Pardon me as I make no effort to conceal my elation

We are coming up on the 8 month anniversary of the passage of the Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare). To commemorate this auspicious event let's take a moment to remember the joy on the faces of Democrats as they passed the loathsome law:

There were celebratory hugs and champagne toasts too:

They're not laughing anymore:

Freshman Rep. Debbie Halvorson (D-Ill.), who lost her reelection bid, wiped away tears as she hugged fellow members of the class of 2008, many of whom lost on Nov. 2.

Less than three feet away, ousted Nevada freshman Rep. Dina Titus (D) appeared to brush away some tears in a less obvious manner.

The mood was much different on the other side of the aisle.

Joyful House GOP lawmakers, who will take control of the House in January with at least 85 new members, made no effort to conceal their elation.

Pardon me as I make no effort to conceal my elation  

Donald Douglas is singing "Cry Me a River"  Another Black Conservative chimes in
More "Happy Days are Here Again" at Memeorandum
Tweet

Your Election Day Motivation

Make it happen:



Related:
Ed Morrissey reminds readers, "every Election Day is a celebration, a reminder that no one rules us as long as those in power have to answer for their actions."  Today is the day to hold them accountable.   Today is the day to "Release the Kraken"

Tweet

State of the Races Roundup

By late Sunday evening most of the professional crystal-ball gazers had come to the conclusion the Republicans would gain somewhere in the mid 50's range in House seats. Though he was mostly inclined to agree with that assessment,  Nate Silver also suggested there were 5 reasons Republicans could do better than expected. How much better? Imagine this scenario unfolding Wednesday morning:

Dawn breaks over New York City on Wednesday, Nov. 3. Democrats catching the early train to work are thinking about adding a little whiskey to their morning coffee. Because the headlines they are reading are truly terrible.

Not only did Republicans take over the House, but they also did so going away — winning a net of 78 seats from Democrats. Seven seats in New York State changed hands; so did six in Pennsylvania, five in Ohio and four in North Carolina. Party luminaries like Jim Obertsar and Raul Grijalva were defeated. Barney Frank and Dennis Kucinich survived, but they did so by just 2 points apiece, and their elections weren’t called until 1 a.m. Democrats picked up just one Republican-held seat — the open seat in Delaware — but Joseph Cao somehow survived in his very Democratic-leaning district in New Orleans. Virtually every race deemed to be a tossup broke to the Republican.

The news isn’t much better in the Senate. The Democratic candidates in North Dakota, Arkansas, Indiana, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Colorado and Illinois all lost, flipping those seats to red from blue. So did Harry Reid in Nevada and Joe Manchin in West Virginia; both of them lost by 7 points, in fact. Washington State isn’t finished counting its ballots, but Dino Rossi has about a 30,000-vote lead over Patty Murray, and looks likely to prevail.

You can read for yourself why the left-leaning Silver thinks gains of this magnitude are possible.  One key factor, however, seems to focus on the potential discrepancies in the pollsters' likely-voter model and the actual voter turnout.  Silver argues that there is a wide range of potential outcomes:"The fact is that there's not really any way to say who’s right — not until Tuesday, at least."


Surprisingly, Gallup threw a huge monkey in the consensus among the punditry, when they released their final generic ballot.  Sean Trende and  Jim Geraghty, to name a few, had a bit of trouble "wrapping their heads' around the final Gallup result.   Gallup's final poll is a tough one to wrap your mind around as it gives Republican's an unprecedented lead heading into tomorrow's election:

The final USA Today/Gallup measure of Americans’ voting intentions for Congress shows Republicans continuing to hold a substantial lead over Democrats among likely voters, a lead large enough to suggest that regardless of turnout, the Republicans will win more than the 40 seats needed to give them the majority in the U.S. House.

The results are from Gallup’s Oct. 28-31 survey of 1,539 likely voters. It finds 52% to 55% of likely voters preferring the Republican candidate and 40% to 42% for the Democratic candidate on the national generic ballot — depending on turnout assumptions. Gallup’s analysis of several indicators of voter turnout from the weekend poll suggests turnout will be slightly higher than in recent years, at 45%. This would give the Republicans a 55% to 40% lead on the generic ballot, with 5% undecided. …

Gallup’s historical model suggests that a party needs at least a two-point advantage in the national House vote to win a majority of the 435 seats. The Republicans’ current likely voter margin suggests that this scenario is highly probable, making the question of interest this election not whether the GOP will win the majority, but by how much. Taking Gallup’s final survey’s margin of error into account, the historical model predicts that the Republicans could gain anywhere from 60 seats on up, with gains well beyond that possible.

It should be noted, however, that this year’s 15-point gap in favor of the Republican candidates among likely voters is unprecedented in Gallup polling and could result in the largest Republican margin in House voting in several generations. This means that seat projections have moved into uncharted territory, in which past relationships between the national two-party vote and the number of seats won may not be maintained.

Sean Trende translates Gallup's results giving us the high end of a wave that would produce results Nate Silver imagined in the quote above:

Modeled popular vote swing to seat swing. Gallup says 98 seats +/-10. Bloomberg = 53 +/-10. There's your range.

If Democrats lose 98 seats you can all but guarantee there will be a lot of whiskey in the morning coffee.  The young Dartmouth student I have been following had a slightly different interpretation:

per a suggestion from a very smart dude, I re-ran the gallup regression post one man / one vote rulings of mid 60's. +15 R gb = 250 R seats.

