Posts Tagged ‘ Senate ’

Jon Stewart, Michael Bloomberg, and the Resurgent Center

Monday, September 20th, 2010
Lee Drutman



Lee Drutman is a senior fellow and the managing editor for the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Lee Drutman

Over the last few days, I’ve become cautiously optimistic about the future of the political center. Something seems to be happening. Maybe it was Christine O’Donnell’s surprise Tea Party victory over moderate Michael Castle in the Delaware primary, but it feels like maybe, just maybe, the dormant defenders of moderation and reason are being roused from their slumber.

In particular, I’m encouraged by three developments: Jon Stewart’s decision to hold a “Rally to Restore Sanity” on the National Mall on October 30, Michael Bloomberg’s decision to be very public about his widespread support of centrist candidates, and the fact that independents are really starting to turn against the Tea Party.

First Stewart’s decision to hold a rally: “We’re looking for the people who think shouting is annoying, counterproductive, and terrible for your throat,” advertises the website advertising the rally, “who feel that the loudest voices shouldn’t be the only ones that get heard; and who believe that the only time it’s appropriate to draw a Hitler mustache on someone is when that person is actually Hitler.” (I was impressed that Stewart’s announcement went after both Tea Partiers and 9-11 Truthers, attacking extremism on both sides)

Such a rally at first seems like an unusually public move for somebody who has made a career out of skewering from the sidelines. But could it be that Stewart looked around, realized that he was one of the few partisans for reason and moderation left with a large and enthusiastic following, and felt a sudden pang of responsibility?

Perhaps Stewart actually can give voice to a many Americans who share the Daily Show’s conceit that our current politics is fundamentally fodder for satire. But if comedy is tragedy plus distance, perhaps the increasing tragedy of American politics is making it feel less distant. Is the Tea Party as funny when it forms a meaningful voting block in the U.S. Senate?

Then there is New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s decision to speak to the New York Times (his first newspaper interview in several years) in order to grab the lead story in the Sunday paper to highlight his systematic attempt to back moderates – raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for candidates that hew to a moderate vision of politics.

Bloomberg’s decision to make a public show of his plans may partly be an attempt to raise his profile as the leader of the radical center. But it also an encouraging development: a public signal that the political center is worth defending and supporting, and perhaps, just as Jon Stewart’s rally might be a clarion call to previously apathetic moderate voters, perhaps Bloomberg’s decision will be a similar call to disengaged moderate donors who are equally concerned about the increasingly extreme ways in which the current electoral season is shaping up.

The final encouraging development the latest CBS/ New York Times poll, in which the Tea Party’s unfavorable rating has risen from 18 percent in April to 25 percent (compared to 20 percent favorable, 18 percent undecided, and 36 percent saying they haven’t heard enough). Moreover, independent voters now have a more negative view of the party (30 percent unfavorable, to 18 percent favorable). These are small changes, admittedly, but they are in the right direction, and hopeful portents of a steady waking up to just how crazy the tea party is becoming.

Hopefully this confluence of factors – Jon Stewart’s empowering cheerleading of moderation, Michael Bloomberg’s aggressive financing of moderates, and sinking public support for the tea parties – are legitimate reasons to be optimistic that the center might indeed hold, and maybe even start to feel vital again.

A Political Junkie’s Guide to the Midterm Election

Friday, September 3rd, 2010
Ed Kilgore



Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.

by Ed Kilgore

With the traditional general election bell-ringer of Labor Day on tap Monday, for the most part it’s now past time for observers to speak in some sort of future tense about what the two parties might do to position themselves for November. Yes, eight states do still have pending primaries, along with one that still has a runoff; these contests will significantly affect at least two Senate and three gubernatorial races. Yes, national decisions still have to be made about the precise deployment of financial resources in particular races, and there are a scattering of individual candidate decisions that could fundamentally change the landscape in particular races (most notably in Colorado, where doomed-looking Republican gubernatorial nominee Don Maes is under increasing pressure to drop out). And there are, of course, mistakes that can be made on the campaign trail or in debates that could move lots of voters. In most cases, however, campaigns will focus on getting out their vote, and on appealing to a very narrow range of swing voters. This is likely to revolve around negative attacks on opponents, since that is one of the few devices that can serve as both a motivator and a persuader.

To a considerable extent, much of the “political news” you are going to hear between now and November will have as much to do with the measurement of public opinion as with efforts to influence it. This is when most pollsters switch from surveying registered to “likely” voters (though some, notably Rasmussen and Survey USA, have long been deploying “likely voter” screens, which helps account for the relative strong Republican performance in their polls). And this is when various ambitious models for predicting the results will be announced and refined.

So what should the discriminating political junkie watch for during the next two months?

With respect to the fight for control of the House, the most important objective data point will probably be the final Gallup poll generic ballot results in October. Back in 2002, political scientist Alan Abramowitz developed a very reliable model for predicting the overall results from the final Gallup generic. Just yesterday Pollster.com’s Harry Enten released a refinement of the Abramowitz model, which suggests, for example, that a five-percent GOP advantage among likely voters in the final Gallup generic ballot poll would translate into 225 Republican seats.

Senate races are a much tougher nut to crack, since they are less susceptible to national “waves.” The most influential model, by FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver, currently shows Democrats likely to sustain a net loss of six to seven seats, but with a 20 percent chance of losing ten or more, which would give Republican control of the upper chamber. Nate’s system also supplies a probability rating for any given Senate seat “flipping” from one party to the other; right now the range is from a 100 percent probability in North Dakota and Arkansas to zero percent probability in eleven states.

