Midterm Senate Prospects

*Note: This article was written two weeks ago.  Since then, Carl Levin has said he'll retire (as I predict in the article), Norm Coleman has announced that he will not run in Minnesota and Dick Durbin of Illinois is strongly hinting that he will run again.

Midterms are tough on the President’s party.  Almost without exception, the opposition makes gains in the House and the Senate, which can dramatically alter the balance of power and the effectiveness of the Chief Executive.   For different reasons (war, economic problems, personal scandal), the President’s party usually suffers in midterms.  In 1862 the GOP lost ground in national and state elections because of public disapproval in President Lincoln’s management of the Civil War.  In 1918 Republicans won control of the Senate just days before the armistice that brought about the end of hostilities in World War I.  While it is questionable whether President Wilson would have been able to ratify the League of Nations if the Democrats would have kept control, with the GOP in power in the Upper Chamber for the first time in eight years there was virtually no chance of it passing afterwards and left Wilson politically feeble during his last two years of his presidency.  Even popular presidents like FDR and IKE took a beating during the midterm elections halfway through their second terms: In 1938 Democrats lost 6 seats in the Senate and a whopping 72 in the House.  Republicans got blown out in 1958, losing 12 Senate seats and 48 in the House.   

In our modern political era, Republicans lost control of the Senate in 1986 and, as a result, could not overcome Democratic opposition to Robert Bork the next year to elevate him from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals (which the Senate had unanimously consented to in 1981) to the Supreme Court.  In 1994 the Republicans devastated the Democrats in a stunning rebuke of Bill Clinton’s first two years in office, making a GOP Speaker for the first time since 1954 and bringing back Bob Dole as Majority Leader in the Senate.  In 2006 George W. Bush’s unpopularity decimated Republican ranks losing 6 Senate seats and 31 House seats passing control to the Democrats in the midst of what was (then) considered a quagmire in Iraq.  In 2010, President Obama’s unpopular health care initiative lead to a crushing defeat in Congress; a loss of 7 Senate seats and 63 House seats.  While Republicans didn’t gain control in the Senate they did in the House, a minor miracle considering how far in the wilderness the GOP House caucus was in 2009-1010.

What will this mean for the upcoming 2014 midterms?  If history is a guide, the Democrats should lose seats in both chambers.  Of course, if the Republicans nominate more Todd Akins than all bets are off.  The GOP has made some colossal blunders in recent races (Missouri and Indiana in 2012, Delaware and Nevada in 2010), had near misses (Colorado and Washington in 2010, North Dakota in 2012), and just some rotten luck against strong Democratic GOTV efforts (Wisconsin, Montana and Massachusetts 2012).  To gain control the GOP would have to pick up 6 seats; a big number but one that is possible for three reasons, weak first term Senators brought in through the Obama wave, retirements and red state Democrats. 

THE RED STATE DEMOCRATS

There are four red state Democrats that are particularly vulnerable with a possible fifth if the right candidate is selected.  They all voted for ObamaCare, they all supported the stimulus, and have been reliable Democratic votes for the last six years.  That’s going to be a tough sell in states that didn’t vote for Obama in 2012.   Kay Hagan of North Carolina benefitted from a tremendous Obama GOTV effort in North Carolina in 2008, beating Elizabeth Dole by eight points.  She won’t have that advantage in 2014; in the last two elections Republicans have done extremely well in the Tar Heel State, winning the state legislature in 2010 and easily winning the governorship in 2012.  The Congressional delegation in 2009 was 8 Democrats and 5 Republicans, now its 9 Republicans and 4 Democrats.  North Carolina has been tough on senators; incumbents lost in 1992, 1998 and 2008 and in 2004 the open seat turned over as well. 

Tim Johnson of South Dakota may be in the most jeopardy.  The three-term Democrat beat incumbent Larry Pressler by 2% in 1996 and squeaked by John Thune in 2002 (among allegations of voter fraud).  In 2008 Johnson won easily as the GOP didn’t seem serious about mounting a strong challenger and many Dakotans felt sorry for Johnson after his long recovery from a major stroke the year before.  This year, however, former Governor Mike Rounds has announced his intention to run.  The popular Republican will probably give Johnson reason to retire.  Facing Rounds in the sixth year of President Obama’s term would almost certainly spell the end of Johnson’s Senate career.  I predict Johnson will retire and Rounds will easily walk into the Senate.

