Governor's Race Spotlight, Appropriations Malaise Continues, Countdown to a Healthcare Deadline

Down to the Wire in New Jersey and Virginia
We are 16 days from the elections for governor in New Jersey and Virginia, two races that because of their off-year nature (these are the only two states that elect their governors in odd-numbered years) always receive a disproportionate amount of attention.

So let's check out where we stand;
In, New Jersey, we now have an extremely close race.

I'll break down the numbers a few different ways.

The most commonly used average in political circles is the "RealClearPolitics" or RCP, an average generated by the site realclearpolitics.com which uses a pure average of recent polling data. I personally think there are potential issues with this average as there are vast differences in the polling sample of different polls and therefore their accuracy. In the New Jersey race for instance, there is a current New York Times Poll that sampled 475 voters and a Quinnipiac poll that sampled 1,264 voters. Clearly, in my mind, the Quinnipiac poll should be given more weight because they talked to more people. So my methodology has always been to combine the poll results into one "megapoll" by aggregating the responses. The effect of this is that the Quinnipiac poll has 2.66 times the weight in this example. If the poll numbers are all similar, this is an academic point, but if the poll numbers vary widely, this becomes an important distinction.

The second set of numbers I'm going to look at are with and without polling results from the firm Rasmussen Reports. My practice has always been to look at polling results from all non-partisan polling firms (I exclude results from partisan-affiliated firms such as Strategic Vision for the Republicans and PPP for the Democrats as they inherently run the risk of polling bias). Rasmussen Reports has been a respected, independent polling firm. Their results in the 2008 election were in line with those of other polls as well as relatively close to the final results. However, it is difficult to ignore that their methodology has deviated significantly this year from that of other polling firms. Their Presidential Approval polls have been regularly showing a 10 to 20% gap versus all other Presidential Approval polls. To me, this calls into question the sampling methodology that they are using. Now, we don't have emperical results to validate this -- it is possible that Rasmussen has it right and everyone else has it wrong, but we won't know, at least until we get some election results. So, for completeness, I'm looking at numbers with and without the Rasmussen results.

Finally, we'll look at the numbers both way based on the "median" poll. This theory is to throw out high and low outlier polls until we get to the poll that is "in the center" of the numbers. If there are two polls, in the center, we will take a pure average of the two, as is typical in median calculations.

Averaging all three of these methodologies is how we did the Presidential prediction model last year, which had some pretty darn good results.

So, based on all of this, NJ stands as follows:
All Non-Partisan Polls Without Rasmussen
Weighted Average Christie +1.1% Christie +0.2%
Pure Average (RCP) Christie +0.8% Corzine +0.3%
Median of Polls Christie +1.0% Christie +1.0%
Average of Averages Christie +1.0% Christie +0.3%

So, with or without the Rasmussen polls, any way you slice and dice the data, this one is extremely close. Christie holds a tiny lead over Corzine, but Corzine has been closing fast with a huge spending blitz, and as we've discussed before, New Jersey tends to tilt blue at the very end. This one rates a Toss-Up going into the final 16 days.

As a reminder, I endorse Independent Chris Daggett in this race. His current polling shows as following:
All Non-Partisan Polls Without Rasmussen
Weighted Average 13.6% 15.0%
Pure Average (RCP) 13.6% 15.0%
Median of Polls 14.0% 14.0%
Average of Averages 13.7% 14.3%

Okay, so Daggett is extremely unlikely to win. 14% is a pretty respectable showing against two well-funded, establishment candidates.

In Virginia,

Utilizing the same methodology:
All Non-Partisan Polls Without Rasmussen
Weighted Average McDonnell +8.7% McDonnell +9.3%
Pure Average (RCP) McDonnell +8.8% McDonnell +9.3%
Median of Polls McDonnell +8.5% McDonnell +9.0%
Average of Averages McDonnell +8.7% McDonnell +9.2%

Note that in this case, the Rasmussen Reports poll actually helps Democrat Craigh Deeds.

Any way you cut it, this is a Likely GOP Pick-up.

As a side note, I'd like to endorse moderate Democrat and likely loser Craigh Deeds for the post. Deeds is a reasonable guy who will pursue the same type of centrist policies that the Virginia Democratic Party of Mark Warner, Tim Kahne and Douglas Wilder has long been known for. Regrettably, it does not appear that he will get the change.

I'll keep up with regular updates as the races progress over the next couple of weeks.

