It’s official. Jon Stewart broadcast the first “Indecision 2012″ segment last night. The 2012 election cycle is underway.

Virginia is shaping up as a key swing state for President Obama’s re-election prospects. Since Jim Webb dropped out, it has also emerged as a critical must-win for the Democrats to retain their Senate majority.

Public Policy Polling has a couple of new polls out focusing on the state. So far, it’s all good news for the Dems, and the Independent voters in Virginia are a big part of the story.

Obama Strong in Virginia:

“Part of the reason Obama’s doing well in Virginia is that he has respectable, if not great, approval numbers there. 48% like the job he’s doing to 45% who disapprove. There are two keys to his solid standing. The first is that 87% of Democrats stand with him- that’s an indication he’s generally holding onto white voters within his party, even ones who might lean a little bit more to the conservative side of the ideological spectrum.

The other key to his standing is that he’s coming close to breaking even with independents- 48% disapprove of him to 42% who approve. It may seem counter intuitive that negative numbers with those voters are a good sign for Obama, but after two straight election years where independents in Virginia leaned toward the GOP by a margin of about 30 points a Democratic politician getting just slightly negative reviews from them is progress.”

Toss up in Virginia

“The Virginia Senate race is about as much of a toss up as it could be: Tim Kaine and George Allen tie at 47% in our first poll since Jim Webb announced his retirement… The conventional wisdom has been that if Obama wins the state the Senate race is likely to come with him, but could there actually be a group of independent voters that go Obama/Allen in the interest of divided government? These early figures hint at the possibility of that and it’s something to keep an eye on moving forward.”

Clearly, it is an open question whether there is anything meaningful to be gleaned from polls 20 months out from an election. Minimally, these polls offer a baseline set of numbers for comparison when the campaigns kick off in earnest.

For me, The most interesting element of the PPP poll summary is the highlighted question “could there actually be a group of independent voters that go Obama/Allen in the interest of divided government?”. Regardless of the answer, it is significant that the question of whether independents are consciously making a divided government voting decisions is even being asked. I offered my answer in the comments on that post.

In honor of the official start of the 2012 presidential election race, a suggestion for the Virginia Election Theme Song:

“Sweet Virginia” – Rolling Stones

Wadin’ through the waste stormy winter,
And there’s not a friend to help you through.
Tryin’ to stop the waves behind your eyeballs,
Drop your reds, drop your greens and blues.

But come on, come on down Sweet Virginia,
Come on, come on down, I beg of you.
Come on, come on down, you got it in you.
Got to scrape that sh*t right off you shoes.

Cross-posted from Divided We Stand United We Fall

Egypt was not the only regime change story last week. As discussed previously on the Donk, on my blog, and elsewhere, the Democrats were already facing a huge uphill climb to hold their Senate majority past the 2012 election:

That climb just got a whole lot steeper, as incumbent Virginia Democratic Senator Jim Webb announced last week that he will not run for a second term. This is not a surprise. Webb has been quite open about his frustration with the Democratic leadership. As a consequence, the Republicans are licking their chops and Democrats are grasping at straws.

What seemed likely last fall is now a virtual certainty – the Republicans will retake the Senate majority in 2012. The only way to retain our happily divided government and avoid a rerun of One Party Republican Rule in 2013, will be to re-elect Barack Obama.

Another Democratic* Senator, Republican Roy Blunt (R-Mo), is also reading the 100 POINT ARIAL BOLD writing on the wall and finds some good things to say about divided government:

Of course, in addition to divided government giving Congress the “opportunity to do hard things”, it also gives the Congress the opportunity to not do stupid and bad things, like:

• Squander our blood and treasure to occupy Iraq (One Party Republican Rule)
• Pass wildly expensive stimulus legislation that does not stimulate (One Party Democratic Rule)
• Pass wildly expensive and complex Health Care Reform that does not reform the health care system (One Party Democratic Rule)
• Irresponsibly increase spending and the deficit to insane record levels (One Party Republican Rule), then increase the spending rate to even more insane levels while exploding the deficit to even more irresponsible record levels (One Party Democratic Rule)

We’ve now had divided government restored for only a little over a month. It is still early, but as President Obama moves to the center, and Republicans move toward fiscal sanity, I am optimistic.

So far, so good.

==========

*CORRECTED – Hat tip – Jim S in comments. Also removed “Democratic” from the title. My bad.

^{X-posted & excerpted from Divided We Stand United We Fall.}

Claire McCaskill and other centrist Dems appear to be pushing hard next year for some pretty straightforward steps that create more transparency and accountability when the opposition tries to filibuster. And remember…Dems are they’re likely to lose more seats in 2012…so it’s not like this really helps them if they’re in the minority.

Here’s more from National Journal:

All Democratic senators returning next year have signed a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., urging him to consider action to change long-sacrosanct filibuster rules. [...]

Among the chief revisions that Democrats say will likely be offered: Senators could not initiate a filibuster of a bill before it reaches the floor unless they first muster 40 votes for it, and they would have to remain on the floor to sustain it. That is a change from current rules, which require the majority leader to file a cloture motion to overcome an anonymous objection to a motion to proceed, and then wait 30 hours for a vote on it.

“There need to be changes to the rules to allow filibusters to be conducted by people who actually want to block legislation instead of people being able to quietly say ‘I object’ and go home,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo.

So how will they do it?

The fact that every returning Democrat signed the letter circulated by Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Mark Warner, D-Va., urging changes underscores growing determination on the part of the Senate’s majority to raise the bars for filibusters.

Adding to the momentum for change, say proponents, is a push by Udall to seek a simple majority vote on changing Senate rules at the start of the session, rather than a two-thirds majority, that is gaining steam. Such a move could come at the start of next Congress, shortly after the Senate returns on January 5th.

