A new Rasmussen poll released today shows Democrat Martha Coakley with a slim, 2 point lead over Republican Scott Brown in the special election race for the Massachusetts Senate. Unlike the PPP poll released early in the week, Rasmussen is a non-partisan polling firm, albeit one that has come under fire from the left for having polling data this year favorable to Republicans. Scott Rasmussen, in my view, has several things enhancing his credibility:
(1) His polling was above average in its state-by-state accuracy in November 2008
(2) He was also above average in the accuracy of his polls in the New Jersey and Virginia Governors races
(3) The primary source of Democratic criticism has been that his approval figures for President Obama have consistently run 5 to 10% behind the consensus of the rest. But a public opinion poll is not the same as an election projection poll. The Rasmussen poll has differed from many other public opinion polls in that he has attempted to target likely voters, whereas many other polls target the general public or registered voters. But all election projection polls (at least all the ones worth anything) target likely voters.
In short, I have no statistical evidence in actual elections that would cause me to question the methodology behind Scott Rasmussen's polls, and absent that and especially given his track record of accuracy, I consider his polling credible.
So, lending the Rasmussen poll some credence and noting that the polling has tightened 7 points over the past week in that poll, I'm left to conclude that we now have a horse race.
Massachusetts moves from Likely Democratic Hold to Lean Democratic Hold
So, let's break down the things that will make the difference:
(1) Momentum in the closing week -- advantage Brown -- clearly he is gaining and if you were to draw a trend line from a few weeks ago to election day, Coakley is in big trouble
(2) Bank account -- big advantage Coakley -- she can spend, spend, spend in the closing week in a way Brown can't match. Both her own campaign and the DNC are far better funded in the home stretch than Brown and the RNC. Her wisest move would be to hit hard in the closing week to move social moderates and rally the base.
(3) Base turnout -- advantage Brown -- the GOP base is fired up and tends to turn out higher in off-year elections to begin with (social conservatives ALWAYS make it to the polls.) The DEMs are pretty beaten down and it's hard to imagine 19-year-olds and African-American voters turning out for Martha Coakley in the same numbers that they did for Obama.
(4) State demographics -- advantage Coakley -- let's face it, Massachusetts doesn't really want a Republican, not a real Republican anyway. It's among the bluest states. Brown's surge reflects a lot of frustration with the Obama administration, the state of the economy and the sense that things aren't getting any better in this country (take a look at the right track / wrong track poll numbers if you doubt me.) Plus, Americans like to check power. But will those socially liberal, economically moderate independents really pull the lever for Brown in the end?
Can #1 and #3 overcome #2 and #4?
The betting public on intrade presently pegs the odds in the race with Coakley as a 10 : 3 favorite. That seems about right to me heading into the home stretch. Brown really could legitimately win, but the odds are still stacked against him. But if he pulls this off, it will be an amazing rallying cry for the GOP and an amazing hit to the DEMs.
I expect a number of new polls in this race in the next few days, which should help lend us some clarity heading into next Tuesday. Bear in mind that special elections are notoriously hard to poll for, as it is hard to tell who will actually show up to vote the Tuesday after a holiday weekend.
But it's going to be a fun ride, and quite possibly a late night next Tuesday
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Monday, January 11, 2010
Grading Year 1 of the Obama Administration
The time has come for my rundown of the first year of the Obama Administration. Yes, I realize we are technically still a week short of a year from the Tuesday on which Barack Obama became the 43rd man to assume the Presidency (yes, he is commonly referred to as the "44th President", but that's because Grover Cleveland is counted twice due to his split terms, interesting piece of political trivia for a cocktail party sometime.) But, let's face it, there is very little that is going to change the essential ratings that we will look at. No legislation is going to be passed between now and then as the Senate is not in session (other than a brief Pro Forma session on the 19th). The poll numbers aren't likely to move significantly, unless unemployment miraculously halves o the President denounces his citizenship. The accounting on year 1 is largely in.
We'll look at year 1 from three perspectives:
#1 Political Priorities -- my assessment of the Obama Administration's effectiveness in implementing the key priorities that the President himself laid out for year 1.
#2 Court of Public Opinion -- we'll compare the President's numbers to both an absolute scale and a comparative scale to other Post-World War 2 President's
#3 Presidential Promise-Keeping -- we'll consult with our old friends at Politifact.com to see how closely what the President has done has matched his words from the campaign trail.
So, let's get started.
Political Priorities
The President laid out three clear priorities for year one of his administration, through an early speech to a joint session of congress. Let's grade them.
#1 The Economy -- Stabilize the Financial System, Contain Unemployment and Build a Platform for Economic Growth
My Grade: B
Despite poll numbers that don't yet reflect his success (more on that later), the President has actually done a number of important things towards this end. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was landmark legislation, signed into law early in his administration, the largest investment of public funds in economic recovery since FDR. The early provisions of this bill, which stabilized funding for state governments and provided key tax incentives that have stabilized the auto and home industries, were critical in preventing a deeper depression. The bulk of the spending, which is yet to take place, is of the more traditional infrastructure variety, designed to generate long-term efficiency gains (a better maintained infrastructure is a catalyst to a more efficient economy) as well as provide some job growth along the way.
The administration's actions on the auto industry got off to a slow start, with, unfortunately some more money down the drain in emergency loans early on. But in the end, they got it right, facilitating an orderly bankruptcy and exchanging government debt for a large equity stake that may ultimately pay off for taxpayers. It is unquestionable that without government intervention, GM would have gone down for good. Some thought that for the best -- the weak die in capitalism, after all. But the associated spike in unemployment and collapse of first-tier suppliers would have been devastating for years to come.
On the TARP funds, the government is getting repaid...by Goldman Sachs, by Bank of America, by Citigroup.
The economy is growing again and unemployment has stopped rising. The financial system didn't collapse. Stocks are way up since the President took office. The President and the Administration deserve some credit, as does Ben Bernake.
The performance was not perfect, to be sure. We are $180 billion into AIG, money we will likely never see all of again, and we got there without adequate controls on pay or policy. The President stupidly said the stimulus bill would contain unemployment at 8%, a gross mis-calculation about the state of the economy. The administration has all but missed a huge opportunity to significantly change how financial services operate in this country and has not done anything to stop the "too big to fail" phenomenon. Not enough home owners have received mortgage relief. There is not enough credit flowing to consumers or small businesses.
But considering the abyss we were staring into, the administration by and large deserves credits for making the right big calls on the economy.
#2 Health Care -- Expand Access to Insurance, Contain Costs
Grade: C-
On the plus side: this President has gotten further with health care reform than any previous President. He has already signed a bill into law that has dramatically expanded access to insurance for poor and lower-middle class children. The bill that might make it out of Congress would expand coverage to millions.
On the minus side: he promised a bill by August, then by year-end and got neither. The big bill is not signed into law. Even if it does get signed, while it is good on the access side, it does nothing serious about cost. There are no provisions to reimport prescription drugs or negotiate for world-pricing. It has no public option to compete with insurance companies or cost regulations with teeth. It fails to address tort reform and the cost of malpractice insurance.
These grade could go way up next year if the President signs a bill into law. But it is fair to say that in year 1, he failed more than he succeeded.
#3 Environment -- Invest in Green Energy, Cap Carbon Emissions
Grade: D+
On the plus side: there were some decent clean energy investments in the stimulus bill, the House passed a Cap and Trade bill. The EPA can regulate Carbon by executive order.
On the minus side: Cap and Trade is stuck in the Senate and there appears to be no will after the bruising and long battle on health care. The administration has presented no clear energy strategy -- how exactly are we going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil?
All in all, nothing substantial has changed in our environmental policy. A very incomplete set of accomplishments.
#4 All Other
Grade: C-
On the plus side: decisive action on Afghanistan (albeit after a LONG wait), a clear exit strategy in Iraq, better relationships with our allies, several very good laws and executive orders (the Fair Pay Act, the Edward Kennedy Serve America Act, just to name a couple)
On the minus side: we are still firing Arabic translators from the military for being gay, the President's bowing and present-giving gaffes have started to get embarrassing, we've done nothing on immigration policy, ambassadorships are still full of patronage, the tone in Washington has gotten worse, not better.
My overall grade: C
The President gets credit on the economy. Everything else, is incomplete at best and failing at worst. Republicans will say that I am far too generous on the role of the administration in stabilizing the economy. But I truly believe that administration acts were critical. Democrats will say my bar is way too high for other issues, considering what other Presidents have done. But I didn't set that bar, the President did, in an early speech in which he promised all of what I graded in his first year, plus a lot of other things that aren't even discussed.
A mediocre start to a Presidency for a man who showed brilliance in the 2008 campaign. Let's hope year one just reflects some inexperience and growing pains, as they did with a young Clinton administration in 1993. The President could learn a thing or two in how Clinton evolved the game.
The Court of Public Opinion
Current Average of Approve Minus Disapprove (Month of January 2010, Jan 1-10): +3.7%
Obviously the wealth of polling data that is now available is not available for all previous administrations. However, the Gallup tracking poll is. So we'll contrast Obama's approve minus disapprove with the historical Gallup information. Here are the other post-World War II Presidents:
1. George W. Bush +77%
2. John F. Kennedy +59%
3. Lyndon Johnson +53%
4. George H.W. Bush +47%
5. Dwight Eisenhower +43%
6. Richard Nixon +23%
7. Jimmy Carter +19%
8. Bill Clinton +9%
Gerald Ford +9%
10. Barack Obama +4%
11. Ronald Reagan +3%
Harry Truman +3%
There have been some in the blogosphere that have stated that President Obama has the lowest approval rating on record. While I don't find that to be quite the case (it all comes down to what polls you pick and what day or range of days you use, if I were to use the low point for the President on the Gallup poll, I would have the same finding), he's close enough to the bottom of the year 1 rung that the court of public opinion weighs unfavorable against him.
On the plus side, a small percentage more people approve than disapprove of his performance. Also, as you can see from the above, first year numbers are not necessarily very instructive as to re-election prospects: numbers 1, 3, 5, 6, 8a, 11 and 11b were re-elected, numbers 4, 7 and 8b were not (John Kennedy obviously did not run.) And the biggest re-election landslides were #6 and #11a. So it isn't like his term is over.
And the circumstances coming in were definitely tough -- a massive economic crisis, tough wars in a war-weary nation and insanely high expectations all fuel the fall-off.
Still, in the court of public opinion, after 1 year, President Obama clearly gets bad marks.
Overall Public Opinion Grade; D
Presidential Promise-Keeping
politifact.com is tracking 507 documented promises that the President made on the campaign trail. Every once in a while they will add a promise if new campaign tape emerges or eliminate a promise if they determine that two they are tracking are redundant. But the rules for politifact are simple, if the President said it when he was running, they attempt to track it.
