The Clock is Ticking....
One of the oddest by-products of our Republic's system of elections is the notion of lame duck elected politicians. Every 4 or 8 years, we see a President who still has a couple of months left in congress but has absolutely zero accountability to the voters, as he has already lost or was ineligible to be President again.
Sometimes Lame Duck Presidents make sweeping humanitarian moves, such as when President George Herbert Walker Bush sent U.S. troops for a humanitarian mission to Somalia in late 1992. The move obviously didn't end well, but by all accounts it was very positively intended. Ditto President George Walker Bush's extraordinary moves to use TARP funding to provide bridge loans to GM and Chrysler. Sometimes Lame Ducks do things that we find difficult to stomach, such as President Bill Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich in his waning days in office (11th hour Presidential pardons are often fairly painful to watch, as opponents have no recourse given the absolute power of Presidential pardon.)
Just as we have Lame Duck Presidents, every 2 years we have a Lame Duck Congress. The gap between November elections and the early January convening of the new congress presents a narrow time window to pass legislation. More often than not, Lame Duck Congresses pass unnoticed for a number of reasons:
(1) When party control isn't changing, they don't really matter. If the new Congress looks a lot like the old one, it really doesn't matter whether a bill gets passed by the outgoing or incoming congress.
(2) If the President isn't on board, they don't mean much -- if party control IS changing but it's changing from, say, Democratic to Republican with a Republican President, he would just wait it out or veto whatever the lame duck session passes and wait for a more favorable congress.
(3) They often don't meet -- the time period between November and the New Year is chock full of holidays -- who wants to be in Congress?
We are in one of those rare years where party control IS change, it's changing in a way that's unfavorable to the President and Congress IS meeting in Lame Duck session.
So, hopes on the left were high to do a lot...the proposed agenda included addressing Gays in the Military, the fate of the Bush Tax Cuts...some with crazy ambition even talked of doing bigger reform.
The results so far? Not much is happening. Congress seems totally disorganized on agenda and time is rapidly ticking away.
In week 1, the House failed to pass an unemployment benefit extension and named a couple of post offices. The Senate has started debate on a Food Safety improvement bill.
Don't expect much from the lame duck session. There is a good chance that unemployment benefits won't get extended, the Bush tax cuts won't get resolved and Gays in the Military, an issue for which the Democrats have the support of 75% of the American people and 70% of the enlisted military, won't even get debated.
Do we really need to wonder how the Democrats lost so badly in November?
Joe Miller, Even His Backers Are Screaming Now
After counting all the write-in ballots, Write-In incumbent Lisa Murkowski leads upstart Republican nominee Joe Miller by over 10,000 votes. Even accounting for every vote that Miller challenged, which included some perfect ballots for Murkowski and other ballots that were not mis-spelled but for which the Miller felt the handwriting was bad, Murkowski would STILL lead by over 2,200 votes.
Yet Miller is suing. He's suing to make the standard more strict. He's suing to hand re-count all of the scan ballots, claiming that since the write-ins were hand counted, a comparable standard has not been used in all ballots.
There are some legitimate questions of law at stake in Miller's suit. Should minor mis-spellings be counted according to Alaska law? I would argue yes, for reasons I've previously documented, but I can see the argument, reading the statute verbatim. Should scanned ballots be hand counted alongside write-ins? I would certainly argue yes, in any election where such a hand recount would make a difference. But let's be real...Miller trails by 5%. Even if he wins all his challenges, which he won't, he would still trail by 1%. The total number of under votes is a fraction of a percent. Miller cannot win even if everything breaks right.
This is why the Alaska GOP is urging Miller to step aside and unify the party. But like a dog chasing a bone, he just can't seem to stop. At least he doesn't have much of a political future to wreck.
Miller has won 1 victory...a federal judge has stopped election certification while the state court looks at his ballot standard challenge. This will delay, but not change the outcome of the race. Murkowski has already won.
First Look: The 2012 Nomination Calendar
Don't kid yourself, the 2012 campaign is getting ready to get really busy, really fast. 2012 is not far away at all in political terms. Here is the calendar of the early nomination contests for the 2012 year:
January 16th -- Iowa Caucuses -- first contest in the nation
January 24th -- New Hampshire Primary -- first primary in the nation
January 28th -- South Carolina Primary ("first in the south"), Nevada Caucuses
January 31st -- Florida Primary -- first "big state" primary
February 7th -- Super Tuesday -- 13 state primaries including New York and California
Since many of the GOP primaries are "winner take all" with the winner of a plurality receiving all of the delegates in the race, it is quite probable that the nomination will be basically decided after February 7th. This leaves less than 15 months to campaign.
Obviously, it is early, so the calendar could shift. But Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina's positions will almost certainly be maintained as the first 3, in that order.
Let the games begin!
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Showing posts with label Joe Miller. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Joe Miller. Show all posts
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Murkowski Poised to Make History, A Very Good Start on Deficit Reduction That is DOA
Tea Party to Lose Showdown in Alaska
They are a little more than two thirds of the way through counting write-in ballots in the Alaska showdown between write-in moderate Lisa Murkowski and Tea Party Republican Joe Miller. Here are the facts on the ground as of today:
In the "final" tally (less a few military overseas ballots that have a few days left to show up) of electronically counted votes the totals were as follows:
Votes for Joe Miller: 87,517
Write-In Votes: 98,565
The math is pretty simple...Lisa Murkowski needed 87,518 of the write-in votes to be counted for her or 88.8% of the total write-in count.
