Races are ranked in order of their likelihood of changing parties in November 2010, accounting for all factors such as potential retirements, primary challenges, and so forth.
Likelihood of party switch has increased since last month's rankings.
Likelihood of party switch has decreased since last month.
1. New Hampshire (R-Open)
The Granite State vaults to the top of the list with Judd Gregg's move to Commerce. Gregg was a valuable player for the GOP: not only was he a Republican in what has increasingly become a Democratic state, but he was a fairly conservative Republican who was nevertheless fairly popular in a Democratic state. Gregg's designated successor, Bonnie Newman, is supposedly not going to run for re-election, and even if she does, she is not likely to be nearly as formidable an opponent as Gregg was. In an open seat race, Democrats are the favorites, especially with Paul Hodes already having declared his candidacy.
2. Missouri (R-Open)
Kit Bond has announced his retirement since our last edition, and meanwhile, Democratic Secretary of State Robin Carnahan has stepped into the void and announced her candidacy. That's good news for Democrats as Carnahan has polled as a slight favorite against several potential Republican opponents. It's possible that Carnahan will lose ground if the political tectonics shift back toward the Republicans -- Missouri is one of those states that could be vulnerable to a populist Republican revolt. But this race is at least a toss-up, and probably leans Democratic if Republicans have trouble picking their opponent while the field clears for Carnahan.
3. Ohio (R-Open)
Yet another Republican seat that has opened up since last month's rankings. The difference here is that the Republicans have a seemingly strong candidate in former Congressman and Bush cabinet official Rob Portman. Quinnipiac, however, has Portman trailing trailing a couple of prospective Democratic opponents. The good news for Republicans is that Portman has surprisingly low name recognition statewide, something he'll have no trouble fixing as he should raise plenty enough money to do some early advertising.
4. Kentucky (R-Bunning)
Republicans are trying their darndeset to get Bunning to retire rather than run for re-election, but it doesn't seem to be working, and meanwhile Research 2000 shows several potential Democratic opponents polling within the margin of error against him. One caution for the Democrats: I'm not sure that Daniel Mongiardo, the Democrat who nearly upended Bunning in 2004 and who has announced his interest in the seat, is necessarily the strongest opponent, as his negatives are fairly high statewide. Still, Bunning is not a good campaigner at this stage of his career, and if he's getting little institutional support from John Cornyn and the GOP leadership, he could be in a lot of trouble.
5. Florida (R-Open)
This is one place where Republicans seem to have a bit of momentum. State CFO Alex Sink, thought to be the strongest potential Democratic opponent, will not run for the seat. Instead, the Democratic hopefuls consist of Kendrick Meek and Dan Gelber, who may have limited appeal outside the Miami area. Meanwhile, Charlie Crist might enter on the Republican side. I don't necessarily see the political logic there, since Crist is entitled to another term as governor, but perhaps Crist is looking toward the very long term since when his second term expires in 2014 he is unlikely to have such a clear pathway into the Senate. If Crist enters the race for Senate, in other words, I see that as a sign that he's not interested in national office and instead wants to "retire" to a job where he'll never have to worry about term limits.
6. Nevada (D-Reid)
The fundamentals of this race have not changed, although it's been lapped by several others. Reid remains a very attractive opponent, but the Republicans are hampered by not having a compelling alternative.
7. Pennsylvania (R-Specter)
Specter will apparently not face a primary challenge from Club for Growther Pat Toomey, who nearly defeated him in 2004, removing one major barrier to his potential re-election (although, the National Review is not so sure about that). Still, between Specter's health and Pennsylvania's Democratic-leaning electorate, there are plenty of obstacles ahead.
8. North Carolina (R-Burr)
Recent polling shows Democratic Attorney General Roy Cooper running about even with Burr, although Cooper has not announced his candidacy yet.
9. Colorado (D-Bennet)
Public Policy Polling has newly-appointed senator Michael Bennet leading several Republican opponents, with the exception of former Governor Bill Owens who is not thought likely to enter the race. Meanwhile, Republican Attorney General John Suthers has said he won't run. This increases the chances that the Republicans will make the mistake of nominating Tom Tancredo, in which case Bennet should win by double digits. Against a more moderate Republican, Bennet is probably a slight favorite.
10. Kansas (R-Open)
Good news for Democrats: governor Kathleen Sebelius, who will be term-limited in 2010, rates as a 10-point favorite against a couple of well-known Republican opponents. Bad news for Democrats: she may be Barack Obama's HHS nominee instead.
11. Illinois (D-Burris)
The GOP's best hope here is 10th District Congressman Mark Kirk, but recent polling has Kirk with net-negative favorability rankings and in fact trailing Burris in a prospective matchup. And if another Democrat like Jan Schakowsky or Alexi Guannoulias upends Burris in the primary, as is somewhat likely, the GOP's path becomes very difficult.
12. Texas (R-Open?)
There are essentially 11 top-tier races, with a pretty big breaking point after Illinois. In Texas, which is next on the list, we are pricing in a strong likelihood that Kay Bailey Hutchison will vacate her seat to run for governor, in which case a Democrat like Houston Mayor Bill White could sneak into the Senate with most of the attention focused on the gubernatorial side of things.
13. Iowa (R-Grassley)
As before, Democratic hopes depend entirely on the possibility that Grassley will decide to retire, in which case the state leans blue.
14. Delaware (D-Open)
Republicans would probably need Mike Castle to enter, which is unlikely.