Of the 507 promises, the President has taken some sort of complete action (kept, broken or compromised) on 134 of them, or 26.4%. Right on track with being 25% of the way through his term. So Obama gets full marks for taking action on the issues that he promised.
Of the 134 he has acted on, 91 have been Kept, 31 have been Compromised on and 12 have been broken. Giving a full point for kept promises, a half point for compromises and no points for broken promises, the President has scored 106.5 promise-keeping points out of possible 134 on these promises, or a score of 79%. On face, this is a fantastic score. I think any reasonable observer would say that if a President does 80% of what he said he would do when he gets to office, that is about as good as it gets. My standard rule of thumb is about 50%.
So what are the key promises kept, compromised and broken? You can go to politifact.com and see all of them, but here are some highlights:
Kept:
- Establish a Credit Card Holder's Bill of Rights
- Expand Access to the Children's Health Insurance Program
- Implement plan to end the war in Iraq
- Send two additional brigades to Afghanistan
- Expand AmeriCorps
- Reverse restrictions on stem cell research
Compromised
- Set a three-month moratorium on foreclosures (a three-month moratorium was not set, but an alternate foreclosure-abatement plan was implemented)
- Increase TSA funding (it increased, but not by as much as he promised)
- No tax increases of any kind of people making less than $250,000 (cigarette taxes were increased by over 200%, although in a conflicting campaign statement, candidate Obama had stated support for such a tax)
- No signing statements to nullify the law congress writes (Obama has used signing statements, but claims they are for clarification only)
Broken
- Posting of bills on the internet for 5 days before signing (broken on his first major bill, the stimulus bill and continued from there)
- Health Care negotiations on C-SPAN (that, as we re-learned this week, won't be happening)
- Allow penalty-free hardship withdrawals from IRA's and 401K's in 2008 and 2009 (not done)
The interesting thing is that on SUBSTANCE, the President is near-perfect, every major policy area he has acted on has been in basic agreement with his positions on the campaign trail. Where he has failed has been on the openness and transparency issues...putting bills on the internet before signing, health care negotiations on C-SPAN, lobbyist rules, etc. And it is on this impression that "nothing has changed in Washington" that I think the President is most vulnerable.
Still, in total, whether you like it or not, on policy, you got what he said you were going to get.
Grade on Promise-Keeping: B+
Year 2 and Beyond
So what will the coming year hold? It may or may not hold a health care bill being signed into law (Chris Dodd talked about "hanging by a thread" today and an upset in Massachusetts would be a massive setback for the bill), we likely won't see a cap and trade bill. Congress has another set of budgeting to do, something which will start early to get Congress home in time for what is sure to be a vicious campaign season.
In short, it is likely that policy accomplishments in 2010 will be limited to the first 3 months of the year. If it's big and it isn't done by March, it probably won't get done.
And expect a bloody November, to a greater or lesser extent, for Democrats.
How the President reacts to smaller or non-existant majorities, as President Clinton had to do in 1995, will largely shape the arc of the rest of the Obama Presidency. So will the state of the economy and the success of his Afghanistan strategy. Eleven months ago, we were all asking, "doesn't it seem like the President is taking on too much?" The answer, at least after one year, appears to be "yes, he did." We'll see if the long view proves something different.
If you like this site tell your friends.
We'll look at year 1 from three perspectives:
#1 Political Priorities -- my assessment of the Obama Administration's effectiveness in implementing the key priorities that the President himself laid out for year 1.
#2 Court of Public Opinion -- we'll compare the President's numbers to both an absolute scale and a comparative scale to other Post-World War 2 President's
#3 Presidential Promise-Keeping -- we'll consult with our old friends at Politifact.com to see how closely what the President has done has matched his words from the campaign trail.
So, let's get started.
Political Priorities
The President laid out three clear priorities for year one of his administration, through an early speech to a joint session of congress. Let's grade them.
#1 The Economy -- Stabilize the Financial System, Contain Unemployment and Build a Platform for Economic Growth
My Grade: B
Despite poll numbers that don't yet reflect his success (more on that later), the President has actually done a number of important things towards this end. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was landmark legislation, signed into law early in his administration, the largest investment of public funds in economic recovery since FDR. The early provisions of this bill, which stabilized funding for state governments and provided key tax incentives that have stabilized the auto and home industries, were critical in preventing a deeper depression. The bulk of the spending, which is yet to take place, is of the more traditional infrastructure variety, designed to generate long-term efficiency gains (a better maintained infrastructure is a catalyst to a more efficient economy) as well as provide some job growth along the way.
The administration's actions on the auto industry got off to a slow start, with, unfortunately some more money down the drain in emergency loans early on. But in the end, they got it right, facilitating an orderly bankruptcy and exchanging government debt for a large equity stake that may ultimately pay off for taxpayers. It is unquestionable that without government intervention, GM would have gone down for good. Some thought that for the best -- the weak die in capitalism, after all. But the associated spike in unemployment and collapse of first-tier suppliers would have been devastating for years to come.
On the TARP funds, the government is getting repaid...by Goldman Sachs, by Bank of America, by Citigroup.
The economy is growing again and unemployment has stopped rising. The financial system didn't collapse. Stocks are way up since the President took office. The President and the Administration deserve some credit, as does Ben Bernake.
The performance was not perfect, to be sure. We are $180 billion into AIG, money we will likely never see all of again, and we got there without adequate controls on pay or policy. The President stupidly said the stimulus bill would contain unemployment at 8%, a gross mis-calculation about the state of the economy. The administration has all but missed a huge opportunity to significantly change how financial services operate in this country and has not done anything to stop the "too big to fail" phenomenon. Not enough home owners have received mortgage relief. There is not enough credit flowing to consumers or small businesses.
But considering the abyss we were staring into, the administration by and large deserves credits for making the right big calls on the economy.
#2 Health Care -- Expand Access to Insurance, Contain Costs
Grade: C-
On the plus side: this President has gotten further with health care reform than any previous President. He has already signed a bill into law that has dramatically expanded access to insurance for poor and lower-middle class children. The bill that might make it out of Congress would expand coverage to millions.
On the minus side: he promised a bill by August, then by year-end and got neither. The big bill is not signed into law. Even if it does get signed, while it is good on the access side, it does nothing serious about cost. There are no provisions to reimport prescription drugs or negotiate for world-pricing. It has no public option to compete with insurance companies or cost regulations with teeth. It fails to address tort reform and the cost of malpractice insurance.
These grade could go way up next year if the President signs a bill into law. But it is fair to say that in year 1, he failed more than he succeeded.
#3 Environment -- Invest in Green Energy, Cap Carbon Emissions
Grade: D+
On the plus side: there were some decent clean energy investments in the stimulus bill, the House passed a Cap and Trade bill. The EPA can regulate Carbon by executive order.
On the minus side: Cap and Trade is stuck in the Senate and there appears to be no will after the bruising and long battle on health care. The administration has presented no clear energy strategy -- how exactly are we going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil?
All in all, nothing substantial has changed in our environmental policy. A very incomplete set of accomplishments.
#4 All Other
Grade: C-
On the plus side: decisive action on Afghanistan (albeit after a LONG wait), a clear exit strategy in Iraq, better relationships with our allies, several very good laws and executive orders (the Fair Pay Act, the Edward Kennedy Serve America Act, just to name a couple)
On the minus side: we are still firing Arabic translators from the military for being gay, the President's bowing and present-giving gaffes have started to get embarrassing, we've done nothing on immigration policy, ambassadorships are still full of patronage, the tone in Washington has gotten worse, not better.
My overall grade: C
The President gets credit on the economy. Everything else, is incomplete at best and failing at worst. Republicans will say that I am far too generous on the role of the administration in stabilizing the economy. But I truly believe that administration acts were critical. Democrats will say my bar is way too high for other issues, considering what other Presidents have done. But I didn't set that bar, the President did, in an early speech in which he promised all of what I graded in his first year, plus a lot of other things that aren't even discussed.
A mediocre start to a Presidency for a man who showed brilliance in the 2008 campaign. Let's hope year one just reflects some inexperience and growing pains, as they did with a young Clinton administration in 1993. The President could learn a thing or two in how Clinton evolved the game.
The Court of Public Opinion
Current Average of Approve Minus Disapprove (Month of January 2010, Jan 1-10): +3.7%
Obviously the wealth of polling data that is now available is not available for all previous administrations. However, the Gallup tracking poll is. So we'll contrast Obama's approve minus disapprove with the historical Gallup information. Here are the other post-World War II Presidents:
1. George W. Bush +77%
2. John F. Kennedy +59%
3. Lyndon Johnson +53%
4. George H.W. Bush +47%
5. Dwight Eisenhower +43%
6. Richard Nixon +23%
7. Jimmy Carter +19%
8. Bill Clinton +9%
Gerald Ford +9%
10. Barack Obama +4%
11. Ronald Reagan +3%
Harry Truman +3%
There have been some in the blogosphere that have stated that President Obama has the lowest approval rating on record. While I don't find that to be quite the case (it all comes down to what polls you pick and what day or range of days you use, if I were to use the low point for the President on the Gallup poll, I would have the same finding), he's close enough to the bottom of the year 1 rung that the court of public opinion weighs unfavorable against him.
On the plus side, a small percentage more people approve than disapprove of his performance. Also, as you can see from the above, first year numbers are not necessarily very instructive as to re-election prospects: numbers 1, 3, 5, 6, 8a, 11 and 11b were re-elected, numbers 4, 7 and 8b were not (John Kennedy obviously did not run.) And the biggest re-election landslides were #6 and #11a. So it isn't like his term is over.
And the circumstances coming in were definitely tough -- a massive economic crisis, tough wars in a war-weary nation and insanely high expectations all fuel the fall-off.
Still, in the court of public opinion, after 1 year, President Obama clearly gets bad marks.
Overall Public Opinion Grade; D
Presidential Promise-Keeping
politifact.com is tracking 507 documented promises that the President made on the campaign trail. Every once in a while they will add a promise if new campaign tape emerges or eliminate a promise if they determine that two they are tracking are redundant. But the rules for politifact are simple, if the President said it when he was running, they attempt to track it.
Of the 507 promises, the President has taken some sort of complete action (kept, broken or compromised) on 134 of them, or 26.4%. Right on track with being 25% of the way through his term. So Obama gets full marks for taking action on the issues that he promised.
Of the 134 he has acted on, 91 have been Kept, 31 have been Compromised on and 12 have been broken. Giving a full point for kept promises, a half point for compromises and no points for broken promises, the President has scored 106.5 promise-keeping points out of possible 134 on these promises, or a score of 79%. On face, this is a fantastic score. I think any reasonable observer would say that if a President does 80% of what he said he would do when he gets to office, that is about as good as it gets. My standard rule of thumb is about 50%.
