The Wisconsin budget battle is really not about today or tomorrow but the day after tomorrow; it is far less about helping the state make up for a projected $137 million budget deficit than it is about changing the role that public unions play.
This budget shortfall was not unexpected. Indeed, Wisconsin's Republican governor, Scott Walker, has pushed for policies that, in the short term at least, have exacerbated the state's deficit. Walker and the Republican-controlled Wisconsin state legislature passed in January $117 million (over the next two and a half years) in tax breaks for businesses and health savings accounts. Part of the budge deficit is really the story of transferring some state subsidies from public employees to private businesses. That transference may be good or it may be bad, but it is a key detail of this battle.
Moreover, it seems as though union leaders are open to accepting Walker's demands that members contribute 5.8% of their incomes towards their public pensions and and at least 12.6% of their incomes towards health-care plans. This increased contribution would be a de facto pay cut for union members (for example, University of Wisconsin union members could see a 8-15% pay cut). Union leaders have suggested that they would be willing to make these concessions. If this battle were just about the upcoming deficit, it would be over.
But it isn't. There's one concession that unions are not willing to make: surrender their collective bargaining power. Walker's proposal would deny most unions the ability to collectively bargain for anything more than salary (and even that would be limited); Walker's proposal excepts from these collective bargaining rules his political allies in the police and firefighters unions. His proposal also puts up additional hurdles for unions to maintain their union status. These measures set the stage for a long-term structural change.
Consider education. The elimination of union collective bargaining could open the door for destroying tenure, limitations on teaching load, pay for extracurricular activities, limits on working hours, and state funding for continuing the education of teachers. The end of collective bargaining could also help undermine public employee pension funds.
Scott Walker has borrowed a page from Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel and is not letting a crisis go to waste. As with Obama, the most contentious part of Walker's proposals (collective bargaining) serves a far more structural purpose than a short-term one.
(A couple other structural notes: At a time when private sector employment is stagnating and wages shrinking, public workers are not going to be able to defend ever-increasing wages and benefits for themselves. Also, many public unions made the choice to full-throatedly back Democrats, which has limited their leverage over Republicans. With Republicans newly empowered in state legislatures across the country, the hands of public unions are significantly weakened. These unions could be paying a price for their partisanship.)
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
A Fiscal Crisis or an Economic One?
After having backed a $800+ billion tax-cut/stimulus package last December, House Republicans are now looking for ways to trim $100 billion from federal budget. The new wonky cocktail party comment on the battle over Obama's new budget is that non-defense discretionary spending was merely 15% of the 2010 budget. Defense spending came out at about 20% and interest payments on the ballooning national debt were about 5%. The rest of the budget came from "mandatory" programs. Last year's deficit was about 40% of the federal budget, so, even if we were to reduce all discretionary spending to zero, we would still have a considerable deficit. Even reducing defense spending to zero might not erase the deficit.
So "mandatory" spending is the only thing left on the chopping block. The left likes to appeal to this "mandatory" spending as a device for arguing that taxes should be raised; the right likes to appeal to this "mandatory" spending percentage as an excuse for "entitlement reform." Both views may have some substance.
But what is "mandatory" spending? Despite what some media reports or pundits may imply, it's not just Social Security or Medicare. While both are part of "mandatory spending," plenty of other measures are as well. Indeed, if there will be an "entitlement crisis" for Social Security or Medicare, we probably haven't even hit it yet.
Many of these outstanding "mandatory" costs over the past few years can directly be traced to the nation's poor employment picture. Even the Obama administration forecasts the unemployment rate for 2012 to be 8.6%. That would mean nearly four years (at least) with unemployment rate above 8%. We have not seen that continuously high level of unemployment since the end of World War II. With the government safety net bearing more weight than it has in decades, it's no wonder that it is straining.
According to the Heritage Foundation, government spending on unemployment benefits jumped from about 30 billion in 2010 dollars in 2000 to about 194 billion in 2010. And unemployment benefits are only part of the picture. Section 8 housing benefits would grow 7.5% for the next year under the Obama budget proposal, from $26.6 billion to $28.6 billion. Foodstamps spending would grow from $68 billion to $80 billion. Spending for all these measures has been fed by economic stagnation.
This increase in unemployment has also hit tax receipts. Government revenue fell from a high of 2.7 trillion (in 2010 dollars) in 2007 to 2.1 trillion in 2010. If tax receipts reached 2007's levels, we would cut $600 billion from the deficit. A drop in the need for unemployment assistance could easily cut federal spending by at least $150 billion. That's already about half of last year's deficit taken care of without making a single cut to any program. (And those figures do not take into account other areas where unemployment has increased federal spending.)
The fastest, politically easiest way to reduce the deficit would be to restore the health of the labor market (which might be the same thing as saying that the fastest, easiest way to reduce the deficit would be to rub a lamp until a genie come out). This is not to say that there is not a cloud in the fiscal future of Medicare or Social Security, or that there is not waste in federal expenditures, or that making certain budget cuts would be a bad idea, or that taxes should not go up (it's worth noting that we have had nowhere near a balanced budget since the Bush tax cuts passed). This is not even to say that there are no hard choices that face us in dealing with mounting debts. But the focus should be less on trying to shave off a billion here or there and more on getting the nation's economic house in order so that it can get its fiscal house in order.
For the past few years, if not the past decade, the US has been in a period of economic stagnation. If the unemployment rate continues to hover around 9% and tax receipts do not go up through increased taxes, expect either more debt or a radically diminished standard of living or perhaps both. The government has been able to mask some of the effects of this stagnation through increased subsidies to the unemployed. We are borrowing to pay for that mask now. Perhaps the best strategy for the nation's immediate fiscal future would be to make that mask unnecessary.
So "mandatory" spending is the only thing left on the chopping block. The left likes to appeal to this "mandatory" spending as a device for arguing that taxes should be raised; the right likes to appeal to this "mandatory" spending percentage as an excuse for "entitlement reform." Both views may have some substance.
But what is "mandatory" spending? Despite what some media reports or pundits may imply, it's not just Social Security or Medicare. While both are part of "mandatory spending," plenty of other measures are as well. Indeed, if there will be an "entitlement crisis" for Social Security or Medicare, we probably haven't even hit it yet.
Many of these outstanding "mandatory" costs over the past few years can directly be traced to the nation's poor employment picture. Even the Obama administration forecasts the unemployment rate for 2012 to be 8.6%. That would mean nearly four years (at least) with unemployment rate above 8%. We have not seen that continuously high level of unemployment since the end of World War II. With the government safety net bearing more weight than it has in decades, it's no wonder that it is straining.
According to the Heritage Foundation, government spending on unemployment benefits jumped from about 30 billion in 2010 dollars in 2000 to about 194 billion in 2010. And unemployment benefits are only part of the picture. Section 8 housing benefits would grow 7.5% for the next year under the Obama budget proposal, from $26.6 billion to $28.6 billion. Foodstamps spending would grow from $68 billion to $80 billion. Spending for all these measures has been fed by economic stagnation.