And the opposition seems open to it…

McConnell spokesman Don Stewart asserted that Democrats would regret any alteration of rules when they find themselves in the minority, although he said that a limitation on cloture time used for a motion to proceed would be a relatively insignificant move.

So do we have a deal? Let’s hope so…

If you thought 2010 looked nightmarish for Dems, take a peek at two years from now. No less than 16 23 Dem Senators will be up for reelection. Many A lot are from purple or red states.

Here’s the list of the most vulnerable…

Sen. Bob Casey Jr. (PA)

Claire McCaskill (MO)

Jon Tester (MT)

Sherrod Brown (OH)

Jim Webb (VA)

Sheldon Whitehouse (RI)

Joe Manchin (WV)

Kirsten Gillibrand (NY)

The Hill has more from the left and the right:

The other Democratic incumbents up next cycle are Daniel Akaka (Hawaii), Tom Carper (Del.), Jeff Bingaman (N.M.), Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Ben Cardin (Md.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Robert Menendez (N.J.) and Debbie Stabenow (Mich.).

The 10 GOP senators facing reelection are John Barrasso (Wyo.), Scott Brown (Mass.), Bob Corker (Tenn.), John Ensign (Nev.), Orrin Hatch (Utah), Kay Bailey Hutchison (Texas), Jon Kyl (Ariz.), Richard Lugar (Ind.), Olympia Snowe (Maine) and Roger Wicker (Miss.).

So yeah, it could get tough and the Dems’ majority is definitely in question at this point.

More as it develops…

From Michael O’Brien at The Hill:
GOP would ‘welcome’ party switch by Joe Lieberman

Cornyn, the head of Senate Republicans’ campaign efforts, floated the possibility that the GOP might target Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.), an Independent who caucuses with Democrats, or another Democratic senator if Republicans come close to winning a majority but fall short.

“I think he votes like a Republican on those areas, and we would certainly welcome him or any other Democrat who wants to switch sides of the aisle and caucus with us,” Cornyn said of Lieberman during an Election Day appearance on Fox News…

The GOP might look to other Democrats like Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) or even an incoming Democratic senator like West Virginia’s Joe Manchin, should he prevail, to cross over to the other side of the aisle.

Those Democrats have sometimes tangled with their party’s leaders on big issues like healthcare reform and climate change legislation. Lieberman was almost stripped of a key chairmanship after having supported Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the 2008 presidential election.

If the GOP picks up 8 seats to leave the Senate with a 51-49 Democratic majority, the game will be afoot.

With four Democratic Senators in play, and only two needed to flip the majority, these Senators will be on the horns of a classic Prisoner’s Dilemma. As long as all stay Democrat, they’ll retain their chairmanships and privilege. But the first two to switch can guarantee their chairmanships, and two laggards will be out in the cold. What to do???

I don’t know the answer to Justin’s question of whether last night’s senate debate in Nevada will swing the election, but I did watch the entire debate in stunned, silent horror. Some saw a clear-cut outcome. For me, it was all I could do to write this open letter of sincere condolence to our unfortunate fellow citizens facing this decision in Nevada:

Dear People of Nevada,

I just watched your Senate debate, and I am just so… so… sorry. I feel so bad for you. I mean – WTF?? Look, I don’t know how this happened, but you really should try and avoid choices like this in the future.

What to do? If you want to vote None Of The Above, I get it. It is a tempting, some might even say – right choice under the circumstances. But for those of you willing to “man up” and make a decision – lets take a clear eyed look at your options.

There is a real difference. You can choose between a lightweight incompetent, or a craven, duplicitous, heavyweight partisan hack incompetent. Neither is going to be good for Nevada. You should consider what is best for the country. Obama is going to be President for the next six years. My advice – take one for the team and vote for the lightweight. It is the only way to limit the damage. I’m sorry – it is just the right thing to do. Look, it’s only six years. In 2016 you can vote for a new Senator and President. Try to give yourself better choices next time.

Your Friend, MW

x-posted from “Divided We Stand United We Fall”

As noted here before, Taiwanese animation is the future of news. This week, Republican Senate hopeful Christine O’Donnell gets the animation treatment and is explained to the domestic China/Taiwan audience by the Taiwan NMA News Network:

This begs the question asked by Chris Cillizza: Why does Christine O’Donnell get so much coverage and attention from the media and Democrats?:

“Tonight’s Delaware Senate debate between marketing consultant Christine O’Donnell (R) and New Castle County Executive Chris Coons (D) will be carried live on CNN and co-moderated by the network’s lead anchor Wolf Blitzer. Judging from that treatment, a casual viewer might conclude that the race for Vice President Joe Biden’s old seat is among the most competitive in the country. That, of course, would be wrong. Way wrong…

it is important to keep O’Donnell in context. She is a decided long shot to even come close to being competitive in Delaware, and there are at least 15 Senate races that are closer, according to public polling, at the moment. Covering her is one thing. Covering her as though her race will decide the fate of the Senate is quite another.”

Christine O’Donnell is a clown of a Senate candidate who is going to lose by a large margin to a Democratic opponent in a Democratic state for the seat vacated by Democratic Vice President Joe Biden (to whom she already lost before). The Senate contest does not even make Nate Silver’s top 10 list of Senate Seats vulnerable to switching parties. Her debate performance was laughable and did not help.

We know why NMA selected her for this treatment. It is because watching our media, NMA determined she must be a big story. The real question – Why is she such a big story here? Why is she getting so much new and old media attention that she pops up on the NMA meme radarscope?

Dave Weigel takes a crack at explaining this phenomena:

Which reminds me of an old joke (modified to suit our purpose here):

A despondent Democrat was crawling about on the sidewalk under a lamppost at night.

A Police Officer came up to him and inquired, “What are you doing?”

The depressed Democrat replied, “I’m looking for my car keys of hope.”