That would translate into Republicans gaining 72 seats, if both Gallup and the Dartmouth dude are right.  I am guessing there would still be a lot of whiskey in the coffee Wednesday morning under that scenario as well.  In any case, Republicans are on track to make substantial gains tomorrow and the despairing Dems know it.
We have less than 24 hours now, to make sure this message is as loud and clear as possible.  Go forth and make it happen.
Tweet

Further proof Sidney Harman was robbed

Via Memeorandum

Sidney who?  Funny you should ask.  Sidney Harman, who recently paid $1 for Newsweek , was robbed.  The evidence  comes in form of a poll as worthless as the rag that published it:

Despite doom-saying about Democrats’ chances in the midterms, the latest NEWSWEEK Poll (full results) shows that they remain in a close race with Republicans 12 days before Election Day, while the president’s approval ratings have climbed sharply. The poll finds that 48 percent of registered voters would be more likely to vote for Democrats, compared with 42 percent who lean Republican (those numbers are similar to those in the last NEWSWEEK Poll, which found Democrats favored 48 percent to 43 percent). President Obama’s approval ratings have jumped substantially, crossing the magic halfway threshold to 54 percent, up from 48 percent in late September, while the portion of respondents who disapprove of the president dropped to 40 percent, the lowest disapproval rating in a NEWSWEEK Poll since February 2010. 

There is some evidence Senate polls may be tightening , yet credible left-leaning analysts wouldn't say Democrats have made a comeback.  None of this matters in the fantasy world where Newsweek exists, however.  Newsweek's rigorous methodology and stringent analysis finds "voters give Democrats higher marks for their handling of a range of issues, including the war in Afghanistan, health care, taxes, and unemployment."  Unemployment??  Newsweek readers must be presumed to exist in Kool-Aid comas while Rainbow Skittles are fed continuously through IV drip.   


Alright,  so maybe they are in a coma and so are the people interviewed for this poll.  The most difficult part of a pollster's job, in this midterm election, involves predicting who is likely to vote.   All credible polls must be analyzed with a sharp eye toward their turnout model and their likely voter screen.  Newsweek's likely voters are um, to put it nicely, cheap dates.  In the "record-shattering"  2008 election  that delivered unto us the crowned prince of Hope and Change, 61% of registered voters cast a ballot.  Newsweek randomly sampled a group that will have over 91% of registered voters beating a path to the ballot box:  

Telephone interviews were conducted with a nationally representative sample of 1,005 adults, age 18 years and over, including 672 adults reached on a landline telephone and 333 adults reached on a cell phone. The overall margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.8 percentage points for results based on 1,005 adults. Results based on smaller subgroups are subject to larger margins of sampling error. The margin of error is plus or minus 4.2 percentage points for results based on 848 registered voters and plus or minus 4.3 percentage points for results based on 773 likely voters.

When they are all done voting, they will immediately be reconnected to their Kool-Aid/Skittle IV drip.  Meanwhile the crowned prince of Hope and Change and his trusty sidekick will head off to India to heal the planet  and cause a few oceans to recede along the way.  Oh yeah - and I am Morgan Fairchild - that's the ticket.

Tweet

Carville's Hurricane Scale: A guide to Democratic devastation

H/T Hot Air Headlines

George Stephanopoulos pulls the headline, "Carville Concedes: Pelosi May Be Out Even if Dems Hold On," from the interview embedded below with James Carville.  An interesting thought but honestly, it seems incredibly unlikely Democrats hold on to the House at this point. Carville almost concedes as much himself and finds the best case scenario for Dems is one in which Dems hold on to power by a scant few votes.
As you will see in the video, Carville predicts there would be plenty of party-switching deals bandied about behind closed doors. That is the type of "fun" Democratic pollsters and pundits like Carville are dreaming of these days speaks volumes about how far the mighty Democrats have fallen in a mere two years.

I found the rest of Carville's analysis much more interesting frankly. Granted, I like these tea-leaf reading discussions anyway but Carville offers an interesting insight in this one. He offers us a scale to determine, from a Dem perspective, what constitutes a wipe out this year. They are going to spin like tops afterward so I thought it would be useful to have this scale for comparisons sake.  As a native of New Orleans, it somehow seems fitting Carville converts the standard hurricane scale to size up the best and worst cases for Dems. Note the scale starts at Category 3, which on the Saffir-Simpson Scale describes a hurricane that produces devastating damage. None of this is pretty for Dems:

Category 3 hurricane: “30-40” Dem losses in the House. “And in the Senate you’re looking at maybe five Senate seats. That’s the best you can look for.”

Category 4: “Lose 40 to 50 seats, that’s a Category 4.” “You hang on to some things, you know Carl Paladino won’t win.” (And Democrats hold Senate, losing 8-9 seats)

Category 5: “If we lose 56 or better, that’s a Category 5. Then you’re going to be looking at 11 Republican Senators.”

 I still have a hard time seeing the Republicans picking up the Senate but have no trouble believing the Democrats will lose over 50 seats. It will be interesting to see if Carville's prediction holds true. Given how close the toss-up seats are these days in the Senate contests, it does seem plausible the Senate will follow the historical trend in wave elections and flip along with the House.   In other words, the wave gets the deciding vote.

Personally, I am not looking forward to Photoshopping Chuck Schumer into the new Wicked Witch on this blog.  I am rooting for the Category 5 storm scenario.  If the latest Gallup generic ballot holds true I might just get my wish.




More on Gallup at Memeorandum

Be sure to read the adventures of The Other McCain and Da Tech Guy  who are reporting from PA-10 tonight.  This is their first stop in what McCain calls "Ground Zero" if the "Big Red Wave hits:"

Pennsylvania’s 10th District is the first stop on this tour that’s actually rated “leans Republican,” and the most recent poll shows Republican Tom Marino leading 44-38 over Democrat Chris Carney. Currently, five Democrat-held seats in this state – PA-3, PA-5, PA-8, PA-10 and PA-11 – are rated “lean Republican” by Real Clear Politics, so if the Big Red Wave hits on Nov. 2, Pennsylvania will be Ground Zero.

Tweet

Time to crumble some Democratic cookies

With just 15 days to go before the most important election I can remember Right Change put together a video as a reminder why elections matter NOW. The video runs about one minute long and is based on the William J.H. Boetcker quote from the "you cannot" quote from the early 1900's:

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatreds.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man's initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

William J. H. Boetcker, 1916 (often attributed to Lincoln)

You Cannot! from RightChange on Vimeo.

Here is another thing you cannot do,  you cannot give a Democrat a cookie:


If You Give a Democrat a Cookie from RightChange on Vimeo.

