Census -- The Count Is In
308,745,538. That's the count of all residents of the United States, according to the official 2010 census results.
Some quick background on the count for those less familiar. By constitutional mandate, every 10 years, the United States Government must conduct an "actual enumeration" (i.e. a real count) of all residents of a state. An important note is that the requirement is to count all residents and makes no mention of legality. Therefore, an attempt is made in each census to count illegal aliens and well as legal non-citizens and U.S. citizens. All residents are counted where they reside, which means that those in prison are counted in the location that the prison resides. The only somewhat exception to the "where they sleep" rule is members of the US military, who are counted in their declared home state of residence, since their military deployment (whether foreign or domestic) is not considered to impact residency.
Obviously, no count is perfect. Liberal groups have chronically complained that illegal aliens and the homeless population are chronically undercounted, and this is likely true, as these groups tend to be a combination of very difficult to locate and not particularly receptive to census-taking. In the past, liberals have proposed using a statistical sampling technique to attempt to more accurately portray the population, but the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that while sampling may be used to determine federal funding for programs (whose formulas are written by law and not constitutionally mandated), that the constitutionally mandated purposed of the census, namely the apportionment of congressional representatives and therefore electoral votes, must follow the strict "actual enumeration" process.
Congressional seats are apportioned based on the counts using a formula that is statistically complicated, but conceptually simple...each State gets at least one congressional seat and the balance are apportioned in the way that most equally distributes them relative to the population size of the states.
So with the caveat that 308.7MM people probably somewhat understates the population, let's dig into what the numbers mean from a political perspective.
As expected, the big winners are largely red states in the south and purples states out west with the big losers being the rust belt and parts of the northeast.
Here are the gainers and losers in House seats. along with my rating of the state's political leanings:
Gainers
Texas (Red) +4
Florida (Purple) +2
Georgia (Red) +1
South Carolina (Red) +1
Arizona (Red/Purple) +1
Utah (Red) +1
Nevada (Purple) +1
Washington (Blue/Purple) +1
Losers
Ohio (Purple) -2
New York (Blue) -2
Pennsylvania (Blue/Purple) -1
Massachusetts (Blue) -1
New Jersey (Blue) -1
Michigan (Blue/Purple) -1
Illinois (Blue) -1
Iowa (Blue/Purple) -1
Missouri (Red/Purple) -1
Louisiana (Red) -1
Net Change Blue States: -5
Net Change Blue/Purple States: -2
Net Change Purple States: +1
Net Change Red/Purple States: 0
Net Change Red States: +6
Net Change in States Won By President Obama in 2008: -6
Net Change in States Won by Senator John McCain in 2008:+6
So, as expected, this census will be a modest boon for the GOP over the next 10 years. The other significant element of this is that in 43 states (all except the 7 which only have 1 Congressional seat), all of the district boundaries will be redrawn between now and November 2012. With Republicans in control of 29 Governorships, this process should favor the GOP, as Republicans can draw districts that concentrate the opposition and spread out the support in a way to support the election of more Republicans. In a few states, this process of Gerrymandering is limited by laws that assign responsibility for drawing districts to a panel of independent judges, but in most states, it's open season.
2012 looks to be a tough election cycle for Democrats in both Houses of congress. In the House, the redrawn districts will almost certainly favor the GOP more than before for the reasons above, and in the Senate, 2012 is an echo election to the huge Democratic gains of 2006, with 23 Democrats and the 2 Democratic-leaning Independents up for re-election and only 10 Republicans. Even more troubling in the Senate is the make-up of the seats that are up. Democrats have to defend in tough states such as Florida, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia, just to name a few. Republican defenses are mostly in Red states, with Nevada, Massachusetts and Maine perhaps representing the Democrats only 3 real shots at picking up a seat.
A Stake in the Ground for the GOP Nomination
CNN, The Union Leader and WMUR will host a Republican Presidential Debate on June 7th in New Hampshire. To date, this is the earliest line in the sand that will drive the need for decisions by GOP hopefuls on whether they are in or out. June 7th is a mere five and a half months away, so expect business to pick-up briskly in the spring regarding GOP candidacies.
Of course, a big name like a Sarah Palin could duck the June debate and still get in the race later, but it would be suicide for a less well-known candidate, such as John Thune or Rick Perry to sit this one out.
The filing deadline in New Hampshire isn't until next November, but I can't imagine even a Palin waiting that long to get in the mix. And don't forget, the Iowa Caucuses precede the New Hampshire primary by a week.
Almost the End of the Road for the 111th
The last few pieces of business for the 111th Congress appear to be nearing conclusion. The Senate today agreed to a continuing resolution which would continue to fund government agencies at last year's levels through March 15th. This deal was reached after Democrats had first tried to pass some form of a full year budget, but Republicans objected, wanting the new Congress to have a say in how the money was spent (and how much.) The March 15th date was a compromise that keeps the government running but still gives the new Congress a say in the second half of the year. How House Republicans navigate this opportunity when the new Congress convenes will be an early test as to how serious they are about cutting spending. The continuing resolution passed the Senate 79-16. It is expected to easily win approval in the House later today.