So what are the key promises kept, compromised and broken? You can go to politifact.com and see all of them, but here are some highlights:
Kept:
- Establish a Credit Card Holder's Bill of Rights
- Expand Access to the Children's Health Insurance Program
- Implement plan to end the war in Iraq
- Send two additional brigades to Afghanistan
- Expand AmeriCorps
- Reverse restrictions on stem cell research
Compromised
- Set a three-month moratorium on foreclosures (a three-month moratorium was not set, but an alternate foreclosure-abatement plan was implemented)
- Increase TSA funding (it increased, but not by as much as he promised)
- No tax increases of any kind of people making less than $250,000 (cigarette taxes were increased by over 200%, although in a conflicting campaign statement, candidate Obama had stated support for such a tax)
- No signing statements to nullify the law congress writes (Obama has used signing statements, but claims they are for clarification only)
Broken
- Posting of bills on the internet for 5 days before signing (broken on his first major bill, the stimulus bill and continued from there)
- Health Care negotiations on C-SPAN (that, as we re-learned this week, won't be happening)
- Allow penalty-free hardship withdrawals from IRA's and 401K's in 2008 and 2009 (not done)
The interesting thing is that on SUBSTANCE, the President is near-perfect, every major policy area he has acted on has been in basic agreement with his positions on the campaign trail. Where he has failed has been on the openness and transparency issues...putting bills on the internet before signing, health care negotiations on C-SPAN, lobbyist rules, etc. And it is on this impression that "nothing has changed in Washington" that I think the President is most vulnerable.
Still, in total, whether you like it or not, on policy, you got what he said you were going to get.
Grade on Promise-Keeping: B+
Year 2 and Beyond
So what will the coming year hold? It may or may not hold a health care bill being signed into law (Chris Dodd talked about "hanging by a thread" today and an upset in Massachusetts would be a massive setback for the bill), we likely won't see a cap and trade bill. Congress has another set of budgeting to do, something which will start early to get Congress home in time for what is sure to be a vicious campaign season.
In short, it is likely that policy accomplishments in 2010 will be limited to the first 3 months of the year. If it's big and it isn't done by March, it probably won't get done.
And expect a bloody November, to a greater or lesser extent, for Democrats.
How the President reacts to smaller or non-existant majorities, as President Clinton had to do in 1995, will largely shape the arc of the rest of the Obama Presidency. So will the state of the economy and the success of his Afghanistan strategy. Eleven months ago, we were all asking, "doesn't it seem like the President is taking on too much?" The answer, at least after one year, appears to be "yes, he did." We'll see if the long view proves something different.
If you like this site tell your friends.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Harry Reid: Shame On You, Big MA Upset Brewing?
If you have been living in a cave the past 24 hours, perhaps you missed Senator Harry Reid's revealed words about President Obama from the campaign trail in 2008. To be specific, Senator Reid said that then-candidate had a real opportunity to win because he was "light-skinned" and "had no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to".
You could certainly make an intellectual argument that America was more ready to accept a bi-racial President than a dark-skinned black President. You could similarly argue that if the President did not have strong command of proper language skills, he would not have been a viable candidate. Neither of these are the point.
The subtext of Senator Reid's remarks reveal a clear racism. First, the choice of the word "Negro", a word broadly considered offensive in the African-Ameican community for well over 40 years. Second, the notion that somehow President Obama's ability to speak without "Negro dialect" in some way set him apart from most African-Americans is simply wrong and deeply racist. Cory Booker can't speak to white people? How about Deval Patrick? David Patterson? Heck, Jesse Jackson speaks perfect English and he ran for President 22 years ago. What does Senator Reid think, that 95% of African-Americans go to work every day and talk like 50 Cent?
Perhaps Senator Reid's problem is that he doesn't actually know that many black people. At the time he made those remarks, there was but one African-American Senator, Senator Barack Obama. There is still only one African-American Senator, the embattled Roland Burris, and there will likely be none come December.
Michael Steele made the point on the Sunday talk circuit that there is a double-standard in play here, that if a Republican had made similar remarks, he would have been run out of town. And he has a point. The eagerness to forgive and forget on the left in this case in extremely inconsistent. When Senator Trent Lott made the remark that if Strom Thurmond had become President, "maybe we wouldn't have a lot of the problems we have today", a reference which those of us familiar with Thurmond's 1948 Dixiecrat run for President assumed referred to civil rights legislation, but which Lott never explicitly said, seem downright mild compared with Reid's verbal offense.
President Obama has issued a statement of forgiveness and support for Senator Reid. I do not grant the President the right to make a determination of forgiveness on behalf of anyone beyond himself. If he wants to forgive Senator Reid, that is certainly his right. And I might forgive Senator Reid, who is clearly sorry, personally. But words have meaning and statements have consequences. Senator Harry Reid cannot lead the Democratic Party in the Senate after making such a deeply racist statement. He should step down immediately from his post.
No need to call for his resignation -- voters in Nevada have the opportunity to make their own judgement in November. And I suspect that this is just a nail in the coffin.
Coakley and Brown in a Dead Heat??? Not So Fast.
There was a poll that lit up the political internet yesterday, a Public Policy Polling look at the Massachusetts Special Election, taken from January 7th to January 9th that showed Coakley and Brown in a dead heat for the seat (actually Brown was up by a point.) The storyline was a familiar one -- candidate B (in this case Brown) is surging and candidate A will soon be toast.
Not so fast.
First of all, Public Policy Polling is a partisan-affiliated polling firm. The thing that is a little odd in this case is that they are affiliated with the Democratic party. Nevertheless, their release of polls can be politically motivated and the numbers can be shaded to serve a particular purpose. This wouldn't be an issue if the poll wasn't squarely at odds with the other available data. But it is.
The Rasmussen poll released three days earlier showed Coakley with a 9 point lead, 50% to 41%. Certainly Scott Rasmussen has been accused of a lot of things in the polling world, but being overly favorable to Democrats is not one of them.
Secondly, a Boston Globe poll that run through January 6th shows Coakley with a 17 point lead. This is consistent with the trend of Rasmussen polls showing somewhat closer races than other polls that we have seen in recent months.
The PPP poll appears, at least at this point, to be an anomaly. I have no doubt there will be several more polls released in the coming days to give us a better understanding of the state of the race.
For now, I'm leaving this a Likely Democratic Hold.
You could certainly make an intellectual argument that America was more ready to accept a bi-racial President than a dark-skinned black President. You could similarly argue that if the President did not have strong command of proper language skills, he would not have been a viable candidate. Neither of these are the point.
The subtext of Senator Reid's remarks reveal a clear racism. First, the choice of the word "Negro", a word broadly considered offensive in the African-Ameican community for well over 40 years. Second, the notion that somehow President Obama's ability to speak without "Negro dialect" in some way set him apart from most African-Americans is simply wrong and deeply racist. Cory Booker can't speak to white people? How about Deval Patrick? David Patterson? Heck, Jesse Jackson speaks perfect English and he ran for President 22 years ago. What does Senator Reid think, that 95% of African-Americans go to work every day and talk like 50 Cent?
Perhaps Senator Reid's problem is that he doesn't actually know that many black people. At the time he made those remarks, there was but one African-American Senator, Senator Barack Obama. There is still only one African-American Senator, the embattled Roland Burris, and there will likely be none come December.
Michael Steele made the point on the Sunday talk circuit that there is a double-standard in play here, that if a Republican had made similar remarks, he would have been run out of town. And he has a point. The eagerness to forgive and forget on the left in this case in extremely inconsistent. When Senator Trent Lott made the remark that if Strom Thurmond had become President, "maybe we wouldn't have a lot of the problems we have today", a reference which those of us familiar with Thurmond's 1948 Dixiecrat run for President assumed referred to civil rights legislation, but which Lott never explicitly said, seem downright mild compared with Reid's verbal offense.
President Obama has issued a statement of forgiveness and support for Senator Reid. I do not grant the President the right to make a determination of forgiveness on behalf of anyone beyond himself. If he wants to forgive Senator Reid, that is certainly his right. And I might forgive Senator Reid, who is clearly sorry, personally. But words have meaning and statements have consequences. Senator Harry Reid cannot lead the Democratic Party in the Senate after making such a deeply racist statement. He should step down immediately from his post.
No need to call for his resignation -- voters in Nevada have the opportunity to make their own judgement in November. And I suspect that this is just a nail in the coffin.
Coakley and Brown in a Dead Heat??? Not So Fast.
There was a poll that lit up the political internet yesterday, a Public Policy Polling look at the Massachusetts Special Election, taken from January 7th to January 9th that showed Coakley and Brown in a dead heat for the seat (actually Brown was up by a point.) The storyline was a familiar one -- candidate B (in this case Brown) is surging and candidate A will soon be toast.
Not so fast.
First of all, Public Policy Polling is a partisan-affiliated polling firm. The thing that is a little odd in this case is that they are affiliated with the Democratic party. Nevertheless, their release of polls can be politically motivated and the numbers can be shaded to serve a particular purpose. This wouldn't be an issue if the poll wasn't squarely at odds with the other available data. But it is.
The Rasmussen poll released three days earlier showed Coakley with a 9 point lead, 50% to 41%. Certainly Scott Rasmussen has been accused of a lot of things in the polling world, but being overly favorable to Democrats is not one of them.
Secondly, a Boston Globe poll that run through January 6th shows Coakley with a 17 point lead. This is consistent with the trend of Rasmussen polls showing somewhat closer races than other polls that we have seen in recent months.
The PPP poll appears, at least at this point, to be an anomaly. I have no doubt there will be several more polls released in the coming days to give us a better understanding of the state of the race.
For now, I'm leaving this a Likely Democratic Hold.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Complete Latest Senate Rundown, The Jobs Deficit and John Edward's 2 Americas, Closing in on 1 Year
2010 -- Plenty of Reasons for the DEMs to Be Getting More Scared
The Pro-GOP or at the very least, anti-Democratic trend appears to continue to build. President Obama's numbers are stable, at least for now, around the +3% to +5% range...this is better than being negative, but puts him in a similar position to where President Clinton was leading into the year that saw Newt Gingrich's revolution that led to a GOP-controlled House and Senate. It isn't that bad yet, so let's take a look at where the races are tracking, with our new updates from this week:
Safe DEM Hold (6)
Maryland, New York (Schumer), Oregon, Vermont, Washington, Connecticut
Likely DEM Hold (5)
California, Indiana, Wisconsin, Hawaii, Massachusetts*
* Special Election January 19th
Lean Democratic Hold (2)
New York (Gillebrand), Illinois
Lean Democratic Pick-Up (1)
Missouri
Toss-up -- DEM Controlled (2)
Pennsylvania, Delaware
Lean GOP Pick-up (4)
Colorado, Nevada, North Dakota, Arkansas
Lean GOP Hold (5)
New Hampshire, Kentucky, Ohio, North Carolina, Arizona
Likely GOP Hold (5)
Georgia, Alaska, Kansas, Louisiana, Florida
Safe GOP Hold (7)
Iowa, South Dakota, Alabama, Idaho, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah
Total Projection: GOP Pick-up of 3 to 5 Seats
Best Case GOP (all leaners go to GOP): GOP +8 Seats
Best Case DEM (all leaners go to DEM): DEM +6 Seats
It certainly seems, given the national mood, that the Best Case GOP scenario is a heck of a lot more plausible than the Best Case DEM scenario at this point. This is because of all the states that fall in the "lean" category currently, the GOP is winning all but 3 of them. It does show, however, the vast impact a 5 point swing in the national mood can have on how races shape up.