There is legal wrangling over the exact rules in play in Alaska. The Alaska Division of Elections is applying a "voter intent" standard, citing a long history of court precedents that when a voter's intent is clear for a candidate, the vote should be counted. The Miller campaign is suing, citing the Alaska statute which states that a write-in candidates name must either match the name on their application or match the last name on the application. The Miller campaign appears to be disputing not only ballots that contain minor misspellings (Mirkowski is by far the most prevalent of this type of ballot), but also ballots that are spelled correctly but have sloppy handwriting and some ballots that appear to be perfectly spelled for Murkowski.
As of now, a good chunk of the ballots have been counted and its pretty clear that Miller's legal challenge is likely to be irrelevant. The tallies thus far are as follows:
Write-In Ballots Assessed So Far: 69,249
Undisputed for Murkowski (perfect spelling, unchallenged by Miller campaign): 62,434 (90.2%)
Awarded to Murkowski But Disputed by Miller Campaign (minor misspellings, poor hand writing or other): 5,291 (7.6%)
Not Awarded to Murkowski But Disputed by Murkowski Campaign (major misspellings, etc.): 1,047 (1.5%)
Write-In Votes for Candidates Other Than Murkowski or Miller: 472 (0.7%)
Write-In Votes Awarded to Joe Miller: 5 (0.0%)
So, even assuming total victory for the Miller campaign on the legal front, which is highly unlikely, given that the disputed number contains some ballots that appear to be perfect for Murkowski, we have a vote total of:
Joe Miller: 87,522
Lisa MurkowskI: 62,434
Ballots Left to Count: 29,316
Awarding Murkowski 90.2% of the remaining votes (the current percentage of her undisputed ballots), would yield a final projected result of:
Joe Miller: 87,522
Lisa Murkowski: 88,877
Murkowski's final total is likely to be higher than this as it is likely that substantially all of the votes awarded to her but disputed by the Miller campaign will eventually be counted. Lisa Murkowski will win her term in the US Senate, becoming only the second candidate ever to win a Senate seat by write-in campaign and the first since the 1950s. Pretty historical stuff. And a pretty strong statement on the weakening influence of long-time Murkowski rival Sarah Palin, who strongly backed Miller and has often been critical of Murkowski. Palin may help candidates win GOP primaries, but her influence in winning general elections has been pretty poor.
Just a word on the Miller campaign. There is no doubt that when you are in an election, you are going to interpret the rules in a way most favorable to the campaign. So, unlike many commentators, while I have always favored an "intent of the voter" standard, I can certainly understand the Miller campaign's push for a strict interpretation of the law. But challenging people with bad hand writing? Challenges ballots that ARE perfect? That's a bit of a bridge too far. Miller should let the recount finish and then quickly concede in the spirit of Republican unity.
With Respect to Paul Krugman, A Very Good Set of Ideas
President Obama's appointed bi-partisan deficit reduction commission has come back with its preliminary set of recommendations and the energy from the left has been to blast the plan. The UAW, Paul Krugman, Nancy Pelosi and all of the usual suspects on the left have been firing away at the plan as an assault on working and elderly Americans. With respect to those noted liberal thinkers, I completely disagree.
The deficit reduction commission did its job. It came back with a sober, honest look at the state of our nation's finances and presented the very real choices that we are going to have to make over the next decade. Key recommendations include:
(1) Phasing in an Increase in the Social Security Retirement Age to 69 and reducing benefits for higher income Americans
(2) Eliminating many tax deductions such as home mortgage interest, replaced by a lowered series of tax brackets
(3) Eliminating the tax break on employer-provided health care, with an offsetting reduction in corporate tax rates and an elimination of the "tax trap" for foreign-earned income
(4) A 15 cent increase in gas taxes
(5) Major reductions in agricultural subsidies
(6) Major reductions in defense spending
Let me tackle these one at a time:
(1) Social Security Age
It is simply a matter of fact that with rising life expectancy, Social Security will be insolvent over the next half century. The two choices are simple...raise payroll taxes, reduce benefits or raise the retirement age.
I actually favor an all-of-the-above approach. The payroll tax cap should be removed as the current tax structure is regressive (Americans pay the tax on their first $106K of their income and nothing after that, meaning that high earners pay a far smaller percentage of their income) and that places a high burden on working Americans. Unfortunately, the panel did not recommend this change.
Benefits reductions is another way to make the system solvent. But taking grocery income from a low-income American would be very cruel. So the way to impact benefits is to reduce them for high earners, who currently receive greater benefits than low earners. Most in high income brackets can finance their retirement just fine with less social security, as they generally do or at least should have other assets to tap.
Now, the retirement age. Krugman was highly critical of this proposal because he notes that blue collar workers life expectancy has not risen with those of white collar professionals. This is actually factually wrong, as Krugman looks only at the past couple of decades and ignores the huge surge in life expectancy from the 30s to the 80s. Still, it is a fair point that life expectancy is lower in lower income brackets than in higher ones. But negating benefit differences addresses this issue. The fact remains, under this proposal, higher income Americans will pay in more than they take out and the reverse will be true for low income Americans. Seems fair to me.
