The pace of Senate polling has slackened this month as pollsters have turned their attention to next Tuesday's elections as well as the continuing fight over health care. My attention, likewise, has been concentrated on those other areas. But for the sake of continuity, a very brief Senate rankings update is in order as the clock ticks down on October.
I am changing the status of only three races; in each case, I gauge the likelihood of an opposition-party takeover to have become somewhat higher.
The first is Delaware, where Republican Representative Mike Castle has entered, probably to face off against Beau Biden. Although this race is probably closer to a toss-up than advantage Castle, it still seems to feature the cleanest path for an opposition party takeover than any of the alternatives. With that said, the first four or five races -- and really as many as the first seven or eight -- remain hard to distinguish from one another.
Another upgrade comes in Pennsylvania, where there's been some further polling to suggest the degree of trouble that Arlen Specter is in. I continue to be of the opinion that conservative opponent Pat Toomey may have a relatively difficult time getting from the 43-45 percent of the electorate that he has now to the 50% + 1 that he'll need to take the contest. But clearly, Specter's problems can't be attributed to either short-lived dissatisfaction or an aberrant polling result here and there. On the other hand, Joe Sestak also seems to be catching up with Specter, and Sestak might be the superior option for Democrats from an electability perspective.
The final upgrade is in Florida, where Charlie Crist appears to be increasingly vulnerable to Marco Rubio, and where Rubio's momentum could pick up significantly if Doug Hoffman wins in NY-23 (or comes close enough to trigger a recount, etc.) Now, by no means is Rubio unelectable -- I think, in fact, he'd be a mild favorite against likely Democratic nominee Kendick Meek. But the nomination of Rubio would certainly put Florida back on the map as a potentially competitive race. It also might not be completely out of the question that some Democratic alternatives to Meek could be attracted back into the contest if it looks like Crist is going to lose the primary, although I certainly haven't heard anything to that effect.
This makes the top 17 races as follows:
1. Delaware (D-Open)
2. Missouri (R-Open)
3. Nevada (D-Reid)
4. Ohio (R-Open)
5. Connecticut (D-Dodd)
6. Colorado (D-Bennet)
7. New Hampshire (R-Open)
8. Kentucky (R-Open)
9. Arkansas (D-Lincoln)
10. Illinois (D-Burris)
11. Pennsylvania (D-Specter)
12. North Carolina (R-Burr)
13. Texas (R-Open?)
14. Louisiana (R-Vitter)
15. Florida (R-Open)
16. Iowa (R-Grassley)
17. North Dakota (D-Dorgan)
Positions 18-38 are unchanged from last month.
10.31.2009
Senate Rankings: October 2009 Quick-and-Dirty Edition
@ 4:38 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
71 comments
I am thinking of changing my registration to GOP for the sole purpose of voting for Rubio in a primary against Crist.
Same for NY-23. Almost hoping Hoffman wins cuz that will further embolden the CONs to lurch further to the scary right & drag down the GOP.
Crist may lose for accepting stimulus funds/supporting Obama & of course 'the hug' of BHO...
that's the way to possibly allow the DEMs to get that this senate seat - wish Sink was in the race for our side...
Reid's position has not gotten worse....hhhmmm
maybe successful healthcare reform will bail him out next year ???
Spectre deserves to be shown the door imho
I'm always slightly confused by these rankings and your claim that the top seven or eight are indistinguishable to some degree confuses me even more. Given that incumbancy rates as high as they are, doesn't that mean that we only expect two incumbants to be kicked out? Since only three of the top seven include incumbants, should we expect both that we expect to be kicked to come from those three? Since there are three open seats higher than two of those three, should we then expect that at least two of those seats will flip as well? Something seems amiss...
I disagree with DE being on top of the list a number 1 takeover. I think MO,OH,and NH has a greater chance of flipping than DE,IL,CT,AR,PA and NV.
In MO- the Republican nominee is very unpopular and the Democratic nominee is a popular statewide elected official and kin of a popular former Governor- Carnahan-D is favored. In OH- The Republican nominee has close ties with George W. Bush- and is pro free trade-which is DOA in Ohio. The Democratic nominee Lee Fisher is a mediocre candidate and will win by a 52-47 percent margin. In NH. The Republicans have a divisive primary between Kelly Ayotte-moderate and Ovide Lamonganate- the wingnut. If the wingnuts survive in NH- say hello to Senator Paul Hodes. FL if Charlies lose in the primary,KY,and maybe NC are second tier or tossup races for DEM. Looking at the vulnerable Democratic seats-DE,CT,CO,NV,AR,IL,PA.
DE is a tossup because- both parties have popular and well known candidates- but Beau-D will outfox Castle. IL is a blue state- to elect a Republican- Giannoulias-D wins. Pat Toomey-R is too conservative to win in PA. Republican candidates against Lincoln-AR and Reid-NV are third tier. CT and CO are tossups and will get help from DSCC.
Huge development in NY Congressional race bearing on these rankings.
The GOP candidate pulled out throwing her support behind the independent conservative candidate.
This may be a sign that the Republican Party is healings its cleavages and sees its advantage in embracing conservatism.
Obama has exposed the seemy and frankly unseely side of Liberalism. Indeed to many independents it looks more and more like Liberalism is nothing more than disguised socialism.
Worse Obama seems incapable of justifying his leftward turn and more and more is becoming associated with failed or failing policies, while seeming powerless to implement his agenda, even in those few cases where he definitively states what that agenda is.
