Why Democrats don't really control the Senate

The Democratic Party thought it had avoided a huge beating when they held the Senate on November 2nd. The firewall the DSCC built against a Republican Senate was mostly due to the meddling of Tea Party groups and a favourable mix of Democratic and Republican incumbents up for election. Neither of these factors is going to help them over the next two years. It is likely the Senate is going to be hardly recognisable as the body in which the Democrats hold a majority.

Even though 2012 is going to be the year President Obama (presumably) is on the ballot, there is little chance Democrats are taking their seats for granted. There are a total of 23 Democratic seats up for re-election (including independents) versus only ten Republicans. Not only are there more Democratic seats up for grabs, but they are also seats deep in red territory. Democrats such as Ben Nelson (D-NE), Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) are all conservative Democrats who will do everything they can to run against a president unpopular in their respective states. They will likely buck their party at every opportunity.

Many would counter by saying many Democrats from states such as Virginia and Missouri would tend to vote with the President more often because many young voters will be present during the Presidential contest. This is all but certain, however, as the electoral map is looking very different than in 2008 and core parts of Mr. Obama's base have been demoralised.

2012 is also an interesting year in which many of the prominent moderate Republican senators are up for re-election. Senators Scott Brown (R-MA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Richard Luger (R-IN) will all face the prospect of running as a Republican in states Obama will likely carry. You may argue about Indiana, but this is definitely the case with New England. This will likely cause them to vote against their party. However, this automatically disqualifies them for winning their primary. This often trumps considerations for the general election (see Arlen Specter) and they will probably try to win their primary despite their past voting records.

All of these factors mean the Senate will be far more conservative than its partisan composition suggests. It is likely a good idea President Obama postponed debate over the Bush tax cuts until 2012, when Senators will have an incentive to make smart decisions.

Leadership battles today matter for tomorrow's Democratic Party

It was only a week ago Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was predicting the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives would be preserved following Tuesday's midterms. Needless to say, not many people listened to her. Now that the Democratic Caucus is over 60 members smaller than it was during the 111th Congress, a leadership shakeup is inevitable. Several prominent committee chairmen, notably James Oberstar (D-MN) were voted out of office. Now, with several prominent Democratic moderates calling for Ms. Pelosi to step down, she is seriously considering their advice. 

If the Democratic Party knows what's good for it, it will push back against the Blue Dogs in the House and vote Ms. Pelosi the minority leader. Nancy Pelosi is one of the best Democratic speakers of the House we have seen for a generation. Not only has she managed to cajole a fractured caucus to support controversial measures such as health care and climate change, but she managed to do it by fairly large margins. Closely related is her ability to raise huge sums of money for those who support her agenda. 

If Pelosi does decide to run for minority leader, it is very likely she will be successful. The House Blue Dog Caucus, her most formidable political barrier, was nearly halved on Tuesday when they were subjected to the brunt of losses in the House. Moderates such as Jim Matheson (D-UT) have a lot less to work with than they did before the losses. The disdain the Republican Party has shown for her is proof she is effective at passing President Obama's policies. 

Another leadership position waiting to be filled is the chairmanship of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC). Robert Menendez (D-NJ) has chaired the committee during this election cycle, though not with any particular flare. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) was widely credited with helping to sweep the Senate for two years in a row in 2006 and 2008 while he was chair. He is now being encouraged to take the helm again for 2012, when the Democrats have a huge majority of seats up for reelection. 

It is likely Mr. Schumer may be the only chance the Democrats have to hold the Senate in 2012. Since Obama's reelection prospects are looking dimmer by the day, there is no way they can count on a huge wave of Democratic turnout. What the Democratic Party truly needs is a prodigious fundraiser who can help push candidates across the finish line. Once though of as a contender for position of Senate majority leader, he is now freed up to pursue this powerful role.

One way or another, the Democratic Party has to employ all the resources it has to pull itself out from under the boulder it now finds itself. Pelosi and Schumer are two of the best shots we have to regain the legislature. 


Update 10/5/2010: It appears Nancy Pelosi will run for House minority leader when the new session convenes. This is good news for the Democratic Party.

