Breaking Down the House
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Zach Sheinberg
Twelve years after former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and his Contract with America sent Congressional Democrats into political exile in 1994, the Democratic Party regained control of both Houses of Congress in 2006. In the House of Representatives, the Democrats picked up 31 seats for a total of 233. The Republicans lost 30 seats, its headcount shrinking to 202.
Of the 30 seats that Democrats took from the Republicans (see Note 1 below), 23 were taken from Republican incumbents. The remaining 7 were open seat contests in districts whose retiring incumbents were Republicans.
Certainly, some of the 30 seats that changed hands were, and continue to be, politically middle-of-the-road districts. Districts that are perennially targeted by both parties each election cycle. But some are reliable GOP seats caught up in a wave of anti-Republican sentiment. Some Republican voters were so turned off by any or all of the War in Iraq and Abu Ghraib, unconstitutional wiretapping, the handling of Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame, Jack Abramoff or other scandal that they could not bring themselves to vote for a Republican incumbent. Not because of any ideological shift. But because of the distaste associated with sending a Republican back to Congress, which at least tacitly would have signaled approval of the performance of the Bush Administration.
Maybe you have experienced this sensation. Maybe in college when you got terribly sick from too many tequila shots. So sick that you could not even bear the smell of tequila for weeks afterwards. But as the weeks became months and the months became years, did you take another shot of tequila? Of course you did.
So how many of the 30 Democratic pick-ups are solid Republican districts ripe for switching back into the GOP fold? Where are traditionally Republican voters going to return to their ideological roots and oust their freshman Democratic Congressman?
Where the House Stands
Let me first provide a current overview of the House. Since the 110th Congress was sworn in on January 3, 2007, with 233 Democrats and 202 Republicans, 12 new members joined the chamber, the result of death, resignation or appointment to the Senate. Of those 12, the Democrats picked up three Republican seats. In March 2008, Bill Foster (D-Il.) won the seat vacated by former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Il.). And in May 2008, Don Cazayoux (D-La.) picked up retiring Congressman Richard Baker’s (R-La.) seat and Travis Childers (D-Ms.) won former Congressman Roger Wicker’s (R-Ms.) seat. Upon the resignation of former Senator Trent Lott (R-Ms.), Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour (R-Ms.) appointed Wicker to fill the Senate post. This news does not bode well for Republicans. Democrats took the seat of the former Speaker of the House and two Republican seats in the South.
The current makeup of the House stands at 235 Democrats, 199 Republicans and 1 vacancy (see Note 2 below).
Open Seat Contests
Like in the Senate, open seat Congressional races are prizes for both parties. Without an incumbent running, no candidate has any advantage in name recognition. Unless you are running for your father’s seat (candidate Duncan D. Hunter (R-Ca.) is the Republican nominee in the 52nd District, the seat that his father, Duncan L. Hunter (R-Ca.), is vacating) or grandmother’s seat (Andre Carson (D-In.) won a special election to fill the seat in the 7th District that his grandmother, Julia Carson (D-In.), vacated when she passed away).
And no candidate has any fundraising advantage based on incumbency, Congressional committee assignments or history sending pork home from Washington.
According to OpenSecrets (www.opensecrets.org), which compiles fundraising data for candidates, based on the most recent fundraising reports (2nd Quarter 2008) released by the Federal Election Commission, only 14 incumbents (of 398 incumbents seeking reelection) have raised less money than their challenger. Only 3.5%! Hence the term “incumbency advantage.”
In open seat races, the voters (sometimes) get a real choice between two new candidates. Although sometimes the real choice occurs in a primary, not in the general election. The way that many districts are gerrymandered (see Note 3 below), based on historical voting patters and demographic composition, makes the districts very safe for either the Democrats or Republicans. In these districts, whomever wins the primary of the favored party is a lock to with the general election. Examples are the 3rd District in Mississippi for the Republicans (in 2006, no Democrat even challenged Representative Chip Pickering (R-Ms.) who is retiring) and the 5th District in Alabama for the Democrats (in 2006, Representative Bud Cramer (D-Al.), who is retiring, ran unopposed).
In the 2008 election cycle, there are 37 open House races. 26 members of Congress are retiring, 23 of them Republicans. Why so many Republicans? Two reasons. First, the Republican Party lost control of the House in 2006. Which means no committee gavels, no agenda-setting ability and less money to send home to their districts. Second, popular sentiment is still against the Republicans because of the unpopularity of President Bush.
So some Republicans have preferred to retire than to wage a costly, bitter and exhausting campaign to win reelection against a Democratic challenger emboldened and energized by the Democratic uprising. Two examples are the 2nd and 7th Districts in New Jersey, where incumbents Jim Saxton (R-N.J.) and Mike Ferguson (R-N.J.), respectively, opted to retire rather than run against well-funded, aggressive Democratic challengers in State Senator John Adler (D-N.J.) and State Assemblywoman, and 2006 challenger, Linda Stender (D-N.J.), respectively.
Of the remaining 12 open contests:
- 3 members lost their primaries (Chris Cannon (R-Ut.); David Davis (R-Tn.); and Wayne Gilchrest (R-Md.)) (see Note 4 below).
- 4 Congressmen are running for Senate (Mark Udall (D-Co.); Tom Allen (D-Me.); Tom Udall (D-N.M.); and Steve Pearce (R-N.M.)).
- 1 Congressman is running for Governor (Kenny Hulshof (R-Mo.)).
- 2 Congressman lost primaries for election to the U. S. Senate (Rob Andrews (D-N.J.); Heather Wilson (R-N.M.)).
- And 1 Member of Congress passed away (Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Oh.)).
In the open seat contests this year, Democrats are out-fundraising Republicans. According to the data reported by OpenSecrets, there are 11 districts currently held by the GOP, whose incumbents are not seeking reelection, where Democratic candidates have raised more money than the Republican candidates (see Note 5 below). There is only 1 Democrat-held district (the 5th District in Oregon), where the Republican has raised more.
2008 Races to Watch
By my calculation, there are approximately sixty-six (66) Congressional seats up for grabs in 2008. Forty-seven (47) are currently occupied by Republicans, nineteen (19) by Democrats. Sixteen (16) are open seat races, fifteen (15) of which are currently held by Republicans. Eighteen (18) are held by freshmen Congressmen, fifteen (15) of which are Democrats. So to answer my earlier question, there are fifteen (15) freshmen Democrats in jeopardy of a one-term career in the House.
For the sake of completeness, and based upon district demographics, historical voting patterns and fundraising, the districts that I believe will be competitive are below. The letter in parentheses represents the party of the incumbent.
Alabama: 3rd (R) District
Alaska: At-Large (R) District
Arizona: 1st (R), 3rd (R) and 8th (D) Districts
California: 3rd (R), 4th (R), 11th (D), 26th (R), 46th (R) and 50th (R) Districts
Colorado: 4th (R) District
Connecticut: 4th (R) and 5th (D) Districts
Florida: 8th (R), 10th (R), 13th (R), 16th (D), 21st (R), 24th (R) and 25th (R) Districts
Georgia: 8th (D) and 13th (D) Districts
Idaho: 1st (R) District
Illinois: 10th (R), 11th (R), 13th (R) and 14th (D) Districts
Indiana: 3rd (R) and 4th (R) Districts
Kansas: 2nd (D) and 3rd (D) Districts
Kentucky: 3rd (D) District
Louisiana: 4th (R) and 6th (D) Districts
Michigan: 7th (R) and 9th (R) Districts
Minnesota: 3rd (R) District
Mississippi: 1st (D) District
Missouri: 6th (R) District
New Hampshire: 1st (D) District
New Jersey: 5th (R) District
New Mexico: 1st (R) and 2nd (R) Districts
New York: 13th (R), 20th (D), 25th (R) and 26th (R) Districts
Ohio: 1st (R), 2nd (R), 15th (R) and 16th (R) Districts
Oregon: 5th (D) District
Pennsylvania: 4th (D) and 10th (D) Districts
South Carolina: 1st (R) District
Texas: 7th (R), 10th (R) and 22nd (D) Districts
Virginia: 5th (R), 10th (R) and 11th (R) Districts
Washington: 8th (R) District
Wisconsin: 8th (D) District
Wyoming: At-Large (R) District
The Freshmen 15
The 15 vulnerable Democratic freshmen are:
- Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-8): Rep. Giffords (D-Az.) beat conservative Randy Graf (R-Az.) to succeed retiring Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Az.), a moderate Republican, in 2006. Currently, Giffords has an approximate lead of $1.5MM. I expert Giffords to hold this seat.
