It’s December, and that means the holiday season has officially begun. So we thought we’d do something fun for the blog and bring you our fourth series: Hollywood Does Politics!
Over the next few weeks, we’ll bring you five posts discussing some of the best - and worst - movies and television shows involving campaign politics.
Of course, the movies don’t always give a realistic portrayal of their subject (just ask a scientist about the “science” in any Sci-Fi film) so we’ll tell you what’s real and what’s not. We’ll also discuss the quality of the productions and a variety of other topics.
Our posts will include…
• Campaigns on TV • Do Political Movies Lean Right or Left? • The Best Campaign Documentaries • When Hollywood Gets It Wrong • The Top 5 Political Campaign Movies
But before that final post, we want to hear what your top 5 political campaign movies are! Email us at Dave@HogensenStrategies.com and let us know. We’ll see how they line up with ours and we’ll give them the recognition they deserve.
Summary: Is Obama trying to appease both sides - or is the Afghanistan policy something other than a political decision?
In his address to the cadets of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, and to the nation, President Obama outlined his new strategy for the war in Afghanistan.
Along with announcing the deployment of an additional 30,000 troops to that country (75% of what General Stanley McCrystal asked for) he explained how the war would not be an open-ended commitment - the U.S. would start withdrawing troops starting in 2011.
But as NBC White House correspondent and political enthusiast Chuck Todd said this morning, “he did something which is pretty difficult nowadays, which is he came up with a policy and a plan and he gave a speech that made nobody happy.”
And for the most part it’s true. With a few exceptions, most columnists reacted with skepticism to downright disapproval in today’s papers.
Liberals, unhappy about another surge in what to them looks like another Vietnam, embody the feelings of a Huffington Post piece by Robert Borosage - Co-Director of the Campaign for America’s future - entitled “Imperial Blues”:
“Surely this is the way that great imperial powers decline. Their soldiers police the ends of the earth. There is always another enemy, always a threat -- sometimes imagined, often real -- that must be faced. And meanwhile, the productive economy declines, the rich live increasingly off investments abroad, the poor depend on public sustenance, the middle declines. No battle is so costly that it cannot be afforded; no battle so vital that the nation must be mobilized…
…slowly, the great power declines from the inside out. The wars are costly, running up national debts. Vital investments are put off. Schools decline. Sewers leak. For a long time, circuses distract from the spreading ruin. Other societies become productive centers, capturing the new industries. Some begin providing better education for their citizens, better support for their citizens. Their taxes, not drained by the cost of wars past and present, can be devoted to what we used to call "domestic improvements."…
…South Waziristan, Yemen, Somalia, Kosovo, the Taiwan straits, the North Korean border, the seven seas - we can do this. But the result is that we are continually at war. And the wars cost - in money, in lives, in attention. And inevitably, domestic priorities, as well as emerging security threats that have no military answers, get ignored. A rich country, Adam Smith wrote, has a lot of ruin in it. We seem intent on testing the limits of that proposition.”
Meanwhile, many conservatives - though supportive of the troop increase - were dismayed by the inclusion of an exit strategy. Conservative columnist Bill Kristol explained it as such in his Washington Post piece this morning, “A War President”:
“There were unfortunate aspects of Obama’s speech: the foolish eagerness to tell us he’s as eager as can be to get us out of Afghanistan as soon as he can; the laying down of a pseudo-deadline for beginning a process of transitioning our forces out in July 2011, combined with the claim that the pace and duration of the withdrawal is to be conditions-based – a typical example of Obama trying to be too cute by half; the silly harrumphing that “it will be clear to the Afghan government – and, more importantly, to the Afghan people – that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country,” as if we were there to help the Afghans become “responsible for their own country” again, as opposed to fighting for reasons of vital national interest.”
Even independents - who, according to polls, are evenly split on the Afghan War issue - had their own reservations. Thomas Friedman had this to say in his New York Times column, for a piece entitled “This I Believe”:
"What makes me wary about this plan is how many moving parts there are — Afghans, Pakistanis and NATO allies all have to behave forever differently for this to work…
…Iraq was about “the war on terrorism.” The Afghanistan invasion, for me, was about the “war on terrorists.” To me, it was about getting bin Laden and depriving Al Qaeda of a sanctuary — period. I never thought we could make Afghanistan into Norway — and even if we did, it would not resonate beyond its borders the way Iraq might.
To now make Afghanistan part of the “war on terrorism” — i.e., another nation-building project — is not crazy. It is just too expensive, when balanced against our needs for nation-building in America, so that we will have the strength to play our broader global role. Hence, my desire to keep our presence in Afghanistan limited. That is what I believe."
He also explained his opposition on the Daily Show last night:
This isn’t the first time a president has tried to play to the middle - trying to appeal to the beliefs of as many Americans as possible - and come out nearly empty-handed. It’s not even the first time we’ve talked about President Obama doing so.
But in the end, this wasn’t a political decision: it was a foreign policy decision that any Commander-in-Chief would have to make. Perhaps that’s why his speech last night focused mostly on the strategic implications of this policy rather than the “usual appeals to American hopes and values” - as Politico’s Ben Smith puts it in his recent article.
Whether it will help him or hurt him politically will take a lot of time to see. More important in the coming weeks will be the slow-pace of Congressional action to fund an unpopular war before the 2010 elections. In the end, however, it seems pretty obvious to me that the new Afghanistan surge and exit strategy were not political moves - they were important decisions about our national security.
Summary: How Spending and Jobs have become both economic and political trade-offs.
The Congressional Budget Office released a report last night revealing that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (better known as the stimulus package) has thus far saved as many as 1.6 million jobs.
That should be good news for President Obama, but there are some problems associated with that figure.
The first is that a job saved is very different than a job created. No one knows for sure if they’re job stability over the past year has been the result of an Obama policy – but those who have been laid off without finding new work still have every reason to assume the stimulus isn’t working.
The second problem is much more political – the stimulus has everybody talking about a familiar topic: “out-of-control government spending” – a favorite complaint from the right. In fact, a Gallup poll taken back in September found that the majority of Americans believed about 50% of government spending was wasteful – a figure that has no doubt increased – and the dissatisfaction over the deficit has contributed to a decline in support for Obama and the Democrats.
In fact, the number one thing Obama doesn’t want people saying about him is that “he thinks he’s playing with monopoly money” according to an article in Politico from yesterday.
