What Will a Second Term Obama Cabinet Look Like?

One of the predictable patterns in American governance is changes to the Presidential cabinet in the second term of an administration.  Very few department heads last the entire 8 years of an administration - the George W. Bush administration had only one (Elaine Chao at the Labor Department) and the Clinton administration had only four (Janet Reno at Justice, Donna Shalala at Health and Human Service, Bruce Babbitt at Interior and Richard Riley at Education.)

Note that for purposes of this discussion, I am only talking about department heads and not Presidentially-designated "cabinet-level" policy advisors such as the Chief of Staff, who attend cabinet meetings but don't have direct responsibility for governing and are not confirmed by the Senate.

The reasons for this are fairly obvious.  Eight years is a heck of a long time in any one job, but particularly one that is so high profile, stressful and subject to public criticism as running a large portion of the government.  And cabinet officials don't make a ton of money - current pay scales for cabinet-level positions are $191,300 per year - a lot of money if you are the average middle-class tax payer but a tiny amount compared to comparable executives in private industry, who would typically make millions for running groups that large.  So, most cabinet officials want out eventually.

If politics weren't involved, you'd see a distribution of cabinet officials leaving - some would leave after 2 years, some would leave after 3 and so on and so forth.  But obviously politics are involved and Presidents generally don't want to deal with high-profile cabinet appointments in the middle of an election season, so cabinet-officers are generally asked to stay at least through an election, which creates a pent-up demand for departures at the beginning of a President's second term.

President Obama's cabinet actually appears to be relatively more stable than most.  After George W. Bush won re-election in 2004, within the next year, he had changes at State, Treasury, Defense, Justice, Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Education, Transportation, Energy, Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security, in addition to having already made a change at Housing and Urban Development.  President Obama isn't looking at nearly that level of change.  He has already made a change at Defense (Leon Panetta replaced Robert Gates, who was a holdover from the Bush administration) and has a current vacancy at Commerce (after the bizarre resignation of John Bryson, who was actually Obama's second Commerce Secretary, who was involved in a hit and run after an apparent seizure.)

Of all the cabinet seats, here is what is likely to happen in the next year:
The Big 4 (The 4 largest and most important departments - State, Defense, Justice and Treasury)
State - Hillary Clinton - likely to depart as she has repeatedly stated that she probably will not stay for a second-term.  Will President Obama pick a fight with John McCain and nominate Susan Rice over GOP protestations led by McCain or will he go with a "safer" pick?  This one could be a real filibuster fight.
Defense - Leon Panetta - also likely to depart although the President may be able to persuade him to stay on a little longer to sort out the other seats first - Massachusetts Senator John Kerry appears to be the leading candidate here.  I would be surprised if Kerry had an issue getting confirmed.
Treasury - Tim Geithner - likely to depart.  Jack Lew is the lead candidate to replace him.  He has both the private industry (Citigroup) and public sector (head of the OMB) experience and would likely be non-controversial.
Justice - Eric Holder - likely to stay.  He's not liked on the right at all, but Obama has shown a lot of loyalty to him and he doesn't need to be confirmed to stay.

The Other Seats:
Commerce - Rebecca Blank (acting) - this is an obvious vacancy that the President has to address.  The role has been technically vacant since June with undersecretary Blank filling the interim role.  The President is actually a pretty big fan of Blank's and might look to make her role permanent.
Interior - Ken Salazar - likely to stay - at least for now.  This is Salazar's dream job.
Agriculture - Tom Vilsack - likely to stay - despite some earlier staffing controversies, Vilsack hasn't been particularly high profile and he seems to enjoy the work.
Labor - Hilda Solis - likely to stay for now - Solis doesn't have a resume that would land her naturally in a big private industry lobbing job and labor will be interesting in the next few years with Wal-Mart protests and such - plus President Obama is likely to look for her to stay, knowing that any appointment to this seat would be controversial.
Health and Human Services - Kathleen Sebelius - very likely to stay - if you are going to do this job, wouldn't you want to be around for Obamacare implementation?
Housing and Urban Development - Shaun Donovan - likely to stay - he is one of Obama's closest trusted advisors from Chicago and though HUD has not been a focus, I think Donovan enjoys the work.
Transportation - Ray Lahood - likely to depart - Lahood has basically said he is burned out and looking to move on.  The lone remaining Republican in Obama's cabinet would be an interesting role to replace.
Energy - Steven Chu - 50/50 to depart in the next year - Chu didn't really get the deal he bargained for - the brilliant scientist thought he would be overseeing implementation of meaningful global warming policy around cap and trade.  It hasn't materialized and Chu may want to get out of government.
Education - Arne Duncan - likely to stay - Duncan is another one of Obama's Chicago-era friends, has received lots of bi-partisan praise for his reform-minded approach to education and his willingness to incorporate Republican ideas.
Veterans Affairs - Eric Shinseki - seems likely to stay - I really have no intel on Shinseki, who hasn't been very high profile, but he hasn't given an indication that he is leaving.
Homeland Security - Janet Napolitano - 50/50 to depart in the next year - this is a burnout, thankless role and Napolitano has taken a lot of heat.  Obama is very loyal, however and if Napolitano wants to keep taking the heat, I'm sure he would let her.