The Officer looked around in the lamplight, then asked the Dem, “I don’t see any car keys. Are you sure you lost them here?”

The Democrat replied, “No, I lost them over there”, and pointed to an area of the sidewalk deep in shadow.

The policeman then asked, “Well, if you lost them over there, why are you looking over here?”

The despondent Democrat looked at him and said, “Because the light is better over here.”

x-posted from Divided We Stand United We Fall.

What better day and time to update our “10 in 10″ election prognostications? Last we checked in – Nate Silver (our polling analyst of choice) showed that 9 of the 10 seats most likely to change parties were all held by Democrats and he was forecasting a net 6-7 seat Republican gain in the Senate. One month later…

… with less than a month to go – 10 of the top 10 seats most likely to change parties are all held by Democrats and Nate is forecasting an 8-9 seat gain by the GOP. So – despite the nomination of a GOP clown candidate in Delaware (virtually guaranteeing a Democratic victory in that state) the odds of a GOP Senate takeover continue to improve.

Nate still gives the Republicans less than a 1 in 4 chance of retaking the Senate majority outright. But then he is basing his odds purely on the November 2nd mid-term results. As I have maintained throughout, the GOP need only take 8 or 9 more seats to make changing parties an attractive proposition to Lieberman and/or Nelson, and eight or nine seats look likely now.

Most surprising continues to be the race in Nevada. Sharron Angle is a terrible candidate. Harry Reid, as it turns out, is worse. “None of the Above” may be a spoiler.

The most disappointing potential race result for me is the one one that hits closest to home. Fiorina needs to make up some ground, and that will be tough in a state like California with less than 3 weeks remaining. But then… Scott Brown did what Scott Brown did in Massachusetts. Maybe there is just enough of that magic left over to surprise everyone on the left coast. Why wouldn’t California vote for a senator who throws down a shot of tequilla before delivering a stump speech? My last political contributions this season will go to Carly in California, and Kirk in Illinois. These are the seats that will make the difference.

I will make one change to my earlier prediction. Then I thought it unlikely that the GOP would take control of the House, invoking the “100 year Rule” and expecting the GOP to come up just short. My new, improved, and updated prediction is that the most likely scenario is that the GOP will go into 2011 with majority control of both the House and Senate. Nate and Charlie convinced me.

Apparently, Political tidal waves don’t care about 100 year rules, nor how deep a hole the GOP dug for itself in the last two cycles, nor how unconventional the candidates riding the wave may be.

It Looks like I’ll be changing teams again in November.

Suddenly I have a taste for a tall, icy glass of kool-aid.

Originally posted from Divided We Stand United We Fall.

UPDATE: 10-14-10 Some links added and updated since original post

Looks like the Tea Party folks are getting a lot more push back from the GOP then they were expecting. First Mike Castle won’t endorse Christine O’Donnell in Delaware and now Lisa Murkowski is literally trying to win while not being on the ballot.

From Anchorage Daily News:

Murkowski said she agonized over the decision to run as a write-in and that, as of Thursday night, she still didn’t know if she was going to do it. She said she kept hearing from Alaskans who felt they couldn’t vote for either Miller or the Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate seat, Sitka Mayor Scott McAdams.

“They told me that we cannot accept the extremist views of Joe Miller,” she said. “We can’t accept those views and, equally, we can’t accept the inexperience of Mr. McAdams,” she said.

So, does she have a shot? Well, as the story notes, the last time a write in campaign was successful was in 1956 when Strom Thurmond won in South Carolina. That doesn’t mean it can’t happen again, and Alaska is a very different type of state. If Murkowski can effectively paint Miller as a radical and McAdams as inexperienced, that could bode well for an independent run.

Still, McAdams is the mayor of Sitka, a small Alaskan town with roughly the same population as Wasilla. I’m not saying that McAdams should make the comparison to Palin, but there is a parallel.

Looks like Murkowski is already getting ahead of anything Palin will say to effectively neutralize her endorsement with a more populist message…

Former Gov. Sarah Palin, whose support for Miller drove hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from the Tea Party Express his way, called Murkowski’s effort futile. Murkowski offered a response to Palin, who resigned as governor last year, and to others she described as “naysayers” in Washington D.C.

“Perhaps it’s one time they met one Republican woman who won’t quit on Alaska,” Murkowski said, receiving a huge standing ovation from her supporters.

So, can she do it?

Cue Nate Silver:

Can Ms. Murkowski win? Sure she can. There is plenty of precedent for write-ins being elected to the Congress, although fewer have done so successfully in recent years. Meanwhile, a poll by Public Policy Polling found Ms. Murkowski getting 34 percent of the vote against Mr. Miller’s 38 percent and Mr. McAdams’ 22 percent. Private polling has also shown Ms. Murkowski running closely with Mr. Miller, according to The Hotline. [...]

Finally, Alaska has a large number of independents. A plurality of 42 percent of Alaskans identified themselves that way in exit polling in 2008, one of the highest percentages in the country. Thus, an independent candidacy like Ms. Murkowski’s has a natural constituency of sorts.

As the saying goes, “May you live in interesting times.”

Jan Brewer’s cringe inducing debate performance received more media attention, but there was another debate on Wednesday night that may have been more important. Carly Fiorina and Barbara Boxer met for their first (and potentially only) debate of the election season. It is one of the “dirty dozen” contests that will determine whether the GOP retakes the majority in the Senate.

Democrats enjoy a huge advantage in statewide California elections. In 2008, 44% registered Democratic, 31% registered Republican and 20% Independent (Decline to State). Despite the uneven playing field, Fiorina and Boxer were polling in a dead heat going into the debate. I generally have very low expectations for political debates, and perhaps that is why I was pleasantly surprised.

