Google Ads


Site Stats

SSP Daily Digest: 6/15 (Morning Edition)

by: James L.

Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 10:08 AM EDT


(Note: The content of this post was written entirely by DavidNYC.)

  • FL-Sen: If there's one small upside to the terrible tragedy unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico, it's that the drill, baby, drill brigade is being made to squirm painfully. Larry Kudlow, of all people, beat it out of Marco Rubio that he "opposes a moratorium on offshore drilling, opposes forcing BP to stop paying dividends to shareholders, and supports continued drilling off Florida's coasts in the long run." I like it when clear lines are drawn.

  • KY-Sen: This reminds me of C3PO's advice to R2D2 after the latter beat Chewbacca in chess: "I suggest a new strategy - let the Wookie win." Rand Paul's new defeatist strategy is to only take questions from reporters in writing. I just hope libertarian whackjobs don't pull people's arms out of their sockets when they lose.

  • NV-Sen: Like Hyman Roth introducing Michael Corleone to his network of gangsters, John Ensign is putting his arm around Sharron Angle's shoulder and shepherding her to a lunch today with Republican senators. (Actually, if anything, Ensign reminds me of Senator Geary, also of Nevada.) Meanwhile, Harry Reid's streak of good fortune continues: Mitch McConnell announced that he won't campaign against the Majority Leader. Does anyone really believe that McConnell is doing this to restore the supposed "comity" that Bill Frist allegedly shredded when he campaigned against Tom Daschle in 2004? If it would even give the GOP the slightest edge, I'm sure Mitch would be in Vegas tomorrow. Nah, I think even McConnell must sense the tide turning in this race.

  • AL-Gov: The recount to see who gets to make the GOP runoff is set to get underway. Tim James trails Robert Bentley for second place by 167 votes (almost half a million total were cast in the primary). James has had to mail checks to every one of Alabama's 67 counties to pay for the recount, totally some $200,000. Officials expect results either Thursday or Friday.

  • SC-Gov: It looks like Henry McMaster has a little more sense than Andre Bauer: the state AG is going to endorse front-runner Nikki Haley today in the runoff, while the Lt. Gov. previously endorsed Gresham Barrett, widely seen as a no-hoper at this point.

  • FL-08: At the link is what will supposedly be Alan Grayson's first TV ad of the cycle. It's not up yet - he's busy flogging it to push people to donate so that he can air it, since he only has $1.5 million in the bank. Pretty weird, disjointed ad if you ask me, with a garbled message.

  • GA-04: Shirley Franklin, who was mayor of Atlanta until this year, endorsed Dem Rep. Hank Johnson in his bid for re-election. Johnson faces a primary challenge from DeKalb County Commissioner Connie Stokes, and former DeKalb CEO Vernon Jones.

  • NM-03: Sharron Angle, Rand Paul, and Dale Peterson - step aside. Tom Mullins has officially come up with the most insane Republican idea of the cycle: he thinks we could put land mines (!!!!!) along the US-Mexico border to deter illegal immigration. I love it when Republicans get all eliminationist with their rhetoric.

  • MS-01: The Tarrance Group (R) for Alan Nunnelee (6/8-9, likely voters, March in parens):

    Travis Childers (D-inc): 42 (51)
    Alan Nunnelee (R): 50 (42)
    (MoE: ±5.6%)

    Nunnelee favorables: 44/8. Childers favorables: 49/30. Obama approval: 36%.

  • SC-04: Bob Inglis has a week left in his runoff against Trey Gowdy, but it sounds like he's already playing his swan song. Inglis has dropped all negative attacks on his opponent and instead is launching a final ad which takes swipes at Washington, DC - a tough move for an incumbent to pull off, to say the least. Politico speculates that perhaps Inglis is trying to win over supporters of the also-rans, but that seems like a fridge too far at this late date. P'co also notes that Inglis isn't revealing the size of the ad buy. Also curious to me is the fact that the NRCC doesn't seem to have done anything to help one of their own here.

  • Polltopia: It's that time again: Head over to Public Policy Polling's website to vote on your favorite place to poll.
    		•
    James L. :: SSP Daily Digest: 6/15 (Morning Edition)
    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
    Print Friendly View Send As Email

    SSP Daily Digest: 6/15 (Morning Edition) | 105 comments
    MS-1
    Not terrible results considering it's a Republican, and one of the toughest districts for the Democrats to hold onto.
    I thought the same thing
    Childers will have a fight on his hands, and he's probably tied or slightly behind at this point.  I thought his favorability ratings were encouraging.

    40, male, Democrat, NC-04
    [ Parent ]
    MS-1
    Is going to be one of the toughest districts in the whole country for the Democrats to hold in November.  I admit it, I was just about ready to concede this seat to the GOP, but if Childers has good favorables like he does now, he's got a fighting chance of holding on and winning.  