The other things worth noting are that we do not have particularly recent polling in Missouri and Pennsylvania. One could surmise from the trend in other swing states that there is a reasonable probability that they will tip red when we do get such polling. This would push the GOP closer to their "best case" scenario.
Having said all this, I don't see a path to 51 for the GOP. In addition to picking up Missouri and Pennsylvania, they would have to win Illinois to get to +8, which is certainly possible, but probably no better than 50/50. On TOP of that, they would have to beat Gillebrand in New York (possible only if Pataki runs against her, and no sure thing even then), AND win at least 2 out of 5 in California (where they have a good candidate but are trailing), Indiana (where they don't even have a candidate yet against a well-liked moderate in Evan Bayh), Wisconsin (against Russ Feingold, seems like a no-hope race), Hawaii (when was the last time Hawaii sent a GOPer to the Senate?) and Massachusetts (closing fast at -9%, but still a long shot.)
So, the most realistic scenario to get there for the GOP would be to pull off the upset in Massachusetts, then win all the ones they are leading. Win the two toss-ups -- Delaware with Mike Castle and Pennsylvania with Pat Toomey. Win Missouri with Rep. Roy Blunt, New York's 2nd seat via convincing George Pataki to run. Finally, pull off the big upset with Carly Fiorna in California (hey -- they love tech celebrities there.) And you have 51 seats.
A long, long, shot, for sure. But for the first time I can actually construct a scenario where it could happen. First key, of course, is the Massachusetts special election a week from Tuesday, which I expect them to lose. But if they win that one, all bets are off.
In the House,
Democrats could be in huge trouble. Now, it's hard to tell, because we continue to be plagued by drastically different polls numbers (Rasmussen has it at GOP +9%, Gallup has it at DEM +3%), driven largely not by the fact that pollsters are asking the questions somehow differently, but more by the fact that they are making dramatically different modeling assumptions about who is actually going to vote in the mid-term. And the quagmire is real...after a massive turnout in 2008, clearly we all expect it to fall off for the mid-terms, but will it revert back to the normal for an off-year election? Will any of the newly registered voters in 2008 show up to vote for congress in 2010? We don't really know.
At any rate, my philosophy has always been that by building a larger sample poll, as well as looking at means and medians, we can mitigate the sample or weighting errors of any one given pollster. An our methodology produces a current projection of GOP +3.6%.
This leads to a House projection of: GOP +43 Seats
So, for the second projection in a row, I'm projecting a GOP takeover of the House. The margin is still slim, although it is 2 seats wider than it was last week. It could change obviously, with circumstances. But for now, the House Republicans are looking pretty darn strong. I doubt we'll see anything like Health Care reform moving through that chamber come 2011.
The Jobs Deficit -- John Edwards Was Right
I wrote about this some months ago, but I was struck recently by a personal experience. The company that I work for, which is a Fortune 500 company, was in the process of hiring entry-level engineers for a number of our factories, a process that I was involved in. We were recruiting principally for those who graduate this spring and conducted interviews over November and December, made offers in mid-December to 5 candidates and....were rejected 4 out of 5 times. Every single one of the 5 young engineers we were trying to recruit had multiple offers from multiple great companies. These are kids who are extremely intelligent, but let's face it, haven't actually DONE anything yet. And this punctuated my point -- the economy looks a lot different if you are a high school dropout who has been working at a factory in Michigan than it does if you are an Electrical Engineer from the University of Michigan.
The latest employment report, released yesterday, showed the unemployment rate remained flat at 10.0%, just a tick below the peak of 10.1% from two months ago. But the important numbers were even wore than that, with actually jobs declining by 85,000 and the unemployment rate only holding constant by virtue of people giving up on looking for work and dropping out of the work force, with this number rising to 929,000, it's largest level since 1985. So, with "normal" unemployment being in the 5% range, we have a gap of 7.6 million jobs, 8.5 million adding in the discouraged workers.
How does this relate to my story? Let's look at the unemployment rate by educational attainment one more time:
High School Dropout -- 15.3%
High School Graduate -- 10.5%
Some College or Trade School Graduate -- 9.0%
College Graduate with Bachelor's Degree or Higher -- 5.0%
The economy IS normal if you are a college graduate. Sure it isn't the heady days of the late 90s or the mid-00s when you could name your price, your location and your work hours. But you CAN find work if you have a degree and skills that are in demand. If you are a factory worker, however, your prospects are dim.
Which brings me to my point...we have focused so much on just creating jobs that we have neglected the other half of the equation...how do we raise the skill level of the unemployed to make them more productive and more attractive to potential employers? College tuitions continue to surge and achievement gaps between rich and poor school districts have sustained. How do we give the kid from Compton, rural Tennessee, Detroit or Mississippi a shot at being in the tier of people who are in demand? We have had zero political discussion in the past year about higher education and lifetime learning. And that's a crime.
In terms of what we have been discussing politically, we have the stimulus bill and we have the "jobs" bill creeping it's way through congress. The bill, which has been blasted by the GOP as "Son of Stimulus", would largely do more of the same that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act did...that is the threefold approach of transfer payments to states to stabilize state governments (to "save" jobs), infrastructure projects (to "create" jobs) and temporary extensions / expansions of various social programs to provide money for the unemployed and needy (to generate consumer demand.)
The approach has its merits as a short-term buffer to an economy still dealing with the aftershocks of a massive financial crisis. My criticism is that the way the original stimulus was laid out, we haven't really had a chance to see how that program, which was designed as a 3-year reshaping of the economy, will really play out.
Here are the latest stats on the first stimulus bill:
Tax Cuts -- $92.8 billion out of $288 billion paid out (32.2%)
Spending -- $164.2 billion out of $499 billion paid out (32.9%)
Total -- $257.0 billion out of $787 billion paid out (32.7%)
With more than two thirds of the first stimulus bill left to spend, why craft another measure?
The answer simply is political reality. Congressional Democrats want people to see they are doing SOMETHING, even if the best course might be to simply let the tools that are already out there work. Liberal economist Paul Krugman, who never believed the first bill was nearly large enough, has been leading the charge for a second stimulus for some time. And it appears likely that SOME sort of jobs bills will pass in the new congress.
But the reality is that we will all have to wait and see whether what they did the first run around will actually work.
Almost 1 Year of Obama
The President of the United States will cross the 1 year in office threshold, 25% of his term, right as voters in Massachusetts are picking a Senator that will potentially represent the 60th vote in the Senate for final passage of health care legislation. It's almost time to break out the red pens and grade the President's year. Given the amazingly high bar he set for himself with his early speech to congress, I suspect when I sit down to write his review, he will have some significant short-comings. The President's inner-circle is fond of talking about him taking the "long view". But you do have to produce results at some point.
So, next up, our 1 year report card on President Obama. We'll look at my assessment of grades against his key initiatives. We'll look at his public opinion polls and the American people's grades of his performance. And we'll tap our old friends at Politifact to look at how well he is keeping his promises. Stay tuned.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
The Pro-GOP or at the very least, anti-Democratic trend appears to continue to build. President Obama's numbers are stable, at least for now, around the +3% to +5% range...this is better than being negative, but puts him in a similar position to where President Clinton was leading into the year that saw Newt Gingrich's revolution that led to a GOP-controlled House and Senate. It isn't that bad yet, so let's take a look at where the races are tracking, with our new updates from this week:
Safe DEM Hold (6)
Maryland, New York (Schumer), Oregon, Vermont, Washington, Connecticut
Likely DEM Hold (5)
California, Indiana, Wisconsin, Hawaii, Massachusetts*
* Special Election January 19th
Lean Democratic Hold (2)
New York (Gillebrand), Illinois
Lean Democratic Pick-Up (1)
Missouri
Toss-up -- DEM Controlled (2)
Pennsylvania, Delaware
Lean GOP Pick-up (4)
Colorado, Nevada, North Dakota, Arkansas
Lean GOP Hold (5)
New Hampshire, Kentucky, Ohio, North Carolina, Arizona
Likely GOP Hold (5)
Georgia, Alaska, Kansas, Louisiana, Florida
Safe GOP Hold (7)
Iowa, South Dakota, Alabama, Idaho, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah
Total Projection: GOP Pick-up of 3 to 5 Seats
Best Case GOP (all leaners go to GOP): GOP +8 Seats
Best Case DEM (all leaners go to DEM): DEM +6 Seats
It certainly seems, given the national mood, that the Best Case GOP scenario is a heck of a lot more plausible than the Best Case DEM scenario at this point. This is because of all the states that fall in the "lean" category currently, the GOP is winning all but 3 of them. It does show, however, the vast impact a 5 point swing in the national mood can have on how races shape up.
The other things worth noting are that we do not have particularly recent polling in Missouri and Pennsylvania. One could surmise from the trend in other swing states that there is a reasonable probability that they will tip red when we do get such polling. This would push the GOP closer to their "best case" scenario.
Having said all this, I don't see a path to 51 for the GOP. In addition to picking up Missouri and Pennsylvania, they would have to win Illinois to get to +8, which is certainly possible, but probably no better than 50/50. On TOP of that, they would have to beat Gillebrand in New York (possible only if Pataki runs against her, and no sure thing even then), AND win at least 2 out of 5 in California (where they have a good candidate but are trailing), Indiana (where they don't even have a candidate yet against a well-liked moderate in Evan Bayh), Wisconsin (against Russ Feingold, seems like a no-hope race), Hawaii (when was the last time Hawaii sent a GOPer to the Senate?) and Massachusetts (closing fast at -9%, but still a long shot.)
So, the most realistic scenario to get there for the GOP would be to pull off the upset in Massachusetts, then win all the ones they are leading. Win the two toss-ups -- Delaware with Mike Castle and Pennsylvania with Pat Toomey. Win Missouri with Rep. Roy Blunt, New York's 2nd seat via convincing George Pataki to run. Finally, pull off the big upset with Carly Fiorna in California (hey -- they love tech celebrities there.) And you have 51 seats.
A long, long, shot, for sure. But for the first time I can actually construct a scenario where it could happen. First key, of course, is the Massachusetts special election a week from Tuesday, which I expect them to lose. But if they win that one, all bets are off.