My impressions: Both candidates acquitted themselves well and were very well prepared. It was a good debate. A sample clip:

Most post-mortems called it close or a draw. I’m guessing she was good enough for a bump in the polls that will put her in the lead.

That said, there was one major issue that has emerged in this contest that I did not feel qualified to judge. So I asked my wife who had the better hair. She did not hesitate – Carly. Done deal. Carly wins this round.

In other election news, the blogosphere was abuzz with Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball Prognostication:

“In the Senate, we now believe the GOP will do a bit better than our long-time prediction of +7 seats. Republicans have an outside shot at winning full control (+10), but are more likely to end up with +8 (or maybe +9, at which point it will be interesting to see how senators such as Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and others react). GOP leaders themselves did not believe such a result was truly possible just a few months ago. If the Republican wave on November 2 is as large as some polls are suggesting it may be, then the surprise on election night could be a full GOP takeover. Since World War II, the House of Representatives has flipped parties on six occasions (1946, 1948, 1952, 1954, 1994, and 2006). Every time, the Senate flipped too, even when it had not been predicted to do so. These few examples do not create an iron law of politics, but they do suggest an electoral tendency.”

Hmmm. Seems like I recently read something similar.

Divided Government occurs in the US federal government when the party that controls the executive does not command majorities in both branches of the legislature. To restore divided government in the mid-terms, Republicans would have to retake the majority in either the House of Representatives or the Senate. That means a shift of 40 seats in the House, or 10 seats in the Senate or both. A tall order.

A few weeks ago, Justin invited predictions for the 2010 midterms. With Labor Day around the corner signaling the official start of the fall political election campaign season, I thought I’d throw my entry over the transom. Of course, this is strictly my opinion, your mileage may vary, and mangement is not responsible for the content of this post. I am also predicting an outcome I’d like to see – so there may be some wishful thinking embedded in this analysis.

Last time I looked, the answer was “no” – divided government was out of reach in 2010. It was the same conclusion I arrived at shortly after the election in 2008. Conventional wisdom also said “no”, but conventional wisdom has taken some surprising turns in 2010.

Conventional Wisdom
In January, the expectation was that the GOP would make gains in both houses of Congress, but fall short of retaking a majority in either. It just looked like the GOP was buried too deep in the sand to dig themselves out in one cycle. The Scott Brown “Massachusetts Miracle” eclipsed that particular ray of conventional wisdom, and since then CW has cautiously settled on a partly cloudy forecast with a chance of heavy Republican rain. The current political weather report gives the GOP a good chance to retake the majority in the House of Representatives, but the Senate is still considered by most to be out of reach. Conventional wisdom is not unanimity, so you can find some grasping at straws, others fearing the worst, and a few wondering how bad it could get. To many on the right, it looks like a done deal. We’ll start our analysis by narrowing down the range of possibilities.

Every Possible Scenario
The entire universe of possibilities can be distilled to these four outcomes – listed in order of Current Conventional Wisdom:

1. Democrats retain Senate, Republicans win House
2. Democrats narrowly retain House and Senate
3. Republicans win House and Senate
4. Republicans win Senate, Democrats retain House

The best way to evaluate this would be a bottoms-up analysis looking at detailed polls and statistically correlating demographics and voting history on a district by district, state by state, and election by election basis. I’m not going to do any of that. For one thing, it is beyond my ken, for another, I can get all that from the usual suspects doing the polling and Nate Silver’s blog doing the quant work. Instead, I’m going to look at the election through the prism of two “rules of thumb” and look for similarities and differences to historically analogous elections. And steal from Nate.

Maxims and Thumbs
The first rule of thumb does not get much publicity, but is an interesting fact that I’ve dubbed “The 100 Year Rule”. In the almost 100 years since we have been been electing Senators directly (only since the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913) the House of Representatives has never flipped majorities unless the Senate flipped first or at the same time. If conventional wisdom is correct and the Republicans take the House but not the Senate, it would be an historic first. So my first prediction is that this is not going to happen. Conventional wisdom is wrong, and the scenario where the GOP takes only the House is the least likely of the four.

The second rule of thumb is Tip O’Neil’s maxim “All politics is local.“ To the degree that O’Neills maxim is true, it is true about the House. This is just another way of saying (as is the first rule) that it is extremely difficult to flip majorities in the House of Representatives. House incumbents, (frequently aided by gerrymandered districts) enjoy extraordinarily high re-election rates. Even when voters tell pollsters they despise Congress in general, they’ll say they love their specific representative who is often the conduit by which federal services are delivered to individuals, municipalities, and businesses in the district. House elections are almost always “local.” Almost.

Looking Back
1994 and 2006 were two midterm election cycles where elections were decidedly not local. They turned on national issues and the House of Representatives flipped majorities simultaneously with a flip in the Senate. These two mid-term elections shared several characteristics: We were under One Party Rule (Democrats in ’94 – Republicans in ’06); There was widespread dissatisfaction with the party in power; The opposition party was energized; The base of the incumbent party was disillusioned with a palpable lack of enthusiasm; There was a widespread perception that the party in power was arrogantly pursuing policies opposed by a majority of Americans; Finally, major corruption scandals were in the headlines for the party in power throughout the election year (Rostenkowski in ’94, Abramoff and Foley in ’06).

Now, without a doubt, all of these elements are present in 2010. However, I don’t believe the 2010 corruption stars (Maxine Waters and Charlie Rangel) rise to the level of the corruption superstars we had in ’94 and ’06. In both of those elections, the corruption scandals were the last straw and triggered the “throw the bums out” gag reflex in the voters. Unless there is an October surprise and more corrupt Democratic pols make it into the headlines, I just don’t believe there is enough animus to overcome the huge House of Representatives incumbent advantage to get the massive 40 seat shift. Plus, one should never underestimate Nancy Pelosi. My conclusion on the House: Close, but no cigar. 2010 will not be quite like 1994 or even like 2006.