Why Is This So Hard and Who Is to Blame?
Job number one of Congress is to pass a budget for the federal government each year. Why else do we have a Congress but to determine the size and spending priorities for the executive branch?

So why can't we seem to get this done in anything resembling an on time fashion?

Okay, I admit that this is better than last year, when the Democratic Congress and President Bush couldn't find any common ground and kicked the can down the road for 6 months until finally passing a pork-laden omnibus spending bill that President Obama signed. But we have a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President. Nobody is even hinting that Obama is picking any fights or threatening any vetos. So why are we almost three weeks into Fiscal 2010 (which started in October) and we still don't have most of a budget?

The chart below shows the current status of all the major appropriations bills:
As you can see, the only bill to actually become law so far has been the legisilative branch appropriations bill, which also contained a continuing resolution, which kept the government open by extending Fiscal 2009 spending policies for one month (through October 31st.) Beyond that, two bills have been passed by congress and are expected to be signed by the President shortly. Still, massive chunks of the federal budget remain an unknown.

So who is to blame? Harry Reid and the Senate Democratic leadership. As you can see from the chart above, the House of Representatives (where all the bills have to start out, per the constitution) passed every major appropriations bill by the end of July. This left all of August and September for the Senate to pass its versions, the conference committees to get together and iron out the differences and both houses to pass the conference report.

The Senate simply didn't get the job done. There are STILL 8 major cabinet departments for which the Senate has not passed a version of appropriations. At this pace, we are sure to have another continuing resolution for some departments while the Senate continues to work at a snails pace.

How sad and incompetent. Can you imagine running a household budget without knowing what your paycheck is going to be? That's what we are asking of the cabinet secretaries at the moment. Think about how many poor decisions, large and small are probably being made as a result of this.

Health Care Looms Large
The wide consensus in Washington is that for health care legislation to happen during this congress, it would need to pass this year, as the session in 2010 will undoubtedly be difficult to navigate with mid-term congressional elections looming large.

Congress has a "targeted adjournment" date of October 30th, meaning that they were originially shooting for October 30th to be the last day that the chambers met for the year. Clearly, this isn't going to happen, as there is a ton of unfinished business to deal with this year. However, even using December 31st as the marker of the end of this year's congress, there isn't much time left to pass a health care bill.

There are 74 days left in the year, during which congress would have to:
(1) Pass health care bills through both the House and the Senate
(2) Iron out differences in a conference committee
(3) Pass the conference report in both houses
(4) Pass all the remaining budgetary items (a ton as you can see from above)

This is to say nothing of dealing with Cap and Trade, which has passed the House, but still must be dealt with in the Senate and a conference report passed, if something is to happen this year.

Recall, that President Obama articulated three goals for this year:
(1) Legislation to stabilize the economy
(2) Universal healthcare
(3) Environmental reform including cap and trade

#1 was accomplished early, at least as the administration defined it (we have and will again debate how effective the stimulus has been), with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act signed into law on February 17th.

#2 and #3 both seem very elusive. The odds of getting Cap and Trade done this year seem like they are less than 25% and health care still seems a 50/50 shot at best.

The trouble for the Obama Administration is that if the can gets kicked down the road, not only will it be tough to do something in 2010, it will get even harder in 2011 and 2012, where, if my projections hold, he will face a congress that, while still a Democratic majority in both houses, is to the right of the existing congress.

Tall hills to climb. Time for some leadership, Mr. President.

Stimulus Update
To date, $288.5 billion of the stimulus funds have been authorized (57.8%) and $116.0 billion spent (23.2%). The tax cuts, which took effect in May, will automatically roll through December, 2010.

The adminsitration's figures show a ton of jobs "saved or created" by the bill -- almost 16 million. All of this is pretty fuzzy math and I would pay it much credence.

The real measure of the effectiveness of this bill, which was as much an investment and reshaping of the US economy as it was a stimulus bill, will be in the economic growth rates over the next 3 years. We will need time to assess whether the bill worked or not.

President Obama's Promises
Today is day 272 of the Obama Administration. He is 18.6% of the way through his elected term as President.

So how is he coming against the long list of promises he made?

According to the tracking at politifact.com, President Obama had 505 documented promises during the campaign.

Of those 505, he has kept 47 of them, partially kept 12 of them and broken 7 of them. This means that about 13% of his promises have been acted on in some way and giving him half a point for the partially kept promises, a full point for kept promises and no points for broken promises, of the ones he has acted on he is doing what he said 80% of the time.

