It's two days before the election, therefore I no longer afford myself the luxury of calling the Massachusetts Senate special election a "toss-up". Let's analyze the data we have.
Polling and Statistical Data
We have three polls available to us that were:
(1) Taken in the past week
(2) Non-partisan in nature
These polls break down as follows:
Polling Firm Sample Size Coakley Brown
ARG 600 45% 48%
Suffolk 500 46% 50%
Rasmussen 1,000 49% 47%
So, here are the averages:
Sample-Weighted Average: Brown +0.9%
Pure Average: Brown +1.7%
Median: Brown +3.0%
Average of Averages: 1.9%
Statistical Projection: Lean GOP Pick-Up, Brown +1.9%
It is worth noting that Coakley's range is 45% to 49%, with an average of averages of 46.6%, while Browns range is from 47% to 50% with an average of averages of 48.5%. Since neither candidate appears to be over the 50% threshold, this election could very much be decided in the last two days as undecideds (estimated in this average at 4.9% of the vote) break one way or another. If these statistical projections are correct, Coakley would need 70% of the remaining undecideds.
It is also worth noting that there is a third-party Libertarian candidate in the race. It seems highly unlikely, despite the fact that he has an unrelated "Kennedy" last name, that he will garner a significant number of votes in such a close race, but different polls have treated his candidacy differently (some listing his name among the possible candidates in the poll, some not.) As we frequently see (most recently in New Jersey), third party candidates tend to underperform their polling on election day. And one would have to consider that Kennedy voters would largely swing to Brown. On the flip side, purely undecided voters, one would suspect, might break more than 50% for Coakley, given the state demographics.
So, all in all, I believe that this polling indicates, based on the data available today, that Scott Brown has a 70% chance of winning on Tuesday.
Of course, lots of variables will be important, from the impact of final-weekend spending, to the impact of President Obama (who is still popular in Massachusetts) stumping for Coakley, to, most importantly, the turnout on Tuesday (less is good for Brown, more is good for Coakley), especially relative to the polling assumptions.
I will update this statistical projection tomorrow, if, as I suspect, at least some new polling data are available.
The Betting Public
Intrade betting odds peg the race (as of this moment) at even odds. This reflects the close polls and also some disbelief that Massachusetts will actually elect a Republican. We'll see if that skepticism is warranted.
The Buzz in Washington
The inside buzz in Washington is that Brown is going to win. The GOP is already prepping a celebration dance, the DEMs already pitching talking points about how this is a unique race, not a vote on the Democratic agenda. When you start hearing these points, you know who they think is going to win. There are also several inside reports that internal polling by the Democrats shows Coakley in big trouble.
What to Make of It All
My overall conclusion: this is an extremely close race that is extremely hard to project, not only because of the closeness of the polling, but also because of the dynamics of a special election and the difficulty in estimating turnout.
Brown appears, at least at this point, to be more likely ahead than not. But he is not far ahead, if he is ahead.
So, if you live in Massachusetts, whether you support Coakley or Brown, you should make sure to vote. This may be the closest statewide race in the state for some time and voting in this type of election is far more critical than in a Presidential race (where the state is typically a slam-dunk for the DEMs.) So, get out and vote. And we'll all stay tuned Tuesday to see how you did.
I will publish an update on Monday if there is any new information to report on.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Massachusetts and Beyond, Presidential Approval Continues Slow Slide, Health Care Slogs Along, Haiti Relief - A Donation Worth Making
2010 Updates - A Very Unusual Year
Is the Senate race in Massachusetts a DEM blow-out, a GOP blow-out or a pick 'em race headed into next Tuesday? It all depends who you believe.
There have been two conflicting polls released in recent days that illustrate the danger of using numbers from partisan oriented polling firms in projecting races. A poll released yesterday by PJM/Cross Target, a Republican-affiliated polling firm, showed Republican Scott Brown with a shockingly large 15 point lead over Democrat Martha Coakley. The same day, a Democrat-afilliated Blue Mass Group poll shoed Coakley with an 8 point lead in the same race. A 23 points spread on two polls trying to measure the same race on the same day? And it just happens that the Democratic poll has the Dem leading big and the GOP poll has the Republican leading even bigger? Please, stop insulting our intelligence.
Back in the real world of neutral polls, this is a pick 'em race. The two last credible polls that we have are a Suffolk poll showing Brown at +4% and a Rasmussen poll showing Coakley at +2%, both released this week. Both Suffolk and Rasmussen are legitimate, neutral polling firms. The Rasmussen poll has a 1,000 voter sample size, with the Suffolk poll having a 500 voter sample size, which gives more weight to the Rasmussen poll in our aggregation method. I typically like to have at least 3 recent polls to make a good statistical projection, but going with what we have, Brown would have the slimmest of leads.
This is clearly a pick 'em race, not a blow-out in my books.
Massachusetts moves from Lean Democratic Hold to Toss-up.
I don't project toss-ups going into election night, so I WILL be making a projection soon as to the final outcome of the race, based on whatever data I have at that point.
In the November Senate races, there are multiple changes, most of them bad for the DEMs. Let's review the states with new polls.
California -- a new Rasmussen poll shows incumbent Senator Barbara Boxer leading business woman Carly Fiorna by only 3%, in what would've been a walk for the DEMs a year ago. California moves from Likely Democratic Hold to Lean Democratic Hold.
Nevada -- Harry Reid is in big, big trouble bag home. A January 14th Rasmussen poll shows Reid down by 12 to 14% versus likely GOP challengers and a January 8th Mason-Dixon poll shows him trailing by 8 to 10% against the same challengers. Nevada moves from Lean GOP Pick-up to Likely GOP Pick-up.
North Dakota -- with incumbent Sen. Byron Dorgan retiring, it appears the Democrats will lose his seat. Hoeven leads by 21 to 25% against likely Democratic opponents, according to a January 15th Research 2000 poll. Based on those numbers, this is starting to look like a safe bet for the GOP, but we'll hold it one notch short until we see another poll. North Dakota moves from Lean GOP Pick-up to Likely GOP Pick-up.
Connecticut -- the one piece of good news for the Democrats is that with Chris Dodd out of the way, his seat is probably the safest in the Senate for Demcorats to retain. A January 14th Quinnipac poll shows Blumenthal with amazing leads of 35 to 42% against likely GOPers. This race stays a Safe Democratic Hold.
New Hampshire -- more confirmation that Ayotte has a small-to-moderate lead. A January 12 Rasmussen poll shows her at +9%, largely agreeing with a January 7th ARG poll that showed her at +7%. This one stays a Lean GOP Hold.
Ohio -- continued evidence of a narrow GOP lead here. Portman is up 3% in a January 12 Rasmussen poll. This stays Lean GOP Hold.
We don't have new polls yet in Missouri and Pennsylvania, so they stay where they are, but I would say my current ratings, particularly in Missouri are probably suspect, given the national trend since the last polls we have.
All of which leaves us with:
Safe Democratic Hold (6)
Connecticut, Maryland, New York (Schumer), Oregon, Vermont, Wisconsin
Likely Democratic Hold (3)
Indiana, Wisconsin, Hawaii
Lean Democratic Hold (3)
New York (Gillebrand), Illinois, California
Lean Democratic Pick-Up (1)
Missouri
Toss-Up -- Democratic Controlled (3)
Massachusetts*, Delaware, Pennsylvania
* Special Election, January 19th
Likely GOP Pick-Up (2)
Nevada, North Dakota
Lean GOP Pick-Up (2)
Colorado, Arkansas
Lean GOP Hold (5)
New Hampshire, Kentucky, Ohio, North Carolina, Arizona
Likely GOP Hold (5)
Georgia, Alaska, Kansas, Louisiana, Florida
Safe GOP Hold (7)
Iowa, South Dakota, Alabama, Idaho, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah
Net Projection: GOP +3 to 6 Seats
Best Case GOP (all leaners): GOP +10 Seats
Best Case DEM (all leaners) DEM +4 Seats
We still have a wide range of possible scenarios that could happen by November. And as it should be with ten months to go before the election. But it definitely continues to trend GOP as the President's numbers slip and Democrats keep falling all over themselves.
The GOP needs a gain of 11 seats, assuming Joe Lieberman continues to caucus with the DEMs, in order to regain control, so we still don't have a scenario for GOP control of the Senate, although we are getting closer.
In the House, polls continue to show varying scenarios, but my aggregate number has actually been relatively stable.
The latest read: GOP +4.0% on the generic ballot
Projection: GOP +44 Seats
The GOP needs 40 seats to regain control, so for the third time in a row, I'm projected a GOP takeover of the House, at least at this point.
President Obama -- A New Low in Poll Numbers
President Obama's numbers have slipped a little over a point since the new year as you can see from the poll trend below, bringing him to a new low for his Presidency. There were a slew of new polls released this past week, so the averages are pretty strong, based on a very broad sample.
The trend shows up in the President's monthly numbers, which now stand at +3.6% approve minus disapprove for the month of January, also a new low. The President's numbers have declined every month but one in his Presidency.
So is there any good news for Democratic enthusiasts in these numbers? A little. The President, while at a low for his Presidency, is still modestly above the zero line, which means there are still slightly more people who approve of his performance than disapprove. And when you run for re-election, you don't need to win by much, you just need to win.
Secondly, there is some reason to be optimistic that likely improvement in the economy between now and November will bolster his numbers. Still, these numbers are bad for this stage in the Presidency.
While there has been an ongoing debate between the competing schools of thought that "all politics are national" and "all politics are local", the truth is that all politics are BOTH and that weakening numbers for Obama are no doubt having an impact on Senate races, including the Massachusetts toss-up that was considered a walk by everyone just a few months ago.
Health Care - Everything is Complicated Again
As negotiations continue between the White House and Congressional leaders to come up with a consolidated health care bill that can pass both Houses, a deal has been struck on the tax on high benefit plans that was a part of the Senate bill, but was opposed by some House Democrats, who feared it would impact benefits of union workers. The compromise? Exempt union plans from the tax.
This is a bad compromise, an agreement that is both fundamentally unfair (why should union members get tax treatment that is different from non-union members with the same benefits?) and also takes the teeth out of what was probably the one good piece of cost containment in the bill. These types of bad deals seem like par for course lately in a divided Democratic party.