Miracles Happen
So if we are to see divided government restored in 2010, the best chance will be the Senate. In January this looked like an impossible hill to climb. The Democrats held a 60-40 super majority and the tie-breaker in the person of Joe Biden. To gain the majority the Republicans would have to win 11 seats. Nobody in either party considered that realistic. But – then something remarkable happened. Republican Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat. You might not think that one seat would change the complexion dramatically, but it does.

Thanks Nate
Time to rip Nate Silver’s work. His chart on the left is remarkable. It shows Nate’s stack ranking of the Senate seats most likely to change parties. Of the top 12 seats most likely to switch parties, 11 of them are currently held by Democrats. All either have the Republicans leading in the polls or are within the margin of error. The one seat of the top 12 currently held by a Republican is the Florida Senate, and it is only there because Independent Crist is in a dead heat with Republican Rubio. The Democrat has no chance in Florida. And if Crist were to win, he would likely caucus Republican for reasons that I’ll outline shortly. Now – this still appears to be a very tough climb as the Republicans need 10 of the 11 Dem seats in play to secure an outright majority. But wait! – there is another scenario – they may need to win only 8 or 9 of the 11 seats to take control of the Senate. How? the answer can be discerned by looking to the 2012 election.

2012 effect on 2010
This year the structural playing field is even for the Senate races. There are 37 Senate seats yet to be decided, with 19 currently held by Democrats and 18 held be Republicans (it was 19 and 19 including Massachusetts). In 2012 the Republicans will have a huge structural advantage in the Senate elections. Of the 33 seats contested, 23 are held by Democrats and 10 by Republicans. The Democrats will be on defense with many more seats to defend, the Republicans will have a target rich environment. If they don’t already have the majority, it is a lock the GOP will take the majority in 2012.

Why is this important in 2010? Because Senators Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman can count. If the GOP gets within 1 or 2 seats of an outright majority, Nelson and Lieberman will be in play. They’ll have one shot to cut a deal to guarantee their committee chairmanships for at least another 4-6 years (if re-elected), whereas they will be out as Committee chairs after two years if they continue to caucus Democratic. This also applies to Crist should he knock off Rubio in Florida. My take – these guys like the power and perks that come with committee chairmanships and will not be inclined to give them up too quickly. It just would not be as much fun for them, being in the Senate without that chair. And let’s be honest – its not like you liberals have been particularly nice to either of them over the last couple of years.

MW Prognosticates
My 2010 election prediction: The GOP wins 8 or 9 more Senate seats outright, then takes majority control by flipping Lieberman and/or Nelson. They fall a few seats short in the House and Nancy Pelosi continues as Speaker of the House.

Stack ranking of all possible election scenarios in order of likelihood:

1. Republicans win 8-9 seats flip Lieberman,/Nelson take Senate, Democrats narrowly retain House
2. Democrats narrowly retain House and Senate
3. Republicans win House and Senate
4. Republicans win House, Democrats retain Senate

We’ll be tracking this dirty dozen of Senate races in posts between now and the election to monitor our last best chance of restoring a perfect “10″ in ’10 and once again gaze upon a beautiful, desirable, smoking hot divided government in 2011.

Takeover Chances

Race
	Margin
N. Dakota	Hoeven v. Potter +40
Arkansas	Boozman v. Lincoln +32
Indiana	Coats v. Ellsweorth +14
Delaware	Castle v. Cook +9
Pa.	Toomey v. Sestak +8
Colorado	Buck v. Bennet +5
Nevada	Angle v. Reid +1
Florida	Rubio v. Crist +1
Illinois	Kirk v. Giannoulias +0
Wash.	Rossi v.Murray -1
Calif.	Fiorina v. Boxer -2
Wisconsin	Johnson v. Feingold -3
Kentucky	Paul v. Conway +4

(chart from Nate Silver’s 538)

Nevada is arguably the most interesting race among the dirty dozen. Given the weakness of Sharron Angle as a candidate, I am astonished that she remains in a virtual dead heat with the Majority Leader in the Senate. There are signs of panic on the left. The problem seems to be that Nevada voters really do not want either Reid or Angle to represent them in the Senate. Throw in the wild card that Nevada is one of the few states where “None of the Above” is a ballot choice, and this gets really hard to predict. Unfortunately for Nevadans, “None of the Above” cannot win. The closeness of the Nevada race may be the single clearest indicator that this may be a bigger GOP tsunami than Conventional Wisdom has yet to acknowledge.

^{Cross-posted from “Divided We Stand United We Fall“}

First it was the wishy-washiness of the civil rights act repeal and now it’s criticism of the administration being tough on BP?

Watch the video…

Here’s the thing…yes, accidents happen on offshore oil rigs. However, most damage is mitigated by appropriate safety measures being put in place to keep spills to a minimum.

However, recent reports have revealed that BP didn’t spend the appropriate time, money or energy to ensure that an accident couldn’t turn into a catastrophe. And now the Gulf is paying the price with 2M+ gallons being pumped into that ecosystem every single day.

Do know I’m genuinely sorry to see Rand suffer these slings and arrows. I liked how earnest his dad was, but that doesn’t make up for being so green. In other words, Rand really has nobody to blame but himself. He just isn’t ready for the national stage and this week has been evidence of exactly that. Maybe he’ll recover, but I think we all have serious doubts.

More as it develops…

Yes, he said that partisanship was out of control on both sides…

“There’s just too much brain-dead partisanship, tactical maneuvering for short-term political advantage rather than focusing on the greater good, and also just strident ideology. The extremes of both parties have to be willing to accept compromises from time to time to make some progress because some progress for the American people is better than nothing, and all too often recently, we’ve been getting nothing.”