This increase in unemployment has also hit tax receipts. Government revenue fell from a high of 2.7 trillion (in 2010 dollars) in 2007 to 2.1 trillion in 2010. If tax receipts reached 2007's levels, we would cut $600 billion from the deficit. A drop in the need for unemployment assistance could easily cut federal spending by at least $150 billion. That's already about half of last year's deficit taken care of without making a single cut to any program. (And those figures do not take into account other areas where unemployment has increased federal spending.)
The fastest, politically easiest way to reduce the deficit would be to restore the health of the labor market (which might be the same thing as saying that the fastest, easiest way to reduce the deficit would be to rub a lamp until a genie come out). This is not to say that there is not a cloud in the fiscal future of Medicare or Social Security, or that there is not waste in federal expenditures, or that making certain budget cuts would be a bad idea, or that taxes should not go up (it's worth noting that we have had nowhere near a balanced budget since the Bush tax cuts passed). This is not even to say that there are no hard choices that face us in dealing with mounting debts. But the focus should be less on trying to shave off a billion here or there and more on getting the nation's economic house in order so that it can get its fiscal house in order.
For the past few years, if not the past decade, the US has been in a period of economic stagnation. If the unemployment rate continues to hover around 9% and tax receipts do not go up through increased taxes, expect either more debt or a radically diminished standard of living or perhaps both. The government has been able to mask some of the effects of this stagnation through increased subsidies to the unemployed. We are borrowing to pay for that mask now. Perhaps the best strategy for the nation's immediate fiscal future would be to make that mask unnecessary.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
A Dangerous Farce
With income inequality in the US breaking records, it is not surprising to see a kind of social Darwinism returning to the scene as a farce of bad faith among the global elite. Chrystia Freeland's article in the Atlantic on the new superwealthy contains a lot of interesting material. This nugget particularly reveals the potential for self-righteousness among our self-anointed elite:
What does seem very clear is that the elite upper class will do anything possible to avoid taking a pay cut. The near-crash of 2008 showed that our economic elite was quite willing to make use of government assistance in order to survive; they were not willing to die by the social Darwinian sword with which they had cut down so many in the middle class. The housing bubble and the Wall Street tycoons it fed were lifted by the flow of money from government agencies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The fortunes of money managers have been built on government subsidies, protections, and loopholes. (To be clear, the elite have every right to defend their economic interests, but so do the middle class and the poor.)
The case of "free trade" offers a revealing instance of contemporary trends. Rather than being a kind of victory for the free market, "free trade" has often become merely companies playing nations off of each other in hopes of getting the most subsidies. Consider the following story from the New York Times:
I heard a similar sentiment from the Taiwanese-born, 30-something CFO of a U.S. Internet company. A gentle, unpretentious man who went from public school to Harvard, he’s nonetheless not terribly sympathetic to the complaints of the American middle class. “We demand a higher paycheck than the rest of the world,” he told me. “So if you’re going to demand 10 times the paycheck, you need to deliver 10 times the value. It sounds harsh, but maybe people in the middle class need to decide to take a pay cut.”Well, if statistics are to be believed, the people in the American middle class have been taking a pay cut relative to the wealthy for years.
What does seem very clear is that the elite upper class will do anything possible to avoid taking a pay cut. The near-crash of 2008 showed that our economic elite was quite willing to make use of government assistance in order to survive; they were not willing to die by the social Darwinian sword with which they had cut down so many in the middle class. The housing bubble and the Wall Street tycoons it fed were lifted by the flow of money from government agencies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The fortunes of money managers have been built on government subsidies, protections, and loopholes. (To be clear, the elite have every right to defend their economic interests, but so do the middle class and the poor.)
The case of "free trade" offers a revealing instance of contemporary trends. Rather than being a kind of victory for the free market, "free trade" has often become merely companies playing nations off of each other in hopes of getting the most subsidies. Consider the following story from the New York Times:
Aided by at least $43 million in assistance from the government of Massachusetts and an innovative solar energy technology, Evergreen Solar emerged in the last three years as the third-largest maker of solar panels in the United States.
But now the company is closing its main American factory, laying off the 800 workers by the end of March and shifting production to a joint venture with a Chinese company in central China. Evergreen cited the much higher government support available in China....
Factory labor is cheap in China, where monthly wages average less than $300. That compares to a statewide average of more than $5,400 a month for Massachusetts factory workers. But labor is a tiny share of the cost of running a high-tech solar panel factory, Mr. El-Hillow said. China’s real advantage lies in the ability of solar panel companies to form partnerships with local governments and then obtain loans at very low interest rates from state-owned banks.
The NYT notes that, within a year of opening the Massachusetts factory in 2008, Evergreen was already investigating opening a factory in China.
So 800 manufacturing jobs were lost in what was supposed to have been a growth industry in the United States. Millions of dollars were extracted from taxpayers in the US and no doubt millions more will be gained in the People's Republic of China. The point here is not to criticize the actions of Evergreen Solar: our government has created the conditions so that a corporation can game the trade-subsidy system, and the company's management is merely operating rationally within that set of conditions.
But it may be time to reconsider whether our government ought to continue that set of conditions. However much some of its members may desire it, the elite does not live in a bubble. Wealthy nations, with a strong middle class, guarantee the global infrastructure upon which this self-proclaimed global elite depends. In the short run, many in the global elite have profited from the current economic order's undermining of the middle class. In the long run, however, the global elite need stable societies.
For allies of small government, the rise of this self-appointed global elite has been problematic. The undermining of the middle class has led to the strengthening of government power. Many of the poor seek an empowered central government to dole out subsistence-level benefits. Meanwhile, the elite have encouraged a stronger central government in order to use it as a conduit to channel more wealth to themselves. President Obama has spoken about the need for the United States to out-innovate the world, but it remains decidedly unclear whether diminished innovation is the real source of our economic troubles. With employment levels faltering and a government and an economy increasingly dependent upon borrowing money, it may be time to consider addressing this increased inequality as contributing to economic stagnation and as threatening the free-market foundations of our economy.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Fanatic---Critique Thyself
Bill Maher slams the "teabaggers" as ignorant rednecks or something and says that the Founding Fathers would have "hated [your] guts" (video at the link). In support of his claim that the Founders would have hated many Tea Partiers' religious convictions, he quotes John Adams: "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." Sounds like a pretty thorough denunciation of religion, doesn't it?
Well, maybe not quite. Adams made this claim in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, but there's a crucial context that Maher is omitting:
It is somewhat ironic that, in a diatribe attacking the supposed stupidity of others and implicitly suggesting that religion is the province of the ignorant and depraved, Maher mangles a quotation and reduces the complexities of Adams's thought to a crude, and mistaken, caricature. While some of the Founders were not afraid to challenge orthodox Christian beliefs (at least by the standards of many today), to identify them all with the rejection of religion is an unfortunate distortion. Moreover, the virtues of science and intellectual enlightenment, which Maher says he supports, are in no way helped by wild quotations out of context. It is that attention to context and to detail that helps distinguish the scientific worldview.