The START Treaty appears to be cruising towards approval. A cloture motion today received 67 votes. The cloture motion needed only 60 votes to pass, but the treaty itself will need either 67 if everyone in the Senate votes or 66, if, as expected, Democrat Ron Wyden, who is recovering from medical treatment, sits out the vote.
On top of the 67 who voted for the cloture motion (Wyden was not present), Evan Bayh (D-IN), who did not vote on the motion, is expected to support the treaty and Judd Gregg (R-NH) is on the fence. This leaves the treaty with either 68 or 69 votes versus 66 needed, so it should easily get approved tomorrow evening when the 30 post-cloture hours are completed.
Which brings us to possibly the final piece of major business in the Senate -- the 9/11 First Responders bill. Democrats have been working to pare down the spending in the bill and adjust the funding mechanisms to be more agreeable to Republicans. It is still unclear if the bill will pass before Congress adjourns as Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) has vowed to do everything in his power to slow the bill down, citing objections to the process being used to pass it and some of the funding provisions.
Really, Tom? This is the issue that you choose to take a stand on? Depriving financial relief for Ground Zero firefighters out on disability? Guess it's nice to have a safe Senate seat.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Showing posts with label Continuing Resolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Continuing Resolution. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Might the Lame Duck Be Less Lame Than I Thought?
The Unfunded Giveaway Advances
Last week, I went through in great detail, all the reasons why I thought and still think that the deal reached between President Obama and Congressional Republicans was a bad deal for America. The deal appears inevitable at this point, receiving massive support in final passage in the Senate, by a whopping 81-19 margin, with only 13 Democrats, 5 Republicans and Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who entered Senate folk lore with an impassioned eight and a half hour speech on the Senate floor this past weekend that picked apart the provisions of the deal one by one.
The measure now moves to the House, where a vote is expected early next week, and save for a few liberal holdouts (and possibly a couple of Conservatives that don't like the unemployment extension provision), it seems sure to pass by a broad margin. The one potential hiccup is that some liberal House members are vowing to vote on an amendment to modify the estate tax provision. Rich dead people are unpopular enough in a House that is still Democratic for another couple of weeks, that it could actually pass, which might break apart Republican support for the overall measure. But my guess is that House leadership ultimately whips most of the liberals in line and the measure will pass basically unmodified.
Interesting constitutional note: students of the constitution no doubt know that it states that bills impacting taxes and spending must originate in the House of Representatives, not the Senate. One might wonder who then the Senate can have first passed a bill which will now be voted on in the House that has exactly those impacts. The answer lies in technical legislative process. The Senate bill is technically an amendment to a non-controversial air travel infrastructure bill that the House had already passed. The constitution allows the Senate to amend tax and spending bills already passed by the House, so the Senate has simply amended the air travel bill to incorporate the tax and spending measures and the House will actually be voting to concur with the Senate amendment. Hardly seems like what the founders intended in terms of control of the purse strings, but it is technically within the constitutional rules.
Lots of Action Yet to Come
With the deal on taxes and spending, the deck has been cleared for all sorts of action on other fronts, as a unified Senate GOP caucus had vowed to filibuster ALL legislation until a deal was reached on taxes and spending. The Democrats have a short couple of weeks before this congress ends, but it actually appears there is the potential to do a few big things.
(1) The START Treaty
Continuing our constitution lesson, treaties require ONLY Senate approval (the House does not vote on them), but require a 2/3rds vote for ratification. The START treaty renews nuclear reduction efforts with Russia that have been through many rounds, dating all the way back to the Reagan Administration. It is a significant deal that would reduce stockpiles of the US and Russia by 25% over the coming couple of decades. And it appears that there may be sufficient bipartisan support to obtain the 67 votes that are needed for passage. The Senate just voted tonight to commence debate on the treaty. Filibuster is not at issue in this case as the 67 votes needed for ratification exceed the 60 vote requirement to cut off debate.
Odds of Passage? High.
(2) Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Amazingly, this outdated and discriminatory policy may finally die this year. The original strategy had DADT repeal tied to the Defense authorization bill, but that has been bogged down in the Senate as it is a complex bill that touches on many aspects of defense policy and even some repeal supporters didn't like it muddying the waters of other defense issues.
The new strategy, of a standalone bill that repeals the policy, seems to be bearing fruit. The House has already passed the measure today, by a 250-175 vote, mostly along party lines (15 Republicans voted for, 15 Democrats voted against, all of the rest voted the party line.) And the support seems to be there in the Senate. The last 4 Moderate Republicans standing: Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Scott Brown of Massachusetts (who has been quite a pleasant surprise in his willingness to work across the aisle) and newly crowned Tea-Party killer Lisa Murkowski of Alaska have all expressed support for the standalone measure (in a technical sense, she is an elected Republican until January, at which point she becomes an elected Independent who caucuses with the GOP.) It appears that at least 55 of the 56 Democrats in the Senate support repeal (Ben Nelson, as usual, is a question mark) and both Independents (Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders) have been vocal advocates of repeal. By my math, this gives the repeal bill the support of 61 current Senators, more than the 60 needed to stop a GOP filibuster.