The Coakley/Brown race further complicates things. If Brown wins, he is Republican #41 in the Senate, which shatters the fragile 60 vote coalition that the Democrats had put together to get the first bill passed. This upset, if it happens, would leave the Democrats with several options:
#1 Just have the House pass the Senate bill -- this appears to be a non-starter according to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, since the Senate bill contains the Caddy Tax we discussed above. But if the Brown upset happens, perhaps her stance will soften and she will push the bill through with the agreement that a later bill would deal with provisions that House members don't like.
#2 Hurry up and pass something before Brown is seated -- it will likely take at least 10 days to certify Brown the winner, possibly more if the race is extremely close and a recount is needed (recall the months it took to seat Al Franken in the bitterly contested Minnesota race last year) and the Democrats could try to pass something before Brown takes office. This would open them up to brutal criticism -- after all Massachusetts Democrats changed the law to allow a temporary appointment in the Senate and using that vote to circumvent the will of the Massachusetts people to ram through a bill that is unpopular in the polls would make for some easy GOP ads in November. It would, however, be a legal move and Democrats might just bite the bullet to pass a bill, but it would be a dangerous move for sure.
#3 Recruit Olympia Snowe -- Senator Snowe voted the bill out of committee and it would be hard to argue that the bill isn't more conservative now than it was then. Senator Snowe voted against the bill on the floor the first time around, complaining the Democrats were moving too fast, but she should have had plenty of time to think and read by now. Still, will Senator Snowe really want to be the deciding vote for such a massive Democratic accomplishment?
#4 Use Reconciliation -- this option is very messy as only portions of the bill could be attached to a process requiring only 51 votes in the Senate and could lead to an incomplete bill taking effect, but if all else fails, Democrats may seek this nuclear option. Of course, they still need 218 votes in the House, which is no slam dunk, but they may consider this to avoid the disaster of nothing passing.
This bill obviously isn't a done deal yet and we will all have to stay tuned.
Haiti -- Worth Our Giving
If you have a heartbeat, you can't help but be touched by the awful destruction in Port au Prince, Haiti, following a massive earthquake that may have killed as many as 100,000 people.
One of the most inspiring features of American culture has always been our willingness to give in times of need. Americans give more money to charity, in absolute dollars, in percent of income, by any measure you like, of any people in the world.
An aid is needed. Economic times back home are tough. But what we face is nothing compared to the grisly mess faced in Haiti. We have a moral obligation to do what we can to help.
I urge all readers to give. Former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have teamed up to organize aid efforts. The unity these two are showing in the face of the crisis should tell you that this relief effort has nothing to do with politics. What is needed is money to help dying, starving, threatened people.
Please, please, go to:
http://clintonbushhaitifund.org/
and give whatever you can to the Clinton/Bush Haiti Fund. If all you can afford is $10, still give it, that $10 could be the difference between a Haitian living and dying.
I have no affiliation with the fund.
Thank you for reading and thanks in advance for your generosity.
Is the Senate race in Massachusetts a DEM blow-out, a GOP blow-out or a pick 'em race headed into next Tuesday? It all depends who you believe.
There have been two conflicting polls released in recent days that illustrate the danger of using numbers from partisan oriented polling firms in projecting races. A poll released yesterday by PJM/Cross Target, a Republican-affiliated polling firm, showed Republican Scott Brown with a shockingly large 15 point lead over Democrat Martha Coakley. The same day, a Democrat-afilliated Blue Mass Group poll shoed Coakley with an 8 point lead in the same race. A 23 points spread on two polls trying to measure the same race on the same day? And it just happens that the Democratic poll has the Dem leading big and the GOP poll has the Republican leading even bigger? Please, stop insulting our intelligence.
Back in the real world of neutral polls, this is a pick 'em race. The two last credible polls that we have are a Suffolk poll showing Brown at +4% and a Rasmussen poll showing Coakley at +2%, both released this week. Both Suffolk and Rasmussen are legitimate, neutral polling firms. The Rasmussen poll has a 1,000 voter sample size, with the Suffolk poll having a 500 voter sample size, which gives more weight to the Rasmussen poll in our aggregation method. I typically like to have at least 3 recent polls to make a good statistical projection, but going with what we have, Brown would have the slimmest of leads.
This is clearly a pick 'em race, not a blow-out in my books.
Massachusetts moves from Lean Democratic Hold to Toss-up.
I don't project toss-ups going into election night, so I WILL be making a projection soon as to the final outcome of the race, based on whatever data I have at that point.
In the November Senate races, there are multiple changes, most of them bad for the DEMs. Let's review the states with new polls.
California -- a new Rasmussen poll shows incumbent Senator Barbara Boxer leading business woman Carly Fiorna by only 3%, in what would've been a walk for the DEMs a year ago. California moves from Likely Democratic Hold to Lean Democratic Hold.
Nevada -- Harry Reid is in big, big trouble bag home. A January 14th Rasmussen poll shows Reid down by 12 to 14% versus likely GOP challengers and a January 8th Mason-Dixon poll shows him trailing by 8 to 10% against the same challengers. Nevada moves from Lean GOP Pick-up to Likely GOP Pick-up.
North Dakota -- with incumbent Sen. Byron Dorgan retiring, it appears the Democrats will lose his seat. Hoeven leads by 21 to 25% against likely Democratic opponents, according to a January 15th Research 2000 poll. Based on those numbers, this is starting to look like a safe bet for the GOP, but we'll hold it one notch short until we see another poll. North Dakota moves from Lean GOP Pick-up to Likely GOP Pick-up.
Connecticut -- the one piece of good news for the Democrats is that with Chris Dodd out of the way, his seat is probably the safest in the Senate for Demcorats to retain. A January 14th Quinnipac poll shows Blumenthal with amazing leads of 35 to 42% against likely GOPers. This race stays a Safe Democratic Hold.
New Hampshire -- more confirmation that Ayotte has a small-to-moderate lead. A January 12 Rasmussen poll shows her at +9%, largely agreeing with a January 7th ARG poll that showed her at +7%. This one stays a Lean GOP Hold.
Ohio -- continued evidence of a narrow GOP lead here. Portman is up 3% in a January 12 Rasmussen poll. This stays Lean GOP Hold.
We don't have new polls yet in Missouri and Pennsylvania, so they stay where they are, but I would say my current ratings, particularly in Missouri are probably suspect, given the national trend since the last polls we have.
All of which leaves us with:
Safe Democratic Hold (6)
Connecticut, Maryland, New York (Schumer), Oregon, Vermont, Wisconsin
Likely Democratic Hold (3)
Indiana, Wisconsin, Hawaii
Lean Democratic Hold (3)
New York (Gillebrand), Illinois, California
Lean Democratic Pick-Up (1)
Missouri
Toss-Up -- Democratic Controlled (3)
Massachusetts*, Delaware, Pennsylvania
* Special Election, January 19th
Likely GOP Pick-Up (2)
Nevada, North Dakota
Lean GOP Pick-Up (2)
Colorado, Arkansas
Lean GOP Hold (5)
New Hampshire, Kentucky, Ohio, North Carolina, Arizona
Likely GOP Hold (5)
Georgia, Alaska, Kansas, Louisiana, Florida
Safe GOP Hold (7)
Iowa, South Dakota, Alabama, Idaho, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah
Net Projection: GOP +3 to 6 Seats
Best Case GOP (all leaners): GOP +10 Seats
Best Case DEM (all leaners) DEM +4 Seats
We still have a wide range of possible scenarios that could happen by November. And as it should be with ten months to go before the election. But it definitely continues to trend GOP as the President's numbers slip and Democrats keep falling all over themselves.
The GOP needs a gain of 11 seats, assuming Joe Lieberman continues to caucus with the DEMs, in order to regain control, so we still don't have a scenario for GOP control of the Senate, although we are getting closer.
In the House, polls continue to show varying scenarios, but my aggregate number has actually been relatively stable.
The latest read: GOP +4.0% on the generic ballot
Projection: GOP +44 Seats
The GOP needs 40 seats to regain control, so for the third time in a row, I'm projected a GOP takeover of the House, at least at this point.
President Obama -- A New Low in Poll Numbers
President Obama's numbers have slipped a little over a point since the new year as you can see from the poll trend below, bringing him to a new low for his Presidency. There were a slew of new polls released this past week, so the averages are pretty strong, based on a very broad sample.
The trend shows up in the President's monthly numbers, which now stand at +3.6% approve minus disapprove for the month of January, also a new low. The President's numbers have declined every month but one in his Presidency.
So is there any good news for Democratic enthusiasts in these numbers? A little. The President, while at a low for his Presidency, is still modestly above the zero line, which means there are still slightly more people who approve of his performance than disapprove. And when you run for re-election, you don't need to win by much, you just need to win.
Secondly, there is some reason to be optimistic that likely improvement in the economy between now and November will bolster his numbers. Still, these numbers are bad for this stage in the Presidency.
While there has been an ongoing debate between the competing schools of thought that "all politics are national" and "all politics are local", the truth is that all politics are BOTH and that weakening numbers for Obama are no doubt having an impact on Senate races, including the Massachusetts toss-up that was considered a walk by everyone just a few months ago.
Health Care - Everything is Complicated Again
As negotiations continue between the White House and Congressional leaders to come up with a consolidated health care bill that can pass both Houses, a deal has been struck on the tax on high benefit plans that was a part of the Senate bill, but was opposed by some House Democrats, who feared it would impact benefits of union workers. The compromise? Exempt union plans from the tax.
This is a bad compromise, an agreement that is both fundamentally unfair (why should union members get tax treatment that is different from non-union members with the same benefits?) and also takes the teeth out of what was probably the one good piece of cost containment in the bill. These types of bad deals seem like par for course lately in a divided Democratic party.
The Coakley/Brown race further complicates things. If Brown wins, he is Republican #41 in the Senate, which shatters the fragile 60 vote coalition that the Democrats had put together to get the first bill passed. This upset, if it happens, would leave the Democrats with several options:
#1 Just have the House pass the Senate bill -- this appears to be a non-starter according to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, since the Senate bill contains the Caddy Tax we discussed above. But if the Brown upset happens, perhaps her stance will soften and she will push the bill through with the agreement that a later bill would deal with provisions that House members don't like.