November 2, 2010 - time to crumble some Democratic cookies

Tweet

Pink Slip Sunday

Michael Ramirez puts the job numbers in perspective:

As the political prognosticators continually readjust their predictions for the upcoming midterm elections one thing becomes perfectly clear; no one really knows the size of the wave that is coming.  Nate Silver writes, "The 95 percent confidence interval on our model runs between a Republican gain of 17 seats and 78," in an article where he dispels the latest Democrat delusion that they are miraculously in the midst of a comeback.  They're not, which is why Silver ups his prediction Republicans look poised to gain 50 seats:

Our model now estimates that the Republicans have a 72 percent chance of taking over the House, up from 67 percent last week. Moreover, they have nearly even odds of a achieving a net gain of 50 seats; their average gain in a typical simulation run was between 47 and 48 seats. However, the playing field remains very broad and considerably larger are possible, as are considerably smaller ones.

The playing field is broad indeed.  Silver is tracking 80 House seats deemed "in-play" while Cook Political is tracking 127 and Real Clear Politics tracks 137.  Still there is evidence that districts no one is tracking are in-play as well:

Add Rep. Raul Grijalva to the growing list of Democratic worries this election season.

Party operatives say there's increasing concern that the Arizona Democrat's reelection bid could turn into a "sleeper" race for Republicans after Grijalva — responding to enactment of a tough new immigration law — called for an economic boycott of his own state amid a housing crisis and record unemployment.

Four Democratic sources from different parts of the country said that there is new attention to a race that was long considered in the bag.

And a recent poll, obtained by POLITICO, found that Grijalva and Republican challenger Ruth McClung, a real-life rocket scientist, were in a dead heat, even though Washington prognosticators have declared the deep-blue seat safely Democratic.

At this point it is safe to say there is no safe Democratic seat this election.  This is not to say I believe we will win every election but Democrats, despite their noted campaign warchests, are finding they must stretch those dollars to defend an increasingly expanded battlefield.  They are putting out fires they never imagined.  There will be some surprises November 2nd, that's really the only safe bet you can make this election.

Despite the overwhelming evidence that Democrats are facing an unimaginable wave, one person remains resolute she will still be holding her gavel when the water finally recedes:

Ms. Pelosi shook her head. “Let’s talk about ‘Make It in America,’ ” she said, the party’s theme of the week.

Or let’s not. A 10-minute news conference was dominated by questions like, “Are you still as rosy in your assessment that you’re going to hold on to the House and that you’re still going to be speaker?”

“I feel that we will be in the majority and that I will be speaker of the House,” she replied. “But it’s not about me, it’s about the middle class.”

Next question: “Do you even think about not keeping the House?”

“No, never.”

Good luck with that "Make it in America" strategy.  Too bad she didn't focus on that instead of that lunatic health care law.  No word on when she is getting around to drain that swamp either.

Just when you thought hopes for retaking the Senate were on the wane, the oceans start to recede, the planet heals and things get interesting in Washington, the State that is:

With Democratic candidates falling behind in Nevada and West Virginia, all eyes are turning to Washington State, where control for the Senate could well be decided on November 2. Patty Murray is presently clinging to a 0.5 percent lead in the RCP Average - but even that understates the precariousness of her situation.

Shortly after Labor Day, Murray went up on the air, and went negative on her opponent, Dino Rossi. She jumped out to a substantial lead. But that lead was largely a result of driving Rossi's numbers downward.

Rossi is now counterpunching, and the race has closed. Every poll since mid-May has been within the error margin, and three straight samples - two from Rasmussen and one from the Republican firm of Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates - have now showed her trailing Rossi.

In the words of the immortal Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles:

Reaganite Republican has a great roundup of Sunday Funnies


UPDATE:  The Other McCain has more on the Grijalva race and this important message about the improbable success of the woman opposing him.  Did I mention she is literally a rocket scientist, it shows:

To have these kind of results, when McClung reported a mere $16,000 cash on hand in early August — incredible!

Go give Ruth McClung $20 — do it now — but then come back while I tell you what this one poll, in one deep-blue district, means for the larger picture Nov. 2.

Legal Insurrection has another surprising election in-play in Ithaca - yes Ithaca!

How to stump a democrat in a debate

Ask him how to create a job. Democratic candidate for the Senate Dick Blumenthal's response is priceless - painful - but still priceless. Watch Linda McMahon finish him off with a chokeslam:



Thanks to Donald Douglas American Power blog for linking!

About the latest "all is well" for Dems meme

Nate Silver tweets:
Democrats were having one of their better polling days of the year ... until this happened: http://bit.ly/bk6hjj

What's this you ask?

Best they can hope for is massive turnout among voters who normally don't vote during midterm elections.   That would be the young starry-eyed voting block that bought into HOPE and CHANGE but are now left footing the bill.  Good luck with that scenario.

Related:  Political Junkie Mom answers a question I had been pondering myself what would keep you from voting November 2nd.  PJ Mom would walk 500 miles (guess which video she has posted) in order to vote.  I think I would crawl through streets littered with land mines at this point.  How about you?

Karl Rove Predicts Tsunami

After looking at the available polling data in Congressional races, Karl finds 34 seats where Republicans lead their Democratic opponents.   This is just the beginning:

It could get worse. Of the 36 polls in which Democratic incumbents led, Republican challengers were within three points in 12 contests and within five points in 18 others. By contrast, in the 55 polls in which the GOP leads, the Republican is ahead by more than five points in 36. And in all but two instances in which data are available, the Democrat incumbents are significantly better known than their GOP challengers. As these challengers become better known, they're likely to rise in the polls.

Indiana's second district is a good example. Republican State Rep. Jackie Walorski trails Democratic Congressman Joe Donnelly by only 44% to 46%, according to an August American Action Forum poll. But Ms. Walorski is known by 78% of voters while Mr. Donnelly's name ID is a near-saturation 97%. This is a very winnable seat for the GOP.

