Scorecard for Election 2009 Predictions, What the DEMs Should Really Be Afraid of in 2010, Critical Health Care Vote Upcoming

Election 2009 -- How'd We Do?
The dust has settled on the 2009 "mini-midterms" and as always, I wanted to take a look back at the actual vote tallies versus my projections and see how we did from a prediction standpoint and what may have driven the differences. Note that in New Jersey, I will be focusing on percentages of the "three-party" vote (two two major parties plus Chris Daggett), in Virginia on the two-party vote. As I did not make a projection on write-ins or minor third party candidates, their tallies (which are very small percentage anyway) are ignored.

1. Virginia
My Final Projection: McDonnell 57.0%, Deeds 43.0%
Actual Two-Party Vote Tally: 58.7%, Deeds 41.3%
Average Miss per Candidate: 1.7%
Total Bias: +3.4% Democratic

Obviously, we projected the right candidate to win and win handily, but this site was hardly unique in that projection -- just about everyone was projection McDonnell to win. The error, while higher than I would like, is not as bad as I thought on election night, when the early returns showed an even strong McDonnell lead.

In total, I think part of the miss was just the random error associated with attempting to call a statewide race and part of it was due to lower Democratic and higher GOP turn out. With a race this lopsided, turn out is very difficult to predict, since most voter know that their vote is highly unlikely to make a significant difference.

The broader implications of this race are unclear. Democrats ran a bad candidate who had already lost a statewide race previously to McDonnell. The White House and national party provided little support to Deeds. But, still, this was a major butt-kicking by the GOP to a party that had started to dominate Virginia politics. So my take on the implications: this isn't damning to the DEMs in 2010, but it sure isn't good news.

2. New Jersey
Note: As of this writing, Monmouth county had, for some reason, not reported results and this therefore reflects only about 95% of the total vote in New Jersey. Monmouth is not anticipated to significantly change the percentages.

My Projection: Christie 45.0%, Corzine 44.1%, Daggett 10.9%
Actual Three-Party Tally: Christie 48.1%, Corzine 46.1%, Daggett 5.8%
Average Error Per Candidate: 3.4%
Total Bias (Error on the Margin): +1.1% Democratic

You can clearly see where I missed here, Daggett got far less votes than projected. We made the right call on the outcome of the race with Christie winning and the final margin was within a very respectable level of bias, calling the race within 1.1%.

The two potential causes of a Daggett fade that we discussed likely came into play: First, that in a close race, many voters would not want to "throw their vote away" and therefore switched to one of the two major candidates and second, Daggett was buried so deep in the ballot many voters who may have polled for him may have switch in the booth to one of the two major candidates.

While we can always discuss these possibilites (as we did), there is no statistical way to predict them happening, therefore in odd circumstances like this, there is always a good possibility for error.

The implications in this race are probably more severe for national Democrats than in Virginia. Unlike in Virginia, both the national party and President Barack Obama worked hard to re-elect Corzine. His loss shows that Obama is not a silver bullet for victory. And it also shows that even in blue states, people are very mad about the economy and taxes, the two primary issues in the New Jersey campaign.

3. NY-23
I couldn't make a statistical projection here, but I give myself credit for calling this race to be a close battle, whereas most pundits and projectors viewed Hoffman as having clear sailing. I didn't call the Owens win, but I certainly alerted you to the scenario that unfolded -- Scozzofava voters deciding Hoffman was just too conservative.

Democrats, with little else to celebrate this election, have tried to turn this into a predictor of 2010. It's hard to imagine that every house race in 2010 will feature the crazy drama that unfolded here. This race is unique and as such probably projects little. The one piece of solace that Democrats can take away is that even a re-eneregized GOP is fighting for its ideological soul and that was on full display in this race.

Be Afraid of Unemployment, Not 2009
So should Democrats be afraid in 2010? Absolutely. But not because of what happened on Tuesday, but because of what was reported on Friday. The unemployment rate in October spiked to 10.2%, a new 23 year record. There are now less people employed in this country than there were in 2000. And the reality is that it is unlikely to be pretty by November of next year.

I admit I seriously undercalled the lag between economic growth returning and unemployment dropping. Consider this -- even if unemployment were to begin IMMEDIATELY dropping by 0.1% per month (and few believe we have bottomed out yet -- most are saying we won't until at least December) -- we would STILL have a 9% unemployment rate next November.