    For the record, I have this race as Toss Up/Rep Takeover, meaning that Childers will end up losing by 0-5%.  Against a red tide, it will take a strong campaign and perhaps a little bit of luck, but if he is personally liked it will make his job a heck of a lot easier.  Nunnelee seems like a fairly good candidate for the GOP though, better than what we're seeing in some other southern rural districts like GA-8, SC-5, or FL-2 (which I have turning over anyway because of Alan Boyd's HCR yes vote)

    23, Male, Democrat, OH-13

    [ Parent ]
    Boyd
    I don't see Boyd losing.  He's pretty popular in that district.  And he doesn't have a strong opponent in the Republican field.  I don't even have that seat on my list.

    As for MS-1, it's number 11 on my list of most vulnerable Dem seats.

    [ Parent ]
    He's 11th on my list too
    And to be honest, after reviewing his favorables on this Republican poll, I might improve his chances in my list.  I currently have OH-01 at 13th, and right now I think Childers might have a better chance of being elected than Driehaus.  Any thoughts?

    40, male, Democrat, NC-04
    [ Parent ]
    Tough one
    I actually have OH-1 at 9.  Chabot is a much stronger candidate than Nunnelee, but OH-1 is more Democratic friendly than MS-1.  I don't know.  There are a bunch of races around those slots that are indistinguishable from one another in terms of winnability.  So your guess is as good as mine.
    [ Parent ]
    Thanks..and if you don't mind me picking your brain...
    How do you rate ID-01, MD-01, and NM-02?  I have them all fairly much lumped in the same area.  Recently I've been somewhat more encouraged with ID-01, but it's still a tough seat to defend.

    40, male, Democrat, NC-04
    [ Parent ]
    Re:
    I've actually dropped ID-1 to about 30 based on the primary results and Minnick's apparent strength in the district.

    I have MD-1 and NM-2 5 and 6.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks again
    Like you said earlier, many of these races are kind of jumbled up together.  I have MD-1 and NM-2 8 and 9 in my list, respectively.  I have ID-01 at 16, but I might drop it some more.  

    40, male, Democrat, NC-04
    [ Parent ]
    Nunnelee's favorables are almost as good
    Unfortunately, the R has room for growth. But it also means that Childers needs to define Nunnelee for about half of the electorate.
    [ Parent ]
    Odds are
    the district will flip.  If it doesn't, Republicans have no shot at taking the House.  Or even coming close.
    [ Parent ]
    Not really true. Look back at 1994 and you'll find...
    ...we had Democratic incumbents survive in districts like this one, even while similarly red and a lot of purple districts flipped.

    I don't think there's any one seat we can point to as definitive.  Even if the House flips, we'll see some of our most vulnerable seats stay Democratic in spite of it.  And it's too early to guess which ones those are likely to be.

    43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

    [ Parent ]
    1994
    I don't recall any Democrats surviving in a district with the profile of MS-1.
    [ Parent ]
    Um, in Mississippi itself ALL white Democratic incumbents won at least 60% in 1994......
    We lost one open seat that year in Mississippi, and the other four Dems all won at least 60%, 3 of them in majority-white districts.  One of them, Gene Taylor, was first elected only 5 years earlier, and another, Michael Parker, only 6 years earlier, compared to Childers with 5 years under his belt.  Taylor had been on the ballot in one special and 2 generals before 1994, same as Childers now.

    Similar scenario in neighboring Alabama, where Bud Cramer and Glen Browder both won reelection in 1994 despite being in office for only 4 and 5 years, respectively.

    These places haven't become any more conservative, they're the same as they were back then.  And Republicans actively targeted these seats, they just didn't get good candidates or simply lost in November.

    43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

    [ Parent ]
    Trivial correction......
    I should've proof-read, my sentence that read, "other four Dems all won at least 60%" in Mississippi was incorrect as one of those 4 was Bennie Thompson in the majority-black district, and he actually got just 53% with an indy taking 7%.

    43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10
    [ Parent ]
    True Enough
    These places haven't become any more conservative, they're the same as they were back [in 1994.]

    But they're more Republican anyway.

    A lot of people who were pretty conservative but refused to vote for a Republican died off, but their descendants are much more used to the idea of voting Republican.

    There are a lot more Republican officeholders at every level in the Deep South than there were in 1994.    

    36, M, Democrat, MD-03

    [ Parent ]
    That's a very smart point. But my point still holds that....
    ...there is no ONE seat that is dispositive of anything.  Childers is of the same mold as Gene Taylor and so many other conservaDems.

    My point is that even if we lose the House, we're going to hold some seats we thought were lost, as well as lose some seats that we didn't realize were in such serious jeopardy.  It just always works out that way in "change" elections.

    43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

    [ Parent ]
    No
    Nunnelee is a stronger candidate than Austin Scott? I'm not sure where you're getting that from. I'd recommend researching Scott.

    Childers should be fine. It'll probably be close, but he's established himself as a typical Conservative-leaning Mississippi Democrat. Give him a few cycles and he could become another Gene Taylor.

    I know you've gone through every seat, but many of these Southern seats are easily misleading when relying on PVI. In most cases you've really got to research the candidates themselves, the voting patterns of the areas, etc.

