Cook Report puts control of the House in the hands of the GOP

It's like doing the Time Warp again sans the jump to the left adding ten steps to the right, Cook Report puts control of the House in the hands of the GOP:

The Cook Political Report's current outlook is for a Republican net gain of at least 40 seats. A turnover of 39 seats would tip majority status into Republican hands. At this point, only 205 House seats are Solid, Likely or Lean Democratic, while 181 seats are Solid, Likely or Lean Republican, and 45 seats are in the Toss Up column.

There is even a graphic:

Ooops, wrong one:

Here are the 10 races Cook moved to the right today:

• PENNSYLVANIA | District 10: Lean Democrat to Toss Up 
• OHIO | District 18: Lean Democrat to Toss Up 
• NEW YORK | District 19: Lean Democrat to Toss Up 
• NEW YORK | District 4: Solid Democrat to Likely Democrat 
• GEORGIA | District 2: Likely Democrat to Lean Democrat 
• CONNECTICUT | District 4: Likely Democrat to Lean Democrat 
• COLORADO | District 7: Likely Democrat to Lean Democrat
• CALIFORNIA | District 44: Likely Republican to Solid Republican 
• CALIFORNIA | District 20: Likely Democrat to Lean Democrat 
• CALIFORNIA | District 11: Lean Democrat to Toss Up
• UTAH | Governor: Likely Republican to Solid Republican 

Much of the explanation for moving these races is behind the pay firewall at Cook Report but the preview reveals moves were made to reflect the challenging political environment:

House Editor David Wasserman explains why ratings are changing in ten incumbent districts as more races come into view. Sophomore Democratic Reps. Jerry McNerney (CA-11) and John Hall (NY-19), who represent closely divided suburban bellwether districts, are facing their toughest tests yet after escaping 2008 without top-tier Republican opposition. And fellow sophomore Democratic Reps. Zack Space (OH-18) and Chris Carney (PA-10), who both have to defend tough votes on very Republican turf, have never had to run in this kind of political environment before and can no longer be considered clear favorites over subpar opponents.

That Wasserman describes the Republican opponents as subpar suggests some bias in favor of the Democrats. Still the moves made by Cook will likely increase the fury Cook incurred when he criticized Obama's OFA earlier in a Time Magazine article What Ever Happened to Obama's Army?

What happened to Barack Obama's once vaunted political machine? The outfit that put upwards of 8 million volunteers on the street in 2008 — known as Organizing for America — is a ghost of its former self. Its staff has shrunk from 6,000 to 300, and its donors are depressed: Receipts are a fraction of what they were in 2008. Virtually no one in politics believes it will turn many contests this fall. "There's no chance that OFA is going to have the slightest impact on the midterms," says Charlie Cook, who tracks congressional races.

Democrats, as we all know, don't take criticism well.  Here is an excerpt of the scorched-earth response:

As to Mr. Cook, since OFA is running or helping to run coordinated campaigns in scores of states — his comment seems to suggest that GOTV in campaigns doesn't matter and the only thing that does is television ads — which would mean he slept thru the 2008 campaign. Besides the fact — when's the last time Charlie Cook attended a phone bank or walked a canvass or became expert on field organizing. Maybe given the whiplash some of his prognostications given people this year he's looking to opine on other things but I would venture to guess he doesn't have a clue as to what our organizing efforts are or what effect they stand to have on the outcome of close races.

 Charlie Cook has been predicting this reversal of Democratic fortunes as far back as August 2009.  If anyone has whiplash it would have to be the Democrats who ignored the screaming of their constituents while the Dems ran toward that bright and shiny light we know as health care.  The polling information that informs Cooks assessment of the midterms suggests Americans have had their fill of community organizers and are unlikely to be persuaded by Obama's campaign arm Organizing for America.  Whether Organizing for America is focused on 2012 seems fairly obvious, Obama is all about Obama.  The Democrats who sacrificed their career to vote for Obama's agenda should have seen that coming.  That they didn't suggests they are the candidates who might best be described as "subpar."

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.

