Somewhat lost in the glare of the presidential race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is the upcoming battle for control of the U.S. Senate. Democrats appear to have a strong chance to gain the upper hand. Republicans currently enjoy a 54-46 majority in the chamber. If, as seems increasingly likely, Clinton wins the White House, Democrats would need only a 50-50 tie to secure control. That's because the constitution directs that the Vice President serves as the official President of the Senate and that he casts the decisive vote in the event of a tie. So to wrest control away the Democrats need a net gain of four Senate seats this year.
The importance of the Senate to the next president cannot be overestimated. The Senate votes whether to confirm ambassadors, cabinet secretaries and all judicial appointments, for instance. With even a tie in the Senate, a new President Hillary Clinton could easily fill the existing and any future vacancies on the Supreme Court so long as the Democrats stayed unified. So, what are the prospects of the Democrats gaining four Senate seats on November 8? Here are the races to watch.
It looks as though 8 seats of the 34 up for a vote are in play this year with the potential to change parties. Seven Senate seats presently held by Republicans are vulnerable and one seat held by a Democrat is vulnerable. The three Republican seats facing the toughest challenges are Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana. The GOP is almost certain to lose all three. In Illinois Tammy Duckworth has a 9.6% polling edge on Republican incumbent Mark Kirk. Projections wizard Nate Silver (his website is 538.com) gives Duckworth an 89% chance of winning. In Wisconsin former Senator Russ Feingold (D) leads Sen. Ron Johnson (R) by 6.9% for the job Johnson took away from him in 2010. That advantage this late in the game gives Feingold an 88% chance of victory, according to 538. The Indiana race has former Sen. Evan Bayh (D) up by 3.1% in the polls over Todd Young (R), nominated by the GOP to hold the seat being vacated by the retiring Daniel Coats. Nate Silver gives Bayh a 66% probability of winning.
There are two other Republican-held Senate seats, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire, where Democrats are leading, albeit by smaller margins. Democrat Katie McGinty leads Republican incumbent Pat Toomey by 1.3% in the polling averages in Pennsylvania. FiveThirtyEight gives McGinty a 60% likelihood of making Pennsylvania the Democrats' fourth Senate pickup. In New Hampshire, Governor Maggie Hassan (D) leads Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R) by 0.8%. That small edge is enough for Nate Silver to credit Hassan with a 55% probability of victory.
There are two other GOP-held seats where a minuscule Republican lead gives Democrats a chance for a take-away. In North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr (R) is trying to hold off Deborah Ross. He's leading in the polls by 0.7% and Silver gives Ross a 44% chance. Missouri is also tight. Roy Blunt (R) is trying to retain his job against Jason Kander (D). Blunt's average lead in recent polls is 1.1%. FiveThirtyEight rates this one as 56-44 for Blunt.
Then there is one Democratic Senate seat they are in danger of losing to a Republican. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid is retiring in Nevada. Catherine Cortez-Masto is trying to hold the seat for the Dems; Joe Heck is trying to gain it for the Reps. Heck has a 0.5% lead in the polls, but Nate Silver rates the race as 53-47 Cortez-Masto, probably on the strength of the Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid's impressive get-out-the-vote operation in Nevada.
So, the bottom line is the Democrats need a net pickup of four seats if Clinton is President to control the Senate. They would need to gain five if Trump wins. Watch New Hampshire and North Carolina early on election night. If Dems are doing well it will portend a change in control of the Senate. If the GOP holds in those two swing seats they may well be able to retain a bare edge in the chamber and thwart Clinton's judicial preferences. What are the overall chances? Nate's FiveThirtyEight number crunchers give the Democrats a 65.2% likelihood of taking control.
Showing posts with label Senate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Senate. Show all posts
Sunday, October 16, 2016
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
Replacing Scalia
I confess it was with no great sadness that I heard of the passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia this past weekend. Known as the intellectual linchpin of the tribunal's conservative wing, Justice Scalia took great pains to protect the rights of corporations as if they were people but paid scant attention to protecting the rights of actual people. President Obama has announced he will fulfill his constitutional duty under Article II to nominate a successor. Now we will find out whether the Republican majority in the Senate will go through with its threats to refuse to exercise its constitutional mandate to vote to confirm or deny the president's choice. If so, their political flackery will have reached unprecedented heights, even for them. Such a course would likely hurt them in this November's election.
