The Next Hurrah

The Table. Impeachment: Off; Waterboarding: On.

by Kagro X

(New record for categories, perhaps?)

Just wanted to drop you all a note to let you know I didn't jump out the window after Nancy Pelosi's "pledge" to Lesley Stahl last weekend on 60 Minutes.

I think the "impeachment's a bad election theme" analysis has been pretty well played out, by this point. And let's face it, that kind of Kindergarten analysis isn't what you come to TNH for, is it?

Of course not.

So let's try some first grade stuff. Then we'll get to the waterboarding.

Updating the House Races: The Conundrums

By Mimikatz

If I am obsessed with taking back the House, it is because of my distress at the almost incalculable damage that the GOP has done to this country and the world in the past six years. If I am lucky, I will live another 25 years, and it will probably take that long to undo the damage done in the past 6 years. 

I support the Democrats (and always have) because I believe in international relations not imperial fiats, in diplomacy first and war only as a resort in self-defense or defense of allies, in more opportunity and equality, better education, broader prosperity, fairer taxation, curbs on exploitation and excessive greed in the marketplace, sustainable energy, environmental and agricultural policies, basic healthcare and retirement security for everyone, a sphere of personal liberty and privacy, and passing something better on to the next generation, not a world ravaged by war, pollution and debt.  I am old enough to remember the days when Democratic control meant problems were attacked, sometimes even solved. I am absolutely certain that there is a far, far greater chance that we will come nearer to any and all of the goals I care about with the Democrats in power. 

Will we make it?  I still think so, although the picture is in some ways murkier.  There are so many polls, but they are now so contradictory in some cases that some of them have to be plain wrong, even as snapshots.  Take NY-20, for example.  Since August 28 there have been 6 polls, showing everything from a 13-point lead for Gillebrand (Constituent Dynamics) on October 18 to a 14-point lead for Sweeney (Siena) the very next day.  Both can't be right.  But firms that have polled more than once show a race trending in Gillebrand's direction (with similar indications in other upstate NY races), and that may be the most we can say. 

The big differences among polls at this point are probably differences in how they identify likely voters, how far to push respondents and how to account for seeming shifts in party ID in getting a representative sample.  More people in surveys appear to be identifying themselves as Democrats. A majority is definitely angry and disillusioned about Iraq, Bush and the GOP in general.  Is this a temporary shift?  And most important, will they vote?  Or will the hard-core GOP voters turnout in droves to support their party as they have in the past?  Who has the best GOTV?  And who cares more?  Will enough Dems vote to tip all those carefully gerrymandered seats in NY, PA and elsewhere? 

And then there is money.  The Dems finally have enough money to be able not only to fund the most competitive races (some might say over-fund) , but also some of the newly competitive races.  But infusions of GOP cash may yet save Tom Reynolds in NY-26 or Joy Padgett in OH-18 and some of the newly endangered GOPers. 

But my answer is still yes.  The Dems should take the open seats in AZ-08, CO-07, FL-13, FL-16, IA-01, MN-06, NY-24, TX-22, where they are leading, and at least one or two more that are closer--IL-06, OH-18 or WI-08, and then maybe even CO-05, ID-01, or NE-03, although those are real longshots.  That's 9-10 seats.

Then the Dems should knock off at least 8 -10 incumbents.  Most likely in IN-08 (Hostettler), IN-02 (Chocola), NC-11 (Taylor), NM-01 (Wilson), OH-15 (Pryce), PA-06 (Gerlach), 07 (Weldon) and 10 (Sherwood).  Maybe in CT 02 (Simmons) or CT-04 (Shays) or both, maybe FL-22 (Shaw), KY-03 (Northrop) or KY-04 (Davis), or NY-26 (Reynolds).  Maybe VA-02 (Drake) or WA-08 (Reichert), although that race seems stuck at -3 for Darcy Burner.  With some margin for error, including one or two Dem seats lost, that is enough to give the Dems control.  But wait--there's more! 

What Happened To All Those Safe Seats?

It has been common wisdom for so long--gerrymandering created so many safe GOP seats that they could never lose the House.  Yet now they stand on the brink of defeat, and the only question is how big will it be?  How did this happen?  What happened to all those safe seats?