#2 Hurry up and pass something before Brown is seated -- it will likely take at least 10 days to certify Brown the winner, possibly more if the race is extremely close and a recount is needed (recall the months it took to seat Al Franken in the bitterly contested Minnesota race last year) and the Democrats could try to pass something before Brown takes office. This would open them up to brutal criticism -- after all Massachusetts Democrats changed the law to allow a temporary appointment in the Senate and using that vote to circumvent the will of the Massachusetts people to ram through a bill that is unpopular in the polls would make for some easy GOP ads in November. It would, however, be a legal move and Democrats might just bite the bullet to pass a bill, but it would be a dangerous move for sure.
#3 Recruit Olympia Snowe -- Senator Snowe voted the bill out of committee and it would be hard to argue that the bill isn't more conservative now than it was then. Senator Snowe voted against the bill on the floor the first time around, complaining the Democrats were moving too fast, but she should have had plenty of time to think and read by now. Still, will Senator Snowe really want to be the deciding vote for such a massive Democratic accomplishment?
#4 Use Reconciliation -- this option is very messy as only portions of the bill could be attached to a process requiring only 51 votes in the Senate and could lead to an incomplete bill taking effect, but if all else fails, Democrats may seek this nuclear option. Of course, they still need 218 votes in the House, which is no slam dunk, but they may consider this to avoid the disaster of nothing passing.
This bill obviously isn't a done deal yet and we will all have to stay tuned.
Haiti -- Worth Our Giving
If you have a heartbeat, you can't help but be touched by the awful destruction in Port au Prince, Haiti, following a massive earthquake that may have killed as many as 100,000 people.
One of the most inspiring features of American culture has always been our willingness to give in times of need. Americans give more money to charity, in absolute dollars, in percent of income, by any measure you like, of any people in the world.
An aid is needed. Economic times back home are tough. But what we face is nothing compared to the grisly mess faced in Haiti. We have a moral obligation to do what we can to help.
I urge all readers to give. Former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have teamed up to organize aid efforts. The unity these two are showing in the face of the crisis should tell you that this relief effort has nothing to do with politics. What is needed is money to help dying, starving, threatened people.
Please, please, go to:
http://clintonbushhaitifund.org/
and give whatever you can to the Clinton/Bush Haiti Fund. If all you can afford is $10, still give it, that $10 could be the difference between a Haitian living and dying.
I have no affiliation with the fund.
Thank you for reading and thanks in advance for your generosity.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Breaking Down Massachusetts -- TIme to Take Upset Talk Seriously
A new Rasmussen poll released today shows Democrat Martha Coakley with a slim, 2 point lead over Republican Scott Brown in the special election race for the Massachusetts Senate. Unlike the PPP poll released early in the week, Rasmussen is a non-partisan polling firm, albeit one that has come under fire from the left for having polling data this year favorable to Republicans. Scott Rasmussen, in my view, has several things enhancing his credibility:
(1) His polling was above average in its state-by-state accuracy in November 2008
(2) He was also above average in the accuracy of his polls in the New Jersey and Virginia Governors races
(3) The primary source of Democratic criticism has been that his approval figures for President Obama have consistently run 5 to 10% behind the consensus of the rest. But a public opinion poll is not the same as an election projection poll. The Rasmussen poll has differed from many other public opinion polls in that he has attempted to target likely voters, whereas many other polls target the general public or registered voters. But all election projection polls (at least all the ones worth anything) target likely voters.
In short, I have no statistical evidence in actual elections that would cause me to question the methodology behind Scott Rasmussen's polls, and absent that and especially given his track record of accuracy, I consider his polling credible.
So, lending the Rasmussen poll some credence and noting that the polling has tightened 7 points over the past week in that poll, I'm left to conclude that we now have a horse race.
Massachusetts moves from Likely Democratic Hold to Lean Democratic Hold
So, let's break down the things that will make the difference:
(1) Momentum in the closing week -- advantage Brown -- clearly he is gaining and if you were to draw a trend line from a few weeks ago to election day, Coakley is in big trouble
(2) Bank account -- big advantage Coakley -- she can spend, spend, spend in the closing week in a way Brown can't match. Both her own campaign and the DNC are far better funded in the home stretch than Brown and the RNC. Her wisest move would be to hit hard in the closing week to move social moderates and rally the base.
(3) Base turnout -- advantage Brown -- the GOP base is fired up and tends to turn out higher in off-year elections to begin with (social conservatives ALWAYS make it to the polls.) The DEMs are pretty beaten down and it's hard to imagine 19-year-olds and African-American voters turning out for Martha Coakley in the same numbers that they did for Obama.
(4) State demographics -- advantage Coakley -- let's face it, Massachusetts doesn't really want a Republican, not a real Republican anyway. It's among the bluest states. Brown's surge reflects a lot of frustration with the Obama administration, the state of the economy and the sense that things aren't getting any better in this country (take a look at the right track / wrong track poll numbers if you doubt me.) Plus, Americans like to check power. But will those socially liberal, economically moderate independents really pull the lever for Brown in the end?
Can #1 and #3 overcome #2 and #4?
The betting public on intrade presently pegs the odds in the race with Coakley as a 10 : 3 favorite. That seems about right to me heading into the home stretch. Brown really could legitimately win, but the odds are still stacked against him. But if he pulls this off, it will be an amazing rallying cry for the GOP and an amazing hit to the DEMs.
I expect a number of new polls in this race in the next few days, which should help lend us some clarity heading into next Tuesday. Bear in mind that special elections are notoriously hard to poll for, as it is hard to tell who will actually show up to vote the Tuesday after a holiday weekend.
But it's going to be a fun ride, and quite possibly a late night next Tuesday
(1) His polling was above average in its state-by-state accuracy in November 2008
(2) He was also above average in the accuracy of his polls in the New Jersey and Virginia Governors races
(3) The primary source of Democratic criticism has been that his approval figures for President Obama have consistently run 5 to 10% behind the consensus of the rest. But a public opinion poll is not the same as an election projection poll. The Rasmussen poll has differed from many other public opinion polls in that he has attempted to target likely voters, whereas many other polls target the general public or registered voters. But all election projection polls (at least all the ones worth anything) target likely voters.
In short, I have no statistical evidence in actual elections that would cause me to question the methodology behind Scott Rasmussen's polls, and absent that and especially given his track record of accuracy, I consider his polling credible.
So, lending the Rasmussen poll some credence and noting that the polling has tightened 7 points over the past week in that poll, I'm left to conclude that we now have a horse race.
Massachusetts moves from Likely Democratic Hold to Lean Democratic Hold
So, let's break down the things that will make the difference:
(1) Momentum in the closing week -- advantage Brown -- clearly he is gaining and if you were to draw a trend line from a few weeks ago to election day, Coakley is in big trouble
(2) Bank account -- big advantage Coakley -- she can spend, spend, spend in the closing week in a way Brown can't match. Both her own campaign and the DNC are far better funded in the home stretch than Brown and the RNC. Her wisest move would be to hit hard in the closing week to move social moderates and rally the base.
(3) Base turnout -- advantage Brown -- the GOP base is fired up and tends to turn out higher in off-year elections to begin with (social conservatives ALWAYS make it to the polls.) The DEMs are pretty beaten down and it's hard to imagine 19-year-olds and African-American voters turning out for Martha Coakley in the same numbers that they did for Obama.
(4) State demographics -- advantage Coakley -- let's face it, Massachusetts doesn't really want a Republican, not a real Republican anyway. It's among the bluest states. Brown's surge reflects a lot of frustration with the Obama administration, the state of the economy and the sense that things aren't getting any better in this country (take a look at the right track / wrong track poll numbers if you doubt me.) Plus, Americans like to check power. But will those socially liberal, economically moderate independents really pull the lever for Brown in the end?
Can #1 and #3 overcome #2 and #4?
The betting public on intrade presently pegs the odds in the race with Coakley as a 10 : 3 favorite. That seems about right to me heading into the home stretch. Brown really could legitimately win, but the odds are still stacked against him. But if he pulls this off, it will be an amazing rallying cry for the GOP and an amazing hit to the DEMs.
I expect a number of new polls in this race in the next few days, which should help lend us some clarity heading into next Tuesday. Bear in mind that special elections are notoriously hard to poll for, as it is hard to tell who will actually show up to vote the Tuesday after a holiday weekend.
But it's going to be a fun ride, and quite possibly a late night next Tuesday
Monday, January 11, 2010
Grading Year 1 of the Obama Administration
The time has come for my rundown of the first year of the Obama Administration. Yes, I realize we are technically still a week short of a year from the Tuesday on which Barack Obama became the 43rd man to assume the Presidency (yes, he is commonly referred to as the "44th President", but that's because Grover Cleveland is counted twice due to his split terms, interesting piece of political trivia for a cocktail party sometime.) But, let's face it, there is very little that is going to change the essential ratings that we will look at. No legislation is going to be passed between now and then as the Senate is not in session (other than a brief Pro Forma session on the 19th). The poll numbers aren't likely to move significantly, unless unemployment miraculously halves o the President denounces his citizenship. The accounting on year 1 is largely in.
We'll look at year 1 from three perspectives:
#1 Political Priorities -- my assessment of the Obama Administration's effectiveness in implementing the key priorities that the President himself laid out for year 1.
#2 Court of Public Opinion -- we'll compare the President's numbers to both an absolute scale and a comparative scale to other Post-World War 2 President's
#3 Presidential Promise-Keeping -- we'll consult with our old friends at Politifact.com to see how closely what the President has done has matched his words from the campaign trail.
So, let's get started.
Political Priorities
The President laid out three clear priorities for year one of his administration, through an early speech to a joint session of congress. Let's grade them.