Senate elections matter... for House Democrats

There has been growing consensus among both liberals and conservatives that the Senate is more important than it used to be. In the last two decades, the filibuster and secret holds have been abused to the dismay of many a ruling party. This did not used to be a problem, though in the 111th Congress, it was a major consideration in most major pieces of legislation. This is the main reason why most of the attention this election cycle has gone to the Senate.

There is a more important reason, however, why Senate elections truly matter this year. With no presidential candidate up for election during the midterms, Senate candidates often appear at the top of the ballot. Senate candidates have the rare opportunity to bring out voters from all over the state, something that is not possible for individual House races. Therefore, good turnout for a Senate candidate means good turnout for all the House races in the state for that candidate's party. 

Lets take a look. In Pennsylvania, Joe Sestak (D-PA) is running against former Rep. Pat Toomey (R-PA) for the seat of Arlen Specter (D-PA). Joe Sestak, though a strong candidate, has been having difficulty making headway in a strong anti-Democratic year. The RCP poll average for the race has Pat Toomey winning by 6.5%. Similarly, Nate Silver has a 92% chance of a Republican takeover. Pennsylvania has many swing districts held by vulnerable Democrats who will not be benefiting from a strong Democratic wave this year. I will list the key races below:

                     PA-03: R+6

                     PA-10: R+14

                     PA-11: R+11

                     PA-12: R+4

Notice there are no Republican seats in play. Some would argue Jim Gerlach (R-PA) is endangered, but I do not believe he will loose. Among the incumbents above, several have been in the House for more than two terms. Now lets take a look at a state which the Democrat is running an effective campaign. In Washington State, Incumbent Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) is fending off a challenge from perennial Republican candidate Dino Rossi. The RCP poll average for the race has Murray winning by 5.3%. Lets now look at the key House races.

                     WA-02: R+4

                     WA-03: R+9

                     WA-08: R+13

                     WA-09: D+3

Washington and Pennsylvania are relatively comparable states, when it comes to partisan identification. Both are strongly Democratic, but have many swing districts in the more rural areas. The four most likely to flip districts in Pennsylvania all lean or are Republican blowouts, and all controlled by Democrats. The Washington situation is somewhat different. Dave Reichert (R-WA) is vulnerable to the Democrats even in a bad year and the close Democratic races are all close to the margin of error. 

There is also a similar effect of Governor's races on those down ballot, though it is not as clear as their Senate counterparts. Many governors have cross-party appeal and make turnout for House candidates much less reliable. If the Democrats want to hold on to their majority in the House of Representatives, they should start by looking to shore up of their winnable Senate races.

Political Cartographer is back!

To all faithful readers, sorry for the interruption in posts. I have been in the Washington area working for the Sierra Club Maryland Chapter and later for the Blue Mountain Center in upstate New York. Now that the congressional recess is over, so is mine. I will be posting as usual from tomorrow onwards, so stay posted!

The good, the bad, and the ugly for the Administration

First the good news. The latest attempt to cap the leaking oil well is reported to have worked, meaning no more oil is leaking into the Gulf of Mexico. It is only a test, though, and will be removed if the pressure is found to be too high in the well. In addition to this, the Wall Street Reform bill has now passed the senate. It will likely be signed by President Obama by early next week. These are both incredibly good news for the Administration, who have been desperate for some good news.

Now the bad news. The public confiderence in the Administration is heading south, says a new poll. This could have to do with the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the economy, and the budget deficit. Whatever the problem, this is not good news.

Finally, the ugly. For the first time ever, President Obama is trailing or tied with ALL of his potential 2012 challengers. That's right, Barack Obama is tied with Sarah Palin. No, this is not Rasmussen. Worse, it is the Democratic Public Policy Polling firm. The Administration should be worried about this news. President Obama has somehow maintained favorability ratings much higher than most other mainstream politicians. That he is trailing people with even lower poll numbers than himself means the country is no longer behind him. Watch to see how the Wall Street Reform bill and the Oil Spill cap affect his numbers.