Democrats will try to pin this all on George W. Bush and there is some fairness to the argument that macroeconomic changes don't happen over night. But voters don't want to hear it. It seems highly likely they will be feeling a lot like throwing all the bums out a year from now. And there are more Democratic "bums" than Republican "bums" at the moment.

Will the Democrats lose the Senate? I still can't envision a scenario.
Will they lose the House? Possible, as I've said, but still unlikely.
Will they lose seats? Oh yeah.

And if they are struggling to get major legislation passed now, with wide majorities, imagine what it will look like if there are, say, 20 more House Republicans and 5 more Senate Republicans.

We could be in for 1990s style gridlock. And maybe that isn't such a bad thing. Remember those balanced budgets and 3% unemployment rates in the 90s? Sounds nice right about now.

House Health Care Vote Upcoming
The House is just convening for a rare Saturday session to push towards a vote on Health Care Reform. A late compromise was struck between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and moderate anti-abortion Democrats, who favored coverage but wanted assurances that funding wouldn't go to abortions. The moderates will be allowed to offer a floor ammendment to the bill that would specifically prohibit funding from the bill to be used for abortions. As of this writing, that is the only amendment that is likely to be allowed.

Pelosi had to give ground. The Republicans are united against the bill, meaning that Pelosi can only give away 40 votes. Counting the Blue Dogs who oppose the included public option and anti-abortion Democrats, the numbers were adding up more than 40. She had to give ground on one of the two to get a bill passed.

Passage is still not assured, nor is the vote timing. If the Democrats don't feel that they have the votes, they may delay a vote from Saturday evening until Sunday.

This is high drama to watch, but even assuming the Dems get is passed, the key roadblock is the Senate. Keep in mind that the House passed a Cap and Trade bill, the other key domestic policy priority for President Obama, months ago and the Senate has yet to act.

Harry Reid has indicated that the year-end "deadline" President Obama had set (actually, his original deadline was the August recess, but no matter) may slip as the Senate still grapples with how to get to 60. It only gets tougher the later this bill goes...primaries for 2010 start in February. The only way I can see Reid straddling the middle is to give in to Sen. Olympia Snowe's (R-ME) proposal to replace an automatic public option with a later-date "trigger mechanism" public option. This would bring along Snowe and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and presumably Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) as well. Without Snowe and Lieberman, the DEMS are at best at 59 votes and possibly only at 57 or 58 (depending on how Nelson, Specter, etc. vote.)

I love watching congress work the weekend. We should make them do it more often.

Next post I'll cover the votes, plus get back to our normal polling updates. It is, after all, time to shift the focus to the 2010 mid-terms.

Thanks for reading. If you like this site, tell your friends. And if you have some thoughts on the 2009 election results, send me a note or post a comment.

Incidentally, we had 131 people view this site on election night and 170 view it in the 48 hours surrounding the election. This is a record for the year, although I suspect lower than November of 2008 (I did not have tracking in place at that time.)

Election 2009 -- A Viewer's Guide

Let's get right down to it....my predictions, the predictions of others and what to look for tomorrow night as we assess the "mini-midterm" elections for Governor in Virginia and New Jersey and the wild special election in New York's 23rd Congressional District.

First, the backdrop: these races do have national significance, at least to the extent that they reflect the mood of pockets of the country (in this case, the purplish state of Virginia, the blueish state of New Jersey and the purple-red New York 23rd), but are overblown in their coverage for no other reason than that we don't get any other actual voter data until next year, when we have 10 times as many Governor's races and 435 times as many House races, as well as 30-some Senate races.

So, let's not overhype this too much -- these elections matter, but they are not life-changing for the parties.

Having said this, let's get down to the analysis.