Not bad. But those were the easy promises. The hard ones are still in the unacted column. And, with almost 19% of his term gone and only 13% of his promises acted on, he is falling significantly behind schedule if he is going to do everything he said in his term.

Of course, you could look at those promises as 8 years worth of promises rather than 4. But that would be rather presumptuous. We are a long way from understanding the dynamics of the 2012 elections yet.

I appreciate you reading. If you like this site, tell your friends.

A Tale of Two Governor's Races, Health Care Finance Comittee Vote Tuesday, Budgeting Rolls On, Don't Call It a Stimulus!, Tracking Site Visits

The Only Legal Left Turn in New Jersey, Right Turns on Red Allowed in Virginia Those who live or visit my home state of New Jersey know full well the odd road design that persists throughout the state. In many places, left turns are simply not allowed on New Jersey roads. In their place, New Jersey has designed a series of "jug-handles", right lane off-ramps that loops around to take traffic to the left.

While left turns are not legal on the roads in my state, they are all the norm in statewide races over the course of the past 20 years. The cycle goes thusly: New Jersians get mad every cycle about high property taxes, government corruption and runaway spending. They flirt with Republican candidates who surge out to double digit leads in early polls. The media swarms around how "blue" New Jersey may elect a right-winger to a major statewide office. Slowly as the election approaches, the Democrat runs a series of ads portraying the Republican as an enemy of education, a token of the social right and an incapable leader. Everyone is suddenly shocked as the polls tighten to break even. Then, on election night, the Democrat wins by a solid margin.

Is the cycle repeating? You betcha.

New polling in the New Jersey Governors race? My average: Christie +1.7%. RCP average: Christie +1.8%. Both the closest the race has been all year.

A Corzine win in November? I sure wouldn't bet against it.

Virginia, by contrast, was one of the first states to legalize right turns on red. And right turns in politics are the norm, although the state has certainly had a purplish hue of late, with wins by Barack Obama, Mark Warner, Tim Kahne and Jim Webb as proof of a new, sudden, Democratic dominance.

It is not to be this year. The latest in the Governor's race there? My average: McDonnell +9.6%. RCP Average: McDonnell +8.5%.

Put this one in the bank for the GOP. Deeds is toast, barring a major, late-breaking scandal.

The Baucus Bill -- It Saves Money and Will Get a Vote on Tuesday Maybe Max Baucus is crazy like a fox. After being scorned by the left for dropping a public option and shunned by the right, who universally turned their back on Baucus' compromise Health Care proposal, it may ultimately be proven that he has successfully threaded the needle to navigate a health care bill out of committee.

The CBO analysis of the amended Baucus bill gave it two major talking points: it's new expenditures are well below the $900 billion over 10 years that President Obama had set as a target in his address to the nation. And, perhaps more importantly, the CBO projects that the Baucus bill will REDUCE the deficit by $80 billion over that time period while covering 94% of Americans.

Now will these points cause Republicans en masse to endorse the bill? Absolutely not. There are 1, maybe 2 Republicans in the Senate that appear "gettable", our favorite moderate Senators from Maine, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. But it does give cover for the 58 Democrats and 2 Independents to support the bill with less fear of reprecussion about runaway spending.

Now, this debate is obviously still far from over. Assuming the bill survives the committee vote (I predict it will pass with all Democrats voting "aye" and Sen. Snowe joining but no other Republicans), it will have to be "melded" with the other bills coming out of the various Senate comittees and then brought to the floor where it will be ammended, attacked and fillibustered. But make no mistake about it, this is a big step towards getting a bill through the Senate.

No word on when a bill will make it to the House floor, although Speaker Pelosi still says "soon", whatever that means.

Still Working Through a Budget
The Senate and to a lesser extent the House and the conference committees continue to slowly make progress on appropriations. The latest bill to move completely through the congress, the Agriculture bill, passed in a slightly less partisan fashion (although still not particularly bi-partisan) than the first bill, the Legislative Branch appropriations bill.

The meat of the spend (Defense, DOD/DOE Construction, etc.) are still moving through the process. I'd be hopeful that congress gets done by the time the first continuing resolution expires October 31st, but given the pace so far, I'm not counting on it.
A Stealth Stimulus?
The Obama Administration is walking a tightrope on the stimulus. On the one hand, the White House is feeling the heat of needing to show more progress on job creation. On the other hand, proposing a second stimulus would be tantamount to admitting that the first stimulus was either a failure or insufficient, something the President has been unwilling to do.

