage rather than a chance to coast, then there's nothing wrong with discussing it.

PeixeGato said...

I think Jeb opted out of the Senate race in 2010 so he could prepare to run for Pres in 2012. He already has Gov experience and was supposedly quite popular. Why would he need to waste his time running for Senate? If nothing else, it will give the Country another 2 years to get over the pain of the last Bush and reduce the ability of Dems to tie him to his brother. And if history is any guide, the nomination will be his for the asking.

gjdodger said...

Ike Skelton (not Skeleton, LOL) is an institution in west-central Missouri. He was my long-term congressman when I lived there in the 80's; on at least one occasion he had no opposition from either party. He's a military hawk so he gets the conservatives, Jo Ann Emerson is very popular with the agricultural community, and her late husband was known as a champion of hunger programs. Both of them outperform their party affiliations for those reasons. It's interesting you're talking about Carnahan for Senate, because Sec of State in Missouri is more typically a springboard to Governor. Sarah Steelman would, I think, be the GOP's best choice, and would win.

Joseph said...

Having lived in both Missouri and Missoura, I can say that based on the behavior of the people in rural MO during the campaign season, the last thing some of them need is to have their views represented on a national stage.

RWD said...

Matt Blunt? Get real. He didn't even run for re-election for gov because he wanted to "spend time with his family" as opposed to spending time and money losing a statewide race. He's history in Mo. He could win a House race maybe but not a statewide race.

RWD said...

"Sarah Steelman would, I think, be the GOP's best choice, and would win."

The same Sarah Steelman who couldn't even win a GOP primary for governor?

DCM in FL said...

Nate actually passed up the easy play on the 'Show Me' state in this post

I predict more GOPer retirements to come in both houses of Congress

including McCain choosing to step down rather than stand again ?

now if some of the ancient DEMs would just step aside graciously & make room for some more 21st century pols & new ideas

WV - mollemen [the choice for the voters was between the Lizard People & the Rodents aka molle men]

Kansas Jackass said...

I live next door in Kansas, and just wanted to say current Missouri Governor Matt Blunt is so unpopular statewide he didn't even seek re-election. Because of that, i'd love to see him run for the Senate :-)

nkpolitics1279 said...

In 2004- Every Democratic US Senator from the South- Graham(FL),Miller(GA),Breaux(LA),Edwards(NC),and Hollings(SC)decided to retire. Republicans were able to win those Seats due to GWBush's coattails. Had Graham(FL),Miller(GA),Breaux(LA)and perhaps Hollings(SC)ran for re-election they would have won. Edwards would have lost re-election.
In 2006- Democrats recruited top tier candidates to knock off
Santorum(PA)- Bob Casey, DeWine(OH),-Sherrod Brown, Chaffee(RI)-Sheldon Whitehouse,Talent(MO)-Claire McCaskill, Burns(MT)lost because of the scandals and Allen(VA)had his MACACA moment.
In 2008- Warner(VA)retirement,Domenici(NM)retirement,and Allard(CO)retirement were main reasons for DEM pickup. Stevens(AK)legal troubles were reason for Senator Begich.
NH,OR,and MN are due to Obama's coattails and the Anti GOP wave. Dole(NC)was a weak incumbent.

In 2010
Looking at the Democratic Seats up for re-election. Red State Democratic US Senators like
Lincoln(AR),Bayh(IN),and Dorgan(ND) will win easily due to lack of Republican opposition. Other perenial vulnerable Democratic US Senators like Boxer(CA),Murray(WA)and Feingold(WI)will get a free pass.
Republicans don't have a top tier candidate to knock off Reid(NV)and Bennett(CO). The Obama Seat(IL) and the Clinton Seat(NY)are too Democratic for Republicans to win.
On the Republican side. Looking at the Open Seats- KS(Brownback)is going to stay Republican- It is too much of a Red State. FL(Martinez)is a Democratic pickup if Alex Sink runs- The Strongest Republican candidate is Connie Mack Jr. Other Republicans like McCollum,Harris,Buchanan,and rest of the FL Congressional Delegation from Northern FL are too conservative to win statewide. If Sink does not run- FL becomes a tossup. Klien(FL-22)and Castor(FL-11)are strong general election candidates than Meek,Wexler,and Wasserman Schultz.
MO(Bond)is a number 1 Democratic pickup- Democrats have plenty of top tier Democratic candidates- The Carnahans,Susan Montee,Roger Wilson. The Republican candidates only represent the Missoura part of Missouri.
Other open Republican seats in 2010 will be PA(Specter)due to poor health and tough primary challenge. The Democratic candidate will be US Rep Allyson Schwartz or Patrick Murphy. Republican Nominee will be ex US Rep CFG- Pat Toomey or Jim Gerlach. Democratic pickup OH(Voinovich)because of a strong Re-election challenge. Democratic front runner is either Lee Fisher or Tim Ryan. Republicans will be stuck with Rob Portman or Pat Tiberi.
Vulnerable Republican US Senators facing re-election in 2010 is Bunning(KY) and Burr(NC).