Spending issues don’t seem to be going away either. On Sunday, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey (D-WI) suggested a war-tax be implemented to pay for the surge in Afghanistan. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), however, is saying that notion may have it’s own negative economic implications.
Meanwhile, the jobs issue is becoming a greater and greater concern to Democrats – and it should. An interesting analysis by Nate Silver finds that if the job situation hasn’t improved by 2012, Obama would be in serious risk of losing Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Indiana in his re-election – dropping his electoral votes to 279. My guess is he’d be at risk of losing Pennsylvania as well, losing him the election.
Of course, if additional resources are put towards job creation, that decision will carry it’s own burden. States upset about spending could drop off as well, such as Virginia, Colorado, and others.
Now, as Silver admits, 2012 is a long way off and probably not worth the worry at this point.
But 2010 is coming fast – so what to do?
According to his column in the New York Times, liberal economist Paul Krugman suggests a job-focused bill that increases state aid, initiates public works programs like the ones seen during the New Deal, and gives tax incentives to employers who increase their payrolls.
“Our best hope now is for a somewhat cheaper program that generates more jobs for the buck. Such a program should shy away from measures, like general tax cuts, that at best lead only indirectly to job creation, with many possible disconnects along the way. Instead, it should consist of measures that more or less directly save or add jobs.”
Otherwise, say some analysts, the unemployment rate could peak as late as next summer, and – according to the Federal Reserve – stay above 8% nationally until 2012.
Again, that costs money. The only way to try to have a win-win situation on both deficit reduction and jobs is to hope that a job-creation bill will increase revenues enough in the future.
Now, currently there are about the same or even more jobs being created as jobs being eliminated – in other words, more people are beginning to get hired these days than being laid-off. And funds from the stimulus bill have not all been spent. In fact, only about a quarter of all money allocated for the stimulus has gone out so far. As that picks up and the non-lagging economic indicators improve, it’s possible that jobs will follow as previously expected.
These issues will be discussed more in the news at the end of the week when President Obama holds his Jobs Summit in Washington. Regardless of whether or not Congress and the president focus on cutting spending, creating jobs, or holding back and waiting to see if current legislation takes care of the problems, each option is essentially a political gamble they’ll have to live with.
Summary: Should Republicans target conservative rural districts or moderate suburban districts?
Assuming the Republicans pick up a few seats in Congress next year, what kind of districts can we expect them to pick up?
Based on recent ad buys from the NRCC, it seems that Republicans believe the seats they pick up will be from more rural areas in traditionally red states. Recently they released this basic ad attacking veteran Congressmen Earl Pomeroy (D-ND), Vic Snyder (D-AR), and John Spratt Jr. (D-SC) for their support of the House healthcare bill:
Now, CQPolitics.com has each of these districts as either likely Democratic or safe Democratic going into next year - but all three went for McCain in 2008, which was a good year for Democrats. Republicans now hope that enough discontent with the Democrats has built up in these districts so that the incumbency effect won’t play out in 2010.
At the same time, other Democrats are beginning to feel threatened about losing their blue-leaning suburban districts next year, which they see as the obvious point for Republican attack.
Suburban Democrats are bracing to defend their recent gains amid unmistakable signs of volatility among an electorate that is impatient with the pace of economic recovery.
Their concerns are coming into sharp focus amid ongoing developments in Nassau County, N.Y., where County Executive Tom Suozzi, a rising star in New York politics and a prominent suburban Democratic politician, might lose his seat in a recount.
Suozzi’s predicament comes on the heels of other troubling developments in some of the nation’s largest suburban counties, including nearby Democratic Westchester County, where voters tossed out County Executive Andrew Spano in a startling upset Nov. 3…
…That sentiment applied up and down the East Coast in the 2009 off-year elections, as suburbanites registered their discontent by rejecting Democratic incumbents, even in typically blue-tinted counties.
Across the Hudson River, in New Jersey, Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine lost his reelection bid, and his Republican opponent came within striking distance of victory in suburban Bergen County, a Democratic area and the largest county in the state. Gov.-elect Chris Christie also bested Corzine in Middlesex County, a suburban bellwether that President Barack Obama won by 22 points in 2008.
In the Virginia governor’s race, the news for Democrats was hardly better: Republican Bob McDonnell trounced Democrat Creigh Deeds in nearly every suburban Northern Virginia county that supported Obama last year. The only holdouts, Arlington County and the city of Alexandria, were the closest municipalities to Washington.
…“Suburban voters tend to be independent, intelligent, and they listen and they make up their minds,” [says Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA)] “They would take a chance on Chris Christie rather than electing Jon Corzine. McDonnell ran a much better campaign than Deeds did.”
Of course, there still haven’t been any races that suggest Democrats will do poorly in the suburbs in federal races, in which local issues do not play as large of a roll. In fact, Democrats actually picked up a rural red-leaning district in 2009 on the federal side.
Summary: Profits and limited liability drive some of America's top political consultants to go international.
Ever wonder why the really well-known political consultants - the James Carvilles, Mark Penns, etc. - go overseas for work? Ever wonder why foreign campaigns hire them?
There’s an interesting article in Politico today which covers these very questions.
In Kiev and Kharkiv and other cities in Ukraine, American political consultants who worked against one another in Iowa and New Hampshire and then in the general election are facing off again in a somewhat surreal Eastern European replay of the 2008 campaign…
…The Ukraine race is hardly the only international opportunity available for consultants who had a hand in the Obama campaign. Since Obama's historic election in November, AKPD and Benenson Strategy Group alone have advised candidates or parties in Argentina, Bulgaria, Romania, Israel and Britain and have turned down offers to work in many more countries around the globe.
The attraction is easy to understand. Foreign campaigns typically pay more than domestic ones do, and they are lower risks for consultants coming off the image-enhancing boost of a presidential campaign, according to James Carville, the former Clinton strategist and talking head, who has worked for candidates in more than 20 countries, including Afghanistan (where he worked this year on Ashraf Ghani’s second-tier presidential campaign along with [GOP consultant Tad] Devine.
