Archive
Can the GOP retake the Senate?
Probably not. But it’s getting interesting.
See Krauthammer:
The reason both wings of American liberalism — congressional and mainstream media — were so surprised at the force of anti-Democratic sentiment is that they’d spent Obama’s first year either ignoring or disdaining the clear early signs of resistance: the tea-party movement of the spring and the town-hall meetings of the summer. With characteristic condescension, they contemptuously dismissed the protests as the mere excrescences of a redneck, retrograde, probably racist rabble.
You would think lefties could discern a proletarian vanguard when they see one. Yet they kept denying the reality of the rising opposition to Obama’s social democratic agenda when summer turned to fall and Virginia and New Jersey turned Republican in the year’s two gubernatorial elections. …
Democratic cocooners will tell themselves that Coakley was a terrible candidate who even managed to diss Curt Schilling. True, Brown had Schilling. But Coakley had Obama. When the bloody sock beats the presidential seal — of a man who had them swooning only a year ago — something is going on beyond personality.
That something is substance — political ideas and legislative agendas. Democrats, if they wish, can write off their Massachusetts humiliation to high unemployment, to Coakley or, the current favorite among sophisticates, to generalized anger. That implies an inchoate, unthinking lashing-out at whoever happens to be in power — even at your liberal betters who are forcing on you an agenda that you can’t even see is in your own interest.
Democrats must so rationalize, otherwise they must take democracy seriously, and ask themselves: If the people really don’t want it, could they possibly have a point?
Here’s the final takeaway from that:
“If you lose Massachusetts and that’s not a wake-up call,” said moderate — and sentient — Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, “there’s no hope of waking up.”
I say: Let them sleep.
Indiana Rep. Mike Pence (R) leads Sen. Evan Bayh (D) by 3 points, according to a new Rasmussen poll. Pence, the third ranking Republican in the House, is considering a Senate bid but hasn’t indicated publicly which way he is leaning.
Bayh leads two other Republicans, ex-congressman John Hostettler and State Sen. Marlin Stutzman, but still polled below 50% — not a good sign for an incumbent.
Back to the survey of whether the GOP can re-take the Senate –
Likely Democratic
Indiana (Bayh), Wisconsin (Feingold), Washington (Murray): I spent a lot of time on California and New York because they illustrate the basic problem that Evan Bayh (IN), Russ Feingold (WI), and Patty Murray (WA) have. In normal years, they would be safe, but this is not a normal year. Gillibrand and Boxer have been polled, but none of these three have. My intuitions here may be way off, but I wouldn’t be surprised if all three are showing weakness in polling this year. Bayh’s state is five or six points to the right of the country, and with his support of the stimulus and health care bills, I would wager a large sum of money that his polling numbers aren’t abysmal, but also aren’t good. Feingold is awfully liberal for a state that is pretty close to the center of American politics; he nearly lost against a strong challenger in the good Democratic year of 1998, and had pretty tepid results against a weak challenger in 2004. If a credible challenger got in, he could have problems this year. Finally, Patty Murray has always been something of an underwhelming Senator. Her state has inched to the left since she was elected, but her approval ratings are pretty lukewarm and stories like this could be an early warning sign of possible vulnerability. If the situation deteriorates further for Democrats, this could become a problem.
Basically, if Indiana went Republican, that would be the tenth seat to go GOP in that survey — and polls now show Bayh south of 50%, and trailing Pence. (I dispute the rankings — I’d say Indiana is more around 7th or 8th, as it’s a red state for the presidency in most years.)
Bayh knows wave elections all too well — his father, Birch Bayh, went down in the Reagan wave of 1980, losing to Dan Quayle.
The Democrats have plenty of time to recover. Brown’s victory in MA is the giant flashing neon sign to them that they need to get their butts in gear. And November is a long way away. But if they’re still going for it, and think that they need to ram things through — all bets are off. (And I do mean all bets are off.)
