Posts Tagged ‘ Tim Cahill ’

Can Republicans Run the Table in November?

Tuesday, June 29th, 2010
Ed Kilgore



Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.

by Ed Kilgore

A lot of the buzz about Republican prospects for retaking control of the U.S. House is based on fairly abstract factors, such as historical averages and national generic ballot polls. But in reality, of course, elections are individual contests, no matter how “nationalized” the cycle. And four months and change out from the November elections, it’s worth taking a somewhat more concrete look at the House landscape and where Democrats are vulnerable.

For purposes of this analysis, I’ll use the authoritative (if somewhat conservative, in the sense of caution about predicting incumbent losses) Cook Political Report ratings as of June 24 (no link, because it’s subscription-only). According to Cook’s highly astute David Wasserman, there are 66 seats currently held by Democrats that are involved in competitive races. Of those, nearly half (32) are actually rated as “lean D” at the moment. To win control of the House, Republicans need a net gain of 40 seats, and seven of their own seats are in competitive races, including three (DE-AL, HI-1 and LA-2) that most observers consider very likely to flip. So from the get-go, retaking the House will require a very high win rate for Republicans in competitive races, and/or continued improvement in their overall national standing—i.e., races now deemed “Likely D” slipping into the competitive range.

Looking at the 66 vulnerable Democratic seats, 15 are open. That’s a reasonably large number, but only half of the 30 open seats Democrats had in the last Republican “wave” election of 1994 (Republicans had 26 open seats in 2008, greatly helping the Democrats achieve a second straight big winning cycle). Twenty-five seats, however, are represented by freshmen, traditionally the most vulnerable incumbents. Most significantly, 51 of the 66 seats have a pro-Republican Partisan Voter Index (PVI), based on an average of party performance in the last two presidential elections. This indicates that most Republican gains in November will be a “correction” of recent overperformance by Democrats in House races rather than a true GOP “wave.” And it’s a reminder of the simple but often overlooked fact that because all members of the House face re-election every two years, a “landslide” is not defined by gains, but rather by overall performance. A GOP “landslide” in November would involve gains of closer to 100 seats than to the 40 necessary to eke out a small margin of control.

There are not any large regional disparities among the vulnerable Democratic seats: 18 are in the South, 18 in the Northeast, 18 in the Midwest and 12 in the West. Nor is it easy to typecast vulnerable Democrats by ideology: an analysis of the ideology of Democratic incumbents in competitive races published just yesterday by Swing State Project shows they span the intra-party ideological spectrum quite broadly.

Meanwhile, Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight has just released an update of his Senate race forecast, which now shows a slight improvement in Democratic prospects compared to his last forecast a couple of months ago.  His model now predicts as a matter of probabilities that Democrats should get through November with 55 senators, with the Republicans holding 44 and, perhaps, one true independent (Charlie Crist). Silver gives Republicans a six percent chance of running the table and taking control of the Senate, a figure that improves to 12 percent if they can convince both Joe Lieberman and Charlie Crist (if he wins) to caucus with them.

Poll Watch

In polling news, two new surveys of the Massachusetts gubernatorial race by the University of New Hampshire and Rasmussen both show vulnerable incumbent Democrat Deval Patrick maintaining a seven-point lead over Republican Charlie Baker, with independent Tim Cahill losing steam. A rare poll of the Wyoming governor’s race (again by Rasmussen) shows the importance of term limits: four different Republicans have sizable leads over three different Democrats, while lame duck Democratic Gov. David Freudenthal enjoys an approval/disapproval ratio of 72/25 (a bit better than President Obama’s 30/70).

Yet another Rasmussen poll is the first post-primary survey of the South Carolina governor’s race, and given the positive hype surrounding Nikki Haley after her runoff win, Democrat Vincent Sheheen should be pleased to be trailing only 52-40 (his approval/disapproval ratio is 50/35, while Haley’s is predictably and perhaps temporarily in the stratosphere at 70/26).  And while it’s hardly that significant at this early stage, it’s interesting that a PPP survey of Texas Republicans shows Newt Gingrich leading the 2012 presidential field, with or without Rick Perry listed as an option. Presumed front-runner Mitt Romney is in the middle of the pack.