Scalia voted with the 5-4 majority to stop the 2000 Florida recount, awarding the presidency to George W. Bush without the inconvenience of an accurate vote tabulation. He was the similarly deciding vote in cases that overturned forty years of precedents and gave corporations the same rights as human beings, the Citizens United and McCutcheon rulings. He voted to gut the enforcement provisions of the Voting Rights Act, another 5-4 ruling that has been used, through GOP gerrymandering, to once again disenfranchise black voting strength across the South. In his opinion the Fourteenth Amendment ("No state shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.") does not guarantee equal rights for women and LGBT Americans. He stated "In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we've gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both? Yes, yes. Sorry to tell you that." (Source of Scalia quote.) It does not sadden me that such a jurist is no longer on the bench of the nation's highest court.
Within hours of news of Scalia's death, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that no vote would be taken on any successor until after the November election, that a new president should make the selection. McConnell's gambit would deny President Obama the opportunity to name a progressive jurist, hoping for a Republican victory to allow conservatives to maintain their majority on the tribunal. Obama, however, in his own statement, promised to exercise his constitutional responsibility to fill the vacancy, and called on the Senate to follow theirs, to vet the nominee and have a vote. Here are the political considerations. If the Republicans dig in their heels and refuse action they will succeed in ginning up their own base. Committed conservatives would be more motivated to come out and vote for President to prevent a liberal Supreme Court majority. But the converse is also true. Democrats would make this a major issue, firing up their own base to show up and ensure a new Court more friendly to consumers and minorities than corporations and bigots. The deciding factor would be with independents. I feel the maneuver would push most independents in the Democrats' direction. If Obama were to nominate someone who has been already unanimously confirmed by the whole Senate for a lower Court position, independents would see the Republican tactic for the partisan political power play it is, hurting them with the undecideds and helping Democrats in close congressional elections and in battleground states if the presidential election is close. That's why we are already starting to see some GOP senators back away from the scorched earth approach. Look for the next three weeks to tell the story. By then the President will make his nomination and the ball will be in McConnell's "court," so to speak.
Scalia voted with the 5-4 majority to stop the 2000 Florida recount, awarding the presidency to George W. Bush without the inconvenience of an accurate vote tabulation. He was the similarly deciding vote in cases that overturned forty years of precedents and gave corporations the same rights as human beings, the Citizens United and McCutcheon rulings. He voted to gut the enforcement provisions of the Voting Rights Act, another 5-4 ruling that has been used, through GOP gerrymandering, to once again disenfranchise black voting strength across the South. In his opinion the Fourteenth Amendment ("No state shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.") does not guarantee equal rights for women and LGBT Americans. He stated "In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we've gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both? Yes, yes. Sorry to tell you that." (Source of Scalia quote.) It does not sadden me that such a jurist is no longer on the bench of the nation's highest court.
Within hours of news of Scalia's death, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that no vote would be taken on any successor until after the November election, that a new president should make the selection. McConnell's gambit would deny President Obama the opportunity to name a progressive jurist, hoping for a Republican victory to allow conservatives to maintain their majority on the tribunal. Obama, however, in his own statement, promised to exercise his constitutional responsibility to fill the vacancy, and called on the Senate to follow theirs, to vet the nominee and have a vote. Here are the political considerations. If the Republicans dig in their heels and refuse action they will succeed in ginning up their own base. Committed conservatives would be more motivated to come out and vote for President to prevent a liberal Supreme Court majority. But the converse is also true. Democrats would make this a major issue, firing up their own base to show up and ensure a new Court more friendly to consumers and minorities than corporations and bigots. The deciding factor would be with independents. I feel the maneuver would push most independents in the Democrats' direction. If Obama were to nominate someone who has been already unanimously confirmed by the whole Senate for a lower Court position, independents would see the Republican tactic for the partisan political power play it is, hurting them with the undecideds and helping Democrats in close congressional elections and in battleground states if the presidential election is close. That's why we are already starting to see some GOP senators back away from the scorched earth approach. Look for the next three weeks to tell the story. By then the President will make his nomination and the ball will be in McConnell's "court," so to speak.
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
National Appeal Can Help Hold the Senate
What do Democrats need to do to hold on to their majority in the U.S. Senate this year? Much of the national political speculation for 2014 centers on whether Republicans will be able to gain a majority. The present membership includes 53 Democrats and 2 independents who caucus with them, versus 45 Republicans. The Reps therefore need a pickup of 6 seats to swing the upper chamber (a 50-50 split favors the Dems, since Vice President Joe Biden can cast a deciding vote in case of ties.) The map below shows the national field this year.