Update:
Remember these slightly dated classifications for Senate gains (dated because CT is no longer in play):
Bottom line: is it even remotely possible the GOP picks up the Senate, too? This may be historic by the time it shakes out.
There’s a 1980-like scenario where the GOP picks-up eleven seats, but that kinda required the CT senate seat. The GOP would have to pick-up a lot of momentum nationally close to election day. Basically, here are the scenarios:
Good Year = hold all GOP seats, plus pick-up AR, PA, CO, ND
Great Year = hold all GOP seats, plus pick-up AR, PA, CO, ND, NV, DE
” ’94 Special” = hold all GOP seats, plus pick-up AR, PA, CO, ND, NV, DE, IL, CT
“The Full Reagan” = hold all GOP seats, plus pick-up AR, PA, CO, ND, NV, DE, IL, CT, CA, WI, IN
References — 1980 was a twelve seat swing, as noted above, 1994 was an eight seat swing.
Update again: But I’m still sympathetic to my liberal friends’ argument that the Dems will really take a bath if they abandon health care reform, as their voters will stay home, whereas they are more likely to recover if they hold their ground and fight… I’m sympathetic because I find people standing up for their principles to be much more compelling, even if I disagree with said principles.
Anyway. We’ll see how it shakes out. Plenty of time left before November, and who knows what can happen?
Bold move
This:
The New York Times is reporting that President Obama is getting the 2008 election crew back together to stave off disaster in November …
The Obama political machine is already legendary, but their efforts in 2010 will face a vastly different political landscape than in 2008, when voter anger at Republicans and President George W. Bush was at an all-time high. After Scott Brown’s victory, there was much speculation about what lessons the White House would garner from the rejection of Democrat Martha Coakley in an overwhelmingly Democratic state. According to the Times, it appears the White House will press on with health care, but it believes that voter anger over health-care plan stems from poor communication and political wrangling …
This strategy carries many risks, including the possibility that voters already deluged by months of vigorous debate may not be interested in, or swayed by, a new communication strategy from the Obama White House.
Well, this is the one shot they have at it. So why not try?
If they’re right, they win big. But if they’re wrong, my guys probably don’t just take back the House, but the Senate as well…
See also Tapper’s reporting. (And note the fun use of “Mass.” for all these headlines — “Mass rebellion”, “Mass uprising”, etc.)
Will economic populism work?
The administration’s new tack, post-Brown, is to go after Wall Street with punitive taxes.
The idea is, I’m pretty sure, to harness public anger about the bailouts and force the Republicans into a position where they’re standing up for the fat cats.
I will admit, I immediately thought this and this.
Bloomberg’s reaction, however, did surprise me.
***
I don’t think it will work. Why? Because I don’t think Americans, especially swing-voter Americans, are anti-business. They’re anti-bailout, sure, but they blame politicians for that, not Wall Street. (As they should.)
But we’ll see — there are a lot of otherwise smart people in the Democratic Party who think that this tack will be their political salvation.
***
Meanwhile, health care reform still seems dead.
But we’ll see. They’re a determined lot, and they do still have 257 votes in the House and 59 in the Senate — larger majorities than seen in my lifetime… (And this is the line of the left of the party.)
***
Will be interesting to see the effects of Citizens United on American politics… I expect lots more ads.
Update: “Cross of Arugula“?
Politicians try to reinvent themselves all the time, and some find success. But it only works if there’s some credibility behind the shift – some truth in advertising, if you will. That’s why its’ hard to see the public buying into Obama’s impersonation of William Jennings Bryan. It’s simply not who he is.
Ouch.
Where I disagree with Clarence Thomas
My views on the campaign finance decision are obvious — freedom of speech includes freedom for everyone.
I don’t care for corporations and unions, so I’m sympathetic to efforts to kick them around a bit, at first blush, but as soon as someone reminds me of the fundamental importance of freedom of expression and freedom of association, I cave.
But here’s something: Justice Thomas dissents with respect to disclosure requirements, because some organizations obtain donor lists and harass the people on them, as we have seen in the aftermath of the recent Prop. 8 fight in California — his reasoning analogizes it to the secret ballot.