    [ Parent ]
    Grayson's money
    won't matter if he spends it on ads like that one. If I knew nothing about Grayson I might have come away from it thinking it was a preview for a documentary. There really is no central message for the ad.  
    The ad is "over the top"
    Too much rhetoric and not any substance.  

    40, male, Democrat, NC-04
    [ Parent ]
    It is a terrible ad
    It does look like a trailer for a new blockbuster thriller.  Further, it feeds into Grayson's image as an over-the-top loose cannon.
    [ Parent ]
    The only thing missing...
    Is some dudes dressed up as George Washington, Sam Adams, and Ben Franklin.  

    40, male, Democrat, NC-04
    [ Parent ]
    Ya know, this type of wacky, beat the eeevvvvviiiiiillllll Republicans
    Might have played well in 2006 or 2008 (OK, this one might still have been over the top), but this is 2010.  Our side has been in control of things for 2 years.  You don't want people scared or pissed off (and Grayson's add plays on both of those things), as that is more likely for people to look at those running the show to blame.
    [ Parent ]
    Spot on
    It would have been better if Grayson could tout his record and how it helped the families in his district.  It almost felt like he was playing homage to Ed Shultz et al.

    40, male, Democrat, NC-04
    [ Parent ]
    Well I think the ad is saying it in a different way
    And is saying, we are in charge, we've done great things like HCR, and the GOP are simply telling you everything sucks and are lying to you.

    I personally found it to be a slightly below average ad, but average for what I expected from Grayson.  It isnt that bad, it's on steroids, but I get the point of it, and it's a point no one is else is saying because the Democrats are weak and dont go on the offensive.

    That's the thing about Grayson, even if he's completely over the top, it's nice to at least see someone actually attacking the GOP.  Obama 'rising above partisan bickering' is TIRING.  This the first ad Ive seen that says what has been needed to be said by Democrats everywhere, the GOP are completely full of shit and they are lying to you because their policies sound prettier.  They wont make tough choices, they wont fix the economy, they cant considering how narrow minded their thinking is; cut taxes cut taxes cut taxes.  

    Grayson is what he is, but it's nice to see someone at least calling out the GOP for being what they are, political opportunists with absolutely zero real plan for solving any crises in this country.  Fuck Im sick of hearing about tax cuts!

    [ Parent ]
    So you got
    "we are in charge, we've done great things like HCR, and the GOP are simply telling you everything sucks and are lying to you." I really don't see how you got that out of the ad. It doesn't have any really explicit messages to HCR or the stimulus or much of anything for that matter. I can see how he is saying the GOP is lying and he is telling the truth. Other than that, the ad blends in a bunch of pretty unrelated scenes. Seriously, people praying the rosary and then something getting burned in effigy? WTF?  
    [ Parent ]
    GATHER. YOUR. ARMIES


    20, Male, Democrat, CA-44 (home) CA-12 (college)
    [ Parent ]
    What the hell
    was that I just watched?

    19, Male, Independent, CA-12
    [ Parent ]
    An incumbent going hard negative in his first ad?
    Maybe that's just Grayson's style, but he certainly seems worried to me. I think he's just to over-the-top for this R+2 district (think Michele Bachmann in a D+2).

    20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08
    [ Parent ]
    Bachmann's district is R+7 actually
    It was McCain's strongest district in Minnesota.

    28, Unenrolled, MA-08
    [ Parent ]
    He was saying imagine
    Michelle Bachman in a D+2 district. As in, no matter how much a candidate like that spent, they would be DOA in a D+2.  
    [ Parent ]
    Oh okay, that makes sense know


    28, Unenrolled, MA-08
    [ Parent ]
    Grayson's Problem
    There are two categories of controversial things. 1) Strong criticisms of the GOP are called "unfair" because progressives are supposed to play by different rules and 2) Things that turn off moderates. Contrary to what the MSM says, these two categories are not co-terminus. However, Grayson's problem is that he's slid into category 2 too often in a swing district.
    [ Parent ]
    US-President (R Primary 2012)
    PPP released this poll today.  Full results with the downloadable PDF are at this link:

    http://realclearpolitics.blogs...

    The results are shown as:
    Romney 25
    Huckabee 22
    Palin 19
    Gingrich 15
    Paul 6
    Other 5
    Und 6

    I would've liked to see Pawlenty's name included since he's clearly running, but oh well.  Also...do you guys not include polling for the presidential contest simply because it's too early?

    Male, 23, NJ-12

    Hey man
    Thanks for posting, but we generally try to keep the discussion here steered away from Presidential chatter and soley on the downballot races that are the true bread and butter of SSP. Thanks for understanding.
    [ Parent ]
    It is, indeed, ridiculously way too early to poll Prez-2012 Republicans......
    These early polls really truly are worthless.

    Not all of these people will run, and some people running in single digits now or not being polled at all easily could become strong candidates.