Odds of Passage? Surprisingly, high.
(3) The DREAM Act
The Obama Administration-backed effort to provide a path to citizenship for people whose families came to the US illegally when they were children and who serve in the armed forces appears to potentially have the votes to pass. Passage in the House appears assured if it is brought to the floor prior to January 5th (when the new GOP majority arrives) and there appears to be 55 committed "yea" votes in the Senate, including conservative Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, who is one of two primary sponsors of the bill. If the Democratic leadership can get the fence-sitting Democrats to vote yea, Hatch's support, along with the support of Bob Bennett of Utah, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Dick Lugar of Indiana would potentially give the bill 62 votes, more than the 60 needed to break a filibuster.
The headwinds the bill faces are several though. Firstly, it is clearly a lower priority on the Senate category than the START treaty and DADT repeal. Secondly, 3 Democrats, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Jon Tester of Montana are committed "nay" votes, meaning that at this point there really are only 59 votes for passage, not 62. And Kay Hagan of North Carolina and Max Baucus of Montana are leaning nay votes. So, now you are down to 57. This makes getting to 60 difficult, although there may be a few more Republicans (such as Susan Collins) that break for the bill.
Odds of Passage? I'm having trouble making the math work, so I'll say low-to-moderate.
Also on the docket before the end of the year is passage of a bill to fund government operations for the rest of this fiscal year (through next September.) Regrettably, once again, Congress failed to pass the requisite appropriations bills prior to the start of the fiscal year this past October, so what we have had is a cobbled-together set of continuing resolutions (I've written extensively over the past year on how destructive this process is, you can refer back to my posts from last September and October for more information), with the latest expiring this week. The House has passed a full-year continuing resolution, which basically keeps Fiscal 2011 spending at 2010 levels by a narrow 212-206 margin (Republicans felt that cut should be more significant as did some Blue Dogs, some liberals wanted a higher level), but has yet to be debated in the Senate. There is still significant disagreement over how to proceed, with many Senate Democrats preferring to pass an omnibus budget rather than simply continuing last year's funding levels (I agree in principle, although the Senate-drafted bill appears to be laden with pork not contained in the House bill.) The Senate is not scheduled to take up debate on the measure until Friday and bill opponents have threatened to force the entire bill, which nears 2,000 pages, to be read aloud prior to debate (Senate rules call for all bills to be read on the floor and while this requirement is routinely waived without objection, only 1 Senator has to object to require the reading), which could potentially push voting on the bill into the middle of next week.
So, there are still some potential significant accomplishments on the table for the lame duck congress. But there is also a lot to sort out in a few short days. Congress was attempting to be home by Christmas, but that may not be possible if they want to finish all of this business.
It should be a busy couple of weeks in Washington.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Last week, I went through in great detail, all the reasons why I thought and still think that the deal reached between President Obama and Congressional Republicans was a bad deal for America. The deal appears inevitable at this point, receiving massive support in final passage in the Senate, by a whopping 81-19 margin, with only 13 Democrats, 5 Republicans and Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who entered Senate folk lore with an impassioned eight and a half hour speech on the Senate floor this past weekend that picked apart the provisions of the deal one by one.
The measure now moves to the House, where a vote is expected early next week, and save for a few liberal holdouts (and possibly a couple of Conservatives that don't like the unemployment extension provision), it seems sure to pass by a broad margin. The one potential hiccup is that some liberal House members are vowing to vote on an amendment to modify the estate tax provision. Rich dead people are unpopular enough in a House that is still Democratic for another couple of weeks, that it could actually pass, which might break apart Republican support for the overall measure. But my guess is that House leadership ultimately whips most of the liberals in line and the measure will pass basically unmodified.
Interesting constitutional note: students of the constitution no doubt know that it states that bills impacting taxes and spending must originate in the House of Representatives, not the Senate. One might wonder who then the Senate can have first passed a bill which will now be voted on in the House that has exactly those impacts. The answer lies in technical legislative process. The Senate bill is technically an amendment to a non-controversial air travel infrastructure bill that the House had already passed. The constitution allows the Senate to amend tax and spending bills already passed by the House, so the Senate has simply amended the air travel bill to incorporate the tax and spending measures and the House will actually be voting to concur with the Senate amendment. Hardly seems like what the founders intended in terms of control of the purse strings, but it is technically within the constitutional rules.
Lots of Action Yet to Come
With the deal on taxes and spending, the deck has been cleared for all sorts of action on other fronts, as a unified Senate GOP caucus had vowed to filibuster ALL legislation until a deal was reached on taxes and spending. The Democrats have a short couple of weeks before this congress ends, but it actually appears there is the potential to do a few big things.
(1) The START Treaty
Continuing our constitution lesson, treaties require ONLY Senate approval (the House does not vote on them), but require a 2/3rds vote for ratification. The START treaty renews nuclear reduction efforts with Russia that have been through many rounds, dating all the way back to the Reagan Administration. It is a significant deal that would reduce stockpiles of the US and Russia by 25% over the coming couple of decades. And it appears that there may be sufficient bipartisan support to obtain the 67 votes that are needed for passage. The Senate just voted tonight to commence debate on the treaty. Filibuster is not at issue in this case as the 67 votes needed for ratification exceed the 60 vote requirement to cut off debate.