American Crossroads Poll: Battleground study reveals Senate could be in play

Those who listened to Karl Rove's debut as radio host yesterday on Rush were likely to have heard him mention the results of this Public Opinion Strategies poll conducted for American Crossroads. The poll was conducted using a similar structure and methodology as the June Public Opinion Strategies poll conducted for NPR radio.  Much like the June poll, this study lets the air out of the tires of the Hope and Change Express.  Moreover, voters appears to be poised to take the keys from Democrats in both the House and the Senate. Key findings of the study conducted in 13 battleground states including; Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri,New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Washington:

• Independents are voting Republican by 47%-25% across the Battleground states.
• In the four states John McCain won in 2008, the GOPer leads 46%-36%. In the nine states Barack Obama won, the GOPer still leads 47%-40%, including 50%-38% in the five states Obama won with less than 55%, and 43%-42% in the four Obama 55%+ states.
• There is a 21 point gender gap. Men are voting GOP 52%-33%, while womensplit 42% GOP/44% Dem.
• As seen nearly everywhere else, the Democratic candidates face a wide enthusiasm gap. The GOPer leads 52%-36% among high interest voters (rating their interest as 8-10 on a 1-10 scale, which is 74% of the sample).

Testing potential messages likely to be argued by each party, the study shows voters unlikely to buy the Blame Bush strategy Democrats have adopted since taking control of all three branches of government:

53% President Obama’s economic policies have run up a record federal deficit while failing to
end the recession or slow the record pace of job losses.

...or...

43% President Obama’s economic policies helped avert an even worse crisis, and are laying
the foundation for our eventual economic recovery.

Although when given a choice to assign blame for the economy likely voters will choose to blame Bush by a 19 point margin, voters are still more likely to reject the Democratic argument that Obama's economic policies  are steering the economy out of the ditch.  In short, voters are not all that impressed with Obama's driving skills to say the least.

Politico summarizes the big picture that may include voters mad enough to take the keys away from the Democratic House and Senate:

To American Crossroads, however, the point of the poll is the big picture: the voters who will ultimately decide the fate of the Senate campaign are mad as hell, and seem unlikely to take it anymore.

“There’s a sense that while the Democratic House might be in danger, a Democratic Senate is somehow safe – but the findings here really contradict that conventional wisdom,” American Crossroads spokesman Jonathan Collegio said. “Each of the last seven times the House changed power since 1932, the Senate fell in the same year, and there’s abundant evidence here that history will continue to repeat itself.”

That’s a possibility MSNBC’s Chuck Todd floated in late July. Asked for his prediction for the fall campaign, Todd said he’s inclined to believe “Republicans win them both or they don't win either. They win both the house and the Senate, this thing goes to 45, 50 seats and 10 in the Senate, or neither one happen.”

Dick Morris has been predicting Democrats lose the Senate for some time now based on the size of the wave of anger voters feel towards Democratic leadership.  While this may be true historically, there is still good reason to believe that this election may be an exception.  For one, there are fewer Senate seats on the ballot and Republicans would need to run the table to take the Senate.  The potential is there though as Politico points out:

In eight seats currently held by Democrats – Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Washington – Republican candidates average an edge of seven points over their Democratic opponents, leading 47 percent to 40 percent.

In five Republican-held seats – Florida, Kentucky, Missouri, New Hampshire and Ohio – GOP candidates hold an average lead of eight points, 45 percent to 37 percent.

The pollster Glen Bolger elaborates:

“Individual races may turn out okay, but the overall wave is as strong against [Democrats] as it is against Democrats in the House.”

“You’ve got independents voting Republican, two to one, just like McDonnell, Brown and Christie had,” Bolger said, referring to the 2009 victories of Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, and the 2010 special election win of Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown. “You have the high-interest voters much more supportive of Republicans than the overall electorate, even.”

The latest Gallup poll has Republicans leading Democrats in the Congressional Ballot by 6 points which seems to support the notion there is big wave brewing against Democrats.  As noted however, individual elections could save a Democratic seat in the Senate but that would buck the tide riding against Democrats in general.  There is much work to be done and a political lifetime between now and November.  Conditions could change in ways we can't predict.  For now, it appears voters want the keys out of the hands of Democrats.  "I'm just saying that is not a coincidence."

58 Democratic Seats in Play Including 12 New Seats - UPDATED

Scroll down for update
Ed Morrissey  noticed the NYT buried some good news  for Republicans in an article highlighting the explosion of new candidates entering the field for Congressional seats in November.  While much of the Times article focuses on the potential obstacles Republicans may face from heated primaries, the interesting news comes from Stewart Rothenberg about half way through the article:

Stuart Rothenberg, a political analyst who follows Congressional races, said a report he will release Monday will count 58 Democratic House seats in play, up from 47 in December. The number of Republican seats in play has held at 14 in that period, he said. And Democrats expect more of their incumbents to retire, which could put additional seats at risk.