    I've been of the view for quite awhile that Republicans do a good job of nominating their strongest nominee even in doomed or otherwise losing years, and based on that, they're likely to go with either Daniels or Pawlenty or Thune.  And none of them registers in polling at all right now.  If one of the more known figures who gets polled regularly ends up the nominee, then the Republicans are badly doomed.  Romney is the least-bad of that bunch, but even he will underperform McCain come November 2012.  And Pawlenty is only marginally better, with plenty of his own liabilities ... but he at least has a broadly appealing profile.  But Pawlenty, Daniels, and Thune are the three who make me a little bit afraid.

    43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

    [ Parent ]
    I'm pretty dispirited this morning......
    The NPR-commissioned battleground poll is really bad for us.  This is a good bipartisan poll of endangered districts, 60 Dem and 10 GOPers, and we're clearly down.

    Right now I'd say it's 50-50 the House flips, which is worse than how I've usually felt about it since HCR was enacted.  If we hang on to it, it will be very narrowly.

    I still feel better about the Senate landscape than in a long time, but Stu Rothenberg's column dismissing Reid's chances against Angle do dishearten me a little.  None of these guys is always right, and my head says Stu is missing badly on how bad a candidate Angle is, but it's one more thing to drag me down this morning.

    Charlie Cook said his basis for expecting the House to flip is macrotrends staying the same in spite of small microtrend improvements for Dems, and that in 2006 he learned the hard way that macrotrends trumped microtrends.  I think that's pretty reasonable.

    Someone make me feel better!

    43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

    I was worried yesterday, Gallup showed the GOP ahead by 5% (49%-44%)
    Among registered voters. Gotta to improve these numbers somehow.
    [ Parent ]
    It was tied, last week...
    Remember that Obama had a bad week in gallup... and it's important to note that Dems gained in their base and with independents with that drop to 5 points behind, which makes little sense.

    Gallup has been having some strange outlier polling lately.

    [ Parent ]
    It's June...
    Just sayin'...

    That NPR poll had an important caveat... each race is going to have to be fought individually, like PA-12.  No one expected us to win that one, but we pulled it out.  no one expected Blanche Lincoln to win, but she pulled it out.  If there is any organization to have faith in, it should be the DCCC.  They know what they are doing.  Donate.

    As for Charlie Cook, he's become quite a hack...  He got 2006 wrong and he'll get 2010 wrong, too.

    [ Parent ]
    Hope you're right, LordMike, but your subject line is actuallly dispiriting......
    June isn't early at all for changing a national environment.  Indeed, it's quite late.  The cake isn't fully baked, but it's been baking for quite awhile.

    We're going to need some dramatic job growth the next few months in a row, and I can't see anything else changing the picture.  Absent that, I can see the bottom dropping out.

    Either we'll stabilize with perhaps very mild improvement, or we really tank.

    43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

    [ Parent ]
    The problem isn't the national environment...
    ...it stinks.  The issue is with Democratic enthusiasm and engagement.  That's going to be the key issue in the fall.  Right now, the right are the ones engaged.  The left is busy enjoying the summer.  The question isn't whether the national environment will improve, but will Democrats wake up in the fall.

    That will be the key in November.  

    [ Parent ]
    Independents are another big problem
    With them swinging GOP, that'll cost big in a lot of races.  Im still hopeful it wont such a blood bath once the Democrats make their case, because other polls do show people acknowledging the economy has gotten a lot better.
    [ Parent ]
    In an exchange on DailyKos
    the point was made that the reason presidential candidates win or lose is how good or bad the economy is, and he said essentially that it's unwise for us to focus too much on the kinds of questions of strategy and image we focus on here, at least in relation to presidential elections.

    Do you agree that the state of the economy is the most important factor in whether there are more wins or losses for the party in power, and if so, to what degree does this translate to Senate and especially House races, where incumbents win at a much greater percentage than in Presidential contests?

    "I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
    --  Will Rogers  

    [ Parent ]
    My view
    It wasn't clear that the GOP had lost its majority until the Foley scandal.  That scandal was the nail in the coffin, and without it the GOP would have held the Senate, and come very close to holding the House (if not held it.)

    In 2008, a Democratic landslide wasn't clear until the fallout of the financial crisis.  Without it, the GOP would have done much better.

    There either will be some similar event in late 2010 to really swing the national environment to the GOP (or less likely for the Democrats) or the GOP gains will be minimized (20-25 in the House, 2-4 in the Senate.)

    [ Parent ]
    Disagree completely on 2006......
    It was crystal clear to me long before the Foley scandal that we were going to take over the House.  And I recall the punditry, too, had come around to that realization long before the Foley debacle.  The House race ratings from Cilizza and Cook and Rothenberg and others made clear we were going to pick up enough seats to take over, and remember enough was only 16 seats that year!  We were down 233-202 going into that November, so only a modest wave was necessary.  And, indeed, the 30 pickups we got caused some teeth-gnashing from Carville and some others on the left who thought we left a bunch of winnable seats on the table.

    The Foley scandal didn't clear turn any more than Foley's own seat.