(2) Home Mortgage Interest and Charitable Contribution Deductions
I could not be more in favor of this plan. Some say it will block the "American Dream" of home ownership to many Americans. But the whole notion that we should be subsidizing ownership versus renting is flawed. There is nothing magical about own versus rent...it is an economic decision. And over the long-run, allowing mortgage interest to be deducted simply inflates home values by a proportional amount, making them no more affordable to middle-income Americans. All it does is sap the treasury and create the risk of asset bubbles.
To be fair, existing home owners should have the rules changed on them mid-course. To prevent someone who has budgeted based on the deduction from being unfairly hit, I would grandfather in existing mortgages, but apply the rule to new mortgage applications.
As far as charitable contributions are concerned, my view is simple...if the government wants to subsidize contributions to charitable organizations, it should do it directly and our elected representatives should have a say in where it goes. By subsidizing private contributions, we are indirectly subsidizing churches and psuedo-political organizations that manage to stay tax-exempt. Let's end this bad law once and for all.
(3) Employer-Provided Health Care
I have long been on record as favoring a form of single payer, at least for catastrophic coverage. It is clear that is not going to happen anytime soon in this country. But employer-provided health care is the worst of all worlds. It ties people's insurance to their job and creates huge risks for individuals and families when unemployment happens and also acts as a barrier to people moving between employers.
By eliminating the subsidy, it would shift health care purchases to the individual. This would create a more efficient market place, especially with the onset of the health insurance exchanges and subsidies for low and middle income Americans in Obamacare. Separating employment from health care is a good step.
Lower the corporate tax rate is a little more onerous. Our marginal tax rate is much higher than the rest of the developed world, but our system of loopholes around how we account for capital expenditures and how we allow companies to account for overseas income leads to a system where we have an allegedly high tax rate, but highly profitable companies, such as Exxon Mobile last year, paid no tax. I favor lowering the state rate, but not the actual rate. Couple with any rate decrease would be the need for a more comprehensive system for closing all the loopholes. One way to do this would be to eliminate the "two books" system whereby companies can claim earnings based on one set of accounting rules in their financial reports to Wall Street and another set in their accounting to the government.
(4) Gas Taxes
I favor a 15 cent increase, but it isn't nearly enough!
I'd like to see a massive increase in gas taxes to encourage more fuel efficient living and drive innovation to wean us off fossil fuels. Something on the order of magnitude of a $2/gallon increase, phased in over 8 years would be needed to drive the change we would need. To mitigate the impact to low-income Americans, this could be partially offset by reductions in payroll taxes or increases in the Earned Income Tax Credit.
(5) & (6)
Agricultural subsidies are the ultimate form of wasteful corporate welfare. There is no reason for the government to be chronically subsidizing huge farm corporations on an ongoing basis. Eliminate them all.
Defense spending is out of control. Finish winding down Iraq, develop an exit strategy in Afghanistan and close many of the myriad of homeland bases that are cold war era relics. We spend more as a percentage of GDP on defense by many multiples than any other developed country on earth. It's time to get real about what we need for national defense.
Having said all this, there is something in this proposal for both parties to hate and neither party has shown any real spine in making hard choices about the deficit, so I suspect, regrettably, that this largely good proposal will be DOA in Congress. What a shame. We can debate the exact choices we make, but my question for every person who has come out opposed to this plan is simple...what is your detailed alternative that makes up for the provisions you don't favor, dollar for dollar? Don't just say spending is out of control. If you won't cut THIS spending say exactly what spending you would cut. If you don't favor THESE tax changes, tell me what other tax changes you would make that would produce the same revenue.
Until we can debate this like adults, I'm tuning out all the wingnut talking heads.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
They are a little more than two thirds of the way through counting write-in ballots in the Alaska showdown between write-in moderate Lisa Murkowski and Tea Party Republican Joe Miller. Here are the facts on the ground as of today:
In the "final" tally (less a few military overseas ballots that have a few days left to show up) of electronically counted votes the totals were as follows:
Votes for Joe Miller: 87,517
Write-In Votes: 98,565
The math is pretty simple...Lisa Murkowski needed 87,518 of the write-in votes to be counted for her or 88.8% of the total write-in count.
There is legal wrangling over the exact rules in play in Alaska. The Alaska Division of Elections is applying a "voter intent" standard, citing a long history of court precedents that when a voter's intent is clear for a candidate, the vote should be counted. The Miller campaign is suing, citing the Alaska statute which states that a write-in candidates name must either match the name on their application or match the last name on the application. The Miller campaign appears to be disputing not only ballots that contain minor misspellings (Mirkowski is by far the most prevalent of this type of ballot), but also ballots that are spelled correctly but have sloppy handwriting and some ballots that appear to be perfectly spelled for Murkowski.
