Colorado Primary Challenge Looks Like Win-Win for Dems

Last night, word leaked that Andrew Romanoff, a 41-year-old who was recently term-limited out of his job as Colorado House Speaker, will be challenging incumbent senator Michael Bennet for the Democratic nomination. Romanoff had been considered a candidate to succeed Ken Salazar as Colorado's Class III Senator when Salazar was appointed in December to head the Interior Department, but governor Bill Ritter went with the lesser-known Bennet, the former Denver Schools Superintendent, instead.

There is, in theory anyway, some room to challenge Bennet from his left. So far this year, Bennet has voted with the liberal position about 88 percent of the time, according to ProgressivePunch.org. But this ranks him just 46th of the 59 Senate Democrats. He has also frustrated many progressive activists with his waffling stance on EFCA, a pro-labor bill that now appears to lack the momentum to pass.

Then again, voting with one's party 88 percent of the time is still voting with one's party 88 percent of the time, and Bennet has been a long way removed from the Evan Bayhs and Ben Nelsons of the world, who have Progressive Punch scores in the 50s or 60s. He also appears poised to support progressives' latest raison d'être, the public option. In addition, Colorado Democrats traditionally take more moderate stances on fiscal policy, but more liberal ones on social policy, the environment, and perhaps foreign policy. So far this year, the Senate has voted almost exclusively on matters of fiscal policy, which might not give someone like Bennet a chance to show off his more liberal stripes.

But in any event, this does not appear to be a primary motivated principally by idological concerns. Rather, in a bit of role reversal, Romanoff is likely to highlight his superior experience as compared with the incumbent, as he has eight years as an elected office-holder to Bennet's zero (Bennet had never run for public office before being picked by Ritter). In particular, he may try to relay his experience working with -- or around -- a vocal Republican minority, as this revealing passage from a 2008 Rocky Mountain News article might suggest:

Romanoff said Thursday he feels burned by Republicans who he thought were negotiating in good faith on a plan to untangle conflicting spending mandates in the constitution, including the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights.

Now, Romanoff said, he realizes they were just buying time to galvanize their caucus against the plan.

"I feel like I wasted time in what I thought were genuine policy negotiations that turned out to have been political stalling tactics," he said.

"And I'm embarrassed to admit that, because it makes me look like an idiot. I feel like an idiot, but that's the way it's played out. It's not a game, and it's not over yet."

Bennet has one major advantage over Ronamoff: he's proven to be a terrific fundraiser. In the first six months of the year, Bennet has raised $2.6 million, an impressive total for anyone, let alone someone who had never before held elected office.

But, Bennet's approval ratings are marginal, and he has been running neck-and-neck in early polling against several prospective candidates in the somewhat disorganized Republican field. In addition, appointed senators have a poor track record when running for election, particularly if they had not previously held elected office at the time of their appointment.

Overall, this seems like a win-win for Democrats. If Bennet holds on, and that is more likely than not, he'll have gained some experience as a campaigner and may become a stronger general election candidate. If Bennet proves to be too wet behind the ears, the Democrats will have a capable candidate in Romanoff to replace him. And in the meantime, even if the challenge is not explicitly on ideological grounds, Bennet will be under increased pressure to toe the party line, potentially giving the Democrats one less headache on issues like health care and the climate bill.

There's More...

Contract Post

Ford is Also Trading in Its Clunkers for Cash

My dad just bought a Ford Fusion Hybrid. He loves the darned thing. On a recent trip from Michigan to Maine -- slightly over 1,000 miles -- he managed to stop just once for gas along the way and averaged close to 38 miles per gallon. It's a good car. The ride is almost eerily smooth, transitioning effortlessly between gas and electric power as you decelerate and accelerate around turns. There's even a power outlet in the back seat, so your passengers can use their laptop or iPod to their heart's content while they're getting where they're going. It's by no means the sexiest vehicle, but it's a bit easier on the eyes than a Prius.

It's also an American car. This is not an accident. My dad is not exactly the most jingoistic guy -- rather, he's a rather liberal, California-bred political science professor. But he won't buy a foreign car. Won't even consider it. This is because he lives in Michigan. The only thing that will get you more dirty looks in Michigan than driving a foreign car is having an Ohio State Buckeyes sticker on the back bumper.

The car wasn't purchased as part of the CARS program -- the family's old Taurus wasn't quite clunky enough to qualify. But he was eligible for a couple of tax credits and stands to save something like $1,000-$1,500 per year in gas depending on where the price of oil goes. Overall, it's a pretty good buy.

The fact is, though, that Americans who want a fuel-efficient vehicle have had comparatively few domestic options, at least until recently. Nobody should act shocked or offended, therefore, if a lot of the sales made through cash-for-clunkers were for foreign vehicles. A new vehicle is eligible for the CARS (cash-for-clunkers) program if it achieves at least 22 MPG according to the EPA. How many American-made* vehicles qualify?

The EPA has a database in which it lists 1,182 distinct model lines of 2009 cars and SUVs. Of these, 531 -- 45 percent of the total -- are manufactured by Ford, Chrysler, or GM.

Only 293 of these model lines qualify for the Clunkers program. Of the qualifying cars, just 87 -- 30 percent -- are American-made, well behind their share of the overall fleet. Another way to look at this: just 16 percent of domestic-made model lines qualified for the program, versus 32 percent of the foreign brands.



So if, as it happens, the cars purchased under the clunkers program were less likely to be American made (52 percent were, versus the usual benchmark of 63 percent -- although that rate has steadily been declining), this is simply a reflection of the choices that consumers had available. If anything, the American-made cars have over-performed, relative to their availability. Per eligible vehicle model, the American cars sold an average of 4,125 units through the clunkers program, versus just 746 for the for the foreign cars.

I don't know why it took Detroit so long how to figure out how to make a good mass-market, hybrid like my dad's new Fusion. But they're starting to get it right. And Ford, at least, buoyed in part by the clunkers program, is being rewarded with big year-over-year sales increases. Now, if only they could do something about the Lions...

___
* By "American-made", I mean a car produced under the Ford, GM or Chrysler flagships, or one of their subsidiaries. There are some ambiguities in where a car is actually manufactured -- a lot of Ford Fusions, for example, are assembled in Hermosillo, Mexico, while some foreign manufacturers have assembly plants here.

There's More...

Contract Post

Turning the Green Mountain State(house) Blue

The incumbent governor of Vermont--one of only two states remaining (New Hampshire) with two-year terms for its governor, and a state with no term limits--is Republican Jim Douglas, a popular moderate in the decidedly liberal Green Mountain state. But Douglas announced this week that he will not seek a fifth term. Incredibly, his retirement creates the 20th--yes, you read that correctly, 20th--gubernatorial open seat for 2010.

