CNN hasn't made a projection yet — perhaps it will sometime this evening — but it's nearly 7:30 p.m. Central time (which means it's about 4:30 p.m. in Alaska), and, based on the latest news from Alaska, it looks like Sen. Ted Stevens' 40-year Senate career is coming to an end.
When the day began, Alaska still had approximately 24,000 ballots to count. As I write this, the Anchorage Daily News reports that election officials have counted roughly two-thirds of those ballots, and Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich's lead has grown from 1,022 votes when the day started to 2,374 votes.
If it's true that only about 8,000 votes remain to be counted, that means Stevens would have to receive about 5,200 of them to win the election.
In other words, a candidate who hasn't even received 50% of the nearly 300,000 votes that have been counted now must receive nearly two-thirds of the ballots that are left.
It's far from over, though.
"Today's count should pretty much decide the race," reports the Anchorage Daily News, "although there will be overseas absentees to count over the next couple days and a likely recount in early December."
But don't spend too much time pondering that word "recount." The "filibuster-proof" majority should remain a possibility.
"Since the state moved to mostly machine counting, recent Alaska recounts have resulted in little change in the final tally," writes the Daily News.
Incidentally ...
I know it's fashionable these days to blame anyone else for your loss at the ballot box.
But let's be clear about this. Stevens brought this defeat on himself.
There was nothing anyone — George W. Bush, John McCain, Sarah Palin, even Ronald Reagan himself — could do to prevent it.
Showing posts with label 60-seat majority. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 60-seat majority. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Lieberman Keeps Chairmanship
The New York Times reports that the Democratic caucus has voted, 42-13, to condemn "statements made by [Joe] Lieberman" during the recently concluded general election campaign but permit him to retain his chairmanship of the Senate's Homeland Security Committee.
The vote was motivated purely by politics — just as Lieberman's ouster would have been if Democrats had not been in a position to at least hope of getting a "filibuster-proof" three-fifths majority.
This decision, I presume, will keep Lieberman in the Democratic caucus. Earlier, the word was that he would bolt to the Republicans if he was stripped of his chairmanship.
So, with Lieberman apparently safely tucked away in the fold, the Democrats still have a chance of getting a "filibuster-proof" majority — if they win the race in Alaska (where the last votes are supposed to be counted today) and if they win the recount in Minnesota (which is supposed to begin this week but could, according to reports, go on into December) and if they win the Dec. 2 runoff in Georgia.
For those three seats to give Democrats the three-fifths majority they desire, they need to keep Lieberman and Vermont socialist Bernie Sanders in their caucus.
Speaking of Sanders, I'm inclined to agree with him when he wonders if "change" was merely a campaign buzzword for congressional Democrats.
"Appointing someone to a major post who led the opposition to everything we are fighting for is not 'change we can believe in,'" Sanders said in a statement.
On the other hand, perhaps it's the best way to demonstrate a true spirit of bipartisanship.
The vote was motivated purely by politics — just as Lieberman's ouster would have been if Democrats had not been in a position to at least hope of getting a "filibuster-proof" three-fifths majority.This decision, I presume, will keep Lieberman in the Democratic caucus. Earlier, the word was that he would bolt to the Republicans if he was stripped of his chairmanship.
So, with Lieberman apparently safely tucked away in the fold, the Democrats still have a chance of getting a "filibuster-proof" majority — if they win the race in Alaska (where the last votes are supposed to be counted today) and if they win the recount in Minnesota (which is supposed to begin this week but could, according to reports, go on into December) and if they win the Dec. 2 runoff in Georgia.
For those three seats to give Democrats the three-fifths majority they desire, they need to keep Lieberman and Vermont socialist Bernie Sanders in their caucus.
Speaking of Sanders, I'm inclined to agree with him when he wonders if "change" was merely a campaign buzzword for congressional Democrats.
"Appointing someone to a major post who led the opposition to everything we are fighting for is not 'change we can believe in,'" Sanders said in a statement.
On the other hand, perhaps it's the best way to demonstrate a true spirit of bipartisanship.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Ready or Not, Here Comes 2010 ...
It's been a mere week since Barack Obama was elected president, but it's been busy.
He and his family paid a courtesy call on the White House. There has been much speculation about who will be chosen for Cabinet posts in the new administration. And Obama apparently wasted little time after winning the election before launching a new web site to communicate with the public.
But if you thought we were finished with campaigning for awhile, you can forget it.
The conservative Washington Times reports that the Dec. 2 runoff for the Senate seat from Georgia is being viewed by prominent politicians and their strategists as the "first race of the 2010 election cycle" — and "an early clue to [Obama's] clout and coattails."
It's still possible that Democrats could achieve the "filibuster-proof" majority of 60 seats in the Senate — that they so clearly desired and openly sought during the regular election campaign — if they also can win a recount in Minnesota and overtake the Republican when all ballots are counted in Alaska.
(The Times incorrectly suggests, by the way, that Alaska is holding a "recount." In fact, as the Anchorage Daily News has been reporting, thousands of ballots have not yet been counted there — although the tabulation of those votes should be completed, the newspaper says, by Wednesday.
(This may seem like a technicality to the Times — but you can't "recount" what hasn't been counted.