    And I've never considered and don't agree Foley caused any ripples in the outcome of Senate races.  I understand such ripples can happen, but there was so much else driving the election, including personal and official scandals plaguing Republican Congressmen and Senators, by the time Foley's scandal hit the news, that it wasn't really a turning point.

    Regarding 2008, I agree that the financial crisis was the final straw in ensuring a Democratic wave.  That was a political event unto itself.

    43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

    [ Parent ]
    From Cook
    Yo Lord Mike:
    Just curious what part of 2006 I was wrong about?  Any check of the record shows that I called the House turning Democratic in my August 5 column
    http://cookpolitical.com/node/...
    which is long before any other major independent analyst said or the conventional wisdom believed so.  We were far ahead, not behind the curve.  You have a very short and faulty memory.

    Charlie Cook

    [ Parent ]
    Link doesn't work
    Unless you are talking August 2005 then three months out isn't much to crow about. Now, if memory serves you've been talking about a GOP takeover since about August 2009. So I think Mike has a point.
    [ Parent ]
    The link works if you delete the comma at the end n/t


    "I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
    --  Will Rogers  
    [ Parent ]
    Oh dear...
    You read these forums... gulp! :-O

    I apologize for being so rude... that was uncalled for... You are a respected professional in this field and do not deserve that. My comment was out of frustration and haste, but that is a reason and not an excuse.  I hope you accept my apology.

    I read your link and I stand corrected... My information was faulty and I apologize once again...  Please note that the "word on the street" is that you were wrong about 2006 until it was very late in the cycle.  Thank you for correcting me.

    [ Parent ]
    Be proud, Mike, a political celebrity just greeted you with "Yo"!......
    That is awesome!

    Now I want to say something nasty about Charlie Cook just so he slaps my face!  :-)

    43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, and not only does Cook read this site, he changed his race ratings BECAUSE of SSP......
    Cook last year tweaked his PVI formula exactly as the SSP moderators had suggested in the course of producing new PVI values after the 2008 cycle.

    This is the best activist political blog on the internet and is greatly respected in the professional political community.  Everyone should be flattered that the comment threads here are so thoughtful and smart that campaign experts consider them worth their time.

    43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

    [ Parent ]
    People are rough on you here Charlie.
    We're all (myself included) rankled that you are so bearish on the Democrats this cycle.

    But I can't argue with your 2006-2008 track record.  My recollection is that it was pretty damn good.  The 2006 wave did not materialized until the last minute, so if you were looking at a wave three months out that's pretty impressive as far as I'm concerned.

    34, WM, Democrat, FL-11

    [ Parent ]
    A lot of it is Human Nature
    I've followed Charlie Cook's rating systems religously during the 2006 and 2008 cycle.  If found his analysis to be very strong and uplifting.

    In 2010, Charlie has given a rather bleak picture for the Democrats.  As a result, many of us (and myself included, I will confess...) try to pick a part his analysis on the macro-level as being flawed.  However, Charlie is only reporting what he believes is a complete and accurate picture.  I don't like what he's saying, but it's not personal.  I and many others like to hear "what we want to hear".  As much as I'd like to deny it, I'll confess that I'm guilty on being flawed on what I want to hear.

    So yes, I probably like Charlie Cook more when he's giving us encouraging news.  At the same time, I won't question his integrity nor his ability to analyze the horseraces.  

    40, male, Democrat, NC-04

    [ Parent ]
    Materialized at the last minute?
    Since when? The whole point is the pro-pundits all took forever to take Dem takeover chances seriously until very late in 2006 when there were clear signs long before that. This cycle they have flipped totally on that, talking seriously about a GOP takeover as early as last summer when there were very few signs to justify it. Now they may be right. I get the argument Charlie makes that he thinks he is learning from his mistakes back then as having relied too much on micro-trends. The problem I see is the very real historical fact that Democrats are much more succesful at localizing races and holding traditionally Republican territory than vice versa. Having said that neither Sabato, the best predictor in 2006, or Rothenberg, the best in 2008, see a situation as dire as Charlie.
    [ Parent ]
    I didn't feel like there was going to be a wave
    until the Mark Foley scandal.  Maybe there were signs but I didn't see them.  I wasn't following as closely then as I am now.

    34, WM, Democrat, FL-11
    [ Parent ]
    Huge generic ballot leads
    Fundraising, individual polling leads, presidential approval in the toilet? There was a tightening of things around the 9/11 anniversary and the Atlantic bomb plot unraveling but I'm not sure that wouldn't have stretched again without Foley. The fundemental's were always there and they were awful for Republicans. I still say worse than they are for Democrats today. Since House control only needed a fifteen seat gain to flip I think late breaking events maybe topped up the margins but I seriously doubt it was key to the GOP losing power. Same deal in 2008. Obama would have won without the financial crisis. All it did was pad his margin and add a few states his column.  
    [ Parent ]
    Cook was not slow on the uptake in 2008 though.
    I remember that distinctly.  He had lots and lots of Republican seats, including ones that ended up nowhere near competitive, in the competitive categories.