Well, maybe not quite. Adams made this claim in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, but there's a crucial context that Maher is omitting:
Twenty times, in the course of my late Reading, have I been on the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible Worlds, if there were no Religion in it."!!!! But in this exclamati[on], I should have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without Religion, this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in public Company—I mean Hell.In this letter to Jefferson, Adams seems less to be making a wholesale rejection of religion than to be claiming that a wholesale rejection of religion is just as fanatical as a belief that the state should allow only one religion (a statement that Joseph Cleverly, Adams's former schoolmaster, once made).
It is somewhat ironic that, in a diatribe attacking the supposed stupidity of others and implicitly suggesting that religion is the province of the ignorant and depraved, Maher mangles a quotation and reduces the complexities of Adams's thought to a crude, and mistaken, caricature. While some of the Founders were not afraid to challenge orthodox Christian beliefs (at least by the standards of many today), to identify them all with the rejection of religion is an unfortunate distortion. Moreover, the virtues of science and intellectual enlightenment, which Maher says he supports, are in no way helped by wild quotations out of context. It is that attention to context and to detail that helps distinguish the scientific worldview.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Chafee Turns Back on E-Verify
Republican-turned-independent Lincoln Chafee, the new governor of Rhode Island, breaks with the past gubernatorial administration and reverses a measure instructing state agencies to verify the eligibility of potential employees to work legally in the United States:
Rhode Island legislators are proposing a bill that would reinstate E-Verify in the state hiring process.
The 2008 order, which sparked protests and heated debate, directed state departments and vendors to use the federal E-Verify database to check the legal status of new hires. It also required State Police to enter an agreement with federal immigration authorities.
The agreement, known as 287(g), gave specialized immigration enforcement training to some troopers, allowing them direct access to an electronic immigration database to quickly check if a suspect in custody is in the country illegally.
The unemployment rate in Rhode Island is 11.6%, which is one of the worst in the nation. David Frum has wondered about the seeming absence of a voice for the American worker in many elite debates about immigration, and Chafee's repeal may provoke more thoughts along the same lines.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Udall Resolution Hits
Via Greg Sargent, here's the text of the Udall Resolution. Sargent provides the following summary of its points from a Senate aide:
A few points in response:Clear Path to Debate: Eliminate the Filibuster on Motions to Proceed
Makes motions to proceed not subject to a filibuster, but provides for two hours of debate. This proposal has had bipartisan support for decades and is often mentioned as a way to end the abuse of holds.
Eliminates Secret Holds
Prohibits one Senator from objecting on behalf of another, unless he or she discloses the name of the senator with the objection. This is a simple solution to address a longstanding problem.
Right to Amend: Guarantees Consideration of Amendments for both Majority and Minority
Protects the rights of the minority to offer amendments following cloture filing, provided the amendments are germane and have been filed in a timely manner.
This provision addresses comments of Republicans at last year's Rules Committee hearings. Each time Democrats raised concerns about filibusters on motions to proceed, Republicans responded that it was their only recourse because the Majority Leader fills the amendment tree and prevents them from offering amendments. Our resolution provides a simple solution -- it guarantees the minority the right to offer germane amendments.
Talking Filibuster: Ensures Real Debate
Following a failed cloture vote, Senators opposed to proceeding to final passage will be required to continue debate as long as the subject of the cloture vote or an amendment, motion, point of order, or other related matter is the pending business.
Expedite Nominations: Reduce Post-Cloture Time
Provides for two hours of post-cloture debate time for nominees. Post cloture time is meant for debating and voting on amendments -- something that is not possible on nominations. Instead, the minority now requires the Senate use this time simply to prevent it from moving on to other business.
- This proposal does lessen the number of choke points, by ending the filibuster on a motion to proceed. This vote has often been taken to be a key vote in evaluating the strength of a proposal. It definitely offers one weakening of minority rights.
- This proposal does greatly increase the power of 51 votes. The majority only needs to wait out the minority (and the minority's delaying tactics will be limited by the fact that they cannot filibuster the motion to proceed to debate). That may be good; that may be bad. But it seems a fact of this proposal.
- The process of how this vote is taken matters. If it establishes the fact that 51 votes can change the rules in defiance of the tradition (and rule statements claiming) that the Senate is a continuing body, the success of this proposal with less than 2/3 of the Senate would greatly weaken the power of the minority.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
McConnell: GOP Showed Restraint in '95
Mitch McConnell has an op-ed in tomorrow's Washington Post bringing up a few facts about filibuster "reform." The first is that the Senate GOP decided to keep the filibuster even when it gained power in January 1995:
Just two months after securing a congressional majority for the first time in 40 years, Republicans strode into the Senate chamber on Jan. 5, 1995, to cast the first vote of the 104th Congress - a vote to limit their own power.The second is that Reid has done certain things to shut Republicans out of the process in the Senate:Sen. Tom Harkin had proposed changing Senate rules so that it would take only 51 votes to shut down debate instead of the traditional 60. Though it was clearly in the Republican majority's short-term interest to support the measure, every one of us voted against it, as did then-Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. and senior members of the Democratic leadership in the Senate, including the majority leader and the president pro tempore.
What these critics [of the filibuster] routinely fail to mention (and too many reporters fail to report) is the precipitating action: the Democratic majority's repeated use of a once-rare procedural gimmick that has kept Republicans from amending bills that are brought to the floor. This practice, known as "filling the amendment tree," leads to a question that answers itself: Why would Republicans vote for action on a bill that, we've been promised, we'll be blocked from contributing to in any way? If the majority wants more cooperation, it could start by allowing differing views to be heard.
Over the past four years, Democrats have used such gimmicks to pursue their most prized legislative goals while attempting to minimize the number of uncomfortable votes they've had to take. My Democratic counterpart in the Senate, Harry Reid, has played quarterback, setting records for the number of times he has blocked Republicans from having any input on bills, cut off our right to debate and bypassed the committee process in order to write bills behind closed doors.
Defending the Filibuster
Frustrated by the fact that Republicans were able to use the filibuster to block or temper numerous "progressive" power grabs during the first two years of the Obama administration, Senate Democrats, led by Tom Udall (NM), seem to be making a determined play to modify the filibuster. Meanwhile, Harry Reid is in negotiations with Republican Senate leadership about some kind of compromise or deal about the filibuster. Brian Beutler at TPM has done some excellent reporting on this, though there is still much uncertainty about the actual movements. In 1975, Democrats changed the filibuster rules by using the controversial strategy of invoking the "Constitutional option," one Udall and friends seem inclined to use when the Senate reconvenes later this week. This "option" would find that the Senate could modify its rules (including the filibuster) by a bare majority vote on the first day of the Congress. Normally, it takes 2/3 of the Senate to change the rules. Ironically, the reform of 1975, by requiring a 3/5 vote of the whole Senate to override a filibuster, actually made the filibuster stronger and helped it become more common.