The Cook Political Report is generally recognized to be objective, not partisan.  They post a Competitive House Race Chart every two or three weeks (weekly now), in pdf format, and they are available on their website by going to the linked page and clicking on the desired date.  They show the seats held by each party that are considered toss-ups, lean (party) and likely (party), with the remainder considered safe seats.  Right after Bush's inauguration they posted their first chart for 2006.  It showed the Dems with 183 safe seats, exactly what they have now.  In fact, the entire cycle the Dems have never fallen below 180 safe seats, out of a total of 202 they hold.  (Sanders is counted with the Dems.)   On January 21, 2005 the Dems had 4 tossup seats, 8 lean Dem and 7 likely Dem, a total of  12 competitive and 7 potentially competitive seats.  Now they have no Dem seats that are considered toss-ups, 13 lean Dem (of which 4 are GOP-held) and 10 likely Dem, a bit of an improvement.

The Republicans started the cycle with more seats at risk.  They had 204 safe seats, with only 2 considered toss-ups (IN-09 and PA-06, presumably because of the close vote in 2004), 16 lean GOP and 11 likely GOP, for a total of 18 competitive and 11 potentially competitive seats.  With yesterday's revisions, the GOP now has only 170 safe seats in the Cook Report's opinion.  Four seats are lean Dem (AZ-08, CO-07, FL-16 and TX-22), 25 are toss-ups, 16 are lean GOP and 17 are likely GOP.  That's 45 competitive GOP-held seats and 17 more that are potentially competitive, three of which were added yesterday, AZ-01, CA-50 and KS-02.  I would also add NE-03, which CQ just upgraded, and WA-05. 

The GOP seemed initially to be in great shape.  By June 17,  2005 the GOP was up to 206 safe seats, and the Dems were down to 180 safe seats, a formidable situation for the Dems.  But many of the 18 competitive and 9 potentially competitive GOP-held seats were already open seats, or soon would be, with some Republican representatives retiring and some seeking higher office.  It was a gradually accelerating decline from there, as more and more seats that were supposedly safe became less so. One year later, in the June 7, 2006 chart, the GOP was down to 191 safe seats to 181 for the Dems.  The Dems had two toss-ups, while the GOP had 9.  Ominously, there were now 24 GOP-held seats listed as likely GOP, or potentially competitive.  Then  . . . .

Updating the Races: The Micro Picture

In an interesting article and followup, Ruy Teixeira commented on the macro and micro pictures in the Congressional races.  DemfromCT keeps us up to date on the macro forces--generic polls, right track/wrong track numbers, Bush's approval and the like.  Here's an update on the micro picture, as the fallout from the Foley matter and the worsening pictrue in Iraq take their toll.

Overall, what we are seeing is some races hardening for one candidate or another (mostly, but not all, in the Dem direction) and other races previously thought to be safe Republican suddently move into the picture for one reason or another. A whole raft of new polls from Constituent Dynamics confirms these trends.  They polled 49 districts and found strong Dem leads in 19 of these and weaker leads in 9, with 6 ties.  They included a few Dem-held seats, but  most are GOP seats.

The GOP faces three really crucial and intertwined problems.  First is the decapitation of its leadership, in particular Speaker Dennis Hastert and NRCC Chair Tom Reynolds, who suddenly finds himself behind in the polls because of the Foley scandal.  Rove has been forced to pinch-hiot at fundraisers.  (For a good rundown on Foley's effect in key races see here.)  Second is the spreading of the field, as more Dem incumbents look to be safe and more GOP incumbents look endangered.  (See more from Larry Sabato.)  Ironically, the downside of gerrymandering is that in a "wave" election the more marginal, gerrymandered seats that gave the GOP its margin of victory now become endangered, increasing the risk of a large GOP loss. 

The third factor is money.  Just as the GOP must play defense on a larger canvas than ever in my memory, money is becoming a problem.  There has been no reporting that I have seen on what it has meant to the GOP to have Jack Abramoff's ATM machine shut off, but it has to have hurt.  In addition, this is the point where business starts to hedge its bets by giving to Dems, cancelling out some of its giving to the GOP.  The upshot is that there appear to be few Democrats in danger of defeat, so Dems can spend their money on offense, while the GOP must try to spread its money over a larger and larger field.  This will virtually wipe out the traditional GOP financial advantage.

So where are we?  Based on recent polls, in my estimation all but a few Dem seats (GA-08 and 12, IL-08) are safe.  Of GOP-held seats, at least 14 seats now appear to be going to the Dems.  Another 9 seats are tossups leaning Dem, 10 more are possible Dem pickups but lean R, another 15 likely GOP but not necessarily, and at least 15 seats where there is an outside possibility of a Dem pickup.  Thus, at this moment it looks to me like a Dem pickup of 20-30+ seats.  Events can always alter this prospect, but this is the best the Dems have looked since 1982.