It also creates a huge pickup opportunity for Democrats because, regardless of the national atmosphere next autumn, this is a state where Democrats dominate the legislature and Barack Obama won by 37 points statewide and carried every single town. "The Republican Party's cupboard is bare with regard to potential successors to Jim Douglas," University of Vermont political science professor Garrison Nelson told a local television reporter. "Douglas is the last of the Aiken, Stafford, Jeffords wing of the Republican party in Vermont. You know, soft spoken, social liberal moderates, fiscal conservatives."

Though Douglas is certainly no Mark Sanford, earlier this year he did, however, veto the state's same-sex marriage law. (Amazingly, the state legislature overrode that veto with the requisite 2/3rds majorities in each chamber...in how many states in America could that happen, one wonders?) So, while the replacement of Douglas with a Democrat in 2011 would not quite be akin to say, Ted Strickland winning the seat vacated in Ohio by the horrible and horribly unpopular Bob Taft, it potentially changes state politics and would also lock down yet another New England victory for the Democrats in the steady conquest of that region some predicted earlier this decade would and should happen.

Not surprisingly, the Democratic Governors Association is licking its chops, immediately elevating Vermont to "top-tier" status on its target list. In a statement released yesterday, DGA executive director Nathan Daschle said, "With such strong leaders in this race, we have an excellent opportunity to win back Vermont’s governorship. As a top-tier pickup opportunity for our organization, we are committed to ensuring that a Democrat wins this race in 2010. Our political program will dedicate the same attention and day-to-day involvement that other top-tier states such as Florida and California receive."

"This does shake up the political landscape in Vermont," Republican state senator Randy Brock admitted to the Burlington Free Press, in a mild understatement. Brock told the Free Press--which has more on the potential candidates for both parties here--he would "defer" to Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie of Essex, should Dubie decide to run.

There's More...

Contract Post

Poll: Most Don't Know What "Public Option" Is -- Including Pollsters

A new survey by Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates for the AARP reveals widespread uncertainty about the nature of the "public option" -- a government-run health insurance policy that would be offered along with private policies in the newly-created health insurance exchanges. Just 37 percent of the poll's respondents correctly identified the public option from a list of three choices provided to them:



It is tempting to attribute these results to attempts by conservatives to blur the distinctions of the health care debate. And surely that is part of the story. But it may not be all that much of it. Democrats were more likely than Republicans to correctly identify the public option in this poll, but not by all that wide a margin -- 41 percent versus 34 percent. Meanwhile, 35 percent of Republicans thought the public option refers to "creating a national healthcare system like they have in Great Britain" -- but so did 23 percent of Democrats.

This should serve as something of a reality check for people on both sides of the public option debate. If the respondents had simply chosen randomly among the three options provide to them, 33 percent would have selected the correct definition for the public option. Instead, only 37 percent did (although 23 percent did not bother to guess). This is mostly a debate being had among policy elites and the relatively small fraction of the public that is highly knowledgeable and engaged about health care reform; for most others, the details are lost on them.

This is also why relatively small changes in wording can trigger dramatic shifts in support for the public option, which has been as high as 83 percent in some polls and as low as 35 percent in others depending on who is doing the polling and how they're asking the questions. You don't see those sorts of discrepancies when polling about, say, gay marriage or the death penalty, where the options are a little bit more self-evident.

Unfortunately, some liberal interest groups may be contributing to the confusion as well, with this poll being a prime example. When Penn, Schoen and Berland ask people to identify the public option, they describe it -- correctly -- as offering health insurance at "market rates". However, when they ask people how they feel about the public option, a different concept is introduced:

"Starting a new federal health insurance plan that individuals could purchase if they can’t afford private plans offered to them."

Seventy-nine percent of the poll's respondents -- including 61 percent of Republicans -- say they'd support this proposal. But it seems to be a very different proposal from the "public option" that Penn, Schoen and Berland took so much care to define, or the one that is actually being debated before Congress. Rather than offering health insurance at "market rates", the public option has been transformed in this question into a sort of fallback policy for people who are priced out of the market. Moreover, the term "government" has been replaced by the softer but more ambiguous term "federal".

Also, if you read the fine print, this is an Internet-based poll, which is not something that an esteemed firm like Penn, Schoen and Berland or an esteemed organization like the AARP should be toying with. Telephone polls have their problems, particularly if they do not include respondents with cellphones, but they are a long ways ahead of Internet-based polling. Zogby Interactive, the most prolific (if the least methodologically sound) Internet-based pollster, has missed the outcome of recent elections by an average of 7.6 points when conducting polls online. (Internet-based polling is cheaper to conduct, but as is the case with fine dining in Manhattan, "value" should not be confused for "cost". Any organization commissioning an Internet-based poll is probably wasting its money, because the poll isn't likely to be any good.)

More generally, there seems to be a sort of arm's-race on both sides of the debate to conduct crappy, manipulative polls on health care reform, and the public option in particular. This poll belongs in the 'crap' pile, as do most of the others. Defenders of the public option, however, should have little to fret about: the most neutrally and accurately-worded polls on the public option -- these are the ones from Quinnipiac and Time/SRBI -- suggest that their position is in the majority, with 56-62 percent of the public supporting the public option and 33-36 percent opposed.

There's More...

Contract Post

Should Kennedy's Dying Wish on Temporary Appointment Be Granted?

Piggybacking on Nate's post below, whatever eventually happens with the special election and subsequent regular election to fill Massachusetts' Class 1 senate seat, in the immediate term state officials need to make a decision on Ted Kennedy's stated wish that there be a temporary appointment to fill it until the special election can be held later this year.



With all due respect to the late senator, I think it's a bad idea to suddenly change the law, even if the motives are to honor a long-serving senator and also to ensure that the state is not underrepresented in the Senate. Given that the current--and in my opinion, stupid--procedure was enacted by state Democrats with partisan motives to thwart then-Gov. Mitt Romney were he to have the power to appoint a successor in 2004 to John Kerry had Kerry won the presidential election, the calls for altering it again so soon after it was changed (and again with at least a partially partisan intent) would set, or rather continue, a dangerous precedent.

But before expounding on my views about that, the Boston Globe this morning is reporting that, thanks to Gov. Deval Patrick's public statement in support, along with endorsements of the move by Kerry and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, momentum is growing for the legislature to make the change Kennedy requested:

Governor Deval L. Patrick, breaking his silence on the future of Edward M. Kennedy’s Senate seat, yesterday embraced Kennedy’s request that the governor be given the power to appoint someone to the seat until voters can choose a permanent successor in a special election.