Here's what the map means: Dark red are Republicans running for re-election. Pink are Republican-held seats in which the incumbent is retiring. Dark blue are Democratic senators running for re-election, and light blue are Democratic seats in which the incumbent is retiring. Of the 36 seats up for election this year, 21 are held by Democrats and 15 by Republicans. The bottom line is that the Democrats are vulnerable since they have more seats at risk than the Republicans, and because quite a few of these are in conservative states. I'll get into some state-by-state analysis on this in a later post, but right now I want to suggest a framework for a national appeal.
That appeal would focus on highlighting the difference between what the Democrats and Republicans have been standing on and voting for in the past few years. A vague sense of impatience with the pace of economic recovery and a sharper frustration with gridlock in Washington is working against the Democrats as the incumbent party. But an effective appeal would highlight the idea that Democrats have been promoting policies the people actually want, and that Republican obstruction is the reason they aren't getting passed. An appeal to the voters ought to go something like this:
Republicans oppose raising the minimum wage. They think $14,500 a year for full time work, an income that qualifies you for food stamps, is too much. Do you agree? Really? Republicans have voted to repeal health care 50 times. You're going to vote to take health care away from 15 million people who now have it? Really? They even shut down the entire government over it. Do you feel that was a pretty smart move? The Republican budget passed in the House caps Medicare and turns it into a voucher program. Is that something you would like to see in place when you retire? Republicans have voted against every bill to require equal pay for a woman doing the same job with the same performance review as a man. You're going to vote for that? Really? Republicans still stand opposed to marriage equality for gays and lesbians. They've been fighting it for years. Are you going to vote against that? Now? Really? Republicans won't even bring the immigration reform that's passed the Senate up for a vote in the House. Are you for keeping 11 million people in legal limbo in our country, for denying U.S. veterans a path to citizenship, for keeping our agriculture from procuring legal labor, and for making it difficult for America to retain the foreign students who earn advanced degrees at our universities? And Republicans blocked sensible legislation to require background checks to make sure felons, terrorists and the violently mentally ill can't walk into a gun show and buy an assault rifle. After all the mayhem and mass shootings in our country over the past few years, do you think that's in the best interest of the safety of the American people? Do you really?
This isn't theoretical. It's not just rhetoric. These are all demonstrated positions the Republicans have not only advocated, but actually voted for. Is this the America you want to live in? Really?
Friday, July 27, 2012
Senate Action Exposes Real GOP Jobs Position
Last Thursday July 19, Republicans in the Senate used a filibuster to stop a jobs bill that would have given companies tax incentives to return outsourced jobs back to this country. In so doing they once again made perfectly clear not only their intent to oppose any worthwhile legislation that might improve the economy (and President Obama's re-election prospects) before the election, but also their utter indifference to the plight of the American worker.
The "Bring Jobs Home Act" was introduced by Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan.) Under current law companies can deduct as a business expense all costs associated with outsourcing jobs to foreign countries. In effect, American taxpayers are subsidizing the shipping of their own jobs overseas. The bill would have removed this tax incentive to move U.S. jobs to foreign countries. It would have kept the tax deduction for all costs associated with bringing outsourced jobs back to the United States and additionally have granted a 20% tax credit on top of those costs as an extra incentive.
The bill was actually approved by a solid majority, 56-42, but under the arcane rules of the Senate it requires 60 votes to "end debate" and move legislation to the floor for a vote. Stabenow's Act received unanimous support from Democratic Senators. It makes so much sense it even induced four Republicans to defy their leaders and vote for it. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine were joined by Scott Brown of Massachusetts and Dean Heller of Nevada in voting to give companies a federal incentive to create jobs in America rather than send them to foreigners. The rest of their GOP colleagues felt that election year politics and subservience to business interests rather than the average worker were greater priorities.
Earlier in the week Republican Senators also blocked the Disclose Act, which would have required transparency and the disclosure of any contribution over $10,000 to a campaign or a PAC. For the remaining 100 days of this campaign we will hear a lot of rhetoric from the Republican side about their commitment to jobs. Their actions, however, belie such talk. Rather than voting to protect American jobs, they vote to offshore them. They do this in the service of corporate interests who want taxpayer money to pay them to do so. And they don't want the American people to know that's where the bulk of their money is coming from.