Blue Skies, Blue Voters

By Mimikatz

While the White House is in disarray and the House leadership scrambles to cover its part in the Foley scandal, out of the view of the pundits, Western voters are increasingly looking bluer.  As the SF Chronicle reports, the Dems already control four of the statehouses in the mountain West, took control of the Colorado Legislature in 2004 and are competitive in a surprising number of congressional races. 

As the GOP solidified its hold on the South and became increasingly identified with the organized Religious Right, it began losing adherents not only in the Northeast, but in the Libertarian West.  The overzealous, intrusive fights against abortion and gay marriage, like the Terri Schiavo episode, do not play well in an area where independence is prized and many folks just want to be left alone.  In addition, the GOP's alliance with developers increasingly does not sit well with locals who treasure the unique beauty of the American West and the recreational opportunities it provides.  Turning public lands over to extractive industries and private developers, both of whom restrict access at best and destroy resources at worst, is increasingly seen as threatening what is unique about the Western way of life. 

Finally, there are demographic changes.  Emigrants from an increasingly crowded California are moving to the mountain states.  Latinos, who settled in New Mexico before the Anglos, are coming in increasing numbers to work in all the mountain states, changing areas that once were among the nation's whitest.  And while immigration stirs up nativist feelings among some, that is by no means universal among whites, and is alienating Latinos.  By tailoring an environmental message to local concerns and accepting if not embracing gun ownership as part of the western way, the Democrats' message against the war, for the middle class and against fiscal irresponsibility is increasingly receiving serious consideration.

The results?  John Tester is leading 47-40 in the Montana Senate race.  Patricia Madrid has pulled even with Heather Wilson in NM-01, and a local reporter finds the momentum is with Madrid, as Democrats and Hispanic voters who might in the past have supported Wilson are coming home largely because of the Iraq War.  In Wyoming, Dick Cheney's hometown newspaper finds Barabra Cubin "nervous" about Gary Trauner's challenge for the seat Dick once held.  In Colorado not only is Bill Ritter 27% ahead in the race for Governor and Ed Perlmutter 17% ahead in the race for Bob Beauprez' old seat, but Angie Paccione, who has been endorsed by Wesley Clark, added to Red-to-Blue and raised over a $1 million, more than any other Democrat ever in CO-04, is now behind but within the margin of error in her race with Marilyn Musgrave, who believes gay marriage is the most serious problem facing America today, and the momentum is with Angie.  Finally, the GOP has conceded AZ-08 to Gabrielle Giffords and the Dems with the election of anti-immigrant Randy Graf in the GOP primary.  Add in the long-shots in CO-05, ID-01, NV-02 and WA-05, (Eastern Washington), and the Dems look better in the West than they have in a very long time.

 

Taking the Congress--An Update

By Mimikatz

There have been some new polls and some thorough analysis of independent expenditures by the congressional campaign committees for the two parties--the DCCC and the RNCC--that suggest at least where the two parties think the battles--and their strengths and weaknesses--are.  Overall, there seems to be less movement on the House side but, as Dem notes in a post below, some movement towards the Dems on the Senate side (confirmed by Rasmussen), where Dem candidates are in the lead in PA, MT, RI and OH, even in MO, marginally ahead in TN and rising in VA.  On the House side, the DCCC added several names to its Red-to-Blue program.  Added to the original 33 names (plus one in an open but Dem seat, OH-06),  there are now  5 new candidates, including Gabrielle Giffords in AZ-08, Paul Hodes in NH-02, Steve Kagen in WI-08, Dan Maffei in NY-25, Angie Paccione in CO-04, and 3 more candidates in Dem-held open seats.  Still no real DCCC support for Jerry McNerney in CA-11, although he did make the list of "emerging races," along with 14 other candidates considered long-shots at this point.  (Note:  links to the other Dem candidates can be found in my last update.)

Based on the expenditures the parties are making, it would seem that the GOP has all but conceded four open seats to the Dems--AZ-08 (Giffords v. Gard), IA-01 (Braley v. Whalen, Braley up by at least 7 percent), CO-07 (Perlmutter v. O'Donnell) and TX-22 (Lampson v. write-ins).  The RNCC has put nothing into these four races except to help Steve Huffmann, who lost the primary in AZ-08.  In addition, they have expended no money other than for polling in CT-02, where Joe Courtney is ahead of Rob Simmons, and only token amounts in PA-06 (Murphy v. Gerlach, where Lois Murphy has polled ahead). These six seats seem to be solid Dem pickups at this point. 