(Perhaps that's a subtle difference. Perhaps what the Times should have said — in trying to draw its distinction between what is happening in Alaska and Minnesota and what is happening in Georgia — is that Alaska and Minnesota are counting ballots that have already been cast while Georgia is preparing to hold a whole new election.
(The difference between Alaska and Minnesota is that Alaska is still counting the ballots for the first time. Because the initial outcome was so close in Minnesota, a recount is required by state law.)
Politicians like to draw favorable comparisons to history.
Like an eager lawyer who discovers a long-forgotten ruling that can serve as a precedent — and save a court case that was thought to be a lost cause — a politician who is perceived to be trailing inevitably will invoke the memory of Harry Truman holding up a copy of the Chicago Tribune with the banner headline "Dewey Defeats Truman" — as if to say, "See? My cause isn't hopeless."
But there's a reason why such examples live in the public memory. The dream scenario usually remains in the realm of dreams, rarely venturing into reality.
And Georgia history, as the Times points out, does not have a favorable precedent for Obama or the Democrat in the race, Jim Martin.
Sixteen years ago, when Bill Clinton was elected president and the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, a similar drama was unfolding in Georgia.
In the 1992 general election, three third-party candidates combined for 3% of the vote and prevented both the incumbent, Democrat Wyche Fowler, and his Republican challenger, Paul Coverdell, from receiving a majority of the vote. Then, as now, a runoff was required by state law.
During the runoff, both Clinton and Vice President-elect Al Gore (who, unlike the Obama-Biden ticket, managed to win Georgia in the 1992 presidential race) tried to use their electoral popularity to help Fowler by campaigning for him.
The Times suggests that a "high-profile presence" by the president-elect in the 2008 runoff campaign would be a "potent demonstration of his clout."
But before Obama does so, he might want to review what happened in 1992.
Clinton and Gore's efforts did not succeed. Coverdell received 51% of the vote.
In hindsight, it's hard to say whether there was much that either Clinton or Gore could have done to help Fowler in that race.
As Michael Barone, co-author of the "Almanac of American Politics," observed in the 1994 edition of the book, Fowler "was in trouble because he was seen for what he was, a national liberal on most issues, with strong convictions and great political skills, blessed with a folksy rural manner, but also one of Majority Leader George Mitchell's chief lieutenants."
It didn't play well in Georgia.
Did Fowler's loss foreshadow what was coming in 1994, when Newt Gingrich and the Republicans took control of Capitol Hill? I doubt that. Yes, the Democrats lost a Senate seat in that 1992 runoff, but they lost it in the South, where Democrats have had problems across the board for decades.
And one could argue that things like the 1993 "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military and the 1994 health care reform efforts supported a growing public perception that both the administration and the Democrats in Congress were out of step with average Americans — and laid the foundation for the so-called "Republican Revolution."
Fowler may have sympathized with those policies and others, but they were not factors in the runoff.
A "filibuster-proof" majority was not on the line in 1992 — and it might not be in 2008, either.
It seems likely that, by the time the runoff is held in Georgia on Dec. 2, the final outcomes from Alaska and Minnesota will be known. If either Ted Stevens or Norm Coleman prevail, that 60-seat majority is off the table, no matter what happens in Georgia.
Or, for that matter, what happens with Connecticut independent Joe Lieberman, who has been caucusing with the Democrats for two years but supported John McCain in the presidential campaign — and some Democrats, reportedly, are eager to jettison him and free up the chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee.
There are those in the media, like Ezra Klein in The American Prospect, who openly urge the Democrats to strip Lieberman of his chairmanship.
"[I]t's about to be 2009 and there is no reason to keep an anti-Muslim bigot who believes the United States is being subverted by Muslims from within in charge of a committee that handles national security affairs," writes Klein.
With the domestic and foreign problems confronting the incoming administration, my feeling is that it's best for Obama to avoid becoming personally involved in the Georgia runoff.
Unless that "filibuster-proof" majority appears to be a real possibility, my advice would be to dispatch high-profile surrogates to Georgia — and save the political capital.
He and his family paid a courtesy call on the White House. There has been much speculation about who will be chosen for Cabinet posts in the new administration. And Obama apparently wasted little time after winning the election before launching a new web site to communicate with the public.
But if you thought we were finished with campaigning for awhile, you can forget it.
The conservative Washington Times reports that the Dec. 2 runoff for the Senate seat from Georgia is being viewed by prominent politicians and their strategists as the "first race of the 2010 election cycle" — and "an early clue to [Obama's] clout and coattails."
It's still possible that Democrats could achieve the "filibuster-proof" majority of 60 seats in the Senate — that they so clearly desired and openly sought during the regular election campaign — if they also can win a recount in Minnesota and overtake the Republican when all ballots are counted in Alaska.
(The Times incorrectly suggests, by the way, that Alaska is holding a "recount." In fact, as the Anchorage Daily News has been reporting, thousands of ballots have not yet been counted there — although the tabulation of those votes should be completed, the newspaper says, by Wednesday.
(This may seem like a technicality to the Times — but you can't "recount" what hasn't been counted.