Ed Kilgore’s PPI Political Memo runs every Tuesday and Friday.

Photo credit: Dbking’s Photosream

A Look at the Governors’ Races

Monday, April 19th, 2010
Ed Kilgore



Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.

by Ed Kilgore

With all the obsessive focusing on congressional races that is natural to Washington, it’s not a bad time to take a more comprehensive look at the 37 governors’ races that will be decided in November (if you happen to have a subscription to the Cook Political Report, their wizard on gubernatorial and Senate races, Jennifer Duffy, has a new overview out).

It’s quite an even playing field between the two parties: Democrats are defending 19 governorships and Republicans 18. More importantly, thanks to a combination of term limits and retirements, 22 of the 37 races are “open.” And quite a few of those are in states where the party controlling the governorship has not been the dominant party generally (thus creating a particularly ripe climate for a switch this year), ranging from “red states” with Democratic governors like Wyoming, Kansas, Oklahoma and Tennessee to “blue states” with Republican governors like Vermont, Connecticut, Minnesota, Hawaii and California. Absent a really massive Republican wave, we will probably see both major parties gain and lose more than a few governorships.

The other factor lending instability to governors’ races is, of course, the fact that state governments as a whole have been roiled by recession, revenue losses and automatic counter-cyclical increases in spending even more than the federal government (at least in all but a few fortunate, recession-resistant states), and nearly all have constitutional or statutory balanced budget requirements. It didn’t get much national attention at the time, but states didn’t really receive a lot of help from the 2009 economic stimulus legislation, with the exception of a temporary “super-match” for Medicaid (which is, along with mandates for expanded coverage, being continued by the new health reform legislation).

Most of the states are dealing with chronic budget shortfalls. And it’s all taking a toll on public confidence. A major new Pew survey just out today shows that the drop in the percentage of Americans saying government has a “positive impact” on their lives has dropped even more for the states (from 62 percent to 42 percent) than for the federal government (from 50 percent to 38 percent) since 1997. With voters viewing past state administrations somewhat nostalgically, it’s not surprising that there are no less than five former governors running for their old jobs this year (which, as Duffy points out, is really an unusual number): Democrats Jerry Brown of California, John Kitzhaber of Oregon, and Roy Barnes of Georgia; and Republicans Terry Branstad of Iowa and Bob Ehrlich of Maryland. All but Ehrlich have been out of office for at least eight years (Branstad for 12 years, and Brown for 28 years). Another wild card: there are presently three viable independent candidates for governor, all in New England (Maine, Massachusetts and Rhode Island), where weak Republican parties make indies a preferred alternative to Democrats for many voters.

Add it all up, and it’s very difficult to discern big national trends in governors’ races, aside from the fact that turnout patterns are likely to boost Republican prospects generally. Duffy currently rates an astonishing 17 races — close to half — as “toss-ups,” including seven governorships held by Democrats and ten by Republicans, with another seven races looking competitive. Some could be real barn-burners, with close, expensive races likely in big states like California, Texas, Florida, Illinois and Ohio. Others could produce upsets if the “wrong” candidate wins large, multi-candidate primary fields. This is particularly true on the Republican side, where the conservative/Tea Party upsurge could beat more electable Republican candidates in primaries ranging from Iowa to Alabama.

So buckle up the seat belts for a wild ride in gubernatorial elections this year.

Poll Watch

The most interesting polls to come out in the last few days involve highly competitive governor’s races. A new Quinnipiac survey shows Democrat Alex Sink significantly reducing Republican Bill McCollum’s lead in Florida; the race is now within the margin-of-error in that particular poll. Rasmussen now has incumbent Republican Rick Perry locked in a close race with Democrat Bill White in Texas. And Western New England College shows a close three-way race in Massachusetts among Democratic incumbent Deval Patrick, Republican Charles Baker and independent Tim Cahill.

Ed Kilgore’s PPI Political Memo runs on Mondays and Fridays.

Photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jstephenconn/ / CC BY-NC 2.0