Filibuster reformers have a few different options. Perhaps one of the more striking ones is requiring 41 votes to sustain a filibuster. As Beutler explains,
Furthermore, Udall's plan may provide a further weakening of the filibuster in that it seems to suggest that cloture never needs to be successfully invoked for a majority to override the minority; it only needs to wait that minority out. So 51 votes (or even fewer) could have greater power in the Senate.
Udall has a number of proposals floating around, but all have the same goal: weakening the power of the minority. Democrats have a smaller majority in 2011 than they did in 1975, but the caucus is also much more under the thrall of a "progressive" ideology as well. One of the key tenets of many self-styled "progressives" from Woodrow Wilson to Barack Obama is the importance of centralizing power. A bicameral legislature helps check this centralization, and the filibuster, by stressing the need for bipartisanship, further exasperates "progressives" eager to have government by monolithic ideology.
Some Republicans may think that, with the GOP controlling the House, the party would be insulated from any diminution of the filibuster---and that 2012 will bring Republicans to power in the Senate and the White House, so a weakening of the filibuster now would set the stage for a conservative empowerment shortly in the future.
This would be an incredibly short-sighted assumption. According to the conventional Washington narrative, Barack Obama went from being politically untouchable to being a political Untouchable in under two years. There's no reason to think that that process can't be reversed. It would be a foolish thing indeed to underestimate Obama's political strength.
There are deeper structural issues at play as well. Republicans and Democrats will both have their time in the minority. Partisan alienation is never in short supply in our republic, and the traditions of the Senate that limit the power of smaller majorities help build a bipartisan consensus. Checks on small majorities (and that's what the filibuster is, in part) incentivize cooperation and help keep the federal government from dissolving into wild swings as one temporary majority flips into another.
In the days ahead, a few questions remain. Perhaps the most prominent of them: Are the Democrats really serious about "reforming" the filibuster? True, Senate Democrats have almost unanimously signed off on a letter asking for some procedural changes in the next Congress, but there's a lot of vagueness in that desire for change. While "progressive" netrooters salivate over ending the filibuster, numerous Senate Democrats approach this issue more as practical politicians and less as ideologues. Senators know that the filibuster can be a valuable tool when they are in the minority, and have an interest in keeping that tool. Democrats might be able to herald as a great victory some weakening of the (sometimes abused) power of anonymous holds. They might put on a good show of Senatorial kabuki, rile up activists, and leave things pretty much the way they are.
Or they might decide to make a real move against the filibuster. Republicans should fight any radical assaults upon the power of the minority. Under the current Democratic gameplan for attacking the filibuster, there are a lot of delays that Republicans can use to rally popular support in defense of the rights of the minority and the spirit of compromise. The "opening day" could presumably take "weeks" as Republicans demand debate on rules changes.
Moreover, this debate about Senate rules could put a hold of the Senate's business. As a memo from one of Beutler's sources states,
Having experienced a substantial setback in 2010, "progressives" are trying to reach for more power and undo checks on the power of future "progressive" forces. It remains to be seen whether Republicans and moderate-minded Democrats will allow them to succeed.
Filibuster reformers have a few different options. Perhaps one of the more striking ones is requiring 41 votes to sustain a filibuster. As Beutler explains,
Here's how they propose to change that. Under this plan, if 41 or more senators voted against the cloture motion to end debate, "then you would go into a period of extended debate, and dilatory motions would not be allowed," Udall explained.This change would offer a radical shift in the burden of the filibuster, transferring it from the majority to the minority. There is something to be said for this reversal, but making the filibuster threshold 41 votes (instead of, say, one-third of the senators voting) would be a great weakening of the power of the minority.As long as a member is on hand to keep talking, that period of debate continues. But if they lapse, it's over -- cloture is invoked and, eventually, the issue gets an up-or-down majority vote.
Furthermore, Udall's plan may provide a further weakening of the filibuster in that it seems to suggest that cloture never needs to be successfully invoked for a majority to override the minority; it only needs to wait that minority out. So 51 votes (or even fewer) could have greater power in the Senate.
Udall has a number of proposals floating around, but all have the same goal: weakening the power of the minority. Democrats have a smaller majority in 2011 than they did in 1975, but the caucus is also much more under the thrall of a "progressive" ideology as well. One of the key tenets of many self-styled "progressives" from Woodrow Wilson to Barack Obama is the importance of centralizing power. A bicameral legislature helps check this centralization, and the filibuster, by stressing the need for bipartisanship, further exasperates "progressives" eager to have government by monolithic ideology.
Some Republicans may think that, with the GOP controlling the House, the party would be insulated from any diminution of the filibuster---and that 2012 will bring Republicans to power in the Senate and the White House, so a weakening of the filibuster now would set the stage for a conservative empowerment shortly in the future.
This would be an incredibly short-sighted assumption. According to the conventional Washington narrative, Barack Obama went from being politically untouchable to being a political Untouchable in under two years. There's no reason to think that that process can't be reversed. It would be a foolish thing indeed to underestimate Obama's political strength.
There are deeper structural issues at play as well. Republicans and Democrats will both have their time in the minority. Partisan alienation is never in short supply in our republic, and the traditions of the Senate that limit the power of smaller majorities help build a bipartisan consensus. Checks on small majorities (and that's what the filibuster is, in part) incentivize cooperation and help keep the federal government from dissolving into wild swings as one temporary majority flips into another.
In the days ahead, a few questions remain. Perhaps the most prominent of them: Are the Democrats really serious about "reforming" the filibuster? True, Senate Democrats have almost unanimously signed off on a letter asking for some procedural changes in the next Congress, but there's a lot of vagueness in that desire for change. While "progressive" netrooters salivate over ending the filibuster, numerous Senate Democrats approach this issue more as practical politicians and less as ideologues. Senators know that the filibuster can be a valuable tool when they are in the minority, and have an interest in keeping that tool. Democrats might be able to herald as a great victory some weakening of the (sometimes abused) power of anonymous holds. They might put on a good show of Senatorial kabuki, rile up activists, and leave things pretty much the way they are.
Or they might decide to make a real move against the filibuster. Republicans should fight any radical assaults upon the power of the minority. Under the current Democratic gameplan for attacking the filibuster, there are a lot of delays that Republicans can use to rally popular support in defense of the rights of the minority and the spirit of compromise. The "opening day" could presumably take "weeks" as Republicans demand debate on rules changes.
Moreover, this debate about Senate rules could put a hold of the Senate's business. As a memo from one of Beutler's sources states,
Reform Senators would need to object to any attempt to transact substantive business or seek a unanimous consent request to that effect. The objective is to ensure that the reformers do not waive any rights to amend Senate rules on opening day by majority vote.The GOP could use this tactic to its advantage. After all, the Obama administration does have a number of pressing issues, especially the raising of the debt ceiling. How much patience with the public have with a seemingly unchastened Democratic party attempting to arrogate more power to itself instead of doing the nation's business?