“If you help elect a president and then you get involved in a governor’s race and you lose, it’s going to be a little bit damaging to your reputation,” he said. “But if you go to Peru and you run a presidential race and you lose, no one knows or cares. So why go to New Jersey and lose for 100 grand when you [can] go to Peru and lose for a million?”…
…AKPD client [Prime Minister Yulia] Tymoshenko was once seen as such a reliable American ally in a regional battle for pipelines and strategic influence that Russian prosecutors put out a warrant for her arrest on smuggling charges. But she’s since made her peace with the Kremlin and is seen as playing a more complex game with both sides — which may help explain her choice in American consultants.
"In the Ukraine and in other post-communist countries, they have this misconception about Washington politics: They think that somehow if you sign up AKPD or other former Obama people, you sign up the support of Obama," said Taras Kuzio, a senior fellow in Ukraine studies at the University of Toronto who has done political consulting in Ukraine.
"They don't understand the separation of business and politics, which doesn't exist in the Ukraine or in these other post-communist countries," said Kuzio.
Neither AKPD nor Benenson Strategy Group is registered to lobby the U.S. government on behalf of foreign governments, and representatives from both firms said they make clear to prospective foreign clients that their firms will not and cannot provide a foot in the door to the Obama White House.
Benenson this year has scored contracts to do survey research for Romanian presidential candidate Micrea Geoana and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, whose Labor Party previously paid Penn's firm for polling.
When the party trumpeted its deal with Benenson, London's Daily Telegraph called it "a major coup for the prime minister, who is keen to align himself with Mr. Obama." But Benenson said he discourages any impression among potential clients that hiring his firm is a way to court favor with the White House.
It’s been something of a slow news day today for electoral politics, but we did happen to catch an interesting figure in the latest report from the Pew Research Center.
Apparently, despite all the new stories about independents and third party candidates running for office, support for them is - on the whole - decreasing.
From the report:
Despite record dissatisfaction with Congress and extremely low ratings for both the Democratic and Republican Parties, there is no shift in public demand for alternatives to the two parties. Just over half (52%) of Americans say the U.S. should have a third major political party in addition to the Democrats and Republicans, while four-in-ten (40%) disagree. This is little changed from last year, when 56% favored a third party and 38% opposed the idea.
Support for a third party continues to be widespread among independents. As was the case last year, 70% of independents say we should have a third major political party. Just 44% of both Republicans and Democrats agree. There is also a consistent difference between younger and older Americans. In the current poll, 63% of Americans under age 30 support the idea of a third political party, compared with just 37% of those ages 65 and older.
In fact, it appears that the third party has been losing support since the days of Ross Perot.
Summary: How political processes could lead to President Palin in 2012.
Now that her new book is coming out, a lot of pundits are talking about a possible Sarah Palin comeback and an eventual 2012 GOP presidential nomination.
David Brooks - the conservative columnist who has spoken less than highly of Palin in the past - had this to say on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday:
“She’s a joke. I mean, I just can't take her seriously. We have got serious problems in the country. Barack Obama is trying to handle war. We just had a guy elected Virginia governor who is probably the model for future of the Republican Party, Bob McDonnell: Pretty serious guy, pragmatic, calm, kind of boring. The idea that this potential talk show host is considered seriously for the Republican nomination, believe me, it will never happen. Republican primary voters are just not going to elect a talk show host.”
Meanwhile, Walter Shaprio wrote this in an interesting column today for Politics Daily, explaining how she could win a 2012 nomination:
More than two years before the 2012 Iowa caucuses, presidential speculation should come with a soothsayer's money-back guarantee. But what all the discussions of Palin's future miss is the way that Republican Party rules are made-to-order for a well-funded insurgent named Sarah to sweep the primaries before anyone figures out how to stop her. If Palin can maintain, say, 35-percent support in a multi-candidate presidential field, then she is the odds-on favorite for the GOP nomination.
The secret of Palin's presidential potential is the Republican Party's affection for winner-take-all primaries. According to my friend Elaine Kamarck's invaluable new book, Primary Politics, 43 percent of the 2008 Republican delegates were selected in primaries where the winner corralled all the delegates by winning a state or congressional district. As a result of the Republicans' to-the-victor-go-the-spoils method of picking convention delegates, Mike Huckabee finished second in 16 states and won a paltry 74 delegates for his trouble.
In the name of fairness, the Democrats have banned such winner-take-all primaries, which is why the nomination fight between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton dragged into June. The Democratic Party's method of proportional representation meant that neither candidate could score a game-ending victory until all the primaries ended.
In contrast, the Republican have long been more concerned with avoiding a lengthy and divisive nomination fight than in designing a philosophically pure system of allocating delegates.
Here is why this kind of arcane detail may well smooth Palin's path to the 2012 nomination. While nothing is certain this far out, Palin seems perfectly positioned to appeal to the conservative party activists who turn out for the opening-gun Iowa caucuses. Moderate New Hampshire, of course, is apt to be a daunting challenge for Palin.
Next stop on the traditional GOP calendar is the firewall South Carolina primary where, as Kamarck writes, "candidates such as Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson (who were seen as too radical to win a general election)...could be stopped early on."
But Palin would not be a lucky fringe candidate who won a caucus or two; she would be a universally known charismatic figure who could beat the party establishment in this conservative state.
In 2008, after South Carolina came a series of winner-take-all primaries in which John McCain rolled up a lopsided delegate lead. McCain won all of Florida's delegates even though he received just 36 percent of the primary vote. In California, where delegates were allocated by congressional districts, McCain won 158 delegates with 42 percent of the popular vote. Mitt Romney received 34 percent of the California vote but was awarded just 12 delegates. In Illinois, Romney won exactly 3 delegates despite his 29-percent share of the primary vote. Because of similar primary rules, McCain won every single delegate in the early February contests in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Missouri and Virginia.
If Palin launches a 2012 race – and survives the South Carolina primary with her aura intact – she could theoretically sweep the winner-take-all states without ever winning a majority anywhere. The Republican establishment (the congressional leadership, the governors, the major donors and national consultants) could all agree that Palin would be an electoral disaster against Obama in November and still be powerless to halt her juggernaut.
The best way to stop Sarah would be for GOP insiders to rally quickly around a single anti-Palin candidate. But such cabals rarely work in politics because there are too many egos involved. Would, say, Romney be so panicked about Palin that he would prematurely abandon his presidential ambitions to support a potentially more winnable candidate like maybe Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty? Not bloody likely. For that matter, would populist Huckabee drop out in favor of a big-business Republican like Romney to prevent Palin mania? Yeah, sure.