- Jerry McNerney (CA-11): Rep. McNerney (D-Ca.) beat former veteran Rep. Richard Pombo (R-Ca.) in 2006 in this traditionally Republican district with 53% of the vote. While his 2008 opponent has raised almost $1MM, McNerney is over $2MM. I expect McNerney to hold this seat.
- Chris Murphy (CT-5): Rep. Murphy (D-Ct.) defeated former Rep. Nancy Johnson (R-Ct.) to win the seat in 2006. Just like Giffords and McNerney, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has made this race a priority and as a result, Murphy has raised over $2MM while is opponent is still around $1MM. I expect Murphy to hold this seat.
- Tim Mahoney (FL-16): Upon his election in 2006, Rep. Mahoney (D-Fl.) was the most vulnerable Democrat in Congress. He won the seat formerly held by Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fl.), who resigned amidst allegations of sexual impropriety with a House page. Because Foley resigned about a month before the election and the Republicans scrambled to find a replacement candidate, Mahoney essentially got a free ride. But still only won with 49% of the vote. The 16th District is a Republican district and despite Mahoney’s huge fundraising advantage (of about $1.5MM), this district will be competitive.
- Bill Foster (IL-11): Rep. Foster (D-Il.) won 52.5% of the vote in a special election to replace former House Speaker Dennis Hastert against wealthy Republican, Jim Oberweis (R-Il.). The two are locked in a rematch for the 2008 general election. The race in this Republican-leaning district must be rated a toss-up.
- Nancy Boyda (KS-2): In 2006, Rep. Boyda (D-Ks.) ousted former Rep. Jim Ryun (R-Ks.), also a former Olympian, to take the seat in this Republican district. Ryun even ran to create a rematch in 2008, but lost the primary to Republican Lynn Jenkins (R-Ks.). While Boyda has outraised Jenkins, she must in order to win reelection. Another rematch and another toss-up.
- John Yarmuth (KY-3): Rep. Yarmuth (D-Ky.) defeated former Rep. Anne Northup (R-Ky.) in 2006 with 51% of the vote total. Northup is running in 2008 to reclaim her old seat. Both candidates have raised over $1MM. Another rematch and another toss-up.
- Don Cazayoux (LA-6): Like Rep. Foster in Illinois, Rep. Cazayoux (D-La.) won a special election to succeed the retiring incumbent, Rep. Richard Baker (R-La.). Cazayoux won 49% of the vote to defeat Republican Woody Jenkins (R-La.), who is running again in the 2008 general election. Although with his almost $2MM raised, Cazayoux should hold this seat.
- Travis Childers (MS-1): Like Reps. Foster and Cazayoux, Rep. Childers (D-Ms.) won a special election to follow a middle-of-term resignation, in this case, former Rep. Roger Wicker (R-Ms.), now interim Senator Roger Wicker. Childers’ Republican opponent, Greg Davis (R-Ms.), who Childers beat in the special election, has thus far slightly outraised the incumbent. In this traditionally Republican district, this race is most certainly a toss-up.
- Carol Shea-Porter (NH-1): Rep. Shea-Porter (D-N.H.) won her seat by defeating incumbent Rep. Jeb Bradley (R-N.H.) in 2006 by 2% points. Bradley is back for a rematch. While their fundraising is about even, I expect Shea-Porter to hang on to her seat. Although if Senator John McCain (R-Az.) has any coattails in the Granite State, look for them to decide a close race in favor of former Rep. Bradley.
- Kirsten Gillibrand (NY-20): Rep. Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) ousted former Rep. John Sweeney (R-N.Y.) in the 2006 elections with 53% of the vote in a district that leans Republican. Her 2008 opponent, Sandy Treadwell (R-N.Y.), has raised almost $2.7MM. While Gillibrand has raised almost $4MM, this race will be competitive. The Republicans are targeting this race.
- Jason Altmire (PA-4): Rep. Altmire (D-Pa.) defeated former Rep. Melissa Hart (R-Pa.) in 2006 with 52% of the vote. Although Hart is back for a rematch in 2008, her fundraising has been unimpressive compared to that of Altmire. Look for the freshman to be back for a sophomore term.
- Chris Carney (PA-10): Rep. Carney (D-Pa.) sent former Rep. Don Sherwood (R-Pa.) into retirement in 2006 with 53% of the vote. However, in 2008, his opponent, Christopher Hackett, has raised $2MM to Carney’s $1.6MM. This race is a toss-up.
- Nick Lampson (TX-22): After Rep. Mahoney, Rep. Lampson (D-Tx.) was the second most vulnerable Democrat after the 2006 elections. Rep. Lampson formerly served in the House of Representatives, and then lost to Rep. Ted Poe (R-Tx.) in 2004 after the re-re-districting of the Texas Congressional District map perpetrated by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tx.). Former Rep. Lampson then specifically moved into Rep. DeLay’s district to challenge him in the 2006 race. Lampson won that race only after DeLay was forced to resign amidst fundraising impropriety. While Rep. Lampson is leading his opponent in fundraising for the 2008 race, this race is a certain toss-up.
- Steve Kagen (WI-8): Rep. Kagen (D-Wi.) won election to the House in an open-seat contest in 2006 to succeed former Rep. Mark Green (R-Wi.), who won the Republican nomination for Senate that year and therefore did not seek reelection to the House. Kagen beat John Gard (R-Wi.) with 51% of the vote. Gard is back for a rematch in 2008. While Gard currently trails Kagen in dollars raised, the Republican tilt of the district will keep the race competitive.
The 3 vulnerable Republican freshmen are:
- Vernon Buchanan (FL-13): Rep. Buchanan (R-Fl.) squeaked out an extremely narrow win over Christine Jennings (D-Fl.) in 2006. Quite appropriate as the duo was running to replace former Rep. Katherine Harris (R-Fl.), of 2000 Florida Recall fame. Harris won the Republican nomination for Senate in 2006 and ultimately lost to Senator Bill Nelson (D-Fl.). Even though Buchanan leads the fundraising race with almost double what Jennings has raised, this race will be competitive.
- Bill Sali (ID-1): Rep. Sali (R-Id.) never seems to miss an opportunity to antagonize the Idaho Republican Party with misplaced comments and unpredictable behavior. In 2006, Sali won with only 50% of the vote total. In Idaho! His Democratic opponent in 2008, Walt Minnick, has raised over $1MM to Sali’s $650K. Even though this district is in Idaho, I expect this race to be competitive.
- Tim Walberg (MI-7): In the 2006 Republican primary, Conservative Rep. Walberg (R-Mi.) defeated former Rep. Joe Schwarz (R-Mi.), a moderate. Walberg went on to win the general election with 51% of the vote. In 2008, Walberg has raised just over $1MM for the race, but his opponent, Democrat Mark Schauer (D-Mi.), has raised slightly more. While this race will be competitive, look for Walberg to serve only one term like his predecessor Schwarz, who would likely have held this seat for a long time.
Predictions
After all of that, I am sure you would like a guess at the political split after the 2008 elections. At the moment, I expect the Democrats to pick up 21 House seats, or close to that number. Which will put the House division at 257 Democrats, 178 Republicans. Although as Election Day nears, those numbers likely will adjust to reflect the changing environment.
Conclusions
In summation, there are several truths in Congressional elections.
1. Incumbents, especially incumbents of the majority party (in 2008, the Democrats), have huge advantages in fundraising, name recognition and winning elections.
2. Money matters because it buys things like yard signs, campaign staff and in some House races, television and radio advertising. The amount of money raised is also often directly related to the seriousness of a candidacy.