The "Bring Jobs Home Act" was introduced by Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan.) Under current law companies can deduct as a business expense all costs associated with outsourcing jobs to foreign countries. In effect, American taxpayers are subsidizing the shipping of their own jobs overseas. The bill would have removed this tax incentive to move U.S. jobs to foreign countries. It would have kept the tax deduction for all costs associated with bringing outsourced jobs back to the United States and additionally have granted a 20% tax credit on top of those costs as an extra incentive.
The bill was actually approved by a solid majority, 56-42, but under the arcane rules of the Senate it requires 60 votes to "end debate" and move legislation to the floor for a vote. Stabenow's Act received unanimous support from Democratic Senators. It makes so much sense it even induced four Republicans to defy their leaders and vote for it. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine were joined by Scott Brown of Massachusetts and Dean Heller of Nevada in voting to give companies a federal incentive to create jobs in America rather than send them to foreigners. The rest of their GOP colleagues felt that election year politics and subservience to business interests rather than the average worker were greater priorities.
Earlier in the week Republican Senators also blocked the Disclose Act, which would have required transparency and the disclosure of any contribution over $10,000 to a campaign or a PAC. For the remaining 100 days of this campaign we will hear a lot of rhetoric from the Republican side about their commitment to jobs. Their actions, however, belie such talk. Rather than voting to protect American jobs, they vote to offshore them. They do this in the service of corporate interests who want taxpayer money to pay them to do so. And they don't want the American people to know that's where the bulk of their money is coming from.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
2010 Senate Races Previewed
The U.S. Senate is the big prize still to be determined in Tuesday's election, and it could go either way. The Senate is the arena that will decide whether President Barack Obama has an opposition congress in both houses or only one. It is already highly likely Republicans will gain the majority of governorships and take control of the House of Representatives. For the record, I forecast the GOP will enjoy a net gain of seven state houses, thereby turning a 26-24 Democratic advantage into a 31-19 Republican edge. In the House I see a 55-seat turnover which will change the present 255-178 Democratic advantage (with two vacancies) to a 233-202 majority for the GOP. But now back to the Senate.
Democrats have 59 seats in the Senate; Republicans have 41. Thirty-seven seats are contested this year, 19 held by Democrats and 18 by Republicans. Republicans will need a net gain of ten seats to win a 51-49 majority. It is clear they will pick up seats but can they get ten? Yes, it is possible, but the most likely result is tantalizingly close: they are likely to gain eight or nine. Let's look at all the close races in turn. Eleven Democratic seats are in greater or lesser degrees of jeopardy. By paying attention to these on election night you will be able to tell what is happening.
Let's start with the three Democratic seats in conservative states they are certain to lose.
1) North Dakota. With Byron Dorgan retiring, Democrat Tracy Potter is behind Republican John Hoeven by more than two to one.
2) Indiana. Popular Senator Evan Bayh is retiring. Dan Coats (R) leads Brad Ellsworth (D) by an average of 19%.
3) Arkansas. Incumbent Senator Blanche Lincoln (D) trails John Boozman (R) by 17.
The fourth likely Republican pickup endangers a three-term incumbent.
4) Wisconsin. Russ Feingold (D) is running behind Ron Johnson (R) by an average of 7.7% in recent surveys. It would be a small miracle for him to pull this one out now.
A third group of contests includes races for current Democratic seats where the numbers are close but favor the Republican.
5) Nevada. Majority leader Harry Reid (D) is down an average of 4 points to tea party favorite Sharon Engle. This one is still being called a tossup but is probably hers unless Reid's get out the vote effort is remarkable. Only 6% of voters say they remain undecided.
6) Pennsylvania. Former Republican turned Democrat Arlen Specter was defeated in the primary by Joe Sestak (D), who now trails conservative Republican Pat Toomey by 3.8%. In a normal year Sestak would win this state but this is not such a year.
7) Illinois. Mark Kirk (R) is up 2.8 points over Alexi Giannoulias (D) in an average of several polls for President Obama's old seat. This is a race where both candidates have flaws. The President will campaign for Giannoulias Sunday and Monday and 16% of the voters are still undecided, so it could go the other way. But a Democrat still behind in heavily Democratic Illinois at this stage is obviously in trouble.