But he also said…

“The people who are just rigidly ideological, unwilling to accept practical solutions somewhere in the middle, vote them out, and then change the rules so that the sensible people who remain can actually get the job done. The president I know is desperately trying to accomplish this. Congress needs to listen and the American people need to help with this process.”

Bayh could have landed a broadside on Obama’s ship by saying nothing about him, and yet he made a point to mention Obama as on the right side of this fight.

Meanwhile, Obama’s Gallup numbers have been steadily increasing reaching their highest levels in a few months. Reagan’s numbers were worse and Clinton’s were the same at this time in both their presidencies. Just saying…

Also, in case you’re buying the “Dems will lose the majority” meme, there are 5 Dem Senators and 6 Repub Senators retiring this year.

(Psst…the real reason Bayh quit? He’s going to run for President in 2016 and he can’t appear to be post-partisan while governing in the current environment. You heard it here first.)

That 2005 episode famously prompted a Republican leadership threat invoking the “nuclear option” to change the Senate rules and limit the use of filibusters. The showdown was averted by the bipartisan “Gang of Fourteen” led by John McCain, effectively saving the filibuster and earning him the enmity and derision of the right. Those same partisans on the right should be on their knees right now thanking John McCain for allowing Republicans to retain what little relevance they have in the Senate today. At least they can attempt to cobble together bipartisan filibuster efforts (which is the only kind that can succeed in this particular Senate). Run of the mill partisan hypocrisy aside, it was this exchange that caught my attention:

Somebody once said something about the consequences of failing to learn the lessons of history. You might think Ezra and Rachel would learn something from the Republicans who were once so exercised by Senate filibusters, and who are now – less so. But, let’s go with Ezra’s six year proposition. Contrary to his assertion, we can make an educated guess at what the Senate will look like six years hence.

I’m already on the record about the likely composition of the Senate over the next two election cycles. On Tuesday, Chris Matthews took a closer look at the “Top 5 Endangered Senators” in 2010 cycle:

Chris Mathews: “Who is the most vulnerable Democrat?”

Ron Brownstein: “I would say Dodd. One thing to keep in mind though Chris… In big years, in wave years, in 1980, 1986, 1994, 2002, 2006 all the close Senate races went the same way. In many ways, these guys are not entirely the captain of their fate…

Chris Matthews: “Can a Republican lose this year coming up? Can a Republican incumbent lose any race anywhere next year?

Charlie Cook: “I would not be surprised to see no Republican incumbent House or Senate lose.”

Even if there was a five seat shift, the Democrats would retain a majority with Joe Biden breaking the partisan tie. I am sticking with my forecast of a net gain of 2 or 3 seats for Republicans. Regardless whether it is 2, 3, 4 or 5 pickups in 2010, it gets more interesting in 2012, when the field tilts dramatically in favor of Republicans. Of the 33 seats contested, the Democrats will be defending 24 seats, and the Republicans only 9. Even if they win 2 seats in 2010, it is virtually a fait accompli that the GOP will retake the Senate majority in 2012. In 2014, 21 of the 33 seats are defended by Democrats and 12 defended by Republicans. Again – advantage GOP.

Which brings us back to Ezra Klein’s plan for phasing out the filibuster – “And so, six years from today, when we don‘t know who will be in power the filibuster phases out…”. Uh Huh. Should some version of Klein’s plan actually make its way to the Senate floor, it will raise the specter of a simple majority of Republicans in 2015 undoing the Health Care plan that required a 60 vote Democratic plurality in 2009. Definitely in the “be careful what you wish for” category.

OTOH, should the Democrats sponsor such a measure in the Senate, they might find some surprising bi-partisan support from Republicans with a somewhat longer view.

^{Cross-posted from “Divided We Stand United We Fall“.}

They got Ben Nelson.

From Wash Post:

Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.), the final Democratic holdout on health care, announced to his colleagues Saturday morning that he would support the Senate reform bill, clearing the way for final passage by Christmas of President Obama’s top domestic policy priority.

Asked if he had secured the 60 votes needed to overcome a Republican filibuster, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) told reporters, “It seems that way.”

The Senate is expected to work its way through a series of procedural motions over the next few days, with a vote on the legislation scheduled the evening of Dec. 24th. A conference with the House to produce a final bill would likely extend into January, Senate aides said.

So how did they get him?

Well, he had initially objected on the abortion provisions that had been raised, but it looks like he secured some special favors for Nebraskans as well…

Under the new abortion provisions, states can opt out of allowing plans to cover abortion in the new insurance exchanges the bill would set up, to serve individuals who lack coverage through their jobs. Plus, enrollees in plans that do cover abortion procedures would pay for the coverage with separate checks — one for abortion, one for the rest of any health-care services.

Nelson secured full federal funding for his state to expand Medicaid coverage to all individuals below 133 percent of the federal poverty level. Other states must pay a small portion of the additional cost. He won concessions for qualifying nonprofit insurers and for Medigap providers from a new insurance tax, and was able to roll back cuts to health savings accounts.

“I know this is hard for some of my colleagues to accept and I appreciate their right to disagree,” Nelson told reporters at the Capitol, of the many changes made at his behest. “But I would not have voted for this bill without these provisions.”

Are they cheering in Omaha tonight?

More as it develops…

We’ve seen and heard President Obama at town halls, press conferences, interviews, Saturday radio chats, industry summit meetings and delivering the keynote speech at medical conferences. All focused on health care reform, all covered breathlessly by the new and traditional media. No one can accuse this president of being AWOL in the health care debate.

Some might suggest that yet another Obama presentation on health care reform is as welcome as watching another Sham-Wow! commercial. Exposure has its risks as well as rewards.