    34, WM, Democrat, FL-11
    [ Parent ]
    Which suggests to me
    He overcompensated for 2006.
    [ Parent ]
    I felt LOOOOONG before the Foley scandal there was a wave & the House was ours......
    I posted in another comment that people seem to forget that we needed only 15 seats (actually my earlier comment errantly said 16, it should've said 15) to take over the House in 2006.  We started with 203, and there were easily more than 15 seats that looked likely to flip, and about that many more that looked like true tossups, in my analysis considerably before Labor Day.  I think if the election were in July that year, we would've picked up 15 easily.  As it was, we got 30, but we forget we didn't need anything close to 30.

    That's exactly why it's a lot more bold for Cook to say now, so early, that the House is likely to flip.  It's not just that he's saying it so early, it's that the Republicans need 39 (after Djou's win), not 15.  Keep in mind, too, that in 2006 we had 40something seats legitimately in play well before Labor Day; that was 3 times the number of seats we needed to flip the House.  Republicans need 39 seats but don't have many more than that that can be fairly called either likely to flip or true tossups, so they'd have to just about run the table.

    I do think past elections affect pundit psychology somewhat.  Republicans picked up 52 seats in 1994, and it makes 39 seem easier than I think it is.  The flip side is that 15 seemed hard for the Democrats in 2006 because that's in the ballpark of what we needed, and usually more than what we needed, every previous occasion for 5 straight general elections from 1996 through 2004, but yet we never won more than 8 seats in any one of those 5 elections.  Our only big public push to win the House was in 1996, when we won 8 seats, and we fell well short.  Even in 2000 when we needed only 7 seats, and in 2002 when we needed only 6(!), no one talked of the House flipping, and of course it didn't.

    I don't question that this November will be closer to 1994 than any of the House elections from 1996 through 2004.  But I also don't see an argument why it necessarily is closer to 1994 than 2006 (30-seat change) or 2008 (24-seat change when including 3 special election Democratic pickups).

    43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

    [ Parent ]
    Is this a consistent trend?
    The problem I see is the very real historical fact that Democrats are much more succesful at localizing races and holding traditionally Republican territory than vice versa.

    This reminds me of arguments people were making in 1994. The Republicans successfully nationalized that race, didn't they? I mean, not to say that conditions are identical this year; they are not. But I think we should be very leery of the temptation to whistle through the graveyard. There are a lot of reasons to think the Republicans won't actually flip either House, but there sure are a lot of threats to Democratic dominance.

    "I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
    --  Will Rogers  

    [ Parent ]
    Well, on average, this has been true.


    party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01
    [ Parent ]
    How long has it been true? n/t


    "I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
    --  Will Rogers  
    [ Parent ]
    Sure
    I just think macro and micro both have to be taken into account. And to be fair in 1994 there were many Democrats in very Republican districts that survived by doing exactly that.
    [ Parent ]
    But not nearly enough n/t


    "I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
    --  Will Rogers  
    [ Parent ]
    Question for you Pan
    I was 23 years old during the 1994 mid-term elections, and at the time I wasn't paying much attention to the mid-term elections.  I think I was only aware about a week before the 1994 mid-term elections that the Dems were in danger of losing the house.

    Do you remember when you first thought that the Dems were to lose the house that year?  Even when I heard that we were in danger of losing the house, I thought at the time it was more endless rhetoric from the Republicans.  At the time, they hadn't been in control of the House for 40 years.

    If you don't remember, I fully understand, but I know you are a few years older than I am so you were probably more in tune with the political landscape at the time.

    40, male, Democrat, NC-04

    [ Parent ]
    I actually never thought the Democrats would lose the House
    There was an entrenched belief on the part of many Americans that the Democrats had held the House for so long that that was somehow the natural state of affairs. Therefore, there was not only jubilation from the right but shock and desolation from Democrats when we awoke to Speaker Gingrich.

    "I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
    --  Will Rogers  
    [ Parent ]
    Thanks
    I had been out of college for a little over a year when the 94 mid-terms occurred.  I was working 60 hours a week, making very little.  I also proposed to my wife about 6 weeks before this time.  I was too aborbed in life to even think of the mid-terms.  

    The internet was still a relative novelty to me too.  I couldn't imagine not having internet access now.  What the heck did we do back then...read newspapers???  I say this only in jest.

    40, male, Democrat, NC-04

    [ Parent ]
    One critique that I would give
    I do think that your macro-analysis and your seat-by-seat come into real conflict given your tendency to keep all vulnerable (though not necessarily scandal-ridden) incumbents as being no worse than toss-up. I certainly respect (and ultimately agree with) the view that incumbency has very real advantages that don't exist when there's an open seat, but it does lead to some very weird ratings (I don't see, for example, how you can consider IL-Sen to be Leaning Republican while considering AR-Sen to be Toss-up when the public polling for Illinois is a lot closer than the polling for Arkansas, that Illinois overall is a more friendly environment for Democrats right now than Arkansas, and that Kirk himself has proven to be a very flawed candidate in his own right).