And governor’s races are even more complex, since non-national issues (including specific economic and fiscal conditions) can be a major factor, and responsibility for an unpopular status quo doesn’t always reside with Democrats. So given the national dynamics and the slow but steady trend towards partisan polarization in state as well as federal politics, it makes sense to watch closely those “red state” gubernatorial contests where Democratic candidates have managed to remain competitive so far—particularly Texas (Bill White), Florida (Alex Sink) and Georgia (Roy Barnes), three states where a Democratic win could have a major impact on congressional redistricting.

Speaking of redistricting, there are also vicious battles being fought for control of state legislative chambers. I won’t go into this in detail today (it will be the subject of a future Political Memo), but the basic situation is that Republicans have significant advantages in the political landscape while Democrats appear to be a bit better focused and financed.

Finally, it’s important to keep in mind that the results of any given election cycle are usually over-emphasized. Obviously the Democratic “wave” elections of 2006 and 2008 have not, at least in the short-term, led to any sort of realignment of our political system. It works both ways, though: after the last redistricting cycle, it was generally thought that Republicans had won a “lock” on control of the House until 2012; it didn’t turn out to be much of a lock. But Democrats do need to relearn the basic problem that our constitutional system builds a conservative bias into the composition of the U.S. Senate, and the balance of control among governorships and state legislatures. But by the same token, Republicans need to understand that the gains they make this year need to be contextualized by their terrible performance in 2006 and 2008, and that the shape of the electorate in the presidential cycle of 2012 will be very different, and much less friendly to the GOP cause.

Ed Kilgore’s PPI Political Memo runs every Tuesday and Friday.

Photo Credit: OZinOH’s Photostream

How the Military is Leading the Way on Energy Security

Wednesday, August 11th, 2010
Chris Miller



Chris Miller is a Purple Heart and Combat Action Badge recipient and eight-year U.S. Army veteran, having served two tours in Baghdad, Iraq. He is currently a law student and a fellow with the Truman National Security Project.

by Chris Miller

As a U.S. Army veteran I am used to dealing with the military, an organization that, by necessity, takes swift and decisive action when necessary, despite the fact that many see it as a conservative organization that is resistant and slow to change. In Washington, I am becoming used to dealing with another organization that is much more conservative and even more resistant and slower: the United States Senate. I am proud to say that the U.S. military is once again taking decisive action on energy independence and security, as well as addressing the military repercussions of climate change. The military is taking action where the United States Congress will not.

On July 27 I attended the White House Forum on Energy Security along with a group of veterans from Operation Free, a nationwide coalition of military veterans from all eras and ranging from Privates and Airmen to Generals and Admirals – all of whom support the goal of energy independence, security, and addressing the national security repercussions of climate change.

We have collectively been touring and speaking throughout the country and in Washington, D.C. in support of breaking our dependence on largely foreign oil and pushing Congress to take real steps toward a comprehensive clean energy climate plan. We have come to support the American Power Act developed through a bipartisan effort by Senators John Kerry and Lindsey Graham with Senator Joseph Lieberman and cooperation from the White House.

July 27 was supposed to be the day that the Senate finally took real action on the issue we have all been working hard for over the past year. It didn’t happen. As we all got on airplanes throughout the country in high spirits, something was happening on Capitol Hill: nothing.

By the time we hit ground in Washington, D.C. we learned that everything had changed. The Senate didn’t have the sixty votes needed to proceed to an up-or-down vote on the bill. We went to the Hill again to meet with fence-sitting Senators and their staff. The opinion we encountered there was disappointing, but not surprising: we need to do something about the issues of energy security, energy independence, and climate change, but we’re not going to do anything now.

Some, echoing Republican sentiment, said the issue hadn’t been discussed enough yet, that the Senate process of debate and hearings needs to be completed, that it would force them to choose ‘winners and losers’ and they are not ready to do that.

Hadn’t been discussed enough? We’ve been talking about energy security and independence since the 1970s. Other countries are taking action while we are being left behind. The CIA includes repercussions of climate change and our dependence on foreign fossil energy in its assessments. The State Department does as well.

Now the U.S. military is taking serious steps to address the issue. It devoted an entire section of the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review Report (p. 84) to responding to climate change issues.  Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus has expressed a clear vision of a force independent of fossil fuels. The military is taking action by reducing the use of fossil fuels, researching the use of alternative sources, and increasing the efficiency of its energy use, whether on battlefield outposts in Afghanistan or home installations in Texas. Speakers from each branch of the U.S. military have discussed similar opinions, expressing that action on this issue shouldn’t be taken for political reasons, but for security reasons. The money we pay for oil goes to regimes opposed to our interests. The cost of procuring, transporting, and securing that fuel is extreme, in dollars and to the lives of our troops.

This contrasts greatly with the attitude of too many Senators, who continue to choose politics over security. The U.S. Congress trusts the military and veterans on other security issues. Energy independence, energy security, and planning for the possible consequences of climate change are national security issues. The military is taking action, even if Congress won’t. If they’ll listen on other national security issues, let’s hope they’ll trust the military when it comes to a comprehensive clean energy climate plan that makes us energy independent.

Photo Credit: DVIDSHUB’s Photostream

Georgia On the Mind

Friday, July 16th, 2010
Ed Kilgore



Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.

by Ed Kilgore

As alert readers know by now, Robert Bentley won the Republican gubernatorial runoff in Alabama, with Terri Sewell winning the 7th district Democratic congressional nomination (tantamount to election), and Martha Roby turning back viral ad icon Rick Barber for the Republican nomination in the 2nd congressional district. My write-up of the results can be found here.