(Perhaps that's a subtle difference. Perhaps what the Times should have said — in trying to draw its distinction between what is happening in Alaska and Minnesota and what is happening in Georgia — is that Alaska and Minnesota are counting ballots that have already been cast while Georgia is preparing to hold a whole new election.
(The difference between Alaska and Minnesota is that Alaska is still counting the ballots for the first time. Because the initial outcome was so close in Minnesota, a recount is required by state law.)
Politicians like to draw favorable comparisons to history.
Like an eager lawyer who discovers a long-forgotten ruling that can serve as a precedent — and save a court case that was thought to be a lost cause — a politician who is perceived to be trailing inevitably will invoke the memory of Harry Truman holding up a copy of the Chicago Tribune with the banner headline "Dewey Defeats Truman" — as if to say, "See? My cause isn't hopeless."
But there's a reason why such examples live in the public memory. The dream scenario usually remains in the realm of dreams, rarely venturing into reality.
And Georgia history, as the Times points out, does not have a favorable precedent for Obama or the Democrat in the race, Jim Martin.
Sixteen years ago, when Bill Clinton was elected president and the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, a similar drama was unfolding in Georgia.
In the 1992 general election, three third-party candidates combined for 3% of the vote and prevented both the incumbent, Democrat Wyche Fowler, and his Republican challenger, Paul Coverdell, from receiving a majority of the vote. Then, as now, a runoff was required by state law.
During the runoff, both Clinton and Vice President-elect Al Gore (who, unlike the Obama-Biden ticket, managed to win Georgia in the 1992 presidential race) tried to use their electoral popularity to help Fowler by campaigning for him.
The Times suggests that a "high-profile presence" by the president-elect in the 2008 runoff campaign would be a "potent demonstration of his clout."
But before Obama does so, he might want to review what happened in 1992.
Clinton and Gore's efforts did not succeed. Coverdell received 51% of the vote.
In hindsight, it's hard to say whether there was much that either Clinton or Gore could have done to help Fowler in that race.
As Michael Barone, co-author of the "Almanac of American Politics," observed in the 1994 edition of the book, Fowler "was in trouble because he was seen for what he was, a national liberal on most issues, with strong convictions and great political skills, blessed with a folksy rural manner, but also one of Majority Leader George Mitchell's chief lieutenants."
It didn't play well in Georgia.
Did Fowler's loss foreshadow what was coming in 1994, when Newt Gingrich and the Republicans took control of Capitol Hill? I doubt that. Yes, the Democrats lost a Senate seat in that 1992 runoff, but they lost it in the South, where Democrats have had problems across the board for decades.
And one could argue that things like the 1993 "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military and the 1994 health care reform efforts supported a growing public perception that both the administration and the Democrats in Congress were out of step with average Americans — and laid the foundation for the so-called "Republican Revolution."
Fowler may have sympathized with those policies and others, but they were not factors in the runoff.
A "filibuster-proof" majority was not on the line in 1992 — and it might not be in 2008, either.
It seems likely that, by the time the runoff is held in Georgia on Dec. 2, the final outcomes from Alaska and Minnesota will be known. If either Ted Stevens or Norm Coleman prevail, that 60-seat majority is off the table, no matter what happens in Georgia.
Or, for that matter, what happens with Connecticut independent Joe Lieberman, who has been caucusing with the Democrats for two years but supported John McCain in the presidential campaign — and some Democrats, reportedly, are eager to jettison him and free up the chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee.
There are those in the media, like Ezra Klein in The American Prospect, who openly urge the Democrats to strip Lieberman of his chairmanship.
"[I]t's about to be 2009 and there is no reason to keep an anti-Muslim bigot who believes the United States is being subverted by Muslims from within in charge of a committee that handles national security affairs," writes Klein.
With the domestic and foreign problems confronting the incoming administration, my feeling is that it's best for Obama to avoid becoming personally involved in the Georgia runoff.
Unless that "filibuster-proof" majority appears to be a real possibility, my advice would be to dispatch high-profile surrogates to Georgia — and save the political capital.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Kudos to the Crystal Ball
You may have seen Larry Sabato on TV.
He's the director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics. He also runs a website called the Crystal Ball, which assesses congressional and gubernatorial races — and presidential races every four years.
Sabato also shows up, from time to time, as an analyst on TV networks like CNN.
And the next time I go to the horse track, I want Sabato at my side.
I've been looking at his final election projections, which were posted November 3, the day before the election.
He's the director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics. He also runs a website called the Crystal Ball, which assesses congressional and gubernatorial races — and presidential races every four years.
Sabato also shows up, from time to time, as an analyst on TV networks like CNN.
And the next time I go to the horse track, I want Sabato at my side.
I've been looking at his final election projections, which were posted November 3, the day before the election.
- In the presidential race, he appears to have predicted nearly every state correctly.
At this point, Missouri is the only state left that is too close to call. Sabato predicted it would vote for Barack Obama — according to the latest results I've seen, it is leaning to John McCain. If that holds, it will be only the second time in a century that Missouri has supported the losing candidate.
Sabato also predicted that McCain would win Indiana. That's understandable, given Indiana's long history of supporting Republican presidential nominees. But Indiana voted for Obama.