#1 The Economy -- Stabilize the Financial System, Contain Unemployment and Build a Platform for Economic Growth
My Grade: B
Despite poll numbers that don't yet reflect his success (more on that later), the President has actually done a number of important things towards this end. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was landmark legislation, signed into law early in his administration, the largest investment of public funds in economic recovery since FDR. The early provisions of this bill, which stabilized funding for state governments and provided key tax incentives that have stabilized the auto and home industries, were critical in preventing a deeper depression. The bulk of the spending, which is yet to take place, is of the more traditional infrastructure variety, designed to generate long-term efficiency gains (a better maintained infrastructure is a catalyst to a more efficient economy) as well as provide some job growth along the way.
The administration's actions on the auto industry got off to a slow start, with, unfortunately some more money down the drain in emergency loans early on. But in the end, they got it right, facilitating an orderly bankruptcy and exchanging government debt for a large equity stake that may ultimately pay off for taxpayers. It is unquestionable that without government intervention, GM would have gone down for good. Some thought that for the best -- the weak die in capitalism, after all. But the associated spike in unemployment and collapse of first-tier suppliers would have been devastating for years to come.
On the TARP funds, the government is getting repaid...by Goldman Sachs, by Bank of America, by Citigroup.
The economy is growing again and unemployment has stopped rising. The financial system didn't collapse. Stocks are way up since the President took office. The President and the Administration deserve some credit, as does Ben Bernake.
The performance was not perfect, to be sure. We are $180 billion into AIG, money we will likely never see all of again, and we got there without adequate controls on pay or policy. The President stupidly said the stimulus bill would contain unemployment at 8%, a gross mis-calculation about the state of the economy. The administration has all but missed a huge opportunity to significantly change how financial services operate in this country and has not done anything to stop the "too big to fail" phenomenon. Not enough home owners have received mortgage relief. There is not enough credit flowing to consumers or small businesses.
But considering the abyss we were staring into, the administration by and large deserves credits for making the right big calls on the economy.
#2 Health Care -- Expand Access to Insurance, Contain Costs
Grade: C-
On the plus side: this President has gotten further with health care reform than any previous President. He has already signed a bill into law that has dramatically expanded access to insurance for poor and lower-middle class children. The bill that might make it out of Congress would expand coverage to millions.
On the minus side: he promised a bill by August, then by year-end and got neither. The big bill is not signed into law. Even if it does get signed, while it is good on the access side, it does nothing serious about cost. There are no provisions to reimport prescription drugs or negotiate for world-pricing. It has no public option to compete with insurance companies or cost regulations with teeth. It fails to address tort reform and the cost of malpractice insurance.
These grade could go way up next year if the President signs a bill into law. But it is fair to say that in year 1, he failed more than he succeeded.
#3 Environment -- Invest in Green Energy, Cap Carbon Emissions
Grade: D+
On the plus side: there were some decent clean energy investments in the stimulus bill, the House passed a Cap and Trade bill. The EPA can regulate Carbon by executive order.
On the minus side: Cap and Trade is stuck in the Senate and there appears to be no will after the bruising and long battle on health care. The administration has presented no clear energy strategy -- how exactly are we going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil?
All in all, nothing substantial has changed in our environmental policy. A very incomplete set of accomplishments.
#4 All Other
Grade: C-
On the plus side: decisive action on Afghanistan (albeit after a LONG wait), a clear exit strategy in Iraq, better relationships with our allies, several very good laws and executive orders (the Fair Pay Act, the Edward Kennedy Serve America Act, just to name a couple)
On the minus side: we are still firing Arabic translators from the military for being gay, the President's bowing and present-giving gaffes have started to get embarrassing, we've done nothing on immigration policy, ambassadorships are still full of patronage, the tone in Washington has gotten worse, not better.
My overall grade: C
The President gets credit on the economy. Everything else, is incomplete at best and failing at worst. Republicans will say that I am far too generous on the role of the administration in stabilizing the economy. But I truly believe that administration acts were critical. Democrats will say my bar is way too high for other issues, considering what other Presidents have done. But I didn't set that bar, the President did, in an early speech in which he promised all of what I graded in his first year, plus a lot of other things that aren't even discussed.
A mediocre start to a Presidency for a man who showed brilliance in the 2008 campaign. Let's hope year one just reflects some inexperience and growing pains, as they did with a young Clinton administration in 1993. The President could learn a thing or two in how Clinton evolved the game.
The Court of Public Opinion
Current Average of Approve Minus Disapprove (Month of January 2010, Jan 1-10): +3.7%
Obviously the wealth of polling data that is now available is not available for all previous administrations. However, the Gallup tracking poll is. So we'll contrast Obama's approve minus disapprove with the historical Gallup information. Here are the other post-World War II Presidents:
1. George W. Bush +77%
2. John F. Kennedy +59%
3. Lyndon Johnson +53%
4. George H.W. Bush +47%
5. Dwight Eisenhower +43%
6. Richard Nixon +23%
7. Jimmy Carter +19%
8. Bill Clinton +9%
Gerald Ford +9%
10. Barack Obama +4%
11. Ronald Reagan +3%
Harry Truman +3%
There have been some in the blogosphere that have stated that President Obama has the lowest approval rating on record. While I don't find that to be quite the case (it all comes down to what polls you pick and what day or range of days you use, if I were to use the low point for the President on the Gallup poll, I would have the same finding), he's close enough to the bottom of the year 1 rung that the court of public opinion weighs unfavorable against him.
On the plus side, a small percentage more people approve than disapprove of his performance. Also, as you can see from the above, first year numbers are not necessarily very instructive as to re-election prospects: numbers 1, 3, 5, 6, 8a, 11 and 11b were re-elected, numbers 4, 7 and 8b were not (John Kennedy obviously did not run.) And the biggest re-election landslides were #6 and #11a. So it isn't like his term is over.
And the circumstances coming in were definitely tough -- a massive economic crisis, tough wars in a war-weary nation and insanely high expectations all fuel the fall-off.
Still, in the court of public opinion, after 1 year, President Obama clearly gets bad marks.
Overall Public Opinion Grade; D
Presidential Promise-Keeping
politifact.com is tracking 507 documented promises that the President made on the campaign trail. Every once in a while they will add a promise if new campaign tape emerges or eliminate a promise if they determine that two they are tracking are redundant. But the rules for politifact are simple, if the President said it when he was running, they attempt to track it.
Of the 507 promises, the President has taken some sort of complete action (kept, broken or compromised) on 134 of them, or 26.4%. Right on track with being 25% of the way through his term. So Obama gets full marks for taking action on the issues that he promised.
Of the 134 he has acted on, 91 have been Kept, 31 have been Compromised on and 12 have been broken. Giving a full point for kept promises, a half point for compromises and no points for broken promises, the President has scored 106.5 promise-keeping points out of possible 134 on these promises, or a score of 79%. On face, this is a fantastic score. I think any reasonable observer would say that if a President does 80% of what he said he would do when he gets to office, that is about as good as it gets. My standard rule of thumb is about 50%.
So what are the key promises kept, compromised and broken? You can go to politifact.com and see all of them, but here are some highlights:
Kept:
- Establish a Credit Card Holder's Bill of Rights
- Expand Access to the Children's Health Insurance Program
- Implement plan to end the war in Iraq
- Send two additional brigades to Afghanistan
- Expand AmeriCorps
- Reverse restrictions on stem cell research
Compromised
- Set a three-month moratorium on foreclosures (a three-month moratorium was not set, but an alternate foreclosure-abatement plan was implemented)
- Increase TSA funding (it increased, but not by as much as he promised)
- No tax increases of any kind of people making less than $250,000 (cigarette taxes were increased by over 200%, although in a conflicting campaign statement, candidate Obama had stated support for such a tax)
- No signing statements to nullify the law congress writes (Obama has used signing statements, but claims they are for clarification only)
Broken
- Posting of bills on the internet for 5 days before signing (broken on his first major bill, the stimulus bill and continued from there)
- Health Care negotiations on C-SPAN (that, as we re-learned this week, won't be happening)
- Allow penalty-free hardship withdrawals from IRA's and 401K's in 2008 and 2009 (not done)
The interesting thing is that on SUBSTANCE, the President is near-perfect, every major policy area he has acted on has been in basic agreement with his positions on the campaign trail. Where he has failed has been on the openness and transparency issues...putting bills on the internet before signing, health care negotiations on C-SPAN, lobbyist rules, etc. And it is on this impression that "nothing has changed in Washington" that I think the President is most vulnerable.
Still, in total, whether you like it or not, on policy, you got what he said you were going to get.
Grade on Promise-Keeping: B+
Year 2 and Beyond
So what will the coming year hold? It may or may not hold a health care bill being signed into law (Chris Dodd talked about "hanging by a thread" today and an upset in Massachusetts would be a massive setback for the bill), we likely won't see a cap and trade bill. Congress has another set of budgeting to do, something which will start early to get Congress home in time for what is sure to be a vicious campaign season.
In short, it is likely that policy accomplishments in 2010 will be limited to the first 3 months of the year. If it's big and it isn't done by March, it probably won't get done.
And expect a bloody November, to a greater or lesser extent, for Democrats.
How the President reacts to smaller or non-existant majorities, as President Clinton had to do in 1995, will largely shape the arc of the rest of the Obama Presidency. So will the state of the economy and the success of his Afghanistan strategy. Eleven months ago, we were all asking, "doesn't it seem like the President is taking on too much?" The answer, at least after one year, appears to be "yes, he did." We'll see if the long view proves something different.
If you like this site tell your friends.
We'll look at year 1 from three perspectives:
#1 Political Priorities -- my assessment of the Obama Administration's effectiveness in implementing the key priorities that the President himself laid out for year 1.
#2 Court of Public Opinion -- we'll compare the President's numbers to both an absolute scale and a comparative scale to other Post-World War 2 President's
#3 Presidential Promise-Keeping -- we'll consult with our old friends at Politifact.com to see how closely what the President has done has matched his words from the campaign trail.
So, let's get started.
Political Priorities
The President laid out three clear priorities for year one of his administration, through an early speech to a joint session of congress. Let's grade them.
#1 The Economy -- Stabilize the Financial System, Contain Unemployment and Build a Platform for Economic Growth
My Grade: B
Despite poll numbers that don't yet reflect his success (more on that later), the President has actually done a number of important things towards this end. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was landmark legislation, signed into law early in his administration, the largest investment of public funds in economic recovery since FDR. The early provisions of this bill, which stabilized funding for state governments and provided key tax incentives that have stabilized the auto and home industries, were critical in preventing a deeper depression. The bulk of the spending, which is yet to take place, is of the more traditional infrastructure variety, designed to generate long-term efficiency gains (a better maintained infrastructure is a catalyst to a more efficient economy) as well as provide some job growth along the way.