As much as I love Justice Thomas, I cannot agree. I don’t mind our politicians being paid for with corporate or union money, but I do mind not knowing about it. I need to know whom the SEIU is backing, or whom Soros gave a dumptruck full of cash.
Let anyone give to anyone else, but let there be a disclosure requirement when public officials (or those running for their offices, or running ads affecting those races) are involved.
Update: Yes, the law is in a perverse state right now — the court affirmed Buckley v. Valeo, which allowed limits on individual contributions, while uncapping corporate and union spending.
That’s not fair.
Easy solution: it’s now time to get rid of limits on individual donations.
The idea behind campaign finance reform, back in the 1970s, was noble — get the “special interests” out of American politics.
But one man’s “special interest” is another man’s “group of concerned citizens”.
Let us not distinguish — let everyone speak. But with full disclosure of who’s signing the cheques.
Final word: I am extremely skeptical of rhetoric about such-and-such group “buying” an election. If that were possible, Martha Coakley would be the senator-elect (senatrix-elect?) from Massachusetts — the Democrats and any number of special interest groups bought almost all the ad time in Boston and elsewhere in the week before the special election, saying any number of nasty things about Scott Brown.
In order to run a good campaign, you need a certain amount of money — but if you have a message that people like, you will get that money from individual citizens. And if you have a bad message that people are not sympathetic to, no amount of money will save you.
(Does that mean I think AdScam was overblown, up in Canada — that the Liberals would have won those seats anyway? Yes, actually, I do think that.)
Post-final word: Althouse has a question for the president.
Turning backflips…
WASHINGTON — On Jan. 14, five days before the Massachusetts special election, President Obama was in full bring-it-on mode as he rallied House Democrats behind his health care reform. “If Republicans want to campaign against what we’ve done by standing up for the status quo and for insurance companies over American families and businesses, that is a fight I want to have.”
The bravado lasted three days. When Obama campaigned in Boston on Jan. 17 for Obamacare supporter Martha Coakley, not once did he mention the health care bill. When your candidate is sinking, you don’t throw her a millstone.
After Coakley’s defeat, Obama pretended that the real cause was a generalized anger and frustration “not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years.”
Let’s get this straight: The antipathy to George W. Bush is so enduring and powerful that … it just elected a Republican senator in Massachusetts? Why, the man is omnipotent.
W! W! W!
(Really.)
It’s on again?
The most influential labor organizations in the country have arrived at a common solution to the Democrats’ health care conundrum: Move forward, pass the Senate bill through the House, but only if a separate, filibuster proof bill codifying a crucial changes is passed post haste. …
Unclear is how large a time lag between the two bills labor would accept. As to whether passing a reconciliation bill to amend the Senate bill is feasible, union officials see a ray of hope. “If the House passed the Senate bill, could reconciliation, that process, be used to fix things that might be improved upon? Yes,” Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) told reporters today. “Would I support it? I can’t know that without knowing what would be included in the package.”
Interesting.
Barney Frank backtracked quickly:
In an interview with TPMDC this evening, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) reversed course–apologizing for a harsh statement he released last night in the wake of the Massachusetts special election, and saying, explicitly, that if he’s assured the bill will be fixed down the line, he’d vote for the Senate health care bill.
The Dems have issued their talking points:
New Senate Democratic talking points, distributed in response to last night’s special election in Massachusetts show the party pre-emptively placing the blame for a lackluster agenda moving forward on Republicans, who Dems say they now need to pass legislation.
And now there’s a move to primary Blanche Lincoln:
A coalition of progressive groups including MoveOn.org, SEIU and Democracy for America have launched a website aimed at drawing Arkansas Lt. Gov. Bill Halter into a Democratic primary against Sen. Blanche Lincoln. Progressives have been talking about a Halter bid for months, promising him national support from like-minded Democrats fed up with Lincoln. Now it appears they’re trying to keep him in the Senate race as he toys with a run for Congress instead. DraftHalter.com launched this morning, allowing would-be Halter backers to promise him financial and volunteer support.