Although the party rules are entirely different than in 1964 when Goldwater permanently decimated the Eastern liberal Republican Party, the guiding principle is the same. A well-known candidate with a passionate following who organizes early can win the nomination even if a large swath of the party believes that he or she is ill-equipped to be entrusted with the nation's nuclear codes.
Since the Republicans allow winner-take-all primaries but do not mandate them, it will be intriguing if major states decide to change their rules about how they will award convention delegates in 2012. Jiggering with the primaries might be the first manifestation of a top-down Stop Palin movement. Otherwise, winner-take-all Republican primaries may speed the nomination of the most polarizing presidential nominee since the Democrats picked George McGovern in 1972.
So will Palin be the next Goldwater, or will she just become an obscure almost-was in Republican politics? Politico is asking readers their thoughts in a new video.
Summary: Both parties will be facing tough battles for their seats in 2010. Here are the top five things for each party to pay attention to going into election season.
Yesterday I went through the data and analysis of the new Gallup poll which found the GOP to be leading the Democrats on the generic ballot, and the most recent Cook Political Report ratings.
As promised, I’m using our analysis to bring you the top five things the GOP and Democrats will want to do to maximize their vote potentials in next year’s midterm elections.
Top 5 Thing Republicans Must Do:
1) Don’t get caught up in primaries. If there is any lesson Republicans should have learned from their recent gubernatorial victory in Virginia, it’s that they ought to speak to the middle as quickly as possible. Primaries can be a good thing - particularly for raising name recognition of the eventual nominee, and giving a slew of candidates the chance to bash the other side together - but they also require a pandering to a base that, for Republicans, is a bit outside the political mainstream. Of course, it will be difficult to avoid primaries - Republicans see 2010 as a good year for them, and as such, they all want to take advantage of an opportunity to advance themselves personally - but the state parties, the RNSC and RNCC should all do what they can to avoid such battles for the base.
2) Use the Tea Party folks wisely. These right-wing protesters are fired up and ready to go, and such conservative activists could be a valuable resource to a Republican’s campaign - knocking on doors, making phone calls, and donating small amounts of money. However, they could be a burden. If you, as a GOP candidate, hold a rally with such activists bringing in signs depicting President Obama as Hitler or the Joker, your campaign will end up being sidetracked by your opponents and the media over the actions of your supporters. That would put you in the difficult position of maintaining the base support while looking appealing to the middle. Your campaign should actively pursue the Tea Party folks, but they should also make sure these activists don’t bring offensive signs to rallies, blog, or - worst of all - talk to the press.
3) Steer clear of “special interests” for 2010. PACs bring in a lot of money, which is always valuable, but if there’s one thing that could lose confidence in the Tea Partiers, it’s special interest money. Simply put, the Tea Parties are part of a larger populist backlash to the bailouts and lobbyists who secure grants under the stimulus bill. If your war chest is found to be connected to a banking firm or any other Wall Street group, it could hinder the confidence the base has in you.
4) Work had to find a balanced message. Using Tea Party activists will not always be easy. Democrats are going to want to tie you to Glenn Beck and the rest of the crazy right - but you can’t let them if you want to win. Republicans must appeal to the middle while still firing up the conservative base. The easiest thing to stress, of course, will be deficit spending. This will embolden the base and still sound perfectly reasonable to mainstream voters. There are all sorts of ways to carefully craft a message that achieves both goals, but it’s of the utmost importance to get it right, especially for Republicans and especially for 2010.
5) Don’t hold back on attacks. Relentless criticism of the Democrats is what’s going to win this election. Never miss an opportunity to attack an incumbent Democrat, even if he or she is not in your district. Criticize Obama’s “out-of-control” spending, Pelosi’s no-holds-barred style in the House, and Charlie Rangel’s tax issues as much as possible - and tie your opponent to that culture of spending, corruption, etc. Democrats will want to tout all the good things they’ve done, but you have to constantly remind voters that their governance has not been perfect - and suggest you can do better.
Top 5 Things Democrats Must Do:
1) Make sure the base believes in you. Many moderate Democrats in Congress seem to think that the only way they can win a re-election is by opposing the current healthcare reform bills. But the surest way to be defeated is to fail on healthcare reform. The base believed in you in 2006 and 2008 because you said you would bring change - if you fail them with big margins in Congress and control of the White house they will not help your re-election campaign and they may stay home on Election Day. That would be the surest way for a Democrat to lose. If the base doesn’t show up, you’re finished. If you’re running for re-election, you must fulfill at least some of your basic promises to your supporters.
2) Know your district. No campaign is the same - each one must tailor specifically to the appropriate constituency. If you’re running to replace another Democrat, ask yourself “was he popular?” If not, distance yourself from him, if he was, then win his support publicly. Is your district home to a lot of healthcare provider employees? Then figure out how to frame an argument for reform in a way that proves it will be beneficial to them. Is the district urban, suburban, or rural? Each will have it’s own implications for how you should explain your positions on energy, spending, etc.
3) Make it about you, not your party. 2010 is a backlash year. The Democrats in Washington and in the state capitals have not achieved everything they set out for simply because changing laws and improving government takes time. If you’re an incumbent, make sure to tout all the good things you’ve already done for the district specifically, such as Harry Reid is doing in Nevada. If you’re running for a new office, explain why your experience (doing whatever) makes you a particularly good candidate to help bring change. Don’t let your message get caught up in supporting the president and the ideals of the Democratic Party - show how you personally will be an effective leader with an independent streak.
4) Watch the unemployment rate closely. If your district has high unemployment right now, you need to be concerned - but if the stimulus has not successfully provided more jobs by October of next year you’ll be in a panic. If you’re an incumbent you need to get to work next year helping the unemployed. If you’re not an incumbent you will really need to tout that independent streak, explaining why the stimulus and the bailout hasn’t helped your constituency, and how you will make it better for them. Jobs are the biggest issue for the voter who has lost one - you must give them reason not to blame you for that.
5) Campaign like your job depends on it - because it does. If there’s one thing Democrats should have learned from the Virginia race, it’s that campaigns matter - and lackluster campaigning just won’t do. Democrats everywhere are worried, and rightfully so. Sure, I don’t expect too many Democratic seats to be lost next year, but that doesn’t mean you can sit back and relax. It will take a clever campaign staff, experienced consultants, and hard work to win in 2010. Make sure you keep track of how well you’re doing - with internal polls, message testing, Voter ID operations, etc. - and learn where you need to improve. Get out early and get out often to meet voters, raise money, and get positive press coverage. Anything short of everything will put you at risk.