Odds of Passage? High.
(2) Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Amazingly, this outdated and discriminatory policy may finally die this year. The original strategy had DADT repeal tied to the Defense authorization bill, but that has been bogged down in the Senate as it is a complex bill that touches on many aspects of defense policy and even some repeal supporters didn't like it muddying the waters of other defense issues.
The new strategy, of a standalone bill that repeals the policy, seems to be bearing fruit. The House has already passed the measure today, by a 250-175 vote, mostly along party lines (15 Republicans voted for, 15 Democrats voted against, all of the rest voted the party line.) And the support seems to be there in the Senate. The last 4 Moderate Republicans standing: Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Scott Brown of Massachusetts (who has been quite a pleasant surprise in his willingness to work across the aisle) and newly crowned Tea-Party killer Lisa Murkowski of Alaska have all expressed support for the standalone measure (in a technical sense, she is an elected Republican until January, at which point she becomes an elected Independent who caucuses with the GOP.) It appears that at least 55 of the 56 Democrats in the Senate support repeal (Ben Nelson, as usual, is a question mark) and both Independents (Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders) have been vocal advocates of repeal. By my math, this gives the repeal bill the support of 61 current Senators, more than the 60 needed to stop a GOP filibuster.
Odds of Passage? Surprisingly, high.
(3) The DREAM Act
The Obama Administration-backed effort to provide a path to citizenship for people whose families came to the US illegally when they were children and who serve in the armed forces appears to potentially have the votes to pass. Passage in the House appears assured if it is brought to the floor prior to January 5th (when the new GOP majority arrives) and there appears to be 55 committed "yea" votes in the Senate, including conservative Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, who is one of two primary sponsors of the bill. If the Democratic leadership can get the fence-sitting Democrats to vote yea, Hatch's support, along with the support of Bob Bennett of Utah, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Dick Lugar of Indiana would potentially give the bill 62 votes, more than the 60 needed to break a filibuster.
The headwinds the bill faces are several though. Firstly, it is clearly a lower priority on the Senate category than the START treaty and DADT repeal. Secondly, 3 Democrats, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Jon Tester of Montana are committed "nay" votes, meaning that at this point there really are only 59 votes for passage, not 62. And Kay Hagan of North Carolina and Max Baucus of Montana are leaning nay votes. So, now you are down to 57. This makes getting to 60 difficult, although there may be a few more Republicans (such as Susan Collins) that break for the bill.
Odds of Passage? I'm having trouble making the math work, so I'll say low-to-moderate.
Also on the docket before the end of the year is passage of a bill to fund government operations for the rest of this fiscal year (through next September.) Regrettably, once again, Congress failed to pass the requisite appropriations bills prior to the start of the fiscal year this past October, so what we have had is a cobbled-together set of continuing resolutions (I've written extensively over the past year on how destructive this process is, you can refer back to my posts from last September and October for more information), with the latest expiring this week. The House has passed a full-year continuing resolution, which basically keeps Fiscal 2011 spending at 2010 levels by a narrow 212-206 margin (Republicans felt that cut should be more significant as did some Blue Dogs, some liberals wanted a higher level), but has yet to be debated in the Senate. There is still significant disagreement over how to proceed, with many Senate Democrats preferring to pass an omnibus budget rather than simply continuing last year's funding levels (I agree in principle, although the Senate-drafted bill appears to be laden with pork not contained in the House bill.) The Senate is not scheduled to take up debate on the measure until Friday and bill opponents have threatened to force the entire bill, which nears 2,000 pages, to be read aloud prior to debate (Senate rules call for all bills to be read on the floor and while this requirement is routinely waived without objection, only 1 Senator has to object to require the reading), which could potentially push voting on the bill into the middle of next week.
So, there are still some potential significant accomplishments on the table for the lame duck congress. But there is also a lot to sort out in a few short days. Congress was attempting to be home by Christmas, but that may not be possible if they want to finish all of this business.
It should be a busy couple of weeks in Washington.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Is Biden Vote #51? GOP Sweep, Split Power or Narrow Dem Majorities -- Why We Still Don't Know, The Spineless and Irresponsible Majority
25 days until election day 2010 and majority control of both Houses of congress is very much still in doubt. The Senate, especially, will likely be controlled by one party or the other by a razor-thin margin. Here are my latest projections:
Every close race had a new poll this week except for Alaska and Wisconsin. In Wisconsin, Russ Feingold has been steadily losing ground, and I suspect that when we find a new poll, he will be in the same or a slightly worse spot than he is in our current projection. The maverick from Wisconsin is in real trouble.
In Alaska, I'm dying to see a poll in the fascinating, confusing and dynamic face-off between Tea-Party Republican Joe Miller and Republican Turned Write-in Independent Incumbent Lisa Murkowski. This will be a very tough race to project, because of the unusual dynamics.
Key Rating Moves This Week:
Maryland -- Barbara Mikulski is safe. The Maryland race is on no one's radar. A new Washington Post poll officially puts her average in the safe category.