8) Colorado. Ken Buck (R) leads Michael Bennet (D) by an average of 2.3% in recent surveys. Benet was appointed to complete the term of Ken Salazar, now Secretary of the Interior in the Obama Administration. Buck's lead is small but has been consistent in the last few weeks, indicating Bennet does not seem to have closing momentum.
The eight races summarized so far would get the Republicans close, to 49. What do they need to get them over the top? This next group of three races are their tougher opportunities. They need one to forge a 50-50 tie in the Senate, and two out of three to gain the majority.
9) Washington. Incumbent Patty Murray (D) is in a statistical dead heat with Dino Rossi (R). Washington is normally a pretty liberal state, which would seem to favor Murray, but Rossi has the recent momentum in the polls. Clearly this could go either way, but in this year's environment it is tough to bet against Rossi.
10) California. Three-term incumbent Barbara Boxer (D) has been a GOP target for years and this time they are giving her a real run for it. Wealthy former Hewlitt-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina (R) is self-funding her challenge to Boxer. It appears she will fall short, though. The latest group of surveys has Boxer up by an average of 4.3 points. This has closed from six points in the past couple of weeks, but time is very short now. It's a probable Democratic hold.
11) West Virginia. The last reasonably possible Republican Senate gain is in the Mountaineer State, where popular Governor Jim Manchin (D) leads John Raese (R) by 4.5%. At this point Raese has only an outside chance. But in a socially conservative state in this election environment it's a chance that cannot be dismissed.
Are there any currently Republican-held Senate seats where Democrats might conceivably take one away? The three most possible are Kentucky, Missouri and Alaska, but none are very likely. In Kentucky, tea partier Rand Paul (R) is out in front of Jack Conway (D) by 9.8%. In Missouri Roy Blunt (R) leads Robin Carnahan (D) by 10.4%. Watch Kentucky, which should report early. If Paul is not coasting that would indicate the Democrats are going to do much better than expected this year. Alaska is a special case, where incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski lost the Republican nomination to tea party choice Joe Miller. She entered the general election race as a write in and has surged ahead of Miller 37 to 27. The Democratic nominee, Scott McAdams, lags behind both with 23. It is just possible that if Murkowski and Miller split the conservative vote down the middle McAdams might sneak in with a 35% win in the three-way race. Murkowski has another problem, in that a court has ruled people must spell her name correctly for her to get their write-in votes.
Realistically, a Democratic win in any of these three states is not at all probable on Tuesday. Republicans will most likely pick up eight or nine Senate seats and go into the next Congress with 49 or 50 votes in the 100-seat upper chamber. If they gain nine and the Senate is evenly divided, expect Vice President Joe Biden to be a busy fellow for the next two years. According to the Constitution, the Vice President casts the tie breaking vote in a deadlocked Senate.
Democrats have 59 seats in the Senate; Republicans have 41. Thirty-seven seats are contested this year, 19 held by Democrats and 18 by Republicans. Republicans will need a net gain of ten seats to win a 51-49 majority. It is clear they will pick up seats but can they get ten? Yes, it is possible, but the most likely result is tantalizingly close: they are likely to gain eight or nine. Let's look at all the close races in turn. Eleven Democratic seats are in greater or lesser degrees of jeopardy. By paying attention to these on election night you will be able to tell what is happening.
Let's start with the three Democratic seats in conservative states they are certain to lose.
1) North Dakota. With Byron Dorgan retiring, Democrat Tracy Potter is behind Republican John Hoeven by more than two to one.
2) Indiana. Popular Senator Evan Bayh is retiring. Dan Coats (R) leads Brad Ellsworth (D) by an average of 19%.
3) Arkansas. Incumbent Senator Blanche Lincoln (D) trails John Boozman (R) by 17.
The fourth likely Republican pickup endangers a three-term incumbent.
4) Wisconsin. Russ Feingold (D) is running behind Ron Johnson (R) by an average of 7.7% in recent surveys. It would be a small miracle for him to pull this one out now.
A third group of contests includes races for current Democratic seats where the numbers are close but favor the Republican.
5) Nevada. Majority leader Harry Reid (D) is down an average of 4 points to tea party favorite Sharon Engle. This one is still being called a tossup but is probably hers unless Reid's get out the vote effort is remarkable. Only 6% of voters say they remain undecided.
