This is my first diary on this site. As I wrote in one of my comments – I don’t make any predictions before one month before elections. Now is the time. But I don’t want to create diary, which will be like many other, which are already written and will be written in coming month – with lists of districts and names we all know (and which we discussed at least ten times each). So I will try to write a sort of pre-election analysis, with some races, names and districts strictly as examples of my “thesis’s”. I hope it will be a good supplement to other people diaries.
In order to minimize possible misunderstandings I will make a set of disclaimers and explanations first
Disclaimer 1. I am not a partisan voter. On the contrary – I am very committed Independent and not a big fan of 2-party system as it exist now. I am more fan of European multiparty system, in which every main political direction is more or less precisely reflected by corresponding political party. In US that would mean at least 3-party system: left, from moderate left to socialists, center (where as a “very slightly left of center” I would be myself) and right – from moderate conservatives and further right, or – 2 party system, but with both parties really of “big tent” type – with broad overlap between them. In US “center” is almost always (and, especially, now, when party polarization reached very high level) finds itself in precarious position. My analysis will contain as little preferences for any party as I will be able to formulate and as little (but, probably, will still contain some) my personal preferences as I will be able to hide.
Disclaimer 2. I will try to touch all aspects of political life, which are of interest to me, but will try to consider them in light of electoral perspective of main political players. All opinions are, naturally, my own, though among statements I wanted to make while thinking about this diary, there are lot of those which were formulated by other authors too. If I will find links for such articles and columns – I will present them
Disclaimer 3. English is my second language. Please – be tolerant about possible errors and typos!
And one request before I begin my diary: because I consider a political races as a special type of sport in some ways (after all – we all use term “horseracing” here, don’t we?) – i become very bored when I see a lot of “identical horses”. So, I generally like mavericks in both parties. If someone can give me names of such “mavericks” to follow – I will be very grateful. If Democrats – they must be “to the right” of Bobby Bright and/or Walter Minnick, if Republicans – at least “to the left” of Jodi Rell and Dianne Snelling))). But not “lower” then state legislature level.
Let’s begin!
1. General Senate, House and Governor numbers – very similar to those of Nate Silver on FiveThirtyEight blog. In fact – it seems to me that our estimates here slowly converge to more or less the same numbers – we can differ on which seats will be won or lost by Republicans or Democrats, but I can see almost no one predicting Republican Senate gains outside of 6-8 seat interval, Governor gains substantially different from 6-7 seats and House gains outside interval of 30-45 seats. My own estimates are similar, though in light of latest polls in West Virginia i am more inclined now to number “8” for Senate. Republicans will control about 30 governorships after election, and in House both parties will, probably, have no less then 210 and no more then 225 seats. Given de-facto greater cohesion among Republicans as of late that will mean working control of House by Republicans even if Democrats will be able to preserve small numerical majority. But these numbers alone doesn’t tell the whole story. Personally I think that substantial number of “most endangered” House incumbents will survive, especially if they will be able to get into their districts really soon. Yes, they will need to work their angry districts very hard, but if they will have at least four weeks to do so – many of them will win. If they will come to their districts 1-2 weeks before Election Day – situation will be much different. In addition – there is an old saying: “If you are warned – you are armed”. Such people from very Republican-leaning districts as Walt Minnick and Bobby Bright, who were “warned” about very difficult reelection campaigns from the day one in House, and who have relatively little “obligations” before caucus leadership then, say, such congressmen as Chet Edwards or even Ike Skelton, may find itself better received by their constituents, who may value their “independence” and “district-oriented approach”. In fact I think that the more “straightforward” (either “for” or “against”) congressman was in his approach to issues, the less he “twisted and flipped” – the better will be his chances in November. On the contrary – “reluctant” vote for or against some bills (especially – under leadership pressure) will decrease his/her chances. Vice versa – there will be tangible number of “sleeper races”, where seemingly well-entrenched incumbents will suddenly find itself in serious danger and many of them will have serious risk of defeat.
2. “Tea party”. The results of heavy influence this movement had on Republican party and it’s candidates during these election season will be decidedly mixed. On one part – movement participants are, probably, the most likely voters these years – they are not disappointed and not suffer from apathy – they are really angry and mad. They WILL come to voter booth. And they will vote heavily Republican, so their role will be a mirror image of minorities in Obama’s campaign of 2008: just as there you have a very active group, voting “en masse” for their favorite candidate (only in this case there are many tea-bagging candidates, while in 2008 “movement” was relatively concentrated on Obama and presidential race, though there was some coattails effect then too…). On the other hand – it’s the tea-baggers, who, most likely, denied Republicans even theoretical chances of regaining Senate majority this year by nominating O’Donnell in Delaware (where the seat was, essentially, “their”), Nevada (thus – possibly saving Harry Reid) and, may be, some other states like Colorado. The extreme character of most tea-bagging candidates is not a big problem in Utah or similar states (may be – even in Alaska, though it will depend on strength of Murkowski write-in candidacy), where almost any candidate with “R” letter after his name must win almost all the time, but creates serious problems in “purple” and “blue” states. There may be some exceptions from this rule – for example i am convinced that very wealthy tea-bagger Carl Paladino will run reasonably well in New York and may even help Republicans to regain state Senate by piling very big majorities Upstate and running well in suburbs, but these are rather rare exceptions.