Connecticut -- embattled state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal resolidifies his once large lead slightly. The race is now a Likely Hold for the Dems.
California -- Barbara Boxer had been pulling away from ex-CEO Carly Fiorina in the past few weeks, but the race has tightened again in the past week and is now only a Slight Lean Hold for Boxer.
Nevada -- a continued close race (in fact, it was within 0.01% last week) moves slightly to the right in the polling, with Tea Partier Sharron Angle pulling out to a 2 point lead. The race now rates a Slight Lean Pick-Up for the GOP.
West Virginia -- this one started with a big Dem lead for incumbent Gub Manchin, but has moved steadily to the right in a state where the President and the Dems in power nationally are highly unpopular. It now rates a Lean Pick-Up for the GOP.
New Hampshire -- mainstream Republican Kelly Ayotte has appeared for months to be running away with this race, but it has started to tighten in the late stages. This race now rates only a Lean Hold for the GOP.
Missouri -- this one appears to be rapidly becoming a lost cause for the Dems. Bellweather states ring for the party in the lead and the GOP is winning the campaign so far. Likely GOP Hold.
Arizona -- same story as Maryland, but for the other party. John McCain is not going to lose, unless he suddenly breaks back out his "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" line. Safe GOP Hold.
My Projection: Democrats 48, Republicans 50, Independents 2 (Democrats retain control with Biden's tie-breaking vote, barring any defections)
realclearpolitics (no toss-ups): Democrats 48, Republicans 50, Independents 2
electoral-vote: Republicans 50, Democrats 47, Independents 2, 1 Tie
electionprojection: Democrats 48, Republicans 50, Independents 2
So, we are all basically on the same page, for the second week in a row.
In the House,
My average of generic polling surges to the right, with the GOP showing at +7.2% now. The biggest driver is the latest Gallup polling, which contained a lot of refinement to their projections. In fact, Gallup has 2 likely voter models that they are using, one for a low turnout election and one for a high turnout election. Since those polls rely on the same sample and Gallup is not advising which model they believe, I am weighting both models at 50% of a normal poll. The Gallup polls show the best numbers for the GOP with GOP +13% in the high turnout scenario and GOP +18% in the low turnout scenario. If Gallup is right, the House will be a blow-out. I'm not quite showing that yet in my averages.
My Projection: 232 Republicans, 203 Democrats
realclearpolitics (splitting toss-ups): 229 Republicans, 206 Democrats
electoral-vote (splitting toss-ups): 219 Democrats, 216 Republicans
electionprojection: 222 Republicans, 213 Democrats
So, on the House, the projections are all over the map. Basically, my projection and realclearpolitics show a big gain for the GOP (although not quite an outright blowout), electionprojection has a narrow GOP victory and electoral-vote has the DEMs retaining the House. Obviously, the House is harder to project than the Senate.
Bottom line, we still don't really know which party will control either House come next year.
Budgets Matter
I've been heavy on the polls and light on the political commentary as of late, as I typically do as we close in on an election, but I would be remiss if I didn't say shame on the Democrats for adjourning Congress with no budget outline and no appropriations bills passed. A kick the can down the road continuing resolution is all that Congress could muster. No debate on tax policy or spending priorities. Uncertainty for both governmental agencies as to what their budget will be and businesses and individuals.
Responsibility number one for congress is to manage budgets and taxation. On this fundamental test, Pelosi and Reid and company have showed themselves to be spineless, unwilling to even have a debate or declare positions going into an election. Are they even trying to win back the hearts and minds of the American people?
Every close race had a new poll this week except for Alaska and Wisconsin. In Wisconsin, Russ Feingold has been steadily losing ground, and I suspect that when we find a new poll, he will be in the same or a slightly worse spot than he is in our current projection. The maverick from Wisconsin is in real trouble.
In Alaska, I'm dying to see a poll in the fascinating, confusing and dynamic face-off between Tea-Party Republican Joe Miller and Republican Turned Write-in Independent Incumbent Lisa Murkowski. This will be a very tough race to project, because of the unusual dynamics.
Key Rating Moves This Week:
Maryland -- Barbara Mikulski is safe. The Maryland race is on no one's radar. A new Washington Post poll officially puts her average in the safe category.
Connecticut -- embattled state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal resolidifies his once large lead slightly. The race is now a Likely Hold for the Dems.
California -- Barbara Boxer had been pulling away from ex-CEO Carly Fiorina in the past few weeks, but the race has tightened again in the past week and is now only a Slight Lean Hold for Boxer.
Nevada -- a continued close race (in fact, it was within 0.01% last week) moves slightly to the right in the polling, with Tea Partier Sharron Angle pulling out to a 2 point lead. The race now rates a Slight Lean Pick-Up for the GOP.
West Virginia -- this one started with a big Dem lead for incumbent Gub Manchin, but has moved steadily to the right in a state where the President and the Dems in power nationally are highly unpopular. It now rates a Lean Pick-Up for the GOP.
New Hampshire -- mainstream Republican Kelly Ayotte has appeared for months to be running away with this race, but it has started to tighten in the late stages. This race now rates only a Lean Hold for the GOP.