Timothy said...

If Blunt (the Governor) ran he'd lose horribly. Not a real contender at all. He refused to even run for re-election. I somehow think that Emerson could be a difficult candidate to beat on the Republican side, at least compared to other people they are running, but Blunt would be a joke. I'd like to see Carnahan be the next Senator from Missouri, I think she could win it pretty easily.

tmess2 said...

The expectation in Missouri about the Blunts has been two-fold.

Option 1 -- Matt didn't run for re-election for fear of a potential scandal that would eliminate him and his father as viable candidates in 2010.

Option 2 -- Roy is the Senate candidate in 2010 and Matt is inheriting the House seat.

Steelman is too liberal for the Republican Party in Missouri (which since she is actually somewhat conservative says something about the Republican Party).

Hulshof is dead man walking after his campaign this year. Graves has issues of his own (possibly tied to the Blunt situation according to some rumors).

The options for Republicans seems to be Emerson, Roy Blunt, or Kinder (the current Lieutenant Governor and the only Republican to win a state-wide race in 2006 or 2008).

The Democrat will be Robin Carnahan, the next Senator from the State of Missouri.

joel said...

Way to early to celebrate. it all depends on how Obama is doing. if things are better in the country the dems will probably end up with over 60 seats.
If we end up in worse shape than we are now or there is a serious foreign policy problem the repubs could pick up seats in the senate.
It`s all going to depend on what`s happening in the world at the time.

Reece said...

Hey Nate, can you tell us who will win the BCS Championship?

just wondering.

Brad said...

A bit of info I picked working on the general in MO (and being a MO resident), is that Jo Ann Emerson is very unhappy as a Republican. Being a moderate in an increasing redder state and continually being marginalized by Republican Congressional leadership she has actually become a potential party switcher (similar to incoming MO AG Chris Koster).

While this would essentially assure a Democratic pick-up, since she would have such wide appeal, it still might not seem like the best Democratic option with Robin Carnahan likely to win the seat anyway. From my own experience though there are a lot of MO Democrats who would just assume bypass the Carnahan dynasty.

Roving Gambler said...

There seems to be a dearth of talent on both sides. Why not a Dick Gephardt comeback?

Ray K. said...

"One very basic indicator of strength that I like to look at is to compare a Congressman's performance in his last election against that predicted by the partisan makeup of his district."

I understand the reasoning above, however this doesn't take into account the fact that after two or three reelections as a House member, the calibre of the challenger becomes fairly weak and thus exaggerates the electoral performance of the incumbent. Thus this reelection performance will not always be a good precursor of a highly contested statewide election.

nkpolitics1279 said...

Missouri-2010 is going to be similar to either Pennsylvania 2006 or Virginia/New Mexico 2008. Democrats will unite behind Carnahan. Republicans will have a divisive primary between Blunt and Talent. Carnahan's win by a 60-40 margin.

Brad said...

politicalwire:

"The Cook Political Report mines voting and census data and finds that "in the past decade, the most significant predictor of a county's shift in partisan preference has not been existing partisanship, or even income. It is level of educational attainment. Democrats have gained ground in places where those with at least a bachelor's degree comprise high shares of the electorate, and have seen their fortunes fade elsewhere."

The trend line in the nation's 3114 counties: "Each year, the Democratic candidate performed progressively better as shares of degree-holders rose.""

Berkeley Bear in Illinois said...

Having spent a (limited) time on the ground in MO during the general election, in the traditionally red collar around St. Louis, I think that a Dem following the style of Jay Nixon (Gov-Elect) or McCaskill will probably win. That basically means winning big in the cities and campaigning aggressively everywhere else to hold down the score.