So what is the White House doing? Quietly proposing small "stimulating" activities -- continuing to extend unemployment benefits, extended the first-time home buyer credit. This kind of small ball stimulus is a play straight out of the Clinton playbook -- do small, managable initiatives that you can tout the success of if conditions improve and are small enough not to draw public outrage if they fail. It is, frankly, a very un-Obama strategy, as the President has thus far shown a preference for the big, bold and splashy. But it might be a wise move until unemployment starts dropping.

Extending unemployment has hit a snag, however, as Senators from states with higher unemployment rates argue with Senators from states with lower unemployment rates. The key issue is whether all unemployment benefits should be extended for a shorter period of time or benefits in states with high rates be extended for a shorter period of time. Obviously which state you are in drives your opinion there.

Afghanisoon
I've received a number of e-mails on my relative lack of coverage of the debate within the White House around the strategy in Afghanistan. I HAVE written previously about the choices facing President Obama and the need to commit, one way or another, to a clear strategy of either "all-in" or "all-out". I don't really have a lot more to say on the topic until the President reaches decision, which I will critique in full. Two options, Mr. President, you need to choose one.

Who's Reading This?
1,581 people since February, according to the tracking. I initiated tracking of site visitors in late January, which was largely just as the political season was slowing down, post-innauguration. From there, the number of visitors held relatively constant from February-May, spiked up in June when I did some advertising on electoral-vote.com (still one of the best political sites on the web) and has slowly declined since then, to a low of 140 visitors in September.
So is the readership drying up for this site? Not really. It's the political slow season, I haven't advertised, and as you can see from the green line, a lot of the decline has been driven by my posting less as I have been busy with the business of life and traveling a lot.

For those of you who read frequently, thanks for reading. And let people know about us. There is never a charge and I try very hard to bring you analysis that you won't find anywhere else on the web, at any price. From innovative poll-aggregation techniques (which I believe are provably more accurate than sites like realclearpolitics) to tracking of the budgeting process (which is scarcely mentioned on many political sites) to commentary, I think people will like what they find here, regardless of their political stripes.

As always, I welcome your thoughts and suggestions.

It's a Crazy World, Waffling on Afghanistan?, More Obama Polls, Tracking NJ and VA, Health Care Plods Along, MA Senate Controversy

There has been a ton going on this week in the world of politics, so I'll get right to it....

Nutcases, Radicals and Dictators -- Oh, My! If there is one thing that the UN and G20 meetings has confirmed, it is that there are still a lot of crazies in the world....and that we need to keep an eye on the ones who could potentially get their hands on nuclear weapons.

From the re-emergence of Libya's nutty-again dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi, who, apparently has quite an axe to grind with just about everyone in the world, to Iran's illegitimately elected (probably), nuclear-ambitious, holocaust-dening, always-nutty Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the world is quite a scary place.

Of the two, while Qaddafi's rambling, long speech garnered the eye of the media, it is Ahmadinejad and Iran's nuclear ambitions that deserve our attention. A nuclear Iran is a scary prospect indeed. While Iran lacks the technological capability to launch a nuclear weapon that could reach U.S. territory, they could certainly turn the middle east into a crater, Israel included.

A much harder line is needed with Iran. President Obama is right to declare their actions unaccceptable, but the world needs to stand together to do much more than talk. Iran should have zero access to capital, equipment or trade unless and until it abandons its nuclear ambitions. They are simply too great a risk. What purpose does the UN serve if NOT to stop rogue nations like Iran from acquiring the ultimate destructive weapon?

At the G20, a slightly more sane gathering of nations, things were considerably tamer. Sure, we had the normal protests from the usual anti-globalization radicals, but the tone inside was considerably more business-like. That said, no real break throughs came out of the session. The leaders declared it a success and agreed to some underlying principles on things like regulation of the financial markets and pollution control. Nothing really meaty though.

The international schedule has been crowded as of late, particularly with the aftermath of a global recession. Unfortunately, I fear the world is just nibbling at the edges of the causes of the near-collapse of the global economy. No one has addressed in a serious way, how to eliminate the risk posed by "too big to fail" institutions, which are at the root of the severity of the recession. And it appears unlikely they will as the crisis has passed.

Is Obama Shooting Straight on Afghanistan? From the onset of his campaign for President, Barack Obama made it clear that he viewed the war in Afghanistan as a "war of necessity" as opposed to the Iraq war, which he viewed as a "war of choice". He relentlessly criticized the Bush Administration for failing to commit adequate resources to Afghanistan and for taking its eyes off the ball by focusing so much troop strength in Iraq.