Nevertheless, Sabato correctly predicted that Obama would win Florida, North Carolina and Virginia. He also predicted the Democratic victory in Nevada. All four states voted for Bush last time — as did Ohio, which voted for Obama this time. Sabato predicted that one, too.
Even if Missouri stays with McCain, Sabato will have a success rate of better than 95%.
And, in the Electoral College, he could be a single vote from being right on the money. He predicted Obama would win 364 electoral votes. Currently, Obama has 365 electoral votes — but, if Nebraska observed the traditional winner-take-all system for distributing its electors, he would be at 364 (I'll be writing more about this soon). Both Indiana and Missouri have 11 electoral votes so if Missouri stays with McCain, it's an even swap for Sabato. - There are three races that are yet to be decided in the Senate. Republicans currently hold all three, and they currently lead in all three. But, as I mentioned in my earlier post, circumstances do exist in each race that could reverse the outcomes.
At the moment, the Democrats have a lead of 57-40 over the Republicans (including the two senators who are independent/socialist who currently caucus with the Democrats), which is a gain of six seats.
Sabato predicted that the Democrats would gain seven or eight seats, falling just short of the "filibuster-proof" three-fifths majority.
His prediction included Elizabeth Dole's defeat in her campaign for re-election in North Carolina.
What about the three races that are up for grabs?
Well, in Alaska, Sabato predicted that Sen. Ted Stevens would be defeated. He has a narrow lead that could be overturned when some 50,000 absentee and uncounted ballots are added to the mix.
In Minnesota, where the law requires a recount, Sabato predicted incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman would prevail over comedian Al Franken.
And, in Georgia, Sabato correctly predicted the general election would not produce a winner and would end up in a runoff. Beyond that, he didn't predict who would win. Perhaps he'll post a prediction at some point. - And in the House, Sabato predicted the Democrats would pick up 26 seats, bringing their total to more than 260.
He may have been overly optimistic about Democratic gains in the House, but it's still a little early to tell.
His actual projection stated that Democrats would hold 262 seats when Congress convenes in January. At the moment, Democrats appear to hold 255 seats with six races still too close to call.
So mathematically, Sabato could be almost right on the nose in the House races as well. In many ways, I think that is the most remarkable of the predictions, considering the localized nature and sheer number of the House races.
To be that accurate requires in-depth knowledge of more than 400 congressional districts.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Another Senate Pick-up for Democrats
Oregon's Sen. Gordon Smith has conceded to his Democratic challenger, Jeff Merkley, who has built a lead of about 50,000 votes with more than 90% of the ballots counted.
Counting independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who have caucused with the Democrats for the last two years, the Democrats have a 57-40 advantage with the outcomes in three Senate races still undetermined.
Here's how things stand at the moment in those three races:
Three Senate races in which Republican incumbents lead narrowly — and in which circumstances exist that could hand victory to their Democratic challengers.
When the final results are known, a decision apparently will need to be made by the Democrats about what is to be done with Joe Lieberman.
Ryan Grim writes at Politico.com that Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell — who narrowly survived in his own bid for re-election on Tuesday — has been trying to get Lieberman to join the Republican conference.
Lieberman apparently has been bargaining with the Democratic leadership over his future as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. Chairmanship assignments will still be the domain of the Democrats, whether they win those three remaining seats or not.
Lieberman, of course, was once a Democrat and, although he supported John McCain in the presidential election, he did so almost exclusively because he supports the Iraq war and he is a close personal friend of the Arizona senator.
On most issues, however, Lieberman agrees with the Democrats, so he has continued to caucus with them, even after switching to independent status when he was rejected for re-election by the Democrats in his state two years ago.
Grim warns that Democrats may hold a secret vote on Lieberman's future in their caucus. Such a vote, I'm sure, won't occur until we know more about the Senate races in Alaska, Georgia and Minnesota.
Following the 2006 elections, Democrats needed Lieberman and Sanders in order to establish a majority in the Senate. Will they still need him — to achieve greater control over that legislative body?
With a sweep of those last three races, the Democrats could achieve the "filibuster-proof" three-fifths majority they've been coveting — but they can only do so if Lieberman and Sanders continue to caucus with them.
But if even one of the Senate seats remains in Republican hands, the Democrats will fall short of the three-fifths majority.
And then Lieberman may not be viewed as necessary.
To be continued ...
Counting independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who have caucused with the Democrats for the last two years, the Democrats have a 57-40 advantage with the outcomes in three Senate races still undetermined.
Here's how things stand at the moment in those three races:
- Alaska — Incumbent Republican Sen. Ted Stevens, who was convicted in his corruption trial a week before the election, leads his Democratic challenger, Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich, by less than 5,000 votes.
That's with 99% of the precincts reporting.
However, the Anchorage Daily News reports that "[s]till to be counted are roughly 40,000 absentee ballots, with more expected to arrive in the mail, as well as 9,000 uncounted early votes and thousands of questioned ballots."
Clearly, a 4,000-vote lead might not hold up if about 50,000 ballots haven't been counted yet. - Georgia — Incumbent Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss leads with nearly 50% of the vote, but state law says he has to receive 50% plus one vote. With 99% of the precincts in Georgia reporting, Chambliss is less than 8,400 votes from his objective.