Summary: WAYLA looks through the recent trends and makes a few 2010 predictions.
Like everyone else has been doing, I thought I’d use today to review the updates from the Cook Political Report and the recent Gallup poll that find Republicans gaining popularity.
And it shouldn’t be any real surprise that much of the GOP gains are due to increasing support among independents.
Still, Gallup seems to suggest that a generic ballot is more telling than it really is. Voters don’t select the party they want to see in power, they choose individual candidates. So let’s take a look at the Cook Political Report.
As far as House seats go, I don’t think the Democrats have much to worry about at this point. CPR indicates that 15 seats are toss-ups, 12 of which are held by Democrats. Furthermore, 21 seats are labeled “leaning Democratic” - usually because they’re currently held by a Democrat, but nonetheless it’s a moderately conservative seat. Still, even if the Democratic candidate was to lose all of these seats, the party would still control the House during the 112th Congress.
Even that’s unlikely. In fact, Democrats will probably pick up a few seats, particularly from Democratic-leaning districts currently held by Republicans that plan to move up the political ladder - such as the seats held by Congressmen Mark Kirk (R-IL), Mike Castle (R-DE) and Jim Gerlach (R-PA).
Some Democrats - such as Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI) - have already decided not to pursue higher office, in part no doubt, because the district would likely turn red otherwise. All in all, there are only 3 competitive open-seat races in districts held by Democrats.
For more analysis on this, check out the two posts by FiveThirtyEight.com’s Tom Schaller here and here.
At this point, I think it’s doubtful that Democrats will lose more than 10 to 15 net seats in the House next year.
While only 10 are open seats and - of those - only 6 are toss-ups, there are a lot of states where incumbent senators are vulnerable.
We all know that Senators Harry Reid (D-NV), Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Michael Bennett (D-CO) are at risk - but two names we haven’t mentioned are Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) who are both in the “lean Dem” category.
Seeing as next year will be a better year for Republicans, I can’t see the GOP candidate losing in a few open seat races like those in Missouri, Texas, and Kentucky - but I do think the Democrats have a shot at picking up the seats in Louisiana (thanks to many missteps from Sen. Vitter), Ohio, and New Hampshire.
It’s tough to say what will happen in Delaware and Florida will probably come down to who wins the GOP primary. Pennsylvania will be another interesting race to watch, which is something we’ve known since Sen. Specter switched parties earlier this year.
All in all, I doubt that the Democrats will lose more than 6 net seats in the Senate - leaving them enough to still control the chamber.
Finally, gubernatorial races will be another area to watch, in part because there are 21 open seats (see the map below).
Currently Democrats control 19 of the 37 gubernatorial seats on the ballot next year - the other 18 held by the GOP. A few of those Democratic seats - Massachusetts, New York, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Colorado - are likely to be extremely competitive, and could go red.
However, the same is true for a handful of GOP seats - including Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont, Florida, Arizona, Nevada, California, and Hawaii - which could easily go blue.
It’s impossible to make any solid conclusions at this point, but I would doubt the Democrats lose more than 5 net Governor Mansions.
If you do want to know what to watch for going into next year, check out this video from Politico:
For more analysis on all of these 2010 elections, make sure to check out the articles and op-eds on Politico’s new 2010 page.
I’ll continue more on some of these ideas tomorrow as I explain what both Democrats and Republicans will want to do in order to win the most support.
Summary: Could Fox News be in violation of campaign finance law?
Some of you who read the title of this post probably said “duh” - but a recent clip from their broadcast was picked up by the Daily Show last night, revealing that Sean Hannity literally showed false footage to make a recent Tea Party protest look bigger than it was.
To be fair, the freedom of speech and the press is very much guaranteed in the First Amendment - even to the point of protecting false speech and fabricated press stories.
But a few months ago we mentioned a Supreme Court case which questions the limits of the First Amendment. The case, Citizens United v. FEC, begs the question over whether a documentary film aimed at persuading voters one way or another in an election falls under the limits of campaign finance. These films are funded by corporations which are strictly prohibited from direct spending on campaigns.
In order to make a GOP sponsored rally look bigger, Fox News found clips of a better attended, non-Republican sponsored, conservative protest. In other words, Fox News - part of a publicly traded corporation - was specifically assisting one party over another for that party’s political gains.
Could that be a campaign finance issue?
Inevitably, I want to say no, as many news outlets will endorse one side over another as they have since campaigns first began in this country - but let’s first see what the Court decides.
Either way, it’s food for thought when exploring what constitutes as free speech in the era of campaign finance reform.
Summary: Three things Obama should know before making strategy decisions for the Afghan War
After Dr. Abdullah Abdullah exited the run-off election for the Afghan presidency, President Barack Obama called on incumbent Afghan President Hamid Karzai to bring a “new chapter” in his country’s history.
Not only is it important for Afghans, but also for American interests as the Obama Administration decides how to proceed with the now eight-year-long involvement in the war in Afghanistan.
Obama had been holding off on a decision over whether to send more troops to Afghanistan until after this year’s elections there. Many in the administration felt it was best to wait until the U.S. knew who they would be working with and what kind of legitimacy their reign would bring. After all, in order to win the war, American and NATO forces need to win over the people of Afghanistan.
Now that the race is over, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says Obama will soon be meeting with his national security team to discuss four strategy options.
Knowing the importance of public opinion in Afghanistan, here are a few things Obama’s advisors should know before making any decisions…
1) Afghan Opinions About a “Surge” are Heavily Divided
According to Gallup polls following Obama’s decision to send the first surge to Afghanistan, citizens there were divided by both region and ethnicity over whether such a strategy would work.
One reason the decision over whether or not to send as many as 40,000 additional troops requested by General Stanley McChystal has not happened yet is because the Administration is still waiting to see what impact the original troop increase will have - many of the soldiers called up by Obama’s previous order have just recently arrived. It is possible that Afghan opinion is slowly changing as the original increase finally starts to make an imprint on the direction of the war.
2) Karzai is Trusted by Afghans…Sort Of
Some old Gallup polls also find that a plurality of Afghans believe Karzai is the most trustable person in the country. However, only 25% see him that way, and the runner-up - at 22% - is “no one”…
Furthermore, the poll found that Afghans would be more confident in foreign forces running the country than the Karzai Administration.