3. The easiest races to win are those without an opponent. The second easiest races to win are those with an incumbent mired in scandal. The third easiest races to win are open seats. The fourth easiest races to win are those with a freshman running for reelection. And each is even easier to win when your party is in the majority and the minority party is unpopular.
4. ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN ON ELECTION DAY. So stay tuned!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: Former Representative Bernard Sanders, an Independent, won election to the United States Senate in 2006. Peter Welch, a Democrat, won the Vermont at-large House that Sanders previously held, adding one more seat to the Democratic Caucus.
Note 2: Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Oh.), of the 11th District in Ohio, passed away in August 2008.
Note 3: The term “gerrymander” is named for Elbridge Gerry, former Governor of Massachusetts and Vice President of the United States under President James Madison, who first employed the practice of drawing Massachusetts legislative districts to favor his own party.
Note 4: A fourth Congressman, Al Wynn (D-Md.), also lost his February 2008 primary to challenger Donna Edwards (D-Md.). Following the loss, Wynn decided to resign. In a special election held in June 2008, Edwards won the election and is currently the incumbent in Maryland’s 4th District.
Note 5: In May 2008, during the 2nd Quarter for fundraising, Representative Vita Fossella (R-N.Y.) withdrew from his reelection race after being arrested for drunk driving and admitting to having a child out of wedlock. While before his withdrawal, Fossella was outraising his Democratic opponents, the Democrats currently have raised more money that the Republicans seeking the nomination in Fossella’s absence. If included, this District would make 12.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Friday, August 15, 2008
VP a VIP?
VP a VIP?
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Zach Sheinberg
Political wisdom maintains that the choice of a Vice Presidential nominee simply does not affect the outcome of the Presidential election. The accusation is mostly true.
Consider the evidence. Since 1952, I would argue that only two Vice Presidential candidates have had any decisive impact on the Presidential Election. Only two can be considered Election MVPs (Meaningful Vice Presidents).
The first MVP, who is always cited, is Senator Lyndon Johnson (D-Tx.). Despite the Texan's previous adamant refusal to run for Vice President on any ticket, in 1960, Senator John Kennedy asked and Johnson accepted. There is little disagreement among historians that Johnson won Kennedy the White House in the South, where polls showed Kennedy weak. Campaigning as his running mate, Johnson helped Kennedy win 6 Southern States, including Johnson's home state of Texas and part of Alabama (six of the eleven electoral college electors cast ballots for Senator Harry Byrd of Virginia).
The second MVP is Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-Ct.). Yes, Gore/Lieberman did not win the Presidency. However, evidence makes clear that more Floridians who voted intended to vote for Gore/Lieberman than for Bush/Cheney. But that pesky butterfly ballot... Lieberman turned Florida from a sure-win for the Republicans in 2000 into a contest that arguably won Vice President Gore the White House.
Aside from Johnson and Lieberman, the rest of the Vice Presidential candidates simply have been boilerplate, Constitutional necessities that arouse a media groping for news content in the 24-hour news cycle and political junkies who get aroused by debating the virtues and vices of potential VPs like college football fans debate the weekly rankings. For the rest of the voting public, running mate selection engenders as much attention as the neighbor's kid appearing in the wedding section of the Sunday New York Times.
Who Cares about VP Selection?
So if VP candidates mean very little, what explains the rampant media coverage? Why do talking heads call the Vice Presidential selection the “first important decision” that the candidate makes? Why did a CNN.com headline on Wednesday, August 20, 2008 declare, “Speculation, anticipation as Obama’s VP announcement nears”? Who exactly is speculating and anticipating?
Six groups of people.
1. Potential VP Candidates. No explanation necessary.
2. Presidential Candidates. Why? Because they want to know how the media and electorate will receive the choice. And if elected, because the President is stuck with his choice for at least the ensuing four years.
3. Campaign Senior Staffers. Why? Because they anxiously await tweaking the campaign plan to use the VP choice to handicap the Presidential nominee. And if picking a VP second, because they might factor in the choice of the opposing party in advising their party’s nominee on a running mate.
4. Interest Groups. Why? Because they have axes to grind. They are waiting to jump back on the bandwagon or desert the candidate forever. How will the religious conservatives react if Senator McCain selects pro-choice former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge? How will Hillary Clinton supporters react if Senator Obama picks… anyone but Hillary Clinton?
5. Political Junkies. If you’re reading this, obviously you care. Why? Because, selection of Vice Presidential nominees probably is the biggest uncertainty in politics. Polls rather accurately predict elections. Primaries are usually over right after they start (the 2008 Democratic primaries the obvious exception). But until the Presidential nominee picks his number two and announces that choice, all political junkies can do is speculate.
6. The Media. Why? Because they have on-air minutes to fill and column inches to write. VP selection is the best type of story for the press. The press is expected to write about the “Veepstakes” but has zero facts. Which leaves the media free to fill time and space with speculation. David Petraeus, commanding officer of US troops in Iraq? Chet Edwards, Democratic Congressman from Texas? Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett-Packard? John Kerry, 2004 Democratic Presidential nominee? Oscar the Grouch, grumpy green Sesame Street resident who lives in a garbage can? Media speculation about potential VPs is akin to creative writing!
Does anyone else care? The simple answer is no. Voters vote for the President, not the Vice President. And people are busy with their own lives, work, kids and school.
Should anyone else care? The simple answer is yes.
Why Does VP Selection Matter?
My high school US History teacher once commented that the only thing the Vice President does is wake up in the morning, call the President and ask, “How are you feeling today, Mr. President?” And when the President answers, “Great,” the Vice President can go right back to sleep.
But in spite of the foregoing, the Vice Presidential candidates are important. Especially when the President answers, “Not so great,” or simply drops dead.
In our almost 220 years of American existence, thirty percent (30%) of Vice Presidents have become President. And most were not elected to the Presidency before assuming office.
One even, President Gerald Ford, was never even elected Vice President! After Vice President Spiro Agnew, who served under President Richard Nixon, resigned in 1973, Nixon appointed Ford, then the Republican Leader in the House of Representatives, Vice President. Then Ford succeeded Nixon when he resigned two years later amidst the Watergate scandal.
Fourteen (14) of a total of forty-six (46) Vice Presidents subsequently occupied the Oval Office, thirteen (13) of which immediately succeeded the President under which that Vice President served. Those thirteen (13) are:
Vice President John Adams: Elected President in 1896 to succeed President George Washington;
Vice President Thomas Jefferson: Defeated President John Adams for Presidency in 1800;
Vice President Martin Van Buren: Elected President in 1836 to succeed President Andrew Jackson;
Vice President John Tyler: Succeeded to Presidency after death of President William Henry Harrison (1841);
Vice President Millard Fillmore: Succeeded to Presidency after death of President Zachary Taylor (1850);
Vice President Andrew Johnson: Succeeded to Presidency after assassination of President Abraham Lincoln (1865);
Vice President Chester Arthur: Succeeded to Presidency after death of President James Garfield (1881);
Vice President Theodore Roosevelt: Succeeded to Presidency after assassination of President William McKinley (1901);
Vice President Calvin Coolidge: Succeeded to Presidency after death of President Warren Harding (1923);
Vice President Harry Truman: Succeeded to Presidency after death of President Franklin Roosevelt (1945);
Vice President Lyndon Johnson: Succeeded to Presidency after assassination of President John Kennedy (1963);
Vice President Gerald Ford: Succeeded to Presidency after resignation of President Richard Nixon (1975); and
Vice President George H. W. Bush: Elected President in 1988 to succeed President Ronald Reagan.
The fourteenth, Vice President Richard Nixon, won the White House eight years after serving as Vice President (under President Dwight Eisenhower from 1953 – 1961). After losing the 1960 Presidential Election to Senator John Kennedy, he recaptured the Republican nomination in 1968.
The lesson is that Vice Presidential candidates do matter. Unless they don’t.
Vice President Obscurity
Yet commonly, the Vice Presidential candidates are as memorable as a star athlete in the Olympics. We read her name in the paper. See her interviewed on television. And forget about her for four years.