Having experienced a substantial setback in 2010, "progressives" are trying to reach for more power and undo checks on the power of future "progressive" forces. It remains to be seen whether Republicans and moderate-minded Democrats will allow them to succeed.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
The Filibuster and Recent History
In what seems a rather transparent attempt to make the most of a diminished majority, Senate Democrats have (almost) unanimously signed on to a letter asking Majority Leader Harry Reid to "reform" the filibuster:
The letter, delivered this week, expresses general frustration with what Democrats consider unprecedented obstruction and asks Reid to take steps to end those abuses. While it does not urge a specific solution, Democrats said it demonstrates increased backing in the majority for a proposal, championed by Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., and others, to weaken the minority’s ability to tie the Senate calendar into parliamentary knots.Among the chief revisions that Democrats say will likely be offered: Senators could not initiate a filibuster of a bill before it reaches the floor unless they first muster 40 votes for it, and they would have to remain on the floor to sustain it. That is a change from current rules, which require the majority leader to file a cloture motion to overcome an anonymous objection to a motion to proceed, and then wait 30 hours for a vote on it.
This "chief revision" may have some merit in some aspects, though it seems that the real aim of many advocates of filibuster "reform" is to limit the ability of the minority to put any brakes on the ambitions of the majority. A radical diminishing of the power of the minority would transform the Senate from an institution emphasizing compromise to one emphasizing majoritarian partisanship.
However, the past few weeks of the lame duck session of Congress have probably complicated the "progressive" mantra that the "Senate is broken." On the tax cut compromise, DADT, and the START treaty, we have seen Senate Republicans cooperating with Senate Democrats and the Obama White House to pass significant reforms. When there is large popular support for a measure (as in the tax cut deal or repealing DADT), the Senate seems quite capable of passing legislation. Bernie Sanders gave one stem-winder of a filibuster---but that did not stop the tax cut deal from passing with overwhelming support. It seems that when unpopular bills are considered (such as Obamacare) that the supposed "brokenness" of the Senate appears.
The past few weeks have shown that it is possible for the Senate to pass legislation and to work in a bi-partisan fashion. The "brokenness" of the Senate may have less to do with structural problems and more to do with limited public support for radical "progressive" dreams.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Wheels behind the DREAM
Mickey Kaus suggests that Harry Reid and friends are not just going through senatorial kabuki over the DREAM Act---they actually want it to pass.
Today's long Hill story on the DREAM Act will do nothing to allay Kaus's fears. It goes into detail about how the scheduling of votes on this measure has been a key strategic device for DREAM backers.
However, this story also feed into a media narrative about Republicans vs. immigration "reform":
There is likewise a potential bipartisan coalition that could oppose the DREAM Act. The narrative of the DREAM Act debate should not be read solely through partisan lenses.
Meanwhile, Kaus has more thoughts on why the passage of the DREAM Act could pave the way for a more "comprehensive" legalization.
Today's long Hill story on the DREAM Act will do nothing to allay Kaus's fears. It goes into detail about how the scheduling of votes on this measure has been a key strategic device for DREAM backers.
However, this story also feed into a media narrative about Republicans vs. immigration "reform":
The bill faces a tough road in the upper chamber. Republicans will filibuster the measure, and a similar bill failed in the Senate in 2007. Since then, party polarization has grown only more severe.This paragraph seems to imply that party polarization was a big reason for the failure of immigration bills in the Senate in 2007. The record of the final filibuster vote on the "grand bargain" immigration bill of 2007 shows that a thoroughly bi-partisan majority opposed the bill. Opponents of the bill ranged from Bernie Sanders to Jim DeMint. Conversely, supporters of the measure also came from both parties. Presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama both supported the bill.
There is likewise a potential bipartisan coalition that could oppose the DREAM Act. The narrative of the DREAM Act debate should not be read solely through partisan lenses.
Meanwhile, Kaus has more thoughts on why the passage of the DREAM Act could pave the way for a more "comprehensive" legalization.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Taxing Skepticism
A few thoughts about Obama's two-year, $1-trillion "tax cut compromise":
Krauthammer's recent column seems a centerpiece of growing conservative opposition to the compromise (some more details here), and other skeptical takes can be found here, here, here, and here. Jonah Goldberg seems to be pushing back against this opposition.
- Timing is not necessarily of the essence. In a few weeks, the GOP will have a much stronger hand in Congress. Why the rush now? They could certainly work out a retroactive tax cut in early 2011 (and by 2011, it would be a tax cut).
- Keep things in perspective. The GOP could pass a continuation of the tax reductions for everyone making less than the top 1% or 2% today. Those tax continuities are not up for debate. The real points at issue are maintaining a taxation rate of 35% for the highest tax bracket (instead of allowing it to rise to 39.6%) and maintaining some kind of estate tax exemption. In exchange, if reports are correct and the Bush tax cut extension is only 1/3 of the $1-trillion package, Republicans are willing to offer $600 billion in new spending and subsidies. So, $300 billion a year in exchange for tax cuts for the highest wage earners?
- Reputations matter. If the GOP isn't careful, passing this "compromise" could be taking a flamethrower to the Republican mantra that the party has "learned" from the "excesses" of the Bush years and now is serious---really serious---about deficit spending. With that reputation burned to a crisp, the GOP may have running on a message of fiscal sobriety in 2012 and beyond. That image was a big reason for Republican gains among moderates and conservatives, and it is not an inconsiderable benefit to be thrown away. Is two years of tax reductions for top earners really worth that?
- What about the economy? Krauthammer and others have suggested that this tax cut compromise is a Stimulus II (or III or IV or whatever), aimed at buoying the president's chances of reelection through improving the economic picture. If this plan would end up improving the economy, there are two possible responses. One is that, if the president's policies do improve the economy, then kudos to him, and he deserves some credit for that. On the other hand, there is also the risk (and one I at least am worried about) that the economic stimulus of this compromise would create the illusion of authentic economic growth financed through frantic borrowing---but it would not do anything to improve the actual fundamentals of the economy. This compromise, then, could focus as a kind of narcotic that temporarily hides the effect of continuing economic erosion while in fact making this erosion much worse. And if this compromise can help push the president over the top in 2012, it might give another four years to failed economic policies.
Krauthammer's recent column seems a centerpiece of growing conservative opposition to the compromise (some more details here), and other skeptical takes can be found here, here, here, and here. Jonah Goldberg seems to be pushing back against this opposition.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
DREAM Votes
Many opponents of the so-called DREAM Act have emphasized focusing on potentially wavering Senate Republicans, such as:
Opponents of the DREAM Act would also be wise to keep their attention on certain Democrats. Democrats facing reelection in 2012 are marked with an asterisk:
Wild cards in this cloture vote include Byron Dorgan (D-ND), George Voinovich (R-OH), and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR). These senators will be leaving the Senate in January. Dorgan especially has been known as a skeptic about legalization plans, but it remains to be seen how much influence the White House and others may have over him now.