Mark Begich of Alaska got a big break in 2008 when he ran against scandal-tarred incumbent Republican Ted Stevens.  With Stevens’ trial lasting until just a few days before the 2008 election, Begich was able to squeak by him as voters in this GOP state turned away from him after almost thirty years of service.  There are plenty of Republicans who would be competitive in 2014 but Begich is running and should be competitive.  I suspect he’ll try to replicate what Jon Tester did in Montana.  Tester, elected by a slim margin in 2006 against another scandal plagued GOP opponent, was able to pull off a victory against a well-known Republican politician by appearing as a moderate in a conservative state.  Even though Tester won with less than 49% of the vote he still won by a comfortable four-point margin. 

Mary Landrieu is an interesting case.  A Louisiana politician, she was first elected by an eyelash in 1996 in a fraudulent election against Woody Jenkins (who eventually took his case to the US Senate but it was dismissed and Landrieu was seated.)  She won with 52% in 2002 and 2008 but should be in for the fight of her life.  Almost the entire Louisiana congressional delegation and all of the elected statewide officers are Republicans.  Her only hope is if whomever comes out of a tough primary is so bloodied that he’ll be unable to compete in the general election.  Elections are different if Louisiana, anyone can run in the first round (on the regular election day) and if no one gets 50% then the top two will run off.  The easiest option for the GOP would be to simply have one major candidate run against Landrieu and try to topple her in the first round by getting a majority of the votes.  It will be tough to convince aspiring Republicans who would like to ascend to the Senate to sit out in favor of one candidate. 

Perhaps the most interesting case is in Arkansas.  Mark Pryor is a popular Democrat who bested a GOP incumbent in 2002 and was unopposed in 2008.  Surely he’ll have opposition this time as the winds of change have blown through the Natural State.  The other Democratic incumbent, Blanche Lincoln, was crushed by 21% in 2010.  In 2009, the Arkansas congressional delegation had 3 Democrats and 1 Republican.  Now, all four seats are in GOP hands providing a bench for possible candidates.  

RETIREMENTS

Iowa and West Virginia rarely throw out incumbents.  In Iowa, the last time an incumbent was beaten was 1984 when Tom Harkin first entered the Senate.  Now that he’s retiring it will be the first open seat in the Hawkeye State in more than three decades.  If he would have run again he’d be tough to beat, but with him out of the picture the GOP will have an even shot against him.   In West Virginia the last time there was an open seat election was 1984 when Jay Rockefeller squeaked in after pouring millions of dollars into this small state.  Since then he’s had no credible opposition but decided to announce his retirement after internal polling showed Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito even with him. 

Carl Levin of Michigan hasn’t announced yet if he’s retiring but he hasn’t been hitting the fund raising circuit and I’d bet he’ll call it quits after six terms.  If so, that will leave a bit of an opening for the GOP.  The Republicans did well in Michigan in 2010 and should be able to put up a strong candidate if Levin throws in the towel. 

WEAK FIRST TERM DEMOCRATS

Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire should be vulnerable in 2008.  Riding a Democratic wave in the state, it has gone from red to blue to red and now back to blue with remarkable speed.  Once a reliable Republican state, the GOP hasn’t elected a governor in a decade and got clobbered in 2006 and 2008 in state and federal elections.  In 2010 the GOP did very well up and down the ticket but got hammered again in 2012.  It remains to be seen if the GOP will mount a credible challenger.  Shaheen would be tough to beat but if there was ever a time to beat a Democrat in a light blue state it would be in the sixth year of a Democratic administration. 

Mark Udall of Colorado should be vulnerable but the state hasn’t been kind to Republicans lately.  The GOP ran a bad candidate for governor in 2010 and Ken Buck lost the Senate election that year by less than 2% after being ahead for weeks.  Republicans had thought they had a great chance to deliver the state to Mitt Romney only to be greatly disappointed on election night.  It remains to be seen whether the GOP can put the right candidate and the right message together to win in the Centennial State. 

CONCLUSIONS

Perhaps New Mexico, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Delaware (and perhaps even Illinois if Dick Durbin retires) will be in play but the GOP would have to field the right candidates under the right conditions.  Again, the sixth year of any modern president’s administration is usually a tough one electorally.  As we head into yet another campaign season we’ll have to see what conditions (especially the economy) are like in 2014 as that will most likely be the biggest reason someone votes Republican or Democrat in 2014.

  

Final Talley

Sorry I couldn't get this on the board until now.  Can't blog at work.

Here's what I think:
Romney 295 EVs
Obama   243 EVs

Romney wins Ohio, New Hampshire, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Florida and Virginia.
Obama wins Pennsylvania and Nevada.