In the House,
Democrats could be in huge trouble. Now, it's hard to tell, because we continue to be plagued by drastically different polls numbers (Rasmussen has it at GOP +9%, Gallup has it at DEM +3%), driven largely not by the fact that pollsters are asking the questions somehow differently, but more by the fact that they are making dramatically different modeling assumptions about who is actually going to vote in the mid-term. And the quagmire is real...after a massive turnout in 2008, clearly we all expect it to fall off for the mid-terms, but will it revert back to the normal for an off-year election? Will any of the newly registered voters in 2008 show up to vote for congress in 2010? We don't really know.
At any rate, my philosophy has always been that by building a larger sample poll, as well as looking at means and medians, we can mitigate the sample or weighting errors of any one given pollster. An our methodology produces a current projection of GOP +3.6%.
This leads to a House projection of: GOP +43 Seats
So, for the second projection in a row, I'm projecting a GOP takeover of the House. The margin is still slim, although it is 2 seats wider than it was last week. It could change obviously, with circumstances. But for now, the House Republicans are looking pretty darn strong. I doubt we'll see anything like Health Care reform moving through that chamber come 2011.
The Jobs Deficit -- John Edwards Was Right
I wrote about this some months ago, but I was struck recently by a personal experience. The company that I work for, which is a Fortune 500 company, was in the process of hiring entry-level engineers for a number of our factories, a process that I was involved in. We were recruiting principally for those who graduate this spring and conducted interviews over November and December, made offers in mid-December to 5 candidates and....were rejected 4 out of 5 times. Every single one of the 5 young engineers we were trying to recruit had multiple offers from multiple great companies. These are kids who are extremely intelligent, but let's face it, haven't actually DONE anything yet. And this punctuated my point -- the economy looks a lot different if you are a high school dropout who has been working at a factory in Michigan than it does if you are an Electrical Engineer from the University of Michigan.
The latest employment report, released yesterday, showed the unemployment rate remained flat at 10.0%, just a tick below the peak of 10.1% from two months ago. But the important numbers were even wore than that, with actually jobs declining by 85,000 and the unemployment rate only holding constant by virtue of people giving up on looking for work and dropping out of the work force, with this number rising to 929,000, it's largest level since 1985. So, with "normal" unemployment being in the 5% range, we have a gap of 7.6 million jobs, 8.5 million adding in the discouraged workers.
How does this relate to my story? Let's look at the unemployment rate by educational attainment one more time:
High School Dropout -- 15.3%
High School Graduate -- 10.5%
Some College or Trade School Graduate -- 9.0%
College Graduate with Bachelor's Degree or Higher -- 5.0%
The economy IS normal if you are a college graduate. Sure it isn't the heady days of the late 90s or the mid-00s when you could name your price, your location and your work hours. But you CAN find work if you have a degree and skills that are in demand. If you are a factory worker, however, your prospects are dim.
Which brings me to my point...we have focused so much on just creating jobs that we have neglected the other half of the equation...how do we raise the skill level of the unemployed to make them more productive and more attractive to potential employers? College tuitions continue to surge and achievement gaps between rich and poor school districts have sustained. How do we give the kid from Compton, rural Tennessee, Detroit or Mississippi a shot at being in the tier of people who are in demand? We have had zero political discussion in the past year about higher education and lifetime learning. And that's a crime.
In terms of what we have been discussing politically, we have the stimulus bill and we have the "jobs" bill creeping it's way through congress. The bill, which has been blasted by the GOP as "Son of Stimulus", would largely do more of the same that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act did...that is the threefold approach of transfer payments to states to stabilize state governments (to "save" jobs), infrastructure projects (to "create" jobs) and temporary extensions / expansions of various social programs to provide money for the unemployed and needy (to generate consumer demand.)
The approach has its merits as a short-term buffer to an economy still dealing with the aftershocks of a massive financial crisis. My criticism is that the way the original stimulus was laid out, we haven't really had a chance to see how that program, which was designed as a 3-year reshaping of the economy, will really play out.
Here are the latest stats on the first stimulus bill:
Tax Cuts -- $92.8 billion out of $288 billion paid out (32.2%)
Spending -- $164.2 billion out of $499 billion paid out (32.9%)
Total -- $257.0 billion out of $787 billion paid out (32.7%)
With more than two thirds of the first stimulus bill left to spend, why craft another measure?
The answer simply is political reality. Congressional Democrats want people to see they are doing SOMETHING, even if the best course might be to simply let the tools that are already out there work. Liberal economist Paul Krugman, who never believed the first bill was nearly large enough, has been leading the charge for a second stimulus for some time. And it appears likely that SOME sort of jobs bills will pass in the new congress.
But the reality is that we will all have to wait and see whether what they did the first run around will actually work.
Almost 1 Year of Obama
The President of the United States will cross the 1 year in office threshold, 25% of his term, right as voters in Massachusetts are picking a Senator that will potentially represent the 60th vote in the Senate for final passage of health care legislation. It's almost time to break out the red pens and grade the President's year. Given the amazingly high bar he set for himself with his early speech to congress, I suspect when I sit down to write his review, he will have some significant short-comings. The President's inner-circle is fond of talking about him taking the "long view". But you do have to produce results at some point.
So, next up, our 1 year report card on President Obama. We'll look at my assessment of grades against his key initiatives. We'll look at his public opinion polls and the American people's grades of his performance. And we'll tap our old friends at Politifact to look at how well he is keeping his promises. Stay tuned.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
What the Departure of Senators Dodd and Dorgan Means in November, GOP in Striking Distance in Massachusetts?, Other Senate Updates
Lots of news in the world of 2010 Senate races the past few days. Let me break it down.
Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT)'s Retirement
Chris Dodd has represented Connecticut in the Senate for the past 30 years and has frequently won re-election easily, winning by 34% in his most recent re-election in 2004. But it was to be a massive uphill climb for the man who was the Senate's top watchdog over the financial services industry (oops!) and was exposed sneaking a change into the stimulus bill that allowed AIG to pay out massive bonuses after huge TARP fund injections (bigger oops!)
He was trailing prospective GOP opponents by as much as 13% in recent polls and had a huge PR problem. In fact, at the time of his announcement, his seat was the strongest projected change in the entire array of Senate races, being rated a "likely GOP pick-up."
With Dodd gone, this helps the DEMs. They are free to run a candidate in a deep blue state that has not so deeply offended the voting public. Attorney General Mike Blumenthal has announced his candidacy and he is highly popular in the state.
How much more popular than Dodd?
Dodd was trailing prospective GOP candidates by 6 to 13%. Blumenthal, in a just-released Rasmussen poll (validated by a Democratic-afilliated Public Policy Polling poll which showed even wider margins) leads these same candidates by 23 to 24%.
This race is effectively over. The Dems hold the seat.
Move Connecticut almost all the way across the spectrum: it goes from a Likely GOP Pick-up to a Safe Democratic Hold
Senator Byron Dorgan Retires
A different story entirely in North Dakota. Senator Dorgan was in trouble, to be sure. A red-leaning state is a bad place to be in a year that is shaping up to be on the red side to begin with. Couple that with the probably candidacy of a popular Republican Governor, John Hoeven, and you have a "lean GOP pick-up".
Take Dorgan out of the equation and you have....still a lean GOP pick-up. Dorgan wasn't the problem the way Dodd was, the dynamics of North Dakota, the quality of the opposition and the national mood are the key factors in play.
North Dakota remains a Lean GOP Pick-Up.
Could Coakley Actually Lose?
Losing Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in a state among the deepest blue would be a disaster of epic proportions for the Democrats and an ominous sign for November.
Could it actually happen? I doubt that it will. But it has moved from the realm of pure Republican fantasy to the realm of mere improbability. In a stunning closing of the race, a Rasmussen poll released this week shows Coakley with merely a 9 point lead over GOPer Scott Brown. This is a dramatic drop from November polls, which had the margin pegged at 30 or more points.
Make no mistake about it, I expect Coakley to prevail and avoid an outright disaster for the DEMs. But a single-digit win is still an embarrassment in what should be a walk for the DEMs.
Massachusetts moves from a Safe Democratic Hold to a Likely Democratic Hold with a week and a half to go until the special election.
Other Moves
The first New Hampshire senate poll in several months was released this week, conducted by ARG, shows Republican Kelly Ayotte leading Rep. Paul Hodes by 7 points. In the absence of other recent polling, the margin is sufficient enough for me to move this from a Lean Democratic Pick-up to a Lean Republican Hold.
In Arkansas, Senator Blanche Lincoln (D) may have made a very real choice to put her job on the line by supporting health care reform. A Rasmussen poll against 4 potential GOP challengers shows her trailing them all by margins of 8 to 12% after leading by single digits in late November and early December. This race moves from a Lean Democratic Hold to a Lean GOP Pick-up.
I suspect that there are other states that may move to the right as new polling data comes in (Missouri and Pennsylvania jump out, just to point out two), but we'll take the polls as they come in.
Complete rundown soon.
Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT)'s Retirement
Chris Dodd has represented Connecticut in the Senate for the past 30 years and has frequently won re-election easily, winning by 34% in his most recent re-election in 2004. But it was to be a massive uphill climb for the man who was the Senate's top watchdog over the financial services industry (oops!) and was exposed sneaking a change into the stimulus bill that allowed AIG to pay out massive bonuses after huge TARP fund injections (bigger oops!)
He was trailing prospective GOP opponents by as much as 13% in recent polls and had a huge PR problem. In fact, at the time of his announcement, his seat was the strongest projected change in the entire array of Senate races, being rated a "likely GOP pick-up."
With Dodd gone, this helps the DEMs. They are free to run a candidate in a deep blue state that has not so deeply offended the voting public. Attorney General Mike Blumenthal has announced his candidacy and he is highly popular in the state.
How much more popular than Dodd?
Dodd was trailing prospective GOP candidates by 6 to 13%. Blumenthal, in a just-released Rasmussen poll (validated by a Democratic-afilliated Public Policy Polling poll which showed even wider margins) leads these same candidates by 23 to 24%.
This race is effectively over. The Dems hold the seat.
Move Connecticut almost all the way across the spectrum: it goes from a Likely GOP Pick-up to a Safe Democratic Hold
Senator Byron Dorgan Retires
A different story entirely in North Dakota. Senator Dorgan was in trouble, to be sure. A red-leaning state is a bad place to be in a year that is shaping up to be on the red side to begin with. Couple that with the probably candidacy of a popular Republican Governor, John Hoeven, and you have a "lean GOP pick-up".
Take Dorgan out of the equation and you have....still a lean GOP pick-up. Dorgan wasn't the problem the way Dodd was, the dynamics of North Dakota, the quality of the opposition and the national mood are the key factors in play.
North Dakota remains a Lean GOP Pick-Up.
Could Coakley Actually Lose?