Back to the Obama sux at being President meme for me. Sorry!
The Senate rankings should soon reflect a GOP drift, indicating that a GOP coalescing around conservatism will more and more become the vehicle of choice to temper Obama. This Midterm could make the Clinton defeat of 94 look second best.
The questions:
Who will lead the GOP?
Do they need a leader yet?
How will the trends be measured, given the broken model of most pollsters which show a pro-Obama tilt which has at the very least been neutralized and where he may in fact be a liability?
petekent01 (on twitter)
Bah. Delaware is in play, but it ain't #1. There's no way Castle has a better shot than Carnahan of turning a seat. If the election were held tomorrow, your ranking would be fine, but we're talking about fall 2010.
Also as far as Kentucky goes, this race is a lock for the GOP.
Obama performed very weakly here.
The Democratic Candidate is a habitual also ran from an unpopulated region. A man of Italian American extraction he recently married a very young woman, his first marriage, many believe she is a beard to cover a clandestine Gay orientation.
The GOP primary could get messy. You have the telegenic Secy of State, Trey Grayson hailing from the Northern GOP stronghold. His opponent is the son of Ron Paul, Rand Paul. Ron Paul was quite popular in KY and Grayson must emphasize his conservative leanings or face the kind of fight we saw just play out in the NY Congressional election.
My suspicion is that there are enough political spoils to go around in KY and my sense is that the two prime GOP challengers will sort things out amicably and we will see a GOP hold for Bunning's seat.
The interesting race will be Ann Northrops old district, which will be second itself only to the Steve Chabot Bob Driehaus rematch for the Cincinnati, OH, Hamilton Cy swing distrct.
Driehaus voted for cap and trade (ouch!). His future will turn on how he votes on HRC and he better oppose it.
Defeated challenger Chabot had the distinction of have the largest proportion of African Americans in any GOP held district.
This one will be a bellwether.
The OH GOP on the statewide level is yet to gain traction. Dem Gov Strictland has not suffered too badly, something I attribute to his strong support for Clinton against Obama. Sen Brown will be tested by his heathcare vote, but seems to be blurring political distinctions in a state that is much more populist than ideological in its politics.
petekent01 (on twitter)
If Doug Hoffman wins in NY-23, the teabaggers will go crazy. The Club for Growth will say that they're right. The republican congressional leadership will be like the emperor without clothes.
Rubio will beat Crist, Peter Schiff and Rand Paul will beat Rob Simmons and Trey Grayson, 2nd tier candidates in New Hampshire, Illinois and Utah will become credible.
Well, chances for these events are already good, for one or the other, but the next weeks are going to be interesting and the nature of 2010 might change completely.
By the way, I've seen two recent polls of Delaware so far, they showed Mike Castle 7 and 1 point ahead which is not as impressive as I would have expected. Remember, Beau Biden has just come back from Iraq. Delaware is a democratic state and he'll have White House support. And Mike Castle will depend on RNC money, the Teabaggers ain't gonna spend a dime on him....
I'd still rate Missouri and Ohio higher than that. If you take the pure polls, Portman has done worse than Biden... if you take the context, Carnahan looks very promising.
And well, the economy IS improving. Yes, the people don't feel it yet - but it's only 2009 and the recession is over if recent GDP numbers turn out to be true.
Alex-
Will NY-23 embolden the Club for Growth to run someone to the right of Castle in DE? Moderate repubs may quickly become a thing of the past...
@ Bradford:
It is possible, the Doug Hoffman case shows that the Club can simply import a self-financing business man from another district and let him run on an anti-everything platform. However, I think that this won't be the case in Maryland. The circumstances don't seem right to me - but if necessary, it could happen very fast.
@Bradford
I wonder if that entered Castle's mind as he fielded that "question" from the crazy birther?
I wonder if this whole thing will end up creating a true nutty right wing party, maybe even called the Teaparty, along the lines of Front National in France.
http://www.adl.org/international/LePen-1-introduction.asp
Bradford…
That’s exactly what I’m hoping will happen. Either a new totally batshit rightwing party will emerge, draining support from the GOP, or else the GOP will be hijacked by the batshitters, and will be destroyed from within.
Kent you need your head checked.
In the first place there's a lot of key variables that were in play in 1994 that are not here.
And frankly the fringe right just turns off moderates and independents.
But please keep making your party irrevelent.
While I'll be said as I'm a supporter of the 2 party concept I wouldn't mind 40 years to fix conservatives screw ups
DCM in FL - you should look at Obama's approval rating in your own state. Last look, it was 44%. Maybe you should ask yourself why.
With regards to Ohio, where I am, Lee Fisher is a lightweight but will win the Dem primary. The only question is who he runs against.
Strickland is in trouble against Kasich, although to be very fair, he's not done a bad job as Governor given the recession. Strickland's problems will cause Fisher problems.
Too many people think 2006 was a reflection of a shift in Ohio politics; it wasn't -- it was a reaction to the corruption of the Taft administration, and the idiocy of the GOP primary for Governor. Same reason 2006 wasn't a reflection of a shift in American politics; it was a reaction to the corruption of the GOP. What you libs are missing is that the GOP was as pissed at the corruption as the Dems were, perhaps more so.
What you view as GOP in-fighting is simple the base taking back its party, and I mean the real base.
Still, I just love the way the libs are so panicked, and in such denial over that panic.