The administration's actions on the auto industry got off to a slow start, with, unfortunately some more money down the drain in emergency loans early on. But in the end, they got it right, facilitating an orderly bankruptcy and exchanging government debt for a large equity stake that may ultimately pay off for taxpayers. It is unquestionable that without government intervention, GM would have gone down for good. Some thought that for the best -- the weak die in capitalism, after all. But the associated spike in unemployment and collapse of first-tier suppliers would have been devastating for years to come.
On the TARP funds, the government is getting repaid...by Goldman Sachs, by Bank of America, by Citigroup.
The economy is growing again and unemployment has stopped rising. The financial system didn't collapse. Stocks are way up since the President took office. The President and the Administration deserve some credit, as does Ben Bernake.
The performance was not perfect, to be sure. We are $180 billion into AIG, money we will likely never see all of again, and we got there without adequate controls on pay or policy. The President stupidly said the stimulus bill would contain unemployment at 8%, a gross mis-calculation about the state of the economy. The administration has all but missed a huge opportunity to significantly change how financial services operate in this country and has not done anything to stop the "too big to fail" phenomenon. Not enough home owners have received mortgage relief. There is not enough credit flowing to consumers or small businesses.
But considering the abyss we were staring into, the administration by and large deserves credits for making the right big calls on the economy.
#2 Health Care -- Expand Access to Insurance, Contain Costs
Grade: C-
On the plus side: this President has gotten further with health care reform than any previous President. He has already signed a bill into law that has dramatically expanded access to insurance for poor and lower-middle class children. The bill that might make it out of Congress would expand coverage to millions.
On the minus side: he promised a bill by August, then by year-end and got neither. The big bill is not signed into law. Even if it does get signed, while it is good on the access side, it does nothing serious about cost. There are no provisions to reimport prescription drugs or negotiate for world-pricing. It has no public option to compete with insurance companies or cost regulations with teeth. It fails to address tort reform and the cost of malpractice insurance.
These grade could go way up next year if the President signs a bill into law. But it is fair to say that in year 1, he failed more than he succeeded.
#3 Environment -- Invest in Green Energy, Cap Carbon Emissions
Grade: D+
On the plus side: there were some decent clean energy investments in the stimulus bill, the House passed a Cap and Trade bill. The EPA can regulate Carbon by executive order.
On the minus side: Cap and Trade is stuck in the Senate and there appears to be no will after the bruising and long battle on health care. The administration has presented no clear energy strategy -- how exactly are we going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil?
All in all, nothing substantial has changed in our environmental policy. A very incomplete set of accomplishments.
#4 All Other
Grade: C-
On the plus side: decisive action on Afghanistan (albeit after a LONG wait), a clear exit strategy in Iraq, better relationships with our allies, several very good laws and executive orders (the Fair Pay Act, the Edward Kennedy Serve America Act, just to name a couple)
On the minus side: we are still firing Arabic translators from the military for being gay, the President's bowing and present-giving gaffes have started to get embarrassing, we've done nothing on immigration policy, ambassadorships are still full of patronage, the tone in Washington has gotten worse, not better.
My overall grade: C
The President gets credit on the economy. Everything else, is incomplete at best and failing at worst. Republicans will say that I am far too generous on the role of the administration in stabilizing the economy. But I truly believe that administration acts were critical. Democrats will say my bar is way too high for other issues, considering what other Presidents have done. But I didn't set that bar, the President did, in an early speech in which he promised all of what I graded in his first year, plus a lot of other things that aren't even discussed.
A mediocre start to a Presidency for a man who showed brilliance in the 2008 campaign. Let's hope year one just reflects some inexperience and growing pains, as they did with a young Clinton administration in 1993. The President could learn a thing or two in how Clinton evolved the game.
The Court of Public Opinion
Current Average of Approve Minus Disapprove (Month of January 2010, Jan 1-10): +3.7%
Obviously the wealth of polling data that is now available is not available for all previous administrations. However, the Gallup tracking poll is. So we'll contrast Obama's approve minus disapprove with the historical Gallup information. Here are the other post-World War II Presidents:
1. George W. Bush +77%
2. John F. Kennedy +59%
3. Lyndon Johnson +53%
4. George H.W. Bush +47%
5. Dwight Eisenhower +43%
6. Richard Nixon +23%
7. Jimmy Carter +19%
8. Bill Clinton +9%
Gerald Ford +9%
10. Barack Obama +4%
11. Ronald Reagan +3%
Harry Truman +3%
There have been some in the blogosphere that have stated that President Obama has the lowest approval rating on record. While I don't find that to be quite the case (it all comes down to what polls you pick and what day or range of days you use, if I were to use the low point for the President on the Gallup poll, I would have the same finding), he's close enough to the bottom of the year 1 rung that the court of public opinion weighs unfavorable against him.
On the plus side, a small percentage more people approve than disapprove of his performance. Also, as you can see from the above, first year numbers are not necessarily very instructive as to re-election prospects: numbers 1, 3, 5, 6, 8a, 11 and 11b were re-elected, numbers 4, 7 and 8b were not (John Kennedy obviously did not run.) And the biggest re-election landslides were #6 and #11a. So it isn't like his term is over.
And the circumstances coming in were definitely tough -- a massive economic crisis, tough wars in a war-weary nation and insanely high expectations all fuel the fall-off.
Still, in the court of public opinion, after 1 year, President Obama clearly gets bad marks.
Overall Public Opinion Grade; D
Presidential Promise-Keeping
politifact.com is tracking 507 documented promises that the President made on the campaign trail. Every once in a while they will add a promise if new campaign tape emerges or eliminate a promise if they determine that two they are tracking are redundant. But the rules for politifact are simple, if the President said it when he was running, they attempt to track it.
Of the 507 promises, the President has taken some sort of complete action (kept, broken or compromised) on 134 of them, or 26.4%. Right on track with being 25% of the way through his term. So Obama gets full marks for taking action on the issues that he promised.
Of the 134 he has acted on, 91 have been Kept, 31 have been Compromised on and 12 have been broken. Giving a full point for kept promises, a half point for compromises and no points for broken promises, the President has scored 106.5 promise-keeping points out of possible 134 on these promises, or a score of 79%. On face, this is a fantastic score. I think any reasonable observer would say that if a President does 80% of what he said he would do when he gets to office, that is about as good as it gets. My standard rule of thumb is about 50%.
So what are the key promises kept, compromised and broken? You can go to politifact.com and see all of them, but here are some highlights:
Kept:
- Establish a Credit Card Holder's Bill of Rights
- Expand Access to the Children's Health Insurance Program
- Implement plan to end the war in Iraq
- Send two additional brigades to Afghanistan
- Expand AmeriCorps
- Reverse restrictions on stem cell research
Compromised
- Set a three-month moratorium on foreclosures (a three-month moratorium was not set, but an alternate foreclosure-abatement plan was implemented)
- Increase TSA funding (it increased, but not by as much as he promised)
- No tax increases of any kind of people making less than $250,000 (cigarette taxes were increased by over 200%, although in a conflicting campaign statement, candidate Obama had stated support for such a tax)
- No signing statements to nullify the law congress writes (Obama has used signing statements, but claims they are for clarification only)
Broken
- Posting of bills on the internet for 5 days before signing (broken on his first major bill, the stimulus bill and continued from there)
- Health Care negotiations on C-SPAN (that, as we re-learned this week, won't be happening)
- Allow penalty-free hardship withdrawals from IRA's and 401K's in 2008 and 2009 (not done)
The interesting thing is that on SUBSTANCE, the President is near-perfect, every major policy area he has acted on has been in basic agreement with his positions on the campaign trail. Where he has failed has been on the openness and transparency issues...putting bills on the internet before signing, health care negotiations on C-SPAN, lobbyist rules, etc. And it is on this impression that "nothing has changed in Washington" that I think the President is most vulnerable.
Still, in total, whether you like it or not, on policy, you got what he said you were going to get.
Grade on Promise-Keeping: B+
Year 2 and Beyond
So what will the coming year hold? It may or may not hold a health care bill being signed into law (Chris Dodd talked about "hanging by a thread" today and an upset in Massachusetts would be a massive setback for the bill), we likely won't see a cap and trade bill. Congress has another set of budgeting to do, something which will start early to get Congress home in time for what is sure to be a vicious campaign season.
In short, it is likely that policy accomplishments in 2010 will be limited to the first 3 months of the year. If it's big and it isn't done by March, it probably won't get done.
And expect a bloody November, to a greater or lesser extent, for Democrats.
How the President reacts to smaller or non-existant majorities, as President Clinton had to do in 1995, will largely shape the arc of the rest of the Obama Presidency. So will the state of the economy and the success of his Afghanistan strategy. Eleven months ago, we were all asking, "doesn't it seem like the President is taking on too much?" The answer, at least after one year, appears to be "yes, he did." We'll see if the long view proves something different.
If you like this site tell your friends.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Harry Reid: Shame On You, Big MA Upset Brewing?
If you have been living in a cave the past 24 hours, perhaps you missed Senator Harry Reid's revealed words about President Obama from the campaign trail in 2008. To be specific, Senator Reid said that then-candidate had a real opportunity to win because he was "light-skinned" and "had no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to".
You could certainly make an intellectual argument that America was more ready to accept a bi-racial President than a dark-skinned black President. You could similarly argue that if the President did not have strong command of proper language skills, he would not have been a viable candidate. Neither of these are the point.
The subtext of Senator Reid's remarks reveal a clear racism. First, the choice of the word "Negro", a word broadly considered offensive in the African-Ameican community for well over 40 years. Second, the notion that somehow President Obama's ability to speak without "Negro dialect" in some way set him apart from most African-Americans is simply wrong and deeply racist. Cory Booker can't speak to white people? How about Deval Patrick? David Patterson? Heck, Jesse Jackson speaks perfect English and he ran for President 22 years ago. What does Senator Reid think, that 95% of African-Americans go to work every day and talk like 50 Cent?