    I'd have no problem with the rankings if you'd be a bit more reasonable with how you treat incumbency, it's an advantage, but sometimes they are really that vulnerable.

    Politics and Other Random Topics

    24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

    [ Parent ]
    SC-Gov
    Most people (and most household pets, for that matter) have more sense than Andre Bauer.  
    NPR poll
    Assume that Democrats win none of the 10 Republican districts.  And that the Republican margin in those districts is greater than their overall margin.  So, a Republican lead of 6% in the other 60 districts, assuming a uniform swing, gets them how many seats?  32 by my count.  Not enough to take over.  And not that different from the 25-30 I'm predicting now.  

    As for Cook and Rothenberg, don't even bother reading them.  They're frontrunners of the first order.  Sabato is better.

    That was for DC Cyclone
    Sorry.
    [ Parent ]
    I did something very similar
    And it didn't change my 25-30 prediction. People are underestimating the ability of individual candidates being able to buck the tide with a good campaign.
    [ Parent ]
    Rs haven't been able to "nationalize" this election
    at least not yet.

    Few swing voters even know Nancy Pelosi, and there is no one R "Contract with America".

    In this environment, candidate quality still makes a significant difference in the overall total.

    [ Parent ]
    Not to mention
    The fact Dems have a history of holding onto Republican territory and not vice versa. Even when the GOP had the House there were far fewer Republicans in D+ PVI seats than Democrats in R+ PVI seats.
    [ Parent ]
    Lest we forget 2008
    Mike Montagano and Becky Greenwald, nuff said.
    [ Parent ]
    LA Sen poll
    I'm encouraged by these numbers, esp. with off shore drilling being a bright line issue in this campaign.

    A new Magellan Strategies poll in Louisiana shows Sen. David Vitter (R) crushing Rep. Charles Melancon (D) in their U.S. Senate race, 51% to 31%.

    Update: A new Public Policy Polling survey shows Melancon trailing Vitter by just 9 points, 46% to 37%.

    I think it is funny how Ras and Magellan have been so busy polling but show vastly different numbers.  I know that PPP isn't the gold standard for pollsters but I don't think they have an agenda and they are one of the few pollsters that seem to be polling a lot this cycle.

    Yeah, I found this mentioned on politicalwire
    and thought to mention this here as well.

    Magellan is an R pollster, and PPP is a D pollster, so the real numbers are probably like Vitter 48 Melancon 34.

    party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

    [ Parent ]
    PPP is a D pollster
    but I'm not sure it has a D house effect (although IIRC it did in 2008).

    21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
    please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/
    [ Parent ]
    Where's Nate's post about pollster house effects?


    party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01
    [ Parent ]
    This cycle
    Nate said PPP has a 1.1 point R house effect
    [ Parent ]
    Oh, in that case, it might be more like 47 -37 at this point
    extrapolate to a less-than-10-point margin in Vitter's favor, exact numbers depending on whether there are indie candidacies.

    party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01
    [ Parent ]
    IL SEN
    The latest Public Policy Polling survey in Illinois finds Alexi Giannoulias (D) edging Rep. Mark Kirk (R), 31% to 30%, with Greene Party candidate LeAlan Jones at 14% and another 24% undecided.

    I think Kirk's gaughs cost him an easy election.  I just wish the dems hadn't elected Alexi... I think that this race would have been so easy to hold with a half way decent candidate.

    It will be interesting if Kirk can turn around those numbers
    or if they stay static, in which case he loses b/c a Green is not getting 14% in this election.
    [ Parent ]
    He looks like toast to me
    If this rich guy gets in.
    [ Parent ]
    True
    if the guy can actually has the signatures. I will believe he has the signatures when the filing deadline passes and he has actually handed them over.  
    [ Parent ]
    DavidNYC wrote this whole thing?
    good god man, we should get you a babka.

    Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.
    PPP Poll of LA-Sen Released early to Roll Call
    http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmsp...
    MUCH closer than I expected. Vitter leads 46-37.  
    I imagine
    That is about the best Melancon can hope for. But I'd be surprised if he actually got within single digits on election day.
    [ Parent ]
    That's kind of my thoughts too
    I think Melancon is a good fit for Louisiana, but this is just the wrong year for him to have a lot of success.

    Just a hypothetical question for anyone out here...If this race was held in 2008 instead of 2010, would Vitter be in trouble against Melancon?  Personally I think Vitter would still have the advantage.

    40, male, Democrat, NC-04

    [ Parent ]
    I agree
    The presidential year made it tough. Landrieu barely won against a weak Kennedy despite the advantages of her incumbency. Indeed, an open seat may very well have gone Republican.
    [ Parent ]
    Disagree, Vitter's prostitution scandal was a lot more fresh......
    Vitter's scandal hit the news in summer 2007, still enough time to recover, but November 2008 was still close enough for the scandal to matter to voters.  And timing matters in the media, as Vitter having to step up to the plate so soon would have triggered the media to dig deeper and for longer than they did.  But since he wasn't up for reelection for a couple more cycles, the media let go.  Melancon would have had a real shot at it.  Yes Landrieu barely won, but win she did, and I'm not sure her strength over John Kennedy, who was a statewide elected official in his own right, was necessarily so great in the first place.

