Senate Update: A View From the Leftosphere
Kos abandons TN, Democratic leaders worried about MT
By Adam C Posted in 2006 — Comments (33) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I know around election time many readers have a hard time going to leftist websites to follow developments. I have continued reading those sites for useful information. I feel there are two developments on the front page of Kos that deserve to be mentioned here.
1. Kos has given up on the TN SEN race. Since 2004, Kos has been less of an idealist and more of a pragmatic. He lost the optimism he had before Kerry and the Democrats lost in 2004. This cycle his reading of polls and races has been more realistic. And this call reflects that realism:
Rasmussen poll not yet released, taken sometime midweek. Likely voters. MoE 4.5% (10/30)
Corker (R) 53 (48)
Ford (D) 45 (47)That is a catastrophic collapse. And Rasmussen ain't the only operation to capture this collapse. Look at other very recent independent polling in the race:
Zogby:
Corker (R) 53 (40)
Ford (D) 43 (40)CNN:
Corker (R) 52
Ford (D) 44Yeah, there's an internal DSCC poll showing Ford with the lead, but it's an outlier. All other data points in the race show this thing trending away this last week. And it's the trends that are damning.
I will only add that Tradesports Futures Market has Corker at a 75-87% chance of winning as of 1 PM on Friday.
2. Kos reports that Democratic leaders are panicking about MT SEN. Again, polls have shown this race narrowing although Tester leads in every poll I've seen.
...I'm a bit surprised at an avalanche of pitch emails and calls I've been getting from nervous party people and allied organizations. Even MoveOn is doing a frantic last-minute fundraising drive for him.
I don't know if Democratic Party internals have given cause for concern, or if there's something else in the cards. The poll numbers look encouraging. Early vote reports from the field look good. This one will be tight -- it was always going to be tight -- but there is definitely serious concern at the top.
Note that Kos assumes that RI, OH, and PA are already done, which according to polls is very likely. If TN has turned for good, then Ds must win VA, MT, and MO to take the Senate. And if Rs can win two of those three, they will retain 51 seats just as they had after the 2002 election.
« When Negative Ads Backfire — Comments (4) | A Pre-Election Reminder: What's at Stake — Comments (2) »
Senate Update: A View From the Leftosphere 33 Comments (0 topical, 33 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Republicans don't win races from behind in NJ. They just don't. The D turnout operation there is too strong. (Not coincidentally, NJ is the most densely populated state in the Union; the ground game is different there because the ground itself is different).
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
I wonder what the situation would be with judges, and especially the Supreme Court, if the GOP can hold onto a 51 or 52 seat majority? Though he has committed the ultimate sin of publicly criticizing Roe, Bush should go with Emilio Garza if he gets another opening. First and foremost, he's worthy and a fine choice, but him being Hispanic may just put some pressure on some Democrat senators to at least support cloture.
Hopefully, the same momentum that Corker has managed to gain will occur for Allen, Talent, and Burns, and hopefully Steele can pull the upset.
Chafee is a wash. The loss of PA and OH gives seats to Senators who will probably join the filibuster caucus and will remove the specter of the Constitutional/Nuclear Option. If those are the only changes, then 52 plus red state Ds should be enough to get decent nominees through but it will be harder than it has been already. If MO or MT flip, the margin becomes very thin. TN and VA will not change much because the D Senators would need to keep a non-obstructionist reputation. NJ or MD flipping would take away a filibuster vote and gain a reliable yes for any possible replacement, neither are Chafee-style liberals.
All in all, the Con/Nuke Option will be gone. Filibusters will probably occur on most nominees. But red state Ds will hold the margin in that case.
We would be lucky to get an O'Connor or Kennedy confirmed by the next Senate. Good thing the G14 didn't let us exercise the constitutional option when we had the chance, eh? I'm sure the G14 (most prominent among his McCainisms) will be a contributing factor in Dewine's upcoming loss as well.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
problems savaging him from the time he was nominated.
Although not to play affirmative action politics here, a strong minority nomination would probably be his best bet.
Although I don't think Bush should go for the dark horse, the dark horse is going to get slammed as much as the known justice.
I am keeping my fingers crossed that Steele can make up some ground and pull out that victory.
I feel badly for Santorum-he is a good senator, and can't imagine trading him in for Casey Jr, but then I am not a democrat.
I think the dynamic would be much different for a hispanic supreme court nominee than what happened with Clarence Thomas. Hispanics are generally much less beholden to the democratic party, and would be very defensive toward attacks against one of their own. And it would be the first hispanic nomination to the Supreme Court. Politically, a conservative hispanic nominee would be a brilliant strategy.
I think that Emilio Garza would be a good Supreme Court justice, but not an excellent one.
If Dubya wants to nominate a Hispanic Supreme Court justice, the two most excellent nominess would be Miguel Estrada and Texas Solicitor General R. Ted Cruz.
Ted Cruz, a Princeton/Harvard Law alum who is a former Rehnquist and Luttig clerk is also the former Director of Policy Planning at the Federal Trade Commission, a former Associate Deputy Attorney General, and a past domestic policy advisor to the president on the Bush/Cheney campaign.
Ted Cruz would dazzle every bit as much as Roberts did, and I think he would be just as strong a justice - if not stronger. At a mere 37 (not too much younger than Clarence Thomas was when he was nominated) he would have liberals tied up in knots for decades to come. :-)
Yes, I was thinking Estrada. If the GOP manages a 51 or 52 seat majority, I think the opposition to another conservative nominee in the mold of Alito or Roberts would almost insurmountable - unless said conservative were hispanic. I just don't think the democrats would want to risk angering such a large voting bloc by savaging a hispanic nominee, even a very conservative one.
would make a big difference in getting judges confirmed, because we'd still run the Judiciary committees, and be in control of the confirmation agenda. This really does make a huge difference.