Losing Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in a state among the deepest blue would be a disaster of epic proportions for the Democrats and an ominous sign for November.
Could it actually happen? I doubt that it will. But it has moved from the realm of pure Republican fantasy to the realm of mere improbability. In a stunning closing of the race, a Rasmussen poll released this week shows Coakley with merely a 9 point lead over GOPer Scott Brown. This is a dramatic drop from November polls, which had the margin pegged at 30 or more points.
Make no mistake about it, I expect Coakley to prevail and avoid an outright disaster for the DEMs. But a single-digit win is still an embarrassment in what should be a walk for the DEMs.
Massachusetts moves from a Safe Democratic Hold to a Likely Democratic Hold with a week and a half to go until the special election.
Other Moves
The first New Hampshire senate poll in several months was released this week, conducted by ARG, shows Republican Kelly Ayotte leading Rep. Paul Hodes by 7 points. In the absence of other recent polling, the margin is sufficient enough for me to move this from a Lean Democratic Pick-up to a Lean Republican Hold.
In Arkansas, Senator Blanche Lincoln (D) may have made a very real choice to put her job on the line by supporting health care reform. A Rasmussen poll against 4 potential GOP challengers shows her trailing them all by margins of 8 to 12% after leading by single digits in late November and early December. This race moves from a Lean Democratic Hold to a Lean GOP Pick-up.
I suspect that there are other states that may move to the right as new polling data comes in (Missouri and Pennsylvania jump out, just to point out two), but we'll take the polls as they come in.
Complete rundown soon.
Monday, January 4, 2010
An In-Depth Look at Obama's Numbers Heading Into 2010, Terrorism Back in Focus, What To Look For In The Coming Weeks and Months, Predictions for 2010
Taking the "Long View"
It has become conventional wisdom in Washington that President Barack Obama is known for "taking the long view", virtually ignoring the short-term political ramifications of decisions and focusing instead on building a portfolio of policies that he believes will lead him to success over time. Sticking by Tim Geithner, expending massive political capital seeking health care reform, defending a stimulus plan that did little to defray unemployment in the near term are all part of the President's bigger plan, which will pay off over the long term, we are told.
You may believe or not believe that the President's policies will ultimately be successful in achieving their goals. And, frankly, you may agree or disagree with the underlying values that are implied by those goals. But one thing is for sure - while the President himself may have the luxury of taking a long view as he is not on the ballot again for almost 3 years, many of his Democratic partners in Congress do not have the same luxury, as all of Democratic House seats and 19 of the 58 Senate seats controlled by Democrats face elections this year.
So what can we glean of the President's current numbers? Let's start by grounding ourselves in them again. Below is the trend from his past month in his approve minus disapprove. As you can see, the President has remained in the channel between the zero line (an equal split between approval and disapproval) and the 7.2% margin of victory he achieved in 2008. Please note that the recent trends (since December 20th) have been impacted by a lack of available polling data. Gallup and Rasmussen both suspended their polling for a few days each around Christmas and New Year's and no other major national polls have come out in the past two weeks. So, the next few weeks will show if these numbers are still good, but below is what we have as of now.
Looking at the President's monthly numbers, he finished December with at +4.5%, his lowest number to date, down 42.4% from his massive numbers when he took office. This means, essentially, that 21.2% of the population or more than 1 in 5 people have changed their view of the President's performance from positive to negative since early in his term. This is a concerning, but not yet damning trend.
In total for 2009, the President averaged +23.1%, which would be an above-average year for a new President. But that was impacted, obviously, by his very high numbers early in his term and we are nowhere near those big numbers now.
In total, being +4 to +5% wouldn't be too horribly bad under ordinary circumstances. I'm sure that the President would be happy to take a 4 or 5 percentage point win in 2012. But, these are not ordinary circumstances. These are circumstances where Democrats have to defend massive majorities in both houses of congress.
Bear in mind, the House that is up for re-election in 2010 was elected in November 2008, when the President won by a 7.2% margin. Therefore, any Presidential approval numbers below that 7.2% spread imply losses in the fall for Democrats in the House. And there were a number of very close races in 2008 -- 6 within 1 percentage point, 11 within 2% and 23 within the President's margin of victory of 7.2%. Worse yet, Congressional Democrats, while they actually outperformed the President in total in 2008 (their aggregate vote margin in the House was about 9%) are underperforming him in current polling.
The Senate is a more complicated situation. Certainly Democrats are being hurt by the drag on their polls in close, open races such as Ohio and Missouri. But they are also a victim of individual failings, such as Chris Dodd's situation with AIG which may cost them a race that they should be winning easily, even in a down year, in Connecticut or the Blago/Roland Burris scandal, which has made a race in Illinois that should be a no-brainer a pick 'em. Republicans have also drafted some good candidates, such as Rep. Mike Castle in Delaware, a true Northeastern moderate, who has a real chance at claiming that seat for the GOP.
So, circumstances are conspiring against the Democrats. But all is not lost. If you look at how much ground the President lost in year one, amidst bloody battles on the stimulus bill and health care and while the economy continued to sag, it could all reverse just as quickly if unemployment turns upward, which it appears poised to do. The problem that they will face is that public perception about the economy tends to lag reality -- just ask former President George Herbert-Walker Bush, who got destroyed, receiving only 38% of the vote right as the economy was roaring back to life in 1992.
It seems inevitable that the Democrats will lose seats, certainly in the House and most likely in the Senate in November. Whether it is simply a minor correction (say 3 or 4 seats in the Senate and 20 or 25 seats in the House) or a 1994-style blood-letting (say 10 seats in the Senate and 40 to 50 seats in the House) remains to be seen. The best thing the Democrats can do is get healthcare down fast and move on to other issues, mainly the economy.
The National Security Dialogue Resumes
For a while in 2009, you could have forgotten that we were fighting two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and that the focus of the political world from 2001 through the first half of 2008 had been all about terrorism, radical Islam and Al Qaeda. The focus of the political world was on the economy and health care. Two things have brought this issue back to being front and center: the President's decision to commit additional troops to Afghanistan and the attempted bombing of a Northwest / Delta flight from Amsterdam to Detroit.
We have been reminded again that people are still trying to kill Americans. We are also reminded of just how tricky fighting Al Qaeda radicals is. They were based out of Afghanistan. Now, while they are still there in small numbers, they are based in Pakistan but also operate camps in Yemen, Somalia and many, many other pockets throughout the middle east and Africa. Clearly, we can't win this by fighting them country by country, as we have been more or less attempting.
Nor can we realistically put in place security protocols that preclude a future attack. Sure, we are stepping up procedures in response to the attempted bombing. But, once again, we are chasing what Al Qaeda has already attempted, not what they will attempt next. Who is to say that the next attempt won't be on a train? A chemical factory? A nuclear power plant? A hazmat truck? How good do you feel about the security in these places?
The simple truth, that nobody wants to hear, but that I've said many times is that you CANNOT prevent terrorist attacks while retaining a free society. The shear volume of people that move through commercial airports, trains and roads precludes it. Not that we shouldn't attempt to put common sense security protocols in place, but let's not give the false sense that we can ever be in complete control. And let's not overplay the risk....on September 11th, the worst day in aviation history, you were still more likely to be killed driving a car a mile than flying a mile.
Things to Look for Upcoming
Health Care -- negotiations between the House and the Senate get kicked off in earnest in about a week. Look first to what process is going to be used -- a formal conference committee or something less formal. Also, look to see how the pressure from other states on the sweetheart deal Ben Nelson got for Nebraska impacts the final deal, keeping in mind that the Dems must retain Nelson in order to win final passage. If you don't see a vote by early February, the bill is in trouble.
State of the Union -- look for the President to focus on two themes -- the economy and terrorism. He has to. They are what is on everyone's mind. Also, look to see if he signals a willingness to drop Cap and Trade this year or if he forges ahead with another ambitious year.
Special Election in Massachusetts -- looks to see if it is closer than expected. Nobody seriously expects the GOP to win, but if they are within 15 points, it is a dangerous sign for the Dems heading into November.
Predictions for 2010
I've been known to get these horribly wrong, but I'll try anyway:
(1) President Obama will sign a health care bill into law in late February that looks a lot like the version the Senate passed on December 24th.
(2) A Cap and Trade bill will NOT pass the Senate before the mid-term elections, despite a push from the White House.
(3) President Obama's numbers will bottom out in February or March and then rise modestly the rest of the year as unemployment falls, ending the year between 8.5% and 9.0%
(4) Republicans gain ground in both the House and the Senate, but retake neither, picking up 30 House seats and 5 Senate seats. The Blue Dogs gain even more clout and talk the White House into a monthly breakfast to discuss their issues as they now hold the key swing votes.
(5) Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin all announce their candidacy for President. Palin leads with a plurality in early polling.
(6) Gitmo is still not entirely closed on December 31st.
(7) The President shows that his "deadline" for drawdown in Afghanistan is more flexible than we all thought.
Thanks for reading....if you like this site, tell your friends.
It has become conventional wisdom in Washington that President Barack Obama is known for "taking the long view", virtually ignoring the short-term political ramifications of decisions and focusing instead on building a portfolio of policies that he believes will lead him to success over time. Sticking by Tim Geithner, expending massive political capital seeking health care reform, defending a stimulus plan that did little to defray unemployment in the near term are all part of the President's bigger plan, which will pay off over the long term, we are told.
You may believe or not believe that the President's policies will ultimately be successful in achieving their goals. And, frankly, you may agree or disagree with the underlying values that are implied by those goals. But one thing is for sure - while the President himself may have the luxury of taking a long view as he is not on the ballot again for almost 3 years, many of his Democratic partners in Congress do not have the same luxury, as all of Democratic House seats and 19 of the 58 Senate seats controlled by Democrats face elections this year.
So what can we glean of the President's current numbers? Let's start by grounding ourselves in them again. Below is the trend from his past month in his approve minus disapprove. As you can see, the President has remained in the channel between the zero line (an equal split between approval and disapproval) and the 7.2% margin of victory he achieved in 2008. Please note that the recent trends (since December 20th) have been impacted by a lack of available polling data. Gallup and Rasmussen both suspended their polling for a few days each around Christmas and New Year's and no other major national polls have come out in the past two weeks. So, the next few weeks will show if these numbers are still good, but below is what we have as of now.
Looking at the President's monthly numbers, he finished December with at +4.5%, his lowest number to date, down 42.4% from his massive numbers when he took office. This means, essentially, that 21.2% of the population or more than 1 in 5 people have changed their view of the President's performance from positive to negative since early in his term. This is a concerning, but not yet damning trend.
In total for 2009, the President averaged +23.1%, which would be an above-average year for a new President. But that was impacted, obviously, by his very high numbers early in his term and we are nowhere near those big numbers now.