It is very likely that none of the vacancies, other than the current one at Commerce will occur prior to the New Year as the President has likely asked his cabinet officials to hold on until after the debate on the fiscal cliff is resolved, which seems likely to stretch right up to December 31st.  But they will be front-and-center in 2013 as the President seeks to remake his cabinet.

One of the many reasons that second-term Presidents tend to get less done is that they burn out the A-players in their cabinet in the first term and are stuck with the B-team in their second term.  How much of that happens in the Obama administration remains to be seen, but there is no doubt that he will have some vacancies to fill.

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

Unfinished Business: Why the President Just Can't Get Away from Health Care, Holding Steady Near the Zero Line, How Much Trouble is the President In?

On the Summit and the Health Care Issue
Seems like years ago that we heard about how President Obama was going to aggressively pivot away from health care and on to economic issues and jobs. It was only a few weeks ago and the President made it pretty clear in his State of the Union speech that jobs were priority one. He didn't even mention health care until the second half of his speech. Even liberals in congress were talking about taking a break from the issue that has consumed all of their political capital since the stimulus bill passed early last year.

Yet, here we were last week, with a much anticipated, televised discussion of health care between the President and Congress. It went pretty much to script. Both sides were (relatively) cordial, but the battle lines are clear. Democrats want comprehensive reform this year. Republicans want an incrementalist approach, consisting mostly of things that have to do with cost containment (tort reform, purchase of insurance across state lines) and little to do with expanding access. Simply put, there is a seemingly unfixable ideological divide between the GOP and the President on this issue. But then, we already knew that.

The summit strikes me, while fascinating political theater, as largely cover to start the reconciliation process. No one had any real expectation of a deal, both sides were too dug in. This allows the President to say, "look, see, I tried to work with the GOP, but they wouldn't play ball, so I took action anyway." House and Senate Democratic leaders have already been talking about how to make the reconciliation process work.

In many ways, the Democrats are in far worse shape on this issue than if they had simply decided to go at it alone from the get go. What bill is going to get a majority of votes coming solely from a scared-shitless Democratic caucus is unclear. There are all the issues that had to be navigated when the first bill passed, the Blue Dogs, the anti-abortion Democrats and the liberals who want a bigger bill. Pile on top of that Democrats that are now highly fearful of losing in November and it's hard to hold onto what was only a 4 vote majority for a bill last year.

So, the Democrats still have a tough road to parity unity on this issue, even if they are ditching hopes of a compromise with the GOP. So, the question remains, why does the Democratic party remain so focused on this issue that for the most part has brought them nothing but pain over the course of the past year?

Because they must. It would be the ultimate sign of failure and dysfunction in the Democratic party to fail to do ANYTHING with control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency on the signature issue that the President laid out last year. You could certainly argue in retrospect that this was the wrong issue to pick in a time of painful unemployment, a damaged financial system and two active wars still underway, but it's an academic question at this point -- the DEMs are committed. If they get a bill, they may well lose a lot of seats in Congress. But if they fail, then they have given the American public NO reason to vote for them and will likely get run out of town from the right AND the left.

So, they trudge on. Prepare for the partisanship in Washington to get even worse as the Democrats plot to cut out the power of the filibuster and ram a bill through with Dems only. But let's not forget, that's how President Bush's signature tax cuts became law.

Not Much New in the Polls
President Obama's approval remains about where it has been all month, with a narrow plurality of people approving of his job performance. He will once again post a decline in his numbers in February, continuing a long downward slide from the highs when he took office.