Missouri -- this one appears to be rapidly becoming a lost cause for the Dems. Bellweather states ring for the party in the lead and the GOP is winning the campaign so far. Likely GOP Hold.
Arizona -- same story as Maryland, but for the other party. John McCain is not going to lose, unless he suddenly breaks back out his "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" line. Safe GOP Hold.
My Projection: Democrats 48, Republicans 50, Independents 2 (Democrats retain control with Biden's tie-breaking vote, barring any defections)
realclearpolitics (no toss-ups): Democrats 48, Republicans 50, Independents 2
electoral-vote: Republicans 50, Democrats 47, Independents 2, 1 Tie
electionprojection: Democrats 48, Republicans 50, Independents 2
So, we are all basically on the same page, for the second week in a row.
In the House,
My average of generic polling surges to the right, with the GOP showing at +7.2% now. The biggest driver is the latest Gallup polling, which contained a lot of refinement to their projections. In fact, Gallup has 2 likely voter models that they are using, one for a low turnout election and one for a high turnout election. Since those polls rely on the same sample and Gallup is not advising which model they believe, I am weighting both models at 50% of a normal poll. The Gallup polls show the best numbers for the GOP with GOP +13% in the high turnout scenario and GOP +18% in the low turnout scenario. If Gallup is right, the House will be a blow-out. I'm not quite showing that yet in my averages.
My Projection: 232 Republicans, 203 Democrats
realclearpolitics (splitting toss-ups): 229 Republicans, 206 Democrats
electoral-vote (splitting toss-ups): 219 Democrats, 216 Republicans
electionprojection: 222 Republicans, 213 Democrats
So, on the House, the projections are all over the map. Basically, my projection and realclearpolitics show a big gain for the GOP (although not quite an outright blowout), electionprojection has a narrow GOP victory and electoral-vote has the DEMs retaining the House. Obviously, the House is harder to project than the Senate.
Bottom line, we still don't really know which party will control either House come next year.
Budgets Matter
I've been heavy on the polls and light on the political commentary as of late, as I typically do as we close in on an election, but I would be remiss if I didn't say shame on the Democrats for adjourning Congress with no budget outline and no appropriations bills passed. A kick the can down the road continuing resolution is all that Congress could muster. No debate on tax policy or spending priorities. Uncertainty for both governmental agencies as to what their budget will be and businesses and individuals.
Responsibility number one for congress is to manage budgets and taxation. On this fundamental test, Pelosi and Reid and company have showed themselves to be spineless, unwilling to even have a debate or declare positions going into an election. Are they even trying to win back the hearts and minds of the American people?
Friday, October 30, 2009
Latest Calls for Election Day, Finally Primetime for Health Care, The Middle Path on Afghanistan?, More Can Kicking, Presidential Approval
New Jersey, Virginia & New York-23
I will make my final projections in the 3 major November races on Monday. I don't project "ties" in my predictions, so at this point, I've eliminated the toss-up category -- every race will have a prediction, however close it is. As I still don't know what to do with Rasmussen polling data, I've elected to average the "Rasmussen" and "non-Rasmussen" averages, essentially giving the Rasmussen polling 50% weight. This is a departure from my Presidential Approval tracking where Rasmussen is given full weighting. I will make future calls on inclusion or exclusion of Rasmussen polls based on their accuracy in predicting these races. As always, polls sponsored by partisan groups are excluded from the analysis. For prediction purposes, only polls conducted within the past 7 days are included.
I have not been covering the New York mayoral races, as I generally cover only races for federal offices (House, Senate, the President) and Governor's races, but suffice it to say that Mayor Bloomberg appears to be extremely safe for a third term.
Let's get down to the races I'm covering:
New Jersey
Including Rasmussen
Weighted Average: Corzine +0.5%
Unweighted Average: Even
Median: Christie +0.5%
Average of Averages: Even
Excluding Rasmussen
Weighted Average: Corzine +1.3%
Unweighted Average: Corzine +0.6%
Median: Even
Average of Averages: Corzine +0.6%
My Projection: Lean DEM Hold, Corzine +0.3%
This one is ever-so-close and will depend on many factors: Democratic turn-out, the Daggett factor and late-breaking undecideds. It could obviously move in either direction in the last few days. The Corzine surge appears to have died out for now and we have settled in at about as close as they come.
Virginia
Including Rasmussen
Weighted Average: McDonnell +13.7%
Unweighted Average: McDonnell +14.3%
Median: McDonnell +14.0%
Average of Averages: McDonnell +14.0%
Excluding Rasmussen
Weighted Average: McDonnell +13.9%
Unweighted Average: McDonnell +14.5%
Median: McDonnell +15.5%
Average of Averages: McDonnell +14.6%
My Projection: Likely GOP Pick-up, McDonnell +14.3%
This one isn't close -- not even remotely. The GOP is back in Virginia. McDonnell beats Deeds.
New York-23
I like an adequate polling base to make a statistical projection, so I will share what is available. The one non-partisan poll conducted in the past week, a Research 2000 poll, showed Owens, the Democrat at 33%, Hoffman, the upstart Conservative party candidate at 32%, and Scozzofava, the "official" GOP candidate at 21%.