The myth of health care "reform"

Since the health care bill has become law, many people have talked about the "new health system" in America. Even President Obama has referred to the law as if it is somehow reshaping the current health system. This is just not true. The types of health reform candidate Obama campaigned on and eventually enacted promised to leave those with insurance alone. The bill only streamlines the current system by creating exchanges, preventing abuses by insurance companies and extending coverage. The largest component of it is the mandate for having insurance. None of these provisions significantly alter the fundamental way in which health care is obtained in America.

Politician of the Month: Scott Brown (R-MA)

After adamantly pledging to be the 41st vote against Harry Reid's agenda, it seems this centrist Republican Senator from Massachusetts has gone against his word. Ever since being elected to the seat of the late Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Senator Brown has arguably helped the Democrats' agenda more than challenger Martha Coakley ever could have. He provided the critical 60th vote on the Democrats' job bill which came up for consideration earlier this year. He has now committed to supporting the financial reform package which he played an integral part in crafting. These have all angered his conservative base in Massachusetts, however, he has emerged as the state's most popular politician.

Scott Brown's true contribution to President Obama's agenda goes further than this. The willingness for this moderate Senator to support some of his signature policies has given Maine Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe political cover to negotiate. It has also freed up Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) to vote with his party again, shaking the fear of appearing to support a liberal agenda. His reluctance to support the health care law cut back the negotiations and gave Harry Reid the incentive to use the reconciliation process. He is now refusing to support the campaign finance disclosure bill, though it is not likely it would have been brought up for consideration by the August recess anyway. Regardless of whether you approve of the job he is doing, this guy is powerful.

Scott Brown (R-MA) to vote yes on Wall Street Reform: passage all but assured

Scott Brown (R-MA) has announced today he will be supporting the financial reform bill being debated in the Senate. He came to this decision after having extracted concessions in conference committee, notably the removal of the $19 billion bank tax which would have affected many Boston banks. His vote will be joined by Senate moderates Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Susan Collins (R-ME). The vote of conservative Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley will not be known until the cloture vote, though it is likely to be no. This bill has not been followed by the progressive community with the same intensity as the health care bill but it is a very big deal. It begins to reverse the trend of financial deregulation begun under President Reagan in a powerful way. It does not solve some of the problems which led to the financial meltdown, but does rein in some of the worst abuses by banks. It also shows there is still potential for negotiation with moderate Republicans, such as Scott Brown. This will likely hurt his standing among conservative Republicans, however.

It's all about playing down expectations

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs warned on Sunday that there is a concrete possability the Republicans could take back the House of Representatives in November. This is one of the first public admissions of political trouble from the Democratic establishment. Conservative pundits were quick to jump on the prospect of the Obama Administration sounding the alarm so early in the election cycle, citing the weakness of their position. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has repeatedly asserted the Democrats' House majority is not in danger, citing individual house races, but her statements have only become more positive following the completion of the health care debate.

Pelosi has a point here. Though the national trends have the GOP at a slight advantage, there are numerous reasons to suggest they will fall short of a majority. The individual House races that feature vulnerable Democratic incumbents are polling better for the majority party than would be expected. The Democrats also have a massive fund-raising advantage. Above all else, the Republicans are not viewed as a good alternative to the Democrats by the electorate. The nomination of people like Sharron Angle and Rand Paul does nothing to improve their standing in this area.

Furthermore, the White House statements about the Democratic Party's chances in November are likely to play down expectations. The Republican Party has been trumpeting their inevitable win so loudly that anything short of a sweep in November will make them look bad. It is likely Democratic strategists have realized there will be political capital to be had if the Republicans do not win the election by a mile. The comments could also have been trying to arouse the Democratic base, who are frightened by the idea of John Boehner (R-OH) as Speaker of the House.

Has anybody other than Obama remembered the War in Iraq?