15. Louisiana (R-Vitter)
I continue to think that this seat remains overrated as a pickup opportunity, as Vitter's sex scandal is old news and as his approval ratings remain fairly high. However, Vitter seems to be terrified of a primary challenge, and could wind up repositioning himself too far to the right as a result.
16. Arizona (R-McCain)
Some rumors that McCain will face a primary challenge, but it's unlikely to be an especially credible one. The Democrats' better opportunity comes if McCain decides that he wants to retire.
17. Arkansas (D-Lincoln)
Republicans would probably need Mike Huckabee to enter, which is unlikely.
18. New York (Jr.) (D-Gillibrand)
Gillibrand is liable to prove fairly popular across New York's political spectrum and should easily defeat declared Republican opponent Peter King, although polling shows that George Pataki or Rudy Giuliani might have a chance.
19. North Dakota (D-Dorgan)
Republicans would probably need John Hoeven to enter, which is unlikely.
20. Connecticut (D-Dodd)
Republicans would probably need Jodi Rell to enter, which is unlikely.
21. California (D-Boxer)
Even if Arnold Schwarzenegger enters, which is unlikely, a Research 2000 poll has him trailing Boxer by 9 points.
22. Oklahoma (R-Coburn)
Democrats would probably need Brad Henry to enter, which is unlikely.
23. Wisconsin (D-Feingold)
Feingold is often on the Republican target list, but there's no particular evidence that he's vulnerable.
24. Alaska (R-Murkowski)
Unlike Vitter, Murkowski seems to be positioning herself to the left in the face of a potential primary challenge, which might further decrease the Democrats' slim odds of upending her provided that she survives it.
25. Hawaii (D-Inoyue)
26. Georgia (R-Isakson)
27. Maryland (D-Mikulski)
28. South Carolina (R-DeMint)
29. Washington (D-Murray)
30. South Dakota (R-Thune)
31. Indiana (D-Bayh)
32. Vermont (D-Leahy)
Democrats apparently don't need to be worried about GOP governor Jim Douglas.
33. Oregon (D-Wyden)
34. Alabama (R-Shelby)
Credible Democratic opposition is gravitating toward the governor's race instead.
35. Utah (R-Bennett)
36. New York (Sr.) (D-Schumer)
37. Idaho (R-Crapo)
2.08.2009
Senate Rankings, February 2009 Edition
@ 4:17 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
69 comments
test
Awesome post Nate!
Looks like Obama will get 60 in the Senate after all.
It's really not going to happen, guys. In fact, Nate, you should do a study on how much of a swing there typically is to the other side in the first by-election after the White House changes hands. It is not a reflection of either party's policies or the electabilty of its politicians; it's simply what happens when you've got a two-party system and one party's in charge--they'll adopt ideological laws and regulations some people will find unappealing, and the party on the "outs" will move closer to the general population on those issues that will attract them the most support. And here in Arkansas, I remain certain Blanche can lose. One thing to watch--we're the opposite of Virginia. Northwest Arkansas is getting bigger, population-wise, and it is as red a region as there is in the country.
I don't get what Murkowski is trying to do, unless she is betting that Dems and indies will vote for her. Or maybe it's just all a coincidence.
Is it possible that Murkowski is simply voting her conscience?
Nate, is there any importance to the order of the contests from 25 (Inouye, by the way - typo there) on, or could we just flip a coin for the order? For example, is there a reason why Mikulski's seat is more vulnerable than Murray's?
Nice rundown, Nate. In a neutral environment, it sure looks like Dems would go well over 60 seats (62 or 63?!?). However, it's very unlikely it will be a neutral environment. With that said, even if there is an anti-incumbent feeling, this lineup makes it very unlikely the Dems would lose more than 1 or 2 net seats even in a Republican year. They of course wouldn't be that lucky in 2012 though.
What Do You Think a Stimulus Is?
gjdodger said...
It's really not going to happen
Ah, the old rooster crowing causes the sun to rise each morning theory. And just what law of nature says it's not going to happen? None that I know of.
In 55 Presidential elections between 1788 and 2004, there were no credible racial minority, let alone African-American, candidates, so that meant no one who was not a person of European descent, who didn't have a European-sounding name, could not be elected, right? But in 2008, we elected an African-American who didn't have a European-sounding name. Couldn't happen? It did.
In 38 Presidential elections, from 1788 to 1936, no person was elected to more than two terms in office. That meant that no person COULD be elected to more than two terms in office, right? But in 1940, Franklin Roosevelt ran and won. Couldn't happen? It did.
From the first Congress, meeting in 1789, through the 63rd Congress, meeting in 1913, Congress increased the number of Representatives with the increase of population after each decennial census. Congress wouldn't cap the number of Representatives, would it? But it did, at 435. Congress now can't increase the number of Representatives can it? There's nothing holy about the number 435 for the House, and nothing in the Constitution about an upper limit, so just one piece of legislation could increase or decrease the number of members of the House. In fact, Congress did just that, increasing the number to 436 when Alaska was admitted as a state in January 1959, and to 437 when Hawaii was admitted as a state in August, 1959. And several proposals are now being floated to increase the number of Representatives - one such is known as the 'Wyoming Rule', which calls for adding enough members to Congress to reduce the population of the average Congressional district to the population of the least populous state's district (currently Wyoming) for a total of 569 Representatives.
Just because it hasn't happened YET, or rarely in the past, does NOT mean it can't happen in the future.
In 18 months, the Obama administration will have long since hit its stride and the Dems will be in a strong position to pick up at least 6 seats, taking their control from 59 (with the 2 independents and assuming Franken is certified the winner of his seat) to 65.