FWIW, Palin is not the candidate you should be wary of in 2012. I'll leave you to figure out who the Obama destroyer is for yourself.
drachedeeis said...
Kent you need your head checked.
In the first place there's a lot of key variables that were in play in 1994 that are not here.
And frankly the fringe right just turns off moderates and independents.
_________
Yes, they are; which also includes the left-wing idiots currently in charge of Congress and the White House.
Be very careful assuming that the middle only hates right-wing nutters...
MIKE
you comment on BHO & FL - what poll are you citing & when ???
last poll that I know of was a Quin way back in Aug - during the whole TEA-Bagger & Palin 'Death Panel' period.
that was 47 v 48 approval #'s in FL - which is not that bad considering the circumstances [ie - relentless LIES & scaring the elderly that they would lose their Medicare & be put under death panels, etc.]
since then, BHO's #'s have presumably recovered as they have nationally when the tea-bagger lies & Palin's scare tactics were exposed for what they are...
but what is your point ? these are stellar #'s compared to the Shrub's & at this point you make too much out of very little
BUT keep on grasping to your distorted delusional view of an america that does not & never did exist [and never will imho]
WV -oozess [MIKE's posts always oozess delusional fantasies]
@DCM FL
I think Troll Mike was quoting a poll I just saw on Fox News. I didnt catch who ran that poll but the wingnutters are getting these skewed numbers of 44% approval (who knows from where.)
Let the Rightwing think they are going to steam roll in the midterms after seeinga 3.5% jump in GDP. Unfortunately, consumer spending is down and unemployment is high, but this BS that the stimulus is failing makes the Rightwingnutters look -- well like Nuts -- LMAO.
Surprised Nevada hasn't moved down. Reid seems to be growing a pair, in terms of bringing forward health care legislation with a public option. He'll probably get more support from the grassroots now, not to mention support from some previously reticent Democrats in his home state.
I'd certainly put Nevada below Ohio, if not further down.
DCM in FL:
Palin scare tactics? You mean the Death Panels that the AP has confirmed are in the new Healthcare bill?
Or the waiting lists, premium increases and rationing of care that are also in there? (Heck, waiting lists are explicitly mentioned by name!)
Do you have your head so far up your rear end that you just accept everything politicians tell you without actually reading these bills?
Hey Mike, here's a copy-paste from the other where you tried to repeat the same crap.
Mike said...
Ummm... read the bill? The AP has confirmed that "Death Panels" are in it.
Did you read the bill draft it was in? If you did you could just quote it and/or reference the location in it, right? :)
Of course the "Death Panels" are in there but:
1) It was actually an addition by a Republican member of Congress (damn, misplaced the member name).
2) It was a reimbursement, yes an actual benefit, for patient initiated consulting for hospice planning.
The description given by Sarah Palin was a gross distortion of the entry. Either she was willfully lying, or she's got a real bad case of the no-read-so-guds, and/or she hadn't really read it and listens to people that fall into one of the above categories.
Oct - you mean the 3.5% that will be revised down next month, and the month after (as every GDP number over the past year or so has been), and that is almost wholly the result of cash for clunkers?
God you're dumb. No wonder you think liberalism is here to stay.
It's a shame really; Nate generally does some good statistical analysis, but this site is marred by the liberal sheep on here.
Dwight - The UK system has the same concept of EOL care. When it was introduced it was lauded also. It's now a death panel. People are shepherded towards EOL care versus extension of life, because the payer (the govt.) wont pick up the tab for life-extending care.
But, like most people on here, your head is so far up the liberal leadership's rear end, you can't see the truth behind what they're pushing.
The great irony in all of this, is that the so-called constitutional "right to privacy" that gave us Roe v Wade, is the very thing that makes govt-run, mandatory health care unconstitutional. (If the govt. runs your healthcare, you have no privacy.)
That has to drive you liberal loons even further up the wall.
MIKE
the fact that you keep repeating "the DEATH PANELS are a'comin'" ad nauseum is evidence that you are only interested in spreading distotions & outright lies [including the term 'death panel']
sorry, I am tired of feeding your truly trollish bad behaviour since it is with the worst of intentions
sad & pathetic = MIKE
DNFTT
(Heck, waiting lists are explicitly mentioned by name!)
I've been reading the bill since it was released. I just did a search for the term "waiting list." It appears once in reference to the high risk pool that will be established in the interim between the bill's passage and the opening of the exchange in 2013. This is a voluntary program that will be open to the currently "uninsurable." This is adapted from an idea that McCain proposed during the campaign and its one that is already employed in 20 states.
It helps to actually, you know, read the bill instead of just searching for individual terms and making wild inferences about what their presence means.
Ummm... read the bill? The AP has confirmed that "Death Panels" are in it.
As I said, I am reading the bill. The AP article in question was being a bit humorous on purpose. This is how they describe the so-called "death panels":
"The provision allows Medicare to pay for voluntary counseling to help beneficiaries deal with the complex and painful decisions families face when a loved one is approaching death."
I'm not sure why you believe doctors would try to kill their patients (especially when they profit from, you know, providing care), but I'm sure there's an entertaining reason you can google.
Mike:
Every well-known, uncensored political forum on the internet is "marred" by "liberal sheep". In fact, almost every one has their discussion dominated by them. Do you have any thoughts as to why?
Also, it's worth noting that Palin originally said Obama would make Trig face a death panel. Now, he may just look young for his age, but I'm pretty sure Trig isn't eligible for Medicare so he won't be eligible for a reimbursement when he voluntarily seeks counseling from his doctor about hospice care.