Rothenberg list a total of 72 seats in play adding 12 new seats from those considered safe to either favored Democrats or leans Democrat.  Here is a list of the 12 seats:

• WV 1 (Mollohan, D) * Moved from  safe to leans democrat
• AZ 8 (Giffords, D) *
• CO 3 (Salazar, D) *
• CA 11 (McNerney, D) *
• IA 3 (Boswell, D)
• NY 13 (McMahon, D) *
• ND A-L (Pomeroy, D) *
• NJ 3 (Adler, D) *
• PA 4 (Altmire, D) *
• PA 8 (Murphy, D) *
• PA 17 (Holden, D) *
• VA 9 (Boucher, D) *

As mentioned in a previous post, Chris Wysocki at Wyblog noted former Eagles tackle Jon Runyan has already put his hat in the ring for NJ's 3rd Congressional District.  Patrick Murphy (PA 8) is facing a wealth of challengers including a rematch from Mike Fitzpatrick.  Fitzpatrick was quoted in the Times article on the flood of candidates entering the field nationwide after last week's upset in Massachusetts:

“I think it was inspiring and gave voice to a lot of people,” said Mike Fitzpatrick, a former one-term Republican congressman from the Philadelphia suburbs who announced on Saturday that he would try to reclaim his old seat from Representative Patrick J. Murphy, a Democrat.

 Murphy must be feeling some heat, he will be hosting a State of the Union party this Wednesday and will be joined by conference call from Obama campaign manager David Plouffe.   Thomas Jefferson Club blog has the details:

State of the Union Watch Party-Lower Bucks (State of the Union Watch Party)

On January 27th, Organizing for America (OFA) supporters and volunteers across the country will gather together to watch the President’s State of the Union Address.

Join OFA friends, catch up with volunteers from the campaign, and meet new folks at our State of the Union Watch Party!

The party begins at 7:30PM. At 8:15, we’ll be joined, via conference call, by David Plouffe, the Obama for America campaign manager, to help plan for what comes next.

The President’s State of the Union address begins at 9:00PM.
We’ll have some refreshments but feel free to bring a snack or dessert to share.
For more info contact amjordan99@comcast.net

Time:	Wednesday, January 27 from 7:30 PM – 10:30 PM
Host:	Ann Marie Jordan
Location:	Patrick Murphy for Congress (Bristol, PA) 327 Mill Street Bristol, PA 19007

That is the draw? David Plouffe and bring your own snacks or desserts, hardly seems like the antidote to Democratic complacency and real Republican momentum.  Rothenberg acknowledges the Republican momentum and is unwilling to discount the possibility Republicans can pick up enough seats to retake the House though he does his best to downplay the potential as well:

In addition, we can no longer dismiss the possibility of a Republican wave so large that Democrats could lose their House majority. We stress, however, that we currently expect Republicans to fall short of the 40 seats they would need. Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts doesn’t mean that every Republican candidate will win in November.

Republicans may not win every election in November but Rothenberg's own list puts enough seats in play with room to spare.

Note:  Thomas Jefferson Club blog notes American's for Prosperity is hosting a State of the Union Party on Wednesday as well.  Jeff McGeary, president and co-founder of The Thomas Jefferson Club is also making a run against Murphy.  You see his website here.  The blog also lists the other fine candidates who were inspired to challenge Murphy when the leading analysts considered the race a lock for Murphy.  I plan to follow the race closely and will provide more information on the fine candidates who stepped forward to serve Bucks County.
UPDATE:  Via Allahpundit
Cook Political Report puts Murphy's seat in Lean's Democratic which clearly puts it in play given his assessment of the enthusiasm gap between Republicans and Democrats:

If this level remains constant, you can count on the Democratic majority in the House being toast this fall.

Also Nate Silver

 Think others are too conservative on projecting GOP gains. We don't have a House model yet, but GOP seems as likely as not to take House.

Surrender Nancy

Daniel Foster at The Corner of NRO online reports Pelosi may have yet another trick up her sleeves for health care; color me shocked.  While many, including me, declared health care DOA after Speaker Pelosi said she didn't have the votes, it appears we may have underestimated the sheer determination of Democrats to commit hara kiri by health care.  Desperate Democrats are working the votes to drum up support for passage of the Senate bill in total in the House with agreements to undo portions House members find distasteful:

Democratic staffers are telling Newsweek that though Pelosi is still “way short” of the 218 votes it would take to pass the Senate bill—with issues such as the Cadillac Tax and Cornhusker Kickback serving as sticking points—that equation could soon change. Democrats are “working the phones furiously to talk up the idea of the Senate promising to retroactively unravel several distasteful components.”