Once that happens, this country will really get moving in the right direction (ok, maybe I should say "left" direction).
This post makes me very happy.
I wouldn't be so sure about NH, though. They're the definition of iconoclastic. They may elect a Republican just because.
Reid, I'm half and half on. Everyone hates him...but will people think it's worth throwing out the Majority leader and a fairly reliable D vote because of that? In Nevada? His fate is ultimately tied to Obama's policies, perhaps even more than Obama's own fate.
If anything, I think people may try to primary him out. I think he MIGHT be more vulnerable from his left than from his right, even given the state he's from.
Specter's ass is kind of safe now that Toomey's decided to not attempt to cockblock him for the sake of ideological purity. (A CfGer would probably get obliterated in Pennsylvania, I think. This is a state that has been recently giving Democrats big numbers, despite all Republican efforts.) I'm not calling a flip on this - he's made a name for himself as being somewhat moderate, though I don't know how much that reputation is deserved.
Sebelius: I hope she doesn't have any tax problems. *rimshot* Though Senator Sebelius has a nice ring to it. (Secretary Sebelius also has a nice ring to it.)
But this is actually quite easy for the Dems, it seems. Even if all 4 D races in the top 15 flip (and I think Illinois will stay stable - either Burris gets primaried out or the people in Chicagoland hold their noses and vote for the candidate wearing Eau de Blago; after all, Burris's primary sin has been having an ego about the size of the Sears Tower), that still means that Dems only need to flip half of the red seats to reach 60.
My call with the D's personally:
I'm 50/50 on Reid's seat flipping. I can just see Reid getting primaried out, and a more ideological Dem might be a bit off. I can also see enough votes AGAINST Reid (and not necessarily R votes) that he loses.
I don't think Colorado will flip.
I think Castle's prospects depend partly on Beau Biden's prospects. If Beau goes for the seat, he may step off of it. Otherwise, if it's open, he might go for it. I'm not sure if he'd want to face off against Beau Biden, though - I think Delaware is surrounded almost entirely by blue CDs, and he is a mid-Atlantic Republican, which is also becoming an endangered species.
I've already given my thoughts on Burris, though he IS 71...he may decide that his ego isn't worth the hassle. Besides, he can already put "Senator" on his mausoleum.
what no mention of MN???? i guess that election has fallen head first into the twilight zone
with Jerry Brown running for Gov of CA maybe arnie is thinking of moving to the senate.
maybe mccain will decide to stop campaigning again until he personally oversees the economy fixed;).
that mccain...what a waste of air
Great post. It does seem like the Democrats could go over 60, especially if the Republicans continue their obstructionist antics while Obama remains popular. And Boxer should definitely put the beatdown on Arnold if he's crazy enough to run. The real question is whether, even with 60+, Reid will be able to whip everyone into voting cohesively.
Hey Nate, I hope you enjoyed Palm Springs! Sorry the Southland couldn't serve up some better weather for you.
I think you're understating the chance of a turnover in Florida. As long as Charlie Crist doesn't get in the race, and it doesn't look like he will, then the Dems should be favored because Meek and Gelber are stronger candidates than anyone else on the Republican side. Meanwhile, Kentucky is so conservative that a good Dem candidate will probably even lose to Bunning.
The Democrats will get a net pick up of 6 seats in 2010.
The problem with the GoP is that they think they lose because they are not conservative enough. So, they became even more wingnut.
It's like the current crisis. The GoP's ideology only allows them to advocate tax cuts and modest (another word for "ineffective") spending. So, like Rush Slackjaw, their current leader, they think that if they become even more right wing, more anti-immigrant, more fear mongering, more anti-choice, they will appeal to more people.
RNC Chair Steele should talk some sense into them, but they are basically captives of their ideology and beholden to the buffoons who are leading the debate for them right now, Sean Inanity and Rush Slackjaw.
It's marginalization time.
@ STepper:
Steele can't talk sense 'cause he has none. He's been on the talking head shows saying that government jobs aren't "real jobs".
What you said about repubs thinking they lost because they weren't conservative enough is right on, but Steele definitely isn't the one to change that. His actions and comments show you where he is taking the party.
There's no reason AT ALL to expect the Democrats to lose ground in 2010. Bush won in 2000, the Republicans gained, and they did even better the next election. The only reason that they lost in 2006 was because they fucked up Katrina and Iraq.
If Obama and the Dems don't mess anything up, I don't see why there would be any reversal.
Also, races are independent. No one takes into account. "Oh the Dems are too powerful, it's time to change that." They say "I like what I see. Let's bring it here." or "I prefer Democrats". So, states like NH, OH, and FL could definitely go Dem because they're trending that way.
One final note: The 75 Congress had 76 Democrats in it out of 96 seats. There already is plenty of precedent going well over 60.
Pixie - You're right. Steele is an idjit, too. He's the only one who could take charge and knock some sense into his party -- wrest it away from Inanity and Slackjaw -- but he is so stoopid that he can't do it, either,
The GoP will marginalize itself and by 2018 we'll be looking for a new national party to rise, probably of social conservatives with populist leanings.
The Business Party, aka the Republican Party, is dead. It died when, to quote the worst Treasury Secretary of all time, we socialized risk but not profit. Any moral imperative or intellectual consistency the Republicans could claim (and it really wasn't much) before the bailout, died that day, just as McCain's campaign committed suicide on September 15 with McCain's last "fundamentals of the economy" speech.
RIP GoP. We'll hardly miss ye.
