'Retiring' and 'Resigning' Aren't Synonymous

---

---

resign — To give up (a position, for example), especially by formal notification.

  retire — To withdraw from one's occupation, business, or office; stop working.

---

That seems like an elementary distinction, but apparently there are some grownup people out there who don't get it.

Maybe Sarah Palin's decision to resign as governor of Alaska last summer is responsible for some of the confusion, but I'm inclined to think that is merely scapegoating. Palin definitely has her faults, but she isn't responsible for the fact that some words are treated as interchangeable, even when they are not.

The fact is that there are people — many of them, apparently — who are linguistically challenged.

A good example is AlterNet.org, which proclaims in a headline on its site today that "North Dakota Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan Resigns." (Note: This has been corrected, but you can see the original headline at the top of this post.)

Dorgan did announce Tuesday that he will not seek re–election in November. His announcement seems to have caught many by surprise, even though, as the New York Times' David Herszenhorn reports, he "has been regarded for months as one of the most vulnerable Democratic incumbents."

As Herszenhorn observes, polls have shown that North Dakota's Republican governor (perhaps the most popular governor in America) probably would defeat Dorgan in the general election, but the governor has not yet revealed his plans for 2010. The speculation now is that Dorgan's decision makes it more likely the governor will seek the seat and that, whether he does or not, the Republican candidate will win it in November.

The idea that voters in North Dakota may vote for a Republican for the Senate in November is hardly a radical one. North Dakota has voted Republican in 11 straight presidential elections and has only voted for one Democratic presidential nominee since 1936.

Perhaps it seems contradictory that the state is represented by two Democrats in the Senate. But they are more centrist than many of their colleagues. If Democrats want to hold the seat, choosing a left–leaning nominee is not likely to accomplish that goal.

The situation is much different in the state of Connecticut, where Chris Dodd apparently has decided not to seek another term. The state's popular Democratic attorney general, Richard Blumenthal, appears poised to enter the race now, much to the relief of the state's Democrats.

Connecticut is regarded as a Democratic state — it hasn't voted for a Republican presidential candidate since 1988 — but the unpopular Dodd was increasingly viewed as a liability. With Blumenthal — or, frankly, just about anyone else — carrying the party's banner, Democrats seem ever more likely to hold the seat.

It's still early in 2010, and we have yet to learn what will become of other endangered Democrats, like Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Harry Reid of Nevada, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Michael Bennet of Colorado among others. Some may seek re–election. Some may win. Some may lose.

And some may decide not to run for another term.

But let's get one thing straight before the deluge begins.

Deciding you aren't going to run for re–election is not the same thing as resigning.

The Filibuster-Proof Senate Majority

You know that 60–seat, filibuster–proof majority the Democrats openly coveted in the Senate during the 2008 campaign? The one that, in the weeks just before his death, Ted Kennedy was so obsessed with preserving that he lobbied lawmakers in Massachusetts to change the rules so an interim senator could be appointed to take his place while others ran in the special election that will choose the person who will serve for the remainder of his unexpired term?

Well, more and more, it looks like actually holding those 60 seats (which includes two seats that are held by independent/third–party senators who caucus with the Democrats) in the 2010 midterm elections is going to be a tough sell.

If, as appears likely, the Democrats lose legislative ground next year, is that going to be a reflection on Barack Obama? Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that Obama's extremist agenda has been hard for some centrist Democrats to get behind — and is, therefore, something of an albatross for Democrats who will be on the ballot next year.

And no, because Obama is not the first personally popular president to face this situation. Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan both were personally popular presidents whose agendas were not popular. Both saw their parties lose ground in Congress during the midterms, but each rebounded enough to win second terms.

Such a fate may await Obama. Only time will tell. For that matter, only time will tell whether Obama's Democrats lose ground in Congress on a scale that approaches what Reagan, who also saw unemployment go into double digits on his watch, or Clinton experienced.

But public opinion surveys certainly suggest the enormity of the task facing the Democrats in the Senate.