“I’d like the Legislature to take up the bill quickly and get it to my desk and I will sign it,’’ Patrick said in an interview with the Globe, reiterating in his strongest terms what he had been saying throughout the day, as the state and nation absorbed Kennedy’s death and what it would mean for Massachusetts, and for the chamber he served for a half-century.

Patrick’s public statements add to growing momentum for Kennedy’s plea, which he made last week in a poignant letter to the governor and legislative leaders. Kennedy said that while he supported the state’s current method of filling vacant a Senate seat through a special election, Massachusetts could not afford to go without two senators at such a critical time.

Under current law, a special election would now be held in January, with a primary scheduled for November or December...

Pressure to change the law to allow for a temporary appointment came from Washington, too, with Senate majority leader Harry Reid pushing Massachusetts leaders to fill Kennedy’s seat quickly. Reid called Patrick yesterday to express concern over “the promptness with which we fill this vacancy,’’ Patrick said. The governor said that Reid told him that Senate Democrats needed every vote they could get in what are expected to be close Senate votes on health care and climate change this fall.

“It’s a particularly timely request at a time when there are such profoundly important proposals pending in the Congress right now,’’ Patrick, speaking at a press conference earlier in the day, said of Kennedy’s wish. “Massachusetts needs two voices in the United States Senate.’’

Senator John F. Kerry also advocated for the change yesterday, stressing that the appointment would only be temporary.

“I believe a temporary appointment would be the right thing to do,’’ Kerry said after leaving the Kennedy compound in Hyannis Port. “The voice of the people of Massachusetts will be respected.’’

There are many short-term reasons to like the change, most importantly the need for Massachusetts citizens to have a vote in the Senate that represents Kennedy's strong advocacy for national health care at a time when the nation is once again debating this issue.

But think of the consequences here. Do we really want legislatures using senators' deaths as causes to change their replacement rules? Methinks not. The nature of federalism is that states have the right to do so, but it would not only create more fairness across the Senate but better representation of state electorates to have a more uniform procedure. Though the Senate cannot mandate uniformity, what it could and should do, once the Kennedy tributes settle down, is convene a bi-partisan panel of senators to issue a strong, bi-partisan recommendation--signed by as many senators as possible--to state governments for the establishment of a more uniform set of rules.

The language in the second graph of the 17th Amendment, which is correctly remembered for ending the appointment of senators and instead making their selection by popular vote, reads: When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, that the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. Unfortunately, as with so many other parts of the original or amended language of the Constitution, the language leaves open to state interpretation any number of interesting scenarios. And part of the problem here is the dumb luck (or lack of it) of timing: After all, a senatorial vacancy can occur on a schedule that is easily anticipated (e.g., it was possible by March 2004 to envision why and more or less exactly when Kerry's seat would be vacant); on a schedule that can be generally but not exactly anticipated (e.g., Kennedy is very ill but nobody can be sure when exactly he would pass); or on a schedule not anticipated at all (e.g., Sen. Paul Wellstone's tragic plane crash).

I have no set solution in mind, but suspect the best recommendation a special Senate panel could make is for states to pass laws that would:

1. Compel the governor to appoint a successor from the same party as the departing senator, so the wishes of the plurality/majority of voters is at least partially honored and the possibility of partisan shenanigans is severely limited. This could be accomplished by mandating that the governor choose from a slate provided by the state party committee of the departing senator. (In Maryland, where I teach, there is a similar process for gubernatorial replacements of departing state legislators.); and

2. Set out a sensible time schedule for special election that is relatively uniform across states and which takes into specific consideration how far away the next regular election is.

I mean no disrespect to Kennedy, his family, the state or Massachusetts or its citizenry by saying this, but the law is the law. And though it could be changed again, the bitter partisan irony here is that it was the Democrats who tinkered with the vacancy appointment process five years ago that has now come back to bite them.

Tinkering with it again may feel good in the short term, but it's not the right thing to do in the long term. And if his fellow Senators want to honor him posthumously, they ought to get together and set down a strong recommendation for all the states so that people of every state have confidence that a sudden Senate vacancy--especially one caused by a sad or even tragic death--is not cause for partisan manipulation and intrigue.

There's More...

Contract Post

Could a Republican Win Ted Kennedy's Senate Seat?

Short answer: Very probably not.

Longer answer: Almost certainly not if the candidate is Mitt Romney. Romney served one term as governor of Massachusetts and was not popular at the time he left office. A Survey USA poll conducted in mid-November 2006 put the outgoing governor's approval rating at just 34 percent, against 65 percent disapproval. This poll does not particularly seem to have been an outlier. A Boston Globe/University of New Hampshire poll in late October, 2006 also had Romney's approval numbers in the red -- 34 percent of likely voters had a favorable impression of him and 54 percent an unfavorable one -- and polling conducted throughout 2005 (before Romney announced in December of that year that he would not seek a second term) showed him as many as 16 points behind his prospective Democratic rivals. Voters had evidently had enough of the guy.

But wait -- it gets worse. Voters not infrequently cross party lines to vote for governor -- 18 of the 50 states (36%) currently have a different party representing them in the governor's mansion than the one they cast their vote for toward the Presidency last November. But that's true for just 22 of 100 Senators. Voters recognize that Senate is a national office and governor is a local one: they're less likely to vote for a Senate candidate from the "wrong" party since they know that, once he gets to Washington, he'll be under enormous pressure to toe the party line, in a way that a governor who is not part of a larger constituent body might not be. Yes, quite a few people have made the cross-over before, including some in unfriendly territory (Ben Nelson of Nebraska is one case in point). But these instances are becoming rarer as the partisan divide in the country grows more extreme. And that would seem particularly to be the case for a candidate whose only reason to run for the Senate would be to help him defeat a Democrat for the Presidency in 2012 or 2016.

Plus, there's the question of how Romney would position himself. Is he going to revert back to being pro-choice, and pro-civil unions again? He probably can't win the Senate seat unless he does. But he probably can't win the Republican Presidential primary unless he doesn't -- particularly on the abortion issue. While I think it would behoove Romney to run slightly further to his left than he did in 2008 -- a lot of conservatives aren't going to vote for him anyway between his religious affiliation and the likely presence of Sarah Palin in the Republican primaries -- that would be taking things to extremes.

Speculation aside, Mitt Romney is probably smart enough to know this (whatever else you might say about him, Romney's not lacking for brainpower). Romney has a pretty good brand and probably 75 percent-plus name recognition among likely voters. And last I checked, you don't have to be popular in Massachusetts to become elected President. Running for the Senate seat is virtually a pure downside play for him.