The setup is looking really friendly for Democrats now. What could be the worst outcome for Democrats? Is there a real possibility that the tide turns that strongly against Democrats that they would lose more than one seat? And even so, the Democrats are going to get at least one seat "somewhere", probably in New Hampshire.
I think we will soon see that the stimulus package was a giant success for Obama, not necessarily because the economy gets back on track, but because people are going to feel the tax-cuts and see the construction sites. That's going to give the "feeling" that something is getting done, at least until 2010.
Btw, I wonder if there is going to be a serious opponent against Sen. Specter.
it's really not going to happen, guys.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1934
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Senate_election,_1962
:)
It all comes down to the national mood. If Obama is seen as overreaching, Republicans will be able to hold their ground.
But I don't see it going that way. It's far more likely that the Republicans will be seen as obstructionists of Obama's Newer Deal-esque attempts to get things going again, and may just get trounced.
The Democrats are going to have to sell national health insurance much better and combat bald-faced lies much better than they did during the Clinton Administration. And if they start losing support for guaranteed health care among their own caucus, voters will have good reason to once again question whether there really are two parties, rather than Republicans and Republicans-lite. In that case, don't expect the voters to be rational, and vote for Republicans-lite; expect the disgusted Democratic voters to stay home and watch as the party they'd prefer to support gets seriously damaged at the polls.
Don't get me wrong; I don't mean to be a "concern troll" and suggest this as the only or even necessarily the likely outcome. But it IS possible, and those of you already writing the epitaph of the Republican Party as irretrievable dead, in my opinion, are paying too little attention to both history and zombie movies. :-)
gjdodger said...
"It's really not going to happen, guys. In fact, Nate, you should do a study on how much of a swing there typically is to the other side in the first by-election after the White House changes hands."
Since FDR's election in 1932, there have been 9 newly elected presidents(excluding Truman, Johnson, and Ford who ascended to the presidency), and in all but one case(Bush I) their election resulted in the WH switching parties. The results in the subsequent Senate midterms don't show any real pattern, so I'm not sure where people are getting this oft repeated notion.
1934 - FDR - Dems pick up 9
1954 - Ike - Dems pick up 2
1962 - JFK - Dems pick up 4
1970 - Nixon - GOP picks up 2
1978 - Cater - GOP picks up 3
1982 - Reagan - No Change
1990 - GHWB - Dems pick up 1
1994 - Clinton - GOP picks up 8
2002 - GWB - GOP picks up 2
So in those 9 elections, the President's party gained seats in 4, lost seats in 4, and had no change in 1.
David Vitter's Penis
This from a man that visits prostitutes
@Mike in Maryland
In 38 Presidential elections, from 1788 to 1936, no person was elected to more than two terms in office. That meant that no person COULD be elected to more than two terms in office, right? But in 1940, Franklin Roosevelt ran and won. Couldn't happen? It did.
Up to that point, no one had ever tried to run for a third term except Teddy Roosevelt on a third-party ticket.
@Statler
Are you forgetting that Vitter (like so many other repubs) has a Masters in Hypocrisy?
Vitter in 2004
I'm still trying to figure out what it is about WWII that McConnell thinks revived the economy. Since it couldn't be the fact that WWII was basically a giant f'n spending package, I'm guessing he thinks a declaration of war against Angel Merkel would be the best form of economic stimulus.
GOP Reaction to Obama's reminder that the Democrats won the last election
Not only was WWII a gigantic spending program; it was also paid for by borrowing: War Bonds.
Kylopod said...
Up to [1936], no one had ever tried to run for a third term except Teddy Roosevelt on a third-party ticket.
Did I say that no one had tried?
No. I clearly stated that "no person was elected to more than two terms in office."
And yet you disprove your own message by bringing up the fact that Teddy Roosevelt DID run for another term (although it would have been only the second election in which he ran for President - he was President from 1901 to 1905 only because McKinley had been assassinated, FYI).
The difference between most GOOPers on this site and the Democrats who post here:
Most GOOPers don't do much research, they just like to spout the worn-out, or patently false, rantings of Lush Rimbaugh, Bill O'Lielly or Faux News, and can't accept corrections and/or opposing viewpoints to their posts.
Meanwhile, the Democrats who post here are usually well-versed in the facts, do research, and listen to valid counter-arguments. They also can admit to errors in their posts when those errors are pointed out.
If Obama were to bring back the War Bond, and maybe restyle it as the Peace Dividend or something like that, I would gladly buy as many as I can afford.
I would be very proud to invest in my country in it's time of need. Whenever President Obama calls us to serve the US, I'll be right there at the head of the line. I support this President, and I'm glad we've finally got one I can believe in.
"Up to that point, no one had ever tried to run for a third term except Teddy Roosevelt on a third-party ticket."
FALSE!
Grant wanted to run in 1876 but lost the primary to Rutherford B. Hayes.
You're also forgetting that many presidents might have wanted a third term but many:
A. Never got the second term
B. Were too old
C. Died
I mean seriously, is a simple GOOGLE too much to ask?
Chris said...
I think Delaware is surrounded almost entirely by blue CDs
True, especially in Maryland, but really almost by 'accident'. Maryland's 1st CD (the entire Maryland Eastern Shore plus some areas west of the Bay) is a fairly conservative CD, surrounding Delaware on the south and the west. The seat is currently held by Frank Kratovil because the GOOPers voted for a Club for Growth candidate (Andy Harris) in the primary (defeating Wayne Gilchrest) that even the mostly conservative Maryland 1st CD voters couldn't stand. If Harris hadn't defeated Gilchrest, Maryland CD 1 would almost certainly still be held by the Rs.