As of now, a good chunk of the ballots have been counted and its pretty clear that Miller's legal challenge is likely to be irrelevant. The tallies thus far are as follows:
Write-In Ballots Assessed So Far: 69,249
Undisputed for Murkowski (perfect spelling, unchallenged by Miller campaign): 62,434 (90.2%)
Awarded to Murkowski But Disputed by Miller Campaign (minor misspellings, poor hand writing or other): 5,291 (7.6%)
Not Awarded to Murkowski But Disputed by Murkowski Campaign (major misspellings, etc.): 1,047 (1.5%)
Write-In Votes for Candidates Other Than Murkowski or Miller: 472 (0.7%)
Write-In Votes Awarded to Joe Miller: 5 (0.0%)
So, even assuming total victory for the Miller campaign on the legal front, which is highly unlikely, given that the disputed number contains some ballots that appear to be perfect for Murkowski, we have a vote total of:
Joe Miller: 87,522
Lisa MurkowskI: 62,434
Ballots Left to Count: 29,316
Awarding Murkowski 90.2% of the remaining votes (the current percentage of her undisputed ballots), would yield a final projected result of:
Joe Miller: 87,522
Lisa Murkowski: 88,877
Murkowski's final total is likely to be higher than this as it is likely that substantially all of the votes awarded to her but disputed by the Miller campaign will eventually be counted. Lisa Murkowski will win her term in the US Senate, becoming only the second candidate ever to win a Senate seat by write-in campaign and the first since the 1950s. Pretty historical stuff. And a pretty strong statement on the weakening influence of long-time Murkowski rival Sarah Palin, who strongly backed Miller and has often been critical of Murkowski. Palin may help candidates win GOP primaries, but her influence in winning general elections has been pretty poor.
Just a word on the Miller campaign. There is no doubt that when you are in an election, you are going to interpret the rules in a way most favorable to the campaign. So, unlike many commentators, while I have always favored an "intent of the voter" standard, I can certainly understand the Miller campaign's push for a strict interpretation of the law. But challenging people with bad hand writing? Challenges ballots that ARE perfect? That's a bit of a bridge too far. Miller should let the recount finish and then quickly concede in the spirit of Republican unity.
With Respect to Paul Krugman, A Very Good Set of Ideas
President Obama's appointed bi-partisan deficit reduction commission has come back with its preliminary set of recommendations and the energy from the left has been to blast the plan. The UAW, Paul Krugman, Nancy Pelosi and all of the usual suspects on the left have been firing away at the plan as an assault on working and elderly Americans. With respect to those noted liberal thinkers, I completely disagree.
The deficit reduction commission did its job. It came back with a sober, honest look at the state of our nation's finances and presented the very real choices that we are going to have to make over the next decade. Key recommendations include:
(1) Phasing in an Increase in the Social Security Retirement Age to 69 and reducing benefits for higher income Americans
(2) Eliminating many tax deductions such as home mortgage interest, replaced by a lowered series of tax brackets
(3) Eliminating the tax break on employer-provided health care, with an offsetting reduction in corporate tax rates and an elimination of the "tax trap" for foreign-earned income
(4) A 15 cent increase in gas taxes
(5) Major reductions in agricultural subsidies
(6) Major reductions in defense spending
Let me tackle these one at a time:
(1) Social Security Age
It is simply a matter of fact that with rising life expectancy, Social Security will be insolvent over the next half century. The two choices are simple...raise payroll taxes, reduce benefits or raise the retirement age.
I actually favor an all-of-the-above approach. The payroll tax cap should be removed as the current tax structure is regressive (Americans pay the tax on their first $106K of their income and nothing after that, meaning that high earners pay a far smaller percentage of their income) and that places a high burden on working Americans. Unfortunately, the panel did not recommend this change.
Benefits reductions is another way to make the system solvent. But taking grocery income from a low-income American would be very cruel. So the way to impact benefits is to reduce them for high earners, who currently receive greater benefits than low earners. Most in high income brackets can finance their retirement just fine with less social security, as they generally do or at least should have other assets to tap.
Now, the retirement age. Krugman was highly critical of this proposal because he notes that blue collar workers life expectancy has not risen with those of white collar professionals. This is actually factually wrong, as Krugman looks only at the past couple of decades and ignores the huge surge in life expectancy from the 30s to the 80s. Still, it is a fair point that life expectancy is lower in lower income brackets than in higher ones. But negating benefit differences addresses this issue. The fact remains, under this proposal, higher income Americans will pay in more than they take out and the reverse will be true for low income Americans. Seems fair to me.
(2) Home Mortgage Interest and Charitable Contribution Deductions
I could not be more in favor of this plan. Some say it will block the "American Dream" of home ownership to many Americans. But the whole notion that we should be subsidizing ownership versus renting is flawed. There is nothing magical about own versus rent...it is an economic decision. And over the long-run, allowing mortgage interest to be deducted simply inflates home values by a proportional amount, making them no more affordable to middle-income Americans. All it does is sap the treasury and create the risk of asset bubbles.
To be fair, existing home owners should have the rules changed on them mid-course. To prevent someone who has budgeted based on the deduction from being unfairly hit, I would grandfather in existing mortgages, but apply the rule to new mortgage applications.
As far as charitable contributions are concerned, my view is simple...if the government wants to subsidize contributions to charitable organizations, it should do it directly and our elected representatives should have a say in where it goes. By subsidizing private contributions, we are indirectly subsidizing churches and psuedo-political organizations that manage to stay tax-exempt. Let's end this bad law once and for all.