From out here in the Socialist Republic of Northern Virginia, if there is not a MASSIVE Republican turnout in the rest of the state, I think Burns has a better chance of pulling this out than does Allen.
But there's something telling about Kos's saying "alas." Alas, we have a federalist system, alas we have a republic. Too bad those nutjobs and rednecks actually get to vote.
"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke
Note that this observation does not apply to Connecticut.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Of course, there's also this explanation.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
What are you people so afraid of? Oversight? Checks and balances? Pressure on Iraqi leaders to step up and produce results (it's not like it's up to Congress to command troops in the field)? Get over it...this Republicans blew it by not doing a [darn] thing to appease the base that put them in power. Most voters won't come out to vote out of fear of Evil Pelosi...you know why? Bc the majority of Americans have no idea who the hell she is in the 1st place (just like we barely knew who Hastert was until recent events unfolded).
borat
1. Higher taxes and anti-free market Democrats throwing the breaks on this skyrocketing economy
2. Capitulation in the central front in the war on terror - where we now know that they had detailed nuclear and biological weapons plans
3. Even MORE out-of-control spending
4. Not being able to get great conservative judges on the federal bench
THAT'S what I'm afraid of.
How much more out-of-control could it get at this point, seriously?
It seems that divided government seems to put the tethers on the purse strings better than any one part. If that means a Democratic congress and Republican executive, I'll take it. Any time there has been divided government discretionary spending has grown much slower than one one party has been in full control of two branches of the government.
The two largest increases in discretionary spending over the last 45 years have occurred when one party has controlled both branches of government. Those two time periods?
LBJ - 4.6% year over year growth during his presidency
and...
GWB - 8.0% year over year growth during his presidency
I'd much rather take a scenario where Democracts control Congress and we have someone like Reagan in charge.
[Office Space] Um, Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree with you here. [/Office Space]
The greatest rise in spending during the Bush Presidency was the period between May 2001 and January 2003. We had divided government for that period. It didn't help because the Democrats just spend more.
Also your 80s analysis is flawed too, Republicans controlled the Senate from 80-86.
The best solution is to elect conservatives instead of moderates or liberals.
Just as every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints - Sympathy for the Democrats
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Of NO checks on a judiciary that makes sweeping policy for the whole country without any basis in law, and effectively disenfranchises social conservatives.
A Democratic Senate will block the appointment--and even a vote for the appointment--of any judges not willing to cooperate with these judicial decrees, but will enthusiastically endorse Pres. Hillary's radical nominees.
"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke
Principally, we want our side to win. Why? Well, because we think our side is right - or at least right more often than wrong. Why else? Well, because we think your side is wrong - and on some issues such as the conduct of the WOT, suicidally wrong.
I'm not precisely seeing where "fear" has much of anything to do with this. And honestly I'm a little tired of hearing liberals - you know, the people who scream about Republicans lynching the minorities, eating the old and starving the kids every election since 1994 - whine about using fear as a campaign tactic.
But let's take these one at a time, as you were so nice to list them:
Oversight? We have that. It's called congress.
Checks and Balances? Comes with the Constitution - been around since the late 18th Century.
Pressure Iraqi leaders? 1) Like that's not already happening and 2) Sure, SanFran Nan and Joe Orangehair are going to succeed where Bush, Rummy and Rice have "failed". Yep, that's credible.
And if memory serves, SanFran Nan is the single most divisive politician in the country (worst pos/neg ratio). Were it not for the fact that she's 2 heartbeats from the Presidency, Cheney's ticker ain't what it used to be, and I wouldn't want her to be President of my local PTA, I would love nothing more than for her and Harry "Land Deal" Reid to be out there front-and-center daily explaining why they cannot get anything done.
But then again, I just assume my side win. Because I think they're right. But we've already gone over that.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Given your analysis, Adam, the range could be anywhere from 54 (lose OH, RI, PA, gain NJ and MD) to 48 (Democrats run the table).
Although the probability of 54 or 48 is low. I would say there is bigger than 50% chance that there will be 50 or 51 Rs after the election.
My prediction is that the GOP loses Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Ohio but then wins Maryland, New Jersey, and Michigan for a net no change. :-)
Net loss of 10 in the House. :-)
You wade through the filth & hate of the leftosphere to find us a few of the sane thoughts so I don't have to. I appreciate it.
Just as every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints - Sympathy for the Democrats
I have a high opinion of Janice Rogers Brown. I do take the point that the Dems can go harder against a Black nominee than a Latino, unless MD teaches them that actually they can't. I am also sure that the President would like to nominate a Hispanic if he can. But it seems to me that Rogers Brown has other tactical points in her favour, not just being Black and female.
She has recently been approved by the Senate. The Gang of 14 specifically accepted her, so it might be difficult for some of their number to turn against her now. How can she possibly be an exceptional circumstance now when previously she was not?
Of the seven Dems in the Gang, Landrieu and Pryor are heavily dependent on Black votes for any chance of re-election; Lieberman will be insulated against pressure from Reid by his new status; Byrd and Inouye cannot be trusted, but also cannot be intimidated by Reid. (That said, Byrd has never voted for a Black nominee to SCOTUS, and I doubt he ever will).
It goes without saying that I am commenting here ONLY on the tactical aspects. She is also intellectually first class as, I am sure, are the others mentioned above.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
kos is a famously bad prognosticator, this should worry you! I myself thought Ford was going to lose in TN until today... now, who knows!?
-pyrrho
I have been running from blog to blog telling the world....MICHAEL STEELE's momentum is being felt in this state! So is Bob Ehrlich's!!!!!!
DONT COUNT OUT MD!
None of that takes into account:
Maryland or
New Jersey
Hmmmmmmm...