Statler, the problem is that repubs would just paint it as more reckless borrowing for wasteful spending programs and "Democrat pet projects" and that the Dems are too caught up in "spending our way out of this". They'd say "we wouldn't need to borrow if we got rid of all of this wasteful spending".
That's not to say I don't think its a good idea and that I wouldn't support it (because I would), but I can already see the talking points response being sent out to the ditto heads. It would, however, be something that would bring people together for the common cause.
I think expanding a program like AmeriCorps to provide full-time community service jobs to people who are unemployed would be a great way to go and a great way to rally the people. This would get people working, get them involved in improving their local communities, and its something that could be implemented at the local level (which should garner some support from people who hate to see the Fed with so much control over spending).
The repubs have such a small and repetitive playbook that I'm amazed that they are still able to catch people off guard.
David Vitter on Marriage
PG,
I think the playbook is losing some of it's effectiveness.
The Wall Street Meltdown shocked alot of people out of complacency. People in the US are willing to put up with alot of social ills-police brutality, institutionalized racism, homophobia and misogyny, unnecessary wars, high-level political scandals, civil rights abuses-but the one thing that gets every American up on their feet yelling "What the Fuck?" is when you mess around with their money.
The Rovian style of politics lost all credibility the day shareholders in Lehman Brothers lost their shirts. When AIG and Merrill started tottering as well, people decided they had enough of Rove's shit.
Observe the Stimulus Package. It's alot of money, but it sailed through the House, and as far as Senate opposition goes-well, it's been less than 1 week since it hit the Senate floor, and it looks like it'll be a done deal by Tuesday.
And that is with McConnell and Boehner throwing everything that had at their disposal to stop it.
People are very frightened, because the unemployment rate is rapidly approaching double digits. Alot of people's nest eggs became gourmet omlettes served to the CEO of Lehman Brothers, and people aren't going to forgive that. the State of California has started issuing IOUs in lieu of tax returns. To rich Republican voting elites.
Who have by now noticed the feeble attempts of their party to stop the one thing that might result in real money being given to them instead of IOUs.
Which is what makes previously loyal Republican voters stay home on election day. They can't heed the usual GOP request that they go shop patriotically when there's no money in the bank and they can't get credit.
War Bonds will allow people to get the idea they're doing something instead of sitting there in desperation hoping someone out there can save them. That kinda thing makes red states turn blue.
There's nothing I'd like to see more than Harry Reid go down.
And I say that as a Democrat.
Only if he is beaten in a primary. Any Republican would vote much worse than he does, and don't forget it.
@Mike in Maryland
Did I say that no one had tried?
No. I clearly stated that "no person was elected to more than two terms in office."
Of course. But it differs from your other examples and from the original subject (the party in power gaining seats during a midterm), which all have to do with succeeding where people in the past have failed.
And yet you disprove your own message
What is with you? Do you understand basic syntax? Statements of the form "No one did X except for Y" aren't self-contradictory, they're just stating a rule followed by an exception.
My point about Teddy Roosevelt was simply that he ran on a third party, which greatly decreases the chances of getting elected. In other words, FDR was the first to run on a major-party ticket for a third term.
Grant was considered as a candidate for a third term by delegates at the 1880 convention, but he wasn't nominated.
The difference between most GOOPers on this site and the Democrats who post here:
Most GOOPers don't do much research, they just like to spout the worn-out, or patently false, rantings of Lush Rimbaugh, Bill O'Lielly or Faux News, and can't accept corrections and/or opposing viewpoints to their posts.
Meanwhile, the Democrats who post here are usually well-versed in the facts, do research, and listen to valid counter-arguments. They also can admit to errors in their posts when those errors are pointed out.
1. Where did you get the idea that I'm a GOPer?
2. Where did you get the idea that I was attacking you?
3. How exactly was I spouting right-wing talking points?
4. What about my comment was unresearched? I'm certainly willing to admit to mistakes, but your hostility is uncalled for.
Kylopod said...
blah, blah, blah
I think you just proved the point I was making - GOOPers can't think, they just parrot back the 'talking points' that Lush Rimbaugh, Bill O'Lielly and Faux News have fed to them. When required to think for themselves, they get lost in their own rhetoric; can't think logically; and fail to even read, especially in the context of the subject matter to which they are [attempting to] respond.
And I bet you STILL think that the rooster crowing is what causes the sun to rise.
I think you just proved the point I was making - GOOPers can't think, they just parrot back the 'talking points' that Lush Rimbaugh, Bill O'Lielly and Faux News have fed to them. When required to think for themselves, they get lost in their own rhetoric; can't think logically; and fail to even read, especially in the context of the subject matter to which they are [attempting to] respond.
Ah, a Freepers with a different hat.
Best thing for the country? Let all the Letter Warriors, Team R and Team D, kill each other and leave the adults behind.
We can then use their estates to balance the budget and close the national debt.
Mike in Maryland -
Kylopod was making a valid, accurate, and nonpartisan point about your example that for much of the 19th and early 20th century, most candidates didn't have the opportunity and desire to run for a third term.
It wasn't a personal attack nor "right-wing talking points." There may be plenty of uninformed conservatives in the world to criticize, but let's try not to lump anyone who disagrees with you into that group.
*sigh* I don't know whether to laugh or cry. The idea that I'm parroting right-wing talking points and proving the brainlessness of the GOP is sadly hilarious to anyone who knows me, or simply bothers to click on my name and take a look at my blog.