(3) Employer-Provided Health Care
I have long been on record as favoring a form of single payer, at least for catastrophic coverage. It is clear that is not going to happen anytime soon in this country. But employer-provided health care is the worst of all worlds. It ties people's insurance to their job and creates huge risks for individuals and families when unemployment happens and also acts as a barrier to people moving between employers.
By eliminating the subsidy, it would shift health care purchases to the individual. This would create a more efficient market place, especially with the onset of the health insurance exchanges and subsidies for low and middle income Americans in Obamacare. Separating employment from health care is a good step.
Lower the corporate tax rate is a little more onerous. Our marginal tax rate is much higher than the rest of the developed world, but our system of loopholes around how we account for capital expenditures and how we allow companies to account for overseas income leads to a system where we have an allegedly high tax rate, but highly profitable companies, such as Exxon Mobile last year, paid no tax. I favor lowering the state rate, but not the actual rate. Couple with any rate decrease would be the need for a more comprehensive system for closing all the loopholes. One way to do this would be to eliminate the "two books" system whereby companies can claim earnings based on one set of accounting rules in their financial reports to Wall Street and another set in their accounting to the government.
(4) Gas Taxes
I favor a 15 cent increase, but it isn't nearly enough!
I'd like to see a massive increase in gas taxes to encourage more fuel efficient living and drive innovation to wean us off fossil fuels. Something on the order of magnitude of a $2/gallon increase, phased in over 8 years would be needed to drive the change we would need. To mitigate the impact to low-income Americans, this could be partially offset by reductions in payroll taxes or increases in the Earned Income Tax Credit.
(5) & (6)
Agricultural subsidies are the ultimate form of wasteful corporate welfare. There is no reason for the government to be chronically subsidizing huge farm corporations on an ongoing basis. Eliminate them all.
Defense spending is out of control. Finish winding down Iraq, develop an exit strategy in Afghanistan and close many of the myriad of homeland bases that are cold war era relics. We spend more as a percentage of GDP on defense by many multiples than any other developed country on earth. It's time to get real about what we need for national defense.
Having said all this, there is something in this proposal for both parties to hate and neither party has shown any real spine in making hard choices about the deficit, so I suspect, regrettably, that this largely good proposal will be DOA in Congress. What a shame. We can debate the exact choices we make, but my question for every person who has come out opposed to this plan is simple...what is your detailed alternative that makes up for the provisions you don't favor, dollar for dollar? Don't just say spending is out of control. If you won't cut THIS spending say exactly what spending you would cut. If you don't favor THESE tax changes, tell me what other tax changes you would make that would produce the same revenue.
Until we can debate this like adults, I'm tuning out all the wingnut talking heads.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Obama Approval: More of the Same, Is Alaska In Play?
Obama Continues to Slide
Absent one month where his numbers were flat month on month (September 2009) and one month where he posted an approval increase (May 2010), it has been a slow, steady decline in President Obama's numbers, and the past month has been no different. His decline is interesting, as it does not appear to be driven by finite events (such as a scandal or particular issue), but more a slow decline as people increasingly become disappointed with the government response to the recession, it's treatment of the deficit, the tone in Washington, or whatever else is on people's minds this year.
His numbers for September show him as modestly unpopular, not as bad as in the media, but far more concerning than the absolute numbers is the continued trend. His numbers show no signs of upward movement and continued decline makes his bully pulpit smaller and smaller.
Democrat in Alaska?
Could Democrats actually win in Alaska? With Tea Partier Joe Miller as their nominee and Lisa Murkowski running as a write-in, it's certainly possible...
Absent one month where his numbers were flat month on month (September 2009) and one month where he posted an approval increase (May 2010), it has been a slow, steady decline in President Obama's numbers, and the past month has been no different. His decline is interesting, as it does not appear to be driven by finite events (such as a scandal or particular issue), but more a slow decline as people increasingly become disappointed with the government response to the recession, it's treatment of the deficit, the tone in Washington, or whatever else is on people's minds this year.
His numbers for September show him as modestly unpopular, not as bad as in the media, but far more concerning than the absolute numbers is the continued trend. His numbers show no signs of upward movement and continued decline makes his bully pulpit smaller and smaller.
Democrat in Alaska?
Could Democrats actually win in Alaska? With Tea Partier Joe Miller as their nominee and Lisa Murkowski running as a write-in, it's certainly possible...
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Another One Bites the Dust in Alaska, The Pre-Season View of the Elections, What You Can Expect the Wednesday After
The Tea Party Breaks Another Establishment Republican
I'll admit it, this one caught me surprise. Lisa Murkowski wasn't even on the radar for being at risk of losing her Senate seat in the Alaska Republican primary. Yet virtual unknown Tea Bagger Joe Miller pulled off a narrow but stunning upset. This shows a few things, in my opinion:
(1) The Tea Party is becoming the overriding force in Republican primaries in some states
In Utah, Kentucky, Nevada and Alaska, Tea Party loyalists upset establishment-backed candidates to take Senate nominations. In Florida, while Marco Rubio is not exactly a Tea Bagger, the movement certainly had an influence in pushing Crist out of the Republican race.