Joel Wing, the author of the blog Musings on Iraq has correctly pointed out the number of U.S. troops stationed in Iraq has declined from a high water mark of 171,000 in October 2007 to a mere 77,500 today. This is mainly a result of Obama's withdrawal strategy he announced soon after being sworn in as President. This fact has mainly been overlooked by the mainstream media, who have been preoccupied by the President's Afghanistan strategy. Yes, many of the troops being withdrawn from Iraq will eventually end up in Afghanistan, but that does not mean that the United States withdrawing from Iraq is not a big deal. The war in Iraq is arguably one of the most controversial military incursions the U.S. has ever engaged in, after Vietnam. Afghanistan, however, is far from that.

President Obama announced his strategy in Afghanistan to the usual responses. The liberals criticized the surge and conservatives criticized the planned withdrawal. The notable thing there was the existence of a withdrawal at all. Had Obama really wanted to fight the war in Afghanistan he would not have set a withdrawal date. By pulling troops from Iraq to Afghanistan he was doing a politically popular move. Once public opinion toward the War in Afghanistan shifts toward opposition, Obama can easily pull all the remaining troops out of the Middle East. Expect public opinion to solidify in the coming months around strong disapproval of the war. When that happens, it is likely we will see most combat troops returning home.


This is what I hope will happen. Escalating the War in Afghanistan was a pillar of Obama's campaign, one which seems to be forgotten by most anti-war activists. If he doesn't withdraw from Afghanistan, get ready for Lyndon Johnson (The Sequel.)

Recess appointments are far from ideal, but definately warranted at this point

The Obama Administration has finally realized it has to do something about Republican holds on nominees in the Senate. This week, President Obama appointed Dr. Donald Berwick to be the head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) through a recess appointment. The recess appointment is a controversial process by which a President bypasses Congress in appointing federal officials to a half-term (2 years) during a Congressional recess.

Since being elected, President Obama has faced record numbers of holds on his nominees. This leaves the federal government without the staff and leadership it needs to carry out its duties. Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) made headlines this year when he held hostage all federal nominations for pet projects back home. He eventually agreed to release the hold, though many of these nominees have yet to be confirmed.

Now, The Hill is reporting Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has blasted the Obama Administration for doing a recess appointment. His opposition mainly has to do with a single quote Berwick made about health care rationing in the past. What is really "truly outraging" is not the recess appointments, but the obstruction the Republicans are engaging in. You cannot blame the government for failing to stimulate the economy when you deprive them of the people needed to carry out the law.

Tom Perriello steps on cow pie

This is a must see video. Tom Perriello (D-VA) just released his first television ad of the 2010 election cycle, attempting to display his successes in bringing jobs to his district and improving infrastructure. He mainly just ends up getting hit with a branch, stepping on a cow pie, getting debris dumped on his head, and ruining what looks to be a very expensive suit.



Regardless of whether you would ask this guy to change his clothes before coming in your house, he is very remarkable. Despite representing a district with a PVI of R+5; he has voted for the stimulus bill, the health care reform bills, the climate change reduction act, and other major Democratic priorities. A recent poll has put both Perriello and his Republican challenger at 44% each. The House cannot lose such a valuable Democrat.

This video is definitely worth watching.

Get your vote in!

I am adding a new feature to this site called the Sarah Palin Award. It allows readers to choose between some of the most extreme politicians and candidates running this fall. The feature is located on the right side of the website and will be open until September 1st. Get your vote in or suggest other contenders in the comments section of this post.

Who created this deficit, really?

From the Center for Budget Policy and Priorities comes the unexpected news that the Obama Administration policies have had little impact on the federal deficit after all. A new report released shows the deficit would barely top 3 billion dollars if it were not for the policies of the Bush 43 Administration. The TARP program is projected to be close to deficit neutral as the money is paid back, the recovery measures will be paid for in increased tax revenue, and the economic downturn will eventually subside. The enormous tax cuts enacted by the Republican Congress will balloon the budget shortfall and the ongoing wars in Iraq/Afghanistan will further sink any hope of fiscal solvency.

The first implications of these findings is it builds a strong case for deficit hawks to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. The UI extension in the senate would extend the tax cuts for all but the wealthiest of Americans. Both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have shown an ambivalence about passing a tax extenders bill without an extension of Unemployment Insurance. The second implication of this data is it could somehow translate into an opportunity for the Democrats to regain the upper hand on spending and the deficit. However, the Republicans will likely criticize the "liberal media" for twisting the data as usual.