Of the thirty-two (32) Vice Presidents of the United States who did not become President, how many can you name? Sure, Cheney and Gore are easy. But can you name President Ford’s Vice President (see answer below)?
Of the even larger number of Vice Presidential candidates who did not win the office, how many can you name? Again, Edwards and Lieberman are easy. But do you recall who former Senator Bob Dole picked as his running mate in 1996 (see answer below).
To the Vice Presidential candidates, the choice means acceleration to the top of the party. Consider some former losing Vice Presidential nominees.
The Democratic Party chose Assistant Secretary of the Navy Franklin Roosevelt as its Vice Presidential nominee in 1920.
Vice Presidents Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale each won the Democratic Presidential nomination immediately after the Presidents under which they served left office, in 1968 and 1984, respectively.
While former Senator Ed Muskie, who Humphrey chose as his VP in 1968, did not win the Democratic nomination for President in 1972 (Senator George McGovern did), leading up to that election, Muskie was viewed by many as the frontrunner.
In President Ford’s reelection bid in 1976, Ford chose Senator Bob Dole as his VP. Twenty years later, Dole found himself as the GOP Presidential nominee.
Even serious speculation offers a career boost. In 2000, Senator John Kerry was a finalist for the VP spot on Vice President Gore’s ticket.
The 2008 Election
Consider the names the media have circulated. The serious ones.
For the Republicans, Governors Charlie Crist of Florida, Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, Mark Sanford of South Carolina, former Governors Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania, Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia and former Representative Rob Portman of Ohio.
For the Democrats, Senators Evan Bayh of Indiana, Joe Biden of Delaware, Hillary Clinton of New York, Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Jim Webb of Virginia, Governors Tim Kaine of Virginia and Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas and former Governor Mark Warner of Virginia.
Each of these lists contains names that we will see at the forefront of each political party over the next four years. Not all, but certainly some.
Basis for Selection
For the Presidential nominee, VP selection is a hiring decision. As the employer, the Presidential candidate looks for a qualified individual with whom he can work and who does not affect negatively the organization or its mission.
But for the American public, VP selection is mostly a moment of interest and four years of afterthought.
In choosing a running mate, the Presidential nominees ask themselves four (4) questions.
1. Can the person help (or at the very least not hurt) my chances of winning the Presidency?
2. Can the person help me govern the nation (to the extent that I desire help)?
3. Can the person govern the nation if I am somehow incapacitated?
4. Do I like the person?
As I mentioned above, the first question is the least important.
In 2008, I would argue that for Senator McCain, question number three is critical because of voter concern with his age (McCain’s 72nd birthday is next Friday). I think that the Republican VP candidate must be younger than McCain and have executive experience.
For Senator Obama, I would argue that question number two is critical because of voter concern with his experience. I think that the Democratic VP candidate must be a veteran politician with exemplary foreign policy and national security credentials.
But if VPs do not affect election outcomes, why should McCain select a younger executive and Obama a veteran foreign policy expert? Why not just pick Bono and Michael Phelps?
Well, because each year could be a Lyndon Johnson year.
Opinions and Predictions
After all of this, I cannot skip making predictions, especially given the looming Convention deadlines.
Who I Predict The Candidates Will Pick:
Republican VP: Former Governor Tom Ridge (R-Pa.)
Democratic VP: Senator Joseph Biden (D-De.)
Who I Would Pick:
Republican VP: Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.)
Democratic VP: Former Vice President Al Gore (D-Tn.)
Conclusion
As I said, Vice Presidents do not matter. Unless they do matter.
But who grabs an umbrella with a 30% chance of rain?
Notes
- President Ford selected New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller as his Vice President.
- Senator Dole selected New York Congressman Jack Kemp as his running mate.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Zach Sheinberg
Political wisdom maintains that the choice of a Vice Presidential nominee simply does not affect the outcome of the Presidential election. The accusation is mostly true.
Consider the evidence. Since 1952, I would argue that only two Vice Presidential candidates have had any decisive impact on the Presidential Election. Only two can be considered Election MVPs (Meaningful Vice Presidents).
The first MVP, who is always cited, is Senator Lyndon Johnson (D-Tx.). Despite the Texan's previous adamant refusal to run for Vice President on any ticket, in 1960, Senator John Kennedy asked and Johnson accepted. There is little disagreement among historians that Johnson won Kennedy the White House in the South, where polls showed Kennedy weak. Campaigning as his running mate, Johnson helped Kennedy win 6 Southern States, including Johnson's home state of Texas and part of Alabama (six of the eleven electoral college electors cast ballots for Senator Harry Byrd of Virginia).
The second MVP is Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-Ct.). Yes, Gore/Lieberman did not win the Presidency. However, evidence makes clear that more Floridians who voted intended to vote for Gore/Lieberman than for Bush/Cheney. But that pesky butterfly ballot... Lieberman turned Florida from a sure-win for the Republicans in 2000 into a contest that arguably won Vice President Gore the White House.
Aside from Johnson and Lieberman, the rest of the Vice Presidential candidates simply have been boilerplate, Constitutional necessities that arouse a media groping for news content in the 24-hour news cycle and political junkies who get aroused by debating the virtues and vices of potential VPs like college football fans debate the weekly rankings. For the rest of the voting public, running mate selection engenders as much attention as the neighbor's kid appearing in the wedding section of the Sunday New York Times.
Who Cares about VP Selection?
So if VP candidates mean very little, what explains the rampant media coverage? Why do talking heads call the Vice Presidential selection the “first important decision” that the candidate makes? Why did a CNN.com headline on Wednesday, August 20, 2008 declare, “Speculation, anticipation as Obama’s VP announcement nears”? Who exactly is speculating and anticipating?
Six groups of people.
1. Potential VP Candidates. No explanation necessary.
2. Presidential Candidates. Why? Because they want to know how the media and electorate will receive the choice. And if elected, because the President is stuck with his choice for at least the ensuing four years.
3. Campaign Senior Staffers. Why? Because they anxiously await tweaking the campaign plan to use the VP choice to handicap the Presidential nominee. And if picking a VP second, because they might factor in the choice of the opposing party in advising their party’s nominee on a running mate.
4. Interest Groups. Why? Because they have axes to grind. They are waiting to jump back on the bandwagon or desert the candidate forever. How will the religious conservatives react if Senator McCain selects pro-choice former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge? How will Hillary Clinton supporters react if Senator Obama picks… anyone but Hillary Clinton?
5. Political Junkies. If you’re reading this, obviously you care. Why? Because, selection of Vice Presidential nominees probably is the biggest uncertainty in politics. Polls rather accurately predict elections. Primaries are usually over right after they start (the 2008 Democratic primaries the obvious exception). But until the Presidential nominee picks his number two and announces that choice, all political junkies can do is speculate.
6. The Media. Why? Because they have on-air minutes to fill and column inches to write. VP selection is the best type of story for the press. The press is expected to write about the “Veepstakes” but has zero facts. Which leaves the media free to fill time and space with speculation. David Petraeus, commanding officer of US troops in Iraq? Chet Edwards, Democratic Congressman from Texas? Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett-Packard? John Kerry, 2004 Democratic Presidential nominee? Oscar the Grouch, grumpy green Sesame Street resident who lives in a garbage can? Media speculation about potential VPs is akin to creative writing!
Does anyone else care? The simple answer is no. Voters vote for the President, not the Vice President. And people are busy with their own lives, work, kids and school.
Should anyone else care? The simple answer is yes.
Why Does VP Selection Matter?
My high school US History teacher once commented that the only thing the Vice President does is wake up in the morning, call the President and ask, “How are you feeling today, Mr. President?” And when the President answers, “Great,” the Vice President can go right back to sleep.
But in spite of the foregoing, the Vice Presidential candidates are important. Especially when the President answers, “Not so great,” or simply drops dead.
In our almost 220 years of American existence, thirty percent (30%) of Vice Presidents have become President. And most were not elected to the Presidency before assuming office.
One even, President Gerald Ford, was never even elected Vice President! After Vice President Spiro Agnew, who served under President Richard Nixon, resigned in 1973, Nixon appointed Ford, then the Republican Leader in the House of Representatives, Vice President. Then Ford succeeded Nixon when he resigned two years later amidst the Watergate scandal.