The next big primary state is Georgia, where voters go to the polls next Tuesday, July 20. There are competitive primaries for governor in both parties; and competitive Republican primaries for Congress in no fewer than six districts, with two Democratic congressional primaries that have drawn some attention. Georgia has a 50 percent nomination requirement, which means many contests will go to a runoff on August 10. This is also a state with a history of substantial early voting, though as of last week, mail-in and in-person ballots were down from prior elections, perhaps indicating a low turnout.

The Republican gubernatorial race (incumbent Republican Gov. Sonny Perdue is term-limited) has heated up in the last week, with a bunch of polls, sharp exchanges between candidates, and interventions by national figures. For most of the cycle, the front-runner has been State Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine, though he’s been considered vulnerable because of long-pending ethics investigations of alleged illegal contributions to his campaign by insurance companies. Three other candidates—former Secretary of State Karen Handel, former congressman Nathan Deal (who has some ethics issues of his own, which appeared to speed his departure from Congress), and state senator Eric Johnson—have been jockeying for a runoff position opposite Oxendine, though at least two polls now show the front-runner slipping into third place. Handel, whose campaign message closely resembles that of South Carolina gubernatorial nominee Nikki Haley (a “conservative reformer” fighting the “corrupt good old boys”), has been the candidate on the move of late, and got priceless attention this week from a Facebook endorsement by Sarah Palin. Deal countered with an endorsement from Georgian Newt Gingrich. Both Oxendine and Deal have been pounding Handel for alleged heresy on abortion and gay rights. And meanwhile, Johnson has been heavily running television ads, and has moved up into the teens in at least one poll. In other words, just about anything could happen on Tuesday, though Handel looks almost sure to have a runoff spot.

In terms of issues, all the GOP candidates have been competing to show avid support for an Arizona-style illegal immigration crackdown (Deal’s made this a signature issue, while Handel has sported an endorsement from Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer), and two candidates, Oxendine and Handel, have proposed abolition of the state’s income tax, reflecting the wild popularity of national “Fair Tax” proposals among Georgia Republicans. And all the candidates are hard-core conservatives on cultural issues, though Handel got into a fight with Georgia Right-to-Life by opposing its proposal to restrict IV fertilization procedures.

On the Democratic side, the big question all along has been whether former Gov. Roy Barnes, who lost to Perdue in a big upset eight years ago, can win the primary without a runoff, as most recent polls have suggested he will. Barnes’ most prominent challenger, Attorney General Thurbert Baker, got off to a very late start in television advertising, and is now trying to attract enough support from his fellow African-Americans to deny Barnes the win (African-Americans typically cast close to half the votes in Democratic primaries in Georgia). Baker got a significant boost earlier this week with an endorsement from President Bill Clinton (Baker was a big Human Rights Campaign supporter in 2008), and has been promoting legalization of electronic bingo as a way to raise money for K-12 education. But Barnes has strong African-American support of his own; just today he was endorsed by Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed. Other significant candidates who could soak up some votes include former Secretary of State David Poythress, who’s been running an under-the-radar web-focused campaign, and former state House Democratic leader Dubose Porter, whose wife, Carol, is the odds-on favorite to win the Democratic nomination for Lt. Governor.

On the congressional front, the state’s two white (and Blue Doggy) Democratic House members, Jim Marshall and John Barrow, are as usual considered vulnerable in November. Marshall, whose district went solidly for John McCain, has drawn a strong opponent in state representative Scott Austin, who should win the GOP nomination easily on Tuesday. Barrow, whose district is marginally Democratic even in presidential years, has for the second time drawn a primary challenge from former state representative Regina Thomas, whom he beat 3-1 in 2008. Thomas got some help from in-district anger at Barrow’s vote against health care reform, but his massive financial advantage should get him over the line. Meanwhile, Tea Party-backed candidate Ray McKinney is favored over former fire chief Carl Smith for the right to oppose Barrow, though that race could easily go to a runoff.

There are big and active Republican primaries in the districts of African-American congressmen David Scott and Hank Johnson (who also faces former Dekalb County executive Vernon Jones, something of a party renegade, in the primary but isn’t expected to lose), who has had recent health problems, but Republicans would have to get very lucky to become competitive in either place.

An open seat in the north metro Atlanta 7th district has spawned a mammoth eight-candidate Republican primary to succeed John Linder, with every single candidate endorsing Linder’s “Fair Tax” proposal. Former state representative Clay Cox and former Linder chief of staff Rob Woodall are the favorite to make a runoff, though Christian Right figure Jody Hice also has some support.

And up in the North Georgia 9th district, until recently represented by gubernatorial candidate Nathan Deal, the winner of last month’s special election, Tea Party favorite and former state representative Tom Graves, must face pretty much the same field of opponents in the primary, but is expected to win.

In non-Georgia political news, the big development was probably the implosion of the Colorado gubernatorial campaign of former congressman (and GOP front-runner) Scott McInnis, accused of plagiarizing portions of a think-tank paper for which he was grossly overpaid a few years ago. Colorado Republicans are in a quandary; the only other candidate on the primary ballot, Don Maes, has struggled to raise money, and has, ironically, also been cited for campaign finance violations. To hand-pick another viable candidate, party leaders would have to wait for the primary to occur and then beg the winner to step aside.