(2) But Let's Not Overstate the Case
The Tea-Party candidates have lost where the establishment had good candidates. They couldn't defeat Mark Kirk in Illinois. The didn't even come close to unseating John McCain. In Delaware, Castle won the GOP nomination virtually unopposed, despite basically being the antithesis of a Tea Party Republican.
The movement is evolving in an attempt to be more mainstream, but my fundamental belief that this is a fringe movement is unchanged. They still have yet to win a general election race, with disasters in the House special elections where they have taken over the GOP base. They still have only one shot at winning a Senate seat in a mainstream race, the battle for Harry Reid's seat in Nevada, and victory is far from assured there. Even in the ultra-conservative states where they are winning nominations, such as Kentucky, the seats are not a lock.
(3) If the Tea-Party Wins, the GOP Loses Long-Term
In a Republican year, you can run candidates that are further to the right and potentially still be victorious. But things change quickly in Washington. Remember all that talk of the permanent Democratic majority? Yeah, that's so 18 months ago. In a more balanced year, Tea Party Republicans will have big challenges holding on to GOP gains. The Republican party would have been better served to get more Castles and less Pauls if they want to make more permanent gains.
(4) The Underlying Cause Has Traction
As radical as a lot of the Tea Party movement is, the fundamental concern about deficits, taxes and the size of government has real traction and resonance with the American people. When deficits rise, people get mad at Washington. This is a lot like Ross Perot's movement in 1992, which ultimately netted him 19% of the Presidential vote, and might have netted him more if he'd been a better candidate.
But United We Stand faded quickly, as I would expect the Tea Party to do, because as the economy improves, the anger subsides.
This all makes for a fascinating election year.
An Updated Looked at November
The traditional view of elections is that campaigns really start in earnest on Labor Day. People start to tune in, debates begin and media buys pick way up. That being said, campaigns have been starting earlier and earlier, so we already have some good perspective on where the races stand heading into this critical season. Let's look at the latest.
We'll go race by race, from most Democratic-leaning to most Republican-leaning.
Safe Democratic Holds (4)
Hawaii, no new polls
Maryland, 1 new poll: Mikulski +16%
New York (Schumer), no new polls
Vermont, no new polls
Likely Democratic Holds (4)
Oregon, 1 new poll: Wyden +20%
Connecticut, 2 new polls: Blumenthal +7%, +10% (close to moving from likely to lean)
New York (Gillebrand), 3 new polls: Gillebrand +15%, 20%, 25%
West Virginia, 1 new poll: Manchin +6% (close to moving from likely to lean)
Lean Democratic Holds (2)
California, 2 new polls: Boxer +5%, Fiornia +2% (close to moving to toss-up)
RATING CHANGE (from Toss-Up to Lean Hold): Nevada, 3 new polls: Reid +1%, 3%, 4%
Democratic Controlled Toss-Ups (2)
Wisconsin, 1 new poll: Johnson +1%
Illinois, 2 new polls: both polls tied
Republican Controlled Toss-Ups (1)
RATING CHANGE (from Lean Ind Pick-Up to Toss-Up): Florida, 4 new polls: Crist, +4%, +7%, Rubio +5%, +10%
Lean GOP Pick-Up (3)
Colorado, 2 new polls: Buck +4%, +9%
Pennsylvania, 3 new polls: Toomey +6%, +9%, +10%
RATING CHANGE (from Lean Hold to Lean Pick-Up): Washington, 2 new polls: Rossi +3%, +7%
Lean GOP Hold (6)
Missouri, 2 new polls: Blunt +1%, +13%
Kentucky, 3 new polls: Paul +5%, +5%, +10%
New Hampshire, 2 new polls: Ayotte +8%, +13% (close to moving back to likely hold)
RATING CHANGE (from likely hold to lean hold): North Carolina, 1 new poll: Burr +9%
RATING CHANGE (from likely hold to lean hold): Alaska, 1 new poll: Miller +6%
RATING CHANGE (from toss-up to lean hold): Ohio, 2 new polls: Portman +6%, +7%
LIkely GOP PIck-Ups (2)
Delaware, 1 new poll: Castle +12%
Indiana, 1 new poll: Coats +21%
Likely GOP Holds (2)
Georgia, 1 new poll: Isakson +12%
RATING CHANGE (from Safe Hold to Likely Hold): Iowa, 2 new polls: Grassley +8%, +20%
Safe GOP Pick-Ups (2)
Arkansas, 1 new poll: Boozman +38%
North Dakota, 1 new poll: Hoeven +44%
Safe GOP Holds (8)
Kansas, 2 new polls: Moran +33%, +46%
Louisiana, 2 new polls: Vitter +12%, +21% (close to moving to Likely Hold)
South Dakota, no new polls
Alabama, 1 new poll: Shelby +32%
Idaho, no new polls
Oklahoma, 1 new poll, Coburn +42%
South Carolina, no new polls
Utah, 1 new poll: Lee +25%
All of this leaves us with the following projection ranges for the Senate:
Current Senate: 57 Democrats, 41 Republicans, 2 Independents
Projected Senate: 48-50 Democrats, 47-50 Republicans, 2-3 Independents
Central Projection: 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, 2 Independents
As we move closer into election season, I will be eliminating the "toss-up" rankings and focusing more and more on the strict mathematical projections.