Yet, despite his popularity, despite his much vaunted communication skills, despite his persuasive logic, despite his ubiquitous presence in the media, when the needle of popular sentiment has moved at all, it has moved in the wrong direction for the President’s version of reform. The Salesman in Chief can’t seem to close the deal with the American people. Moreover, the pundit class across the political spectrum are assessing the President’s sales skills, and finding them wanting:

Presidential Sales Job on Health Care Falling Short
Doug Bandow – Cato

It’s not working. The president enjoys the use of the executive branch’s bountiful resources, control of Congress by his party, and aid of a sympathetic media. Yet support for expanding government control over health care is falling the more people learn about it.

Sell Me!
Kevin Drum – Mother Jones

Obama’s sales pitch still needs work
Concord Monitor

Sales Pitch…
Steve Benen – Washington Monthly

Obama is failing on health reform
Clive Crook – Financial Times

One More With Feeling
The New Republic

In many ways, this is puzzling. The President is justifiably known for his oratorical skills and power to persuade. What is going on here? Even the President seems confused. From a Time interview…

Ah… there it is. There’s the problem. He’s not selling. He’s making a case. I guess that should not be surprising. The President has never been in sales. He has never been in business. The president is trained as a lawyer. He is not selling health care reform, he is trying a case on health care reform. Now there are some superficial similarities between a lawyer trying a case and salesman closing a deal – both involve crafting and presenting a persuasive proposition. But there are big differences.

Case in point. If a lawyer overwhelms his opponent with a brilliant, persuasive and unassailable argument in front of a jury, he is going to win the argument, and likely win the case. On the other hand, if a salesman overwhelms a prospect with a brilliant, persuasive and unassailable argument, he is going to win the argument, but lose the sale.

Most people who have never been in sales, do not really understand sales. They think they do, but what they understand is a caricature of sales.

I can help. I was in sales and sales management for a lot of years, selling big complex and expensive enterprise software solutions to large organizations. I can’t help much with the policy specifics of the health care reform legislation, but I can help diagnose the sales problems of our president and offer a prescription.

First, by way of disclosure – my current take on the plan itself. I am still trying to get my arms around the various, sundry and generally bad policy permutations presented so far. If I had to put a stake in the ground, I’d lean toward the Wyden-Bennett bill, which is apparently not getting any serious consideration. E.D. Kain offers an effective pitch and the subsequent discussion at Ordinary Gentlemen has been persuasive. The president could learn something about presenting a complex sales from those boys.

I am dead-set against the H.R. 3200 hairball that is apparently the bill of choice being pitched by the President. Partially because I don’t understand it all (not for lack of trying), partially because I do understand it and don’t like it, and partially because it is clear the President does not fully understand it and is selling smoke. I am seeing a used car salesman pitching a Shelby Cobra Mustang, but when I ask for test drive, he puts me in a car seat mounted in a frame without an engine, tires or steering wheel. And it’s wildly expensive. And I think he is offering predatory financing. Guess what? I’m not buying.

Let’s get back to salesmanship.

This is a teachable moment Mr. President.

Welcome to Sales 101.

There are some other choices in the legislature besides H.R. 3200. You may want to reconsider which product will have the best chance of selling to the American people. As you found out, it is possible to be successful selling a lemon (like the stimulus porkfest), but it hurts your credibility and makes the next sale a lot tougher. If the prospect is not buying the Lincoln Town Car you are selling, you have two choices. You can keep pitching that Lincoln, convinced that you know better than the prospect what they really need. That always ends badly. They’ll just leave the showroom never to return. Alternatively, you can forget the Lincoln, start pitching the Fiesta, and you might have a sale by the end of the day.

A professional salesperson works to match a product pitch to a prospect’s requirements and budgets. A huckster only cares about the features of the product, and will pitch those features endlessly, regardless of whether the prospect has a need for the features or can afford them. When I look at Axelrod’s talking points, I can’t help but think of the penultimate huckster pitch, the Ginsu steak knife:

This approach works well with Ginsu knives on late night TV. For selling a comprehensive solution to Health Care reform? Not so much.

Enterprise software is a malleable product. It does a lot of stuff and can be customized to meet the specific needs of the client. Generally, it does much more than a client needs, with a large percentage of enterprise software features not needed at all. If a salesperson focuses on the small percentage of features that actually solves the client business problem, they can usually get the sale. If they spend their time extolling all the wonderful features of the software, whether relevant to the client or not… they don’t get the sale.

Mr. President, you and the Democratic party believe you have a mandate from the American people to reform health care. I believe you are correct, and said as much before the election. However, a mandate is not a blank check. Expressed in sales terminology, it is far more important to understand what the client wants to buy vs. hammering them with a pitch of what you want to sell them. The continuing erosion of support for H.R.H. 3200 (House of Representatives Hairball 3200), clearly shows that what you are selling, is not what the American people are buying.

I could be wrong, but if I were to guess what the American people are looking to buy, it would be something that can be articulated pretty simply and emerges from some basic American values of fairness and common sense. I’d say it is really about these three things:

1. Every American gets a baseline level of solid health care. No one is left behind.
2. No American need be at risk of financial ruin or bankruptcy because they get sick.
3. The program is manageable and fiscally responsible. Americans want to feel reasonably certain we won’t see mushrooming costs like with Medicare and the prescription drug plan.

That’s it, Mr. President. We don’t need “Free! Free! Free! Preventive Care!” or a set of Ginsu steak knives to sweeten the deal. Put together a package that does these three things, pitch them clearly and simply, and you’ll close the sale.

Interestingly, Wyden-Bennett S391 accomplishes all three. HRH 3200 at best accomplishes one of the three. Just sayin…

Class dismissed.

X-posted from “Divided We Stand United We Fall“

What’s telling about the conversations surrounding the “evils” of government run health care is how many people seem to reflexively applaud the notion of government staying out of the business of health care…and yet nobody who’s on Medicare wants to get rid of it.