Not that the filibuster–proof majority has proven to be as valuable to Democrats as they thought it would be. Unless Democrats can actually gain ground next year, they will continue to need folks like Joe Lieberman — who hasn't been shy about threatening to use the filibuster (which kind of defeats the purpose of having a "filibuster–proof" majority) on sensitive matters like health care reform.

When you consider the problems Senate Democrats have had keeping people in line on the tough questions, it is doubtful whether the filibuster–proof majority has done them much good. So maybe losing it wouldn't be so tragic for them — certainly not as tragic as another year of unemployment will be for their constituents.

Most of the senators whose seats will be on the 2010 ballots were elected in 2004. In that election — which may have been influenced by things like the swiftboating charges against Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry and a widely circulated message from Osama bin Laden the weekend before the election — Republicans picked up four seats.

If the 2010 Senate elections featured only the seats that would normally be on the ballot, Republicans would have to defend 19 seats and Democrats would have to defend 15. But Democrats also will have to defend the seats previously held by Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, which are currently held by caretakers. Thus, there will be 19 Republican seats and 17 Democratic seats technically in play in the midterms.

And many of those Democratic seats appear to be in jeopardy:

• One of the most apparent problem seats for the Democrats is the one held by Chris Dodd of Connecticut.
  
  Dodd is a "dead senator walking," writes Mark Hemingway in the Washington Examiner. And recent polls, which show his GOP challengers in front — Rob Simmons by double digits and Linda McMahon by smaller margins — seem to support that conclusion.
  
  So, too, for that matter, does Vice President Joe Biden, who attended a fundraiser for Dodd in Connecticut recently but nevertheless commented — a tad undiplomatically, albeit truthfully — that the five–term senator is "getting the living hell beat out of him."
  
  That must be an astonishing development for Democrats as well as Republicans, given the facts that (a) three–fifths of Connecticut voters supported Barack Obama for president last year and (b) Dodd received the backing of nearly two–thirds of the state's voters when he was re–elected in 2004.


• Dodd, though, is far from being the only endangered Democrat in the Senate.
  
  Sen. Arlen Specter, whose defection from the Republican Party in April enabled Democrats to cobble together their 60–seat majority (and, according to many political observers, permitted him to avoid a bruising battle for renomination), faces an uphill climb in Pennsylvania. Pat Toomey, the conservative former congressman who nearly denied Specter renomination in 2004, announced his intention to seek the Republican nomination a couple of weeks before Specter announced his party switch — and it was widely believed by many that Toomey would have a strong chance to win, given how many of the state's Republicans were disgruntled by Specter's support for the economic stimulus package.
  
  The assumption most of this year has been that Specter and Toomey will meet in the fall campaign, where the numbers seem to be more favorable for a Democratic candidate. Instead of appealing only to Republicans, as the two did in 2004, the audience this time would be more diverse — more than 50% of registered voters in Pennsylvania are Democrats compared to 37% who are Republicans.
  
  But the general election is not Specter's only concern. In spite of the fact that he has been in the Senate for nearly 30 years, the 80–year–old Specter can't necessarily count on being nominated by his new party. Joe Sestak, a two–term, moderate–to–liberal congressman (who, incidentally, is 58 years old today), does not pose a serious threat at this stage, but that may change when the campaign season is in full swing. At the very least, he may prove to be a persistent nuisance for Specter at a time when he would prefer to be setting aside his resources to fend off Toomey, who leads both potential Democratic rivals, according to recent polls.


• Harry Reid is the majority leader, but that isn't necessarily going to help him when he faces the voters in Nevada.
  
  Sherman Frederick writes, in the Las Vegas Review–Journal, that Reid's prospects are bleak. "Reid's getting the thumbs down from 49 percent of Nevada voters," he writes, adding that polls show both of his potential Republican challengers would win the election if it were held today.
  
  That's quite a decline for a man who was re–elected with 61% of the vote in 2004.


• Given their recent electoral successes, Democrats may have hoped to pick up the seat being vacated by Republican George Voinovich. But Republicans appear to be competitive in the battle for Voinovich's seat. The presumptive GOP nominee, Rob Portman, has been leading both of his Democratic rivals in recent polls.