As Mickey Kaus points out, the DREAM Act may be about more than just legalizing some children:
Lisa Murkowski (AK)Lugar could face a primary battle in 2012, as could Snowe. While Collins may back Snowe's decision on DREAM in an act of solidarity, the other senators on this list could be harder to pressure. Murkowski just made it through an election, and Brownback is leaving the Senate to become governor.
Richard Lugar (IN)
Sam Brownback (KS)
Susan Collins (ME)
Olympia Snowe (ME)
Opponents of the DREAM Act would also be wise to keep their attention on certain Democrats. Democrats facing reelection in 2012 are marked with an asterisk:
Mark Pryor (AR)If opponents of the DREAM Act can get some of those votes, it becomes very hard to see how DREAM can break a filibuster.
Mary Landrieu (LA)
Claire McCaskill (MO)*
Jon Tester (MT)*
Kent Conrad (ND)*
Joe Manchin (WV)*
Wild cards in this cloture vote include Byron Dorgan (D-ND), George Voinovich (R-OH), and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR). These senators will be leaving the Senate in January. Dorgan especially has been known as a skeptic about legalization plans, but it remains to be seen how much influence the White House and others may have over him now.
As Mickey Kaus points out, the DREAM Act may be about more than just legalizing some children:
I have differences with Roy Beck, head of the influential restrictionist group NumbersUSA. (He wants to reduce both illegal and legal immigration.) But Beck's closing analysis of the DREAM Act is quite powerful and damning. He argues that, because there are no penalties to lying on a DREAM application, and because once you file the application you get a work permit good for 10 years (while you comply with the Act's requirements), DREAM is basically a 10 year free pass to any illegal in a broad under-35ish age range who either qualifies or is willing to say he qualifies even if he doesn't.
Patrick '10 = Obama '12?
TNR offers a potential view into White House thinking for 2012:
Jim Geraghty offers some incisive criticisms of this model:
There are a few other problems for this model. Though TNR talks up the attractiveness of GOP candidate Charlie Baker, he didn't exactly ignite a fire under Massachusetts Republican activists; indeed, operatives of some other Massachusetts Republican campaigns would even privately lament the GOP gubernatorial ticket in the run-up to the election. Baker was no Mitt Romney, who generated a significant amount of excitement among Bay State Republican activists. This could serve as a warning to the GOP in 2012: if Republicans nominate a candidate incapable of inspiring enthusiasm and unable to articulate a clear vision, Obama could end up winning reelection.
Also, Obama's record is significantly different from Patrick's. While voters may not have been happy with Patrick's sales tax increase, that measure pales in comparison to the radical legislation passed over the past few years. Considering the rapidly accumulating number of broken promises about Obamacare, one might wonder whether the aftershocks of Obama's health-care legislation would render the image of a "straight-talking" president a little bit of a stretch.
Of all the historical analogies urged on Obama following November’s drubbing—Truman in ’48, Reagan after ’82, Clinton after ’94—the one the White House has opted for is easily the most obscure. That would be Patrick in ’10—as in Deval Patrick, the recently re-elected governor of Massachusetts. Months after Patrick signed the state’s first sales-tax hike in 33 years, political chatterers gave him little chance of surviving to a second term. Not only did he face the same foul, anti-incumbent mood that elected Scott Brown, he’d drawn an attractive GOP candidate in businessman Charlie Baker.
Patrick’s handlers recommended that he distance himself from liberals in the state legislature—and, above all, downplay the tax increase. The governor overruled them...[R]ecalls one still-traumatized adviser[,] “He thought the way to do it was to be true to what he ran on [in 2006]”—the belief that voters will support someone who levels with them, even if they don’t love every decision. In the end, Patrick and his “politics of conviction” won by a comfortable seven-point margin.
It’s not hard to see the appeal of this narrative in Obamaland, whose principal also fancies himself a teller of hard truths.
Jim Geraghty offers some incisive criticisms of this model:
1) Who’s going to be your Tim Cahill? This article doesn’t mention that Patrick won 48 percent of the vote in heavily-Democrat Massachusetts. Patrick won because the anti-incumbent vote was split by Cahill, who won the 2006 treasurer’s election as a Democrat, served for a while under Patrick, and then rebelled, changing his party to “unenrolled” (equivalent to “independent” in Massachusetts) so he could challenge Patrick. Despite Charlie Baker and the RGA spending enormous resources to try to drive him out, Cahill won 8 percent on Election Day. (A detailed analysis of Cahill’s spoiler role can be found here.)I think #1 and #2 are the most problematic for the White House. Patrick did not gain a majority in 2010, and he started from a much stronger place in November 2006 than Obama does from November 2008.2) You can only alienate so many supporters before you’re doomed. Deval Patrick’s share of the vote in 2010 was 7 percentage points lower than his share in 2006. If Obama sees similar proportional erosion, he’ll be trying to win the presidency with 46 percent of the vote.
3) Guys, it’s Massachusetts. Any Democrat who does not mock Red Sox fans has a much larger margin for error and cushion than a Democrat running nationally.
4) The economy in 2012 remains an X factor, but it’s worth remembering unemployment rate in Massachusetts was 8.4 percent in September and 8.1 percent in October – not all that good, but almost 2 points better than the national average...
There are a few other problems for this model. Though TNR talks up the attractiveness of GOP candidate Charlie Baker, he didn't exactly ignite a fire under Massachusetts Republican activists; indeed, operatives of some other Massachusetts Republican campaigns would even privately lament the GOP gubernatorial ticket in the run-up to the election. Baker was no Mitt Romney, who generated a significant amount of excitement among Bay State Republican activists. This could serve as a warning to the GOP in 2012: if Republicans nominate a candidate incapable of inspiring enthusiasm and unable to articulate a clear vision, Obama could end up winning reelection.
Also, Obama's record is significantly different from Patrick's. While voters may not have been happy with Patrick's sales tax increase, that measure pales in comparison to the radical legislation passed over the past few years. Considering the rapidly accumulating number of broken promises about Obamacare, one might wonder whether the aftershocks of Obama's health-care legislation would render the image of a "straight-talking" president a little bit of a stretch.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Ann Coulter: Palin Presidential Skeptic?
On a Red Eye episode last week, Ann Coulter said that she hopes Sarah Palin does not run for president: she believes that Palin would be more effective where she is right now in the media.
I can't seem to find a clip of that moment, but, while searching this, I saw that this was not a one-off for Coulter. In a video of an appearance in early 2010, Coulter makes the same point, as she does in the report of an appearance in November.
Though Coulter is famed as a conservative bomb-thrower, her eye as a political analyst is often under-appreciated.