Ed Kilgore’s PPI Political Memo runs every Tuesday and Friday

Photo credit: Airno’s Photostream

A Look at the Senate Races

Friday, July 2nd, 2010
Ed Kilgore



Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.

by Ed Kilgore

It’s now just four months until Election Day, and for those who really like to think ahead, not much more than a year-and-a-half away from the next Iowa caucuses. (Speaking of the 2012 presidential nominating process, I’ve got an item posted at FiveThirtyEight about the maneuvering over the rules and calendar for that contest.)

My political memo on Tuesday focused mainly on an overview of House races, so today let’s take a closer look at the U.S. Senate. As noted on Tuesday, Nate Silver has slightly upgraded Democratic Senate prospects after the recent batch of primaries, and now thinks the probabilities come in at about 55 for what Democrats might have in the way of a Senate majority after November. Over at the (subscription-only) “Cook Political Report,” Jennifer Duffy, relying somewhat less than Silver on polling data, reaches similar conclusions about the overall landscape but with different takes on specific races. Duffy, for example, still has Arkansas in the toss-up category, while Silver says: “Our model now shows Blanche Lincoln’s chances to be close to zero (technically, about 0.3 percent, which rounds down to zero).” Conversely, the Cook Report shows the Connecticut race as “lean Dem” (having briefly rated it as a toss-up after the military record controversy hit Democrat Richard Blumenthal), while FiveThirtyEight rates it as “safe Dem.” It will be interesting to see if these and other forecasts begin to converge as we get closer to November.

It’s also worth remembering that the nominees haven’t been sorted out yet in several competitive or potentially competitive Senate races, notably Colorado, Arizona, Florida and Wisconsin.  And most interesting of all will be to see if some sort of intensified national wave begins to help Republican Senate candidates towards the home stretch, which could solidify the GOP’s shaky hold on seats in Ohio and Missouri (and perhaps Florida, where Marco Rubio consistently trails now-indie Charlie Crist), while making Democratic incumbents in Washington, California and Wisconsin a lot more vulnerable. To use historical analogies, we’ll find out if this Senate cycle is more like 1980 and 2008, when one party (Rs in 1980, Ds in 2008) got every break and won every close race, or like 1982, a recession-ridden year when the incumbent Republicans dodged a lot of bullets.

The polling world this week was roiled by a conflict between Daily Kos and the Research 2000 public opinion research firm, which has done regular polling for DKos for the last two years.  DKos proprietor Markos Moulitsas dismissed the firm recently, apparently unhappy with its accuracy as rated by FiveThirtyEight. But then an investigation of anomalies in R2K numbers convinced Markos that there might be fraud or at least book-cooking involved, and now the charges and counter-charges are flying and lawsuits are being filed. As the facts get sorted out, all sorts of political observers (including yours truly) are looking back at what they might have said or concluded based on R2K data. It is clear that if R2K gets out or is forced out of the state polling biz, the dominance of Rasmussen data, with its apparent pro-GOP “house effect,” could grow, though PPP seems to be expanding its state polling significantly.

Poll Watch

In polls this week that aren’t part of any overriding dispute, PPP takes a look at GOP statewide primaries in Wisconsin, and finds self-funder Ron Johnson with a big lead over hard-core ideologue David Westlake in the Senate race, and Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker with an equally comfortable lead over former Rep. Mark Neumann in the gubernatorial race.  Meanwhile the increasingly visible Republican polling firm Magellan has Democratic former Gov. John Kitzhaber and Republican candidate Chris Dudley even in the Oregon gubernatorial race, and shows Republican former Gov. Bobby Ehrlich inching ahead of incumbent Democrat Martin O’Malley in Maryland.

RIP Robert Byrd

Monday, June 28th, 2010
Ed Kilgore



Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.

by Ed Kilgore

It’s been a tough year for the Democratic tradition in the U.S. Senate, with the loss of Edward Kennedy and the solidification of the Almighty Filibuster as the real power in the institution. But the death of Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia really does turn a lot of pages, while denying the Senate its unrivalled historian and parliamentarian.

Byrd’s tenure alone makes him one of the titans of Senate history: more than a half-century, spanning the administrations of eleven presidents. He was, however, the junior senator from West Virginia until he was 68, and in another reflection of the Senate’s slow pace of change, his career overlapped with only five Democratic leaders — not counting Byrd himself.

When Byrd was first elected to the Senate in 1958, Democrats from his corner of the world were typically hard-core segregationists and equally hard-core New Deal economic progressives. He abandoned and apologized for the former habit, but never the latter. The persistent poverty of West Virginia — for much of career it included some of the very poorest areas of the country — made it one place where politicians never shrank from the full exercise of power on behalf of the home folks, or from celebration of the seniority system that gave Byrd and so many others the clout to serve as equalizers. Byrd became the embodiment of Senate traditions for good reason: they served his constituents well.

He survived wave after wave of efforts in both parties to change the Senate and make it more responsive to national political trends, and might well have survived one or two more had he been born 10 years later. He also survived wave after wave of efforts to bend Congress to the will of presidents of both parties, and in that respect was more consistent than most of his colleagues in both parties.

In this era of political turbulence and simmering resentment of professional politicians, it’s unlikely America will ever see another senator like him. And so in a very real sense a big part of national history will go to the grave with him. His distinctive and authoritative voice will be missed, and may he rest in peace.