Those are just four seats, but if Democrats lose even one (except for the Ohio seat, which is currently in Republican hands), their filibuster–proof majority will be gone (assuming Democrats fail to buck the historical trend and win a seat that is currently held by the Republicans).

And that doesn't take into account any seats that appear at least somewhat safe today but may not turn out to be as the 2010 election scenarios began to reveal themselves.

Assume nothing.

If 'Ifs' and 'Buts' Were Candy and Nuts ...

We have the latest entry in the "what-if" contest.

(A friend of mine sent me the link to this story, and he included this observation in his e-mail: "Interesting theory."

(That's about all it is, I think. A theory.)

Hillary Clinton's former communications director apparently tells ABC News that he believes Clinton would have won the nomination if the media had come up with the goods to force John Edwards out of the race when the story of his affair was first making the tabloids late last year.

"I believe we would have won Iowa, and Clinton today would therefore have been the nominee," Howard Wolfson told ABC.

If you recall, Edwards edged past Clinton for second place in the Iowa caucuses way back on January 3. We don't have actual vote totals, just percentages.

And caucuses are handled differently in each state — in Iowa's Democratic caucuses, as I remember, a preliminary vote at a caucus only serves to eliminate those candidates whose support level can't reach a certain percentage in that particular caucus location.

A second vote is taken without the candidates who couldn't clear the bar — and that is the vote that is reported from that location.

Anyway, when all had been said and done, Barack Obama had 38% in Iowa, Edwards had 30% and Clinton had 29%.

There were five other candidates (Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich) who accounted for 3% as a group — I presume they were all removed from consideration in the elimination round at most of Iowa's caucus locations.

Wolfson clearly believes that Clinton would have won most of Edwards' supporters.

He has the right to believe what he wants to believe, but I don't think it's quite that cut and dried.

• Just taking the figures that we have, by removing Edwards' name, we suddenly have nearly one-third of Iowa's caucus participants who are left without a candidate.
  
  In order for Clinton to pull even with Obama, she would have to win nearly one-third of Edwards' supporters. That would still leave two-thirds of his supporters for Clinton, Obama and the other five candidates to fight over.
• Who would have won at that stage of the campaign? By most accounts, Clinton was the front-runner going into the caucus. Obama had not yet emerged as the anti-Clinton.
  
  Would Obama have outdueled Clinton for the majority of the remaining Edwards supporters?
  
  Or would one of the other Democrats — Richardson, perhaps, or Biden — have benefited from Edwards' withdrawal?
  
  See, I don't think it's a given that Edwards' withdrawal would have meant that all his supporters would automatically gravitate to any particular candidate.
  
  I also don't believe the Edwards supporters were ready for the race to be narrowed to Obama vs. Clinton at that point.
  
  If anything, I got the impression from Edwards' supporters (and I was one of them) that they were looking for a break with the past. But, like any large group, the individuals had their own ideas of what kind of break they wanted.
  
  For some Edwards supporters, Clinton would have been an acceptable alternative — as indeed she was for some former Edwards supporters in the primaries and caucuses that came after his actual withdrawal in late January.
  
  For other Edwards supporters, Clinton wasn't enough of a break with the past. Her husband was president for eight years, and she's been in the Senate for the nearly eight years since the end of his administration.
  
  Sixteen years in Washington doesn't make you an outsider.
  
  These Democrats were wary of adding to the Bush-Clinton dynastic duel that has been going on now for 20 years (longer if you include the elder Bush's eight-year president-in-training period as Ronald Reagan's sidekick).
  
  Some, if not all, of the former Edwards supporters in Iowa might have decided that neither Obama nor Clinton were satisfactory. They might have breathed new life into Richardson's campaign — or Biden's — or Dodd's.
• I am reminded of the 1992 election. At the time, I was living in Oklahoma, a rock-ribbed Republican state where Clinton ran stronger than Democrats usually do, although George H.W. Bush prevailed — as Republican nominees inevitably do in Oklahoma.
  