Why is Harry Reid rebounding?

Harry Reid was a lost cause. Both Minority Whip Dick Durbin and Chuck Schumer have been publicly vying for his position for over a year now when it is assumed he will be defeated for reelection. Not so fast, says a recent Mason-Dixie poll recently released which shows his numbers rebounding significantly. Reid slightly trails potential challengers Sue Lowden and Danny Tarkanian and actually LEADS Sharon Angle. These are not good numbers for an incumbent by any means, but they indicate a competitive race. So my question is, what has caused this sudden reversal of fortune. The surge can be attributed to several factors.

1. The Republican field- The Republicans have fielded a very poor assortment of candidates in this race. Danny Tarkanian has no political experience at all, Sue Lowden is the Nevada GOP chair, and Sharon Angle is a former state assemblywoman. Sue Lowden, the presumed front runner, has been bogged down by numerous gaffes since launching her campaign. The most famous of these is when she suggested bringing chickens to healthcare providers was a good way of bringing down costs. Sharon Angle is the Tea Party favorite. Like many people conservative enough to be Tea Party affiliates, they do not match their electorate. Nevada is a swing state. Being associated with a right wing organization does not help you with the general electorate.
2. The immigration debate- This is where most pundits have fallen short. The bounce comes as an extensive immigration bill is introduced into the Senate with widespread Republican opposition. This clearly drove Hispanics to Reid's camp in large numbers.
3. Reid's war chest- Very, very large. It was $11 million at the beginning of the election season, but could now be as much as $25 million. Hard to top these numbers.

On top of all these factors, Democrats have been rebounding slightly in national polls. They hold the generic ballot once again, are surging in swing states, and are finally deploying a messaging strategy. If Harry Reid is not defeated for reelection, it will be very difficult for the RSCC to peel off other swing states.

You won't see the GOP filibustering defense spending

First, it was Jim Bunning blocking an unemployment benefit extension because the cost of it was not offset. It ended up passing. Then they blocked it again, this time with additional support from their caucus. It also ended up passing. A further unemployment benefit extension is now about to come up for a vote, with Republicans vowing once again to block it unless the cost is fully offset by spending cuts. The Senate adjourned for their recess without voting on the measure, so on June 2, nearly 200,000 people will lose their unemployment benefits. This cuts nearly 200,000 people a week off from the money they need to put food on their table, their health insurance and their livelihoods. This is all to make the point that deficit spending is wrong.

Let's put this in perspective. The Republicans began this deficit with two wars which were not paid for. War funding is essentially a benefit program. The money goes to pay for the deployed soldiers, their equipment and their well being. This is a social support program paid for by deficit spending. See any parallels? If the Republicans were actually trying to make a point about deficit spending they would block votes on ALL spending bills, not only unemployment benefit extensions. Furthermore, blocking unemployment benefits at a time when near 10% of the working population is unemployed is a completely reprehensible thing to do. Just as it would be completely unforgivable to cut soldiers off from their supplies.

Don't get too cozy, Obama

Obama has made a huge mistake here. Since the gulf oil spill happened thirty seven days ago, the Obama Administration has shied away from striking a definitive tone on BP's handling of the effort. This has presumably been because it happened in the wake of Obama's offshore drilling expansion. The Obama Administration likely wants to avoid the appearance of flip-flopping on the issue. The ensuing environmental catastrophe has the potential to sink the newfound confidence within the Democratic establishment.

The handling of this situation did not have to be so horrible. The Obama Administration opened new offshore drilling, a relatively popular move with the electorate, even though policy wonks predicted it would not have much effect. Obama could have moved the response away from being a referendum on offshore drilling, and toward a referendum on big oil companies influencing the bureaucracies enforcing safety regulations. Instead, Republican lawmakers somehow are arguing that Obama is getting cozy with big oil. This is a ridiculous claim, if you compare parties receiving corporate contributions from oil companies.