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

Photo credit: cliff1066™’s Photostream

Dealing With a Different Wheel

Thursday, June 17th, 2010
Ed Kilgore



Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.

by Ed Kilgore

As we await the next step on energy legislation in the Senate, Ezra Klein makes an extremely important if fairly obvious point about the Obama administration’s apparent determination to get something passed even if it doesn’t include a cap-and-trade system or some equivalent carbon pricing mechanism. If the Senate won’t pass such provisions now, it won’t pass them later, either:

There’s nothing magic about [a House-Senate] conference that allows controversial policies that couldn’t pass the Senate the first time around to pass on the second go. The advantage of a conference report is that it can’t be amended, which means you might be able to sneak in some small concessions to the House that aren’t important enough for anyone to sink the whole bill over. But it can be filibustered. So if you add anything major to the bill that would’ve killed it on the pre-conference vote, it’s a good bet that it’ll kill it on the post-conference vote as well.

Carbon pricing almost certainly falls into that category. It’s not a side policy or a bit of pork. It’s the core of a climate bill. If it doesn’t pass in the original Senate bill, that’s because it can’t pass the Senate. Adding it in during conference won’t change that. It’ll just mean the conference report can’t pass the Senate, either. I can’t see any permutation of this in which a conference strategy for carbon pricing makes any sense.

This doesn’t, of course, mean that Congress can’t pass worthwhile energy legislation this year. But it’s not going to magically become a real climate change bill somewhere down the road, particularly with Republicans now monolithically opposing a cap-and-trade approach they once championed.

It’s fine to wheel and deal on legislation, but sometimes the only deal available is one that turns the wheel to an entirely different outcome. That’s probably where things are headed on energy this year.

Photo credit: Rob Crawley’s Photostream

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

A Few Post-Primary Thoughts

Wednesday, May 19th, 2010
Ed Kilgore



Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.

by Ed Kilgore

I don’t have too much to add to J.P. Green‘s analysis of the May 18 primaries. But here are a few thoughts:

  1. Blanche Lincoln failed to win without a runoff because she didn’t do nearly well enough in her old House district (the 1st, which is NE Arkansas) to offset a virtual drubbing in the 4th CD (southern Arkansas). She actually won Pulaski County (Little Rock), Bill Halter’s home town, very comfortably, and won throughout NW Arkansas. Since my own pre-primary analysis suggested that a large undecided African-American vote might be the key, it’s worth noting that the 4th and 1st districts have, respectively, the highest, 24 percent, and next highest, 19 percent, African-American population percentages. Without exit polls or precinct level data, it’s hard to say this is why Lincoln failed to win, but it looks like that might be the case, particularly since the black vote was tilting towards Halter in pre-primary polls. If so, this could be a danger sign for Halter in the runoff, since African-Americans traditionally don’t participate in southern runoff elections in anything like a proportionate manner. Otherwise, the runoff dynamics definitely favor the challenger, particularly if labor’s financial involvement on Halter’s behalf continues.
  2. The CW is that in Jack Conway KY Democrats nominated the stronger candidate against Rand Paul. That could well be true, though Dan Mongiardo’s regional strength in Eastern Kentucky, a traditionally Republican area where hard-core conservatives often struggle, might have posed some special problems for Paul.
  3. In retrospect, Arlen Specter’s long Senate career has been a continuing minor miracle. This is a guy who has managed over the course of decades to deeply alienate both liberals and conservatives, and he’s also known as one of the least attractive personalities in Washington, which is saying a lot. To survive after a party-switch would have been truly incredible.

This item is cross-posted from The Democratic Strategist.

Charlie Crist to Run “Outsider” Campaign. Will Voters Buy It?

Friday, April 30th, 2010
Ed Kilgore



Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.

by Ed Kilgore

The big news this week was the much-telegraphed announcement yesterday by Florida Gov. Charlie Crist that he will abandon the Republican senatorial primary (where he was in danger of being trounced by Marco Rubio) and instead re-file as an independent candidate in that race.

Crist’s gambit raises a lot of questions, most immediately about how many of his donors will ask for their money back, and how, exactly, he will negotiate the very difficult shoals of an independent candidacy in a state famous for its partisanship. The instant GOP blowback was intense, as Jonathan Martin of Politico reported:

Immediately after he gave his speech, his campaign manager and two press aides resigned. His mail vendor and media consultant also indicated that they would not remain with him as he pursued a third-party bid.

In Washington, the very GOP senators who had anointed him as the party’s favorite last year castigated him as an untrustworthy opportunist and demanded that he return their contributions and those of other Republicans.

Crist appears determined to run an “outsider” campaign, which will be somewhat difficult for an incumbent governor and former darling of the national GOP establishment. The first post-announcement three-way polls will be very interesting.

While it was completely overshadowed by the Crist drama, the Florida senatorial race was also roiled by reports that billionaire investor Jeff Greene, who bet against the housing bubble and won big, will enter the Democratic primary against U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek, who had been focused on the general election. Greene is apparently being advised by the eccentric duo of Joe Trippi and Doug Schoen.

The other trend worth watching this week was the sudden dilemma posed to Republican candidates for various offices across the country by Arizona’s new immigration law, which among other things, authorized law enforcement officers to demand proof of citizenship from anyone “reasonably suspected” of being in the country illegally. While virtually all Republicans have defended the Arizona action as an indictment of the failure of the federal government to “protect the borders,” the specific law has struck sparks, particularly among candidates in highly competitive Republican primaries.

In Nevada, for example, the front-runner in the gubernatorial race, Brian Sandoval, who happens to be both a Latino and suspected by hard-core conservatives of being a moderate squish, instantly endorsed the Arizona law. His main opponent, incumbent Jim Gibbons, who has been running as the true conservative candidate, demurred, arguing that Nevada didn’t need that sort of law because it wasn’t a border state. And a third candidate who is trying to outflank Gibbons on the right, Mike Montandon, not only endorsed the Arizona initiative but called profiling by law enforcement officers — the main concern many have had with the Arizona law — absolutely essential.