Perhaps Senator Reid's problem is that he doesn't actually know that many black people. At the time he made those remarks, there was but one African-American Senator, Senator Barack Obama. There is still only one African-American Senator, the embattled Roland Burris, and there will likely be none come December.
Michael Steele made the point on the Sunday talk circuit that there is a double-standard in play here, that if a Republican had made similar remarks, he would have been run out of town. And he has a point. The eagerness to forgive and forget on the left in this case in extremely inconsistent. When Senator Trent Lott made the remark that if Strom Thurmond had become President, "maybe we wouldn't have a lot of the problems we have today", a reference which those of us familiar with Thurmond's 1948 Dixiecrat run for President assumed referred to civil rights legislation, but which Lott never explicitly said, seem downright mild compared with Reid's verbal offense.
President Obama has issued a statement of forgiveness and support for Senator Reid. I do not grant the President the right to make a determination of forgiveness on behalf of anyone beyond himself. If he wants to forgive Senator Reid, that is certainly his right. And I might forgive Senator Reid, who is clearly sorry, personally. But words have meaning and statements have consequences. Senator Harry Reid cannot lead the Democratic Party in the Senate after making such a deeply racist statement. He should step down immediately from his post.
No need to call for his resignation -- voters in Nevada have the opportunity to make their own judgement in November. And I suspect that this is just a nail in the coffin.
Coakley and Brown in a Dead Heat??? Not So Fast.
There was a poll that lit up the political internet yesterday, a Public Policy Polling look at the Massachusetts Special Election, taken from January 7th to January 9th that showed Coakley and Brown in a dead heat for the seat (actually Brown was up by a point.) The storyline was a familiar one -- candidate B (in this case Brown) is surging and candidate A will soon be toast.
Not so fast.
First of all, Public Policy Polling is a partisan-affiliated polling firm. The thing that is a little odd in this case is that they are affiliated with the Democratic party. Nevertheless, their release of polls can be politically motivated and the numbers can be shaded to serve a particular purpose. This wouldn't be an issue if the poll wasn't squarely at odds with the other available data. But it is.
The Rasmussen poll released three days earlier showed Coakley with a 9 point lead, 50% to 41%. Certainly Scott Rasmussen has been accused of a lot of things in the polling world, but being overly favorable to Democrats is not one of them.
Secondly, a Boston Globe poll that run through January 6th shows Coakley with a 17 point lead. This is consistent with the trend of Rasmussen polls showing somewhat closer races than other polls that we have seen in recent months.
The PPP poll appears, at least at this point, to be an anomaly. I have no doubt there will be several more polls released in the coming days to give us a better understanding of the state of the race.
For now, I'm leaving this a Likely Democratic Hold.
You could certainly make an intellectual argument that America was more ready to accept a bi-racial President than a dark-skinned black President. You could similarly argue that if the President did not have strong command of proper language skills, he would not have been a viable candidate. Neither of these are the point.
The subtext of Senator Reid's remarks reveal a clear racism. First, the choice of the word "Negro", a word broadly considered offensive in the African-Ameican community for well over 40 years. Second, the notion that somehow President Obama's ability to speak without "Negro dialect" in some way set him apart from most African-Americans is simply wrong and deeply racist. Cory Booker can't speak to white people? How about Deval Patrick? David Patterson? Heck, Jesse Jackson speaks perfect English and he ran for President 22 years ago. What does Senator Reid think, that 95% of African-Americans go to work every day and talk like 50 Cent?
Perhaps Senator Reid's problem is that he doesn't actually know that many black people. At the time he made those remarks, there was but one African-American Senator, Senator Barack Obama. There is still only one African-American Senator, the embattled Roland Burris, and there will likely be none come December.
Michael Steele made the point on the Sunday talk circuit that there is a double-standard in play here, that if a Republican had made similar remarks, he would have been run out of town. And he has a point. The eagerness to forgive and forget on the left in this case in extremely inconsistent. When Senator Trent Lott made the remark that if Strom Thurmond had become President, "maybe we wouldn't have a lot of the problems we have today", a reference which those of us familiar with Thurmond's 1948 Dixiecrat run for President assumed referred to civil rights legislation, but which Lott never explicitly said, seem downright mild compared with Reid's verbal offense.
President Obama has issued a statement of forgiveness and support for Senator Reid. I do not grant the President the right to make a determination of forgiveness on behalf of anyone beyond himself. If he wants to forgive Senator Reid, that is certainly his right. And I might forgive Senator Reid, who is clearly sorry, personally. But words have meaning and statements have consequences. Senator Harry Reid cannot lead the Democratic Party in the Senate after making such a deeply racist statement. He should step down immediately from his post.
No need to call for his resignation -- voters in Nevada have the opportunity to make their own judgement in November. And I suspect that this is just a nail in the coffin.
Coakley and Brown in a Dead Heat??? Not So Fast.
There was a poll that lit up the political internet yesterday, a Public Policy Polling look at the Massachusetts Special Election, taken from January 7th to January 9th that showed Coakley and Brown in a dead heat for the seat (actually Brown was up by a point.) The storyline was a familiar one -- candidate B (in this case Brown) is surging and candidate A will soon be toast.
Not so fast.
First of all, Public Policy Polling is a partisan-affiliated polling firm. The thing that is a little odd in this case is that they are affiliated with the Democratic party. Nevertheless, their release of polls can be politically motivated and the numbers can be shaded to serve a particular purpose. This wouldn't be an issue if the poll wasn't squarely at odds with the other available data. But it is.
The Rasmussen poll released three days earlier showed Coakley with a 9 point lead, 50% to 41%. Certainly Scott Rasmussen has been accused of a lot of things in the polling world, but being overly favorable to Democrats is not one of them.
Secondly, a Boston Globe poll that run through January 6th shows Coakley with a 17 point lead. This is consistent with the trend of Rasmussen polls showing somewhat closer races than other polls that we have seen in recent months.
The PPP poll appears, at least at this point, to be an anomaly. I have no doubt there will be several more polls released in the coming days to give us a better understanding of the state of the race.
For now, I'm leaving this a Likely Democratic Hold.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Complete Latest Senate Rundown, The Jobs Deficit and John Edward's 2 Americas, Closing in on 1 Year
2010 -- Plenty of Reasons for the DEMs to Be Getting More Scared
The Pro-GOP or at the very least, anti-Democratic trend appears to continue to build. President Obama's numbers are stable, at least for now, around the +3% to +5% range...this is better than being negative, but puts him in a similar position to where President Clinton was leading into the year that saw Newt Gingrich's revolution that led to a GOP-controlled House and Senate. It isn't that bad yet, so let's take a look at where the races are tracking, with our new updates from this week:
Safe DEM Hold (6)
Maryland, New York (Schumer), Oregon, Vermont, Washington, Connecticut
Likely DEM Hold (5)
California, Indiana, Wisconsin, Hawaii, Massachusetts*
* Special Election January 19th
Lean Democratic Hold (2)
New York (Gillebrand), Illinois
Lean Democratic Pick-Up (1)
Missouri
Toss-up -- DEM Controlled (2)
Pennsylvania, Delaware
Lean GOP Pick-up (4)
Colorado, Nevada, North Dakota, Arkansas
Lean GOP Hold (5)
New Hampshire, Kentucky, Ohio, North Carolina, Arizona
Likely GOP Hold (5)
Georgia, Alaska, Kansas, Louisiana, Florida
Safe GOP Hold (7)
Iowa, South Dakota, Alabama, Idaho, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah
Total Projection: GOP Pick-up of 3 to 5 Seats
Best Case GOP (all leaners go to GOP): GOP +8 Seats
Best Case DEM (all leaners go to DEM): DEM +6 Seats
It certainly seems, given the national mood, that the Best Case GOP scenario is a heck of a lot more plausible than the Best Case DEM scenario at this point. This is because of all the states that fall in the "lean" category currently, the GOP is winning all but 3 of them. It does show, however, the vast impact a 5 point swing in the national mood can have on how races shape up.
The other things worth noting are that we do not have particularly recent polling in Missouri and Pennsylvania. One could surmise from the trend in other swing states that there is a reasonable probability that they will tip red when we do get such polling. This would push the GOP closer to their "best case" scenario.
Having said all this, I don't see a path to 51 for the GOP. In addition to picking up Missouri and Pennsylvania, they would have to win Illinois to get to +8, which is certainly possible, but probably no better than 50/50. On TOP of that, they would have to beat Gillebrand in New York (possible only if Pataki runs against her, and no sure thing even then), AND win at least 2 out of 5 in California (where they have a good candidate but are trailing), Indiana (where they don't even have a candidate yet against a well-liked moderate in Evan Bayh), Wisconsin (against Russ Feingold, seems like a no-hope race), Hawaii (when was the last time Hawaii sent a GOPer to the Senate?) and Massachusetts (closing fast at -9%, but still a long shot.)
So, the most realistic scenario to get there for the GOP would be to pull off the upset in Massachusetts, then win all the ones they are leading. Win the two toss-ups -- Delaware with Mike Castle and Pennsylvania with Pat Toomey. Win Missouri with Rep. Roy Blunt, New York's 2nd seat via convincing George Pataki to run. Finally, pull off the big upset with Carly Fiorna in California (hey -- they love tech celebrities there.) And you have 51 seats.
A long, long, shot, for sure. But for the first time I can actually construct a scenario where it could happen. First key, of course, is the Massachusetts special election a week from Tuesday, which I expect them to lose. But if they win that one, all bets are off.
In the House,
Democrats could be in huge trouble. Now, it's hard to tell, because we continue to be plagued by drastically different polls numbers (Rasmussen has it at GOP +9%, Gallup has it at DEM +3%), driven largely not by the fact that pollsters are asking the questions somehow differently, but more by the fact that they are making dramatically different modeling assumptions about who is actually going to vote in the mid-term. And the quagmire is real...after a massive turnout in 2008, clearly we all expect it to fall off for the mid-terms, but will it revert back to the normal for an off-year election? Will any of the newly registered voters in 2008 show up to vote for congress in 2010? We don't really know.