I am pretty sure the voters in Massachusetts hadn't intended to send a man to Washington who campaigned on his being the 41st vote against dishonest efforts to ram health care through at all costs only to sit back and nod in approval once Madame Speaker finds an alternate strategy to ram it through anyway.   Obviously this makes absolutely no difference as Pelosi is arguing this can be done in the House with passage in the Senate requiring 51 votes via reconciliation:

If House Democrats make the good-faith deal, Pelosi is arguing that the Senate promise would be easy to keep. Reconciliation votes require only a 51-vote majority. Or even 50, in which case Vice President Biden could break the tie.

This aide says that leadership considers reconciliation, with the House conditioning its support on promised fixes in the Senate, as the much more strategic route than breaking the package into parts, which isn’t ideal because all of the parts are interlocking. Asked what the timetable would be for that, this aide says weeks, not months.

This would explain the Easter miracle strategy highlighted in my last post.  Foster suggests this is a viable strategy though it ignores the politics.  It also ignores the promise of  Obama and the Democrats they wouldn't attempt the possibility of ramming a bill through before Scott Brown was seated.  Then again, we should all know the value of an Obama promise at this point.

I have absolutely no doubt that Pelosi et al, will examine each and every possibility by which they can put this disastrous bill through against the will of the people.  They have shown utter contempt and disregard for the people they purport to serve every day they have met since Obama took office and then some.  If Pelosi can whip the votes after the clear message sent by voters last week no seat is safe, anyone who votes for her bill should update their resume immediately.

In my own district, Representative Patrick Murphy (D, PA8) has nine, yes nine, Republicans hoping to get the nomination to oppose him.  On Saturday Mike Fitzpatrick announced  he would seek a rematch against the man who won the seat in 2006 when the tide of populist anger turned against Republicans.  Though I have no doubt Murphy would vote exactly as Pelosi told him to, as he has in nearly every other vote since he took office, he would cast this vote with the certain knowledge one of the nine would take his seat after November.  Who would come to save him, Obama?  This is only one district, a relatively safe one for what that is worth, and there are nine qualified opponents waiting to challenge him for it.  Surely those nine smell something in the air even if Murphy and Pelosi can not.

Pelosi and the desperate Democrats should stop to consider the longer they drag this health care debacle out, the greater uncertainty grows.  Uncertainty is killing any potential for job growth.  This is a message sent repeatedly to an administration that chooses to hear only what it wants.  Democrats pursue this path at their peril, which would be fine, if only politics were at issue.  There are families who are hurting, people who are desperate to get back to work, yet Democrats see only their opportunity to pass their hated health care agenda slipping through their fingers.   These are people not worthy to lead this country, November can't come soon enough.

Happy New Year - Another Dem Recruit Heads for the Hills

The Hill reports, they're dropping like flies :

Democrats have lost yet another touted recruit, this time in Kansas.

State Sen. Laura Kelly (D) just announced her withdrawal from the race to face Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-Kan.). She becomes the fifth formidable recruit to bow out in recent weeks.

“I have been forced to make a decision between honoring the pledge I made to the people in my Senate district and my firm conviction that the people of the 2nd congressional district deserve a truly independent voice in Congress," Kelly said in a statement.

“This has been a very hard decision, but it is the right one.”

Laura Kelly was cited in a late October DCCC memo lauding the Democrats' recruiting success for the coming 2010 midterm elections.  Must be like a cold bucket of water on the Speaker of the House who was willing to sacrifice some of her Blue Dogs  in order to ram her left-wing agenda through the House.    We'll be looking forward to taking her broom in surrender come November.

Via Memeorandum

Zogby Poll: How Low Can you Go/ Charlie Cook is Worried

Via NewsMax - Zogby's latest poll of registered voters showed Obama's approval hitting a new low of 45.3% compared to 50.5 disapproval. In June this number his approval was 51%. July's polls showed a slip down to 48% approval. Obama's sharp decline in approval poses problems because his support has fallen drasticaly among independent or swing voters:

Of greatest concern to Obama may well be his decline among all-important independent voters. Just 37.5 percent of self-identified independents say they approve of how Obama is handling the presidency. That compares with 59.2 percent of independents who disapprove.

Dick Morris, political analyst explains why this group is so important:

"As soon as Obama dropped below 52 percent . . . he was leaking real voters who had backed him in November," Morris tells Newsmax. "Now that he is down to 45 percent among likely voters . . . he is in deep political trouble."