It is concerning, then, that the President seems reluctant to send more troops and appears to have held back the recommendation of Gen. Stanley Mcchrystal to send at least 10,000 additional troops to the country.

Is Obama caving in to the left-wing of his party?

The worst solution in Afghanistan is to maintain the status quo. We could have a reasoned debate about whether a continued American presence makes sense (I tend to think it does, although we need a great deal more clarity on the mission objectives and conditions for exit), but EITHER commiting more troops OR exiting the theater are preferable to maintaining the status quo. We learned our lesson in Vietnam, that half-pregnant wars do not work.

Let's hope President Obama takes a clear position in the next couple of weeks and if he chooses to continue to leave troops in Afghanistan, that he commits a sufficient number to do the job.

More Obama Polling
It is remarkable, given everything that has happened over the first 8 months of his Presidency, that President Obama continues to enjoy popularity at or above his November totals. The hope and change President has seemed far less inspirational and a lot less visionary over the past few months than many had hoped. Yet, on his ultimate scorecard he is still faring pretty well.

President Obama has continued to hold on to the modest gains that he had achieved following his late-August lows. He has yet to have a polling day below his November margin of 7.2%.


In the monthly data, President Obama actually has a chance for September to be the first month that he gains ground. His average as of today is +12.0%, just slightly below his August average of +12.3%, but his daily numbers are tracking above the average, so it certainly looks that, at worst, President Obama will have a flat month in September. Not a bad recovery after the disaster over the summer.




NJ/VA Governor Updates
It's getting down to crunch time in the 2009 elections, and the only ones of significance are the fights for Governor in New Jersey and Virginia. The GOP would still have to be considered a favorite to take both seats, but things continue to get closer.

In Virginia -- my latest analysis of polls puts this at a 4.4% margin for Republican Robert McDonnell over Democrat Creigh Deeds, while the RCP average has an identical margin. This is practically a pick 'em in a state race with over a month to go and Deeds closing at a pretty good clip (we were talking mid-double digits a couple of months ago.)

In New Jersey -- my latest analysis still has it a 7.5% margin for Republican Chris Christie over incumbent Gov. Jon Corzine (D) while the RCP average shows it a 6.6% race. This one is tightening too, although not as fast.

I'd been predicting from the get-go that Corzine would close in New Jersey, given its history of flirting with Republicans but electing Democrats. Could I have had this backwards? Might the DEMs pull it out in now-purple Virginia and get scortched in still-deep-blue New Jersey?

Health Care Bills Moving, But Not Too Fast
In the House, Nancy Pelosi is slowly moving towards a showdown on the floor sometime in the next month, basically negotiating only with Democrats. It appears likely that the bill will make it to the floor with a public option in it, as Pelosi has expressly rejected both co-ops and the "trigger" mechanism as alternatives. The problem Democrats face in the House, is that it is not clear that they can cobble together enough Democratic votes to pass a bill with the public option, and they will certainly get no GOP votes. It's also not clear that a bill that excludes a public option would attract enough liberal support. Back to the same problem -- the Dems are not on one page.

The Senate prospects, unbelieveably, actually look brighter than in the House. Despite lots of partisan committee votes, it appears that the Baucus bill will make it to the floor without major changes and with no obvious Democratic defections. If the Senate passes a bill without a public option, it will put major pressure on Pelosi and company to get the liberal wing in line and line up behind a similar bill.

Still a long tricky way to go on this one.

Hypocrites in Massachussetts
Governor Deval Patrick (D) has named Paul Kirk to fill in as an interim Senator until a special election is held in January to select the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D). He made this appointment after the legislature rushed through a bill, changing the law to allow such an appointment. The Governor waived a normal protocol that laws in the state be deferred for 90 days before taking effect, prompting a GOP court challenge, which appears to have at least initially failed.

Gov. Patrick and company were probably within their legal rights here. But that's not the point. The point is the hypocracy that they delayed in making the change in the law.

Massachussetts had previously had a law which allowed temporary appointments to the Senate. In 2004, when Sen. John Kerry (D) was seeking the Presidency, the legislature promptly changed the law to allow only selection by special election, guarding against a GOP Senator from then-Gov. Mitt Romney (R). Now, when a 60th Democrat is needed for health care reform, they switch it back. Changing the rules of election to serve a specific political outcome is wrong and should be condemned.

And while we are on the topic, shouldn't we have a uniform selection of laws across the country for how Senators are selected in the event of a vacancy?

If you like this site, tell your friends.