If the Republicans could nominate a moderate they'd have a better shot. The problem for a moderate R in a statewide race is the same as nationally - how do you win a primary when folks who love Sarah Palin are in charge, even though they know this backwards view is a liability in major popoulation areas? The trouble for a moderate D, by comparison, is mainly DON'T BE BLACK! I'm kidding a little, but I had some very uncomfortable exchanges about race on the campaign trail. Also, seeing as how he Obama lost by under 5,000 votes out of over 3 million, while Nixon won by 10 points on similar platforms, I have a hard time thinking race wasn't a factor. Of course, MO was added to the target list late, so the folks I worked with were all convinced we could have won with another month to win over a few more rednecks.

Obama's got some really great folks in Missouri, who were exceptionally fired up in 08 and probably can be tapped in 2010. McCaskill, Nixon and the Carnahan's all have good operations, too. Unless there's some major economic shift to the positive (that Obama somehow doesn't get credit for) or some massive problem that causes people to vote fear first (9/11 on steroids, in the Midwest somewhere), I think the GOP will have a very hard time keeping the seat.

WV hocost - the opportunity cost of using a professional (which Spitzer plainly did not calculate fully).

Charles said...

> Ike Skelton

Isn't he one of the brave patriots who stood up to the Bush Administration on the eve of the Iraq War?

I believe Thomas Ricks sung his praises in "Fiasco" - the definitive account of the first years of the war.

Corp said...

Matt Blunt is out because of rumors concerning him that are widespread through Jeff City and other Missouri government employees. I won't give credence to those since they are pretty scandalous, but sprout from the email records dispute just now hopefully being resolved.

I'd not count out Sam Graves - he beat back his best challenger in a few years against Kay Barnes and his district has, in the past been blue.

Statler N Waldorf said...

Ladies and Gentlemen... I give you... Ike Skelton


* Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation. (Nov 2007)
* Voted YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
* Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
* Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
* Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
* Voted YES on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)
* Voted NO on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
* Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
* Rated 33% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights
voting record. (Dec 2002)
* Rated 38% by the HRC, indicating a mixed record on gay rights. (Dec 2006)

Not a strong civil rights kinda guy.

51st Ward Precinct Captain said...

PeixeGato:
How long will the Repubs and other media people claim that the reason Dems are winning is because "it was a very Dem year"? We heard that in 2006 and again in 2008. Now it looks like we'll hear it yet again in 2010. When will people get real and say that the Repub party is marginalizing itself and becoming the party of the far right?

Word up. I get so sick and tired of reading and hearing --and in these very comments pages from time to time-- about how shifts in party control occur because "these things are cyclical," as though it's some kind of natural law of electoral physics aping the swinging of a pendulum.

Total bullcrap. Might as well not even bother to raise funds and campaign, then, since it's all in the hands of The Great Electoral Cycle. It reminds me of sports fans who talk about the winning team being "the one that wanted it more."

Whatever. Again, good call.

Graham said...

Calling a guy too old at 77 and then mistyping his name as "Skeleton" is the cruellest Freudian slip I've seen today.

PorridgeGun said...

Still can't believe Missouri went for McCrypt Keeper. WTF is the tragedy with those people?

Timothy said...

Put simply, Missouri was Nadered.

If neither Nader or Barr had been in the race, it would probably be blue right now.

After that what you basically have is a hard Republican base in the southern areas of the state that wouldn't vote for a Democratic candidate for President if Jesus Christ himself descended from heaven, denounced Rush Limbaugh and proceeded to say the Democratic candidate was a man chosen by God for the office. It just isn't going to happen. Even the kids in the area aren't exceptionally liberal, only moderate, which says something. It gets easier for them to go blue the less national and more local it gets. Nixon had no problem with that area of the state; McCaskill wasn't slaughtered (compared to other candidates the Dems could run), but still had issues.

51st Ward Precinct Captain said...

Timothy:
"Put simply, Missouri was Nadered."

In inverse fashion, and to the benefit of Obama, North Carolina was Barr'd.

And in the still to be resolved Minnesota race for Senate, both major party candidates appear to have been irredeemably Niemackl'd.

The Law Talking Guy said...