GOP +3 in the Senate  (The GOP candidate for the Senate will win in PA)
GOP +3 in the House

Romney 50.4
Obama   48.5
Other       1.1

Respectfully,

The Snitch

Fundamentals still favor Romney

What a crazy season!  Nobody really knows where we are with early voting, partisan polling, etc.  But I'd like to post what I think might be one of the most accurate summaries of what should happen courtesy of the website Baseball Crank:

We can't know until Election Day who is right. I stand by my view that Obama is losing independent voters decisively, because the national and state polls both support that thesis. I stand by my view that Republicanturnout will be up significantly from recent-historic lows in 2008 in the key swing states (Ohio, Wisconsin, Colorado) and nationally, because the post-2008 elections, the party registration data, the early-voting and absentee-ballot numbers, and the Rasmussen and Gallup national party-ID surveys (both of which have solid track records) all point to this conclusion. I stand by my view that no countervailing evidence outside of poll samples shows a similar surge above 2008 levels in Democratic voter turnout, as would be needed to offset Romney's advantage with independents and increased GOP voter turnout. And I stand by the view that a mechanical reading of polling averages is an inadequate basis to project an event unprecedented in American history: the re-election of a sitting president without a clear-cut victory in the national popular vote.

Perhaps, despite the paucity of evidence to the contrary, these assumptions are wrong. But if they are correct, no mathematical model can provide a convincing explanation of how Obama is going to win re-election. He remains toast.

Respectfully,

The Snitch

View on the races for the US Senate

What should have been an easy GOP win a few months ago is turning out to be much closer than anticipated.  Two seats in Missouri and Indiana should have been easy GOP pickups but both candidates have stepped on their tongues and (at least in Missouri) will probably cost the Republicans a seat.  As in 2010 when the GOP should have picked up seats in Delaware and Nevada, they insisted on   nominating candidates that were unacceptable to the general public.  Here's how I see it working out today:

Seats the Dems will most likely pick up:

Maine:  Almost certainly won by the Independent candidate in the race who will caucus with the Democrats

Massachusetts: Scott Brown has to pick up so many independents and a few Democrats in the state that it is almost impossible to win; even against an absolutely terrible candidate like Elizabeth Warren.

Indiana: Had the GOP decided to renominate Richard Lugar this wouldn't even be a discussion but since Richard Mourdock made his unfortunate comments about rape he may end up losing a seat he should have won.  He did win easily statewide in 2010 as the Treasurer of Indiana so he is a proven vote getter but it remains to be seen if he can ride the Republican wave that is powered by Mitt Romney at the top of the ticket.

Arizona: Jeff Flake could lose this seat but I give him about an 80% chance of beating his Democratic challenger.

Nevada: It looks like Dean Heller will retain his seat.  This election looks to be over.

Seats the GOP should pick up:

Nebraska: This is much closer now than two months ago.  Deb Fischer is only a few points ahead of Bob Kerrey, the former governor and senator.  Mitt Romney should carry the state by more than 30 points and that should put Fisher over the top.

North Dakota:  Rick Berg should beat the Democratic Attorney General in the battle for the open seat.

Wisconsin:  I know this seat is close but Tommy Thompson should prevail over the ultra-liberal Tammy Baldwin.

Montana:  Jon Tester should lose to Republican challenger Denny Rehberg.  It is close but in the end Rehberg wins.

Toss Ups:

Ohio:  A race going right down to the wire.  Josh Mandel has been trailing the incumbent Democrat but with the Republican GOTV effort he'll prevail if Mitt Romney wins the state.  If Romney wins Mandel probably does to, and vice versa.

Virginia: George Allen should be helped by a massive Mitt Romney GOTV effort.  I suspect Romney will win the state by 4-5 points and that might be enough to pull Allen over the finish line to replace Jim Webb.

Pennsylvania: Republican Tom Smith is tied with incumbent Bob Casey.  I think this may be the biggest surprise on election night.  My gut tells me Smith will win this race.

Leaning Democrat:

Connecticut: Chris Murphy should beat Linda McMahon in this heavily Democratic state.

Florida: Bill Nelson should be able to prevail against a terrible GOP candidate in what should be a Republican win against a very liberal Democrat.

Missouri:  See the first paragraph.

Surprises?

Hawaii:  If Mitt Romney sweeps Florida, Ohio and Virginia early enough in the evening enough dejected Democrats may stay home.  That's her only chance of winning.

Probably not a contest:

Michigan, New Mexico and Minnesota.  The Democrats should retain these three seats.

Simply put, there's simply too many variables so we won't know until probably Wednesday how the Senate will look.  If the GOP runs the table they max out at 55 seats but if they don't do well on Tuesday they'll be somewhere (probably in the high 40s).  It is simply too hard to tell.