Now, this poll was taken last year, and it is more than likely that opinions have changed - especially following the outcomes of recent elections. However, seeing as Karzai has been a trusted figure in the past, he could be a strong ally for the U.S. if he began to turn the country around.
3) Corruption is Rampant and Growing
After the first rounds of elections in August, the entire world began to see Karzai and his inner-circles as corrupt - but this is a widespread problem in Afghanistan that shows no signs of slowing.
Our last Gallup poll - released today - finds that 81% of Afghans believe corruption is widespread, while 69% say not enough is being done to curb it.
Again, these polls were taken in June - before the marred elections - and a perception of widespread corruption is likely to have increased.
Finally, an increasing number of Afghans say they have personally been asked for bribes by government officials.
No matter what decision the president makes, it will not be popular with all Afghans, and no strategy we chose will be 100% full-proof. Winning over the Afghan people is incredibly important but - because of some very real challenges, including differences of opinion and mistrust in a government which is the political reality the U.S. has to deal with - it will also be incredibly difficult.
Summary: Are Republicans becoming more vulnerable as far-right leaners move away from the GOP?
A number of stories in Politico today suggest that the far-right of the Republican base is now either leaving the GOP, or at least leaving it more vulnerable for 2010. This comes despite the recent election of Democrat Bill Owens in New York’s 23rd Congressional District where a Conservative Party candidate forced a Republican out of the race.
First, the Scorecard reports that Club for Growth - who endorsed Conservative Doug Hoffman over Republican Diedre Scozzafava in NY-23 - is now endorsing Marco Rubio in the Florida GOP Senate primary over moderate Gov. Charlie Crist.
"Marco Rubio is the real deal, one of the brightest young stars in American politics today, and a proven champion of economic liberty," said Club for Growth President Chris Chocola.
“Charlie Crist has repeatedly joined with big government liberals on major economic issues facing America today, from taxes to spending to cap-and-trade. He represents the wrong direction for our economy and our nation."
While Rubio is a Republican, it is well known that he is considerably more conservative than Crist, who actually endorsed the stimulus package earlier this year. If Rubio was to win the primary it would be much more difficult for him to win over independents in a general election than it would be for Crist - perhaps leaving the seat as an easy grab for Democrats.
Also in Florida, a conservative activist has actually established a “Tea Party” - as in, an actual political party to take on both Democrats and Republicans.
"The current system has become mired in the sludge of special interest money that seeks to control the leadership of both parties. It’s time for real change,” says Orlando lawyer Frederic O’Neal, the new party's chairman, who couldn't be reached immediately by phone, in a press release.
A spokeswoman for the Florida Secretary of State, Jennifer Davis, said the party had registered in August, and that its qualified candidates will appear on the ballot in the state.
O'Neal compared his party's role to that of the Conservative Party in New York's 23rd District. Florida, however, lacks the "fusion" rules that has [sic] allowed third parties in New York to amass influence by offering their ballot line to acceptable major-party candidates.
Of course, Florida does still have a large number of minor third parties - 32 to be exact - including Socialists, Prohibitionists, and even something called the Real Food Party.
Now, WAYLA devotees will remember that there already exists a “Boston Tea Party” which is an off-shoot of the Libertarian Party. Yet despite the recent libertarian trends among the so-called Tea Party protesters, I have to imagine that this new Tea Party is not as liberal on the social issues.
Finally, conservative insider Gary Bauer gives some tips for his fellow right-wingers in an ideas piece today. This was the gist of his argument:
"Hoffman’s strong showing — coupled with the successful uprising against Republican nominee Dede Scozzafava’s candidacy — will embolden some conservatives to consider abandoning the GOP and initiating a broader third-party movement.
As a staunch conservative Republican whose political action committee invested much in Hoffman’s campaign, I believe nothing would hurt the conservative movement, or the GOP, more. National Democrats would love nothing more than for conservatives to start looking for third-party candidates all across the country, because third-party candidates almost always lose."
Well, not entirely. The Boston Tea Party does have two elected officials from within their ranks - albeit, they’re local and non-partisan - but Bauer’s right, there’s nothing we’d love more.
Summary: The Tea Party activists and their latest protest - how it crossed the line.
While the nation mourns the tragic loss of our men and women at Ft. Hood this week, an interesting secondary story has been circling the blogosphere - hateful messages coming from Tea Party protesters, and what appears to be encouragement from GOP leaders.
When John Boehner, the Republican leader of the House, appeared at the Tea Party rally at the Capitol on Thursday afternoon, it was a dramatic signal: The wing-nuts have taken over the GOP.
Think I'm being harsh? The angry folks at the protest -- which attracted several thousand conservatives -- held up signs with messages of hate: "Get the Red Out of the White House," "Waterboard Congress," "Ken-ya Trust Obama?" One called the president a "Traitor to the U.S. Constitution." Another sign showed pictures of dead bodies at the Dachau concentration camp and compared health care reform to the Holocaust. A different placard depicted Obama as Sambo. Yes, Sambo. Another read, "Obama takes his orders from the Rothchilds" -- a reference to the anti-Semitic conspiracy theory holding that one evil Jewish family has manipulated events around the globe for decades.
All of this extremism was on display -- proudly -- at an event that was officially sponsored by the House Republicans. After Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) invited tea partiers to the Capitol to rail against the emerging health care bill, the GOP leadership -- somewhat blindsided by Bachmann -- jumped on board, providing speakers and logistical support for the event. Certainly, the crowd was not made up entirely of bigots; I'm not smearing all the protesters who oppose Obama's health care reform effort. But it cannot be denied: Racism and anti-Semitism were part of an official Republican action.
Extremism was also flowing from the podium, where Republican House members were eager for microphone time. Boehner, for one, declared that the health care bill is the "greatest threat to freedom that I have seen." That's some statement. A greater threat than Hitler's Nazism or Soviet communism? About the same time he was speaking, Obama was making a surprise appearance at the White House daily press briefing to tout the fact that the American Medical Association and AARP, the powerful seniors lobby, have each endorsed the health care reform bill. Here's a question for Boehner: Are these two groups opposed to freedom? And at one point during the rally -- call it a Bachmannalia -- when John Ratzenberger, a.k.a Cliff Clavin from "Cheers," claimed that the Democrats were turning the United States into a land of European socialism, the audience shouted, "Nazis, Nazis." No Republican legislator left the stage in protest. Boehner and his fellow GOP leaders should be asked how they feel about mounting a rally that attracted intense hate-mongering.