In total, being +4 to +5% wouldn't be too horribly bad under ordinary circumstances. I'm sure that the President would be happy to take a 4 or 5 percentage point win in 2012. But, these are not ordinary circumstances. These are circumstances where Democrats have to defend massive majorities in both houses of congress.
Bear in mind, the House that is up for re-election in 2010 was elected in November 2008, when the President won by a 7.2% margin. Therefore, any Presidential approval numbers below that 7.2% spread imply losses in the fall for Democrats in the House. And there were a number of very close races in 2008 -- 6 within 1 percentage point, 11 within 2% and 23 within the President's margin of victory of 7.2%. Worse yet, Congressional Democrats, while they actually outperformed the President in total in 2008 (their aggregate vote margin in the House was about 9%) are underperforming him in current polling.
The Senate is a more complicated situation. Certainly Democrats are being hurt by the drag on their polls in close, open races such as Ohio and Missouri. But they are also a victim of individual failings, such as Chris Dodd's situation with AIG which may cost them a race that they should be winning easily, even in a down year, in Connecticut or the Blago/Roland Burris scandal, which has made a race in Illinois that should be a no-brainer a pick 'em. Republicans have also drafted some good candidates, such as Rep. Mike Castle in Delaware, a true Northeastern moderate, who has a real chance at claiming that seat for the GOP.
So, circumstances are conspiring against the Democrats. But all is not lost. If you look at how much ground the President lost in year one, amidst bloody battles on the stimulus bill and health care and while the economy continued to sag, it could all reverse just as quickly if unemployment turns upward, which it appears poised to do. The problem that they will face is that public perception about the economy tends to lag reality -- just ask former President George Herbert-Walker Bush, who got destroyed, receiving only 38% of the vote right as the economy was roaring back to life in 1992.
It seems inevitable that the Democrats will lose seats, certainly in the House and most likely in the Senate in November. Whether it is simply a minor correction (say 3 or 4 seats in the Senate and 20 or 25 seats in the House) or a 1994-style blood-letting (say 10 seats in the Senate and 40 to 50 seats in the House) remains to be seen. The best thing the Democrats can do is get healthcare down fast and move on to other issues, mainly the economy.
The National Security Dialogue Resumes
For a while in 2009, you could have forgotten that we were fighting two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and that the focus of the political world from 2001 through the first half of 2008 had been all about terrorism, radical Islam and Al Qaeda. The focus of the political world was on the economy and health care. Two things have brought this issue back to being front and center: the President's decision to commit additional troops to Afghanistan and the attempted bombing of a Northwest / Delta flight from Amsterdam to Detroit.
We have been reminded again that people are still trying to kill Americans. We are also reminded of just how tricky fighting Al Qaeda radicals is. They were based out of Afghanistan. Now, while they are still there in small numbers, they are based in Pakistan but also operate camps in Yemen, Somalia and many, many other pockets throughout the middle east and Africa. Clearly, we can't win this by fighting them country by country, as we have been more or less attempting.
Nor can we realistically put in place security protocols that preclude a future attack. Sure, we are stepping up procedures in response to the attempted bombing. But, once again, we are chasing what Al Qaeda has already attempted, not what they will attempt next. Who is to say that the next attempt won't be on a train? A chemical factory? A nuclear power plant? A hazmat truck? How good do you feel about the security in these places?
The simple truth, that nobody wants to hear, but that I've said many times is that you CANNOT prevent terrorist attacks while retaining a free society. The shear volume of people that move through commercial airports, trains and roads precludes it. Not that we shouldn't attempt to put common sense security protocols in place, but let's not give the false sense that we can ever be in complete control. And let's not overplay the risk....on September 11th, the worst day in aviation history, you were still more likely to be killed driving a car a mile than flying a mile.
Things to Look for Upcoming
Health Care -- negotiations between the House and the Senate get kicked off in earnest in about a week. Look first to what process is going to be used -- a formal conference committee or something less formal. Also, look to see how the pressure from other states on the sweetheart deal Ben Nelson got for Nebraska impacts the final deal, keeping in mind that the Dems must retain Nelson in order to win final passage. If you don't see a vote by early February, the bill is in trouble.
State of the Union -- look for the President to focus on two themes -- the economy and terrorism. He has to. They are what is on everyone's mind. Also, look to see if he signals a willingness to drop Cap and Trade this year or if he forges ahead with another ambitious year.
Special Election in Massachusetts -- looks to see if it is closer than expected. Nobody seriously expects the GOP to win, but if they are within 15 points, it is a dangerous sign for the Dems heading into November.
Predictions for 2010
I've been known to get these horribly wrong, but I'll try anyway:
(1) President Obama will sign a health care bill into law in late February that looks a lot like the version the Senate passed on December 24th.
(2) A Cap and Trade bill will NOT pass the Senate before the mid-term elections, despite a push from the White House.
(3) President Obama's numbers will bottom out in February or March and then rise modestly the rest of the year as unemployment falls, ending the year between 8.5% and 9.0%
(4) Republicans gain ground in both the House and the Senate, but retake neither, picking up 30 House seats and 5 Senate seats. The Blue Dogs gain even more clout and talk the White House into a monthly breakfast to discuss their issues as they now hold the key swing votes.
(5) Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin all announce their candidacy for President. Palin leads with a plurality in early polling.
(6) Gitmo is still not entirely closed on December 31st.
(7) The President shows that his "deadline" for drawdown in Afghanistan is more flexible than we all thought.
Thanks for reading....if you like this site, tell your friends.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Happy 2010! Welcome to the Cabinet Dead Pool
It is inevitable -- in Presidential administrations, key staff members leave. Some leave because they burn out after a few years in high-profile, thankless and frankly, fairly low-paying jobs. Some leave because they come to have policy differences with the President (think Christie Todd Whitman and Colin Powell.) Some leave because of public fire or because the President just feels there is a need to make a change (think Donald Rumsfeld.) But ultimately, no President holds his entire cabinet together, even for 4 years.
So, in the spirit of the New Year and the pending second year of the Obama Administration, I thought I'd rate our "cabinet dead pool" on the probability that each member will survive 2010 in their current job.
Department of State -- Hillary Rodham Clinton
There was a lot of speculation early on that Clinton was not in Obama's inner-circle, that her appointment was simply an example of "keep your friends close and your enemies closer" and that Hillary would quickly tire of being a senior official in name only, with the real foreign policy decisions being made behind closed doors with the Vice-President and Secretary of Defense Gates driving the policy.
To my eyes, Clinton has done what she tends to do when she gets a new job -- she has gone to work. She has been quietly effective, if not omnipresent in front of the camera. During her actually fairly low-profile Senate career, Hillary was a worker not a glory seeker and the same seems to be the case here. Whether he ambitions will get the best of her over the course of the term remains to be seen, but for now, she seems unlikely to leave and the President seems extremely unlikely to ask her to.
Odds of Departure in 2010: 5%
Department of the Treasury -- Timothy Geithner
Geithner certainly got off to a rocky start. Blistering criticism from the right on his tax dodges (or "errors", if you like) and a poorly received mortgage bailout plan early on had many clamoring for his ouster very early on. As time has passed, the criticism seems to have waned and Geithner's job seems safe for now. The work he and Ben Bernake did on TARP in the waning days of the Bush Administration looks better now than it did a year ago and while Geithner does not appear to be in Obama's inner circle, his skill set is pretty unique and not something that is likely to be found in one of Obama's Chicago friends or from anyone he knew from his Senate days.
Odds of Departure in 2010: 5%
Department of Defense -- Robert Gates
It was all supposed to be a temporary arrangement -- the rumor around Washington was that Gates agreed to stay exactly one year in the new administration when he came on board an no more. Gates, perhaps the most high-profile of all Obama cabinet members has been coy with the press, saying that he "serves at the pleasure of the President" but that it is "unlikely" that he will stay in the job for all of Obama's term. Still, clearly the year will pass without Gates leaving, there hasn't been a peep of a rumor about his departure in the past few months and Gates clearly has been effective in influencing policy (the Afghanistan strategy is largely his brain child as were modifications to the military budget to scrap expensive F-22's in favor of more enlisted troops) and most decidedly is President Obama's go-to guy on Defense policy. If he leaves, it is likely to be in the second half of the year and, in the continuation of his practice of doing things the right way, only after a successor is in place. President Obama should seek to hold on to Gates for as long as he can.
Odds of Departure in 2010: 50%
Department of Justice -- Eric Holder
There were probably better ways for Holder to introduce himself to the nation than to call us all a "nation of cowards" on race, although his point wasn't entirely wrong, but Holder seems to have weathered that storm as well as the criticism at his confirmation hearing about his role in Rich pardon while part of the Clinton-era Justice Department. Holder has been effective on a number of fronts, backing off federal prosecution of medical marijuana cases, vacating the prosecution against former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens and starting to bring terrorists to trial in the US. It seems Holder is always at the center of controversy, but he IS, undoubtedly in Obama's inner circle and as such, his job is pretty safe, unless he REALLY steps in it in the new year.
Odds of Departure in 2010: 10%
Department of Interior -- Ken Salazar
The former Colorado Senator appears to be having the time of his life, is generating no controversy and frankly, isn't in a very high-profile cabinet department. He is very safe.
Odds of Departure in 2010: 2%
Department of Agriculture Tom Vilsack
Frankly, most of us probably forgot he even had this job. He has been very low-profile, although that could obviously change if there is a mad cow or hoof-in-mouth disease scare in the next year. Still, he is very well-liked on a bi-partisan basis and has generated no waves so far.
Odds of Departure in 2010: 2%
Department of Commerce -- Gary Locke
President Obama's third pick for the Commerce Department (after his first two fell apart for various reasons) has a big task in 2010 -- execution of the census. We haven't heard a ton form Secretary Locke yet, but expect his profile to increase. And expect there to be the requisite controversy that always accompanies the census -- how the homeless are counted, how illegals are counted, whether statistical sampling will be used for funding purposes (the Supreme Court has already ruled that it cannot be used for House and Electoral allocation purposes.) Still, Locke is a seasoned political veteran nearing the end of his career. It's hard to imagine him departing this year.
Odds of Departure in 2010: 3%
Department of Labor -- Hilda Solis
The subject of a confirmation fight for her unapologetically pro-union political stands, Secretary Solis has taken a lower profile in the first year of the Obama Administration. The union's crown jewel of legislation, the Employee Free Choice Act has not seen Congressional action yet, although the new Administration, at the urging of the Labor Secretary, has issued several executive orders favorable to public service unions. Secretary Solis certainly has a better job than when she was in Congress and doesn't have an obvious next step politically (she could be a Senate candidate down the road in California, but right now there are no Democratic vacancies.)
Odds of Departure in 2010: 3%
Department of Health and Human Services -- Kathleen Sebelius
Among the higher profile Obama administration officials, Secretary Sebelius has been central in the fight for universal healthcare. She appears NOT to be in the Obama inner circle and as such at times appeared off-message during the debate. Her real test will be if a reform plan IS passed in overseeing the implementation, which could be a make-or-break for her career. She also seems to still have political clout back home, although the calendar would seem to preclude a 2010 Senate run at this point.