The fly in the ointment for Chambliss was an independent candidate who received about 3% of the vote. That translates to more than 125,000 votes. Chambliss led his opponent head to head by just under 120,000 votes.
So, even though Chambliss leads Democratic challenger Jim Martin, he's apparently going to have to win a Dec. 2 runoff to retain his seat.
It is likely that some of the independent's supporters will not vote in the runoff. It is also possible that some of the people who supported Chambliss or Martin the first time won't participate the second time.
However, because Chambliss came so close to the votes he needed the first time — and I presume a voter will only be eligible to vote in the runoff if he/she voted in the general election — I think Martin will have to persuade some of Chambliss' original supporters to switch to him if he is going to have a chance of victory.
Perhaps Martin can accomplish that by arguing that, with the Democrats in control of the White House and both houses of Congress, Georgia needs to elect a Democrat to the Senate in order to have any real voice in the federal government.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution anticipates that both John McCain and Sarah Palin — who carried the state on Tuesday — will come to Georgia to campaign for the senator during the runoff. I expect the Democrats to make a similar effort on Martin's behalf. - Minnesota — Incumbent Republican Sen. Norm Coleman leads comedian Al Franken by 221 votes out of nearly 2.9 million counted. An independent candidate drew 15% of the vote.
Coleman's margin was so small that it will apparently trigger a state law that requires a recount. "Recounts are required in races with a winning margin of less than one-half of 1%," reports the Minneapolis Star Tribune.
Less than one-half of 1% would be about 14,000 votes — which means that Coleman's lead clearly is narrow enough to trigger a recount.
Three Senate races in which Republican incumbents lead narrowly — and in which circumstances exist that could hand victory to their Democratic challengers.
When the final results are known, a decision apparently will need to be made by the Democrats about what is to be done with Joe Lieberman.Ryan Grim writes at Politico.com that Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell — who narrowly survived in his own bid for re-election on Tuesday — has been trying to get Lieberman to join the Republican conference.
Lieberman apparently has been bargaining with the Democratic leadership over his future as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. Chairmanship assignments will still be the domain of the Democrats, whether they win those three remaining seats or not.
Lieberman, of course, was once a Democrat and, although he supported John McCain in the presidential election, he did so almost exclusively because he supports the Iraq war and he is a close personal friend of the Arizona senator.
On most issues, however, Lieberman agrees with the Democrats, so he has continued to caucus with them, even after switching to independent status when he was rejected for re-election by the Democrats in his state two years ago.
Grim warns that Democrats may hold a secret vote on Lieberman's future in their caucus. Such a vote, I'm sure, won't occur until we know more about the Senate races in Alaska, Georgia and Minnesota.
Following the 2006 elections, Democrats needed Lieberman and Sanders in order to establish a majority in the Senate. Will they still need him — to achieve greater control over that legislative body?
With a sweep of those last three races, the Democrats could achieve the "filibuster-proof" three-fifths majority they've been coveting — but they can only do so if Lieberman and Sanders continue to caucus with them.
But if even one of the Senate seats remains in Republican hands, the Democrats will fall short of the three-fifths majority.
And then Lieberman may not be viewed as necessary.
To be continued ...
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Loose Ends
Votes are still being counted in the election, but we're almost through that process and most of the decisions have been made.
- This morning, Barack Obama is the president-elect of the United States. That much has not changed, nor will it change.
Obama has about 11 weeks to prepare to take the oath of office on January 20. But he can begin to implement the promise of "change" almost immediately by naming his top advisers and his choices for his Cabinet — and conferring with them on the issues that deeply and directly affect Americans right now.
Those who are tempted to sit back and smile with smug satisfaction over the election of a black man as president have missed the whole point.
To his credit, Obama appears to see beyond the symbolic importance of the election. He "gets it" — or, at least, his words in his victory speech imply that he does.
"This victory alone is not the change we seek," he said last night, "it is only the chance for us to make that change."
True democracy guarantees the right to participate — not the right to succeed. - Now that the votes have been cast — and most have been counted — can it honestly be said that it made a difference which candidate the Democrats nominated for president?
In an election in which the Democrats appear to have won the White House by about 6-7 million votes and expanded their advantage in both the House and the Senate, did it matter whether a black man (Obama) — or a woman (Hillary Clinton) or an Hispanic (Bill Richardson) or a white Protestant (John Edwards) or a Catholic (the vice president-elect, Joe Biden) — occupied the top spot on the ballot?
I'm inclined to say no — that, in 2008, it was much the same as it was in 1992. Perhaps, with the economic meltdown in September that was practically foretold the month before when job losses were one-fifth greater than expected and the creaking economy lurched toward collapse, it became a foregone conclusion that the Democrats would win.
It's still the economy.
And that always tends to favor Democrats.
Was there anything John McCain or Sarah Palin could do to reverse the outcome? - The Senate races have produced some astonishing results.
As expected, the Democrats have made gains, and they will remain in the majority — whether independent Joe Lieberman and socialist Bernie Sanders caucus with them, as they have for the last two years, or not.
But the oft-stated goal of achieving a "filibuster-proof" majority in the Senate appears to be out of reach now.
None of the four races that I wrote about last night have been resolved yet, but it looks like the Republicans are leading in all of them, and only one — the race in Oregon — appears to have a significant number of votes still to count.