Let's begin with Virginia, by far the easiest prediction of the night:
Polls by leader: McDonnell 6, Deeds 0, Even 0
Poll Averages with Rasmussen (without Rasmussen)
Unweighted Average: McDonnell +14.0% (+14.2%)
Sample-Weighted Average: McDonnell +13.8% (+14.1%)
Median: McDonnell +13.5% (+14.0%)
Average of Averages: McDonnell +13.8% (+14.1%)
Final Prediction: McDonnell 57.0%, Deeds 43.0%, Likely GOP Pick-up

What Others Are Saying:
RealClearPolitics Prediction: McDonnell +13.4%
Intrade Odds: McDonnell is a 110:1 favorite

The Intrade odds seem a little excessive to me (I would say 40:1 or 50:1 would be fair, but if I were betting, I might lay $10 on Deeds to take a longshot at $1,100), but it should be an early night in Virginia.

Things to watch: Basically this one just comes down to who has the best polling methodology -- is it Survey USA at McDonnell +18%? Or perhaps Research 2000 at McDonnell +10%? Which averaging methodology works best? Does McDonnell win by closer to 13.5% or closer to 14.2%? No drama in results here short of some type of massive disruption at the polls or foul play -- Bob McDonnell becomes the next Governor of Virginia.

Next, let's move to New Jersey.
Polls by leader: Christie - 3, Corzine - 2, Even - 0
Poll Averages with Rasmussen (without Rasmussen)
Unweighted Average: Christie +1.0% (+0.5%)
Sample-Weighted Average: Christie +1.3% (+0.6%)
Median: Christie +2.0% (+0.5%)
Average of Averages: Christie +1.4% (+0.5%)
Final Prediction: Christie - 45.0%, Corzine - 44.1%, Daggett - 10.9%, Lean GOP Pick-up

What Others Are Saying:
RealClearPolitics Prediction: Christie +1.0%
Intrade Betting Odds: Christie is a 1.08:1 favorite

That's right folks, after weeks of predicting that New Jersey would tilt back blue and ultimately go for Corzine, I'm predicting a Christie win, albeit by a seriously slim margin. The scenario of a late departure to Corzine putting him over the top is certainly possible, but we have very good, recent, polling data available here that does not point to a pending surge. All indications are that this one is going to be a squeaker either way and the statistical evidene says that Christie is more likely than not to win, although by no means assured. The betting odds seem about right, although faced with those odds, I'd be inclined to lay $108 on Christie to win $100.

Things to watch:
(1) Voter turnout -- high is good for Corzine, low is good for Christie. Corzine needs all those new Obama voters to show up in an off-year -- the GOP stalwarts almost always show up.
(2) The Daggett effect -- how many voters dump Daggett late for another candidate? History has shown times where Independents get dumped at the last minute when it is clear they can't win. But will these voters abandon Daggett and if so, who will they vote for?
(3) Ballot Burial -- New Jersey's pro-two party balloting laws bury Daggett amidst a bunch of nobody independents that litter the ballot, while the top two candidates get top billing. This could cost him votes, but again, to where will they go?
(4) Suburban South Jersey -- Newark and Camden will vote for Corzine, the rural northern and central part of the State will go for Christie...but where will the greater Cherry Hill area vote? That's the swing part of the state and will probably tip the election.

This is THE race to watch tomorrow night, and I'll be watching closely.

Finally, to New York-23, where we simply don't have good data to make a statistically-based call. Two days ago, Republican Dede Scozzafava suspended her campaign. Yesterday, she endorsed Democrat Bill Owens.

We have one poll, taken today by Siena that took place after both of these developments. It shows Conservative Candidate Doug Hoffman 41%, Owens at 36% and Scozzafava (who is still on the ballot), showing up at 6%. It appears that the Scozzafava voters (who are mostly Republicans and Republican-leaners, after all) are breaking somewhat more for Hoffman than Owens. 6% of people are either protesting or didn't get the memo that Scozzafava is out.

I can't make a mathematical prediction, but from this little bit that we do know, this certainly appears to continue to be a Lean GOP Hold. On the betting odds below, I'd still bet on Owens. I expected Hoffman to win, but 2.3 to 1 is reasonably long odds for such a turbulent race.

What Others Are Saying:
RealClearPolitics: No prediction
Intrade Betting Odds: Hoffman is a 2.3 to 1 favorite (actually "anyone but Owens" is the 2.3:1 favorite, but for all intents and purposes, that means Hoffman at this point.)

If you live in Virginia, New Jersey or New York's 23rd Congressional District or even if you just have local races to contend with, please vote, regardless of your political stripes. I do my best to project races, but in the end, real votes count, not my predictions. Let your voice be heard!