Odds of Departure in 2010: 5%
Department of Housing and Urban Development -- Shaun Donovan
Another Obama inner-circle member who seems to have created no controversy, even on the right. His job is very safe.
Odds of Departure in 2010: 2%
Secretary of Transportation -- Ray Lahood
One of Obama's Republican appointees, Lahood is a quirky guy. He can come off as oddly combative in interviews sometimes, has some controversial ideas (like taxing automobile mileage) and seems like a bit of a loose cannon. He is decidedly not an inner-circle member and seems like he could part ways with the administration at any time. Still, where would he go? He isn't going to be a statewide candidate for either party at this point and it frankly seems unlikely he could even win back his old seat in congress.
Odds of Departure in 2010: 10%
Department of Energy -- Steven Chu
A career scientist, not a politician, Chu is an exceptionally bright individual. He has been low-profile thus far, probably a product of the fact that he is more effective at speaking to scientists than to the general public. Chu has generated no controversy, although that could certainly change as debates ensue about Cap and Trade and the green economy and he is dispatched with greater frequency. Still, I would find it highly surprising to see Chu depart this year.
Odds of Departure in 2010: 3%
Secretary of Education -- Arne Duncan
As bright and articulate as he has proved to be unconventional, Chicago-insider Arne Duncan has been a breath of fresh air in stale debates over educational reform. He has the President's ear, possibly more than any other cabinet member, and is well-liked on both sides of capital hill.
Odds of Departure in 2010: 2%
Department of Veterans Affairs -- Eric Shinseki
A decorated ex-officer running Veterans Affairs -- he has the best possible job with his credentials and is well-liked on both sides of the aisles. He isn't leaving.
Odds of Departure in 2010: 2%
Department of Homeland Security -- Janet Napolitano
It's been a tough few weeks for Napolitano. Her "the system worked" gaffe harkened back for many to the George W. Bush's tone-deaf "you're doing a heck of a job, Brownie" and convinced many that she is out of touch with the threat that exists in the US. Napolitano has been extremely high profile between the Mexican drug wars, the Fort Hood shootings and the Christmas Day bombing attempt and has not always appeared in the best light. She gave up an opportunity to oppose John McCain in Arizona in 2010 to come onboard and may ultimately regret doing so. Still, the Obama Administration has repeatedly stated that her job is not at risk and it seems likely she will survive the year.
Odds of Departure in 2010: 15%
So, there you have it. I rate Gates (50%) by far the most likely to depart this year, Napolitano (15%) second and Holder (10%) and Lahood (10%) tied for third. In total, my percentages would imply a 71% probability of at least one Obama cabinet member departing this year.
Don't agree? Have another leader in your "dead pool"? Let me know.
Happy New Year's everyone.
So, in the spirit of the New Year and the pending second year of the Obama Administration, I thought I'd rate our "cabinet dead pool" on the probability that each member will survive 2010 in their current job.
Department of State -- Hillary Rodham Clinton
There was a lot of speculation early on that Clinton was not in Obama's inner-circle, that her appointment was simply an example of "keep your friends close and your enemies closer" and that Hillary would quickly tire of being a senior official in name only, with the real foreign policy decisions being made behind closed doors with the Vice-President and Secretary of Defense Gates driving the policy.
To my eyes, Clinton has done what she tends to do when she gets a new job -- she has gone to work. She has been quietly effective, if not omnipresent in front of the camera. During her actually fairly low-profile Senate career, Hillary was a worker not a glory seeker and the same seems to be the case here. Whether he ambitions will get the best of her over the course of the term remains to be seen, but for now, she seems unlikely to leave and the President seems extremely unlikely to ask her to.
Odds of Departure in 2010: 5%
Department of the Treasury -- Timothy Geithner
Geithner certainly got off to a rocky start. Blistering criticism from the right on his tax dodges (or "errors", if you like) and a poorly received mortgage bailout plan early on had many clamoring for his ouster very early on. As time has passed, the criticism seems to have waned and Geithner's job seems safe for now. The work he and Ben Bernake did on TARP in the waning days of the Bush Administration looks better now than it did a year ago and while Geithner does not appear to be in Obama's inner circle, his skill set is pretty unique and not something that is likely to be found in one of Obama's Chicago friends or from anyone he knew from his Senate days.
Odds of Departure in 2010: 5%
Department of Defense -- Robert Gates
It was all supposed to be a temporary arrangement -- the rumor around Washington was that Gates agreed to stay exactly one year in the new administration when he came on board an no more. Gates, perhaps the most high-profile of all Obama cabinet members has been coy with the press, saying that he "serves at the pleasure of the President" but that it is "unlikely" that he will stay in the job for all of Obama's term. Still, clearly the year will pass without Gates leaving, there hasn't been a peep of a rumor about his departure in the past few months and Gates clearly has been effective in influencing policy (the Afghanistan strategy is largely his brain child as were modifications to the military budget to scrap expensive F-22's in favor of more enlisted troops) and most decidedly is President Obama's go-to guy on Defense policy. If he leaves, it is likely to be in the second half of the year and, in the continuation of his practice of doing things the right way, only after a successor is in place. President Obama should seek to hold on to Gates for as long as he can.
Odds of Departure in 2010: 50%
Department of Justice -- Eric Holder
There were probably better ways for Holder to introduce himself to the nation than to call us all a "nation of cowards" on race, although his point wasn't entirely wrong, but Holder seems to have weathered that storm as well as the criticism at his confirmation hearing about his role in Rich pardon while part of the Clinton-era Justice Department. Holder has been effective on a number of fronts, backing off federal prosecution of medical marijuana cases, vacating the prosecution against former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens and starting to bring terrorists to trial in the US. It seems Holder is always at the center of controversy, but he IS, undoubtedly in Obama's inner circle and as such, his job is pretty safe, unless he REALLY steps in it in the new year.
Odds of Departure in 2010: 10%
Department of Interior -- Ken Salazar
The former Colorado Senator appears to be having the time of his life, is generating no controversy and frankly, isn't in a very high-profile cabinet department. He is very safe.
Odds of Departure in 2010: 2%
Department of Agriculture Tom Vilsack
Frankly, most of us probably forgot he even had this job. He has been very low-profile, although that could obviously change if there is a mad cow or hoof-in-mouth disease scare in the next year. Still, he is very well-liked on a bi-partisan basis and has generated no waves so far.
Odds of Departure in 2010: 2%
Department of Commerce -- Gary Locke
President Obama's third pick for the Commerce Department (after his first two fell apart for various reasons) has a big task in 2010 -- execution of the census. We haven't heard a ton form Secretary Locke yet, but expect his profile to increase. And expect there to be the requisite controversy that always accompanies the census -- how the homeless are counted, how illegals are counted, whether statistical sampling will be used for funding purposes (the Supreme Court has already ruled that it cannot be used for House and Electoral allocation purposes.) Still, Locke is a seasoned political veteran nearing the end of his career. It's hard to imagine him departing this year.
Odds of Departure in 2010: 3%
Department of Labor -- Hilda Solis
The subject of a confirmation fight for her unapologetically pro-union political stands, Secretary Solis has taken a lower profile in the first year of the Obama Administration. The union's crown jewel of legislation, the Employee Free Choice Act has not seen Congressional action yet, although the new Administration, at the urging of the Labor Secretary, has issued several executive orders favorable to public service unions. Secretary Solis certainly has a better job than when she was in Congress and doesn't have an obvious next step politically (she could be a Senate candidate down the road in California, but right now there are no Democratic vacancies.)
Odds of Departure in 2010: 3%
Department of Health and Human Services -- Kathleen Sebelius
Among the higher profile Obama administration officials, Secretary Sebelius has been central in the fight for universal healthcare. She appears NOT to be in the Obama inner circle and as such at times appeared off-message during the debate. Her real test will be if a reform plan IS passed in overseeing the implementation, which could be a make-or-break for her career. She also seems to still have political clout back home, although the calendar would seem to preclude a 2010 Senate run at this point.
Odds of Departure in 2010: 5%
Department of Housing and Urban Development -- Shaun Donovan
Another Obama inner-circle member who seems to have created no controversy, even on the right. His job is very safe.
Odds of Departure in 2010: 2%
Secretary of Transportation -- Ray Lahood
One of Obama's Republican appointees, Lahood is a quirky guy. He can come off as oddly combative in interviews sometimes, has some controversial ideas (like taxing automobile mileage) and seems like a bit of a loose cannon. He is decidedly not an inner-circle member and seems like he could part ways with the administration at any time. Still, where would he go? He isn't going to be a statewide candidate for either party at this point and it frankly seems unlikely he could even win back his old seat in congress.
Odds of Departure in 2010: 10%
Department of Energy -- Steven Chu
A career scientist, not a politician, Chu is an exceptionally bright individual. He has been low-profile thus far, probably a product of the fact that he is more effective at speaking to scientists than to the general public. Chu has generated no controversy, although that could certainly change as debates ensue about Cap and Trade and the green economy and he is dispatched with greater frequency. Still, I would find it highly surprising to see Chu depart this year.
Odds of Departure in 2010: 3%
Secretary of Education -- Arne Duncan
As bright and articulate as he has proved to be unconventional, Chicago-insider Arne Duncan has been a breath of fresh air in stale debates over educational reform. He has the President's ear, possibly more than any other cabinet member, and is well-liked on both sides of capital hill.
Odds of Departure in 2010: 2%
Department of Veterans Affairs -- Eric Shinseki
A decorated ex-officer running Veterans Affairs -- he has the best possible job with his credentials and is well-liked on both sides of the aisles. He isn't leaving.
Odds of Departure in 2010: 2%
Department of Homeland Security -- Janet Napolitano
It's been a tough few weeks for Napolitano. Her "the system worked" gaffe harkened back for many to the George W. Bush's tone-deaf "you're doing a heck of a job, Brownie" and convinced many that she is out of touch with the threat that exists in the US. Napolitano has been extremely high profile between the Mexican drug wars, the Fort Hood shootings and the Christmas Day bombing attempt and has not always appeared in the best light. She gave up an opportunity to oppose John McCain in Arizona in 2010 to come onboard and may ultimately regret doing so. Still, the Obama Administration has repeatedly stated that her job is not at risk and it seems likely she will survive the year.
Odds of Departure in 2010: 15%
So, there you have it. I rate Gates (50%) by far the most likely to depart this year, Napolitano (15%) second and Holder (10%) and Lahood (10%) tied for third. In total, my percentages would imply a 71% probability of at least one Obama cabinet member departing this year.
Don't agree? Have another leader in your "dead pool"? Let me know.
Happy New Year's everyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