Fourteen (14) of a total of forty-six (46) Vice Presidents subsequently occupied the Oval Office, thirteen (13) of which immediately succeeded the President under which that Vice President served. Those thirteen (13) are:
Vice President John Adams: Elected President in 1896 to succeed President George Washington;
Vice President Thomas Jefferson: Defeated President John Adams for Presidency in 1800;
Vice President Martin Van Buren: Elected President in 1836 to succeed President Andrew Jackson;
Vice President John Tyler: Succeeded to Presidency after death of President William Henry Harrison (1841);
Vice President Millard Fillmore: Succeeded to Presidency after death of President Zachary Taylor (1850);
Vice President Andrew Johnson: Succeeded to Presidency after assassination of President Abraham Lincoln (1865);
Vice President Chester Arthur: Succeeded to Presidency after death of President James Garfield (1881);
Vice President Theodore Roosevelt: Succeeded to Presidency after assassination of President William McKinley (1901);
Vice President Calvin Coolidge: Succeeded to Presidency after death of President Warren Harding (1923);
Vice President Harry Truman: Succeeded to Presidency after death of President Franklin Roosevelt (1945);
Vice President Lyndon Johnson: Succeeded to Presidency after assassination of President John Kennedy (1963);
Vice President Gerald Ford: Succeeded to Presidency after resignation of President Richard Nixon (1975); and
Vice President George H. W. Bush: Elected President in 1988 to succeed President Ronald Reagan.
The fourteenth, Vice President Richard Nixon, won the White House eight years after serving as Vice President (under President Dwight Eisenhower from 1953 – 1961). After losing the 1960 Presidential Election to Senator John Kennedy, he recaptured the Republican nomination in 1968.
The lesson is that Vice Presidential candidates do matter. Unless they don’t.
Vice President Obscurity
Yet commonly, the Vice Presidential candidates are as memorable as a star athlete in the Olympics. We read her name in the paper. See her interviewed on television. And forget about her for four years.
Of the thirty-two (32) Vice Presidents of the United States who did not become President, how many can you name? Sure, Cheney and Gore are easy. But can you name President Ford’s Vice President (see answer below)?
Of the even larger number of Vice Presidential candidates who did not win the office, how many can you name? Again, Edwards and Lieberman are easy. But do you recall who former Senator Bob Dole picked as his running mate in 1996 (see answer below).
To the Vice Presidential candidates, the choice means acceleration to the top of the party. Consider some former losing Vice Presidential nominees.
The Democratic Party chose Assistant Secretary of the Navy Franklin Roosevelt as its Vice Presidential nominee in 1920.
Vice Presidents Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale each won the Democratic Presidential nomination immediately after the Presidents under which they served left office, in 1968 and 1984, respectively.
While former Senator Ed Muskie, who Humphrey chose as his VP in 1968, did not win the Democratic nomination for President in 1972 (Senator George McGovern did), leading up to that election, Muskie was viewed by many as the frontrunner.
In President Ford’s reelection bid in 1976, Ford chose Senator Bob Dole as his VP. Twenty years later, Dole found himself as the GOP Presidential nominee.
Even serious speculation offers a career boost. In 2000, Senator John Kerry was a finalist for the VP spot on Vice President Gore’s ticket.
The 2008 Election
Consider the names the media have circulated. The serious ones.
For the Republicans, Governors Charlie Crist of Florida, Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, Mark Sanford of South Carolina, former Governors Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania, Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia and former Representative Rob Portman of Ohio.
For the Democrats, Senators Evan Bayh of Indiana, Joe Biden of Delaware, Hillary Clinton of New York, Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Jim Webb of Virginia, Governors Tim Kaine of Virginia and Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas and former Governor Mark Warner of Virginia.
Each of these lists contains names that we will see at the forefront of each political party over the next four years. Not all, but certainly some.
Basis for Selection
For the Presidential nominee, VP selection is a hiring decision. As the employer, the Presidential candidate looks for a qualified individual with whom he can work and who does not affect negatively the organization or its mission.
But for the American public, VP selection is mostly a moment of interest and four years of afterthought.
In choosing a running mate, the Presidential nominees ask themselves four (4) questions.
1. Can the person help (or at the very least not hurt) my chances of winning the Presidency?
2. Can the person help me govern the nation (to the extent that I desire help)?
3. Can the person govern the nation if I am somehow incapacitated?
4. Do I like the person?
As I mentioned above, the first question is the least important.
In 2008, I would argue that for Senator McCain, question number three is critical because of voter concern with his age (McCain’s 72nd birthday is next Friday). I think that the Republican VP candidate must be younger than McCain and have executive experience.
For Senator Obama, I would argue that question number two is critical because of voter concern with his experience. I think that the Democratic VP candidate must be a veteran politician with exemplary foreign policy and national security credentials.
But if VPs do not affect election outcomes, why should McCain select a younger executive and Obama a veteran foreign policy expert? Why not just pick Bono and Michael Phelps?
Well, because each year could be a Lyndon Johnson year.
Opinions and Predictions
After all of this, I cannot skip making predictions, especially given the looming Convention deadlines.
Who I Predict The Candidates Will Pick:
Republican VP: Former Governor Tom Ridge (R-Pa.)
Democratic VP: Senator Joseph Biden (D-De.)
Who I Would Pick:
Republican VP: Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.)
Democratic VP: Former Vice President Al Gore (D-Tn.)
Conclusion
As I said, Vice Presidents do not matter. Unless they do matter.
But who grabs an umbrella with a 30% chance of rain?
Notes
- President Ford selected New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller as his Vice President.
- Senator Dole selected New York Congressman Jack Kemp as his running mate.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
The Magic Number 60
The Magic Number 60
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Zach Sheinberg
There are two magic numbers in the United States Senate: 51 and 60.
Why 51? Because 51 means a majority. In a perfect world, where Democrats and Republicans always vote the party line, 51 means only majority party-sponsored bills pass. Currently, that would be Democratically-sponsored bills. But Senators John McCain (R-Az.), Joseph Lieberman (I-Ct.) and former Senator Zell Miller (D-Ga.) have reminded us constantly that the Senate is not a perfect world. So 51 does not guarantee passage of any bill.
But 51 is important. It means control. Leaders of the majority party, today the Democrats, set the agenda. Senators Harry Reid (D-Nv.), the Senate Majority Leader, and Richard Durbin (D-Il.), the Senate Majority Whip, decide what bills make it to the Senate floor for debate and subsequent votes. Just as Committee Chairs and Subcommittee Chairs decide what bills make it in front of their committees and subcommittees. If a bill is not considered in Subcommittee or Committee first, it dies. Bills must get voted out of committee to reach the Senate floor.
Control of the agenda includes control of the budget and appropriation process. Which explains why, as of July 30, 2008 the Senate Democrats have raised $93 million versus $59 million for Republicans. The good graces of Democrats are more valuable to donors.
And most importantly for many Senators, 51% also means a victorious election or reelection.
Why 60? Because 60 votes means cloture. Cloture, according to the official United States Senate website, is “the only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter, and thereby overcome a filibuster. Under the cloture rule (Rule XXII), the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to thirty additional hours, but only by vote of three-fifths of the full Senate.”
Unlike the United States House of Representatives, which, through its Rules Committee, sets parameters and time limits for debates on legislation, the Senate allows unlimited debate on bills. Theoretically, the Senate affords unlimited debate as a reflection of the framers’ intention that the Senate be insulated from fickle popular will. The framers wanted Senators to take the time to thoroughly consider each measure brought before it. However, the reality may be different. Unlimited debate simply may persist because since 1806, the Senate has not enacted rules to curtail it.
Unlimited debate means that any Senator can delay a vote on any piece of legislation, and effectively grind Senate business to a halt, by filibustering. In practice, when a Senator filibusters, he or she appears on the Senate floor and does not stop talking, whether about the bill or anything else. Some have even read entries from the phone book.