3. Enthusiasm gap. It exists, and it’s rather big. Any comparison of any similar polls among registered voters and likely voters proves it. Some notes on it – it seems greater in “swing” states and/or most crisis stricken states, like many states of Great Lakes region, and considerably less on the coasts and in strongly republican states like Alabama, Louisiana and their like. In the latter case it seems that most of their voters came to rather negative conclusions about Obama and Democratic party leadership during 2008 campaign and simply stick to it since, while on the coast (here I speak about mostly blue states) the reserve of goodwill to Obama and party is relatively deep and far from being exhausted. Looking on the latest data it seems that enthusiasm gap narrowed rather tangibly in the late September (may be some Democrats and Democratic-leaning Indies finally grudgingly decided that as angry as they are about crisis and shortfalls of Democratic administration, they don’t want to give majority to Republicans, especially – tea-bagging Republicans of this year), but I still believe that because of fervent enthusiasm among tea-baggers and relative apathy among young voters the Republicans will have an advantage here come November. But after elections they may wish that elections would happen somewhere late August – early September.
4. Recruiting. Obviously it’s much better this year among Republicans with their high hopes for good result. Their “candidates in 430 districts” seems to be an overall record and in most cases they got the best candidates they could hope for. Of course – they got a lot of candidates with baggage (in addition to people like O’Donnell, Maes and Angle one can name Rivera in FL-25 or look once again on NY-23, where Doheni-Hoffan squabble plays into Owens’s hands), but generally (at least for House) the most crazy tea-baggers won relatively few races, so, while most of their candidates are very conservative, they have at least bit of sanity. Democratic lack of enthusiasm influenced recruiting too, so there are both fewer Democratic candidates then in 2008, and even few very good one like Ami Bera in CA-03 or Raj Goyle in KS-04 are running against very heavy contrarian tide. A few words about recruitment principles. Because (IMHO) politics is “all about winning”, and Democratic party plays a role of “left” party in US (though, of course, it’s much more “moderate” then a lot of parties in Europe), while Republican – “party of the right”, and there is almost nobody else – the most logical recruiting principle for Democrats seems to be “to run the most progressive candidate that can win in the district” (but if the only candidate, who can win the district is a conservative to the right of Bobby Bright – run this conservative!), while Republican – the mirror image (and that would imply running a relatively liberal candidates in liberal districts). But “desire for purity”, very evident among activists of both (though – mostly Republican) parties frequently leads to nomination of “pure”, but absolutely unwinnable candidates.
5. Redistricting. As was stated earlier I foresee that Republicans will control about 30 governorships after Nov. 2nd. That alone implies that they will have an upper hand or, at least, “some hand” during redistricting in most states. But there is other factor acting in the same direction: possible changes of control in state legislatures. There is an excellent article (http://www.governing.com/blogs/politics/2010-state-legislatures.html) which goes into great details about what’s possible where, but almost all changes in legislatures will be to Republican benefit as well. Especially troublesome for Democrats looks Great Lakes region (to which this political year we might add Iowa and Pennsylvania) – there is another recent very good article (http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/09/dems-bad-midwest.html), which describes an extremely harsh problems for Democrats in “rust belt” this year. In fact – Democrats can lose all their governorship in this region (PA, IL, OH, MI, WI, and IA) and lot of chambers in Legislatures, so – republican control of redistricting in many of these states will be close to absolute. For example – the very partisan republican gerrymandering in Ohio and Pennsylvania looks very likely, and Democrats will need either governor win or at least one chamber of legislature in Wisconsin to prevent problems there. To offset that Democrats badly need gubernatorial wins in California, Florida, and, in ideal, but not especially likely, case – Texas. I would much prefer an independent political redistricting in all 50 states, but for now it’s an absolute dream.
6. Independents. A topic of special interest for me, obviously, because of my views. A critically important part of any successful Democratic (and, especially, Obama’s) coalition, which turned rather heavily against Democrats and Obama of late. During 2008 elections Independents voted approximately as country as a whole – about 52 or 53 to 44 for Obama. But NOW in his “home” (politically) state Illinois Obama sports 35-57 rating among Indies – that’s really terrible numbers, both because Illinois is far from being especially Republican state (and so – it’s Indies, while being of all political stripes, are not especially conservative if considered as one big statistical group), and because it was vice versa or even better less then 2 years ago. With 2 main parties and Indies approximately of the same size and approximately equal loyalty of “card-carrying” Democrats and Republicans to politics and candidates of their party it’s Indies who serve a sort of indicator of mood of people of the country. In addition, considered as a big statistical group Indies take “centrist” position and so – it’s their (and not very politically “engaged” activist’s) views that may be considered “typical” and representative for country as a whole. Right now Republicans have double-digit advantage among Indies, what represent a mirror image of what was typical in 2006 and 2008. It’s that souring of Indies for Democratic President and Democratic candidates that, together with “enthusiasm gap” fuels Republican wave of 2010. Considering “Independent” or “quasi-independent” candidates this year we see that: a) There are more serious Independent and quasi-Independent political candidates then usual (Cahill, Crist, Chafee, Cutler, Horner, to some extent – even Murkowski and Tankredo) b) “Pure” Independents, like Cutler or Horner, while being very important in determining the final result of the races, generally have less chances then “recent disappointed or rejected” like Crist and other and c) Most Independents (Cahill, Crist, Murkowski, Horner and even Cutler) run as either “right-of-center” or “left-of-center” candidates.