 Rove gets into the numbers toward the end of this 7 minute clip.  If you're interested in the math skip ahead to the 5 minute mark where Karl breaks out the famous white board.  The first 5 minutes he discusses Obama's class warrior strategy that seems to be such a loser he even had trouble filling seats in his college campus appearance in Ohio yesterday.  Rove sums it up saying "all across America we can hear the sound of teeth gnashing in Democratic headquarters, profanities being said in cars as they travel from campaign event to campaign event.  I bet there are a lot of Democrats who go home and cry themselves to sleep at night."  All this points to a shake up like Democrats haven't seen in a long time.  Rove predicts we may well wake up November 3rd to find a Republican win in a seat we couldn't have imagined likely filled by a candidate we have never heard of.

Bafumi, Erikson and Wlezien predict 50-seat loss for the Democrats

Via Memeorandum
Previewing the first scholarly assessment of the upcoming House elections expected to be published in the October issue of PS: Political Science, Bafumi et al predict a Republican takeover of the House:

Our forecast, based on information gathered in early July 2010, is a likely Republican takeover of the House. In terms of the national vote, the most likely outcome is a solid Republican plurality of close to 53% of the two-party vote. Damage to the Democrats is minimized somewhat in the translation of votes into seats. By our reckoning, the most likely scenario is a Republican majority in the neighborhood of 229 seats versus 206 for the Democrats. Assuming our model is correct but taking into account its uncertainty, the Republicans have a 79% chance of winning the House.

Now for the caveats:

Applying our model to 2010 assumes that the forces at work in 2010 are unchanged from past midterm elections. However, we should be wary of the possibility that the underlying model of the national vote works differently in 2010 or is influenced by variables we have not taken into account. Because the 2010 campaign started to heat up earlier than usual, the usual tilt toward the out party may already be complete, with no further drift to the Republicans. It is also uncertain how voters will react to the tea-party movement as the public face of the Republican Party.

The key will be to follow the generic polls from now to November. If the polls stay close, the Democrats have a decent chance to hold the House. But if the polls follow the past pattern of moving toward the "out" party and move further toward the Republicans -- even by a little -- the Republicans should be heavily favored. 

Thus far, generic polls taken since July 2010 have drifted towards Republicans including this week's Gallup generic ballot that favored Republicans by a 10 point margin, the largest in Gallup's 60 year history.  As yet, there doesn't appear to be any evidence Republicans have peaked too early or that independent voters will suddenly vote in backlash to the tea-party movement.

Bafumi attended the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association.  Three of five political scientists forecasted Republicans gaining 49 to 52 seats.  Bafumi's high number for Republican pick-ups was 57 based on his two variable model.  He argued the results of midterms are generally baked in the cake quite early in the election year:

Remarkably, forecasts from our two variables—the generic poll results and the party of the president—are about equally predictive regardless of when the poll results are taken. In short, the midterm vote tends to be determined early, with the campaign serving mainly to draw the voters toward the out-party. Taking into account election-year changes in the president’s approval rating or economic conditions has not offered any improvement in the forecast equation in the past (Bafumi et al. 2010).

A 50 seat loss for Democrats would certainly make a certain witch we know quite unhappy.  What a world,  what a world!   It remains to be seen whether such a loss would be sufficient to teach an old dog some new tricks - let's just say I doubt it.

15 Minutes of Shame

With laser like focus Obama proves doubters and deniers wrong.  He is like totally all over  that economy problem:

Last November, Obama announced that he would turn his attention to unemployment, calling it "one of the great challenges that remains in our economy." He declared the same intent two months later, telling House Democrats he would focus relentlessly on job creation "over the next several months." Senior aides went on television pledging that the mantra would become "jobs, jobs, jobs."

But other matters - health care, the BP oil spill - continually stole the limelight, creating the impression, some Democrats complain, that the president was barely focused on the economy at all.

His advisers described his attentiveness - noting, for example, that he discussed the economy with New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I) for 15 minutes before golfing - but got little traction.

15 whole minutes - we should probably be thanking him or something.

Dems Feasting on a bit of Fear and Loathing

Via Memeorandum

While you're enjoying your morning coffee, consider the poor suffering Democrats who suddenly find themselves feasting on a bit of fear and loathing as they consider their prospects for the forthcoming election:

They no longer believe the jobs and housing markets will recover – or that anything resembling the White House’s promise of a “recovery summer” is under way. They are even more concerned by indications that House Democrats once considered safe – such as Rep. Betty Sutton, who occupies an Ohio seat that President Barack Obama won with 57 percent of the vote in 2008 – are in real trouble.

In two close races, endangered Democrats are even running ads touting how they oppose their leadership.

“Democrats kept thinking: ‘We’re going to get better. We’re going to get well before the election,’” said one of Washington’s best-connected Democrats. “But as of this week, you now have people saying that Republicans are going to win the House. And now it’s starting to look like the Senate is going to be a lot closer than people thought.”

A Democratic pollster working on several key races said, “The reality is that [the House majority] is probably gone.” His data shows the Democrats’ problems are only getting worse. “It’s spreading,” the pollster said.

Of course this is all off the record so they can speak candidly, don't ya know? Democrats are only brave when they are taking a long walk on a short plank for Obama's health care agenda. Now they are gnashing teeth because the "Recovery Summer" they hoped would assuage the voters they infuriated vote after vote has turned out to be as big a bust as their stimulus plan. Too bad they weren't able to pull off a little economic hocus pocus to keep us all blissfully at bay.  Styrofoam columns and soaring speeches can not dress up failed economic policy.

While they're feasting on fear and loathing, many Democrats are shedding their Democratic identities as they run for cover in the Independent Witness Protection Program:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called them her “majority makers” – the moderate to conservative Democrats in right-leaning districts whose election in 2006 made her Speaker.

And now many of them – and other Democrats in competitive districts -- are fighting for their political lives in a harsh environment and have found it necessary to distance themselves from their leaders and Democratic policies.

Jake Tapper has a whole slew of Democratic incumbents' ads denying the Obama/Pelosi/ Reid triumvirate with passion:

Rep. Jason Altmire, D-Penn., is up on the air in Western Pennsylvania heralding his opposition to the Democrats’ health care reform bill and the Wall Street bailout.

“ I like that Jason Altmire is not afraid to stand up to the president,” a man in the commercial says.