In the R2000 poll, Hoffman has gained 9 points in the past week, picking up almost all of them from Scozzofava after receiving high-profile endorsements from the likes of former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and current Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty.
This is a race Hoffman SHOULD win. Owens is stuck in the low 30s and the only way he can hold on to win is if Hoffman and Scozzofava more or less split the 60%+ of voters who intend to vote for some sort of Republican and Conservative.
In spite of the one non-partisan poll showing Owens in the lead,
My Prediction: Lean Conservative Pick-up
Showtime on Health Care Reform
With the unveiling of the House version of Health Care reform by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the implicit promise that it will hit the floor sometime late next week, after months and months of debate, town halls, hand wringing, Blue Dogs, liberals, Republicans, lobbyists, speeches and the like, it is FINALLY showtime.
The Pelosi bill is more liberal than the proposed Reid bill in the Senate, including a public option without an opt-out provision for individual states, but is less liberal than those on the left had hoped, allowing only for the public option to negotiate with providers versus perscribing that reimbursement rates be tied to Medicaid.
Many issues remain unresolved in the House version: what kind of public options survives, what to do about abortion coverage opposed by a group of pro-life Democrats (as well as Republicans), etc. But it appears highly likely that some kind of reform will pass the House.
The path through the Senate continues to be far less clear. It is obvious that moderate Republican Senator Olympia Snowe is not on board with the opt-out public option, although she might support a "trigger mechanism" for a future public option. Independent Joe Lieberman has agreed to vote to begin debate in the Senate, but has threatened to support a fillibuster if the public option isn't pulled. As no other Republican has indicated any inclination to support the bill, the Democrats will need one of those two, along with moderate Democratic Senator Ben Nelson in order to pass a bill.
Clearly Harry Reid doesn't have this all figured out yet and the plan appears to be to let things develop on the Senate floor, which will likely lead to some high drama.
I'll be tuned in, bag of popcorn in hand when the Senate debate finally begins. No word yet on when this hits the Senate floor, although it would be logical for them to follow the House, where Democrats should have an easier (although not easy) go of it.
More Than 0, Less Than 40K?
Inside reports out of the Obama Administration indicate that the President is leaning towards sending additional troops to Afghanistan, but something less than the 40,000 requested by General Stanley McChrystal. This is not too surprising, given the history of the President's rhetoric on the subject..."war of necessity" and all, but what is still not clear to me is what the
mission objective will be for those additional troops.
I hope the President decides soon (taking your time is fine, but this is getting ridiculous) and that whatever he decides that he articulates a clear objective for the troops over there. We owe our brave soliders that.
Another Continuing Resolution
The federal government will keep its doors open until December 18th, assuming the President, today or tomorrow, signs the Interior Department appropriations bill. The conference report on that bill had another continuing resolution tacked on to it which gives the vast swath of agencies (see below) that still don't have a budget for the year, the capability to continue operating for another 7 weeks.
As the Senate has not yet even taken up several of the appropriations bill, we may again get deep into the budget year before the Fiscal 2010, which started October 1st, gets settled. It also appears likely, given the delay, that several of those bills will be combined into a so called "minibus" appropriations bill covering multiple agencies.
Think having a State and Defense department budget might be important during the middle of two wars? Apparently congress doesn't.
President Obama -- Scraping the Lows
I don't want to overplay a one-day drop, but today President Obama hit his second-lowest aggregate polling of his Presidency at an Approve minus Disapprove of +8.8% (his all-time low was on September 11th, when he was at +8.7%.) Still just slightly better than his November vote total of +7.2%, but his numbers took a turn down in the past week. Whether it is a bump in the road or a start of a new trend remains to be seen.
The President's monthly numbers don't show the same decline, primarily because he actually bumped up in approval early in the month before dropping late. October is almost over, so these won't change much...we'll see how November shapes up.
Thanks for reading. If you like this site, tell your friends.
I will make my final projections in the 3 major November races on Monday. I don't project "ties" in my predictions, so at this point, I've eliminated the toss-up category -- every race will have a prediction, however close it is. As I still don't know what to do with Rasmussen polling data, I've elected to average the "Rasmussen" and "non-Rasmussen" averages, essentially giving the Rasmussen polling 50% weight. This is a departure from my Presidential Approval tracking where Rasmussen is given full weighting. I will make future calls on inclusion or exclusion of Rasmussen polls based on their accuracy in predicting these races. As always, polls sponsored by partisan groups are excluded from the analysis. For prediction purposes, only polls conducted within the past 7 days are included.
I have not been covering the New York mayoral races, as I generally cover only races for federal offices (House, Senate, the President) and Governor's races, but suffice it to say that Mayor Bloomberg appears to be extremely safe for a third term.