I would read the figures differently than Nate. They might point to a gerrymander in favor of Democrats. Gerrymanders are often intended to have one party "waste" its votes with large majorities in more concentrated districts. One would expect the party who could control redistricting to have narrow victories while the out-of-power party has bigger victories in its districts. In 2001, Missouri's House was Democratic but its Senate had a Republican majority. Its governor was Bob Holden, aslo a Democrat. Thus, it is likely that the Democrats had the upper hand in redistricting for the 2000 census, causing them to spread out Democratic votes more thinly for congressional districts. Because Democratic national candidates are harder to elect than to state office, we see only 4 of 9. But for a gerrymander, I would expect fewer seats.

Mike Develin said...

Nate,

How is it that Skelton (D in R+8) is projected to win 41.3 percent of the two-way vote, while the Democrat in Akin's (R+9) district projects to 43.8 and the one in Luetkemeyer's (R+7) projects to 46.7? Am I missing something here (more factors beside nationwide correction and PVI in the regression)? It seems like the function should be monotone.

hardcle said...

Nate,
There's an error in the table for this post. Sam Graves is the Congressman for MO-6 not MO-7. I know because I live in the district and Graves is (unfortunately) my representative.

--Blue Girl said...

Two words: Jackson County.

Jackson County is populated suburban Kansas City area and if went Red in 2008, but it's not solid Red and if it went Blue, Barack Obama would have won Missouri's Electoral Votes. Jackson County needs to be a focus for the Democrats and Republicans if they want to win a major statewide election.

Correct me if I got this wrong...


May I?

I live in Jackson County, and I am one of the founders of Show Me Progress. We are doing original reporting and covering events and we have earned a pretty solid reputation. I have a little bit of game here and numbers in my cell phone to folks who have a lot more.

This is Truman Country. We don't pretended that we even know how to play nice, any more than we pretend we don't like bourbon. We proudly order doubles. We are an old machine town, and never pretended that didn't happen, either.

Given the breadth of support of the Democratic party here, you are selling Jackson County republicans short. They are full of way more wingnutty goodness than you are giving them credit for. Remember Jesus Camp? That freakshow played out in Lee's Summit, south and east of Kansas City. Those are the republicans that send Matt "all abortion all the time" Bartle to the state senate. Moderate and sane republicans here don't make it through the primary process.

Nichlemn said...

"Word up. I get so sick and tired of reading and hearing --and in these very comments pages from time to time-- about how shifts in party control occur because "these things are cyclical," as though it's some kind of natural law of electoral physics aping the swinging of a pendulum.

Total bullcrap. Might as well not even bother to raise funds and campaign, then, since it's all in the hands of The Great Electoral Cycle. It reminds me of sports fans who talk about the winning team being "the one that wanted it more."

Whatever. Again, good call."

Of course, there is no single factor in party control. The Democrats had both cyclical and non-cyclical factors helping them. The fallacy is assuming either is overwhelmingly dominant when this is not the case.

Typically, this occurs due to the wishful thinking of partisans on both sides. Republican partisans believe heavily in the recent results being a pendulum effect, or perhaps the candidates weren't conservative enough. Democratic partisans believe that the recent results somehow "proved" that Republican ideology is "wrong" and the Democrats have a near insurmountable medium to long term edge now. It's the beauty of armchair political analysis - people can draw entirely opposite conclusions from the same data.

American Idle said...

You are looking at t his from an outsider's perspective. The obvious candidates are Robin Carnahan on the
democratic side and either Peter Kinder (Lt. Gov) or Jim Talent on the Republican side. I have heard speculation on Roy Blunt, but i fail to see him giving up his position and influence in the House to become junior-most Senator dep in the minority

By the way, part of the reason for Akin's large win (and I live in Akin's district) is that he was running against a token opponent (at best).

nkpolitics1279 said...

Roy Blunt is no longer Minority Whip.
Peter Kinder(LT Governor) won re-election in 2008 with less than 50% of the popular vote. Jim Talent lost two Statewide elections Governor 2000, US Senate 2006. His 2002 US Senate Victory was a fluke.
Emerson and the Roy Blunt as well as Akin and Graves represent Safe US House Seats. It is unlikely they will run.
On the Democratic Side- Robin Carnahan runs and will face minimal opposition for the Democratic nomination. Carnahan is the heavy favorite in the General Election due to her last name.
Carnahan(MO)is like Pryor(AR),Biden(DE),Bayh(IN),Cuomo(NY),and Casey(PA).

maestrokenny said...