As for other Republicans in Massachusetts, their prospects don't figure to be much better. This is mostly because there aren't very many of them. Something like 40 percent of U.S. Senators had been U.S. Representatives at the time of their election -- but all 10 of Massachusetts' U.S. Reps are Democrats. Statewide office holders like Lieutenant Governors and Attorney Generals have also had their share of success when running for Senate -- but Massachusetts' A.G., Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State and State Auditor are all Democrats. State Treasurer Timothy Cahill is a Democrat-turned-independent, but he's expected to run for governor instead. This, incidentally, is another layer of protection that the Democrats have -- any Republican worth his salt should be trying to knock off the unpopular Deval Patrick, rather than trying to win Ted Kennedy's old seat. Unless William Weld is interested -- and Weld endorsed Barack Obama and might vote with the President anyway on issues like health care and cap-and-trade -- this one is probably a pipe dream for Republicans.

There's More...

Contract Post

A Lion in a Senate Full of Them--Back in '63, That is

Chris Dodd joked today during an impromptu press conference that Ted Kennedy had “the burden of serving with me and my father” in the Senate. There's so much talk, rightly, about what happens now that Kennedy is gone: who can replace him, literally and spiritually; the bitter irony of him not being around to negotiate the final language for and vote upon President Obama's health care package.

But Dodd's quip got me to thinking about what the Senate looked like when Ted Kennedy arrived. Though Kennedy took office by special election in late 1962, his first full Congress was the 88th, seated soon thereafter in January 1963. Here’s a short list of some of the tall Senate names from that Congress:

Alabama’s John Sparkman; Arizona’s Barry Goldwater and Carl Hayden; Arkansas’ J. William Fulbright; Connecticut’s Abe Ribicoff and Thomas Dodd; Georgia’s Richard Russell; Idaho’s Frank F. Church; Illinois’ Everett Dirksen; Indiana’s Birch Bayh; Louisiana’s Russell Long; Maine’s Edmund Muskie and Margaret Chase Smith; Minnesota’s Hubert Humphrey and Eugene McCarthy (and later, Walter Mondale, who filled Humphrey’s seat at the end of that Congress); Mississippi’s John Stennis; Montana’s Michael J. Mansfield; Nebraska’s Roman Hruska; New York’s Jacob Javits; North Carolina’s Sam Ervin; Rhode Island’s Claiborne Pell; South Carolina’s Strom Thurmond; South Dakota’s George McGovern; Tennessee’s Al Gore Sr. and Estes Kefauver; Texas’ Ralph Yarborough and John Tower; Virginia’s Harry Byrd; Washington’s Scoop Jackson; West Virginia’s Robert Byrd; and Wisconsin’s William Proxmire.

Wow.

Not all are lions, but thate's a safari's worth of talent right there. The abbreviated list above includes titanic and long-serving senators (R. Byrd), including the man who has served in Congress longer than anyone else (Hayden); past and future presidential nominees and vice presidential nominees (Sparkman, Goldwater, Humphrey, McGovern, Thurmond, H. Byrd); leaders of key, historical congressional committees or commissions (Church, Ervin, Kefauver); memorable party leaders of the chamber (Mansfield); the first woman to ever serve in both the House and Senate (Chase Smith); not only Dodd's father, but a southern civil rights pioneer who fathered a certain vice president who later won the national popular vote in 2000 (Gore); and two senators whose surnames are synonymous with landmark education law (Fulbright, Pell).

Heck, two of the three Senate office buildings on Capitol Hill—Dirksen and Russell—are named for senators who were part of that 88th Congress. And this is just a rough sketch of what these senators accomplished. Surely I'm forgetting or am simply unaware of so much else.

Last night Ted Kennedy left the Senate for good as its liberal lion. But his point of arrival tells us a lot about him, too, for he was trained by, learned from and found great company among a group of pretty amazing senators in Washington when he arrived as a young cub on the scene almost 47 years ago.

There's More...

Contract Post

The Senate was the Right Place For Kennedy

As it has been mentioned by many obituaries and tributes, in a life of great personal turmoil, the U.S. Senate was where Ted Kennedy shone his brightest. Whether working across the aisle on issues of importance or championing the ideas of liberal Americans, Kennedy made his mark through persistent and reliable work in the upper legislative chamber.

Kennedy's political arc teaches us a number of things about the US system; in part with regard to the personalities of the various branches of power. For a man as influential, well-connected, and generally politically savvy, he was remarkably ineffective at executive, including presidential, politics. Instead, he dominated the congressional end, paving the way for his brother Robert and son Patrick.

The US Senate, with its long terms, small membership, and the strong influence of individual members is the place where politicians who might otherwise be pressed away from power can endure. In a system where power can be rapidly wrenched away because of one wrong sound bite, the Senate remains an institution where one can regroup and re-emerge after a painful electoral loss or scandal. It is a place that rewards methodical contributions and innovative thinking much more than sexy slogans.

The Senate matched Ted Kennedy quite well in all these regards. He was an insitutional person, as the patriarch of the Kennedys and an elder New England statesman. He was a man tarred by scandal, something that kept him from presidential and vice-presidential nominations. He was a lawmaker who was perfectly in line with the politics and culture of his constituents, and therefore never faced a serious challenge. Finally, he made his mark with his reliable mix of strong ideals and ideology, and pragmatic bi-partisan approach. All in all, there was no better place for Ted Kennedy.
---
Renard Sexton is FiveThirtyEight's international columnist and is based in Geneva, Switzerland. He can be contacted at sexton538@gmail.com

There's More...

Contract Post

Ted Kennedy Sails On

I just got into sailing this summer, and tonight, by sheer coincidence, I'll be sailing out of Hyannisport. But I started sailing too late to make this year's Figawi race, which takes place every Memorial Day weekend, as crews and their boats sail from Hyannis to Nantucket for a weekend of revelry to celebrate the start of sailing season, and then sail back.

Year in and year out, along with hundreds of other boats and thousands of fellow sailors, Ted Kennedy sailed Figawi in his schooner, Mya. The Cape Cod Times made a point to cover Kennedy's 2008 sail across the Sound, not long after his brain surgery. (He actually missed the sail over to Nantucket, but made the return trip back to Hyannis.)

But 2009 was different: Teddy didn't sail Mya in Figawi this year. The world recognized the seriousness of Kennedy's health situation this August when he was unable to receive his Medal of Freedom from President Obama in person, or attend sister Eunice Kennedy Shriver's funeral. But the sailing community knew Teddy was in bad shape in May--because he failed to sail Figawi.

Ted Kennedy will be missed for any number of far more important reasons than his sailing hobby, of course. This is an another open thread for readers to reflect and comment on the passing of the Senate's liberal lion--and pretty hearty sailor.

There's More...