And if it is, in fact, true that Trig is a one year old baby and not a sixty-five year old retiree on Medicare, it's pretty much indisputable that Palin's comments were simply not grounded in reality. Whether you think she was lying or just uninformed is something I'm in no position to determine.
@Mike
:/ Do you really believe what you type? Or are you intentionally full of shit?
No, don't bother answer....
Actually, there's been a fair amount of polling on the 2010 Senate races in the past month. So here's hoping Nate will get into it after next Tuesday. The topic of his article is the Senate races, and while I can be just as stupid and biased as the rest of you, I'm going to stay on track. So, here's my take, which is somewhat different than Nate's.
3. Nevada (D-Reid)—Reid’s unfavorables are way too high and he has decent opponents.
6. Colorado (D-Bennet)—Bennet can’t defeat Norton as Colorado has a bad reaction to Obama, Pelosi, et al. (as does Nevada).
2. Missouri (R-Open)—For some reason I can’t fathom, Carnahan is well liked, but I can fathom why Blunt is not. Repubs are blowing it in this reddish state.
4. Ohio (R-Open)—Tempted to move this down the list since Portman appears stronger than expected, but the Repubs have too much history to live down here.
1. Delaware (D-Open)—I’m deferring to Nate by putting this state high on the list. The Biden name should prevail in this blue state.
10. Illinois (D-Burris)—This is where I live. Mr. wishy washy, Mark Kirk, is being underestimated as he is just a likable guy with lots of suburban appeal. And Giannoulias is a really a nobody and has loads of dirty laundry. Tempted to move Illinois way up the list, but Hoffman could win the Dem primary A far better candidate than Mr. G, who cannot beat Kirk even in this blue state.
9. Arkansas (D-Lincoln)—Don’t know the potential opponents, but if the Repubs come up with someone decent, Lincoln is toast. And she’s acting like she knows it.
11. Pennsylvania (D-Specter)—Specter is done, period, even against Toomey. But Sestak should win the primary. Then, the state remains blue.
7. New Hampshire (R-Open)—But for a potentially divisive primary, Ayotte would win, going away.
5. Connecticut (D-Dodd)—As corrupt and unlikable as Dodd is, I don’t really see him losing this blue state.
13. Texas (R-Open?)—I’m not seeing the Repubs coalesce around anyone, and the Houston mayor seems popular. But a very red state.
Anything can happen, but unless it does happen, the following seats will not switch parties:
8. Kentucky (R-Open)
12. North Carolina (R-Burr)
14. Louisiana (R-Vitter)
15. Florida (R-Open)
16. Iowa (R-Grassley)
17. North Dakota (D-Dorgan)
A quibble with Nate's placement of Mikulski at 28 and Bayh at 32. I KNOW that (especially) 25 and below would be akin to 'the field' in horse race parlance (meaning no meaningful difference), but:
- Bayh is a Democrat in a traditional GOOPer state, while Mikulski is a Democrat in a Democrat state;
The Indiana GOOPers have a bench of possible contenders; the GOOPer bench in Maryland is Boobie Erhlich (who is running for Governor in 2010), and then there are the nutcases, such as Andy Harris (the failed Club for Growth candidate for MD-1) - if Harris is too radically conservative for the conservative First, how can he win Baltimore City and Baltimore, Howard, Prince George's and Montgomery Counties, all of which are much, much more liberal than MD-1?;
In 1998, Bayh won election with 63.72% of the vote, but Mikulski won with 70.50%;
In 2004, Bayh won election with 61.65% of the vote, while Mikulski won with 64.77% of the vote.
There are other factors, but the above should show that Bayh four places above Mikulski is a bit of a head scratcher to me.
Mike in Maryland
Here is the issue for the dems though, the right wing has succeeded in making "liberal" a dirty word:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/123854/Conservatives-Maintain-Edge-Top-Ideological-Group.aspx
Change is hard, and people will fight against for no good reason, and even for many bad reasons.
Nevada is way too high.
1) Reid has lot's of money, in a relatively small state.
2) GOP registration numbers are low. They only registered 1790 new people last quarter. That is not a misprint. They were in 4th place amongst parties. Democrats, Indepents, American Constitution Party (basically Ron Paul's people), and then the GOP.
3) Any GOP candidate will have to explain NOT campaigning with the Governor, who is a popular as clap. Even though HE will be primaried, this will keep him in the news.
4) The GOP bench in the state is week. They suffered a lot of defeats in 2006, and 2008. All the state leaders (Ensign, the Gov, etc.) are laughing stocks.
5) Demographics, less retirees have moved due to the recession. Even with the off year down drift, the minority vote will be larger than past off years (like 2006).
6) Reid can win by just consolidating his base. This only requires a 1/2 way decent healthcare bill.
The NY Congressional Race, along with NY Gov and VA Gov races will represent a triumph for small government Republicans.
GOP success will depend not on moderating itself, but on representing the alternative to the programs of government dependency and government expansion under Obama.
It will continue to benefit the GOP that Obama is failing in both domestic and international affairs. This increase in GDP was fueled by a sugar rush of stimulus and cash for clunkers coupled with putting people who into houses that can't afford them (sound familiar?). Americans continue not spend and not to find work.
The fat cats will profit some while the people suffer.
The politicians of the left will suffer at the polls this week and then again next year.