Watch the following clip and tell me it’s not frustrating to watch…

And so it goes…

Justin asked “How will Repubs do in 2010?” Tully comments “it’s an exercise in fantasy to make predictions this far out”. Sage advice, but per the popular idiom – “Fools rush in…”

While I agree that polls are meaningless from this distance, insight into the election can be gleaned from structural issues. Shortly after the November election, I posted an analysis on the prospect of restoring divided government in 2010 or 2012. This summary/conclusion paraphrased from that post:

After the 2008 election the Democrats picked up an additional 21 seats and will have a crushing 82+ seat majority in the House. Given the difficulty of changing majorities in the House, there is almost no likelihood of a Republican majority in the house before 2014 and probably longer (even with a hurricane force political tailwind, the Democrats only picked up 21 seats in ’08 – do the math). That leaves the Senate as the only determinant of whether divided government can be restored in 2010. In 2012, either re-taking the Senate or the presidency are possibilities for restoring divided government, as the house will likely remain out of reach…

Conclusion / Predictions

We will have One Party Rule under the Democrats for at least four years.

The next opportunity to restore divided government will be in 2012.

The Republicans will have two ways to get there, so I will go out on a limb and make the prediction that divided government will be restored in 2012, either through the Republicans winning the presidency or (more likely) a majority in the Senate. If the latter, we will be in the interesting situation that we have a divided congress, and regardless of which party wins the presidency – a divided government. That’s a good thing.

No telling what shape the country will be in by then.

I stand by the overall thesis, but all the results were not in and a few things have changed. Time for an update.

First, based on the completely insane deficit spending in the first six months of Single Party Democratic Rule, we now have an answer to the last bullet. We will be in very sorry economic shape by the 2012 election, with a debased currency, high inflation, and possibly eclipsed by the more capital friendly China as the pre-eminent economic engine on the planet.

Second, there have been some changes in the structural elements of the 2010 Senate races. Republican Arlen Specter changed his party affiliation, and the Missouri race was finally decided. With Al Franken now in the Senate, there are 60 Senators who caucus Democrat and 40 Senators who caucus Republican. With special elections in New York to replace Hillary Clinton and in Delaware to replace Joe Biden, we now have 36 Senate seats up for grabs in 2010, with 18 held by Republicans and 18 held by Democrats.

Perversely, the Republican hand in 2010 was strengthened by their unrelenting poor performance in 2008. Instead of defending 19 of 34 seats as outlined in my previous post, they are defending 18 of 36 seats, exactly like the Democrats, and on a structurally even playing field in 2010. They are in far too deep a hole to have any chance of retaking the Senate majority in 2010, but (despite Justin’s snark) if they can take 2 or 3 seats, it will be a big win and they will be in an excellent position to retake the Senate in 2012 when they have significant structural factors in their favor.

The Senate remains the best chance to divide this government in 2012. While Barack Obama’s poll numbers have predictably eroded from the stratospheric level he enjoyed earlier in the year, he still has a deep reservoir of goodwill and personal popularity with voters. He is personable, likable, smart, and as Joe Biden noted – “clean and articulate”. Predictions three years out are indeed foolish, but barring some as of yet unrevealed scandal close to the President, I expect he will be reelected.

Net net – The best chance to restore fiscal rationality in 2012 is for Republicans to take the Senate, and that will take two election cycles. A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step, and the first step is for Republicans to pick up a couple of seats in 2010.

Two Senate races have peaked my early interest.

Pat Toomey is a solid fiscal conservative. His primary challenge to Arlen Specter is widely attributed to be the reason Specter changed his party affiliation. Ironically, if Specter survives a Democratic Party primary challenge, he could still easily lose to Toomey in the general election. I like Toomey’s chances. I like what he says about divided government. And I really like the way he acquitted himself in a laughably hostile Hardball appearance on Tuesday August 4:

Another campaign of interest – Democratic Senator Chris Dodd’s Connecticut seat. I had some positive things to say about Chris Dodd during his brief presidential run. That was then. This is now. A lot of questions emerged about his close relationship with Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, a sweetheart mortgage from Countrywide Financial and cozy relationships with banking lobbyists. This is a race that should be a slam dunk and a safe seat for Democrats, but is now up for grabs. Recent polls show that Dodd is trailing former Republican congressman Rob Simmons. Simmons would be a fine choice. But there is another interesting challenger in Connecticut. Money manager and economic soothsayer Peter Schiff is also considering a run for this seat.

Schiff took a page from the Ron Paul campaign and his “moneybomb” effort today is showing pretty impressive results thus far for a Senatorial campaign:

Maybe we will get that libertarian voice in the Senate.

x-posted from “Divided We Stand United We Fall“

The GOP is finally able to get rid of one of their more embarrassing Senators.

The reason?

Money…

The writing on the wall may have been the news reported Sunday by the Louisville Courier-Journal that more than 100 former Bunning donors have signed up with Secretary of State Trey Grayson, a fellow Republican who has formed an exploratory committee.

Bunning is 77. Grayson, who has taken in twice what Bunning has raised, is 37.

Bunning announced in May that he intended to run for a third term, but as I wrote back then, that decision is “subject to change.” And it did.

But will this be good for the Dems or the Repubs in the next election cycle?

Well, Kentucky is a fairly red state, but Bunning barely won last time against Daniel Mongiardo, a complete unknown who had a fraction of Bunning’s war chest. Part of this was due to the fact that Bunning suggested that Mongiardo looked like one of Saddam Hussein’s sons, but I also think Kentucky voters realize that Bunning isn’t really all there anymore. In fact, his approval numbers are barely cracking 30% and his disapproval is above 50%. So his prospects in 2011 were dim to begin with.

Still, will the political landscape in Kentucky change or will the continue to elect Republicans?

This is just the Senate Health Committee’s bill, and there will be more to follow.

Still, if you want to take a glance…

More here.