I find this interesting because lately I’ve been noticing more and more signs of what one might call “patriotic” protests: with Tea Party protesters carrying Gadsden flags and screaming about taxation, it seemed like the American Revolution all over again. In fact, that’s sort of what they’ve been going for.
But some of these new developments cross the line. Sure, they’ve been crossing the line here and there for a while, but depicting the president as Sambo, bringing up the Rothschild conspiracy, and shouting “Nazis, Nazis” is not the innocent War for Independence comparisons they were beginning to draw for themselves.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid never attended rallies in which liberal activists were comparing George W. Bush to Hilter - if they did, do you really think the Democrats could have taken back Congress?
Summary: After spending nearly $100 million we can now ask how much is too much to spend on a campaign.
It was well noted in last year’s presidential election that the Obama campaign spent about $730 million to put the junior Illinois senator in the White House while earning about 69.5 million votes - in other words, they spent about $10.50 per vote.
It may not have come from Obama himself, but it was certainly seen as a lot of money per vote.
This year, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg put nearly $100 millionof his own money into his re-election efforts - it came out to about $35,000 an hour for his campaign. On Tuesday he garnered 557,059 votes - enough to win with about 50.6% of the electorate.
In other words, Bloomberg personally spent about $175 per vote.
There’s a term economists use to explain the financial choices individuals make: “utility.” The idea is that every individual tries to maximize their utility given the limits of their income.
Obviously, the billionaire Mayor has virtually unlimited income compared to the rest of us - but many are still asking whether all that spending was worth it.
The great thing about “utility” is that it can mean anything. If an individual gets happiness out of buying a big-screen TV, they’ll buy one to increase their utility. If they feel better about themselves by giving some of their money to charity, they’ll do so to increase their utility. Or - in Bloomberg’s case - if they like running a city enough, they’ll put enough money into a campaign to keep doing so and increase their utility.
And because economists will look at what individuals do rather than what some figure they ought to do, the other great thing about “utility” is there’s no way of disproving that a person is not getting their money’s worth!
Bloomberg outspent his main opponent - Bill Thompson - at least 14 to 1, simply because he had the resources to do so.
No matter how you feel about Bloomberg’s ability to govern, it is concerning that one of the nation’s richest men - and perhaps the richest man in New York City - can hold on to the top office by putting so much money into a race. It’s especially troubling when you consider the fact that you’d probably vote for someone regardless of their policies if they actually just gave you the $175 they were already spending for your vote.
This race shattered records in American campaign finance history. And can you not imagine some more calls for campaign finance reform in New York City when there’s such a hint of plutocracy in their local government?
Summary: Dave at WAYLA reviews the November 2009 elections and their implications.
First I want to start by looking back on my predictions from Monday. In Virginia I said McDonnell would win handedly against Deeds, and he did. In fact, he won with 59% of the vote - 2% more than I expected.
In New Jersey, I wrongly suggested Corzine could squeak in a victory, and no matter who won it would be close (as in, by a point or so) - as it turned out, Christie defeated the incumbent governor by more than 4%.
In Maine, I suggested it would come down to whether the youth and progressive votes would turn out in proportionally higher numbers than the older voters and conservatives. Unfortunately, I don’t have the exit poll information to check that, but I’ll get back to this race later in the post.
In New York City I turned out to be dead-on in my prediction: incumbent Mayor Michael Bloomberg won, but with a much smaller margin than pundits were predicting. I was hearing he might win by as much as 10%-15% yesterday - he won by just 5% over City Comptroller Bill Thompson.
In New York’s 23rd Congressional District I was wrong yet again, assuming that Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman would defeat Democrat Bill Owens by a substantial margin. Owens won with a 3-point lead over Hoffman. In fairness, I was second-guessing that prediction yesterday hours before polls closed in New York, and I’ll explain why shortly.
Second of all, let me stress that I don’t believe this was a referendum on President Obama or the Democratic Party. In fact, Tom Schaller had a very interesting post the other day, suggesting it could be more of a referendum on the GOP.
However, most of this comes down to the local circumstances of each race. As we mentioned last week, the Deeds defeat - and the extent to which he lost - had more to do with poor campaigning on the part of him and his party than on anything to do with the “spending in Washington” we’ve heard so much about. Chuck Todd said it best when he pointed out “[the Virginia race is] a good reminder that campaigns matter.”
In New Jersey, Corzine was plagued by the difficulties of governing in a recession - something we’ve discussed time and time again. In order to balance the state budget he had to increase property taxes and reduce services - actions that would be unpopular no matter what. The property tax increase was particularly damaging to him - according to the exit polls, a whopping 26% of voters said it was their main issue in the race, and that meant a significant drop in support (by perhaps as many as 100,000 voters) in the suburbs of Philadelphia and New York City.
Now let me get back to the elections in Maine and NY-23.
Yesterday something crossed my mind while looking at the polls on Question 1 in Maine - what if we were looking at a Bradley Effect?
To explain, let’s look at the three most recent polls on the issue. Two found that the referendum would fail - a Daily Kos / Research 2000 poll said it would by 1% and a Pan Atlantic poll said it would by 11%. A third poll, conducted by Public Policy Polling, found the referendum would pass by 4% - which is roughly what happened.
It’s important to note that unlike the other two polls, the PPP survey was an automated response poll - allowing respondents to explain their position by punching in numbers on their keypads and not talking to a live person. This allowed them to be honest about their opposition to gay marriage without being embarrassed for what could be perceived as homophobia.
I was led on to that theory by a recent article in Politico on the gay marriage referendum. Just read some of the responses from those interviewed:
"[‘No on 1’] did a very good job of humanizing the issue," said state Sen. Peter Mills, a Republican who voted for the marriage equality law and opposes Question One. "They had gay couples inviting themselves into the Rotary Club and talking about what it's like to live in a world where it's possible to discriminate against somebody just because they're a same-sex couple."…
…"Even in the conservative areas, they don't like the government telling them what to do and making choices for them," said former Defense Secretary William Cohen, who served as a Republican senator from Maine and has not taken a position on Question 1. "Maine people in particular are very open to change, even though it's a moderate-to-conservative state overall."