Respectfully,

The Snitch

It is all about Independents now

Mitt Romney will win political independents by at least eight points (and probably a lot more) nationally but we simply don't know how much he'll capture that all important group.  It is clear that the late breaking undecided voters are clearly disillusioned with the President and are drifting slowly toward the GOP in the late stages.  This explains Democratic numbers collapsing in safe states like Pennsylvania and Minnesota and the GOP drawing even in Ohio and Wisconsin.  If Romney ends up winning indies by more than ten points he's going to end up winning nationally by five points so you'll see an Electoral College victory for the Republican of somewhere above 300 Electoral Votes.  If he does end up taking Pennsylvania he could max out at 321.  If somehow he takes Maine's 2nd Congressional District (that state parcels out its electors by district) and Minnesota that would bring it up to 332-something not seen for the GOP since 1988 when G.H.W. Bush got over 400 Electoral Votes in an eight point win over Michael Dukakis.

Sincerely,

The Snitch

Look for a wipeout in Florida

In the latest tracks in Florida the President can't seem to crack 47%.  With latebreakers almost always voting in large numbers for the challenger I believe Mitt Romney will win the Sunshine State by at least five and as many as eight points.  In 2004 George Bush won by 5% and I believe Romney will win by a bigger margin.  It remains to be seen if Connie Mack, the Republican Senate candidate, can use that kind of momentum to beat the Democratic incumbent, Bill Nelson.

Looking at the early returns in places like Hillsborough County (near Tampa) will give us a great idea of what will happen on election night.  Bush won it in 2004 and Obama flipped it in 2008.  If Romney gets a big win there early we can expect a good night for the former Massachusetts governor.

Respectfully,

The Snitch

A Couple of Final Thoughts

If I noticed anything from last night's debate it is that it seems to be that Obama almost seemed like the challenger.  It could be that he might have felt that a more aggressive performance was what he needed to best Romney in the debate.  However, I think there is a simpler reason: a tough Obama livens up his base.  He's busy fundraising with rappers and he's hanging out at a ton of college campuses in the last two weeks of the election which begs the question; why isn't he making speeches to independents?  Simply put, he must feel from his internals that his base isn't yet where he wants them to be to win the election and knows that without maximum support from these core constituencies he'll come up short.

It seems, for the most part, that Obama has given up on whole segments of political independents, especially white indpendents (right now he's getting less than 40% of the white vote, which is very dangerous for a Democrat in a national election), so he's going to spend most of the rest of his time trying to squeeze out every last vote from his base.  It is hard to imagine him getting the support from African Americans and college-age voters that he did in 2008 but he'll need them all to win.  If he doesn't get that massive turnout from these groups he'll probably lose the election.  That explains his aggressiveness and the last two weeks of his campaign schedule.

Sincerely,

The Snitch

Down to Six States Now

It looks as if Romney is fairly secure in Florida and Virginia.  Certainly Obama could sneak a win in one or both of those states, and, if he did, he'd probably win.  Unless something drastic changes, however, I believe they are probably out of reach for the President.

On the other side, Michigan almost certainly seems out for Romney and probably Pennsylvania as well although if he could sneak a win in the Keystone State he'd cinch the election.  They don't have much early voting like many other states so a late push by Romney would make sense if he felt the numbers were right.  Paul Ryan visited Pittsburgh last weekend to a raucus reception.  We'll have to wait and see for about another four days if Romney's team will spend the time and resources there.

The current Electoral College Count is Romney 248, Obama 237 with Ohio (18), Wisconsin (10), Iowa  
(6), New Hampshire (4), Nevada (6) and Colorado (9) left to be decided.  Of all these states, Colorado will almost certainly fall into Romney's lap but I'm not ready to give it to him.  If Ohio falls with Colorado he'll win the election.  If the contest ended today I would say that Romney would win Ohio, Colorado and Iowa for a total of 285 EVs, 15 more than he'd need.  If he runs the table and sneaks Pennsylvania he'll get 321 but that's about his maximum ceiling right now.

Romney is certainly is good shape but two weeks is a very long time in politics.  We'll see if his surge, especially with political independents, will be enough to stop Obama's ground game, especially in Ohio.

Respectfully,

The Snitch

Obama is giving up on Florida and Virginia

Obama's path to victory has gotten smaller as his chief strategist David Plouffe in a recent comment left Virginia and Florida off the President's "firewall".  If we give those two states to Mitt Romney his total rises to 248 Electoral Votes while President Obama has 201.  The remaining states are:  Ohio (18), Iowa (6), Colorado (9), Wisconsin (10), New Hampshire (4), Nevada (6), Pennsylvania (20) and Michigan (16).  Team Romney seems confident that Colorado will fall into their laps (they've got an overall registered voters advantage in the state and they feel strongly they are surging there) and that would push up their total to 257, 13 short of victory.

Obviously Ohio is the great prize; in the if the above states fall to Romney and he wins Ohio he'll become President.  With 20 days left Mitt's got the momentum and a slight lead, we'll see if he can cross the finish line.