Take her infamous appearance on Hannity and Colmes in late January 2008, in which she claimed that she would vote and campaign for Hillary Clinton if John McCain was the Republican nominee. Coulter's argument revealed a deep antipathy towards McCain, and it certainly generated a lot of buzz for her.
But can you really imagine Ann Coulter campaigning for Hillary Clinton? By late January, Coulter might have calculated that she never would have to campaign for Clinton---because Clinton was not going to be the Democratic nominee. In retrospect, Coulter's endorsement of Clinton over McCain can be seen as a sign of just how dire things were for the Clinton campaign in early 2008. (It might also be noted that, shortly after her H&C appearance, she refused to say that she would support Obama over McCain.)
So Coulter is offering some additional political analysis here---and this analysis implies that Palin would be more effective not running for the Oval Office. Is it time to add Coulter to the list of Palin presidential skeptics?
I can't seem to find a clip of that moment, but, while searching this, I saw that this was not a one-off for Coulter. In a video of an appearance in early 2010, Coulter makes the same point, as she does in the report of an appearance in November.
Though Coulter is famed as a conservative bomb-thrower, her eye as a political analyst is often under-appreciated.
Take her infamous appearance on Hannity and Colmes in late January 2008, in which she claimed that she would vote and campaign for Hillary Clinton if John McCain was the Republican nominee. Coulter's argument revealed a deep antipathy towards McCain, and it certainly generated a lot of buzz for her.
But can you really imagine Ann Coulter campaigning for Hillary Clinton? By late January, Coulter might have calculated that she never would have to campaign for Clinton---because Clinton was not going to be the Democratic nominee. In retrospect, Coulter's endorsement of Clinton over McCain can be seen as a sign of just how dire things were for the Clinton campaign in early 2008. (It might also be noted that, shortly after her H&C appearance, she refused to say that she would support Obama over McCain.)
So Coulter is offering some additional political analysis here---and this analysis implies that Palin would be more effective not running for the Oval Office. Is it time to add Coulter to the list of Palin presidential skeptics?
Monday, November 8, 2010
Changes on the Ground
Michael Barone digs into some of the election results on the state level:
Republicans snatched control of about 20 legislative houses from Democrats -- and by margins that hardly any political insiders expected. Republicans needed five seats for a majority in the Pennsylvania House and won 15; they needed four seats in the Ohio House and got 13; they needed 13 in the Michigan House and got 20; they needed two in the Wisconsin Senate and four in the Wisconsin House, and gained four and 14; they needed five in the North Carolina Senate and nine in the North Carolina House and gained 11 and 15.Republicans even gained seats in the Massachusetts legislature, in a year in which the anti-Democrat wave didn't seem to break very hard in the Bay State.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Aftermath
A few basic points for the moment:
- Voting lock-step with a radical agenda doesn't endear you to moderate voters.
- Candidate quality matters, and the fact that a candidate has aligned himself/herself with the "tea party" does not necessarily make that person a good candidate.
- The GOP has an opportunity here, but only an opportunity---no guarantee.
- Obama and his fellow Democrats seem now to be emphasizing the need to "get things done" for the American people; Republicans need to emphasize getting the right things done.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Monday, November 1, 2010
Inside the O'Donnell Ad Contretemps
I've been in contact with a source closely involved with Comcast Channel 28 who has given a fairly detailed timeline of the events about the Christine O'Donnell ad problems. A key detail about this story is that the company that O'Donnell contracted with to broadcast the ad (Positive Promotions) only supplies content to Channel 28; it does not have full control of the broadcasting technology. That will have important ramifications below.
So here's the timeline:
Afternoon of Friday, October 29: Station is told to expect O'Donnell epic ad by 5:30 that day.
5:00 pm Friday: Station employees are told that they will not be receiving the epic ad until Saturday at 2.
Saturday: 3 ads and a 2-minute piece are delivered (which are available on the TV station website), but no epic ad.
Sunday: Told that epic ad would be done by 2 pm on Sunday.
9 pm Sunday: Epic ad is delivered. But it needs to be converted.
10:30 pm Sunday: Ad ready for broadcast. But it needs to be taken to the Comcast studio. Here's where it runs into some serious problems. As the source relates:
The source emphasizes the O'Donnell's people were warned about the consequences about submitting the epic ad late. The source also suggests that Positive Promotions was not required to post the shorter ads on their website but did so as an act of goodwill.
Based on this timeline (which no O'Donnell person has yet challenged), it would seem hard to accuse the employees of Positive Promotions of any grave misdeed or sinister conspiracy to destroy Christine O'Donnell. Of course, if anyone has any information to the contrary, they are welcome to come forward.
O'Donnell's people now seem to be trying to smooth things over with Channel 28, which is now airing the epic ad.
So here's the timeline:
Afternoon of Friday, October 29: Station is told to expect O'Donnell epic ad by 5:30 that day.
5:00 pm Friday: Station employees are told that they will not be receiving the epic ad until Saturday at 2.
Saturday: 3 ads and a 2-minute piece are delivered (which are available on the TV station website), but no epic ad.
Sunday: Told that epic ad would be done by 2 pm on Sunday.
9 pm Sunday: Epic ad is delivered. But it needs to be converted.
10:30 pm Sunday: Ad ready for broadcast. But it needs to be taken to the Comcast studio. Here's where it runs into some serious problems. As the source relates:
...the employees running the show at Comcast do not have the time to take a show that arrives that close to airing with what they are already busy doing on Sunday nights. I believe there was a live taping at 11pm. The program needs to be loaded into the automated system, before it airs. The employees leave at or before midnight, and they are not legally obligated to [Positive Promotions] to load a program into the system before they leave. In fact, it is my understanding that programs should arrive 48 hours prior to airing, but they usually make exceptions for [Positive Promotions], but right before airing and before they want to leave is not one of them.The source also relates that the Comcast studio employees do not begin to work until 3 pm on Monday, which explains why the Monday morning broadcast did not go forward (since the program wasn't in the system, it couldn't be broadcast).
The source emphasizes the O'Donnell's people were warned about the consequences about submitting the epic ad late. The source also suggests that Positive Promotions was not required to post the shorter ads on their website but did so as an act of goodwill.
Based on this timeline (which no O'Donnell person has yet challenged), it would seem hard to accuse the employees of Positive Promotions of any grave misdeed or sinister conspiracy to destroy Christine O'Donnell. Of course, if anyone has any information to the contrary, they are welcome to come forward.
O'Donnell's people now seem to be trying to smooth things over with Channel 28, which is now airing the epic ad.
Ranking the Senate
So I've made my tentative predictions for the results tomorrow. Let's dig into the Senate a little bit more.
My basic assumption here is that Republicans are likely to hold all open GOP seats and are (barring something very strange) clear favorites to get at least 4 Democrat seats (AR, IN, ND, and WI).
And then the toss-ups. What follows below is my ranking of toss-ups, from what I guess to be most likely to switch to least likely. I emphasize that this order is very, very tentative, and I would in no way be surprised if some of the seats higher up the list stayed Democrat while lower seats switched parties.