Don't get me wrong. Offshore drilling will not solve our energy problems in a meaningful and sustainable way. This being said, a weakened Obama presidency is the last thing proponents of alternative energy need right now. Lets reflect on the implications of this spill, but also remember the Obama Administration is not the culprit here.

Derivatives trading reform transformed into a uniquely populist issue

It was three weeks ago when Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), the moderate Democratic chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, released her proposal to regulate derivative trading. Regulating derivatives is a mild way of describing this proposal. It effectively bans banks from participating in derivative trading altogether. Judd Gregg has described it as left as you can go on the issue of derivatives. Coming from a Southern Democrat, such a liberal economic proposal is extremely unusual. It is less unusual when you consider she is facing a runoff against the liberal Bill Halter.

Ok, so Blanche Lincoln is facing pressure when it comes to derivatives. So what then, is Chuck Grassley (R-IA) doing in voting for it? Chuck Grassley is an extremely conservative senator who did not even support the motion to begin debate on the financial reform bill. He has seen his approval ratings crash as a result of health care negotiations with Max Baucus (D-MT). On a similar note, Scott Brown ended up voting for a strengthened bill, even though he did not support the weakened one. Even in the House, moderates such as Mike Castle (R-DE) who did not vote for the weaker financial reform bill, are publicly considering supporting the more liberal version.

The reason so many Republicans are signing on to the derivative trading ban and to the larger financial reform bill is that they are scared. They know they have been trashing a popular president's agenda for almost two years now and it will eventually catch up with them. Something as shady as derivative trading is a good area to side with the Democrats on, as it is a uniquely non-partisan issue. Expect to see many GOP backers when the bill comes up for final consideration. This is only if Dodd does not go through with plans to scrap the ban.

GOP support for previous gay rights issues in 111th Congress paints good picture for DADT repeal

The White House has apparently reached a compromise on the push to repeal the controversial"Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy in the military. The compromise apparently entails a delayed implementation of the repeal. The policy would be repealed only after a Pentagon study group completed a review of the effects of repeal. This is moot, however. Robert Gates was appointed by President Obama therefore will likely sign off on any policy the President endorses. The repeal of DADT has picked up support among many GOP military leaders, notably Colin Powell. The major question people are asking is, will the repeal pass the house?

It is very possible, looking at previous Republican votes on gay rights issues this year. The Matthew Shepard Act, which extended the definition of hate crimes to cover sexual orientation, passed with 18 Republican votes in the House. It moved on to win 5 Republican votes in the Senate. The repeal of DADT will be a far more controversial issue, though if several Republican lawmakers vote yes, it is likely the Blue Dogs will go along. At this point it seems the prospects of passage are fairly good, though much remains to be seen.

Update: It seems John Larson (D-CT) agrees with me. This is only speculative, however, as House Democrats never actually talk to their Republican colleagues as they do in the Senate.

House Republicans oppose 9/11 first responder benefits

This is appalling. Republicans are caught playing politics with the funding of 9/11 responder health insurance coverage. They have opposed an effort to make it a mandatory spending program, which does not have a spending limit. They go further to claim creating another entitlement program is far beyond the government's spending reach. Goes beyond our spending reach? If the United States of America does not take care of the men and women who risked their lives to save victims of our worst attack since the Civil War, then who can we take care of? How is this in any way patriotic? How can we ask for our men and women to put their lives on the line, be it in the army or fire department, if our country will not assure their well being? We have a fundamental duty to protect anyone who is part of our country who cannot protect themselves.

The same holds true for the impoverished. These are people who supply the labor for our leaders to become wealthy and enjoy good standards of living. Being in Oakland, I have seen many damaged people on the street. There is absolutely nothing being done for them. The only opportunity they have to succeed is to go from soup kitchen to soup kitchen for meals, while sleeping in city parks. There is no way the free market system can take care of people who are holding two full time jobs. There is no way individual responsibility can help a disabled veteran put food on his table. I am a firm believer that the strength of a system is revealed by its weakest point. In the United States, our weakest points are pretty weak. And there are millions of them.