Sincerely,

The Snitch

Only Two Numbers Matter Now

There are only two metrics that matter: One, the President's approval rating (somewhere around 48%) and who is leading among Independent voters (Romney by at least 10%).  In 2008 Obama got between 52-53% of the votes of Independents and ended up with about that much of the overall vote.  If he's not leading on Election Day with this key demographic he will almost certainly lose the election.

The other key is his approval rating.  In the modern American presidency most incumbents (in a two-man race) usually end up receiving an aggregate amount of the national vote that is about equal to his approval rating.  If this holds true in 2012 (and there is no reason to think it won't) Romney probably beats Obama by about five points.

If political Independents continue to break to Romney he has a chance of a very clear win (52-54% and around 320 EVs).  His huge win in the debate has turned the tide in the election, and, if it were held today, he would win.  We'll see if he can hold on until Election Day.

Sincerely,

The Snitch

What Would a President Romney-Harry Reid Senate Look Like?

What would President Mitt Romney do as President if Harry Reid is still Majority Leader in January 2013?  What can he hope to get done if the Democrats still run the Upper Chamber when Romney is sworn in as the 45^th President?  Will he be able to get any major tax, budget or health care reform accomplished or will his legislative agenda be stillborn in a heavily partisan atmosphere with little, if any, honeymoon phase for the new President?

Most reasonable people believe that whatever happens in the Presidential election and the various Senate contests around the country the House of Representatives will stay Republican in the next Congress and John Boehner will be able to shepherd (at least for a few months until the 2014 midterm elections begin to heat up) a budget, some kind of Obamacare repeal and tax reform through the Lower Chamber.  But what if the Democrats are still in charge of the Senate?  As close as this election season is not only at the national level but with so many Senate contests coming right down to the wire there are four scenarios that could happen in January 2013.  A reelected Obama could still have a Democratic Senate or he may have to deal with a Republican one.  President Romney could face a Harry Reid as Majority Leader, or, if he is a little lucky, may get to deal with Mitch McConnell if the GOP wins the Upper Chamber.  Republican candidates are trailing in Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Missouri, Ohio and Florida and they need to gain three seats just to have a 50/50 split with Vice President Paul Ryan breaking the tie.  But what happens if the GOP loses most of those races and ends up with 48 or 49 seats?  It is certainly possible.  George Bush came into office in January 2001 with the Republicans just having lost five seats in the Senate and ended up losing shared control of the chamber after Jim Jeffords of Vermont decided to caucus with the Democrats in June.  Bush was able to pass education and some tax reform but (with the notable exception of 9/11 related legislation) was obstructed by Tom Daschle and his allies in the Democratic caucus.   Will this happen again?  It could, if Mitt wins and Harry ends up running the Senate.

The Big Problem-The Honorable Harry Reid

Based on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s statements about Mitt Romney (saying he’s a potential felon, tax cheat, bad Mormon, etc.) it is very hard to imagine the senior Senator from Nevada granting the new President much of a political honeymoon.  After the last four (really most of the last twelve years) of extreme political polarization and all the water Harry Reid had to carry for President Obama he’s not about to, if still Majority Leader, allow legislation to come forward to roll back laws that he worked so hard (and Democrats paid such a steep political price) to pass.  With this probably being his last term (it seems fairly clear he won’t run again in 2016) he wouldn’t pay any real political price opposing a Republican president without a significant electoral mandate.  Able to stop President Romney at every turn, the new Administration would have a Sisyphean task to pass legislation reforming health care, the tax code or the appointment of federal judges to the bench. 

Obamacare

The Tea Party’s first priority in a Republican administration would be the repeal of the most controversial piece of domestic legislation in a generation.  If the GOP gets even a bare majority (perhaps 51 seats) they could probably ram through some kind of package that would repeal most, if not all of Obamacare.  Working with the House of Representatives the Senate GOP could probably reverse the mechanism (Reconciliation) the Democrats used in 2009.  It would be interesting to see if Senate Republicans would have the moxie to actually follow through if they had a majority.  If Harry Reid is still in charge, however, Obamacare would probably remain in place as most of the Democratic caucus (with the notable exception of a few vulnerable members up in 2014) would have no reason to see it changed and could use it as a cudgel to beat up the new Administration.  Perhaps the House and Senate could come up with a small compromise (eliminating the hated Independent Payment Advisory Board comes to mind) but, in the end, it would probably depend on what Senator Reid decides will come up on the calendar.  And, after the heartache the Democrats went through to get it passed in the first place it is hard to see how President Romney would be able to patch together a coalition to make changes acceptable enough to pass the Senate.  At the same time, Harry Reid will be able to sit back and criticize the process and make political capital against any changes that he could spin into sound bites against Republicans bent on denying Americans health care.  Democrats around the country could sit back and laugh if Republicans were not able to stop their great legislative achievement and then the resulting political blame the GOP would get as the law really begins its implementation in 2013-14.