Charlie Cook ofCook Political Report laments a new low for Obama at Gallup among registered voters:

For those of you not addicted to the 1:00pm EDT daily release of Gallup’s three-night moving average tracking poll, President Obama’s job approval rating in both their August 16-18 and August 17-19 averages was just 51 percent, the lowest level of his presidency.

Polls of registered voters tends to show higher approval than polls of likely voters such as Zogby and Rasmussen. Cook seems to share Morris' grim assessment of what these numbers portend for Obama and those who face re-election next year:

These data confirm anecdotal evidence, and our own view, that the situation this summer has slipped completely out of control for President Obama and Congressional Democrats.

Cook suggests Democrats could face serious losses in their numbers particularly in the House of Representatives.

CBO Speaks Again

The latest report from the CBO responds to a request from four Republican members of the House Ways and Means Committee including Camp, Ryan, Barton and Kline who asked:

"for additional information about the effects of the specifications regarding health insurance coverage. In particular, you asked about the effects on enrollment in private coverage, in the new public plan, and in Medicaid; the effects on private-sector insurance premiums and the labor market; the longer-term cost of the plan; and the allocation of its net budget impact between outlays and revenues.

This was a pretty complicated request and you know the CBO is a busy place these days. The response is a "doozy" as Donald Marron summarized quite succinctly. As Marron notes, the report makes two key points. The first is that the public plan would not destroy the market for private health insurance which has been a key complaint raised against the public plan. Republicans have argued research by the Lewin Group shows the public plan to have a devastating effect on private insurance. There have been charges the Lewin Group research is biased and should be ignored.

Marron wisely points out that the two use differing assumptions and thus come to differing conclusions. The CBO being a non-partisan body but still an Obama appointee, presents the case most likely favoring the Obama Administrations desire to include a public option while the Lewin Group, being an entity of United Health Insurers presents the case most favorable to the insurance industry position. The truth as always is likely to lie somewhere between the two.

Marron points to two key assumptions that effect the disparate conclusions:

First, CBO assumes “that only firms with 50 or fewer employees would be permitted to buy coverage through the exchanges.” Lewin, in contrast, assumes that all employers would have access to the exchange.

The House plan gives a new governing official authority to decide which employers have acccess to the public plan. As a result both CBO and Lewin Group are left to predict what that governing official will allow five years from now. CBO bases its analysis on the assumption the official will allow employers with up to 50 employees to utilize the public option while Lewin assumes there will be no restriction on the number of employees and all employers will be allowed to use the plan. Marron also points out the CBO lists several reasons why employers might prefer private insurance, chiefly though the the preferable tax treatment of employer provided benefits, whereas Lewin places less weight on these other benefits.

The second overall key point from CBO is crushing, in fact Keith Hennessey calls this point as TKO. Hennessey's conclusion in a nutshell, "the proposed new health spending would grow faster than the proposed new income tax increases, the House health bill would increase the long-term deficit." The President has said on several occasions he would not sign legislation that increased the deficit in the short or long term. Gamer over if you assume the President made that promise based on his entire rationale for health care reform to begin with. Read Hennessey's full post to appreciate how far off the mark the House legislation actually is, but as a teaser I will post his graph showing just how devastating the CBO long term projections of the effect of the legislation on the budget and deficits:


So while you will see headlines like this Democrats cite CBO to boost healthcare case suggesting the latest CBO was a boon to the case for the House legislation, the more significant finding of the CBO is buried in the second to the last line of the article:

The latest CBO analysis also said the reform proposal would increase budget deficits even though a proposed new tax on millionaires would help cover costs over the next decade.

There is no squaring that finding with these words from the President:

Make no mistake: the cost of our health care is a threat to our economy. It is an escalating burden on our families and businesses. It is a ticking time-bomb for the federal budget. And it is unsustainable for the United States of America.

We were fooled once by such an argument back in January before the stimulus was passed, shame on us. Fool us twice, well, in a word "Waterloo."

RNC Ad Targets 60 Vulnerable Dems in 2010

Via CQ Politics the ad is scheduled to run in 33 states and will target Democratic members of the House considered to be at least somewhat vulnerable in 2010 midterms elections. Despite CQ Politics listing 41 of the 60 Dems targeted at least somewhat vulnerable, it's worth taking a look at their early shapeup of the 2010 House elections. It doesn't appear CQ Politics views any of the 60 vulnerable as they have projected a three seat pickup for the Dems in the House. While I won't suggest the GOP is a shoe in to take back the House, I am a bit more optimistic than the folks at CQ.