Dems are also polling ahead in three races in Indiana, IN-09 (Hill v. Sodrel), IN-08 (Ellsworth v. Hostettler) and IN-02 (Donnelly v. Chocola).  The RNCC has put over $100,000 in the first two races, and a lesser amount into IN-02, indicating their concern.  There have been other independent expenditures as well.  The GOP Governor is unpopular in Indiana, and these remain among the next-best pick-up chances for the Dems, along with NC-11 (Shuler v. Taylor), where Taylor has triggered the "millionaire's exception, allowing Shuler to receive over $6000 from individuals, and the DCCC is helping Shuler.

The Dem's next best chances are in OH-01 (Cranley v. Chabot--Cranley polling slightly ahead), PA-10, (Carney v. Sherwood, Carney polling ahead, big RNCC expenditures), VA-02 (Kellam v. Drake).  That is almost enough.  Two more seats would put the Dems over the top, if they hold all their seats.  Below are my picks for the next most likely seats to go Dem. 

Taking Away The GOP's Other Weapon

By Mimikatz

There has been much discussion here and elsewhere that the Republicans will run on terror in the midterms because that is all they have left.  But the GOP has another perennial issue that they intend to run on as well--lower taxes.  Just last night a smiling Tom Reynolds (R-NY26) told Chris Matthews this was so.  But just as the Dems are starting to attack Bush on national security, so too are they finally in a position to turn their attack boats head on into this other GOP issue and potentially neutralize it.

One way is to link tax cuts with the debt.  Imagine this ad.  A darkened House chamber, slightly ominous music, the usual deep-voiced man intoning, as the numbers flash on the screen: 

When George W. Bush took office the national debt stood at 5.7 trillion dollars.  Today, after almost six years of George W. Bush and the Republican Congress, the national debt stands at 8.5 trillion dollars,  That is an increase of almost 50%, over $28,000 for each of us.  Four times during the presidency of George W. Bush Congress has had to raise the debt limit, and Congress(wo)man X has voted for it every time.  At the same time (s)he voted over and over to eliminate the estate tax and reduce other taxes that the very wealthy pay.*   Who do you think is going to have to pay back the ever-increasing national debt?  Why don't you ask Congress(wo)man X?  After all, (s)he voted for it.

The chief cause of the burgeoning national debt is the Bush tax cuts.  Of course the Iraq War, now over $1 trillion, is also a cost, and support for the war could be included where appropriate.   But without the tax cuts we would not be running an annual deficit that adds to the cumulative debt (which is the real problem).  Moreover, the effect of the tax cuts is very uneven, and they overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy.  Coupling the increase in the debt with the Bush tax cuts helps blunt the tax issue for Dems.  In fact, the Bush tax cuts are really only a tax deferral, and the difference will have to be made up one way or another.   

Maybe it wouldn't work, since there is evidence voters support tax cuts even when theydon't think they will benefit.  But the GOP is going to raise the tax issue against Dem challengers, and they had better be ready for it.

Cargo Cult Voting

by emptypockets

Last month, a group in Arizona proposed increasing voter turn-out by entering each person who casts a ballot in a $1 million lottery. Today, Norman Ornstein writes in the Times that voting should be compulsory, with fines levied against non-voters:

If there were mandatory voting in America, there’s a good chance that the ensuing reduction in extremist discourse would lead to genuine legislative progress. These days, valuable Congressional time is spent on frivolous or narrow issues (flag burning, same-sex marriage) that are intended only to spur on the party bases and ideological extremes. Consequently, important, complicated issues (pension and health-care reform) get short shrift.

This is cargo-cult thinking. (As Richard Feynman explained it: "In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they've arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head to [look like] headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas -- he's the controller -- and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land.") This proposal worships at the altar of voter turn-out: it says that since good democracy requires great citizen participation, if we force citizens to participate then we will get a good democracy. Unfortunately, that plane won't land.

In fact, good democracy requires informed voter participation. As states like California begin to put ever more detailed policy proposals on the ballot, it becomes obvious that voters who are ignorant of those issues shouldn't be voting on them. And, in fact, many don't -- they skip those questions. Good for them. It is undemocratic to impose an issue-awareness test or public-policy exam on voters at the polls, so we must rely on citizens to perform their voting duty responsibly, including abstaining from voting on issues which they do not understand or do not care about.

Besides self-selecting for more politically aware voters, low voter turn-out also provides a means for citizens who object to the political system itself to register their disapproval. Ornstein suggests that this group simply mark "None of the above" on the ballots but that is a rejection of the candidates, while staying home is a rejection of the political system itself. The importance of "stay at home" speech can be seen in the way reports of voter turn-out have become part of the election-day narrative, in the often-cited fact that Kerry received more votes than any previous presidential candidate, and in the numerous GOTV movements that have taken root. When enough people stay home, it makes politicians, activist groups, and people like Norman Ornstein begin to wonder "What's wrong?" and to try to fix it.