But since you apparently didn't get the hints in my last post, I guess I have to be more explicit.
I am not, and have never been, a GOPer. I'm a lifelong Democrat, a staunch Obama supporter, and an admirer of Nate Silver's site--which is why I'm here. I have hardly ever listened to Limbaugh, O'Reilly, or Fox News. I have read several of Al Franken's books, though.
Why you assumed otherwise is really curious to me. All I did was challenge one small point of yours within a post I generally agreed with. And it was hardly over a partisan matter.
I've been reading and occasionally commenting on this site for some time, and I've noticed your name before, because I'm from Maryland too. I thought, if anything, that we could share a few points based on our common residence.
I have an unfortunate tendency to nitpick, and although I am a skilled debater, I tend to favor analysis over polemics. My comments were in no way intended as an attack on you, and I was even half-expecting that somebody might correct me and name some earlier presidents who ran for a third term. That would not have bothered me, because I enjoy learning new things, and I am in particular a junkie for presidential trivia. I honestly wasn't trying to "win" the argument, but simply engaging in a casual analysis of one point.
You have vastly misread my intentions. I hope you will reconsider your initial reaction to me, because we probably have a lot more common than you realize.
I recommend Harry Reid's book "The Good Fight." It's a very good read and you may find out why the Dem. senators rally behind him and keep choosing him as their leader. He's very blunt in the book--says Barbara Bush is a bitch, Specter is always with you til you need him, etc. Happily he managed to get Specter's vote this time. Just go to the library and read the chapter on Reid's childhood in Searchlight, Nev. Terrible tough years, but great writing and funny, too.
By the way there's a good New Yorker profile of Reid online --Hillary is quoted as saying "Harry Reid has a spine of steel." His appearance belies his character and ability. I think he'll have no trouble getting re-elected.
Mark, I don't think it's his appearance that bugs so many liberals. It's the fact that he caved in over and over on vital issues of substance, such as the Iraq War, torture, supposed Executive privilege, domestic spying, extremist judicial appointments such as Alito, etc., etc. Just compare how stiff Republican resistance is now with how limp the Democratic _majority_ was for the last 2 years of GW's presidency.
Kylopod,
As Statler will tell you, if someone present inaccurate information and I see it, there's a good probability that I will challenge that person on it. I don't care if you have many or most of the same political viewpoints that I do, I WILL CALL YOU ON INACCURACIES if and when I see them.
Statler will also tell you that I'm 'a little rough around the edges.' I disagree with that observation. I'm blunt and sarcastic, but I post in that manner to make a point - to make the person THINK about the facts before they post.
The major mistake you made was saying 'Up to that point, no one had ever tried to run for a third term except Teddy Roosevelt on a third-party ticket.'
That was in response to my statement that 'no person was elected to more than two terms in office.' And then it was pointed out that US Grant had his name placed into nomination at the 1876 Republican National Convention. So your 'no one' was disproved by you by mentioning TR, then Gavstern pointed out US Grant's attempt in 1876. I don't call that 'no one', especially when they occurred within 36 years of each other.
You also failed when you said you were 'stating a rule followed by an exception.' You were not 'stating a rule followed by an exception', because if it IS a rule, then there ARE no exceptions.
If you are who and what you say you are, then realize that, in my eyes, those who don't get the facts in order are the ones throwing propaganda, and they are almost always GOOPers. Continue to throw out inaccurate information and then take offense if it is corrected, and I WILL call you on it. Keep doing it, even on minor points, and I'll treat you like I treat GOOPers - with disdain, rebuttal of their arguments with FACTS, and more disdain.
And Statler, you and I may disagree on how I present points, but that's (usually) water under the bridge, as we almost always agree on the main points. Just stop your exaggerating to make points!!
Mike, do you really think it's only Republicans who don't have their facts in order? I know I've had conversations with liberals and radical leftists who spout off a lot of nonsense as well as Republicans who spout off a lot of nonsense. And for what it's worth, my Congressman is Jerrold Nadler, and I agree with almost everything he says and does. (He's one of the most liberal members of Congress, thank goodness.)
@Mike in Maryland,
Oh, well. I gave you a chance to prove you were a mature person who had simply overreacted; now you have shown your true colors. But as they say, "No more Mr. Nice Guy." I warned you that I'm a tough debater. I was holding back before. No longer.
You are correct that I overlooked President Grant. But so did you. Grant was pointed out by another poster, after you had written your first way-over-the-top response to my argument.
Apart from Grant, there was nothing inaccurate about my statement. Your objections consisted of the following:
1) You hadn't said whether any president before FDR had tried to run for a third term; you had simply said no one before FDR was elected to a third term. Fair enough. This has nothing to do with "accuracy," but with clarifying your original argument.
2) I "disprove my own message" by mentioning an exception. Or, as you put it in your latest post, "if it IS a rule, then there ARE no exceptions." I'm tempted to say that statement doesn't dignify a response, but I'm game. Look up the word "exception" in the dictionary, particularly the second definition: "an instance or case not conforming to the general rule." Or, for that matter, look up the word "rule": "the customary or normal circumstance, occurrence, manner, practice, quality, etc.: the rule rather than the exception." Rules can have exceptions. Pretending not to know this basic fact of...well, the English language, is a far more serious error than not knowing Grant sought a third term.