In the House, the latest generic polling paints a very bleak picture for the Democrats, indeed, with some of the worst generic numbers on record in some polls. Our average of averages is presently at: Republicans +5.7%. This implies:
Current House: 255 Democrats, 178 Republicans, 2 Vacant
Projected House: 206 Democrats, 229 Republicans
Realclearpolitics House Projections (splitting the toss-ups): 212 Democrats, 223 Republicans
The Cook Political Repot (splitting the toss-ups): 232 Democrats, 203 Republicans
Electionprojection Projection: 215 Democrats, 220 Republicans
Cook has been the most conservative in calling races all year, as he tends to need a lot of data to be willing to project an incumbent to be unseated. The other 3 tallies all tell the same story, whether you look at national polling and extrapolate (as I do) or do race-by-race analysis (as realclearpolitics and electionprojection do), you get the same story: the GOP has the advantage in taking back the House headed into the heart of campaign season.
What You Can Expect After a GOP Rout
So what exactly will happen if the GOP actually pulls off the kind of big rout that I and others currently show? Let's say they win the House and fall just shy in the Senate with 49 or 50 seats. A few things that I think that you would see fairly quickly:
(1) Some cabinet departures -- President Obama has held his top team together for 2 years, but when you see a big rout of an incumbent party, there tend to be a few changes in the Cabinet, such as when Bush dismissed Donald Rumsfeld. Incumbents don't like to fire their cabinet members during the election season, because it can be a sign of weakness, but after a loss, it happens a lot. Likely candidates? My top one would be TIm Geithner. Can't think of anyone that would be upset with a change at Treasury. Gates has also announced he will likely depart sometime in 2011, but this is unrelated to job performance, as he is highly popular in both parties.
(2) A Quick Search for Common Ground -- if the GOP controls the purse strings in the House, President Obama better figure out something that they can agree on. Middle class tax cuts? Payroll tax holidays? Maybe a revenue-neutral gas tax?
(3) Gridlock -- no immigration reform, no cap and trade....any "signature" issue of the Democrats is DOA in a GOP-controlled House. Depending on your political perspective, that could be a good thing or a bad thing.
It certainly is shaping up to be another historic year. Thanks for reading and I'll do my best to keep you posted on all the latest.
Projected New House
I'll admit it, this one caught me surprise. Lisa Murkowski wasn't even on the radar for being at risk of losing her Senate seat in the Alaska Republican primary. Yet virtual unknown Tea Bagger Joe Miller pulled off a narrow but stunning upset. This shows a few things, in my opinion:
(1) The Tea Party is becoming the overriding force in Republican primaries in some states
In Utah, Kentucky, Nevada and Alaska, Tea Party loyalists upset establishment-backed candidates to take Senate nominations. In Florida, while Marco Rubio is not exactly a Tea Bagger, the movement certainly had an influence in pushing Crist out of the Republican race.
(2) But Let's Not Overstate the Case
The Tea-Party candidates have lost where the establishment had good candidates. They couldn't defeat Mark Kirk in Illinois. The didn't even come close to unseating John McCain. In Delaware, Castle won the GOP nomination virtually unopposed, despite basically being the antithesis of a Tea Party Republican.
The movement is evolving in an attempt to be more mainstream, but my fundamental belief that this is a fringe movement is unchanged. They still have yet to win a general election race, with disasters in the House special elections where they have taken over the GOP base. They still have only one shot at winning a Senate seat in a mainstream race, the battle for Harry Reid's seat in Nevada, and victory is far from assured there. Even in the ultra-conservative states where they are winning nominations, such as Kentucky, the seats are not a lock.
(3) If the Tea-Party Wins, the GOP Loses Long-Term
In a Republican year, you can run candidates that are further to the right and potentially still be victorious. But things change quickly in Washington. Remember all that talk of the permanent Democratic majority? Yeah, that's so 18 months ago. In a more balanced year, Tea Party Republicans will have big challenges holding on to GOP gains. The Republican party would have been better served to get more Castles and less Pauls if they want to make more permanent gains.
(4) The Underlying Cause Has Traction
As radical as a lot of the Tea Party movement is, the fundamental concern about deficits, taxes and the size of government has real traction and resonance with the American people. When deficits rise, people get mad at Washington. This is a lot like Ross Perot's movement in 1992, which ultimately netted him 19% of the Presidential vote, and might have netted him more if he'd been a better candidate.
But United We Stand faded quickly, as I would expect the Tea Party to do, because as the economy improves, the anger subsides.
This all makes for a fascinating election year.
An Updated Looked at November
The traditional view of elections is that campaigns really start in earnest on Labor Day. People start to tune in, debates begin and media buys pick way up. That being said, campaigns have been starting earlier and earlier, so we already have some good perspective on where the races stand heading into this critical season. Let's look at the latest.
We'll go race by race, from most Democratic-leaning to most Republican-leaning.