6) Pennsylvania. Former Republican turned Democrat Arlen Specter was defeated in the primary by Joe Sestak (D), who now trails conservative Republican Pat Toomey by 3.8%. In a normal year Sestak would win this state but this is not such a year.
7) Illinois. Mark Kirk (R) is up 2.8 points over Alexi Giannoulias (D) in an average of several polls for President Obama's old seat. This is a race where both candidates have flaws. The President will campaign for Giannoulias Sunday and Monday and 16% of the voters are still undecided, so it could go the other way. But a Democrat still behind in heavily Democratic Illinois at this stage is obviously in trouble.
8) Colorado. Ken Buck (R) leads Michael Bennet (D) by an average of 2.3% in recent surveys. Benet was appointed to complete the term of Ken Salazar, now Secretary of the Interior in the Obama Administration. Buck's lead is small but has been consistent in the last few weeks, indicating Bennet does not seem to have closing momentum.
The eight races summarized so far would get the Republicans close, to 49. What do they need to get them over the top? This next group of three races are their tougher opportunities. They need one to forge a 50-50 tie in the Senate, and two out of three to gain the majority.
9) Washington. Incumbent Patty Murray (D) is in a statistical dead heat with Dino Rossi (R). Washington is normally a pretty liberal state, which would seem to favor Murray, but Rossi has the recent momentum in the polls. Clearly this could go either way, but in this year's environment it is tough to bet against Rossi.
10) California. Three-term incumbent Barbara Boxer (D) has been a GOP target for years and this time they are giving her a real run for it. Wealthy former Hewlitt-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina (R) is self-funding her challenge to Boxer. It appears she will fall short, though. The latest group of surveys has Boxer up by an average of 4.3 points. This has closed from six points in the past couple of weeks, but time is very short now. It's a probable Democratic hold.
11) West Virginia. The last reasonably possible Republican Senate gain is in the Mountaineer State, where popular Governor Jim Manchin (D) leads John Raese (R) by 4.5%. At this point Raese has only an outside chance. But in a socially conservative state in this election environment it's a chance that cannot be dismissed.
Are there any currently Republican-held Senate seats where Democrats might conceivably take one away? The three most possible are Kentucky, Missouri and Alaska, but none are very likely. In Kentucky, tea partier Rand Paul (R) is out in front of Jack Conway (D) by 9.8%. In Missouri Roy Blunt (R) leads Robin Carnahan (D) by 10.4%. Watch Kentucky, which should report early. If Paul is not coasting that would indicate the Democrats are going to do much better than expected this year. Alaska is a special case, where incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski lost the Republican nomination to tea party choice Joe Miller. She entered the general election race as a write in and has surged ahead of Miller 37 to 27. The Democratic nominee, Scott McAdams, lags behind both with 23. It is just possible that if Murkowski and Miller split the conservative vote down the middle McAdams might sneak in with a 35% win in the three-way race. Murkowski has another problem, in that a court has ruled people must spell her name correctly for her to get their write-in votes.
Realistically, a Democratic win in any of these three states is not at all probable on Tuesday. Republicans will most likely pick up eight or nine Senate seats and go into the next Congress with 49 or 50 votes in the 100-seat upper chamber. If they gain nine and the Senate is evenly divided, expect Vice President Joe Biden to be a busy fellow for the next two years. According to the Constitution, the Vice President casts the tie breaking vote in a deadlocked Senate.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Republican Wins Massachusetts Senate Race
The news services have just declared State Senator Scott Brown the winner over Attorney General Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts special election to fill the U.S. Senate seat held by Ted Kennedy from 1962 until his death in 2009. This is big news. Though Republicans have won four of the past five races for governor in the Bay State, there are no Republicans in the state's House delegation and there hasn't been a GOP Senator there since 1972. Massachusetts is widely regarded as one of the most liberal states in the union, and Barack Obama won the state by nearly 26 points in November, 2008.
There will be a lot of post mortems on the meaning of this vote. I feel there were some local factors in play here, but there are messages for the nation too. Zeroing in on local conditions, here are some points to think about.
1. Massachusetts has three times as many Democrats as Republicans. But the majority are independents. It's about 36% Democrats, 12% Republicans and 52% independent. Obviously, I feel analysis will show Brown did well among the independents. Turnout was much lower than a general election, and as a bloc Republicans typically turn out at a higher percentage than Democrats.