But:
On Monday, however, news broke that Halter was “seriously considering” a run for the House seat being vacated by Rep. Vic Snyder (D). Halter told CQ he had “received many telephone calls from Arkansans offering me encouragement and support” to run for Snyder’s seat. If Halter followed that path he would leave the progressives without a challenger for Lincoln. Activists on the left are hoping to unseat her and showcase their power to end the careers of moderate Democrats who stand in the way of the progressive agenda.
So, progressives are on the march.
Well, good for them — they’re acting on their beliefs, and they honestly think their ideas will benefit the majority of the American people.
I, on the other hand, think that their ideas are disastrous. And I’m pretty sure that a substantial majority of Americans agree with me, if exit polls are any guide:
Scott Brown’s opposition to congressional health care legislation was the most important issue that fueled his U.S. Senate victory in Massachusetts, according to exit poll data collected following the Tuesday special election.
Fifty-two percent of Bay State voters who were surveyed as the polls closed said they opposed the federal health care reform measure and 42 percent said they cast their ballot to help stop President Obama from passing his chief domestic initiative. …
According to Fabrizio’s findings, 48 percent of Massachusetts voters said that health care was the single issue driving their vote and 39 percent said they voted for Brown specifically because of his vocal opposition to the measure.
So, my dear progressive friends: if you want to push ahead on the health issue even now, you do still have the votes in Congress — but we’re scheduled to have another discussion about this one come November 2010.
Update: All eyes are on the House.
Update again: See also Krugman on Obama, and a look ahead to November. (Hint to the Dems — it ain’t pretty…)
Update the third: Maybe they won’t follow Pelosi over the cliff… [via Althouse]
See Rush, too… (Though I think he’s off on Clinton 2012. She’s too smart to be the one to kill Obama’s chances at re-election.)
Update the fourth: TPM goes vote-hunting.
Musical interlude: “That ain’t my America”
In honour of Scott Brown’s victory last night:
[Youtube="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KVmRtEO18k"]
[Special version here.]
It’s still good, it’s still good…
The White House says, it’s still on –
Axelrod signaled that the White House is not giving up on health-care reform.
“He believes there is a real crisis,” Axelrod said. “He believes we have to deal with that crisis.” …
“But it’s not an option to walk away from a problem that’s only going to get worse.” …
David Plouffe, who ran Obama’s presidential campaign, was defiant, saying that the Massachusetts election was not a referendum on health care.
“We have a choice as a party. We can cut and run, which I think will be devastating to the country … or we can get this done,” Plouffe said. “We ought to get this done and we ought to go out on the campaign”
On the other hand:
[Youtube="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7Yx2m6Nu5A"]
[via Hot Air]
There seems to be a disconnect between the House leadership and their members –
In the hours and minutes before Republican Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat, House Democratic leadership sounded resilient, even optimistic notes about the possibility of passing health care reform anyhow. But that puts them at odds with their rank and file members, particularly progressives, who, based on press reports and interviews conducted as returns were coming in, but before the race was called, now have a hard time seeing an endgame. …
“If it comes down to that Senate bill or nothing, I think we’re going to end up with nothing, because I don’t hear a lot of support on our side for that bill,” said Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA). “I’ve lost my faith in anything happening quickly that requires Senate action.
“If she loses, it’s over,” Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) said this evening in New York. …
Some conservative Democrats are echoing their progressive counterparts.
Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD), co-chair of the Blue Dog Caucus, said that the “chances would diminish significantly for achieving health care reform this year.”
H’m. (Also, don’t forget Stupak’s band of pro-life Dems.)
What’s happened?
Well…
It was always wishful thinking to believe that town hall protesters were a tiny segment of the country— all sound and fury signifying nothing. Even when it was a smaller group, their concerns were legitimate. It was disrespectful and dumb of Democrats to smear people giving voice to their worries, evincing the exact arrogance that turned voters in Massachusetts away from Martha Coakley.