Contract Post

Ted Kennedy, 1932-2009

There's More...

Contract Post

Seniors Skeptical on Health Care Spending

Tom asks, "Why are senior citizens crying "socialism" at town halls?"

As we like to say in academia: I don't know the answer, so let me tell you something I do know. (Graphs made in collaboration with Daniel Lee.)

First, who has health insurance (from the 2000 Annenberg survey):



Next, should the government spend more on health care (this time from 2004):



Some Obamacare supporters say: Senior citizens have Medicare, which is a government plan, so they should support public health care provision, right? But maybe some people on Medicare are suspicious of expanded government involvement in health care because they see it as competing with Medicare for scarce dollars.

Here are a couple more graphs (pretty similar to the second graph above):







Pretty much the older you are, the less you favor govermnent spending on health care.

P.S. The sample size is so huge we were able to have the luxury of plotting raw data. All we did is pool the age categories 91 and up. Yes, we could make the graph cleaner by smoothing it, but why bother? The picture from the raw data is clear enough.

P.P.S. Yes, it would be good to have newer data. But I thought it would be useful to see this, given that we had the data already at hand and so the graphs were effortless to make. The patterns didn't change much from 2000 to 2004, so maybe they represent fairly stable opinions.

There's More...

Contract Post

Majority Leader Dick Durbin?

The Democrats may be steadily losing ground in the generic congressional ballot, and may either break even or suffer a net loss of a seat or two in the Senate next year. But there's little reason to suspect right now that they will lose majority control of either chamber.

But they may lose their Senate Majority Leader, Nevada's Harry Reid. As Nate noted in his latest Senate rankings--despite lots of cash on hand for Reid, Nate rates Reid's seat fourth most likely to change partisan hands--Reid is trailing some relatively obscure Republicans. (It should be noted for non-NCAA basketball fans, however, that Republican candidate Danny Tarkanian, the son of former UNLV head coach Jerry Tarkanian who leads Reid by 11 points in the latest poll, has the benefit of some built-in name recognition in the state.)

Ed Morrissey raises some interesting questions after reminding us that Reid...

...would be the second Democratic Senate Majority Leader in a row to get thrown out of office by his own constituents (Tom Daschle got a compulsory retirement from South Dakotans), and he can’t allow that to happen by default with a retirement. The embarrassment would permanently damage the Democratic agenda in the Senate and take what little luster remains of the Obama administration. The Democrats have to fight for Reid, which makes the stakes even higher for them-—and the embarrassment even worse if he loses.

Will Reid try to save himself by retreating on ObamaCare and cap-and-trade? Normally I’d guess yes, but I’m not sure that Reid will get the luxury of listening to his constituents. If he wants a big Democratic Party rescue, he’ll need the national interests pushing for both big agenda items, especially the unions and the hard-Left organizers. Without them, he’s sunk, big warchest or not. Also, he’s probably boxed into the Obama agenda thanks to his actions this year and the yoke he shares with Nancy Pelosi and Obama. It’s probably too late to salvage independents in Nevada already.

What happens if Reid loses? Dick Durbin (D-IL) would almost certainly take the helm from Reid, which may not be a good outcome for either Republicans or Democrats. Nevadans apparently believe that they can get addition through subtraction, however, and Reid looks likely to exit after 2010, barring some electoral miracle in his state—-a very expensive miracle that might soak up all of the money needed to fight other midterm battles.

Obviously, the big problem for Reid is that he is majority leader, which means he doesn't have the benefit of political cover from national trends, or any disappointment or disapproval of the Obama Administration. The former boxer is trapped in the corner of the ring by his prominent position.

But in my view, precisely because he can't duck or run like a Ben Nelson or Mary Landrieu, Reid may as well be more aggressive as a national leader, whether on health care or other issues. Otherwise, he looks like a weak leader relative to his fellow Democratic president and the Senate Democrats he leads. Conservatives, who are delighting in the new poll numbers and calling for his head, aren't going to vote for him anyway, so he can't afford to lose Democrats and independents by appearing soft.

A bit of toughness from the former pugilist, coupled with that huge cash advantage and support from unions and national organizations and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee resources, ought to be enough to save his seat. Whether he should, or would want to, remain majority leader after that is another matter.

There's More...

Contract Post

Why Are Senior Citizens Crying "Socialism" at Town Halls?

Like many of you, I'm watching bits and snatches of these town halls broadcast on C-SPAN and elsewhere. I see a lot of elderly people shouting into microphones about "socialism," their fear of big government, and the importance of fiscal responsibility. Elsewhere, other seniors are complaining because in 2010 they aren't going to receive their familiar, cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security, while still others are fretting aloud that the federal government--which happens to run Medicare--shouldn't, um, be meddling with Medicare. A recent Pew poll revealed that 53 percent of seniors are worried that government is becoming "too involved in health care," a much higher share than those under 30 saying the same.

I'm 42. So maybe my mind will change on this as I age, but can those of us who are still working and paying premiums into OADSI and Medicare get a break here?

For starters, it's true that the Social Security benefits will not increase for 2010, but neither will they decrease. And, given that the year-against consumer price index dropped, maintaining the same benefit levels actually has the net effect of a raise in real terms. And yet, we hear complaints that there won't be an increase.

Now, one might counter that, for some things, prices are increasing for seniors--"things" like health care. So we need to make sure seniors have their Medicare, right? I'm fine with that, but let's keep in mind that current retiree-recipients will receive Medicare benefits that, on average, exceed what they ever put in, even when you adjust for inflation. American Enterprise Institute scholar Andrew Biggs makes a powerful point when he calculates that "a typical person who was born in 1944, began work at age 21 in 1965, and in 2009 retired at age 65 and enrolled in Medicare," and who then draws the typical benefit until death at age 83, will have paid roughly $64,971 in Medicare payroll taxes during his/her lifetime but received around $173,886, for a net of "$108,915 more in benefits than he paid in taxes over his lifetime." Hey, that sounds like socialist-style redistribution to me!

Which brings me to my next point: Although the redistributive effects of Social Security and Medicare are to some degree intragenerational, a lot of the redistribution works intergenerationally. Because it's intergenerational--specifically from younger Americans/workers who have paid into these programs at higher tax rates than their parents and grandparents--and because each new American generation is less white than the previous one--such redistribution also has a racial effect. Moreover, as a result of different life expectancies, even the intragenerational redistributive effect has a racial element: Cato's Michael Tanner explains in his 2004 book, Social Security and its Discontents, because of different life expectancies, the typical black man will receive on average about $70,000 less than a white man, and even if the white man and black man both reach age 65, the disparity still remains about $25,000.