And tune in to this site for coverage of election night 2009.

Scozzofava Out -- What Are The Implications?

Republican nominee Dede Scozzofava has suspended her campaign in the lone federal office race next week, New York's 23rd congressional district. Recognizing that her election prospects were looking increasingly dim, with polls showing her in third place in a three-way battle with both a Democrat and a Conservative party candidate, Scozzofava yesterday released her supporters although stopped short of endorsing Conservative Hoffman, who has surged in the polls following high profile endorsements from national Republicans.

The conventional wisdom is that with Scozzofava out, most of her support will go to Hoffman, who was already at or close to even in the polls and put him over the top, to become the first Independent elected to the House since Socialist Bernie Sanders of Vermont left the House to become a Senator (although it appears highly likely that Hoffman would, for all intents and purposes, be a Republican once elected.)

The conventional wisdom may be right, but there is also a possiblity that Scozzofava supporters will look at Hoffman as too conservative. We likely won't get polling to tell us.

I'll leave this one a Lean GOP Hold for now.

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.

Why the President Doesn't Have Much Time, 2010 Projection Update, The Bizarre World of NY-23, Hate Crimes Take 2

The Clock is Already Winding Down
President Obama has precious little time left if he is going to get major legislative accomplishments in his term.

That seems an odd statement to make just looking at a calendar in the abstract. Today is only day 279 of the Obama Presidency, a mere 19% of his term having expired. But, let's think about how the calendar shapes up.

• In 2010, the focus will shift to the mid-term elections. If you think Blue Dog Democrats in the House and at-risk Democrats in the Senate are nervous now about making major legislative change, this will increase exponentially as the mid-terms near. The White House has as much as admitted that major accomplishments won't happen in the 2010 congressional sessions.
• The congress that convenes in 2011 and 2012 will likely be significantly less favorable to bold policy changes. It will almost certainly be more Republican (more on that later) and a narrowly controlled Democratic-majority congress isn't likely to be willing to make big waves.
• In what is left of 2009, congress still has to deal with a fair amount of routine appropriations legislation (as covered here), in addition to debating the President's proposals. There are also several holidays -- Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year's to work around.
  

So, in reality, the President has only about the 67 days left this year to get his biggest changes done -- and that's including the holidays and appropriations bills mentioned above.

Enough to make one wonder if he can really get health care and energy policy done, isn't it?

Intrade (the internet gambling site), rates the odds against health reform with a public option at 2.8 to 1 (it does not have a separate bet for whether health reform without a public option will pass.) The odds on cap and trade? 1.2 to 1 against.

Still breathing, but the deck is against the President getting both of his stated policy priorities done.

The 2010 Mid-Terms
(1) The Senate
Major changes in ratings from the polling of the past month:

Nevada -- the last 3 polls have shown Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) trailing by very small margins, but consistently trailing. This one, at least for now, moves from toss-up to Lean GOP Pick-up.

California -- Barbara Boxer is comfortably up by double digits in a couple of recent polls, despite the high profile run of Carly Fiorina. This one moves from Lean Dem Hold to Likely DEM Hold.

Louisiana -- Vitter still leads comfortably, but two polls that put the lead at around 10% indicate that he is not 100% safe. This seat moves from Safe GOP Hold to Likely GOP Hold.

New Hampshire -- New polls are split and the aggregate is right around the zero line, therefore this one moves back from Lean DEM Pick-up to Toss-up.

Ohio -- the Democrats have been slipping in the rust belt the last month and this one is no different. Recent polls show small GOP leads...not quite enough to move this one back in the GOP column, but certainly enough to take it from a Lean DEM Pick-up to Toss-up.