Tax and Budget Reform

What will happen when we reach the “fiscal cliff” on January 1, 2013?  If there is no significant patch by the rump Congress that will meet for a few weeks after November 6 there is simply no telling how employers, individual taxpayers and investors will react as they prepare for a such a wide range of tax increases.  Combined with an eventual European reckoning that probably won’t have a good ending (Spain and Greece seem to already be in a death spiral) there is a very real chance that the economy will be in recession as President Romney starts his Presidency.  The possibility of rising unemployment as businesses, faced with large tax increases and health care changes from Obamacare, simply shuttering their door present a huge political danger for a new President as nervous Americans will demand quick action to forestall a significant economic downturn.  Moreover, if the economy does degenerate further, the federal deficit will continue to grow as more Americans seek relief and less tax revenue finds its way into the federal treasury.  In this scenario Harry Reid is in a particularly strong position as Mitt Romney would have to come to him, hat in hand, to wring out any kind of tax and budget arrangement that would stimulate the economy.  If that happens, Reid will make huge demands and will be extremely difficult for President Romney to fashion any kind of compromise that will be acceptable to the Majority Leader and the House GOP leadership.  Facing the prospect of getting pummeled in the 2014 midterms in an economy in recession, the GOP will be very weak against an invigorated Harry Reid who can make demand after demand and criticize the President for any action (or inaction) that he may make to save the struggling economy.  He was all over President Bush in 2007 and 2008 for a lack of leadership and his party went from 45 senators in 2005 to 60 in 2009.  That will always be in the back of his mind and he knows he’ll probably be the great beneficiary of any of the country’s economic set backs as voters will blame the President, not Congress for their woes.

The Judiciary

This issue has not generated much ink in the last few months but it certainly will become hot when President Romney begins to fill positions on the Federal Appeals courts around the country, and, perhaps, to the Supreme Court.  The political Left will simply not allow its Democratic supporters in the Senate to give a Republican president much leeway in who he appoints to the Federal bench and Harry Reid will slow walk any nominations to the floor for a vote.  This will be especially true if a really unreconstructed liberal like Ruth Bader Ginsburg ends up retiring and President Romney would be under a lot of pressure from the political Right to appoint a person who will tip the balance of a very divided Supreme Court to the conservatives.  Very simply, this could end up being an issue that could destroy the President’s credibility with the Right (and they may well abandon him) if he ends up appointing a David Souter-like moderate to the Court.  The problem, of course, is that this is probably the only type of person who could eventually make it through a Judiciary Committee packed with extreme liberals and a Majority Leader hell bent on continually embarrassing a President that he obviously doesn’t like personally and politically.  If anyone needs any indication of what this process will be like they simply have to go back to the maltreatment of Miguel Estrada, a first generation American and a star legal mind who had worked in the Clinton Administration and was appointed by President Bush in 2001 to the D.C. Court of Appeals.  With Tom Daschle in charge, Estrada, as capable and competent as any before or after never even got a vote on the floor and, after a waiting more than a year, simply withdrew his name from consideration.  There is simply no reason to believe that a much more liberal Democratic caucus will stomach conservative appointees and, as a result, seats on the various courts around the country will remain unfilled or will be stuffed full of compromise candidates that liberals can live with and conservatives will weep, gnash their teeth over and curse the President that they worked so hard to elect.

Wild Cards

Certainly all this can be avoided if Mitt Romney’s victory (if there is one) is strong enough to carry the Senate along with him.  Ronald Reagan was able to take twelve new GOP senators with him to DC in 1981 after delivering a ten point knockout to the hapless Jimmy Carter.  Unfortunately, 2012 is not 1980 and Barack Obama is not Jimmy Carter and will probably, even if he loses, keep this election very close.  If Mitt does win and the GOP does control the Senate, he’d have at least a few months to work through Congress legislation that he deems important.  If Romney wins and the Senate GOP remains in the minority, the new President would need a lot of luck to get anything through.  Perhaps the economy will recover or the new President rises to a national challenge as yet unseen (the first Gulf War or 9/11 come to mind) and can parlay that kind of leadership into political capital he may get legislation that he wants passed.  Even in that scenario, however, that kind of political honeymoon doesn’t last long and a political animal like Harry Reid will demand a high price.