The Good Chances
Pennsylvania
Pat Toomey has led throughout most of the polling cycle, even if Joe Sestak has closed the gap a little recently. Sestak has a reputation as a strong closer, but I don't think he's got the numbers. Sestak is a pretty far-left Democrat, who could have won in 2006 or even 2008 (maybe), but Pennsylvania doesn't seem like his territory in 2010.
Illinois
Mark Kirk has had a very slim lead over Alexi Giannoulias for months now. Giannoulias has been dogged by ethical questions throughout this campaign. Neither candidate has ever really cracked the high 40s in polling, so there could be a surprise here, but it looks like Kirk has the edge.
Nevada
Sharron Angle has struggled against Harry Reid. Neither candidate seems particularly popular in Nevada, but Angle seems to be pulling ahead in the final days of the campaign. With Tuesday approaching, Nevada voters don't seem comfortable with pulling the lever for an increasingly left-wing Reid and for the Obama agenda.
Colorado
Republican Ken Buck has had a few difficulties on the campaign trail, but Democrat Michael Bennet is facing a very hostile political environment. A divisive governor's race (with a failed GOP candidate and an empowered Tom Tancredo) may pull down Buck. But polling gives Buck an edge, and he seems to be pulling away from Bennet.
The Unknowns
West Virginia
This state is puzzling. It has a radical antipathy to Barack Obama and his agenda. And yet it may be on the verge of sending a Democrat into the Senate. Democratic Governor Joe Manchin is personally very popular and separated himself from the administration on cap-and-trade very early on. But now Manchin has much more explicitly distanced himself from the White House, including reversing some of his former positions. For example, in the heat of the health-care battle, Manchin supported Obamacare; now, in the heat of the campaign, he has denounced that measure. Republican John Raese had successfully attached Manchin to the Democratic agenda in the early fall, but now Manchin seems to have successfully danced away from his old allies and has regained his lead in the polls. I'm still somewhat bullish for Republicans in this race, though. Will WV voters really go into the voting booth on Tuesday and not fear that Manchin will, once in office, cast his vote for "progressive" plans? I think those reservations could sway some voters---Tuesday will tell if they sway enough.
Washington
Patty Murray is vulnerable, and Dino Rossi has run a good campaign. Coming up on Tuesday, this race is about as close as it can get. A wave could definitely propel Rossi over the top.
The Long Shots
Connecticut
It seemed in early October that Linda McMahon was narrowing the gap against Democrat Richard Blumenthal, but the rest of October saw Blumenthal expand his lead. A Republican win could happen, and there are a number of close House races, which could help McMahon.
California
This race seems within five points, but those are a long five points. Under perfect storm conditions, Carly Fiorina could pull off a win over Sen. Barbara Boxer.
Delaware
This state is so small that a surprise could happen. But make no mistake: it would be a SURPRISE. The RCP average of polls has shown little real movement in the race for almost six weeks, and the picture isn't a pretty one for Christine O'Donnell---a 10+-point Coons lead. O'Donnell did surprise some pundits with her victory over Mike Castle in the Republican primary, but polls taken prior to the race did show her leading Castle. That kind of evidence is lacking this time around. Maybe her 30-minute epic commercial airing today and tomorrow will help her beat Coons.
My basic assumption here is that Republicans are likely to hold all open GOP seats and are (barring something very strange) clear favorites to get at least 4 Democrat seats (AR, IN, ND, and WI).
And then the toss-ups. What follows below is my ranking of toss-ups, from what I guess to be most likely to switch to least likely. I emphasize that this order is very, very tentative, and I would in no way be surprised if some of the seats higher up the list stayed Democrat while lower seats switched parties.
The Good Chances
Pennsylvania
Pat Toomey has led throughout most of the polling cycle, even if Joe Sestak has closed the gap a little recently. Sestak has a reputation as a strong closer, but I don't think he's got the numbers. Sestak is a pretty far-left Democrat, who could have won in 2006 or even 2008 (maybe), but Pennsylvania doesn't seem like his territory in 2010.
Illinois
Mark Kirk has had a very slim lead over Alexi Giannoulias for months now. Giannoulias has been dogged by ethical questions throughout this campaign. Neither candidate has ever really cracked the high 40s in polling, so there could be a surprise here, but it looks like Kirk has the edge.
Nevada
Sharron Angle has struggled against Harry Reid. Neither candidate seems particularly popular in Nevada, but Angle seems to be pulling ahead in the final days of the campaign. With Tuesday approaching, Nevada voters don't seem comfortable with pulling the lever for an increasingly left-wing Reid and for the Obama agenda.
Colorado
Republican Ken Buck has had a few difficulties on the campaign trail, but Democrat Michael Bennet is facing a very hostile political environment. A divisive governor's race (with a failed GOP candidate and an empowered Tom Tancredo) may pull down Buck. But polling gives Buck an edge, and he seems to be pulling away from Bennet.
The Unknowns
West Virginia
This state is puzzling. It has a radical antipathy to Barack Obama and his agenda. And yet it may be on the verge of sending a Democrat into the Senate. Democratic Governor Joe Manchin is personally very popular and separated himself from the administration on cap-and-trade very early on. But now Manchin has much more explicitly distanced himself from the White House, including reversing some of his former positions. For example, in the heat of the health-care battle, Manchin supported Obamacare; now, in the heat of the campaign, he has denounced that measure. Republican John Raese had successfully attached Manchin to the Democratic agenda in the early fall, but now Manchin seems to have successfully danced away from his old allies and has regained his lead in the polls. I'm still somewhat bullish for Republicans in this race, though. Will WV voters really go into the voting booth on Tuesday and not fear that Manchin will, once in office, cast his vote for "progressive" plans? I think those reservations could sway some voters---Tuesday will tell if they sway enough.
Washington
Patty Murray is vulnerable, and Dino Rossi has run a good campaign. Coming up on Tuesday, this race is about as close as it can get. A wave could definitely propel Rossi over the top.
The Long Shots
Connecticut
It seemed in early October that Linda McMahon was narrowing the gap against Democrat Richard Blumenthal, but the rest of October saw Blumenthal expand his lead. A Republican win could happen, and there are a number of close House races, which could help McMahon.
California
This race seems within five points, but those are a long five points. Under perfect storm conditions, Carly Fiorina could pull off a win over Sen. Barbara Boxer.
Delaware
This state is so small that a surprise could happen. But make no mistake: it would be a SURPRISE. The RCP average of polls has shown little real movement in the race for almost six weeks, and the picture isn't a pretty one for Christine O'Donnell---a 10+-point Coons lead. O'Donnell did surprise some pundits with her victory over Mike Castle in the Republican primary, but polls taken prior to the race did show her leading Castle. That kind of evidence is lacking this time around. Maybe her 30-minute epic commercial airing today and tomorrow will help her beat Coons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