Regarding the post saying that the Repubs were also claiming in "2002 and 2004 that their victories would lead to a permanent majority," and that the Repubs can back just as quickly as when they lost...

I beg to differ. The GOP let the power go to their heads way to far. I don't think a political party has ever screwed up this bad... I don't think the nation will suddenly fall in love with the GOP again in 2010. I don't think the Dems could do worse if they even tried. At least they give a dam and actually think the gov can do something right. So the GOP is going to regain power by opposing everything "O" does, right? Doubtful...

But back on topic. I believe Spector is done after 2010. Too old and sick, ripe for another primary challenge.

Yes, NV and CO GOP have a small bench of candidates.

Burr could definitely loose. Dole was not a weak candidate. She was overconfident, didn't realize she was in trouble until it was too late.

Cugel said...

Obviously we are in an era of Democratic electoral dominance nationwide. You have to look at WHY this is so.

People like social scientists Stan Greenberg and Ruy Texeira have been predicting this since 2001. It's demographics.

America is undergoing basic change from a white, rural/suburban country to a multi-ethnic urban country.

And minorities vote Democratic by overwhelming margins (40 points in this last election). Add in that under 35's are the most Democratic generation in recent history and you have a solid Democratic majority.

This does NOT mean that Republicans can't get elected nationally (see Dwight Eisenhower).

But, it does mean we are in an era of Democratic dominance just like the New Deal Era.

We've had 3 such Eras previously since 1900.

First, the "McKinley era" of Republican small government/rural dominance from around 1900 to 1932. During this time, Republicans won 6 of 8 Presidential elections and controlled Congress much of the time.

Second, the New Deal Era from 1932 to 1968. Democrats won 7 of 9 elections and controlled Congress completely, except for a brief period in the 50's when Republicans used the "red scare" to win control of the Senate.

Then the solid-south flipped over the white racist backlash against the civil rights movement and anti-war movements and became solidly Republican.

From Nixon to Bush II, Republicans won 7 out of 10 elections and controlled most of Congress from 1994 to 2006.

During all these eras the minority party could win elections, but voters basically WANTED to vote for the majority party. Thus it took exceptional circumstances for the "minority party" to win.

Certainly a Republican winning in 2012 or more probably 2016 is no more impossible than Clinton winning in 1992. Bush was unpopular and Clinton convinced voters he was a "new Democrat" who wouldn't support "welfare" and "tax and spend." In short, Clinton ran away from the traditional Democratic brand and won.

Other Presidents used different strategies:

Wilson benefited from the Teddy Roosevelt split in Republican ranks, but after him Republicans re-asserted control.

Eisenhower was a wildly popular war hero who was offered the nomination of BOTH parties. If he'd chosen to be a Democrat the Republican party might gone the way of the Whigs.

Carter won due to the Watergate backlash against Republicans, but Reagan beat him and started the extreme right-wing conservative era that's just ending.

Clinton's was the best example of winning without a war-hero or a split in enemy ranks. But, he had to GOVERN as a Republican -- NAFTA, balanced budget and "welfare reform" being his major "accomplishments" if you want to call them that.

Republicans want to believe this is all just "temporary" and of course it is -- if you're willing to wait at least 30 years until today's Democratic-leaning partisans die off or are replaced by more Republican demographics.

It took 32 years and the Great Depression to break the Republican hold on power in the 30's.

It took 35 years and the Civil Rights acts to break Democratic control in the New Deal Era.

It took 40 years and the rise of minorities as a significant voting block to break Republican control during the "Nixon/Reagan Era."

This new era is going to last a long time.

信次 said...

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,

freefun0616 said...

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,

,

uwanna said...

gucci replica handbags
men gucci shoes
Gucci men sneakers
Gucci men moccasins
gucci women sneakers
gucci women boots
Gucci men boots
Gucci
Gucci shop
Gucci bags
Gucci shoes
Replica GUCCI SHOES
wholesale gucci shoes
cheap Gucci handbags
Gucci ON sale
Gucci Belts
Gucci small accessories
Gucci hats & scarves
Gucci wallets
Gucci Handbags
Women Gucci shoes
Men Gucci shoes
discount gucci shoes
cheap Gucci shoes