“And Nancy Pelosi,” adds a woman.

That is quite a different picture of Altmire than the one we saw in March when Politico featured his membership in the Drama Queen Caucus:

There was a picture of Altmire talking on the phone in his office splashed across the front page of The Washington Post on Thursday, above a story that began by recounting how many times this month he had been personally wooed by Obama (two meetings and one phone call from Air Force One).

Cracked a reporter from the freshman’s hometown Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: “The photo shows him on the phone in his office — tossup whether it’s with President Obama or yet another reporter.”

Anyone paying attention to the never-ending drama that unfolded as we waited for supposed "Blue Dogs" to reveal their vote on ObamaCare, knows there was no standing up to Pelosi, Obama or Reid.  It was all about waiting for dispensation to vote no while Pelosi made certain their vote wasn't needed.  A vote for any of these supposed independent thinkers - Pelosi's "majority makers" as it were - is a vote to put the gavel back in her hands.

State of the 2010 House Races

Patrick Ishmael of Hot Air's Green Room has been tracking the most vulnerable House seats currently held by Democrats. Today he updated the list to include 35 downgrades meaning 35 Dem seats ranked more vulnerable while 3 were ranked less vulnerable. This is somewhat a fluid process as polling information is not abundant at this point in the race but it gives a good picture of the state of the House race so far this year.

Ishmael uses a score he calls the Partisan Voting Index Multiplier Electoral Risk (PVIMER)which he explains at length here.  This is a good summary of the scoring:

I’ve aggregated what I believe are the latest predictions from The Cook Report, Sabato’s Crystal Ball, Congressional Quarterly, and the Swing State Project.   I’ve assigned numbers to each of the races they’ve rated and added an enthusiasm multiplier, which I’ll explain later. The scale is straightforward: Toss-ups are rated “0″, Leans rated “1″, Likelies rated “2″, and Solids rated “3.” Negative numbers mean, based on these four sources, a likely GOP seat takeover; positive numbers suggest better prospects for Democrats.

There are 32 seats that are currently scored with a negative number meaning a likely GOP takeover while there are a total of 66 seats rated less than 1.  This gives a pretty clear idea why the professional prognosticators  are starting to say with more certainty the GOP will retake the House.  Of course none of this happens unless we all go out and make it happen; this merely means we are more likely to be successful if we do the work.   Here is the list of vulnerable seats in order of their likelihood of becoming a GOP pickup:

1 LA-3 OPEN (Melancon) -2.2
2 TN-6 OPEN (Gordon) -2.2
3 NY-29 OPEN -1.6
4 AR-2 OPEN (Snyder) -1.4
5 MD-1 Frank Kratovil -1
6 MS-1 Travis Childers -1
7 IN-8 OPEN (Ellsworth)-0.8
8 KS-3 OPEN (Moore) -0.8
9 ND-AL Earl Pomeroy -0.8
10 NM-2 Harry Teague -0.8
11 TN-8 OPEN (Tanner) -0.8
12 TX-17 Chet Edwards -0.8
13 AL-2 Bobby Bright -0.6
14 CO-4 Betsy Markey -0.6
15 SD-AL Stephanie Herseth Sandlin-0.6
16 AR-1 OPEN (Berry) -0.4
17 IN-9 Baron Hill -0.4
18 NH-1 Carol Shea-Porter-0.4
19 NH-2 OPEN (Hodes) -0.4
20 OH-1 Steve Driehaus -0.4
21 OH-15 Mary Jo Kilroy -0.4
22 VA-5 Tom Perriello -0.4
23 WV-1 Alan B. Mollohan-0.4
24 FL-24 Suzanne Kosmas -0.2
25 MI-7 Mark Schauer -0.2
26 NV-3 Dina Titus -0.2
27 OH-16 John Boccieri -0.2
28 PA-7 OPEN (Sestak) -0.2
29 SC-5 John Spratt -0.2
30 VA-2 Glenn Nye -0.2
31 WA-3 OPEN (Baird) -0.2
32 WI-7 OPEN (Obey) -0.2
33 FL-2 Allen Boyd 0
34 FL-8 Alan Grayson 0
35 ID-1 Walter Minnick 0
36 IL-11 Debbie Halvorson0
37 IL-14 Bill Foster 0
38 MI-1 OPEN (Stupak) 0
39 NC-8 Larry Kissell 0
40 NY-24 Michael Arcuri 0
41 PA-11 Paul Kanjorski 0
42 VA-9 Rick Boucher 0
43 AZ-1 Ann Kirkpatrick 0.2
44 AZ-8 Gabrielle Giffords0.2
45 MO-4 Ike Skelton 0.2
46 OH-18 Zack Space 0.2
47 PA-10 Chris Carney 0.2
48 PA-3 Kathy Dahlkemper0.2
49 PA-8 Patrick Murphy 0.2
50 AZ-5 Harry Mitchell 0.4
51 GA-8 Jim Marshall 0.4
52 CA-11 Jerry McNerney 0.6
53 IA-3 Leonard Boswell 0.6
54 KY-6 Ben Chandler 0.6
55 NY-20 Scott Murphy 0.6
56 NY-23 Bill Owens 0.6
57 PA-12 Critz 0.6
58 TN-4 Lincoln Davis 0.6
59 CO-3 John Salazar 0.8
60 IN-2 Joe Donnelly 0.8
61 MA-10 OPEN (Delahunt) 0.8
62 NJ-3 John Adler 0.8
63 NY-1 Tim Bishop 0.8
64 NY-13 Mike McMahon 0.8
65 NY-19 John Hall 0.8
66 VA-11 Gerald Connolly 0.8
67 FL-22 Ron Klein 1
68 NC-11 Heath Shuler 1
69 NM-1 Martin Heinrich 1
70 OH-13 Betty Sutton 1
71 OR-5 Kurt Schrader 1
72 PA-17 Tim Holden 1
73 PA-4 Jason Altmire 1
74 TX-23 Ciro Rodriguez 1
75 WI-8 Steve Kagen 1
76 WV-3 Nick Rahall 1
77 MI-9 Gary Peters 1.2
78 NY-25 Dan Maffei 1.4
79 UT-2 Matheson 1.4
80 AR-4 Mike Ross 1.6
81 CT-5 Christopher Murphy 1.6
82 IL-8 Melissa Bean 1.6
83 MN-1 Tim Walz 1.6
84 MS-4 Taylor 1.6
85 NC-2 Etheridge 1.6
86 NC-7 Mike McIntyre 1.6
87 OK-2 Boren 1.6
88 WI-3 Ron Kind 1.6
89 CA-18 Dennis Cardoza 1.8
90 CA-47 Loretta Sánchez 1.8
91 CT-4 Jim Himes 1.8
92 GA-2 Sanford Bishop, Jr. 1.8
93 KY-3 John Yarmuth 1.8
94 WA-2 Rick Larsen 1.8
95 CO-7 Ed Perlmutter 2
96 GA-12 John Barrow 2
97 IL-17 Hare 2
98 NJ-12 Rush Holt 2
99 OH-6 Charlie Wilson 2
100 CA-20 Jim Costa 2.2
101 IA-2 Loebsack 2.2
102 OR-1 David Wu 2.2
103 TX-27 Ortiz 2.2
104 IA-1 Bruce Braley 2.4
105 MO-3 Russ Carnahan 2.4
106 RI-1 Kennedy 2.4
107 WA-9 Smith 2.4
108 MA-6 Tierney 2.6
109 ME-1 Pingree 2.6
110 NM-3 Lujan 2.6
111 NJ-6 Pallone 2.8
112 CA-39 Sanchez 3