So you'll pardon me if I'm unmoved by the complaints of some (not all: some) of these seniors standing up in town halls to warn ominously about big-government socialism at the same time they are benefitting from, well, big-government socialism. That some of the white seniors (again, some) are also echoing falsehoods about illegal immigrants (translation: non-whites) receiving benefits in a country where the younger, less-white generations are redistributing income from their hard labors to pay for the retirements of their whiter elders--especially when many of those immigrants, legal or not, pay into Social Security and Medicare and may never receive their contributions back or have a chance to later obtain benefits--is especially galling.

There's More...

Contract Post

How to Poll on the Public Option

**UPDATED [1:56 PM] with additional polls.

It shouldn't be that hard to conduct a decent poll on the public option, but so many pollsters seem to be getting it wrong. Let's go through what I'd consider to be five essential ingredients in conducting a good poll on the public option:

1. Make clear that the 'public option' refers unambiguously to a type of health insurance, and not the actual provision of health care services by the government.

In general, this is a concept that a lot of people seem to be unnecessarily confused by (although I suspect that a lot of the "confusion" is deliberate). The recent NBC/WSJ poll gets this wrong, referring to a "public health care plan" rather than a "public health insurance plan". So does this Rasmussen poll, which refers to a "public health insurance company".

2. Make clear that by "public", you mean "government".

The phrase "public" is somewhat vague and could conceivably be confused for something like a non-profit cooperative, which is a far different approach to tackling the health care problem. Including the phrase "public" in the question wording is probably fine, but it should be supplemented by the term "government". The Kaiser Family Foundation Tracking Poll, for instance, adds some ambiguity to what is otherwise a very well-worded question by describing "[A] public health insurance option to compete with private health insurance plans". I don't think this provides quite enough information to the respondent.

3. Avoid using the term 'Medicare' when referring to the public option.

On the other hand, it's quite possible to provide too much information to the respondent. Medicare is a popular program, and I'd consider using it as a reference frame when referring to the public option to be somewhat leading. This is particularly so given that the public option proposals actually being considered by the Congress would have some important distinctions from Medicare, such as probably having their premiums benchmarked to those charged by private providers (if the proposal were literally to make anyone eligible for Medicare, I might feel differently). Kaiser has found that support for the public option is a few points higher when it is referred to as a Medicare-like program. The CBS/NYT poll, among others, violates this premise.

4. Make clear that the public option is, in fact, an option, and that private insurance is also an option.

Here's another issue that a lot of pollsters are having trouble with. The Rasmussen poll blurs the distinction most blatantly, by referring to "[A] government health insurance company to compete with private health insurance companies". It is not at all clear from this wording that eligible consumers would have a choice between government-provided and privately-provided insurance policies. Likewise, the ABC/Washington Post poll ("Would you support or oppose having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans?"), would be better if it made clearer to the respondent that the public/government option provides consumers with a choice of health insurance alternatives. The FOX News poll suffers from a similar flaw.

5. Ask in clear and unambiguous terms whether the respondent supports the public option -- not how important they think it is.

As I wrote before:

"Importance" is a notoriously vague concept in public opinion polling and may be separate and distinct from asking someone whether or not they support a particular policy. How might someone respond to this question, for instance, if they had particularly strong feelings against a public option? Would they say that it was "not at all important", or would they say that it was "extremely important"? Conversely, how would someone respond if they had a weak preference for a public option, but didn't consider it an especially important component of health care reform?

NBC/WSJ had previously used this phraseology, which I criticized at the time. Unfortunately, it was resurrected by MoveOn.org in a poll conducted through SurveyUSA. "Importance" and "support" are not by any means synonymous concepts.

So, who gets it right?

Regrettably, almost all of the polls on the public option succumb to one or more of these sins. However, there are two exceptions. One is the Quinnipiac poll, which asks:

Do you support or oppose giving people the option of being covered by a government health insurance plan that would compete with private plans?

This is a perfect question. It makes clear that the public option is an insurance program, rather than a program to provide health care services. It uses the less ambiguous phrase "government" rather than the more ambiguous phrase "public". It makes clear that the public option is a choice. It avoids leading the respondent by comparing the public option to Medicare. And it asks in unambiguous terms whether the respondent supports or opposes the proposal.

62 percent of people support the public option in Quinnipiac's August 5th poll, versus 32 percent opposed.

Another is the Time/SRBI poll, which asks:

Would you favor or oppose a healthcare bill that creates a government sponsored public health insurance option to compete with private health insurance plans?

This poll has 56 percent in favor of a public option, and 36 percent opposed.

The Economist/YouGov poll is in something of a first-runner-up category, asking:

Do you favor or oppose having a "public option" which would allow individuals to purchase health insurance coverage from the government?

In the Economist/YouGov poll, 41 percent favor the public option and 33 percent are opposed.

This is not a bad question, but it arguably violates criterion #4, as it leaves it somewhat ambiguous as to whether individuals would continue to have a choice of private insurance in addition to the "public option", a fact perhaps reflected in the unusually high number of undecideds (27 percent) in the poll. In addition, this is an Internet-based poll, and at the present time I do not consider Internet-based polls to be especially trustworthy.

I would strongly urge people to cite the Quinnipiac or Time/SRBI polls when making reference to public sentiment on the public option. Not coincidentally, these come up with broadly similar results, showing between 56 and 62 percent in support of the public option, and 32 to 36 percent opposed. The other polls run the gamut from slightly to deeply flawed.

Errata: I had originally also described the ABC/WaPo poll as passing all of our tests, but failed to recognize that it in fact violated criterion #4. My apologies for the confusion.

There's More...

Contract Post

Afghanistan In a Holding Pattern: Abdullah Protests

Thursday's voting in Afghanistan has so far provided no solid results, as the preliminary results have been delayed from Saturday until later this week. Initial reports indicate that turnout was around 50% and many ballots have not yet reached the Kabul headquarters of the Independent Election Committee. Major news outlets, such as the New York Times, BBC, the Guardian and others continue to report incidents of fraud and intimidation. Observers have alternatively called the elections, "credible", "better than we feared," and highly flawed.

One surprise was that electoral violence on the day of voting was actually significantly less than expected. While the months and days ahead of election were marked by rapidly escalating political, ethnic and anti-international violence, the day itself was marred by 26 official electoral-related deaths*.

Four main irregularities have been reported:

1. Tampering: Votes being stuffed, removed, changed, etc.
2. Ethnic violence in North: Clashes between groups stopped some voting from occurring in the west and northern parts of the country
3. Poor security and violence in South: Due to the Taliban, a number of polling stations in the south were kept from opening, and a few in the eastern border regions along the instable parts of Pakistan (including reported influence by some Al Qaeda-linked elements). In some cases, voters were abducted or punished by Taliban elements.
4. Women's votes were impacted: As largely expected, the impact of intimidation and violence was particularly strong on women's voting station.