Filibusters end in one of two ways. An unsuccessful filibuster ends with a vote for cloture by 60 or more Senators. This ultimately ends the debate and puts the bill to a vote. A successful filibuster ends when the sponsors of the bill agree to change its provisions or completely withdraw it. During a filibuster, no other Senate business can occur. The filibuster essentially hijacks the legislative process.
Of course, 60 Democratic Senators would not sideline completely the Republicans. Because even with 60 Democratic Senators, 60 votes for cloture is not assured. 60 Democratic Senators have 60 different personalities, agendas, motivations and constituencies. But if nothing else, 60 still opens the door to cloture and strengthens the Democratic position of power in the Senate.
Can Democrats Reach 60 in 2008?
So the question becomes, can the Democrats reach the magic number 60 during the 2008 election cycle. Answer: Yes, but unlikely. If I were a Republican Senator, I would stay up at night worried about 2010 (that is if I were not up for reelection in 2008). But that’s two years off, so let’s take a look at 2008.
Currently, the Senate is composed of 51 Democrats and 49 Republicans.*
In 2008, there are 33 Senate races and 2 special elections. One special election in each of Mississippi to replace the retired Senator Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and Wyoming to replace the deceased Senator Craig Thomas (R-Wy.). Of 35 Senate seats up this year, 23 are Republican seats, 12 are Democratic. 7 of the Republican seats are open or held by an interim appointee.
Lots of Republican seats up for election + a big number of open seats + an unpopular Republican President + strong Democratic challengers = acid reflux for Republicans.
Democrats
Of the 12 Democratic Senate seats, 11 Democrats can renew their apartment leases in Washington. Senators Max Baucus (D-Mt.), Joseph Biden (D-De.), Richard Durbin (D-Il.), Tom Harkin (D-Ia.), John Kerry (D-Ma.), Carl Levin (D-Mi.), Mark Pryor (D-Ar.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) will all be back for six more years. And while Senator Tim Johnson's (D-S.D.) debilitating stroke in December 2006 and octogenarian Senator Frank Lautenberg's (D-N.J.) age might be Achilles' heels in another election year, neither Johnson nor Lautenberg need agonize over reelection. Although there is an outside chance that these two races become more competitive.
The only bright spot for Senate Republicans in 2008 is recent Democrat turned Republican, Louisiana State Treasurer John Kennedy. Kennedy is challenging incumbent Senator Mary Landrieu (D-La.). Her vulnerability results from the African American population outflow from New Orleans, her less than stellar popularity ratings, Louisiana's recently become redder and an aggressive challenge from a popular statewide officeholder, formerly a Democrat. In 2002, Landrieu won her general election with 46% of the vote (or 563,400 votes). By Louisiana law, her failure to win a majority led to a runoff with Republican challenger Suzanne Terrell that December. Landrieu won the runoff with 52% of the vote, a margin over Terrell of about 40,000 votes. According to figures released by the US Census Bureau in July of 2008, the population of New Orleans stood at about 240,000. Prior to the hurricanes, the population was about 455,000. This population shift cuts into Landrieu's most reliable New Orleans voter base. While recent polls show Landrieu positioned to win reelection, the dynamics of the race leave it as a toss-up.
However, as of today, I predict that the Democrats do not lose a single Senate seat in 2008.
Republicans
Now the Republicans.
Reelection shoo-ins are Senators Lamar Alexander (R-Tn.), John Barasso (R-Wy.), Saxby Chamblis (R-Ga.), Thad Cochran (R-Ms.), John Cornyn (R-Tx.), Michael Enzi (R-Wy.), Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), James Inhofe (R-Ok.) and Jeff Sessions (R-Al.). That leaves 14 seats.
The anti-Bush and anti-Republican climate have put seats in play that otherwise would be slam-dunks for the Republicans. But these seats aren't slam dunks in 2008.
Senator Ted Stevens (R-Ak): At the end of July, Stevens was indicted for lying about gifts from an oil company. The last candidate the Republicans want to run in 2008 is a scandal ridden incumbent receiving gifts from the companies the public views as responsible for outrageously high gas prices! If Stevens survives his primary on August 25, he likely will face Anchorage Mayor, Democrat Mark Begich. Begich currently leads Stevens by double digits in the most recent polls. If Stevens wins the primary, he soon will be enjoying more summer sunlight and winter darkness in retirement back in Alaska.
Senator Pat Roberts (R-Ks.): To the extent that Roberts is vulnerable in a state as red as Kansas, it is the result of anti-Republican sentiment and a strong challenger in former Representative Jim Slattery. But right now, Roberts wins comfortably.
Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.): McConnell finds himself in a similar position as Roberts in Kansas. A bad year for Republicans and an aggressive challenger in very wealthy health care executive Bruce Lunsford. The statewide ire held for former Governor, Republican Ernie Fletcher, which led to his reelection defeat in November 2007, could affect McConnell. Additionally, Fletcher loyalists are outraged that McConnell supported, and some would say spearheaded, former Congressman Anne Northup's challenge to Fletcher in the Republican gubernatorial primary, which Fletcher ultimately won. In a close race, losing these Republicans could prove decisive. While McConnell’s current lead certainly will narrow as Election Day approaches, as of today, McConnell wins reelection.
Senator Susan Collins (R-Me.): While Collins’ poll numbers have been trending downward, she is still above the 50% mark. However, the numbers of her Democratic opponent, Representative Tom Allen, are trending upward. And in a year favoring Democrats, in a state where Obama leads McCain by double digits, running against a well-funded opponent, Collins has a tough race on her hands. This race is a toss-up.
Senator Norm Coleman (R-Mn.): Freshman Coleman is running against television personality and humorist, Democrat Al Franken. While the most recent polling favors Coleman, Franken is well-funded, has pervasive name recognition and can ride the coattails of his party’s Presidential nominee, Senator Barack Obama, who leads in the state by double digits according to some recent polls. Like the Maine Senate race, this contest will tighten as November nears. This race is also a toss-up.
Senator John Sununu Jr. (R-N.H.): Along with Alaska’s Steven’s, Sununu is the only other Republican incumbent currently trailing his Democratic opponent. Former Governor Jeanne Shaheen, who Sununu beat in 2002, is back for a rematch. Shaheen has held a solid lead since announcing her candidacy. Her statewide popularity, his statewide unpopularity and pervasive anti-Republican sentiment will spell disaster for Sununu in November.
Senator Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.): Add Dole to the list of red state Republicans running against a strong Democratic challenger in a bad year for Republicans. While she has raised more than $11 million, she has less than $2 million left in the bank. And Dole only leads State Senator Kay Hagan, her Democratic opponent, by single digits. Dole has the edge here and would win reelection if the election were held today, but November is three months away.
Senator Gordon Smith (R-Or.): Add Smith to the list of blue state Republicans running against a strong Democratic challenger in a bad year for Republicans, like Collins in Maine. Which makes him the third most vulnerable Republican behind Ted Stevens and John Sununu. While Smith leads his opponent, State House Speaker Jeff Merkley, and has a huge fundraising advantage, these are musts for a Republican running in a blue state like Oregon to remain competitive. Oregon has a two-term Democratic Governor, one Democratic United States Senator, four of five Democratic Congressmen, a State Senate with 19 Democrats out of 30 State Senators, a Democratically controlled State House, and a track record of voting for Democratic Presidential candidates since 1984 when Walter Mondale won only his home state of Minnesota. This race is a toss-up.
Open Seats
Both parties prize open seats. Why? Because generally, no candidate has the name recognition or fundraising prowess of the retiring incumbent. So neither party starts the race with a disadvantage.
However, for 2008, the Democrats have recruited better candidates in the open seat contests and will benefit from doing so at the polls in November.
Colorado: Congressman Mark Udall (D-Co.) and former Congressman Bob Schaffer (R-Co.) are running to replace Senator Wayne Allard, who has kept to this two-term limit pledge. Udall has led the whole way in polls and fundraising in a state trending blue. In 2004, Colorado elected a Democratic Senator to replace a Republican. Two years later, it elected a Democrat Governor to replace a Republican. At this point, the race is Udall’s to lose.