Be sure to read Ishmael's posts in greater depth  here and here and here and here and here

Which Dem Tea Party Strategy Would That Be?

Yesterday CBS News reported on a DNC Tea Party strategy that amounts to little more than marching orders to local reporters to challenge 30 Republican candidates to "stand with or stand up to the Tea Party:"

Today's DNC push comes on the heels of the DNC's release of a document laying out what it says are the plans of the "Republican Tea Party," among them repealing the health care bill, privatizing Social Security, ending Medicare in its current form, extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and abolishing the Departments of Education and Energy. They call the 10-point platform the "Republican Tea Party Contract on America."

(Most Republicans do support repealing the health care bill and extending all the Bush tax cuts, though the other positions here have far more limited support within the party.)

The DNC is including the "Republican Tea Party Contract on America" in its release to reporters. The Republicans being targeted are Jon Barela , Lou Barletta , Richard "Rick" Berg , Scott Bruun , Steve Chabot , Keith Fimian , Mike Fitzpatrick , Thomas Ganley , Tim Griffin , David Harmer, Randy Hultgren , George Kelly Jr. , Joe Heck , Adam Kinzinger , Kristi Noem , James Renacci , Steve Pearce , Jon Runyan , Steve Stivers , Todd Young , Brad Zaun, Eric Cantor, Joseph Cao, Michael Castle, John Boehner, Mario Diaz-Balart, Charles Dent, Paul Ryan, Kevin McCarthy, and Mark Kirk.

Democrats are also vowing to spend August pressing Republicans to "stand with or stand up to the Tea Party" in press conferences, advertising and online, according to the DNC's Hoffine.

First, thanks to the DNC for letting us know which Republicans are causing them a few sleepless nights. Second, this reeks of desperation particularly in light of mounting evidence Democrats have also been actively working to get a few "tea party" spoilers listed on the ballot.  Perhaps it is no coincidence Pat Meehan was not listed as that might call attention to  Dem shenanigans in the PA-07 Congressional race.

Democratic tea party shenanigans extend beyond Pennsylvania however to a number of races that are expected to be close contests and may well determine which party controls the House.  From Politico:

The accusations range from helping tea party activists circulate candidate petition sheets to underwriting the creation of official tea parties, which then put forth slates of candidates that local conservatives accuse of being rife with Democratic plants.

In all of the affected races, the outcome is expected to be close enough that a third-party candidate who wins just a few percentage points could end up swinging the outcome to the Democratic congressman or candidate…

[T]he evidence of campaign tampering in at least two states is hard to dismiss. In Michigan, the party chairman in suburban Detroit’s Oakland County now concedes that one of his top aides played a role in helping nine tea party candidates get onto the ballot for various offices across the state — including the open 1st Congressional District and the 7th Congressional District, held by vulnerable freshman Democratic Rep. Mark Schauer.

Politico also reports on shenanigans in New Jersey's 3rd Congressional District where former Eagle tackle Jon Runyan is challenging John Adler:

Runyan’s aides began looking into the background of New Jersey tea party candidate Peter DeStefano after Adler’s campaign released an internal poll that showed DeStefano drawing 12 percent of the vote. Local conservatives were also miffed that most of DeStefano’s conservative firepower seemed unusually directed toward Runyan, rather than the Democrat Adler.

In the course of the Runyan campaign’s research, aides discovered that one of the signatures on DeStefano’s ballot petition turned out to be of a former Adler campaign aide.

They also took note that DeStefano switched his voter registration from Republican to Democrat in April and then switched it again to unaffiliated just days before the state primary. As in Michigan, DeStefano’s low profile with the news media also became viewed as a sign that he was a shadow candidate.

Surprise, surprise accusations of shenanigans in Florida are linked to Alan Grayson.  Fox Nation reported back in June allegations Grayson had connections to at least one fake tea party candidate.  Politico outlines the supposed "in-fighting" between tea party factions that ensued since connections to Grayson were discovered among a few candidates running under the Tea Party label.  Florida, however, has yet to hold its' primary election.  I would expect serious tea party voters to unite behind the candidate who wins the GOP nomination to unseat Alan Grayson.

Da TechGuy made a valid point yesterday, "Actually this is a very old political hardball tactic, not much different than Limbaugh’s “operation chaos“.  But as Politico notes, "in this case, some Democrats appear to be in cahoots with ideological adversaries whose ideas they hope to use as weapons against Republicans in the fall."  As the JournoList media now have their marching orders it might be useful for targeted Republican candidates to laugh off questions whether they stand with the tea party and to question which Dem Tea Party strategy is in play.