What to Do to Fix the Obama Administration
It's time to talk seriously...President Obama is in trouble. Sure, he still has slightly more people that approve of his performance than disapprove. Sure, President Clinton had a rough first year, then pivoted to the center mid-way through his term and won in a relative blow-out in 1996. Sure, President Reagan looked to be in big trouble after year 1, then saw the economy boom and won in one of the biggest landslides of the modern era in 1984.

And yes, the President may benefit from a better economy by 2012. But he would be foolish to assume that this will be his sole path to re-election. The President needs to take corrective action, as President Clinton did. Here's some starting points.

#1 Admit There is a Problem
Everybody already knows that your administration isn't getting things done the way many had hoped. You haven't communicated well to Congress. Several of your cabinet secretaries, including Ray Lahood, Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano have had high-prfoile slip-ups of either form or substance. The stimulus didn't keep unemployment under 8%, a claim that you never should have made.

So, let's loose the smug coolness and show a little contrition and vulnerability. Yes, we've made mistakes, but we're committed to doing right by the American people, you should say.

#2 Make Some Changes to Show You Are Serious
Obama is a loyal guy and he actually reminds me of former President George W. Bush in that he seems very hesitant to cut a man (or woman) loose, even when it is clear to others that (s)he isn't cutting it. Your team needs a shake-up. I might start with Rahm Emanuel and Robert Gibbs. Get some better communicators in there.

Then, take a close look at the rest of your cabinet and decide who is helping. Arne Duncan is a keeper. So is Hillary. Tim Geithner? I'm not so sure.

I'm not saying throw anybody under the bus, but you need to get the best people if you are going to survive.

#3 Take on Your Own Party on Some Symbolic Issues
Have a photo op with the GOP backing school vouchers and push for a bill. Endorse a GOP plan for a revenue-neutral gas tax increase. Show that you are not the puppet of Pelosi and Reid.

#4 Be Bold on Your Issues
Issue that executive order on Gays in the Military TODAY. Make a moral issue out of eliminating too big to fail.

#5 Advertise Better
Do you know how much better things are going on the ground in Afghanistan? Nobody does. Because the President isn't talking about it.

Scott Brown -- Not a Tea Bagger
Newly minted Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) showed his real commitment to independence and bi-partisanship by crossing the party line to vote for a $15 billion package of tax cuts aimed at small businesses that hire unemployed workers. The entire process for the bill was an exercise in all that is broken with Washington, with Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) undercutting a bi-partisan effort on a jobs bill by introducing his own package and then the GOP largely voting in lock-step against an idea that they had previously endorsed. Brown walked the line by rightly criticizing the process while refusing to vote against a bill that contained ideas that he supported. Good for him. And more evidence that he is the product of moderate Independent anger, not some Glenn Beck inspired movement.

The Tough Road Ahead for President Obama

It is going to be a trying few months for the President. Consider:
(1) He is about to announce an Afghanistan strategy that will infuriate his own party. Liberals will be outraged that we are sending more troops to Afghanistan, while Conservatives will be likely only lukewarm in their support, feeling that he should have reached this conclusion earlier.
(2) He needs every last one of those members of his own party to pass health care reform legislation in the Senate. He also needs to convince moderates like Sen. Blanche Lincoln (AR) to vote with him, possibly at the expense of her own job.
(3) While unemployment appears to be stabilizing (at least from the latest unemployment benefit numbers), it is stabilizing at a very high level, with pretty low prospects for it being recovered in time for November.
(4) His third domestic priority, environmental legislation took a huge blow when hacked e-mails from major scientists appeared to reveal a conspiracy to squash anti-global warming scientific evidence. The perception is horrible, regardless of the scientific reality.
(5) His approval in many polls has dipped below the "magic" (in the eyes of the media, not myself) 50% threshold, although his approve minus disapprove remains positive.
(6) The Secret Service is apparently too inept to keep uninvited guests out of his parties -- not a comforting thought if you are the first black US President who sees death threats posted on the internet daily.
(7) Everybody still hates Tim Geithner
(8) You can't seem to stop committing gaffes on foreign soil (bow and handshake, ipods to the Queen of England, etc.) -- and we all know the media would much rather talk about that than substance

A tough road indeed. Poll numbers updated next post (still painfully recreating my poll database from scratch).

If you like this site, tell your friends.