Let's get down to the races I'm covering:
New Jersey
Including Rasmussen
Weighted Average: Corzine +0.5%
Unweighted Average: Even
Median: Christie +0.5%
Average of Averages: Even
Excluding Rasmussen
Weighted Average: Corzine +1.3%
Unweighted Average: Corzine +0.6%
Median: Even
Average of Averages: Corzine +0.6%
My Projection: Lean DEM Hold, Corzine +0.3%
This one is ever-so-close and will depend on many factors: Democratic turn-out, the Daggett factor and late-breaking undecideds. It could obviously move in either direction in the last few days. The Corzine surge appears to have died out for now and we have settled in at about as close as they come.
Virginia
Including Rasmussen
Weighted Average: McDonnell +13.7%
Unweighted Average: McDonnell +14.3%
Median: McDonnell +14.0%
Average of Averages: McDonnell +14.0%
Excluding Rasmussen
Weighted Average: McDonnell +13.9%
Unweighted Average: McDonnell +14.5%
Median: McDonnell +15.5%
Average of Averages: McDonnell +14.6%
My Projection: Likely GOP Pick-up, McDonnell +14.3%
This one isn't close -- not even remotely. The GOP is back in Virginia. McDonnell beats Deeds.
New York-23
I like an adequate polling base to make a statistical projection, so I will share what is available. The one non-partisan poll conducted in the past week, a Research 2000 poll, showed Owens, the Democrat at 33%, Hoffman, the upstart Conservative party candidate at 32%, and Scozzofava, the "official" GOP candidate at 21%.
In the R2000 poll, Hoffman has gained 9 points in the past week, picking up almost all of them from Scozzofava after receiving high-profile endorsements from the likes of former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and current Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty.
This is a race Hoffman SHOULD win. Owens is stuck in the low 30s and the only way he can hold on to win is if Hoffman and Scozzofava more or less split the 60%+ of voters who intend to vote for some sort of Republican and Conservative.
In spite of the one non-partisan poll showing Owens in the lead,
My Prediction: Lean Conservative Pick-up
Showtime on Health Care Reform
With the unveiling of the House version of Health Care reform by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the implicit promise that it will hit the floor sometime late next week, after months and months of debate, town halls, hand wringing, Blue Dogs, liberals, Republicans, lobbyists, speeches and the like, it is FINALLY showtime.
The Pelosi bill is more liberal than the proposed Reid bill in the Senate, including a public option without an opt-out provision for individual states, but is less liberal than those on the left had hoped, allowing only for the public option to negotiate with providers versus perscribing that reimbursement rates be tied to Medicaid.
Many issues remain unresolved in the House version: what kind of public options survives, what to do about abortion coverage opposed by a group of pro-life Democrats (as well as Republicans), etc. But it appears highly likely that some kind of reform will pass the House.
The path through the Senate continues to be far less clear. It is obvious that moderate Republican Senator Olympia Snowe is not on board with the opt-out public option, although she might support a "trigger mechanism" for a future public option. Independent Joe Lieberman has agreed to vote to begin debate in the Senate, but has threatened to support a fillibuster if the public option isn't pulled. As no other Republican has indicated any inclination to support the bill, the Democrats will need one of those two, along with moderate Democratic Senator Ben Nelson in order to pass a bill.
Clearly Harry Reid doesn't have this all figured out yet and the plan appears to be to let things develop on the Senate floor, which will likely lead to some high drama.
I'll be tuned in, bag of popcorn in hand when the Senate debate finally begins. No word yet on when this hits the Senate floor, although it would be logical for them to follow the House, where Democrats should have an easier (although not easy) go of it.
More Than 0, Less Than 40K?
Inside reports out of the Obama Administration indicate that the President is leaning towards sending additional troops to Afghanistan, but something less than the 40,000 requested by General Stanley McChrystal. This is not too surprising, given the history of the President's rhetoric on the subject..."war of necessity" and all, but what is still not clear to me is what the
mission objective will be for those additional troops.
I hope the President decides soon (taking your time is fine, but this is getting ridiculous) and that whatever he decides that he articulates a clear objective for the troops over there. We owe our brave soliders that.
Another Continuing Resolution
The federal government will keep its doors open until December 18th, assuming the President, today or tomorrow, signs the Interior Department appropriations bill. The conference report on that bill had another continuing resolution tacked on to it which gives the vast swath of agencies (see below) that still don't have a budget for the year, the capability to continue operating for another 7 weeks.
As the Senate has not yet even taken up several of the appropriations bill, we may again get deep into the budget year before the Fiscal 2010, which started October 1st, gets settled. It also appears likely, given the delay, that several of those bills will be combined into a so called "minibus" appropriations bill covering multiple agencies.Think having a State and Defense department budget might be important during the middle of two wars? Apparently congress doesn't.
President Obama -- Scraping the Lows
I don't want to overplay a one-day drop, but today President Obama hit his second-lowest aggregate polling of his Presidency at an Approve minus Disapprove of +8.8% (his all-time low was on September 11th, when he was at +8.7%.) Still just slightly better than his November vote total of +7.2%, but his numbers took a turn down in the past week. Whether it is a bump in the road or a start of a new trend remains to be seen.
The President's monthly numbers don't show the same decline, primarily because he actually bumped up in approval early in the month before dropping late. October is almost over, so these won't change much...we'll see how November shapes up.
Thanks for reading. If you like this site, tell your friends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