Democratic Mass Hypnosis Continues - It's always sunny in Demsylvania edition

Are you feeling sleepy yet?  Suddenly feeling the urge to dig in your pockets and donate to the Democratic war chest?  As Democrats head home to their districts the orchestrated effort to change the national narrative from doom and gloom for Democrats to it's always sunny in Demsylvania is in full swing.  All is well people, all is well.

Some of the latest efforts to induce sudden euphoria for Democratic prospects are far more transparent than anything that has passed through the Congress or White House since Democrats have had control.  Take this latest ray of hope Charlie Cook offers from Gallup's recent generic ballot polling:

We're currently experiencing one of those periods of uncertainty. One interpretation of recent results is that the momentum in this critical midterm election has shifted and the Republican wave has subsided. Another interpretation is that it's too soon to tell whether much has changed at all...

Oops, sorry Charlie it looks like Republicans are back on top again:

Registered voters favor Republicans by 48% and Democrats by 43% in Gallup's generic congressional ballot for the week of July 26 through Aug. 1. This follows two weeks when the numbers were nearly reversed.

While the five-percentage-point edge for Republicans is not statistically significant, it represents a return to the prevailing 2010 pattern, seen since mid-March, whereby Republicans were tied or held a slight advantage over Democrats in most Gallup Daily tracking weekly averages. If sustained through Election Day, this competitive positioning for the Republicans among registered voters would point to major seat gains for that party in November given the usual Republican advantage in turnout.

Never fear, hope springs eternal as PPP offers this sunny scenario:

If you look at the trends in the actual races though things are getting sunnier for the Democrats. In June and July PPP polled eight Senate match ups that we had a previous poll to compare to- in all eight the Democratic candidate improved his/her position, by an average of 4.25 points.

PPP explains the sudden shift back to the "It's always sunny scenario," with the usual litany of Democratic talking points.  You have heard them all before, Republicans have crazy candidates, yada, yada, yada:

 And then of course there are the races with flawed Republican candidates: Charlie Melancon and Alexi Giannoulias have seen improvement as David Vitter and Mark Kirk have had to deal with character issues and Jack Conway has seen his standing rise as Kentuckians have had to consider whether Rand Paul is an extremist.

 I would be careful pointing to Alexi Giannoulias when discussing flawed candidates if I were on the left.  Of course if I were on the left I might be looking to distance myself from Tony Rezko's ATM machine.  What say you Barack? As for David Vitter, Democrats have a long way to go before they take a victory lap in that race.  Of course in the long run trends do matter in polls but what PPP offers here is as substantive as Charlie Cook's analysis of the Gallup poll.

Things aren't always sunny for Democrats, folks and there is little on the horizon to suggest their prospects will get brighter.  This will not stop certain pointy-hatted people from trying to convince her base Democrats have this completely under control.  Fortunately, it doesn't seem many people are buying it:







Thanks to Scared Monkeys for linking this post.

More "All is well" from the DCCC

Via Memeorandum

Democrats appear determined to continue hypnotizing their fundraising base with the notion there is absolutely no chance they will lose the House this year.   Greg Sargent dutifully offered his space at The Washington Post to assist Democrats in spreading the good news that hopes for a continued Democratic majority are far from dead.  Sargent offers a secret memo obtained through an unnamed source which the reader is expected to accept as "a window on Dem thinking about the political landscape in a difficult year." Sargent notes two key points:

 First, Republicans simply can't put enough seats in play to win the House. Second, the Tea Party has become a massive liability nationally in multiple unappreciated ways.

Make no mistake, much of this memo is sheer unadulterated garbage intended to calm fears and keep the cash flowing to the massive Democratic war chests.

On the left, Charlie Cook adds up the Democrats' math and finds the scenario plausible if Democrats maintain their financial advantage while Nate Silver tears to shreds the faulty assumptions and desperate math contained in the memo in a post titled, "It's Like Mathematically Unpossible for Republicans to Win the House, or Something."(language warning applies)  On the right Michael Barone finds Democrats poised to take a "thumping."  Bruce McQuain sums it up:

This memo has Nancy Pelosi – who we all know is a math whiz – written all over it. She took great exception to Robert Gibbs saying a week or so ago it was possible that the Democrats may lose the House in November. This is her wacky reasoning to a tee.

Though the first part of the memo seems to be discredited on the left and the right, the argument the tea party is a massive liability enjoys no such agreement.  Both Silver and Matthew Sheffield make the point that on a "macro view" the tea party has successfully rebranded conservative ideas.  Silver, however, takes some heart in the notion the tea party may be costing Republicans "a few opportunities where inexperienced and/or wacky candidates are nominated," citing Sharron Angle and Rand Paul as examples.  Perhaps this inspired Sheffield to caution tea party backed candidates to be careful when discussing ideas that are not widely understood by the general electorate.   With or without the tea party, Democrats have little else to offer in the way of substantive debate.  They certainly can't run on their accomplishments.  This leaves the "we may be incompetent but they're crazy," strategy as their only viable path to avoid complete annihilation in November.

Bruce McQuain points to the most credible argument in the DCCC memo.  The greatest risk to conservative hopes Pelosi will be forced to surrender her gavel comes from third party candidates who will surely split the vote and potentially hand Democrats a win in hotly contested elections.  In my own district one libertarian candidate decided to drop from the race in order to avoid being the spoiler while another perennial candidate prefers to indulge his narcissistic fantasy, "the country needs him."  While this candidate has no serious chance of winning the election he has pulled as many as 6000 votes from the Republican candidate in previous elections.  Consider that the Republican candidate Mike Fitzpatrick lost his seat to the current incumbent Patrick Murphy in 2006 by a mere 1500 votes.  In the 7th Congressional District Jim Schneller is working to have himself listed on the ballot as an Independent though the Independence Hall Tea Party has wisely endorsed the Republican front runner Pat Meehan.  Vulnerable Democratic incumbents everywhere are dreaming they will be blessed with spoiler candidates to split the vote of the enthused conservatives they know intend to vote in November.