The Right is rejoicing at the unmasking of Obama as a left wing ideologue intent on remaking America into a Euro-style socialist economy. The people do not want to turn back to the failed policies of the 70s.
If Obama keeps up this way, relying on fringe Maoists kooks for advice, then the moderates even within his own party will begin to abandon and then undermine him.
Indeed there are whiffs of a Clinton-Obama rift. You can smell it in the Fall air.
Vectors negative for Socialism and Obama. Did this man really think he could hijack our nation and impose his fascistic, anti-democratic ways on the freeest, most democratic nation on earth.
He fooled us once, but won;t get away with it again.
petekent01 (on twitter)
petekent01 (on twitter)
petekent01 (on crack)
I'm not so sure about Rubio being favored over Meeks. I think it may be even. Martinez barely won in Florida with Bush at the top of the ticket. He just completely underperformed in North Florida (the southern part of Florida) and the Tampa bay area. Don't underestimate a number of people there not liking two "coloreds" running "having no choice" and staying home.
Meeks could play dirty by making immigration reform an issue. Rubio supporting it would "highlight" his latiness, but Meeks could spin it to help resentfulness amongst non Cuban- Latinos in Florida who really are sick of the wet foot/dry foot privilege Cubans have. Rubio coming out against it would split the Latin community in Florida hard (although it would make him a conservative hero like Mike Steele was before he was placed in a position of authority).
This resentfulness was the key to Obama winning Florida Latinos. Non Cuban Latinos are now a majority in Florida. They came out in force for Martinez the 1st Latino Floridian Senator, the 2nd guy just may not get that type of support.
@ Rhamsputin re. peterkent01 that's a classic!
@ Bradford
Having done years of field polling I can tell you people LIE all the time about self identification on ideology.
1) Many people who are on the whole solidly liberal will call themselves moderates because it makes them feel better.
2) Many solidly conservative people will call themselves independents because it makes them feel better.
But when you dig down and ask them who they voted for, ask them about issues, they are really partisans who MAY have crossed over ONCE in the last 10 years to vote for the other party. Liberals prefer to call themselves moderates, conservatives independents, because both words signify that they look at issues and just don't blindly follow something. But in truth they deviate at most by like 1-2%.
The only thing people lie about more is their feeling on race. Hell even the Justice of the Peace in Louisiana that won't marry inter racial couples say's he not prejudice. This works both ways with blacks and whites (maybe three ways if you throw in Latinos). But self identification is about as reliable as a weatherman in New England.
BTW before I get misquoted, I'm not saying the WHOLE block of moderates are liberals, any more than I'm saying the whole block of independents are conservatives. I'm saying the true "universe" of people who are really conservative or moderates is much lower than the reported numbers. Most people who are in the category are actually "conflicted" voters.
ie.
1) A catholic union members who likes to hunt. Pro life, pro 2nd amemdment, but anti-free trade and death penalty, pro-union, and isn't anti-governemnt.
2) A small business owner who is also a lesbian. She supports smaller government and less regulation and taxes, but wants marriage equality is pro-choice and is scared of the religious right.
Voters in this category are conflicted as they support or oppose both parties on major issues. There not mostly wishy washy people, these people exist but tend not to vote.
An interesting thought for 2010 is that if the Democrats do have a bad time on Tuesday night, it may well serve as a reminder that turnout is important and that keeping the base interested is important. I don't think the GOP should get toooo excited over successes in 2009. Remember that the Dems won both the NJ and Virginia governorships in 2001, and still ended up making losses in 2002.
@dopper-
Great points and nice discussion, but the Gallup data goes deeper and does show a creeping move to the right on issues. Is that also explained by lying?
Rahmsputin…
Best joke of the day—petekent (on crack) I love it!
He has to be on something. If I had a nickel for every time he uses “will” in one of his posts, as in “next year the GOP will do extremely well” or “Obama will fail just as soon as I figure out how…” I’d be a jillionaire.
PK just can’t stay in the present. Too disheartening. We should start calling him Rosie Future.
who likes to hunt....pro 2nd amemdment
Just to be clear, liking to hunt does not necessarily mean "pro 2nd amendment" in terms of opposing a number of gun laws. For example handguns have very little to do with hunting [non-humans].
Bradford…
I never pay attention to issue polling, because #1 it’s almost impossible to word questions on such polls in an unbiased way and #2 IMO most issue-polling is really push-polling. How do I know this? Without taking too much trouble you can usually find directly opposite results from different pollsters who surveyed the same people on the same day about the same subject. You’d be just as well off reading tea leaves.
@Bradford my opinion isn't that the country so much is drifting right, but that even as a liberal I don't think we live in a country that judging by the Senate in 60% Democratic. I think the country is about where Obama's election numbers were (plus minus a couple of points) so between 52-54 Democrats in the Senate would be the "natural number", but because of incumbency it's more like 55-56 Democrats. In other words there is a slight correction "rightwards" but still on the center left side.
Given history, lower turnout, bad economy, Dems red districts, etc we will mostly see quite a few GOP pickups, this will mostly likely embolden conservatives so that they will over reach. I mean after 1982 Democrats seized Congress and picked a true liberal in Fitz Mondale because they were sure Reagan was too conservative. So yeah the country may suffer correction, but just as in the 1980's the country was "center right" today even if there is a correction the country is center left. One last point even in we had a 1994 style GOP revolution, the numbers of seats they won back then wouldn't flip congress, and I don't think we are anywhere near that. Don't forget 60% of the stimulus will kick in next year, so even if were in a slightly week recover now, that added stimulus going into next years election is a positive.