Republican politicians not only kept mum about the issue, but some even went so far as to oppose Question 1, seemingly to save themselves from what they figured was a socially libertarian electorate. In fact, it seems quite possible that many anti-gay marriage Mainers were hiding their true opinions from their neighbors.
Moving a few hours south of the Pine Tree State we come to New York’s 23rd. Many - including myself - initially figured that Hoffman would solidify support from Scozzafava’s base despite her endorsement of Owens. After all, the polls said he would.
But yesterday two things occurred to me. First, Scozzafava would remain on the ballot, and a sizeable portion of her supporters would vote for her regardless of her decision to drop out - it turned out to be 6% of the electorate.
Second, many of Scozzafava’s supporters probably quickly decided that they would support Hoffman - Owens was a Democrat, after all - and then later changed their minds. The second part of that trend, however, wouldn’t have been reflected in the polls following Scozzafava’s decision - it took place just four days before the election. My guess is a number of these voters took a step back and said “well, I am a center-right conservative, but this Hoffman guy is really out there - he just called Glenn Beck his mentor.”
With a shake-up as dramatic as Scozzafava’s decision, it’s quite possible that her supporters were scrambling like that to make a decision before Tuesday.
Finally, everyone is going to want to point out broader implications about what these elections mean for 2010. Republicans are saying that voters - even blue state voters like those in New Jersey - are rejecting Obama/Democratic policies and that we’ll see this trend continue in 2010. Democrats are arguing that the shake-up in NY-23 indicates that conservative activists are moving the GOP so far to the right that they won’t be electable next year.
The implication I see, however, is along the lines of an idea we’ve discussed before. Next year might be a tough year for Democrats on the state level, but probably not too bad of a year on the federal level.
We saw such trends yesterday. Democrats won in special Congressional elections in New York and California, while losing statewide races in New Jersey and Virginia, not to mention State Legislative seats in Pennsylvania and elsewhere.
Whether those trends will carry on in 2010 will now depend on just how the parties and campaigns position themselves going into next year.
With polls closing in Maine, New York, New Jersey, and Virginia in less than 12 hours we thought we’d bring you some Election Day analysis from pundits across the news media and blogosphere.
“We know that whether Jon Corzine wins or loses, he won't get 50 percent, meaning more than half of the state voted to oust him in a very blue state.
We know that the Republican Party has to deal with two rifts, one that is ideological, the other a battle between the establishment and grassroots. The two rifts are not interchangeable.
We know that not being associated with either political party is a net plus with many voters — from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s expected victory, to Chris Daggett's influence in New Jersey, to Doug Hoffman's rise in New York's 23rd Congressional District.
And we know that the president's coattails have gotten shorter…
…Let's start with what should be the biggest lesson: The return of the angry independent.
The one thing Daggett and Hoffman have in common is that they both have anti-establishment, anti-political party credentials. And both used those attributes to gain credibility.
While lots of folks want to paint 2010 as either a midterm election like 1994 (Democratic over-reach backlash), or 1982 (economic angst), let me suggest that things are looking more like 1992, when a billionaire gadfly galvanized the radical middle…
…there are a few other things about [the Virginia] race that shouldn't be overlooked.
First, McDonnell avoided a divisive primary and didn't have to "run right" before running to the middle in the general. In fact, McDonnell got to run to the middle the entire year — his ads project a pragmatic problem solver who can work with both parties. It should be a model for Republican gubernatorial candidates in 2010, and perhaps for any Republican pondering a presidential run in 2012…
…Second, McDonnell was of course helped by the inept campaign run by Democrat Creigh Deeds. But the irony is this: Deeds is the most centrist/moderate Democrat the party has nominated this century. He is to the right of Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, and Jim Webb, but he was painted as someone more liberal than any of those three. These mistakes are on Deeds and his campaign. It's a good reminder that campaigns matter.”
“President Barack Obama believes in the saving grace of the federal government.
But do the American people?
In a time of economic uncertainty and fear, that is the core question implicit — and sometimes explicit — on Election Day 2009…
…It's always dangerous to extrapolate national trends from scattered local elections such as these.
And of course, as I write, we don't know the results — only which way the polls were heading in the final days. But I think in this case the message is already clear: Voters, who launched the Obama Era with so much hope a year ago, are still hopeful but they're also skeptical.
And they are once again impatient with Washington, and with big shots of any stripe — on Wall Street or the nation's capital — who seem more interested in increasing their own power than truly solving problems.”
“A big Republican win in Virginia will not be an earth mover, but instead confirm that the home of Thomas Jefferson and Robert E. Lee is a toss up state that still swings Republican. A Bob McDonnell victory will be seen by most in the media as reflecting a rising discomfort with the explosive growth of Washington, but also, perhaps more importantly, the weakness of the Democratic candidate…
…Every Democratic consultant I've talked to over the past few days has let loose involuntary groans every time they talked about [the New Jersey] race. Many Democrats began quietly predicting the collapse of the independent candidate at the end of last week and assumed that factor would help Christie.
Last minute polls suggest they may be right.
Still, I believe the Democrats' turnout operation should keep this race tight all night. If the race is instead a blowout, that can only be bad news for the Democrats.
And for those second guessing the president's active involvement in Corzine's race, the fact is that Barack Obama had no choice but to jump head first into the Jersey fight. All the president's men know that a Republican sweep in New Jersey and Virginia will strike fear in the hearts of those swing state Democrats who now hold the future of health care in their sweaty moderate hands…
…Hoffman's ascendancy in NY-23 is less about Barack Obama than it is about a decade of bloated and corrupt Republican leadership in Washington, D.C. This race gave the same conservatives who helped drive Ronald Reagan's victory and the 1994 Republican Revolution something to cheer about for the first time in a long time. It also gave them an opportunity to stick it to an incompetent GOP Establishment…
Here are my predictions a little more than 24 hours before the polls close:
Virginia-- Bob McDonnell by 10+ New Jersey-- Chris Christie by 1 New York 23-- Doug Hoffman by 7
…(Despite my prediction, I still have a hard time seeing Jon Corzine losing this race.)”
Also, be sure to check out Politico’s “5 Things to Watch for” in Virginia, New Jersey, and NY-23, as well as a good article on the gay-marriage referendum in Maine.