The furor over the Arizona initiative has not been confined to the West. It may, in fact, have its greatest impact on Republicans in the Deep South, where Hispanic immigration has been visible enough to upset conservatives, but has not yet created a significant voting bloc. Almost immediately after the enactment of the Arizona law, Alabama Republican gubernatorial candidate Tim James, who is struggling to overcome Judge Roy Moore as the Christian conservative candidate in that race, launched an ad attacking his own state’s practice of offering drivers’ tests in languages other than English.

Next door in Georgia, gubernatorial candidate Nathan Deal, who recently resigned from the U.S. House on the heels of an ethics investigation, publicly called for enactment of an Arizona-style immigration system in his own state. And in South Carolina, Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, who earlier compared subsidized school lunch beneficiaries to “stray animals,” harnessed the Arizona controversy to his own distinctive message in the gubernatorial race by suggesting that immigrants wouldn’t be coming to the Palmetto State if lazy welfare bums were willing to work.

It’s an easy guess that immigration fever will spread in highly competitive southern Republican primaries, and perhaps elsewhere. In general, cultural issues can be expected to pop up where candidates are trying to distinguish themselves in a Republican Party that’s now monolithically — even radically — conservative on economic and fiscal issues.

Poll Watch

In polling news, there were two big national surveys released this week, one by the Washington Post/ABC News, and the other by Pew. The WaPo/ABC poll had some good news for Democrats:

The public trusts Democrats more than Republicans to handle the major problems facing the country by a double-digit margin, giving Democrats a bigger lead than they held two months ago, when Congress was engaged in the long endgame over divisive health-care legislation. A majority continues to see Obama as “just about right” ideologically, despite repeated GOP efforts to define the president as outside the mainstream.

Those polled also say they trust Obama over Republicans in Congress to deal with the economy, health care and, by a large margin, financial regulatory reform. And the president continues to get positive marks on his overall job performance, with, for the first time since the fall, a majority of independents approving.

Pew (PDF), on the other hand, found Republicans drawing even with Democrats on five of six major issues (the exception being energy policy). Go figure.

Ed Kilgore’s PPI Political Memo runs every Monday and Friday.

Crapshoot

Thursday, April 29th, 2010
Ed Kilgore



Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.

by Ed Kilgore

Where is it most painful to be a highly visible incumbent politician at this particular moment in U.S. history? Perhaps it’s California, where current economic and budgetary discontents are compounding a growing public fury over chronically dysfunctional state government and an imprisoning constitution. Maybe it’s Florida, that fading Sunbelt powerhouse full of simmering regional and ethnic rivalries, whose perma-tanned governor has struggled to make up his mind which political party he belongs to.

But you couldn’t go far wrong by selecting Nevada, a state that shares Florida’s disastrous economic dependence on real-estate speculation and tourism — Nevada currently sports the second-highest unemployment rate in the nation, 13.4 percent, trailing only Michigan — and the special disappointment of being, for many residents, a Paradise Lost. The state’s own demographic and ideological diversity also rivals Florida’s, home as it is to a rapidly growing Latino population (which made up 15 percent of the electorate in 2008), plenty of extremely conservative Mormons, powerful and politically active labor unions, a libertarian heritage of legalized vice and a Republican Party moving so quickly to the right that you can barely keep up with it.

Moreover, Nevada’s three top elected officials are currently Sen. Harry Reid (D), Sen. John Ensign (R) and Gov. Jim Gibbons (R). Reid, the majority leader of the U.S. Senate and never terribly popular back home, has looked like a sitting duck for over a year. Ensign, once considered a rising conservative star, has been exposed as a sanctimonious hypocrite over the course of a particularly sordid adultery-and-cronyism scandal, in which a group of mysterious evangelical allies operating out of a compound on C Street in Washington, known variously as The Family or The Fellowship, were caught unsuccessfully trying to clean up his act or cover it up. Gibbons has had his own, somewhat more cartoonish series of sex scandals – although maybe they were just “relationship scandals,” if you buy his claim that he hasn’t had sex since the mid-’90s.

Luckily for him, Ensign is not up for reelection until 2012. Unluckily enough, Harry Reid is up for reelection in 2010, and, seeing as his son, Clark County (Las Vegas) Commission Chairman Rory Reid, is the frontrunner for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, you’d think that Nevada Republicans would have a straight, clean shot at a sweep that dethrones the Reid dynasty. But it’s hardly that simple, thanks to Byzantine and fractious Republican primaries for both the Senate and the governorship (where Jim Gibbons is still a formidable candidate), the existence of an independent Tea Party ballot line and the always important factors of money and organization, where Democrats have a distinct advantage. Just six weeks before Primary Day, you’d have to say that handicapping Nevada’s political races is something of a crapshoot.

Dating all the way back to November 2008, Harry Reid’s “favorable” rating in Nevada polls has been wallowing monotonously in the high 30s and low 40s, deadly territory for an extremely well-known incumbent, and particularly for a national party leader who claims to be able to represent his state’s values and bring home the bacon as well. The difficulty that Republicans have experienced in recruiting a top-tier Senate candidate has newspapers hesitating to dust off obituaries to Reid’s Senate career. But in head-to-head polls with his most likely GOP opponents, Reid has persistently trailed all of them, sometimes by double digits, and almost never gaining much more than 40 percent of the vote.