Reading these Senate chats is increasingly hilarious. Nate - hardly a GOP booster - gives his analysis, and every month it gets better for the GOP. The faithful then engage in spin and denial for a few hours, explaining how every pro GOP poll is wrong, every primary in the GOP is "divisive", every moderate in the GOP is doomed, every weak Dem has tons of cash and a great turn-out operation, every lame Dem nominee (Meeks, for goodness sakes) is shrewer than we all think. Heck, NKpoliticks up there has the Dems picking up 5 seats! Don't you think Nate Silver has considered all of these factors? Me thinks you all protest too much.
Nevada #3? Look, Harry Reid is not going to lose.
1. A small state like Nevada is not going to give up having the Senate majority leader.
2. The GOP has no candidate.
3. When they do get a candidate, he/she can't hope to begin to match Reid's financial resources.
4. Nevada is now solidly a blue state, any GOP contender faces an uphill climb.
5. It appears that Reid really will shepherd a public option through the Senate. Getting this highly popular measure passed will help him.
Jeff-
You are absolutely right, so please just run someone to the right of Castle in Delaware for me, ok?
Jeff, BdP, PK-
Castle is strongly for stem cell research, he fails the new pure republican party you want to build. You have an obligation to your kids to defeat Mike Castle (R-DE) who is running for Senate!
http://bit.ly/FXEeZ
Dopper said...
@Bradford my opinion isn't that the country so much is drifting right, but that even as a liberal I don't think we live in a country that judging by the Senate in 60% Democratic. I think the country is about where Obama's election numbers were (plus minus a couple of points) so between 52-54 Democrats in the Senate would be the "natural number", but because of incumbency it's more like 55-56 Democrats. In other words there is a slight correction "rightwards" but still on the center left side.
Given history, lower turnout, bad economy, Dems red districts, etc we will mostly see quite a few GOP pickups, this will mostly likely embolden conservatives so that they will over reach. I mean after 1982 Democrats seized Congress and picked a true liberal in Fitz Mondale because they were sure Reagan was too conservative. So yeah the country may suffer correction, but just as in the 1980's the country was "center right" today even if there is a correction the country is center left. One last point even in we had a 1994 style GOP revolution, the numbers of seats they won back then wouldn't flip congress, and I don't think we are anywhere near that. Don't forget 60% of the stimulus will kick in next year, so even if were in a slightly week recover now, that added stimulus going into next years election is a positive.
_________
I think your assessment of the Senate is pretty accurate, but 52-54 Democrats doesn't mean 52-54 liberals. The liberals in the Democrat Party are making the same mistake the social conservatives in the Republican Party did in 1998 when they began to wrestle control of the party away from the fiscal conservatives. There are extremely liberal Senators in states that don't support liberals in general (Ohio, my own state, being one of them).
I don't agree with your 1994 comment though, because there's a significant difference in the two scenarios. In 1994, there weren't 20 or so democrats sat in distinctly red districts like there are now, and several of them very liberal to boot. The GOP took the House in 1994 by essentially taking all of the purple districts. They could easily do the same in 2010, and get back control of those 20 or so red seats, especially when so many of them are currently represented (!) by first termers.
M. Joseph Goodfriend said...
Nevada #3? Look, Harry Reid is not going to lose.
1. A small state like Nevada is not going to give up having the Senate majority leader.
___________
Right. But didn't everyone say the same thing about South Dakota too? Ask Tom Daschle how that worked out :-)
CONGRESS
your point on Daschnle is relevant
BUT the major difference was that in SD they ran a strong GOP candidate + the tie-breaker was the power of POTUS [Bush] brought to bear on making sure that particular seat was won...
Reid has Obama behind him + no major opponent at this point + potentially a strong tailwind IF he shepards through a good healthcare reform bill + far better state demographics
Daschle had none of those in his favor - yet he still almost held on despite the weight BUSH et al brough to bear
I would still project a toss-up/slight lean to the power of incumbency
IF Corzine manages to pull out NJ with help from BHO, then Reid should feel a whole lot better - assuming he stays on BHO's good side anyway...
think THAT may be why Reid is suddenly pushing for the HCR 'option' ???
Reid needs all the friends & as few enemies as possible from the progressives & DEMs - and IF the neo-CONs target Reid, that might well back-fire in NV
DCM - Yes, currently there's no good opponent for Reid. But he has very high unfavorables (he's never been that popular, but it hasn't stopped him yet).
If the Republicans really wanted to make Nevada interesting, they should find a likeable hispanic. Now that would require a lot of popcorn!
NY-23…
Apparently Dede Scozzafava has withdrawn from the race for good and endorsed the Democrat Bill Owens.
Seems safe to say there is very bad blood between the GOP and the CFG nutters, so any prognostication of the GOP rising phoenix-like in 2010 will need to take this new tussle into account to be sensible.
The Teabaggers can support Christine O'Donnell in DE against Mike Castle in the GOP primary. An O'Donnell win in the GOP primary -means a clear victory for Beau-D who is probally interviewing his father's former Staff members.