Safe Democratic Holds (4)
Hawaii, no new polls
Maryland, 1 new poll: Mikulski +16%
New York (Schumer), no new polls
Vermont, no new polls
Likely Democratic Holds (4)
Oregon, 1 new poll: Wyden +20%
Connecticut, 2 new polls: Blumenthal +7%, +10% (close to moving from likely to lean)
New York (Gillebrand), 3 new polls: Gillebrand +15%, 20%, 25%
West Virginia, 1 new poll: Manchin +6% (close to moving from likely to lean)
Lean Democratic Holds (2)
California, 2 new polls: Boxer +5%, Fiornia +2% (close to moving to toss-up)
RATING CHANGE (from Toss-Up to Lean Hold): Nevada, 3 new polls: Reid +1%, 3%, 4%
Democratic Controlled Toss-Ups (2)
Wisconsin, 1 new poll: Johnson +1%
Illinois, 2 new polls: both polls tied
Republican Controlled Toss-Ups (1)
RATING CHANGE (from Lean Ind Pick-Up to Toss-Up): Florida, 4 new polls: Crist, +4%, +7%, Rubio +5%, +10%
Lean GOP Pick-Up (3)
Colorado, 2 new polls: Buck +4%, +9%
Pennsylvania, 3 new polls: Toomey +6%, +9%, +10%
RATING CHANGE (from Lean Hold to Lean Pick-Up): Washington, 2 new polls: Rossi +3%, +7%
Lean GOP Hold (6)
Missouri, 2 new polls: Blunt +1%, +13%
Kentucky, 3 new polls: Paul +5%, +5%, +10%
New Hampshire, 2 new polls: Ayotte +8%, +13% (close to moving back to likely hold)
RATING CHANGE (from likely hold to lean hold): North Carolina, 1 new poll: Burr +9%
RATING CHANGE (from likely hold to lean hold): Alaska, 1 new poll: Miller +6%
RATING CHANGE (from toss-up to lean hold): Ohio, 2 new polls: Portman +6%, +7%
LIkely GOP PIck-Ups (2)
Delaware, 1 new poll: Castle +12%
Indiana, 1 new poll: Coats +21%
Likely GOP Holds (2)
Georgia, 1 new poll: Isakson +12%
RATING CHANGE (from Safe Hold to Likely Hold): Iowa, 2 new polls: Grassley +8%, +20%
Safe GOP Pick-Ups (2)
Arkansas, 1 new poll: Boozman +38%
North Dakota, 1 new poll: Hoeven +44%
Safe GOP Holds (8)
Kansas, 2 new polls: Moran +33%, +46%
Louisiana, 2 new polls: Vitter +12%, +21% (close to moving to Likely Hold)
South Dakota, no new polls
Alabama, 1 new poll: Shelby +32%
Idaho, no new polls
Oklahoma, 1 new poll, Coburn +42%
South Carolina, no new polls
Utah, 1 new poll: Lee +25%
All of this leaves us with the following projection ranges for the Senate:
Current Senate: 57 Democrats, 41 Republicans, 2 Independents
Projected Senate: 48-50 Democrats, 47-50 Republicans, 2-3 Independents
Central Projection: 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, 2 Independents
As we move closer into election season, I will be eliminating the "toss-up" rankings and focusing more and more on the strict mathematical projections.
In the House, the latest generic polling paints a very bleak picture for the Democrats, indeed, with some of the worst generic numbers on record in some polls. Our average of averages is presently at: Republicans +5.7%. This implies:
Current House: 255 Democrats, 178 Republicans, 2 Vacant
Projected House: 206 Democrats, 229 Republicans
Realclearpolitics House Projections (splitting the toss-ups): 212 Democrats, 223 Republicans
The Cook Political Repot (splitting the toss-ups): 232 Democrats, 203 Republicans
Electionprojection Projection: 215 Democrats, 220 Republicans
Cook has been the most conservative in calling races all year, as he tends to need a lot of data to be willing to project an incumbent to be unseated. The other 3 tallies all tell the same story, whether you look at national polling and extrapolate (as I do) or do race-by-race analysis (as realclearpolitics and electionprojection do), you get the same story: the GOP has the advantage in taking back the House headed into the heart of campaign season.
What You Can Expect After a GOP Rout
So what exactly will happen if the GOP actually pulls off the kind of big rout that I and others currently show? Let's say they win the House and fall just shy in the Senate with 49 or 50 seats. A few things that I think that you would see fairly quickly:
(1) Some cabinet departures -- President Obama has held his top team together for 2 years, but when you see a big rout of an incumbent party, there tend to be a few changes in the Cabinet, such as when Bush dismissed Donald Rumsfeld. Incumbents don't like to fire their cabinet members during the election season, because it can be a sign of weakness, but after a loss, it happens a lot. Likely candidates? My top one would be TIm Geithner. Can't think of anyone that would be upset with a change at Treasury. Gates has also announced he will likely depart sometime in 2011, but this is unrelated to job performance, as he is highly popular in both parties.
(2) A Quick Search for Common Ground -- if the GOP controls the purse strings in the House, President Obama better figure out something that they can agree on. Middle class tax cuts? Payroll tax holidays? Maybe a revenue-neutral gas tax?
(3) Gridlock -- no immigration reform, no cap and trade....any "signature" issue of the Democrats is DOA in a GOP-controlled House. Depending on your political perspective, that could be a good thing or a bad thing.
It certainly is shaping up to be another historic year. Thanks for reading and I'll do my best to keep you posted on all the latest.
Projected New House
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