At this point in the race, polling information that could provide a clearer picture of the size of the tide Democrats fear most is in short supply.  What we have seen thus far gives us ample reason to hope the tide is on our side as Michael Barone seems to believe:

Today a lot more Democratic incumbents seem to be trailing Republican challengers in polls. Jim Geraghty of National Review Online has compiled a list of 13 Democratic incumbents trailing in polls released over the past seven weeks.

Some of these poll numbers are mind-boggling. Tom Perriello, a 727-vote winner in Virginia 5 in 2008, has been running two weeks of humorous ads showing what a hard worker he is. A poll shows him trailing Republican state Sen. Robert Hurt 58 to 35 percent.

In industrial Ohio 13, which Barack Obama carried 57 to 42, a poll shows incumbent Betty Sutton trailing free-spending Republican Tom Ganley 44 to 31 percent.

As Geraghty notes, we haven't seen polls released by many other Democrats on Republican target lists. Most are conducting polls; many have reason to release favorable results if they're available. This looks like a case where the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Whether these early polls accurately reflect a sea change for Democrats will surely be tested as we get closer to November.  Perhaps if the races are closer those tempted to indulge their ideological instincts will think better of a decision to vote for a spoiler merely to prove a point.  For now, it seems the best evidence that Democrats are in dire straits is exhibited in the continual orchestrated effort to hypnotize their base with the frantic message "All is well."

Halperin: Dems in a panic as reality sets in

Mark Halperin made an appearance on "Morning Joe" to give details on his report for Time Magazine that paints a fuller picture of Democrats in disarray as they realize harsh reality they may well lose their majority while Obama keeps his job:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

It seems that behind the scenes Democrats are doing what Democrats do best - blaming and finger pointing. I find it tremendously difficult to muster up sympathy for Nancy Pelosi as she faces the prospect she may have to turn over that gavel. While House Democrats might be inclined to resent losing their jobs after having walked the plank for the Obama agenda, they did the walking and now they must pay the price.

Democrats mistakenly believed there was time to sell their policies to an outraged electorate after losing Massachusetts. Now that the reality has set in the Dems are out of time to sell those policies, Halperin reveals the two-part strategy Democrats adopted to minimize their losses in November:

The two-part scheme was pretty straightforward. First, Democrats planned a number of steps to head off, or at least soften, the anti-Washington, anti-incumbent, anti-Obama sentiment that cost them the Massachusetts seat. Pass health care, and other measures to demonstrate that Democrats could get things done for the middle class; continue to foster those fabled green shoots on the economy, harvesting the positive impact of the massive economic stimulus bill passed early in the Administration; heighten the contrast between the two parties by delivering on Wall Street reform and a campaign-funding law to counteract January's controversial Supreme Court decision. Use all of those elements to contrast the Democrats' policies under Obama with the Republicans' policies under Bush, rather than allow the midterms to be a referendum on the incumbent party.

The second strand of the Democrats' plan was more prosaic and mechanical. Recruit strong candidates for open seats. Leverage the White House and congressional majorities to raise more money than the other side. Make mischief by playing up the divisions between the Tea Party and the more traditional elements of the Republican Party, in part to increase the chances that more extreme, less electable candidates edge out moderates in GOP primary battles. Do extensive opposition research and targeted messaging in the fall to delegitimize Republican candidates in the minds of centrist voters. Coordinate below the radar with labor unions, environmentalists and other allies on get-out-the-vote efforts, focusing on young, nonwhite and first-time voters who came out for Obama in 2008.

That Democrats thought passing health care would really help them with Independents and the middle class shows how truly out of touch they are with mainstream America.  Clearly they missed the message driving Scott Brown's campaign, he was the 41st vote to stop ObamaCare.  Whether Democrats misinterpreted or deliberately denied the reality their health care agenda was unpopular is a matter for debate.  In either case, the reality appears to have just now hit home that they will have to pay the piper.  This means we can expect a lot of part two of the strategy between now and November - prepare for full-scale Democratic mischief making and shenanigans

I am not sure what positive aspects Democrats hoped to harvest from their massive stimulus bill.   Perhaps Sheriff Joe was sent forth yesterday to admit there were mistakes made on stimulus- mistakes naturally lobbed at the feet of the three Republican votes they needed to pass the debacle.  I highly doubt, however, the message the stimulus wasn't big enough will sell with the moderate middle that has fled the big spending Democrats in droves.

Nevertheless it appears the RNC correctly assessed the state of affairs behind the scenes in Democratic circles after Robert Gibbs admitted the House was in play. The following video was circulated by the RNC in response to Pelosi's guarantee she would keep her gavel:

More "Macaca" Moments: The Pete Stark and Alan Grayson Collection

Speaking of "Macaca" Moments, Rep. Pete Stark(D-CA)has yet another mental meltdown when speaking to a group of his constituents. Michelle Malkin has the full 9 minutes of Stark raving madness but highlights the money quotes that can be seen in the video below:

At his latest encounter at a town hall, Stark Raving Mad mocks Bay Area constituents expressing outrage at our lax immigration policies. To a member of the northern California Minutemen, Steve Kemp, Stark snarks:

“Who are you going to kill today?”

In response to concerns about violence at the porous, unsecured border, Stark retorts:

“Our borders are quite secure, thank you.”

 (Related: Unreality-based Janet Clownitano tells a Washington crowd, “The plain fact of the matter is the border is as secure now as it has ever been.”)

Stark replaced Charlie Rangel as Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee after Rangel was forced to relinquish the gavel.  Stark has had his own run-ins with the Office of Congressional Ethics but was cleared despite his bizarre and belligerent behavior during the investigation.  Stark represents a fairly liberal district in the San Francisco Bay area that continues to re-elect Stark despite a history of outlandish behavior. There is only one way to wrestle that gavel from Stark's hands, we're only 125 days away from making that happen.



Carol's Closet has a report on stark-raving Democrat Alan Grayson caught in a game of dirty pool to ensure his re-election. Unlike Stark, Grayson is quite vulnerable in November - a fact that is likely motivating his efforts to take the election in any sleazy underhanded way he possibly can.