Republican incumbents in Minnesota and Georgia may have survived by razor-thin margins — but Republican Sen. Norm Coleman may be facing a recount in Minnesota, and Sen. Saxby Chambliss may have been forced into a December runoff with his foe in Georgia.
Alaska's Ted Stevens, who was convicted in his corruption trial last week, may have been re-elected, but it's not quite over.
Late polls indicated that Stevens' opponent enjoyed a comfortable (for a Democrat) lead, but it's possible that, while the rest of the country was making history by electing a black president, Alaska voters may have made some history of their own.
Even though Alaska's governor was not elected vice president, it is my understanding that this could be the first time in American history that a senator has been convicted in federal court and then re-elected by the voters of his state. With 99% of the precincts reporting in Alaska, Stevens leads by less than 4,000 votes.
But, reports the Anchorage Daily News, "Still to be counted are roughly 40,000 absentee ballots, with more expected to arrive in the mail, as well as 9,000 uncounted early votes and thousands of questioned ballots. The state Elections Division has up to 15 days after the election to tally all the remaining ballots before finalizing the count."
We may have to wait awhile longer before we know if Stevens has been returned to the Senate.
Perhaps, in the final week of the campaign, Alaska's voters grew tired of being laughed at, had enough of seeing their governor ridiculed and then being told they couldn't re-elect an 84-year-old senator who had been convicted of corruption charges.
So, perhaps, those voters have sent their own message of "Yes, we can."
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
An Historic Election
There have been many occurrences in today's election that are historic, so many that historians and political scientists will be evaluating the numbers for a long time.
It's not yet 11 o'clock Central time, but we can say, at this point, that
It's truly ironic that Obama's victory rally took place in Chicago's Grant Park. Forty years ago, that was the scene of horrific clashes between the Chicago police and the young demonstrators who came to the city during the Democratic national convention to protest the party's role in the escalation of the Vietnam War.
If Obama's victory is symbolic, to a certain extent, of the racial healing that has been occurring in America, perhaps the location of the victory rally is likewise symbolic — of a party that has exorcised its lingering demons from the past.
And that is what the Democrats must do to govern effectively in the future.
It's not yet 11 o'clock Central time, but we can say, at this point, that
- with about two-thirds of the precincts reporting, Barack Obama has received about 51% of the popular vote. It looks as if he will be the first Democrat since Jimmy Carter in 1976 to win a majority of the popular vote;
- the South remained solidly Republican, but Obama snapped a 44-year GOP victory streak in Virginia, recaptured Florida and may yet become the first Democrat since Carter to win North Carolina, and
- Democrats have gained five seats in the Senate and the current breakdown has the Democrats holding a 56-40 advantage (including independent Joe Lieberman and socialist Bernie Sanders, who caucus with the Democrats).
The last four, as-yet unresolved Senate races — in Alaska, Georgia, Minnesota and Oregon — are all currently held by Republicans and may yield two or even three more takeovers for the Democrats.
But the odds don't seem to favor a sweep — which appears to be necessary for Democrats to claim a filibuster-proof three-fifths majority.
It's truly ironic that Obama's victory rally took place in Chicago's Grant Park. Forty years ago, that was the scene of horrific clashes between the Chicago police and the young demonstrators who came to the city during the Democratic national convention to protest the party's role in the escalation of the Vietnam War.
If Obama's victory is symbolic, to a certain extent, of the racial healing that has been occurring in America, perhaps the location of the victory rally is likewise symbolic — of a party that has exorcised its lingering demons from the past.
And that is what the Democrats must do to govern effectively in the future.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Senate Won't Be 'Filibuster-Proof'
The Republicans in the Senate are reaping the harvest of their success six years ago.
In 2002, not far removed from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and with Republicans pushing to give the president the authority to invade Iraq before it could use all those weapons of mass destruction, Americans gave Republicans a rare triumph in mid-term elections for the party in power.
House members are voted on every two years. As the public has soured on Iraq, many of the House members who favored invading Iraq already have been voted out of office.
This year is the public's opportunity to render a verdict on the senators who won their seats in 2002.
About two-thirds of them are Republicans.
The popularity of the "Republican brand" has declined dramatically in recent years, making this election a decidedly bitter harvest for the Class of '02, with the financial crisis, rising unemployment, rising food and energy prices, as well as an unpopular war, all blamed on the party that controlled both the White House and the Congress for most of the last eight years.
The outlook is dire. While that is seldom given as a reason for not seeking re-election, the truth is that nearly half a dozen duly elected Republican senators are not running for another term. And Democrats appear to be running strong campaigns in all of those states — as well as states where the incumbents are seeking re-election.
All the Democrats who were elected to the Senate in 2002 are running again, and with a little more than a week remaining in the campaign, it looks like all of them — even Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, who was believed to be in trouble several months ago — will be returned to office.
(The House is rarely mentioned in political conversations these days. The Democrats control the House, and the assumption is they will build on their advantage. In the 2006 elections, the party went from being in the minority — 232-202 with one independent — to being in the majority — 233-202.
(This year, the Democrats have been taking aim at seats they figured they should have captured last time but didn't — for whatever reason. I'm inclined to believe they'll gain about 12 seats, improving their total to 245 while the Republican total slides below 200 to about 190.)