After striking out in its attempts to recruit a strong candidate such as former Rep. Jon Porter, Republicans have on hand a field of three major candidates: casino owner, former state senator, party chairwoman, and ex-beauty queen Sue Lowden; realtor and famous-basketball-playing-son-of-famous-basketball-coach Danny Tarkanian; and right-wing grassroots favorite Sharron Angle. Until very lately, Lowden looked to be consolidating a strong lead for the nomination. Despite a somewhat moderate image (particularly on social issues), she won endorsements from national conservative figures like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, and benefited from the general impression that she was far and away the most electable of available Republicans.

But then, at a local candidate forum in early April, Lowden touted the idea that individuals should barter for health services as an alternative to Obamacare, making the particular mistake of mentioning the “olden days” practice of trading chickens for doctor visits. After Jay Leno and others started bagging on her for promoting “chickens for checkups,” Lowden made the puzzling decision to defend her statement — repeatedly — instead of brushing it off and moving on. Now the whole meme has gone very viral. There hasn’t been a Senate primary poll since this all happened, but Tarkanian and Angle — and for that matter, Harry Reid — have to be encouraged by all the laughter at Lowden.

Meanwhile, in the governor’s race, the Republicans’ frontrunner is former Attorney General Brian Sandoval, is struggling nearly as much as Lowden. The perpetually unpopular incumbent, Jim Gibbons, is playing every ideological angle to win re-nomination. Falling back on his traditional popularity among hard-core conservatives, Gibbons has boosted his anemic approval ratings by championing legal challenges to the new federal health reform legislation, and is accusing Sandoval — who has taken the supreme risk of refusing demands to take Grover Norquist’s no-tax-increase pledge — of being a moderate squish. Democrats, figuring that Gibbons is a much easier mark, have been running attack ads on Sandoval that echo conservative criticisms.

A late twist has been the reaction of Nevada Republicans to the draconian Arizona legislation requiring law-enforcement officials to demand proof of citizenship from people who raise “reasonable suspicion” that they are in the country illegally. Sandoval, who is Latino, immediately endorsed the Arizona law, indicating where he thinks his own political bread is buttered. Gibbons took a different tack, arguing that Nevada’s non-border location makes such tactics unnecessary. The third major candidate, former North Las Vegas Mayor Mike Montandon, who is trying to undercut Gibbons from the right, drew cheers during a recent candidates’ debate for taking the following position:

“Why are we answering questions on whether illegal immigration should be legal,” Montandon said. “I support what Arizona did absolutely.”

He added that he supports profiling, calling it the single greatest tool of law enforcement.

That ought to go over well with minority voters, eh?

Aside from the particular dynamics of the senatorial and gubernatorial races, Republicans are uneasily aware that they don’t match up well with Democrats in terms of money or campaign infrastructure. As one reporter put it last month:

The state party itself evoked laughter among several prominent Republicans I spoke to last week.

“There’s a whole lot of unproductive activity going on over there without any rhyme or reason,” said a Republican source, before unfurling a string of unsolicited insults at party leadership.

A key question would seem to be, “Where are the adults?” Can’t someone put a heavy hand on the shoulder of a top-tier candidate and say, “We need you,” or clear the field of primary challengers, or tell Ensign it’s time to step aside?

“That’s usually the role of the head of party,” another Republican source said. “But who is the head of the party? Yeah, there’s your answer.”

Meanwhile, the massive organizing efforts that Democrats put into the 2008 Nevada caucuses and general election are still bearing fruit, their impact sustained by Harry Reid’s campaign cash. Reid’s various campaign committees donated $660,000 – serious money in this relatively small state — to the Nevada Democratic Party in 2009 alone. By the end of March, he had raised over $16 million for his re-election (with an ultimate goal of $25 million) and, after a lot of early spending, still had over $9 million in cash on hand.

By contrast, Reid’s two likeliest general election opponents, Sue Lowden and Danny Tarkanian, who still have to expend themselves in a June primary slugfest, each had just over one quarter-million in the bank at the end of March. Both have some personal money to throw in, but not enough to keep up with Reid’s cash machine.

There are those who look at Nevada and conclude that nothing can save Harry Reid (or his son), not money, not organization, not a scattered and vulnerable Republican Party, not Latino outrage at GOP immigrant-bashing, not chickens-for-checkups, not a third-party candidate, and not even the possibility of a GOP ticket led by Jim Gibbons. It is, after all, a bad year to be an incumbent, much less a Democratic incumbent, much less the Democratic leader of the U.S. Senate. But add all of these factors together, in a year when Nevada Republicans are committing one unforced error after another, and almost anything could happen. Republicans probably shouldn’t bet the farm on victory.

This item is cross-posted at the New Republic.

Is a GOP Senate Takeover Realistic?

Monday, April 26th, 2010
Ed Kilgore



Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.

by Ed Kilgore

After some developments on the candidate recruitment front, it’s probably a good time to take a fresh look at the U.S. Senate battleground for November, and on Republican dreams of actually retaking control of the chamber.

As always, that dream remains a bit of a fantasy, requiring as it would that Republicans win 28 of 36 senatorial contests, including takeovers of 10 Democratic seats without a single loss of one of their own. (Some would argue that Republicans only need 49 or 50 seats for control, since they’d be able to pull Joe Lieberman and/or Ben Nelson into a party-switch, but that’s very speculative). With viable GOP candidates recently choosing not to run in WI and NY, and with time soon to run out on a viable candidate in WA, even a sweep of winnable races wouldn’t quite get Republicans across the line.