2. Gender was likely a factor. Only four women have ever been elected to Congress from the state, and none of these to the Senate. There were no women representatives from Massachusetts in Washington for 25 years before Niki Tsongas was elected in 2007. And she, of course, enjoyed the coat-tails of being the widow of former representative and Senator Paul Tsongas.
3. In much the same way that liberals were energized in opposition to the Bush presidency, so conservatives are against the Obama presidency and its agenda.
4. Coakley and the state party in general took the campaign for granted and got off to a slow and late start. Brown's message was clear and simple.
Now for some observations with national implications.
5. The Democrats have hurt themselves very badly by dragging the health care process on for so long. They would have done much better to resolve it quickly, however they were to do it, and get on to what the electorate cares most deeply about--jobs. Surveys showed the people in 2008 were concerned about health and wanted reform. But they felt change would happen faster than this. Something quick and simple such as extending Medicare would have been the kind of decisive and understandable step more people would have supported.
6. The Democrats have also hurt themselves by some of the deal making they did to get such as Ben Nelson and unions with extraordinarily good health insurance on board the health plan. Obama campaigned on change, and most especially on changing the way things are done in Washington. Deals like that smack of the same old same old.
7. Many people are genuinely concerned about the increase in the deficit. Although the Congressional Budget Office says the plan will reduce the deficit in the long run, many are skeptical.
8. The problems Obama inherited are becoming his own. The Republicans in congress are not interested in helping. So to the extent that things are not getting better in the economy faster the Democrats are starting to get blamed.
9. People are angry and fed up in general. It may not seem logical to vote for someone whose views are precisely what allowed the economy to crash and the health problems to get out of hand in the first place, but the Democrats (particularly in Massachusetts) are now in control and they took the brunt of the anger in this race. It will be interesting this fall to see whether such anger is directed at all incumbents or merely at Democrats.
10. Obama and the Democrats had better come up with some plans fast to create jobs. If they have any brains at all they had better get that message at least.
There will be a lot of post mortems on the meaning of this vote. I feel there were some local factors in play here, but there are messages for the nation too. Zeroing in on local conditions, here are some points to think about.
1. Massachusetts has three times as many Democrats as Republicans. But the majority are independents. It's about 36% Democrats, 12% Republicans and 52% independent. Obviously, I feel analysis will show Brown did well among the independents. Turnout was much lower than a general election, and as a bloc Republicans typically turn out at a higher percentage than Democrats.
2. Gender was likely a factor. Only four women have ever been elected to Congress from the state, and none of these to the Senate. There were no women representatives from Massachusetts in Washington for 25 years before Niki Tsongas was elected in 2007. And she, of course, enjoyed the coat-tails of being the widow of former representative and Senator Paul Tsongas.
3. In much the same way that liberals were energized in opposition to the Bush presidency, so conservatives are against the Obama presidency and its agenda.
4. Coakley and the state party in general took the campaign for granted and got off to a slow and late start. Brown's message was clear and simple.
Now for some observations with national implications.
5. The Democrats have hurt themselves very badly by dragging the health care process on for so long. They would have done much better to resolve it quickly, however they were to do it, and get on to what the electorate cares most deeply about--jobs. Surveys showed the people in 2008 were concerned about health and wanted reform. But they felt change would happen faster than this. Something quick and simple such as extending Medicare would have been the kind of decisive and understandable step more people would have supported.
6. The Democrats have also hurt themselves by some of the deal making they did to get such as Ben Nelson and unions with extraordinarily good health insurance on board the health plan. Obama campaigned on change, and most especially on changing the way things are done in Washington. Deals like that smack of the same old same old.
7. Many people are genuinely concerned about the increase in the deficit. Although the Congressional Budget Office says the plan will reduce the deficit in the long run, many are skeptical.
8. The problems Obama inherited are becoming his own. The Republicans in congress are not interested in helping. So to the extent that things are not getting better in the economy faster the Democrats are starting to get blamed.
9. People are angry and fed up in general. It may not seem logical to vote for someone whose views are precisely what allowed the economy to crash and the health problems to get out of hand in the first place, but the Democrats (particularly in Massachusetts) are now in control and they took the brunt of the anger in this race. It will be interesting this fall to see whether such anger is directed at all incumbents or merely at Democrats.
10. Obama and the Democrats had better come up with some plans fast to create jobs. If they have any brains at all they had better get that message at least.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)