    Melancon has the right profile for a Louisiana Democrat running statewide, and Vitter's scandal combined with elevated black turnout for Obama would have given Melancon a plausible path to victory in spite of white Southern dislike of Obama.

    43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

    [ Parent ]
    I'd be a little surprised if Vitter wins by double digits.
    Democrats should still be a plurality in Louisiana even in a tough year, and I expect 85%+ of them to vote for the moderate and relatively inoffensive Melancon in the end.  Even if he loses Independents, that should be enough to get him to 45% or more on election day.  

    I think he'll lose by about what PPP shows here, maybe slightly less.

    34, WM, Democrat, FL-11

    [ Parent ]
    9 points, nice
    Looks like I wasn't totally off my rocker when I moved this race to Lean R last week, as some SSPers had alleged.

    23, Male, Democrat, OH-13
    [ Parent ]
    We are all off our rockers
    So don't fret about it, just join the club.  I have this race as Likely Republican, but I thought you gave a good argument on why it should be Lean Republican.

    40, male, Democrat, NC-04
    [ Parent ]
    What is this
    http://politicalwire.com/archi...

    wut

    party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

    A present to Senator Reid?
    Sorry, but that sounds like a replay of the Civil War if you ask me.  As this Southerner can tell you, it's a good way of getting your ass kicked.

    Shit like this pisses me off to no end.  Playing the "Fear card" gets pretty old.  This is the kind of shit used to play on the conservative airwaves all the time when I grew up.  We would have local corn-cob speakers get on the air waves calling our local government officials "Communist" all the time.  Now this shit from Angle.  I'm just thankful that Angle is not living in the South...we already have a bad reputation for idiocy here.

    Reid should pull this race off.  Angle seems to have taken over the Sue Lowden "idiocy" award.

    40, male, Democrat, NC-04

    [ Parent ]
    Check this out
    I hope that's not where we're going, but you know if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.

    Unless I'm misunderstanding the context, this sounds like not only a call for revolution but a call for an assassination of Reid. "Take him out" in this context sure sounds like "shoot him dead" to me.

    "I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
    --  Will Rogers  

    [ Parent ]
    I don't know
    I have no idea if she meant that Reid should be "voted out" or "assassinated".  I'd like to give her the benefit of the doubt and think she was saying "vote him out", but I've stopped trying to guess what these nutjobs are trying to imply.  In the context of the article, it does seem like she's implying that she's okay with violence, but again, I don't know.

    Her words were beyond stupid.  I don't know if TJ would have liked her using his name in this context either.

    40, male, Democrat, NC-04

    [ Parent ]
    It's at least ambiguous
    And that's very foolish on her part.

    "I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
    --  Will Rogers  
    [ Parent ]
    It's probably purposeful
    She can rile up her base of morons, and when she gets called on it, just say, well come on, I meant vote him out!
    [ Parent ]
    I agree that it was purposeful
    and I think that kind of language paints her as a dangerous, possibly insane nut.

    "I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
    --  Will Rogers  
    [ Parent ]
    This is shaping up nicely
    Some of the crazy stuff came out before the Republican primary, but not enough to prevent her from handily winning it.  Now that she's the candidate, let all the crazy come tumbling out!  The added bonus is that Sharon Angle and her defenders on places like Redstate see some of this stuff as actully beneficial to her!
    [ Parent ]
    They should also remember that removing Harry Reid from office,
    whether by electoral or criminal means, will get them a much meaner Senate Democratic leader.

    party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01
    [ Parent ]
    The question is whether NEVADA media are covering this stuff......
    This stuff showing up in the D.C. political media is one thing, but what matters is whether the Nevada media are covering it.  If not, then it doesn't hurt Angle that much, at least not yet.  Premier Nevada political pundit Jon Ralston stays on top of this stuff and reports it, but it needs a wider in-state audience than what Ralston gets to really reach voters.

    43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10
    [ Parent ]
    SSP Daily Digest: 6/15 (Morning Edition) | 105 comments

    Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

    Primary Sponsor

    You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

    Menu

    Make a New Account

    Username:

    Password:



    Forget your username or password?

    About the Site

    Publisher: DavidNYC

    Senior Editor: James L.

    Senior Editor: Crisitunity

    Contributing Editor: Jeffmd

    Search the SSP archives:

    Sign up to receive a daily e-mail whenever the SSP is updated:

    SSP Resources

    Presidential Vote by CD

    SSP Document Collection

    Race Tracker Wiki

    Dave's Redistricting App

    Blogroll

    Daily Kos Elections
    DemConWatch
    Five Thirty Eight
    Governing
    Hotline On Call
    Political Wire
    Pollster.com
    Prop*50
    Public Policy Polling
    The Thicket
    Powered by: SoapBlox