At any rate, my philosophy has always been that by building a larger sample poll, as well as looking at means and medians, we can mitigate the sample or weighting errors of any one given pollster. An our methodology produces a current projection of GOP +3.6%.
This leads to a House projection of: GOP +43 Seats
So, for the second projection in a row, I'm projecting a GOP takeover of the House. The margin is still slim, although it is 2 seats wider than it was last week. It could change obviously, with circumstances. But for now, the House Republicans are looking pretty darn strong. I doubt we'll see anything like Health Care reform moving through that chamber come 2011.
The Jobs Deficit -- John Edwards Was Right
I wrote about this some months ago, but I was struck recently by a personal experience. The company that I work for, which is a Fortune 500 company, was in the process of hiring entry-level engineers for a number of our factories, a process that I was involved in. We were recruiting principally for those who graduate this spring and conducted interviews over November and December, made offers in mid-December to 5 candidates and....were rejected 4 out of 5 times. Every single one of the 5 young engineers we were trying to recruit had multiple offers from multiple great companies. These are kids who are extremely intelligent, but let's face it, haven't actually DONE anything yet. And this punctuated my point -- the economy looks a lot different if you are a high school dropout who has been working at a factory in Michigan than it does if you are an Electrical Engineer from the University of Michigan.
The latest employment report, released yesterday, showed the unemployment rate remained flat at 10.0%, just a tick below the peak of 10.1% from two months ago. But the important numbers were even wore than that, with actually jobs declining by 85,000 and the unemployment rate only holding constant by virtue of people giving up on looking for work and dropping out of the work force, with this number rising to 929,000, it's largest level since 1985. So, with "normal" unemployment being in the 5% range, we have a gap of 7.6 million jobs, 8.5 million adding in the discouraged workers.
How does this relate to my story? Let's look at the unemployment rate by educational attainment one more time:
High School Dropout -- 15.3%
High School Graduate -- 10.5%
Some College or Trade School Graduate -- 9.0%
College Graduate with Bachelor's Degree or Higher -- 5.0%
The economy IS normal if you are a college graduate. Sure it isn't the heady days of the late 90s or the mid-00s when you could name your price, your location and your work hours. But you CAN find work if you have a degree and skills that are in demand. If you are a factory worker, however, your prospects are dim.
Which brings me to my point...we have focused so much on just creating jobs that we have neglected the other half of the equation...how do we raise the skill level of the unemployed to make them more productive and more attractive to potential employers? College tuitions continue to surge and achievement gaps between rich and poor school districts have sustained. How do we give the kid from Compton, rural Tennessee, Detroit or Mississippi a shot at being in the tier of people who are in demand? We have had zero political discussion in the past year about higher education and lifetime learning. And that's a crime.
In terms of what we have been discussing politically, we have the stimulus bill and we have the "jobs" bill creeping it's way through congress. The bill, which has been blasted by the GOP as "Son of Stimulus", would largely do more of the same that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act did...that is the threefold approach of transfer payments to states to stabilize state governments (to "save" jobs), infrastructure projects (to "create" jobs) and temporary extensions / expansions of various social programs to provide money for the unemployed and needy (to generate consumer demand.)
The approach has its merits as a short-term buffer to an economy still dealing with the aftershocks of a massive financial crisis. My criticism is that the way the original stimulus was laid out, we haven't really had a chance to see how that program, which was designed as a 3-year reshaping of the economy, will really play out.
Here are the latest stats on the first stimulus bill:
Tax Cuts -- $92.8 billion out of $288 billion paid out (32.2%)
Spending -- $164.2 billion out of $499 billion paid out (32.9%)
Total -- $257.0 billion out of $787 billion paid out (32.7%)
With more than two thirds of the first stimulus bill left to spend, why craft another measure?
The answer simply is political reality. Congressional Democrats want people to see they are doing SOMETHING, even if the best course might be to simply let the tools that are already out there work. Liberal economist Paul Krugman, who never believed the first bill was nearly large enough, has been leading the charge for a second stimulus for some time. And it appears likely that SOME sort of jobs bills will pass in the new congress.
But the reality is that we will all have to wait and see whether what they did the first run around will actually work.
Almost 1 Year of Obama
The President of the United States will cross the 1 year in office threshold, 25% of his term, right as voters in Massachusetts are picking a Senator that will potentially represent the 60th vote in the Senate for final passage of health care legislation. It's almost time to break out the red pens and grade the President's year. Given the amazingly high bar he set for himself with his early speech to congress, I suspect when I sit down to write his review, he will have some significant short-comings. The President's inner-circle is fond of talking about him taking the "long view". But you do have to produce results at some point.
So, next up, our 1 year report card on President Obama. We'll look at my assessment of grades against his key initiatives. We'll look at his public opinion polls and the American people's grades of his performance. And we'll tap our old friends at Politifact to look at how well he is keeping his promises. Stay tuned.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
The Pro-GOP or at the very least, anti-Democratic trend appears to continue to build. President Obama's numbers are stable, at least for now, around the +3% to +5% range...this is better than being negative, but puts him in a similar position to where President Clinton was leading into the year that saw Newt Gingrich's revolution that led to a GOP-controlled House and Senate. It isn't that bad yet, so let's take a look at where the races are tracking, with our new updates from this week:
Safe DEM Hold (6)
Maryland, New York (Schumer), Oregon, Vermont, Washington, Connecticut
Likely DEM Hold (5)
California, Indiana, Wisconsin, Hawaii, Massachusetts*
* Special Election January 19th
Lean Democratic Hold (2)
New York (Gillebrand), Illinois
Lean Democratic Pick-Up (1)
Missouri
Toss-up -- DEM Controlled (2)
Pennsylvania, Delaware
Lean GOP Pick-up (4)
Colorado, Nevada, North Dakota, Arkansas
Lean GOP Hold (5)
New Hampshire, Kentucky, Ohio, North Carolina, Arizona
Likely GOP Hold (5)
Georgia, Alaska, Kansas, Louisiana, Florida
Safe GOP Hold (7)
Iowa, South Dakota, Alabama, Idaho, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah
Total Projection: GOP Pick-up of 3 to 5 Seats
Best Case GOP (all leaners go to GOP): GOP +8 Seats
Best Case DEM (all leaners go to DEM): DEM +6 Seats
It certainly seems, given the national mood, that the Best Case GOP scenario is a heck of a lot more plausible than the Best Case DEM scenario at this point. This is because of all the states that fall in the "lean" category currently, the GOP is winning all but 3 of them. It does show, however, the vast impact a 5 point swing in the national mood can have on how races shape up.
The other things worth noting are that we do not have particularly recent polling in Missouri and Pennsylvania. One could surmise from the trend in other swing states that there is a reasonable probability that they will tip red when we do get such polling. This would push the GOP closer to their "best case" scenario.
Having said all this, I don't see a path to 51 for the GOP. In addition to picking up Missouri and Pennsylvania, they would have to win Illinois to get to +8, which is certainly possible, but probably no better than 50/50. On TOP of that, they would have to beat Gillebrand in New York (possible only if Pataki runs against her, and no sure thing even then), AND win at least 2 out of 5 in California (where they have a good candidate but are trailing), Indiana (where they don't even have a candidate yet against a well-liked moderate in Evan Bayh), Wisconsin (against Russ Feingold, seems like a no-hope race), Hawaii (when was the last time Hawaii sent a GOPer to the Senate?) and Massachusetts (closing fast at -9%, but still a long shot.)
So, the most realistic scenario to get there for the GOP would be to pull off the upset in Massachusetts, then win all the ones they are leading. Win the two toss-ups -- Delaware with Mike Castle and Pennsylvania with Pat Toomey. Win Missouri with Rep. Roy Blunt, New York's 2nd seat via convincing George Pataki to run. Finally, pull off the big upset with Carly Fiorna in California (hey -- they love tech celebrities there.) And you have 51 seats.
A long, long, shot, for sure. But for the first time I can actually construct a scenario where it could happen. First key, of course, is the Massachusetts special election a week from Tuesday, which I expect them to lose. But if they win that one, all bets are off.
In the House,
Democrats could be in huge trouble. Now, it's hard to tell, because we continue to be plagued by drastically different polls numbers (Rasmussen has it at GOP +9%, Gallup has it at DEM +3%), driven largely not by the fact that pollsters are asking the questions somehow differently, but more by the fact that they are making dramatically different modeling assumptions about who is actually going to vote in the mid-term. And the quagmire is real...after a massive turnout in 2008, clearly we all expect it to fall off for the mid-terms, but will it revert back to the normal for an off-year election? Will any of the newly registered voters in 2008 show up to vote for congress in 2010? We don't really know.
At any rate, my philosophy has always been that by building a larger sample poll, as well as looking at means and medians, we can mitigate the sample or weighting errors of any one given pollster. An our methodology produces a current projection of GOP +3.6%.
This leads to a House projection of: GOP +43 Seats
So, for the second projection in a row, I'm projecting a GOP takeover of the House. The margin is still slim, although it is 2 seats wider than it was last week. It could change obviously, with circumstances. But for now, the House Republicans are looking pretty darn strong. I doubt we'll see anything like Health Care reform moving through that chamber come 2011.
The Jobs Deficit -- John Edwards Was Right
I wrote about this some months ago, but I was struck recently by a personal experience. The company that I work for, which is a Fortune 500 company, was in the process of hiring entry-level engineers for a number of our factories, a process that I was involved in. We were recruiting principally for those who graduate this spring and conducted interviews over November and December, made offers in mid-December to 5 candidates and....were rejected 4 out of 5 times. Every single one of the 5 young engineers we were trying to recruit had multiple offers from multiple great companies. These are kids who are extremely intelligent, but let's face it, haven't actually DONE anything yet. And this punctuated my point -- the economy looks a lot different if you are a high school dropout who has been working at a factory in Michigan than it does if you are an Electrical Engineer from the University of Michigan.
The latest employment report, released yesterday, showed the unemployment rate remained flat at 10.0%, just a tick below the peak of 10.1% from two months ago. But the important numbers were even wore than that, with actually jobs declining by 85,000 and the unemployment rate only holding constant by virtue of people giving up on looking for work and dropping out of the work force, with this number rising to 929,000, it's largest level since 1985. So, with "normal" unemployment being in the 5% range, we have a gap of 7.6 million jobs, 8.5 million adding in the discouraged workers.