More realistic projections suggest major but not apocalyptic Republican gains (the GOP has all but banked a seat in ND, and both AR and DE look very tough for Democrats to hold onto). Nate Silver’s statistical model currently projects a four-seat Republican gain, though he concedes that GOPers would win three more seats if the election were held today. And he shows the probability of a Republican takeover of the Senate as no higher than the probability that Democrats will actually gain seats (six percent versus seven percent, respectively, to be exact).

Chris Bowers’ latest projections suggest a Republican pickup of seven seats (ND, AR, DE, IN, PA, NV, CO). Being more cautious, and focusing on narrowing the field of competitive races rather than making predictions, Cook Report’s Jennifer Duffy shows nine races—five over Democratic held-seats, and four over Republican-held seats—as toss-ups.

Not that I put myself in the company of these campaign analysts, but I suspect that the contests in CO and PA will wind up being barnburners, not the relatively easy Republican wins some expect, and it’s also likely that some Republican seats, most notably OH, will remain winnable for Democrats. And there have been positive developments for Democrats even in some of the toughest races. There’s Nevada, where Harry Reid has to be happy about the widespread mockery of his strongest GOP challenger, Sue Lowden, for comments suggesting that Americans should barter for health services instead of relying on insurance (now being known as the “Chickens for Check-Ups” proposal). Meanwhile, Charlie Crist’s probable indie run in FL cannot help but complicate GOP efforts to hold onto that Senate seat. And it’s important to remember that Republican primaries still ahead could change a lot of calculations, particularly if far-right candidates like J.D. Hayworth of AZ or Marlin Stutzman of IN or Ken Buck of CO win nominations, or if vicious warfare between candidates repels voters generally, as could happen in CA.

In polling news, Rasmussen shows a very close gubernatorial race in WI, and also places new Democratic Senate candidate Michael Thurmond of GA within shouting distance of incumbent Republican Johnny Isakson. And PPP establishes that Democratic NH Gov. John Lynch probably isn’t going to top 70 percent of the vote as he has in the last two cycles, though he remains a strong favorite for re-election. Meanwhile, Survey USA shows WA Sen. Patty Murray (D) in a tight race for re-election even if the GOP’s proto-savior, Dino Rossi, doesn’t run.

Ed Kilgore’s PPI Political Memo runs every Monday and Friday.

Obama’s Nuclear Initiatives: Public Supports Means If Not Ends

Tuesday, April 13th, 2010
Ed Kilgore



Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.

by Ed Kilgore

As the administration’s Nuclear Security Summit takes place in Washington this week, CNN has a new look at public opinion on a variety of issues related to nuclear weapons policy. And it’s safe to say that there is strong public support for what the President’s is proposing, if not always for the utopian-sounding goals he has articulated.

The latter problem is not new. In a May 2009 Democracy Corps survey that found remarkably strong support for Obama’s foreign policy and national security leadership — strong enough, in fact, to all but erase the traditional “national security gap” between Democrats and Republicans — Obama’s stated goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons got a decidedly lukewarm reaction, with 60 percent of Americans agreeing that “eliminating all nuclear weapons in the world is not realistic or good for America’s security.”

The DCorps question on this subject combined skepticism about a nuclear-weapons-free world with opposition to the idea on national security grounds. But CNN separates the two issues, and while respondents split right down the middle (with significant differences based on age, as over-50s who remember the Cold War tend to be negative) on the desirability of eliminating nuclear weapons, the percentage thinking this can actually happen has dropped from one-third in 1988 to one-fourth today.

But the big difference between May 2009 and today in terms of nuclear weapons policy is that the President is now taking concrete steps to address the “loose nukes” issue, to build-down nuclear weapons in conjunction with Russia, and to strengthen the international non-proliferation regime (in conjunction with efforts to isolate Iran’s defense of its nuclear program). And CNN finds strong support for Obama in every tangible area, even if his long-range goals still produce skepticism.

Most importantly, 70 percent of Americans — including 68 percent of independents and even 49 percent of Republicans — think the Senate should ratify the START Treaty with Russia, despite the predictable charges of “weakness” against Obama that have been emanating from many conservative circles since the treaty was signed. With a two-thirds Senate vote being required for ratification of the treaty, that’s probably just enough public support to keep Republican defense hard-liners (and/or obdurate Obama-haters) from launching a big Senate fight.

Moreover, by giving high-profile attention to the “loose nukes” issue, Obama is tapping a deep well of public anxiety about the possibility of nuclear terrorism. By a 7-to-1 margin, respondents to the CNN poll said “preventing terrorists from getting nuclear weapons” should be a high priority than “reducing nuclear weapons controlled by unfriendly countries.” One of the great ironies of the Bush years was that his administration constantly promoted fears about nuclear terrorism while making nuclear security a very low priority, even in bilateral relations with Russia. Dick Cheney, in particular, treated truculent and unilateral behavior towards potential adversaries as the sole means of preventing nuclear terrorism. By unpacking nuclear security from other issues and making it a focus of bilateral and multilateral initiatives, Obama is linking diplomacy with a national security concern that Americans care about passionately.

Public support for the president’s nuclear weapons policies will get its strongest test beginning next month with the beginning of a scheduled review of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. As Steven Clemons notes in an excellent overview of Obama’s “nuclear wizardry” at Politico today, that’s where the rubber will need to start meeting the road in terms of the administration’s efforts to round up the world community for an effective united front towards Iran’s nuclear program. But it’s clear the president’s nuclear initiatives are off to a very good start despite generic conservative carping.

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.