Aside from the presidential race, I expect most attention to be on the Senate. The 2006 elections actually produced a tie in party affiliation, 49-49, with two independents who caucus with the Democrats.
In 2008, I have heard no one suggest that the Democrats will not win enough seats to claim a true majority — even though one of the independents, Joe Lieberman, was a Democrat who had to run in the 2006 general election as an independent because he lost the state's Democratic primary.
The questions revolve around whether the Democrats can win enough seats to claim a "filibuster-proof" majority of 60.
(Lisa Mascaro writes, in the Las Vegas Sun, about the public's intense interest in the "supermajority" that comes with having 60 votes to bust filibusters.
(Mascaro observes, "In many ways, today’s narrowly divided Senate is not a working majority for Democrats, said Donald A. Ritchie, the associate Senate historian. At 51 seats to 49, the Senate in essence has two minority parties, and no majority.")
Since it's not likely that either of the independents in the Senate will suddenly start caucusing with the Republicans, that means the Democrats probably need to win nine seats to reach 60.
To reach the point where it doesn't matter whether the independents caucus with the Democrats, the party needs to win 11 Senate seats from the Republicans.
Either one is a tall order. Can they do it?
(Republicans can probably count on holding the following seats without too much trouble — Alabama, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Thad Cochran's seat in Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee and the two seats in Wyoming.)
Here are the seats that are currently held by Republicans that are worth watching on Election Day:
It's not quite the "filibuster-proof" 60 — but, if they already have 57 or 58 votes, Democrats probably can cobble 60 together if they need to.
In 2002, not far removed from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and with Republicans pushing to give the president the authority to invade Iraq before it could use all those weapons of mass destruction, Americans gave Republicans a rare triumph in mid-term elections for the party in power.
House members are voted on every two years. As the public has soured on Iraq, many of the House members who favored invading Iraq already have been voted out of office.
This year is the public's opportunity to render a verdict on the senators who won their seats in 2002.
About two-thirds of them are Republicans.
The popularity of the "Republican brand" has declined dramatically in recent years, making this election a decidedly bitter harvest for the Class of '02, with the financial crisis, rising unemployment, rising food and energy prices, as well as an unpopular war, all blamed on the party that controlled both the White House and the Congress for most of the last eight years.
The outlook is dire. While that is seldom given as a reason for not seeking re-election, the truth is that nearly half a dozen duly elected Republican senators are not running for another term. And Democrats appear to be running strong campaigns in all of those states — as well as states where the incumbents are seeking re-election.
All the Democrats who were elected to the Senate in 2002 are running again, and with a little more than a week remaining in the campaign, it looks like all of them — even Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, who was believed to be in trouble several months ago — will be returned to office.
(The House is rarely mentioned in political conversations these days. The Democrats control the House, and the assumption is they will build on their advantage. In the 2006 elections, the party went from being in the minority — 232-202 with one independent — to being in the majority — 233-202.
(This year, the Democrats have been taking aim at seats they figured they should have captured last time but didn't — for whatever reason. I'm inclined to believe they'll gain about 12 seats, improving their total to 245 while the Republican total slides below 200 to about 190.)
Aside from the presidential race, I expect most attention to be on the Senate. The 2006 elections actually produced a tie in party affiliation, 49-49, with two independents who caucus with the Democrats.
In 2008, I have heard no one suggest that the Democrats will not win enough seats to claim a true majority — even though one of the independents, Joe Lieberman, was a Democrat who had to run in the 2006 general election as an independent because he lost the state's Democratic primary.
The questions revolve around whether the Democrats can win enough seats to claim a "filibuster-proof" majority of 60.
(Lisa Mascaro writes, in the Las Vegas Sun, about the public's intense interest in the "supermajority" that comes with having 60 votes to bust filibusters.
(Mascaro observes, "In many ways, today’s narrowly divided Senate is not a working majority for Democrats, said Donald A. Ritchie, the associate Senate historian. At 51 seats to 49, the Senate in essence has two minority parties, and no majority.")
Since it's not likely that either of the independents in the Senate will suddenly start caucusing with the Republicans, that means the Democrats probably need to win nine seats to reach 60.
To reach the point where it doesn't matter whether the independents caucus with the Democrats, the party needs to win 11 Senate seats from the Republicans.
Either one is a tall order. Can they do it?
(Republicans can probably count on holding the following seats without too much trouble — Alabama, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Thad Cochran's seat in Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee and the two seats in Wyoming.)
Here are the seats that are currently held by Republicans that are worth watching on Election Day:
- Alaska — Not too long ago, I would have thought that unseating Ted Stevens in Alaska would be almost impossible.
Now, I think his chances of being re-elected depend on the verdict in his corruption trial.
Polls show a tight race between Stevens and Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich.
I think what happens in Stevens' trial — assuming a verdict is reached before Election Day — will determine who wins the election.
If he's acquitted, I think Stevens will be re-elected — barely. If he's convicted, I think Stevens will lose. - Colorado — If 2008 is truly a transformational election, I believe Colorado will play a key role. The state has voted for every Republican nominee but one in the last 10 elections, but it has been a little more receptive to Democratic candidates for statewide office.