How does this relate to my story? Let's look at the unemployment rate by educational attainment one more time:
High School Dropout -- 15.3%
High School Graduate -- 10.5%
Some College or Trade School Graduate -- 9.0%
College Graduate with Bachelor's Degree or Higher -- 5.0%
The economy IS normal if you are a college graduate. Sure it isn't the heady days of the late 90s or the mid-00s when you could name your price, your location and your work hours. But you CAN find work if you have a degree and skills that are in demand. If you are a factory worker, however, your prospects are dim.
Which brings me to my point...we have focused so much on just creating jobs that we have neglected the other half of the equation...how do we raise the skill level of the unemployed to make them more productive and more attractive to potential employers? College tuitions continue to surge and achievement gaps between rich and poor school districts have sustained. How do we give the kid from Compton, rural Tennessee, Detroit or Mississippi a shot at being in the tier of people who are in demand? We have had zero political discussion in the past year about higher education and lifetime learning. And that's a crime.
In terms of what we have been discussing politically, we have the stimulus bill and we have the "jobs" bill creeping it's way through congress. The bill, which has been blasted by the GOP as "Son of Stimulus", would largely do more of the same that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act did...that is the threefold approach of transfer payments to states to stabilize state governments (to "save" jobs), infrastructure projects (to "create" jobs) and temporary extensions / expansions of various social programs to provide money for the unemployed and needy (to generate consumer demand.)
The approach has its merits as a short-term buffer to an economy still dealing with the aftershocks of a massive financial crisis. My criticism is that the way the original stimulus was laid out, we haven't really had a chance to see how that program, which was designed as a 3-year reshaping of the economy, will really play out.
Here are the latest stats on the first stimulus bill:
Tax Cuts -- $92.8 billion out of $288 billion paid out (32.2%)
Spending -- $164.2 billion out of $499 billion paid out (32.9%)
Total -- $257.0 billion out of $787 billion paid out (32.7%)
With more than two thirds of the first stimulus bill left to spend, why craft another measure?
The answer simply is political reality. Congressional Democrats want people to see they are doing SOMETHING, even if the best course might be to simply let the tools that are already out there work. Liberal economist Paul Krugman, who never believed the first bill was nearly large enough, has been leading the charge for a second stimulus for some time. And it appears likely that SOME sort of jobs bills will pass in the new congress.
But the reality is that we will all have to wait and see whether what they did the first run around will actually work.
Almost 1 Year of Obama
The President of the United States will cross the 1 year in office threshold, 25% of his term, right as voters in Massachusetts are picking a Senator that will potentially represent the 60th vote in the Senate for final passage of health care legislation. It's almost time to break out the red pens and grade the President's year. Given the amazingly high bar he set for himself with his early speech to congress, I suspect when I sit down to write his review, he will have some significant short-comings. The President's inner-circle is fond of talking about him taking the "long view". But you do have to produce results at some point.
So, next up, our 1 year report card on President Obama. We'll look at my assessment of grades against his key initiatives. We'll look at his public opinion polls and the American people's grades of his performance. And we'll tap our old friends at Politifact to look at how well he is keeping his promises. Stay tuned.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
What the Departure of Senators Dodd and Dorgan Means in November, GOP in Striking Distance in Massachusetts?, Other Senate Updates
Lots of news in the world of 2010 Senate races the past few days. Let me break it down.
Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT)'s Retirement
Chris Dodd has represented Connecticut in the Senate for the past 30 years and has frequently won re-election easily, winning by 34% in his most recent re-election in 2004. But it was to be a massive uphill climb for the man who was the Senate's top watchdog over the financial services industry (oops!) and was exposed sneaking a change into the stimulus bill that allowed AIG to pay out massive bonuses after huge TARP fund injections (bigger oops!)
He was trailing prospective GOP opponents by as much as 13% in recent polls and had a huge PR problem. In fact, at the time of his announcement, his seat was the strongest projected change in the entire array of Senate races, being rated a "likely GOP pick-up."
With Dodd gone, this helps the DEMs. They are free to run a candidate in a deep blue state that has not so deeply offended the voting public. Attorney General Mike Blumenthal has announced his candidacy and he is highly popular in the state.
How much more popular than Dodd?
Dodd was trailing prospective GOP candidates by 6 to 13%. Blumenthal, in a just-released Rasmussen poll (validated by a Democratic-afilliated Public Policy Polling poll which showed even wider margins) leads these same candidates by 23 to 24%.
This race is effectively over. The Dems hold the seat.
Move Connecticut almost all the way across the spectrum: it goes from a Likely GOP Pick-up to a Safe Democratic Hold
Senator Byron Dorgan Retires
A different story entirely in North Dakota. Senator Dorgan was in trouble, to be sure. A red-leaning state is a bad place to be in a year that is shaping up to be on the red side to begin with. Couple that with the probably candidacy of a popular Republican Governor, John Hoeven, and you have a "lean GOP pick-up".
Take Dorgan out of the equation and you have....still a lean GOP pick-up. Dorgan wasn't the problem the way Dodd was, the dynamics of North Dakota, the quality of the opposition and the national mood are the key factors in play.
North Dakota remains a Lean GOP Pick-Up.
Could Coakley Actually Lose?
Losing Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in a state among the deepest blue would be a disaster of epic proportions for the Democrats and an ominous sign for November.
Could it actually happen? I doubt that it will. But it has moved from the realm of pure Republican fantasy to the realm of mere improbability. In a stunning closing of the race, a Rasmussen poll released this week shows Coakley with merely a 9 point lead over GOPer Scott Brown. This is a dramatic drop from November polls, which had the margin pegged at 30 or more points.
Make no mistake about it, I expect Coakley to prevail and avoid an outright disaster for the DEMs. But a single-digit win is still an embarrassment in what should be a walk for the DEMs.
Massachusetts moves from a Safe Democratic Hold to a Likely Democratic Hold with a week and a half to go until the special election.
Other Moves
The first New Hampshire senate poll in several months was released this week, conducted by ARG, shows Republican Kelly Ayotte leading Rep. Paul Hodes by 7 points. In the absence of other recent polling, the margin is sufficient enough for me to move this from a Lean Democratic Pick-up to a Lean Republican Hold.
In Arkansas, Senator Blanche Lincoln (D) may have made a very real choice to put her job on the line by supporting health care reform. A Rasmussen poll against 4 potential GOP challengers shows her trailing them all by margins of 8 to 12% after leading by single digits in late November and early December. This race moves from a Lean Democratic Hold to a Lean GOP Pick-up.
I suspect that there are other states that may move to the right as new polling data comes in (Missouri and Pennsylvania jump out, just to point out two), but we'll take the polls as they come in.
Complete rundown soon.
Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT)'s Retirement
Chris Dodd has represented Connecticut in the Senate for the past 30 years and has frequently won re-election easily, winning by 34% in his most recent re-election in 2004. But it was to be a massive uphill climb for the man who was the Senate's top watchdog over the financial services industry (oops!) and was exposed sneaking a change into the stimulus bill that allowed AIG to pay out massive bonuses after huge TARP fund injections (bigger oops!)
He was trailing prospective GOP opponents by as much as 13% in recent polls and had a huge PR problem. In fact, at the time of his announcement, his seat was the strongest projected change in the entire array of Senate races, being rated a "likely GOP pick-up."
With Dodd gone, this helps the DEMs. They are free to run a candidate in a deep blue state that has not so deeply offended the voting public. Attorney General Mike Blumenthal has announced his candidacy and he is highly popular in the state.
How much more popular than Dodd?
Dodd was trailing prospective GOP candidates by 6 to 13%. Blumenthal, in a just-released Rasmussen poll (validated by a Democratic-afilliated Public Policy Polling poll which showed even wider margins) leads these same candidates by 23 to 24%.
This race is effectively over. The Dems hold the seat.
Move Connecticut almost all the way across the spectrum: it goes from a Likely GOP Pick-up to a Safe Democratic Hold
Senator Byron Dorgan Retires
A different story entirely in North Dakota. Senator Dorgan was in trouble, to be sure. A red-leaning state is a bad place to be in a year that is shaping up to be on the red side to begin with. Couple that with the probably candidacy of a popular Republican Governor, John Hoeven, and you have a "lean GOP pick-up".
Take Dorgan out of the equation and you have....still a lean GOP pick-up. Dorgan wasn't the problem the way Dodd was, the dynamics of North Dakota, the quality of the opposition and the national mood are the key factors in play.
North Dakota remains a Lean GOP Pick-Up.
Could Coakley Actually Lose?
Losing Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in a state among the deepest blue would be a disaster of epic proportions for the Democrats and an ominous sign for November.
Could it actually happen? I doubt that it will. But it has moved from the realm of pure Republican fantasy to the realm of mere improbability. In a stunning closing of the race, a Rasmussen poll released this week shows Coakley with merely a 9 point lead over GOPer Scott Brown. This is a dramatic drop from November polls, which had the margin pegged at 30 or more points.
Make no mistake about it, I expect Coakley to prevail and avoid an outright disaster for the DEMs. But a single-digit win is still an embarrassment in what should be a walk for the DEMs.
Massachusetts moves from a Safe Democratic Hold to a Likely Democratic Hold with a week and a half to go until the special election.
Other Moves
The first New Hampshire senate poll in several months was released this week, conducted by ARG, shows Republican Kelly Ayotte leading Rep. Paul Hodes by 7 points. In the absence of other recent polling, the margin is sufficient enough for me to move this from a Lean Democratic Pick-up to a Lean Republican Hold.
In Arkansas, Senator Blanche Lincoln (D) may have made a very real choice to put her job on the line by supporting health care reform. A Rasmussen poll against 4 potential GOP challengers shows her trailing them all by margins of 8 to 12% after leading by single digits in late November and early December. This race moves from a Lean Democratic Hold to a Lean GOP Pick-up.
I suspect that there are other states that may move to the right as new polling data comes in (Missouri and Pennsylvania jump out, just to point out two), but we'll take the polls as they come in.
Complete rundown soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