7. Blue Dogs. Favorites of some (including myself), enemies of other. Of course – it’s this faction of Democratic party, that’s most endangered this year, simply because most of them represent much more Republican districts, then typical Democrats (even more so if we consider, for example, districts, which are electing members of, say, Progressive caucus, most of which are utterly safe under any circumstances). There will be rather heavy losses among members of this group (by my count out of 54 present members 6 are retiring and almost 30 other – endangered to some extent), while there will be very few additions to this group in 112 Congress – theoretically I see about 10 potential candidates of this type, but I will be very surprised if more then 2-3 of them really win elections in November. Nevertheless, taking chances of survival among endangered Blue Dogs as 50-50 we shall expect about 35 Blue Dogs in next Congress. If Republicans will win majority in House Nov. 2 – their influence will be as diminished as any other Democratic congressmen, but if Democrats will be able to hold a narrow majority – it all becomes much more interesting, at least – where procedural issues are concerned. Though, frankly speaking, I have difficulties understanding what such persons as John Baca, Jane Harman, Mike Michaud, Patrick Murphy, Loretta Sanchez or Mike Thompson (all – excellent moderate-liberals) are doing in that group.
8. Political geography. There was a lot of discussion about which region will be most difficult for Democrats this republican year. In my opinion it’s undisputable – Midwest, especially Great Lakes states with Pennsylvania and Iowa added (political behavior of these two states this year has much in common with Great Lakes states). Especially if we consider all races, and especially – on highest (Governor and Senate) level. Probably the reason for this is that crisis hit these states hardest, but all indicators show, that disappointment in their public officials in these states is among the highest (and so is happened that big majority of high-level state officials are Democrats and most of legislative chambers are also under Democratic control). Second place goes to the South, but, because there are relatively few Senate and Governor races with incumbent Democrats there (and not much legislatures there remain under Democratic control), most Democratic losses there will be limited to House, and even they will not be as numerous as could be, because of very high “survival” instincts of remaining Southern democratic congressmen (as i stated earlier – i see a long-term and powerful veterans like Edwards and Spratt even more endangered here then most freshmen and sophomores). The third problematic region – Mountain states, where Democrats made big gains in 2006 and 2008 and where Obama was popular, but many of which have strong conservative (in some cases – Libertarian) streak.
9. Anti-incumbency. Yes and no, In primaries – mostly “no”, though there were some states, where this same anti-incumbency demonstrated itself by relatively high number of state legislators, defeated in primary (for example – Idaho (especially – Republicans and especially moderate republicans, many of which fell under heavy attack of tea-baggers) and Rhode Island (vast majority – among Democrats)). Voter’s anger at their legislators was clearly evident in many states, but overabundance of candidates (the best example that comes to my mind – IN-05, where Dan Burton would surely be defeated if he would have 1 or even 2 opponents in primary), their inexperience and financial advantage of incumbents in almost all cases were able to save them in most races. 4 House members defeated in primaries (plus – 3 Senators) is not too much. But I think that “no” may turn to “yes” in November – a lot of congressmen have very low ratings right now (just as Congress as a political institution), so voter anger may burst into open then.
10. Nancy Pelosi and Speakership. First of all, I want to state, that though I am not nearly as liberal as she is, I have a great respect for her. She is a very talented legislator and she represents her liberal district extremely well. But she is far to the left of majority of electorate (probably – about as much as John Boehner is to the right of it), so it’s naturally that she is “the enemy number 2” for Republicans, and she is not especially popular among (most frequently – centrist) Independents as well. Will she be able to retain speakership? I think that “magical number” here is about 220-222. If Democrats will be to retain as many sets – she will remain Speaker, and 2-4 most “conservative” Democrats in House will even have a luxury to vote for someone else (not for Boehner, of course – that would really be a scandal, and a big one), if not (and chances now are 75-80% that it’s that scenario that happens) – I don’t see her winning a speaker post. There will be enough finger pointing and mutual accusations in this case that 3-5 Democratic congressmen will, most likely, refuse to vote for her candidacy.
Conclusion. In order to avoid making this diary unreadable I stop here (though, in my opinion, some issues raised here, could easily make basis for separate diaries). I hope that I didn’t veered from site rules too much and that it will be of interest to other site denizens. Though this diary is slightly more about politics and slightly less about “number crunching” then most – subjects, discussed here have a lot of pure electoral implications and vive versa – election results will either confirm of refute many of the statements and hypothesis made here. If there will be interest – I will write second analysis (but much more number- and names- heavy) after election. If not – well I give moderators all right to delete it as they see fit)))