MO is a DEM gain due to strong DEM candidate vs Weak GOP candidate. Regarding OH- Portman is not a nut job like Blackwell or unpopular like Taft- but neither was DeWine who lost to Brown by a double digit margin. Portman is closely tied to Bush. In NH- Ayotte-R loses in the GOP primary to a wingnut allowing Hodes to win. In IL- If the establishment candidates win- Giannoulias vs Kirk- It will be a hard fought race but Giannoulias will win due to demographics of the state. The FL race will depend on the GOP primary- if Christ wins- he wins the General. if Rubio wins- Meeks has a decent shot at winning the FL US Senate Race. Regarding the vulnerable DEM incumbents- Reid-NV and Lincoln-AR have weak GOP oppositions- They will get re-elected. Dodd-CT is personally unpopular for this first time in his 30 year career and has a top tier GOP opponent- but state is blue and Dodd-CT just needs to turn out his base. Bennett-CO is unknown- will need support from DSCC.
The NY Congressional Race, along with NY Gov and VA Gov races will represent a triumph for small government Republicans.
Too bad there are no more Republicans in the NY race.
When was the last time a GOP White House or Congress showed anything resembling small government?
Besides, small is a fuzzy term. corporations need regulations, somebody has to promote the US interest overseas, etc. If the states did it, it would be chaos. It is the responsibility of the federal government to promote the general welfare. Granted, it could definitely stand to lose weight, but issues like health care, the economy and environment are in the province of the feds.
If the makeup of the US government was the same today as it was 100 years ago, we would be a third world nation gagging on the most polluted air and water in the world working as serfs for our corporate masters.
HEY NATE!
Just a tiny little enhancement request on the senate ratings. Is there a way that you could devise a predictive metric which would chew up all the data and spit out a likely number for the total composition of the senate? for example 58 dem, 2 ind, 40 repub.
OBSESSED
geez, don't you think it is way too early for Nate to start throwing out such projections ?
I mean, not only is there a lack of data for him to crunch BUT at this point about all we have is speculation
too many variables & scenarios
once the 2010 primary season is underway & the actual candidates make themselves known, then Nate will certainly start spewing out those sorts of projections
but then the 2010 Primary dates are spread out all over the place...
some states are in early May, others not until mid-September. FL is late August - so the actual general campaign season here will be a short 10 weeks...
IF Crist falls to Rubio in a nasty GOP primary here in FL, then maybe the DEM will steal this seat [but it is way too early for putting projections on that IF/OR scenario imho
the polling out this week still has Crist with 2x the support as Rubio - BUT Crist is fading & a closed primary in AUGUST of all months could help the hard-core CONs
Crist better go for a HUGE lead with absentee & early voters in August, cuz I bet he will not pull the majority of primary day polling site GOP[CON] votes
however, I do enjoy Nate's generalized speculation this far out...
Pragmatus,
Why do you bitch and moan when PeteKent (or I, or anyone else) talks about "the future".
Isn't this very thread SUPPOSED to be about the future. I mean, look, if this were a thread discussing policy, ie. health care, how well (or not) the stimulus has worked I could see your point.
I'm pretty sure that on a forward-looking thread, one that forecasts the outcome of senate elections ONE YEAR FROM now - the entire point is to comment about what might transpire.
Happy GOPer…
Well, I’m not sure I would characterize my comments as “bitching and moaning”, but anyone here who declares ad nauseam nothing but rosy outcomes for his political party, without data to back it up or even cogent reasons for thinking the way he does, is IMO fair game for criticism.
In Pete Kent’s case doubly so, because all he has ever done is predict great upsets and triumphs for the GOP at the polls, scenarios he pulls completely out of the air, yet once the pudding is served all he has ever been is wrong.
Did you donate to Club for Growth today? You know even when it’s a Sunday you can still send them money through their website. The best dollar that can be spent for America today is money that goes to CFG or Sarah Palin’s PAC.
If you bothered to read my comments over the past few days you would have known that I think the Club for Growth is more of a hindrance than a help. I actually would have supported Scozzafava initially because I think supporting moderate candidates in marginal areas is a good way to build a majority.
That said, the fact that Hoffman is going to win in a district that voted for Obama, coupled with a complete sweep where Democrats are losing 3 major offices in Virginia and possible control of the state senate, and the fact that a Republican is at the very least still in the game in New Jersey ought to make you and your friends a little less smug these days.
Hope and change is coming all right - but it's not going to be what Obama and Co. have envisioned.
Happy GOPer…
Why so touchy? If the GOP sun is rising over America I would think you’d be pleased, not crabby.
The change that is coming will be delivered by the Club for Growth, which has inserted a wedge into the GOP which, if Hoffman wins in New York, will have been driven so deep the only possible outcome is a complete split in the right wing—the crazies in the GOP versus the super-crazies of the CFG. Add to that Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann and Rush Limbaugh all running around liked crazed wolverines and you’ll get change up the ying-yang.
"This may be a sign that the Republican Party is healings its cleavages and sees its advantage in embracing conservatism."
To me it seems delusional to look at the NY-23 race that way. The GOP candidate actually dropped out, but that's somehow supposed to the party?
whoops meant supposed to "help" the party
Happy GOPer: Why do you bitch and moan when PeteKent (or I, or anyone else) talks about "the future".
Like Pragmatus, I'm happy to read posts where people demonstrate actual insight rather than wishful speculation. But I won't bother reading predictions which are not supported by analysis. While anyone can make a good prediction and still be wrong, good analysis is generally demonstrated by being right more often than not. And PeteKent has so rarely been right that I don't bother reading his posts anymore. Really, anyone who is wrong so often should engage in a little more analysis and caution to up his batting average.
Hope and change is coming all right - but it's not going to be what Obama and Co. have envisioned.