Conclusion

If there’s an irony to this it is that there are at least fourteen Democrats in the Senate who are cheering for a Romney victory and I’ll tell you who they are: Mark Begich, Mark Pryor, Mark Udall, Tom Harkin, Mary Landrieu, Carl Levin, Al Franken, Max Baucus, Jeanne Shaheen, Tom Udall, Kay Hagan, Jeff Merkley, Tim Johnson, and Mark Warner.  They are all up for reelection in 2014 and most of the names mentioned above would be in terrible political jeopardy if President Obama is reelected.  Especially for those elected for the first time in the Democratic year of 2008, these folks will be particularly vulnerable in the sixth year of Obama’s presidency and would (probably) suffer accordingly.  Faced with defeat many would probably consider retirement (especially old bulls Levin, Harkin, Johnson and Baucus) rather than face a humiliating defeat.  But we’ll see; it is a geological ice age until the Presidential election and we simply don’t know what will happen.  We simply have to wait and find out what the American voters decide on November 6.

Just Wait....

Polls, polls and more polls.  Always remember polls are simply snapshots of a very long and continually changing process.  Certainly they can give you a sense of a trend towards one candidate or another but they cannot tell you the outcome.  On Monday night during the Cowboys/Bears game if you would have only been exposed to thirty pictures of the contest you may have come up with the right answer but you could very well have been wrong too and that is the great danger in this year's Presidential contest.

There have been hundreds of national and state polls in this cycle, many more than in any previous contest.  People on both sides go crazy over a shift of a point or two when we're still about five weeks out from the election and that's simply unwise.  Certainly the President has some kind of small lead (perhaps two or three points) but that's not enough to call the election for him.  I would suggest that we all take a breather, wait until next Tuesday and then really start looking at the trend lines.  That way we can take in the polling after tonight's debate, let the holiday weekend go by and see if it had an impact (if any) on the election.  There are still about fifteen percent of voters who are truly undecided or who may switch their vote and that is enough to give the President or Mitt Romney a victory.

Right now I would say the President's maximum percentage he could get in this election is right around 50%; that's a point or two above his approval rating.  He's not going to come close to the 52.9% he received last time as political independents have shifted so clearly against him.  He can still eke out a victory against a weak Republican candidate but again we should wait until next week before we really start to size up the race.

Sincerely,

The Snitch

Are The Polls Wrong?

I believe the short answer is probably yes.  Right now most of the major polling organizations (with the exception of Rasmussen Reports) are using a party identification model that favors Democrats when the best info we have shows that the GOP has a 2-4 point lead in self-identification.  This explains why with political independents favoring Romney by around ten points he's still behind in many polls because of the skew to the Democrats.

In 2004 Democrats lead in party identification by about 1.5% and George W. Bush won the election by about 2%, sealing the victory with a 118,000 vote victory in Ohio.  If the GOP have overtaken the Democrats in party ID I strongly suspect that the models that have Obama up 2-5 in Ohio are probably wrong and the race is too close to call in the Buckeye State.

The GOP has successfully narrowed party registration in most of the swing states but are still behind in places like Florida but have made gains throughout the country.  It will certainly help in Colorado, Iowa, Florida and Virginia but, again, we'll have to see about Ohio.

Checking polls this early is like trying to follow who is Number #1 in College Football this time of year; it just doesn't say all that much.  The first debate is next Wednesday, October 3 and I would seriously look at the polls the next Monday, October 8 to get a good idea of the trend lines.

Anyone who thinks Mitt Romney is somehow lost  this race has lost their mind or simply doesn't know what they are talking about.  Let's wait until after the debate to make some good guesses.

Sincerely,

The Snitch

Three Valuable Small States

In the two very close elections in 2000 and 2004 only three states, New Hampshire, Iowa and New Mexico switched from one political ticket to the other.  47 other states and the District of Columbia kept their electoral allegiance in both contests.  This remarkable consistency is uncommon from cycle to cycle and changed dramatically in 2008 when Barack Obama carried all three states as well as several other generally red states.  As of this writing it looks as if the election in 2012 will look a lot like 2004 so small states will become very important and could make the difference between winning and losing 

George Bush beat Al Gore in New Hampshire by about 7,000 votes and then lost the state to John Kerry by about 9,000 votes in 2004.  Needless to say, had Gore overcome Bush in the Granite State he would have become president.  Al Gore carried Iowa in 2000 by about 4,000 votes and George Bush carried the state by about 10,000 votes in 2004.  In 2000, nobody knew who won New Mexico for a couple of weeks until Al Gore was declared the winner by about 350 votes among loud calls of massive voter irregularities in the Land of Enchantment.  In 2004, George Bush was able to carry the state by about 6,000 votes.  It is clear that any number of factors could have changed the result of any of these states in 2000 and 2004. 