  Many of the Republicans with whom I spoke about the election believed that, if Ross Perot had not been in the race, Bush would have been re-elected. As you may recall, Perot finished an extremely strong third with nearly 19% of the vote nationally (that was nearly 20 million votes).
  
  Those Republicans made the same mistake Wolfson makes. They assumed that a large bloc of suddenly uncommitted voters would naturally support their candidate.
  
  But the exit polls I saw after that election were not conclusive.
  
  Exit polls of those who voted for Perot indicated that, if Perot had not been on the ballot, about 40% would have voted for Clinton, another 40% would have voted for Bush, and the remaining 20% would not have participated at all.
  
  Whether we're talking about Ross Perot in 1992 or John Edwards in 2008, the fact is that the people who supported them supported changing the status quo.
  
  In 1992, George H.W. Bush represented the status quo. It never seemed logical to me that nearly 20 million people who voted for Perot (and, as a group, adopted the rebellious "United we stand!" as their motto) would have voted to retain the status quo if Perot's name hadn't been on the ballot.
  
  It always seemed more logical to me that they would have looked for another option or they wouldn't have voted at all.
  
  I've always given Perot credit for bringing millions of Americans into the political process. I hope many of them have continued to participate.
  
  But I never bought the idea that he took more votes from the status quo candidate than he did the challenger.
  
  In 2008, Hillary Clinton represented the status quo in her party. She had been first lady for eight years. She had been in the Senate for eight years. And she was the front-runner for her party's nomination.
  
  I'm not sure she would have been the beneficiary of Edwards' withdrawal before the Iowa caucus.
  
  But neither is it certain that Obama would have been the recipient of that (pardon the expression) windfall.

Let's assume, just for a minute, that Edwards was forced out of the race in early December. No one had won anything yet. No one had momentum (the "Big Mo," as George H.W. Bush famously said) — other than whatever momentum Clinton had from the perception that she was leading the pack. Edwards' supporters would have been in a position to alter the dynamics of the race. If, as Wolfson suggests, the majority of them had piled on Clinton's bandwagon, we might be anticipating her nomination later this month. Or perhaps they would have gravitated to Obama. He might have secured the nomination earlier than he did. Or perhaps they would have opted to support someone else. They might have rallied behind Bill Richardson — would he have proven more popular among Iowa's caucus goers than Obama or Clinton? He might have, considering the political résumé he brought to the table. Or they might have lined up behind Joe Biden. His experience in foreign affairs might have seemed particularly appealing, even timely, considering the fact that Benazir Bhutto had been assassinated just a week before the Iowa caucus (and gas prices hadn't yet careened out of control). But Biden has been a part of the Washington establishment for more than 30 years. He might have been seen as too much of a status quo candidate. And that doesn't even consider the possibility that another Democrat — perhaps a prominent one, like recent nominees John Kerry or Al Gore — might have decided to enter the race. Gore, who won the popular vote as the Democrats' 2000 nominee and won the Nobel Prize last year for his efforts against global warming, seems like a particularly plausible prospect. But both Gore and Kerry might have been seen as too entrenched in the establishment — even though Gore has held no elective office since leaving the vice presidency. And a movement to persuade Gore to run was launched by supporters in October. If Edwards had withdrawn before the Iowa caucus, that might have been the nudge Gore needed to try again. To me, this is another example of the truth of the old adage, "Timing is everything." It's a what-if that can't be resolved. And it's pointless, at this stage, to try. My gut feeling is that Clinton wasn't going to win in Iowa. And Jon Cohen appears to agree with me in a Washington Post blog entry. "It is a pure hypothetical, of course, and the entire dynamics of the contest would have been different without Edwards," writes Cohen. "But the public data do not bolster the notion that Clinton would have won." Want some facts?

1. Obama will be nominated later this month. He will give his acceptance speech on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech.
2. Hillary Clinton will speak at the convention. She will address the delegates about a week after the 88th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote in the United States.
3. It seems doubtful to me that she will be chosen to be his running mate.

That's reality.