Idaho: This is one of the two open seats the Republicans can count on retaining. The public relations nightmare that is incumbent Republican Senator Larry Craig has not affected the candidacy of Republican Lieutenant Governor Jim Risch. Although his Democratic opponent and former Congressman Larry LaRocca is well-funded, Idaho is Idaho. It is almost impossible for Democrats to get elected statewide.
Mississippi: While incumbent Senator Thad Cochran will cruise to an easy reelection, interim Senator Roger Wicker (R-Ms.) does not have the same fortune. Wicker was appointed to replace the retired former Senator Trent Lott. Lott scooted out the door to become a lobbyist at the eleventh hour in 2007 just before a new law regulating lobbyists took effect (the law, when it took effect, prevented Senators from becoming lobbyists for a two-year period after leaving office). Polls show Wicker's race almost dead even. I give the slight edge to the Democratic candidate, and former Mississippi Governor, Ronnie Musgrove, because of the anti-Republican sentiment and the impact that an African American candidate for President will have on the Mississippi electorate. Mississippi is more than 35% African American. Still, this race is a toss-up.
Nebraska: Along with Idaho, Nebraska is the other reliable Republican win. Former Governor and former U. S. Secretary of Agriculture, Mike Johanns, is the Republican candidate. Rancher Scott Kleeb is the Democratic candidate. Because of Johanns’ statewide name recognition, fundraising advantage and Nebraska’s Republican bent, Johanns can be confident in a new career in the United States Senate.
New Mexico: To replace incumbent Senator Pete Dominici (R-N.M.), all three members of New Mexico’s Congressional delegation ran. Democratic nominee, Representative Tom Udall, first cousin of Colorado Senate candidate Mark Udall, ran unopposed for his nomination. Republican nominee, Representative Steve Pearce, fought a bitter and costly battle to narrowly defeat Representative Heather Wilson. While being the more conservative candidate helped Pearce win the primary, it will be fatal in the general election. Udall leads Pearce by more than 20 points. The Udall cousins are also cousins of Oregon's incumbent Senator, Gordon Smith.
Virginia: When conservative Republican, and former Governor, Jim Gilmore won the Republican Senate nomination (over more moderate Congressman Tom Davis), the Republicans all but lost the seat. Democratic nominee, and also former Governor, Mark Warner, is young, popular and has a huge fundraising advantage. He currently leads by over 20 points. Warner also has the same surname as the incumbent, Senator John Warner, who is retiring. This race is as certain a victory for Warner as elective politics get.
Conclusion
If August 14, 2008 were November 1, 2008, I believe that the Democrats would pick up eight seats for a total of 59. Not enough for a filibuster-proof majority, but if John McCain wins the White House, the Democratic Governor of Arizona, Janet Napolitano, gets to appoint number 60.
Current Senate Composition: 51 Democrats, 49 Republicans
8/14/08 Prediction: 59 Democrats, 41 Republicans
* While Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-Ct.) and Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.) are registered Independents, both caucus with the Democrats.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Zach Sheinberg
There are two magic numbers in the United States Senate: 51 and 60.
Why 51? Because 51 means a majority. In a perfect world, where Democrats and Republicans always vote the party line, 51 means only majority party-sponsored bills pass. Currently, that would be Democratically-sponsored bills. But Senators John McCain (R-Az.), Joseph Lieberman (I-Ct.) and former Senator Zell Miller (D-Ga.) have reminded us constantly that the Senate is not a perfect world. So 51 does not guarantee passage of any bill.
But 51 is important. It means control. Leaders of the majority party, today the Democrats, set the agenda. Senators Harry Reid (D-Nv.), the Senate Majority Leader, and Richard Durbin (D-Il.), the Senate Majority Whip, decide what bills make it to the Senate floor for debate and subsequent votes. Just as Committee Chairs and Subcommittee Chairs decide what bills make it in front of their committees and subcommittees. If a bill is not considered in Subcommittee or Committee first, it dies. Bills must get voted out of committee to reach the Senate floor.
Control of the agenda includes control of the budget and appropriation process. Which explains why, as of July 30, 2008 the Senate Democrats have raised $93 million versus $59 million for Republicans. The good graces of Democrats are more valuable to donors.
And most importantly for many Senators, 51% also means a victorious election or reelection.
Why 60? Because 60 votes means cloture. Cloture, according to the official United States Senate website, is “the only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter, and thereby overcome a filibuster. Under the cloture rule (Rule XXII), the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to thirty additional hours, but only by vote of three-fifths of the full Senate.”
Unlike the United States House of Representatives, which, through its Rules Committee, sets parameters and time limits for debates on legislation, the Senate allows unlimited debate on bills. Theoretically, the Senate affords unlimited debate as a reflection of the framers’ intention that the Senate be insulated from fickle popular will. The framers wanted Senators to take the time to thoroughly consider each measure brought before it. However, the reality may be different. Unlimited debate simply may persist because since 1806, the Senate has not enacted rules to curtail it.
Unlimited debate means that any Senator can delay a vote on any piece of legislation, and effectively grind Senate business to a halt, by filibustering. In practice, when a Senator filibusters, he or she appears on the Senate floor and does not stop talking, whether about the bill or anything else. Some have even read entries from the phone book.
Filibusters end in one of two ways. An unsuccessful filibuster ends with a vote for cloture by 60 or more Senators. This ultimately ends the debate and puts the bill to a vote. A successful filibuster ends when the sponsors of the bill agree to change its provisions or completely withdraw it. During a filibuster, no other Senate business can occur. The filibuster essentially hijacks the legislative process.
Of course, 60 Democratic Senators would not sideline completely the Republicans. Because even with 60 Democratic Senators, 60 votes for cloture is not assured. 60 Democratic Senators have 60 different personalities, agendas, motivations and constituencies. But if nothing else, 60 still opens the door to cloture and strengthens the Democratic position of power in the Senate.
Can Democrats Reach 60 in 2008?
So the question becomes, can the Democrats reach the magic number 60 during the 2008 election cycle. Answer: Yes, but unlikely. If I were a Republican Senator, I would stay up at night worried about 2010 (that is if I were not up for reelection in 2008). But that’s two years off, so let’s take a look at 2008.
Currently, the Senate is composed of 51 Democrats and 49 Republicans.*
In 2008, there are 33 Senate races and 2 special elections. One special election in each of Mississippi to replace the retired Senator Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and Wyoming to replace the deceased Senator Craig Thomas (R-Wy.). Of 35 Senate seats up this year, 23 are Republican seats, 12 are Democratic. 7 of the Republican seats are open or held by an interim appointee.
Lots of Republican seats up for election + a big number of open seats + an unpopular Republican President + strong Democratic challengers = acid reflux for Republicans.
Democrats
Of the 12 Democratic Senate seats, 11 Democrats can renew their apartment leases in Washington. Senators Max Baucus (D-Mt.), Joseph Biden (D-De.), Richard Durbin (D-Il.), Tom Harkin (D-Ia.), John Kerry (D-Ma.), Carl Levin (D-Mi.), Mark Pryor (D-Ar.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) will all be back for six more years. And while Senator Tim Johnson's (D-S.D.) debilitating stroke in December 2006 and octogenarian Senator Frank Lautenberg's (D-N.J.) age might be Achilles' heels in another election year, neither Johnson nor Lautenberg need agonize over reelection. Although there is an outside chance that these two races become more competitive.
The only bright spot for Senate Republicans in 2008 is recent Democrat turned Republican, Louisiana State Treasurer John Kennedy. Kennedy is challenging incumbent Senator Mary Landrieu (D-La.). Her vulnerability results from the African American population outflow from New Orleans, her less than stellar popularity ratings, Louisiana's recently become redder and an aggressive challenge from a popular statewide officeholder, formerly a Democrat. In 2002, Landrieu won her general election with 46% of the vote (or 563,400 votes). By Louisiana law, her failure to win a majority led to a runoff with Republican challenger Suzanne Terrell that December. Landrieu won the runoff with 52% of the vote, a margin over Terrell of about 40,000 votes. According to figures released by the US Census Bureau in July of 2008, the population of New Orleans stood at about 240,000. Prior to the hurricanes, the population was about 455,000. This population shift cuts into Landrieu's most reliable New Orleans voter base. While recent polls show Landrieu positioned to win reelection, the dynamics of the race leave it as a toss-up.