As Brown’s win showed, it signified something, indeed. Perhaps Coakley’s loss would not have snuck up on national Democrats and Coakley herself if they hadn’t spent the last year minimizing and denigrating administration critics. It’s easy to think you’ve got an election in the bag when you assume your only opposition is a tiny clan of noisy, redneck racists (and, how many of those could there by in Massachusetts, anyway?).
It’s easy to do a mediocre job selling one’s sweeping health-care overhaul when you assume anyone against it just lives to hate poor people and/or do violence to President Obama.
Democrats fooled themselves into believing the town-hall/Tea Party caricature and ignored the feelings of real Americans.
I warned my liberal friends that they were overreaching. But even I figured that they’d get their health care bill and then get massively pwned at the midterms.
One thing does seem to be off the table, though — trying to ignore the election and jam another bill through the Senate before Brown can be seated. (The president seems to be ratifying a settled reality.)
As it happens… well, they still might get their health care bill — there is nothing actually stopping the House from passing the Senate bill even now, and sending it on to the president.
I wonder whether they can avoid the trouncing/pwnage in November, whether they pass the bill or not.
***
Laments of the left can be seen here — Ezra Klein and Dave Weigel are ready to give up on the American republican system of government.
See also Olbermann calling pickup trucks a sign of racism.
Oh, and this (from the right) will be fun, too.
***
But yes, yesterday was a great bursting of bubbles for the chattering classes — they are, at long last, unable to ignore public opinion on the expansion of government.
No, it isn’t a few isolated cranks out there — it’s a majority of the American population.
Scott Brown is now their 41st vote to sustain a filibuster, and their shield against an over-zealous central government.
American politics is fascinating.
Update: What has really influenced the House and Senate Dems?
This:
Scott Brown’s opposition to congressional health care legislation was the most important issue that fueled his U.S. Senate victory in Massachusetts, according to exit poll data collected following the Tuesday special election.
Fifty-two percent of Bay State voters who were surveyed as the polls closed said they opposed the federal health care reform measure and 42 percent said they cast their ballot to help stop President Obama from passing his chief domestic initiative.
“I’m not surprised it was the top issue, but I was surprised by how overwhelming an issue it was. It became a focal point for the frustration that has been brewing with voters, and it’s a very personal issue that affects everyone,” said Tony Fabrizio of Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates, a Republican firm that conducted the exit poll of 800 voters.
“A plurality of voters said their vote was to stop the president’s health care plan — more than those saying it was a vote against his policies in general,” Fabrizio wrote in a memo that accompanied his exit polling.
That’s incontrovertible evidence that people will vote on the issue.
Update again: More here.
Update the third: Actually, the more I think of it… I think it’s dead.
Update the fourth: Yup, it’s dead.
What’s going on?
That’s the musical accompaniment:
[Youtube="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnFy1luxL0A"]
What’s the take-away from last night?
Well. You can go one of two ways.
Was it simply an incompetent candidate on the Democratic side? Or is this a reaction to the Democrats’ national agenda?
If it’s the former, why, the Democrats can move ahead with their plans to ram through a national health care bill without any worries whatsoever. If it’s the latter, however, this is the warning shot.
For my fire-breathing liberal friends, though, I offer you this:
We of good cheer should offer our friends on the other side of the aisle some good advice:
DON’T CHANGE A THING.
KEEP DOING WHAT YOU ARE DOING.
FOLLOW THE LEAD OF THE PRESIDENT.
SUPPORT THE STRATEGY OF REID AND PELOSI.
If you’re a liberal, and you find yourself agreeing with the “friendly” advice of Rush Limbaugh… well, I may have a good November. 
The Scott Heard ‘Round The World
Okay, so Brown won.
Now what?
9:54 PM: Here’s what –
9:48pm — And boom goes the dynamite: here’s a statement from Sen. Jim Webb: “It would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated.”
Boom.
10:34 PM: Some other takeaways — Read more…