3) Your parenthetical comment that "it would have been only the second election in which he ran for President - he was President from 1901 to 1905 only because McKinley had been assassinated, FYI." It's true that your original message only talked about presidents who ran three times; however, all I said was that TR sought a third term, which is true. You seem to think I was ignorant of the fact that TR first succeeded to the presidency following McKinley's death. The funny thing is, I actually have proof that I did know that before you mentioned it. Go to my Yahoo Answers profile, and scroll down to "My Answers," and the first answer is to the question, "For how many years was Roosevelt president?" The user did not clarify which Roosevelt he was asking about, so I gave him the answer for both, but I clearly said that TR succeeded to the presidency following McKinley's death. (Unfortunately, the answer is currently "in voting," so it doesn't currently display my user name, but it will in about thirteen hours.)
Apparently, the fact that we disagreed on these largely definitional issues proves that I'm an ignoramus who watches Fox News.
And just for your information, that was sarcasm. Accusing someone who challenged you on one small point of historical trivia of "spout[ing] the worn-out, or patently false, rantings of Lush Rimbaugh, Bill O'Lielly or Faux News" doesn't constitute sarcasm, it constitutes being a dick.
Statler will also tell you that I'm 'a little rough around the edges.' I disagree with that observation. I'm blunt and sarcastic, but I post in that manner to make a point - to make the person THINK about the facts before they post.
Arguing like a 5-year old isn't "blunt and sarcastic," it's childish. Comments should be attempt to be up to the standard of Nate's work, not infantile trading back and forth of insults like "Dumbocrats" or "Rethuglicans" or "Libtards" or "Goopers."
I don't know Nate as well as the original crew of BP authors, but writing a lot myself, I can't imagine much that makes a writer unhappier than putting a lot of work into something and seeing the immediate response of one's most loyal readers acting like grade-schoolers. I would wager that Nate doesn't feel that differently.
Besides, if you're going to be snarky, you better at least do good snark. Bill O'Lielly? Really? That's even lamer than Nancy Pelooser, which is a preetty high bar.
My gawd,
I've never been so bewildered in my life that people are using my words of support and encouragement as if they were a campaign endorsement. Next thing you know MIM's going to have a logo in his profile that says "Statler N Waldorf Seal of Approval"
The thing shocks me even more is that none of you have said, "Who cares if SnW likes you or not?" or "Well, who the fuck is SnW to judge anyway?"
If I knew I could gain this much influence just by posting random drivel on 538, I'd have signed on years ago.
Well, might as well put it to use. My legions of followers, my digital army, attack! Grab thy telephones and annoy thy Senators to pass this Stimulating Package of Presidential Prowess! Take no prisoners! keep hitting redial till we crash the Congressional Switchboard! Tonight we dine in hell! This is Spartaaaaaaaa!
Spartaaaa!
Spartaaaaa
obama is More like a Copperhead to me than Lincoln
Texas isn't up unless Hutchinson resigns from the Senate early enough to force a special election... I don't see her challenging Perry in a primary and yet giving him the political capital which would come with the power to appoint her replacement. There's no upside for her there. Speculation about her resigning early predated Perry's decision to run for a third term.
TSAMT,
What fabulous bullshit. This isn't the Civil War or anything remotely like it. There are no copperheads today because there's no civil war to oppose.
Sure, we're a divided country in terms of political opinion. yet, the Red States and the Blue states keep shifting. Indiana was red in 2004, now it's blue. There's no set list of states that are all ready to take up arms and commit treason against the Federal Government together, is there? Nobody's arming for war.
So there's no copperheads. Which means Obama is not a copperhead. But I guess it just sounds impressive to say over the top attention getting things like that, doesn't it? Sure beats having to think of a compelling argument.
Spartaaaaa!
PLEASE: the only people who think Harry Reid will have a tough time in 2010 are people who know NOTHING about Nevada politics! He'll win by his widest margin ever (all of his races have been extremely to fairly close so far). Nevada is an increasingly BLUE state (gee, anyone stay up for the returns Nov. 4)? Huge democratic registration advantage, no viable Rethug candidate in sight (maybe Jon Porter will run, god, I hope so!), Republican IDIOT governor who is LOATHED by EVERYONE.
Only possible thing for Harry to worry about would be a primary challenge from the LEFT. I'm sure many in the blogosphere would hope for that, but in NV, not a snowball's chance.
I agree, coolstar, and thanks to Michael for specifying five issues that Reid is criticized for. As I continue reading Reid's book I will look for those sections and see what the contexts of those decisions were.
2010 US Senate Rankings
1)NH(OPEN-Newman-R)
2)MO(OPEN-Bond-R)
3)OH(OPEN-Voinovich-R)
4)FL(OPEN-Martinez-R)
5)KY(Bunning-R)
6)NC(Burr-R)
7)PA(Specter-R)
8)CO(Bennet-D)
9)IL(Burris-D)
10)KS(OPEN-Brownback-R)
11)NV(Reid-D)
12)TX(Vacant-Hutchison-R)
13)LA(Vitter-R)
14)NY(Gillibrand-D)
15)IA(Grassley-R)
16)AZ(McCain-R)
17)DE(OPEN-Kaufman-D)
18)OK(Coburn-R)
19)SC(DeMint-R)
20)GA(Isakson-R)
21)AR(Lincoln-D)
22)SD(Thune-R)
23)CA(Boxer-D)
24)WA(Murray-D)
25)WI(Feingold-D)
26)AK(Murkowski-R)
27)ND(Dorgan-D)
28)IN(Bayh-D)
29)AL(Shelby-R)
30)MD(Mikulski-D)
31)CT(Dodd-D)
32)OR(Wyden-D)
33)UT(Bennett-R)
34)HI(Inouye-D)
35)VT(Leahy-D)
36)NY(Schumer-D)
37)ID(Crapo-R)
Nate,
I understand that you just report the facts like Joe Friday ..like you see them. However, I hope that the Vitter saga hasn't been played out yet. I don't believe it will be over until his hooker is on TV with Diane Sawyer. Someone down and dirty like Larry Flynt will step up and offer some money to Vitter's hooker for her rightful 15 minutes of fame. Vitter will not run again once that happens if he's smart which of course he's not. The guy was paying for hookers with his senate salary while katrina was hitting his state and his wife and kids were in church. That's not gonna look good on a commercial.