With regard to the outcome, it is notable that the main Hamid Karzai rival, Dr. Abdullah, is claiming fraud, while Karzai -- along with the international forces, including the Obama administration -- has praised the electoral process. Claims of fraud are a staple response from the candidate who expects to lose in elections of this sort, a circumstantial indication that Karzai will be declared the winner. When all candidates know the process is flawed, the losers are naturally the ones who are the most upset about it.

Several things are still not clear, along with uncertainty about the vote totals that will be released this week. In the case that Karzai does win without forcing a run-off, for example, how far would Abdullah and his supporters be willing to go to challenge the results - given that Abdullah has pledged to stick to legal efforts? And, if some sort of protest goes forward, beyond the official complaints to the electoral commission, would other candidates and/or their supporters join in?

As well, if a run-off does ensue, how will the Asraf Ghani, Ramazan Barshadost, and small minority candidate blocs respond? In polling of a head-to-head situation between Karzai and Abdullah, the three polls discussed on Wednesday indicated an approximate 60%-30% advantage for Karzai.

Finally, given that the political situation in neighboring Iran has largely stabilized, it will be important to pay attention to how the Iran-Afghanistan relationship continues to evolve, as well as the response of Obama administration and NATO allies.

The results are slated for release in the coming days, and when they are we will take a look at the numbers for interesting trends, plausibility, and perhaps some scenario analysis.

*Update: For all the claims of violence on election day being "less than expected," the BBC now reports that NATO is putting the number of attacks at more 400 - which actually makes it one of the most violent days.
---
Renard Sexton is FiveThirtyEight's international columnist and is based in Geneva, Switzerland. He can be contacted at sexton538@gmail.com

There's More...

Contract Post

Senate Rankings, August 2009 Edition: Republicans Movin' On Up

After a couple of relatively quiet months, the Senate race rankings have undergone a fairly major shakeup, with 15 distinct contests receiving an upgrade or a downgrade based on a combination of local and national circumstances. Most of these changes favor Republicans -- 7 of the 10 upgrades (meaning that a party switch is now more likely) were made to Democratic-held seats; 4 of the 5 downgrades were made to Republican-held seats. While there are still plenty of opportunities for the Democrats in the Senate, I believe that the Republicans are now slightly more likely to gain seats than to lose them, potentially threatening the Democrats' supposed filibuster-proof majority.

Races are ranked in order of their likelihood of changing parties (by 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. Missouri (R-Open)
We're waiting to see whether Robin Carnahan's numbers have been weakened any by the national tide having turned somewhat against the Democrats. Meanwhile, Roy Blunt had vastly improved fundraising numbers in the second quarter. Still, this is the sort of cycle that -- even if it tends to work against Democrats, may also tend to favor outsider candidates, and Blunt -- a seven-term Congressmen and former Majority Whip -- is not exactly the freshest of faces. I'm hedging a bit by giving Missouri a down arrow but nevertheless allowing it to retain the top slot on our list for the time being. Really, you could argue for almost any ordering of the top five or so races.

2. New Hampshire (R-Open)
Kelly Ayotte, on the other hand, the Republican Attorney General of New Hampshire, is a relatively fresher face, although some New Hampshire observers I've spoken with wonder whether she might ultimately be too green to run a top-notch campaign. Still, another poll has come out showing Ayotte in a dead head with Democratic nominee Paul Hodes. She certainly gives the Republicans far better chances to retain Judd Gregg's seat than a retread like Charlie Bass or John Sununu might have.

3. Connecticut (D-Dodd)
New Quinnipiac polling doesn't show Chris Dodd's situation improving any, but there remain a lot of contingencies in this contest: is Rob Simmons a safe bet to win the Republican primary when he's likely to face a couple very well-financed challengers? Is Dodd himself in the clear from a primary challenge? How will Dodd's diagnosis of prostate cancer affect the dynamics of the race? For the time being, it would be foolish to characterize this race is anything other than a toss-up.

4. Nevada (Sr.) (D-Reid)
Harry Reid's approval numbers have been in the dumps for some time now, but the argument against ranking this race more highly was that the Republicans lacked credible challengers. But now it appears that it might not matter: (relative) no-name Republicans are beating him. Reid currently has more than $7 million in cash-on-hand and Nevada is something of a machine state, so this is an easier pickup on paper than it will be in practice. Still, this is a very, very vulnerable slot for the Democrats.

5. Ohio (R-Open)
Rob Portman, as we anticipated, has now accelerated past his Democratic rivals in terms of fundraising. Still, although an anti-Bush message is likely to be a tired and losing one for Democrats in most instances in 2010, it may carry more weight when employed against Bush's former budget director, and Portman has not yet pulled ahead of the Democrats in the polls.

6. Kentucky (R-Open)
Jim Bunning, after much deliberation, will in fact retire. Unless he pulls a Favre, this is a big favor for Republicans. They are, however, hardly out of the woods in Kentucky, as the two leading Democratic candidates continue to poll competitively against the two leading Republicans. One dynamic to watch for in Kentucky is that Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul, will probably put the Republicans at a disadvantage if he defeats Trey Grayson for the party's nomination. Kentucky is arguably among the worst environments for a libertarian candidate in the country: socially conservative but somewhat more liberal economically, the exact opposite of the libertarian sweet spot.

7. Colorado (D-Bennet)
An underwhelming field all around in Colorado; nominal incumbent Michael Bennet has a net-negative approval rating, but his most likely Republican opponents aren't liked any better. A race like this is likely to be determined by national factors, rather than local ones, and right now those factors are looking much improved for Republicans, especially in a state where Obama's approval ratings have been poor relative to his election-day performance.

8. Illinois (D-Burris)
A Rasmussen poll shows Mark Kirk with a three-point lead over Democrat Alexi Giannoulias; on the other hand, that poll was based on a likely-voter sample in which Barack Obama had just 56 percent approval in his home state. At the end of the day, both parties are fielding fairly strong candidates here and I expect the race to gravitate back toward the partisan ID split in Illinois, which ordinarily favors Democrats. But Kirk is entirely capable of prevailing if Giannoulias runs a poor campaign or Republicans are having a good night nationwide.

9. Delaware (D-Open)
We're continuing to wait on U.S. Rep. Mike Castle to make a decision about whether to enter on Republicans' behalves. If he doesn't make that decision fairly soon, this race might warrant a slight demotion. Then again, since Castle has been in public office since 1981 and reprsents the entire state, he won't necessarily need a lot of time and money to introduce himself to Delaware's voters, making a late start more viable.