In 2012 New Hampshire has been (until today) trending a bit Democratic but the latest Rasmussen poll has Mitt Romney up by 3 (48-45).  He’s spent a lot of time in the state, vacations in the state and was governor of nearby Massachusetts.  Up until the 1990s the Granite State was reliably Republican but Bill Clinton carried the state twice and Democrats have done well ever since at every electoral level.  The state’s two political machines will be locked in a tough death match in the last two months of this contest.  There’s only four Electoral Votes in the state but Obama and Romney will work hard for them.

Iowa is close but has been the most likely to be a Romney state.  He’s been marginally ahead in several polls this summer and, of course, spent a ton of time there getting ready for the January caucus.  Iowa is ground zero for small state political battle and both candidates have visited and will be traveling there a lot before November.  It will be interesting to see how effective the GOTV effort is as I believe that will make all the difference in the quest for those 6 Electoral Votes. 

While New Mexico was close in 2000 and 2004, Barack Obama carried the state by 15% in 2008, crushing John McCain from nearby Arizona.  With one of the highest Hispanic populations in the country, Democrats have done well at all levels.  In 2010, the GOP did elect a Republican governor (she’s a Hispanic female) and it is hard to know if Mitt Romney can convince voters in the state to abandon the President.  Obama has led in the state for most of the year, sometimes by as much as 10%.  Lately his lead has deteriorated somewhat but he’s still ahead.  If Romney does win here, he’ll probably win the other two states in question as well.  If he does win all three states, he’ll gain 15 valuable Electoral Votes in his quest for the Presidency.

Sincerely,

The Snitch

Ohio is the Key

Ohio is the key to this Presidential election.  Certainly Florida and Virginia are important (especially to Mitt Romney) but Ohio is the bellwether.    For the last generation of Presidential elections Ohio has generally been very close to the national average.  Quite simply, whoever wins Ohio will almost certainly win the Presidential election. 

For the GOP, Ohio is vitally important.  No Republican Presidential candidate has won the election without the Buckeye State in the last one hundred years and both candidates know it.  Barack Obama has a distinct edge in that he only has to pick off one of the bigger swing states (Florida, Virginia or Ohio) to win.  Mitt will probably have to win all three.  If he does win the swings (plus one more, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Hampshire, Colorado or Nevada) he’ll have enough Electoral Votes to become President. 

Ohio has been within 1-2% of the national vote tally in 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1996, 2004 and 2008.  Each of those years the Buckeye State has voted for the winner.  The most recent Rasmussen Reports poll of likely voters (released 9-12-12) showed the race to be almost a tie with Obama leading 47-46%, which closely reflects the national average.  In 2004, George Bush beat John Kerry by 2% (118,000 votes out of approximately 2.6 million cast), a margin close enough that a recount was taken and several Democrats complained of fraud.  However, the 1976 election was much closer, with Jimmy Carter winning by 11,000 votes out of approximately 4.1 million cast, (.27%), a margin so close that any number of factors could have changed the outcome.  Had Ford won Ohio and one other state (Hawaii, along with several other states were one by an eyelash) Gerald Ford would have beaten Carter.  

In 2000, Bush got 50.0% of the vote in Ohio to Al Gore’s 46.5%, which is only one of two elections in the last generation in which the national total wasn’t within 1-2%.  However, if you add in Ralph Nader’s total in Ohio to Gore’s the Democrat would have probably ended up with over 49% of the vote and finished with 50,000 votes of George Bush.  Local Democrats had begged the Gore campaign to put more time and effort into Ohio as they sensed a victory there, but Gore decided to spend more of his resources elsewhere and probably missed a decent chance at victory.  John Kerry was determined not to make the same mistake and spent a lot of resources in the state, and increased the Democratic total by about 560,000 votes but George Bush increased his own share by 500,000 votes which proved to be the margin of victory in the state that had really proved to be ground zero for the election.  Ohio was so close that George Bush actually campaigned there on Election Day, 2004, making his last stop there before the ballots were counted. Had Kerry won the state he would have won the Electoral College 272-266. 

Obama has spent tons of cash in Ohio and has his team ready on the ground to contest the state, repeating his strategy that allowed him to finish 4.5% ahead of John McCain in 2008.  He’s had a big head start as he’s been the certain Democratic nominee for months while Mitt Romney has been playing catch up for weeks now.  Romney is only a couple points behind in a state that is slightly red.  Independents who voted for Obama in 2008 are ready to turn against him but Romney still hasn’t made the case to them why they should, a trait that is shared by many non-partisan voters nationwide.  Look for numerous campaign stops and blanket advertising by both camps as they prepare for the last 50 days of the race.  The debates will make a huge difference and the GOTV effort by both sides will, in the end, probably help put the winner over the top.

Respectfully,

The Snitch