Republican incumbent Wayne Allard is retiring this year, and Democrat Rep. Mark Udall appears to be building a fairly solid lead in the race to replace him.
I predict Udall and the Democrats will win the seat. - Georgia — Polls suggest that Saxby Chambliss is clinging to a narrow lead over challenger Jim Martin.
However, there's a fly in the ointment. A third-party candidate on the ballot appears to be drawing some support — not much, but enough to make things interesting.
My understanding is that Georgia law requires a candidate in a statewide race to receive 50% of the vote "plus one." If no one reaches that level of support, a runoff will be held between the top two vote-getters in December.
(To my readers in Georgia: If I'm wrong about that point of your state's election law, please let me know!)
Wouldn't it be ironic if Chambliss — who won his seat by smearing the Democratic incumbent, triple amputee Vietnam veteran Max Cleland, six years ago — was forced into a one-month runoff campaign and had to face the nominee of the recently electorally empowered Democratic Party as his party's last line of defense against a "filibuster-proof" majority?
Actually, if Chambliss is in trouble on Election Night, I think it will be indicative of more severe problems the Republicans are having elsewhere. My guess is, if Chambliss is forced into a runoff, the Democrats will already hold the "filibuster-proof" majority and will be looking to add to their gains.
I predict a narrow win for the Republicans. - Kentucky — As is the case in the Georgia race, if the incumbent (in this instance, Mitch McConnell) is in trouble on Election Night, the Republicans are having bigger problems elsewhere.
But if the election turns out to be a tsunami for Democrats, McConnell belongs on the endangered list.
Kentucky is a conservative state, though, and I think it will vote for the McCain-Palin ticket as well as re-elect McConnell. - Minnesota — I've been hesitant to call this one for the Democrats, but lately I feel the momentum is in favor of comedian Al Franken.
Minnesota still leans Democratic. I think the election of Norm Coleman six years ago was a fluke. And I think Franken has tapped into the liberalism of Minnesota (which, by the way, hasn't voted for a Republican for president since Richard Nixon ran for re-election in 1972 — the longest pro-Democratic streak in national politics).
I think Franken re-claims the seat for the Democrats in November. - Mississippi — I've truly been baffled by this race. Trent Lott suddenly vacated the seat last year. The governor appointed a Republican to temporarily replace him, with a special election scheduled for this fall. The replacement, Roger Wicker, is seeking the voters' approval to finish the rest of Lott's term.
Wicker's main problem, in the eyes of observers, is that he's never won a statewide office. His Democratic opponent, former Gov. Ronnie Musgrove, has won statewide office.
But Wicker seems like a good fit for Lott's old seat. He began his political career as Lott's counsel.
I predict Wicker will keep the seat in Republican hands. - New Hampshire — In 2002, against the backdrop of the Republican drumbeat for war against Iraq, New Hampshire chose Rep. John Sununu, a Republican, over Gov. Jeanne Shaheen.
Six years later, Shaheen is challenging Sununu in his bid for re-election. Polls have suggested the former governor has a sizable lead.
I've been expecting Sununu to have trouble ever since Election Night in 2006, when Democrats won the governor's office and both seats in the House and took control of the state legislature. It was clear to me, on that night, that things were changing in the formerly rock-ribbed Republican Granite State.
We had hints that such a shift was coming in 2004, when New Hampshire was the only state that supported Bush in 2000 and rejected his bid for a second term.
Now the transformation is in full bloom.
Shaheen will win the seat for the Democrats. - New Mexico — Pete Domenici is retiring because of his health. The New Mexico Republican Party doesn't seem to be in very good shape right now, either.
The Democrat, Rep. Tom Udall, appears to have a wide lead over Republican Rep. Steve Pearce.
Looks like a pick-up for the Democrats. - North Carolina — Republican Sen. Elizabeth Dole is seeking a second term against state senator Kay Hagan. The polls suggest a close race.
Dole has high favorable ratings. If a political tsunami sweeps across the country on Nov. 4, some Republicans in the South may be in trouble.
But I get the feeling that, if Dole is in trouble on Election Night, the GOP has some real problems to address in the rest of the country.
I predict she keeps her seat — barely. - Oregon — Sen. Gordon Smith is a moderate Republican in a state that is increasingly Democratic. Polls indicate that he is having trouble in his campaign against Democrat Jeff Merkley.
Democrats have been emphasizing a desire to win the seat in Oregon, and I think the chances are good they'll pull it off. - Texas — No, I don't think Republican Sen. John Cornyn is in any kind of electoral trouble.
But recent polls have suggested that he's in a tight race against Rick Noriega. I live in Texas so I'll keep an eye on the results.
But I expect the Republicans to keep the seat. - Virginia — Former Democratic Gov. Mark Warner is running against former Republican Gov. Jim Gilmore for the seat being vacated by Republican Sen. John Warner.
I don't believe Virginia will be in the Democratic column in the presidential race, but I do believe Mark Warner will win the Senate seat for the Democrats.
Warner has been in control of the race all along. I expect him to win with about as much ease as a Democrat can muster in Virginia.
It's not quite the "filibuster-proof" 60 — but, if they already have 57 or 58 votes, Democrats probably can cobble 60 together if they need to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