Blue State Republican Senate Seats up for grabs in 2010.
1)PA-(Specter-R)
2)NH-(OPEN-Newman-R)-Sen Elect.Paul Hodes-D
3)IA-(Grassley-R)
Purple State Republican Senate Seats up for grabs in 2010.
4)OH-(OPEN-Voinovich-R)-Sen Elect.Lee Fisher-D or Tim Ryan-D
5)FL-(OPEN-Martinez-R)- No Clear Favorite.
6)NC-(Burr-R)-No Clear Favorite
7)MO-(OPEN-Bond-R)-Sen Elect Robin Carnahan-D)
In the Kentucky race, Mongiardo is a homophobe (sponsored the anti-marriage amendment just so everyone would know he is straight) and supports mountaintop removal. I didn't vote in his last race against Bunning, and I'm not voting in it again if he is the candidate. We can do better.
Nate, I don't know if you'll still checking comments here. But I think you may be blind to the danger that Sen. Dodd (D-CT) is facing.
The local media in CT are following his sweetheart deal with Countrywide much closer than the national media. His approval ratings are under 50% for the first time in memorable history. And his re-elect numbers aren't great.
I don't think his seat should be top 5. But he is much closer to #10 than where you have him.
And while Gov. Rell (R-CT) would be the GOP's top choice. Rep. Shays and Rep. Johnson are well known and have a solid following. Against a non-scandalized D, they would be underdogs. But if Sen. Dodd continues to refuse to release his mortgage papers, the trust he has built up will continue to disappear.
Following up on the Sen. Dodd comment above, here is a new poll that came out today (2/10):
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hcu-qpoll-0210,0,4411573.story
Sen. Christopher J. Dodd's effort to resolve his mortgage controversy appeared to backfire last week, while Gov. M. Jodi Rell's got a 75-percent job-approval rating after releasing her budget, a new poll shows.
A Quinnipiac University poll released today showed Rell getting high marks for addressing the economy, but Dodd's explanation of getting what Countrywide Financial deemed to be a VIP mortgage dissatisfied voters by a wide margin.
Dodd got his worst approval rating ever in the Quinnipiac poll: 41 percent approve and 48 percent disapprove of his performance and 51 percent say they are likely to vote against him next year.
Those are atrocious numbers for a long serving incumbent D in a left-of-center state. Dodd may be the Burns of 2010: friendly state, long history of success, scandal that is mishandled and mushrooms, etc.
My 2010 ranking
1)MO(OPEN-Bond-R)Carnahan-D
2)NH(OPEN-Newman-R)Hodes-D
3)OH(OPEN-Voinovich-R)-Fisher/Ryan-D
4)FL(OPEN-Martinez-R)-Meek/Gelber-D
5)KY(Bunning-R)-Mongiordo/Conway-D
6)NC(Burr-R)-Cooper/Shuler-D
7)PA(Specter-R)-Schwartz-D
8)CO-(Bennett-D)
9)IL-(Burris-D)-Giannoulias/Schakowsky-D
10)KS-(OPEN-Brownback-R)
11)LA-(Vitter-R)
12)NV-(Reid-D)
13)AZ-(McCain-R)
14)CT-(Dodd-D)
15)TX-(VACANT Hutchison-R)
16)NY-B(Gillibrand-D)
17)DE-(OPEN-Kaufman-D)-Biden-D
18)AK-(Murkowski-R)
19)SD-(Thune-R)
20)AR-(Lincoln-D)
21)SC-(DeMint-R)
22)OK-(Coburn-R)
23)GA-(Isakson-R)
24)CA-(Boxer-D)
25)WA-(Murray-D)
26)WI-(Feingold-D)
27)IA-(Grassley-R)
28)ND-(Dorgan-D)
29)IN-(Bayh-D)
30)AL-(Shelby-R)
31)MD-(Mikulski-D)
32)OR-(Wyden-D)
33)UT-(Bennett-D)
34)HI-(Inouye-D)
35)VT-(Leahy-D)
36)NY-(Schumer-D)
37)ID-(Crapo-R)
Conway will be a strong Dem candidate in Kentucky. He brought his A-game against Northup in 2002 and almost won in a tough cycle.
Chandler has solidified support in a blue district and I can't imagine him jumping into a Senate race in 2010.
I'm disgusted about my home state, Oklahoma. Where else could an ultra right-wing Republican who insists homosexuality is the biggest threat to America's freedom (Tom Coburn) beat a respected moderate Democrat (Brad Carson) who had been a Rhodes Scholar and White House Fellow? That's what happened in '04.
Nate writes of Illinois: "if another Democrat like Jan Schakowsky or Alexi Guannoulias upends Burris in the primary, as is somewhat likely, the GOP's path becomes very difficult." I love my Congresswoman Jan, and my local hot dog stand guy Leo loves his fellow Greek Alexi, but if Burris loses the primary don't we have a problem with pissed-off African Americans? And can Democrats win an off-year election if the African-Americans stay home?
Post a Comment