10. Pennsylvania (D-Specter)
While Democrats are busy fighting a primary battle, likely Republican nominee Pat Toomey, who was one once of the three or four most conservative members of the House, is cleverly and somewhat disingenuously trying to position himself as a moderate, having advocated, among other things, for Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court. I'd expect Democrats to win over some votes by pushing back on Toomey's track record once they've picked a nominee, although as I suggested before, Arlen Specter's own inconsistencies might make him less capable of doing so than Joe Sestak. Specter, indeed, has become a lighting rod for criticism from virtually all corners of the political spectrum, although I continue to have trouble believing that either he or Sestak would ultimately be an underdog against Toomey.

11. North Carolina (R-Burr)
Republican Richard Burr has unusually low name recognition for an incumbent, and a lot of the voters that know him don't particularly like him. The question, as Public Policy Polling's Tom Jensen suggests, may be whether 2010 is more of an anti-incumbent year -- in which case Burr is in some trouble -- or merely an anti-Democratic year.

12. Arkansas (D-Lincoln)
A recent poll has Blanche Lincoln's approval down to 49 percent. The poll was conducted by a Republican strategy firm and warrants caution for that reason, but I don't have trouble believing that voters have begun to grow wary of Lincoln, who has had a difficult time articulating her positions on issues like health care and EFCA. The saving grace for Lincoln is that Republican opposition in this race is poorly organized. If I were the NRSC, I might put something of a bounty on Lincoln's head and see if I couldn't come up with a more capable challenger.

13. Texas (R-Open?)
While in Pittsburgh for Netroots Nation, I had a chance to speak briefly with Houston Mayor Bill White at a luncheon, who will run for Senate if, as anticipated, Kay Bailey Hutchison eventually vacates her Senate seat to concentrate on her gubernatorial bid. White is a sharp guy in an unmistkably Texan, slow-moving sort of way. The basic mathematical argument he presents is reasonably compelling: although Republicans have a very slight partisan identification advantage in Texas, White is rather popular in the Houston area, where he was re-elected in his last two terms with 90 and 86 percent of the vote, and the Houston media market represents about one-quarter of Texas' electorate. Although Texas would hold a "jungle primary" in the event of a speical election, White anticipates that the race would quickly boil down to a two-candidate affair: himself and whomever Rick Perry nominates to be Hutchison's replacement -- likely a very conservative Republican. White would therefore run as a moderate -- perhaps almost as a quasi-independent -- which might impede fundraising and enthusiasm among national Democrats but is something he could live with since he's raised plenty of money on his own. It's a pretty good story; the question is whether White might be running into too much of a national headwind, especially in a special election environment in which turnout is liable to be low.

14. Louisiana (R-Vitter)
Democrat Charlie Melancon is in a little bit of a pickle. Having voted against the Democrats' health care package in committee, he may not receive much financial support from national Democrats -- a bit of a problem against an incumbent like David Vitter who has $3.2 million in cash-on-hand. Louisiana has become a tough state for Democrats and 2010 is likely to be a reasonably tough year; although he should be competitive enough to keep the race interesting, ultimately I'd have to rate Vitter as the fairly heavy favorite.

15. North Dakota (D-Dorgan)
Governor John Hoeven is in no apparent hurry to decide whether to challenge Byron Dorgan for his Senate seat. As I suggested last month, this feels like a bluff on Hoeven's behalf, designed to push the influential Dorgan toward more conservative stances on issues like health care and energy. With that said, the reason I've thought this is probably a bluff is Hoeven had looked like he'd been an underdog to Dorgan, and most sitting governors won't give up their seats to run a race that they'd probably lose. But if the national environment becomes favorable enough for Republicans, Hoeven might begin to take his Seante prospects more seriously.

16. Iowa (R-Grassley)
Chuck Grassley's position at the eye of the health care hurricane could leave him vulnerable on both flanks. A primary challenge, if successful, could turn this into an open seat contest. Meanwhile, IA-1 Congressman Bruce Braley is now contemplating taking on Grassley in the general election. Grassley remains well-liked by Iowa voters and has a lot of goodwill to burn through, but this one is starting to get interesting.

17. Florida (R-Open)
There's the possibility that Charlie Crist will get himself into a little bit of trouble in picking a replacement for Mel Martinez, but as we've suggested repeatedly, the Democratic opponents in this race are not especially strong statewide candidates and appear to be significant underdogs against both Crist and the other GOP hopeful, Marco Rubio.

18. New York (Jr.) (D-Gillibrand)
With Carolyn Maloney unlikely to challenge her, Kirsten Gillibrand should now have plenty of time to raise money to hedge against a late entry by George Pataki or Rudy Giuliani.

19. California (D-Boxer)
A Rasmussen poll has Carly Fiorina within four points of Barbara Boxer, but other surveys do not have the race being nearly as competitive. Considering Fiorina’s underwhelming performance as a spokesman for the McCain campaign, I expect her to be mostly an annoyance to both Democrats and Republicans, who have a better opportunity with Meg Whitman in the governor race.

20. Georgia (R-Isakson)

21. Arizona (R-McCain)

22. Hawaii (D-Inoyue)

23. Wisconsin (D-Feingold)

24. Nevada (Jr.) (R-Ensign?)
We had inserted this race on our list last month on speculation that John Ensign’s adultery scandal might force him into early retirement. Although Ensign is in a great deal of trouble for 2012, he seems to have limped through his scandal in strong enough position to at least keep his seat for the time being. Unless there are further revelations, we will consider de-listing this race next month.

25. South Carolina (R-DeMint)
Jim DeMint may face a Democratic challenger after all in the form of State Sen. Brad Hutto. Although there are some vague parallels here to Kay Hagan’s successful insurgent bid last year against Elizabeth Dole in North Carolina, 2010 is likely to be a far less favorable cycle for the Democrats and their infrastructure in South Carolina is notoriously poor. DeMint’s approval rating has not been tested for a long time -- the most recent poll is from November, 2006 when he came in at a 51/36 approve -- so it’s worth waiting to see if someone polls this race. But for the time being, it looks like no better than a long shot.

26. Oklahoma (R-Coburn)

27. Alaska (R-Murkowski)

28. Kansas (R-Open)

29. Maryland (D-Mikulski)

30. Washington (D-Murray)

31. Alabama (R-Shelby)

32. South Dakota (R-Thune)

33. Indiana (D-Bayh)

34. Vermont (D-Leahy)

35. Oregon (D-Wyden)

36. Utah (R-Bennett)

37. New York (Sr.) (D-Schumer)

38. Idaho (R-Crapo)

There's More...

Contract Post