This is an example of just what I'm talking about. Based on what?
On two governors' races? If two Republicans were in power in the worst economic crisis in 80 years, I'd guess they or their parties would be facing tough reelects too.
Based on NY-23? It can be spun both ways, with Republicans expected to win in one of the few remaining Republican districts in the Northeast.
A lot is going to happen between now and next November. We could still be in awful economic times, or jobs could be on the upswing, or anything in between, or there could be a major international crisis. I think predicting what's going to happen in 2010, much less 2012, is a foolish, speculative exercise.
Sure, let's talk about the future. But let's do so keeping in mind our very limited ability to do so with any confidence. Otherwise, we're just spouting ideological affinities, which we can do far more directly and with far less chance of being wrong about other stuff.
@ congressworksforus I think we are in the same "zone" even if we disagree on the outcome. But I have a few quibbles.
I never said that the Senate at 52-54 Dems equals 52-54 liberals. One think I used to point out to my "club for growth" friends was even at the GOP's maximum majority of 55 Senators, they only had this maximum because of 6 moderates (Snowe, Collins, Chaffee, Spector, Gordon Smith, and to some extent Voinovich). They never had a CONSERVATIVE majority or a pro-life majority either for that matter (even throwing in some pro-life Dems)when you added up everyone's stances. But operational majorities are what count, whose caucus is in charge.
Now the GOP taking all the "purple districts" isn't fully accurate (I'm assuming you mean in the House). The GOP won lots of seats in the South East in a regional realignment (KT south to Florida), similar to the Dems North East (Pennsylvania - New England) realignment we saw in 2006 & 2008. There just isn't an equivalent bunch of seats in an area of the country undergoing a regional shift. Most of the seats outside of the South East the GOP won in 1994 was due to masterful gerrymandering that has mostly run it's course (Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania) as the the Blue or Purple nature of the states have overwhelmed the gerrymandering. The GOP ate the Bo Weevils Dems, just as the Dems ate the Rockefeller Repubs. Dems have a 74 seat majority there are 54 Blue Dogs, even if they took red seats like you said in the house, that's not enough. The GOP will not win +11 Senate races to gain control.
The GOP real issue is actually California after 2010, especially since Jerry Brown is the clear cut leader there. If you want to go over to swingstateproject.com you can see all sort of COMPACT gerrymandering jobs for California that don't violate the voting rights act and give the Dems anywhere from 40-45 seats (up from 34 now). A tough gerrymandering of California (the Dems in Sacramento hate the GOP budget obstructionist reps there and want to burn them) easily equals 6-9 more Dem pick ups, bigger than the 4 seat Texas will pick up. Of Texas' 4 seat at least 2 will have to be majority Latino (Houston 1.5 million Latinos don't have a majority rep) especially with an Obama controlled justice department. Texas already burned most of it's thunder in it's mid decade redistricting, because of their slower population growth you just can't gerrymander much more out of the rural parts of the states. BTW I could eliminate every Republican except maybe one from NY with a crayon in the dark (Peter King welcome to Queens...). Also Pennsylvania, Mich, Ohio should have more purple maps, they all have Dem majorities on red maps.
Dopper - yes, you are correct, you didn't say 52-54 liberals, but you know a lot of the folks on here were thinking that.
Your analysis of 1994 is pretty good; I would have been more accurate in saying those districts were purple then, but are solidly red now.
The Dems do have a 74 seat majority today; losing 54 blue dogs (wont happen, but we're speaking hypothetically) would switch that majority to 34 in the GOP's favor.
I am in Ohio; the GOP was in such disarray here in 2006 it began a shift to the Dems. But it's not a permanent shift. Strickland will probably lose the Governor's job to Kasich next year, and with such a strong name at the top of the ticket -- and a strong fiscal conservative as well -- that'll carry on down the line. (Which is why I am not in the slightest sold on Voinovich's Senate seat going blue in 2010 either.) I'd also look hard at Michigan in 2010 as possibly a sign of things to come across the country: it's only a matter of time before enough of the good people in the state realize that Democrat economics don't work. The union pull in the state is becoming more and more irrelevant as more and more union jobs vanish...
It's all speculation at this point though; until the primaries begin to shake things out (starting with people actually declaring for races in many instances!) many races are nigh-in impossible to predict.
CONGRESS
heck, conditions were supposed to be ripe for the GOP in OH & especially MI last November, remember ?
and then there was RED IN & we can't forget PA was supposed to vote GOP...
2010 will be OK for the GOP since it has strong historical tailwinds, but 2012 could then be another BLUE blowout
of course, we are still only 1 year removed from the last election when all conventional wisdom was turned upside down by the margin of victory for BHO & the DEMs...
way too early
DCM - You need to go re-read the AP's post-election analysis in order to understand the 2008 election results.
I hear from my GOP friends that if Jeb Bush endorses Rubio (he endorsed McCollum for Gov today) before the end of the year, that Crist will take that as an excuse to pull an Arlen Spector and switch parties. He will claim that moderates have been driven out of the party and he will promise to be a blue dog like Bill Nelson. He would use his name recognition and blow Meek out of the water.
As a person who grew up in St, Pete, I can believe it. Charlie always follows polls and has no true convictions of his own.
Jeb Bush is the key to the whole thing.
Sestak is the candidate that will be able to get the Democrats to the polls in November in PA. If Specter wins the primary, the young, progressive Democrats will stay home in November.
Post a Comment