However, as of today, I predict that the Democrats do not lose a single Senate seat in 2008.
Republicans
Now the Republicans.
Reelection shoo-ins are Senators Lamar Alexander (R-Tn.), John Barasso (R-Wy.), Saxby Chamblis (R-Ga.), Thad Cochran (R-Ms.), John Cornyn (R-Tx.), Michael Enzi (R-Wy.), Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), James Inhofe (R-Ok.) and Jeff Sessions (R-Al.). That leaves 14 seats.
The anti-Bush and anti-Republican climate have put seats in play that otherwise would be slam-dunks for the Republicans. But these seats aren't slam dunks in 2008.
Senator Ted Stevens (R-Ak): At the end of July, Stevens was indicted for lying about gifts from an oil company. The last candidate the Republicans want to run in 2008 is a scandal ridden incumbent receiving gifts from the companies the public views as responsible for outrageously high gas prices! If Stevens survives his primary on August 25, he likely will face Anchorage Mayor, Democrat Mark Begich. Begich currently leads Stevens by double digits in the most recent polls. If Stevens wins the primary, he soon will be enjoying more summer sunlight and winter darkness in retirement back in Alaska.
Senator Pat Roberts (R-Ks.): To the extent that Roberts is vulnerable in a state as red as Kansas, it is the result of anti-Republican sentiment and a strong challenger in former Representative Jim Slattery. But right now, Roberts wins comfortably.
Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.): McConnell finds himself in a similar position as Roberts in Kansas. A bad year for Republicans and an aggressive challenger in very wealthy health care executive Bruce Lunsford. The statewide ire held for former Governor, Republican Ernie Fletcher, which led to his reelection defeat in November 2007, could affect McConnell. Additionally, Fletcher loyalists are outraged that McConnell supported, and some would say spearheaded, former Congressman Anne Northup's challenge to Fletcher in the Republican gubernatorial primary, which Fletcher ultimately won. In a close race, losing these Republicans could prove decisive. While McConnell’s current lead certainly will narrow as Election Day approaches, as of today, McConnell wins reelection.
Senator Susan Collins (R-Me.): While Collins’ poll numbers have been trending downward, she is still above the 50% mark. However, the numbers of her Democratic opponent, Representative Tom Allen, are trending upward. And in a year favoring Democrats, in a state where Obama leads McCain by double digits, running against a well-funded opponent, Collins has a tough race on her hands. This race is a toss-up.
Senator Norm Coleman (R-Mn.): Freshman Coleman is running against television personality and humorist, Democrat Al Franken. While the most recent polling favors Coleman, Franken is well-funded, has pervasive name recognition and can ride the coattails of his party’s Presidential nominee, Senator Barack Obama, who leads in the state by double digits according to some recent polls. Like the Maine Senate race, this contest will tighten as November nears. This race is also a toss-up.
Senator John Sununu Jr. (R-N.H.): Along with Alaska’s Steven’s, Sununu is the only other Republican incumbent currently trailing his Democratic opponent. Former Governor Jeanne Shaheen, who Sununu beat in 2002, is back for a rematch. Shaheen has held a solid lead since announcing her candidacy. Her statewide popularity, his statewide unpopularity and pervasive anti-Republican sentiment will spell disaster for Sununu in November.
Senator Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.): Add Dole to the list of red state Republicans running against a strong Democratic challenger in a bad year for Republicans. While she has raised more than $11 million, she has less than $2 million left in the bank. And Dole only leads State Senator Kay Hagan, her Democratic opponent, by single digits. Dole has the edge here and would win reelection if the election were held today, but November is three months away.
Senator Gordon Smith (R-Or.): Add Smith to the list of blue state Republicans running against a strong Democratic challenger in a bad year for Republicans, like Collins in Maine. Which makes him the third most vulnerable Republican behind Ted Stevens and John Sununu. While Smith leads his opponent, State House Speaker Jeff Merkley, and has a huge fundraising advantage, these are musts for a Republican running in a blue state like Oregon to remain competitive. Oregon has a two-term Democratic Governor, one Democratic United States Senator, four of five Democratic Congressmen, a State Senate with 19 Democrats out of 30 State Senators, a Democratically controlled State House, and a track record of voting for Democratic Presidential candidates since 1984 when Walter Mondale won only his home state of Minnesota. This race is a toss-up.
Open Seats
Both parties prize open seats. Why? Because generally, no candidate has the name recognition or fundraising prowess of the retiring incumbent. So neither party starts the race with a disadvantage.
However, for 2008, the Democrats have recruited better candidates in the open seat contests and will benefit from doing so at the polls in November.
Colorado: Congressman Mark Udall (D-Co.) and former Congressman Bob Schaffer (R-Co.) are running to replace Senator Wayne Allard, who has kept to this two-term limit pledge. Udall has led the whole way in polls and fundraising in a state trending blue. In 2004, Colorado elected a Democratic Senator to replace a Republican. Two years later, it elected a Democrat Governor to replace a Republican. At this point, the race is Udall’s to lose.
Idaho: This is one of the two open seats the Republicans can count on retaining. The public relations nightmare that is incumbent Republican Senator Larry Craig has not affected the candidacy of Republican Lieutenant Governor Jim Risch. Although his Democratic opponent and former Congressman Larry LaRocca is well-funded, Idaho is Idaho. It is almost impossible for Democrats to get elected statewide.
Mississippi: While incumbent Senator Thad Cochran will cruise to an easy reelection, interim Senator Roger Wicker (R-Ms.) does not have the same fortune. Wicker was appointed to replace the retired former Senator Trent Lott. Lott scooted out the door to become a lobbyist at the eleventh hour in 2007 just before a new law regulating lobbyists took effect (the law, when it took effect, prevented Senators from becoming lobbyists for a two-year period after leaving office). Polls show Wicker's race almost dead even. I give the slight edge to the Democratic candidate, and former Mississippi Governor, Ronnie Musgrove, because of the anti-Republican sentiment and the impact that an African American candidate for President will have on the Mississippi electorate. Mississippi is more than 35% African American. Still, this race is a toss-up.
Nebraska: Along with Idaho, Nebraska is the other reliable Republican win. Former Governor and former U. S. Secretary of Agriculture, Mike Johanns, is the Republican candidate. Rancher Scott Kleeb is the Democratic candidate. Because of Johanns’ statewide name recognition, fundraising advantage and Nebraska’s Republican bent, Johanns can be confident in a new career in the United States Senate.
New Mexico: To replace incumbent Senator Pete Dominici (R-N.M.), all three members of New Mexico’s Congressional delegation ran. Democratic nominee, Representative Tom Udall, first cousin of Colorado Senate candidate Mark Udall, ran unopposed for his nomination. Republican nominee, Representative Steve Pearce, fought a bitter and costly battle to narrowly defeat Representative Heather Wilson. While being the more conservative candidate helped Pearce win the primary, it will be fatal in the general election. Udall leads Pearce by more than 20 points. The Udall cousins are also cousins of Oregon's incumbent Senator, Gordon Smith.
Virginia: When conservative Republican, and former Governor, Jim Gilmore won the Republican Senate nomination (over more moderate Congressman Tom Davis), the Republicans all but lost the seat. Democratic nominee, and also former Governor, Mark Warner, is young, popular and has a huge fundraising advantage. He currently leads by over 20 points. Warner also has the same surname as the incumbent, Senator John Warner, who is retiring. This race is as certain a victory for Warner as elective politics get.
Conclusion
If August 14, 2008 were November 1, 2008, I believe that the Democrats would pick up eight seats for a total of 59. Not enough for a filibuster-proof majority, but if John McCain wins the White House, the Democratic Governor of Arizona, Janet Napolitano, gets to appoint number 60.
Current Senate Composition: 51 Democrats, 49 Republicans
8/14/08 Prediction: 59 Democrats, 41 Republicans
* While Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-Ct.) and Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.) are registered Independents, both caucus with the Democrats.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)