So where does this leave us?
Safe DEM Holds (7)
Hawaii, Maryland, New York (Schumer), Oregon, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin

Likely DEM Holds (4)
California, Indiana, North Dakota, Massachussetts*

Lean DEM Holds (2)
Arkansas, New York (Gillebrand)

Lean DEM Pick-ups (1)
Missouri

Toss-up -- DEM Controlled (2)
Illinois, Pennsylvania

Toss-up GOP Controlled (2)
New Hampshire, Ohio

Lean GOP Pick-ups (4)
Colorado, Delaware, Connecticut, Nevada

Lean GOP Holds (3)
Kentucky, North Carolina, Georgia

Likely GOP Holds (6)
Alaska, Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, South Dakota, Louisiana

Safe GOP Holds (6)
Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah

Current Senate: 58 Democrats, 2 Independents, 40 Republicans

* Special election to be held in January, not November

Projection: GOP +3-7 Seats, central projection of GOP +5 Seats
2010 Senate with all toss-ups to GOP: 51 Democrats, 2 Independents, 47 Republicans
2010 Senate with all toss-ups to DEM: 55 Democrats, 2 Independents, 43 Republicans
2010 Senate with all LEANERS to GOP: 48 Democrats, 2 Independents, 50 Republicans
2010 Senate with all LEANERS to DEM: 62 Democrats, 2 Independents, 36 Republicans

Still no path to GOP control (even in the all leaners to GOP case, Lieberman and Sanders caucus with the DEM's and Joe Biden breaks the tie to retain Democratic control), but the most favorable reading on 2010 yet for the GOP.

(2) The House
The generic polling has as wide a range as I've ever seen it. Rasmussen shows GOP +5%, whereas CBS News has DEM +13%. That's an 18% spread between non-partisan polls (although some might question the partisanship of both the organizations mentioned there), an extremely rare circumstance.

My aggregation of all the polls puts the average at DEM +1%.

This puts my projection at GOP +17-22 seats.

If you believe the Rasmussen poll, that would imply a GOP pick-up of approximately 34 to 41 seats, enough to nearly seize control of the House. I don't see that yet.

So, in total, the GOP stands to gain in the mid-terms, but control of either body still looks unlikely.

Many have looked for a repeat of the Gingrich revolution of 1994. At this point, the structure of the election looks unfavorable to such a large swing for several reasons:

• Democratic majorities are much more sizeable, particularly in the Senate
• The rotation of Senate seats that are up in 2010 is unfavorable to the GOP, unlike in 1994. 2012 will be a much better map for potential GOP pick-ups than 2010.
• There are far less projected House vacancies in 2010, a key opportunity the GOP seized in 1994.

New York 23 and the Divided GOP
The 23rd district in New York is a moderately pro-GOP district (approximately 4% more Republican than the nation as a whole, based on the Presidential election results in November.) The President's popularity is down significantly. The GOP nominated a moderate for the seat. The GOP should be in good shape to retain this seat in the upcoming special election to fill the seat vacated by Army Secretary John McHugh, right?

Not so fast.

A splinter in the GOP has led to an indepedent / conservative party candidate that is receiving the endorsement of major national GOP figures such as Sarah Palin, splitting the GOP vote and creating a scenario where a Democratic win seems likely.

Congressional district level polling is a dicey exercise with limited accuracy, but two different independent polls show the same story -- Doug Hoffman (C) is stealing support from Dede Scozzafava (R), leading to a 4 to 5 point lead for Bill Owens (D).

This is close enough to shift, but Hoffman, currently in third by a fairly wide margin, is picking up money and endorsements, all of which probably plays into Owens' hands.

More an exception case than a bellweather because of the strange circumstances, it looks like the DEM's might be poised to add another seat to their House majority.

Hate Crimes Follow-up
Sometimes I write things that provoke a lot of repsonse. My posting on my opposition to hate crimes laws certainly was one of those times.

A lot of the feedback I found uncompelling. Yes, I'm aware that the historical reason for these laws was white juries in the South in the civil rights era that would not convict white of attacking blacks. Yes, this is a noble reason for wanting such a law. No, it does not change my view that this is the wrong solution to a real problem.

One piece of feedback that gave me pause though, was a point made by a reader. "You state that what is in a person's mind shouldn't be the basis for the severity of punishment. But isn't that exactly the difference between a first degree and second degree murder? An interpretation of a person's intent?" I must admit, this is a very strong point. We do use this distinction, based not inherently on the act itself, but based on evidence on what someone was thinking as a basis for the severity of punishment for murder. There is a legitimate parallel between that and a hate crimes law.

I still fear hate crime laws are a slippery slope towards thought policing and open the door to a more restrictive view of free speech. But I am not as confident in my opposition as I was 24 hours ago.

If you like this site, tell your friends.