The Times called the Arizona voting lottery proposal, "One of the cheesier propositions on the November ballot... more Sybaritic than democratic," saying that "a million-dollar award to the voter cheapens politics as much as any candidate's money-grubbing. The better answer to the problem of low voter turnout -- lively races debating substantive issues -- was signaled by Arizona voters themselves when the presidential contest in 2004 drew them out at a healthy 77 percent rate." I fail to appreciate the distinction between drawing voters to the polls with a positive financial incentive like in Arizona or with a negative one like Ornstein's fines. The Times got it right: the way to increase informed participation is by raising the level of political discourse, not the other way around. First, you make people care. Then turn-out will look after itself.

The long, lonely summer of New Hampshire Republicans.

by Kagro X

Word is that while almost all of the potential Democratic presidential field has made at least one expected trek to New Hampshire so far, visibility for the Republican field has been considerably less pronounced. What's going on?

Well, here's a guess: the presidential election of 2008 will present some very unique circumstances, particularly for Republicans, and that's making it tough for GOP contenders to feel comfortable in their own skins -- an essential element for the retail-style, door-to-door and hand-to-hand campaigning that gets done in New Hampshire.

How The Dems Can Take The House--The Money

By Mimikatz

It has been widely reported on political blogs, but not so much in the press that the Democrats have slowly been erasing the GOP's traditional fundraising advantage.  The disparity between the Senate campaign committees shows the aggressiveness of Democratic fundraising most clearly, where the Dems under Chuck Schumer outraised the GOP by almost 2-1.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) raked in $8.8 million in June, almost double the $4.8 million that its GOP counterpart brought in for the same month.  The DSCC has raised a whopping $73 million for the 2006 campaign cycle and has nearly $38 million in the bank, almost twice as much as what the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) has in its coffers [...]

In June, the NRSC raised only $4.8 million despite claiming that it had raised at least $7 million more at a single event with the President that month.

But the House counterpart, the DCCC, did almost as well.  From the Stakeholder:

Cash on Hand:

DCCC: $32 million

NRCC: $26.5 million

Cash Raised in June (Keeping in mind that the NRCC had the president’s dinner where they claimed they would raise $15 million):

DCCC: $9.8 million

NRCC: $9.5 million

In addition, individual Dem House challengers have been raising record amounts of money.  Six House challengers have over $1 million on hand, and of these two (Nick Lampson (TX-22) and Ron Klein (FL-22) have over $2 million on hand.  Twenty Dem challengers have raised over $1 million so far, including candidates for open GOP-held seats.  No Republican challenger has more cash on hand than the Democratic incumbent, while 4 Democrats (Ellsworth IN-08, Shuler NC-11, Trauner WY-AL, Murphy PA-06) are ahead of the R incumbent and 2 are at near parity (Hodes NH-02 and Farrell CT-04).  Four more  challengers have 75% or more cash as the incumbents (Sestak PA-06, Hill IN-09, Courtney CT-02, and Gillibrand NY-20). 

But the real shocker is the next three.  In NE-01 Maxine Moul outraised Jeff Fortenberry in the quarter and has 74% of his COH, Phil Kellam outraised Thelma Drake in VA-02 and has 73% of her COH and  Judy Feder in VA-10 has 73% of Frank Wolf's COH.  Rounding out those with over 55% of the incumbent's COH not already mentioned are Darcy Burner in WA-08, who has outraised Dave Reichert for two quarters, Harry Mitchell in AZ-05, Chris Carney in PA-10, Patricia Madrid in NM-01, and John Cranley in OH-01.

These 19 challengers are in good shape to contest.  In open R seats, Tammy Duckworth (IL-06) and Patty Wetterling (MN-06) lead the pack, but Dem candidates in AZ-08, CO-07, and IA-01 are turning in strong performances. 

Finally, the Dems are getting some outside help as well.  Various independent interest groups (such as MoveOn and union groups) have run ads or otherwise been active in 82 Congressional districts represented by the GOP, not only in the high-profile races but all over the country, including the South.  Nothing even close to comparable is happening on the GOP side.

Only the DNC has lagged behind the RNC in fundraising and, especially, COH.  But this means that embattled GOP candidates must be bailed out by the party, with all the strings this implies.  How do you run against a system that is funding your race?