Summary: The matchup between Kirk and Giannoulias is looking better for Republicans.
For months, Republicans have seen Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) as the best chance possible for winning a Senate seat in a liberal state. For them, the news just gets better and better.
Recently, Democratic State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias has been under fire, as his family business - Broadway Bank - was seized and closed by the FDIC last month. His own polls show him neck-and-neck with Kirk, and independent polls find him further behind.
Now he’s having trouble earning support from key Illinois Democrats.
In an interview with Politico, Chicago Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL) said “I like Alexi Giannoulias, but I have great respect for Mark Kirk and his service to the people of Illinois.” Apparently, he’s been considering a Kirk endorsement.
None of Chicago’s three black Congressmen - Jackson Jr., Bobby Rush, and Danny Davis - endorsed Giannoulias in the primary, and none of them seem to have warmed up to their party’s nominee.
From the story:
“Like all statewide Democratic candidates, Giannoulias will need strong turnout in Chicago to overcome the Republican tendencies of downstate Illinois. As of the most recent census, more than one-third of Chicagoans — and 15 percent of the state’s residents — are black. It would help on the ground level to have the backing of Chicago’s black lawmakers, including Jackson, who served as a co-chairman of President Barack Obama’s campaign and whose wife, Sandi, is a powerful city alderman.
By all measures, it’s a competitive race, and Giannoulias can ill afford to have any cracks in the traditional Democratic coalition.”
Not only would the failure to receive a Jackson endorsement (even if he doesn’t endorse Kirk) hurt Giannoulias symbolically, but mechanically as well. In order to drive turnout on Chicago’s South Side, the current State Treasurer will need help from Jackson’s important political operations there.
There is a lot that goes in to waging a campaign. Details are tricky and time is a valuable resource. But given the political landscape this year, the Giannoulias campaign will want to devote some time and manpower towards courting Chicago’s congressmen.
Summary: Why all the “anti-establishment” rhetoric is only half of the story.
Last night, the May 18th Democratic primaries in Pennsylvania and Arkansas were characterized as anti-incumbency elections while the GOP primary in Kentucky was noted - at the very least - for being an anti-establishment contest.
In Pennsylvania, five-term Senator Arlen Specter was defeated in a Democratic primary against Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA). In Arkansas, Senator Blanche Lincoln was forced into a run-off against Lt. Governor Bill Halter in their Democratic primary. Meanwhile in Kentucky, the Tea Party candidate Rand Paul crushed Washington-backed candidate Trey Grayson in a Republican primary.
The anti-establishment, anti-incumbent fevers on display Tuesday are not new…[but] what’s now clear, in a way that wasn’t before, is that these results reflect a genuine national phenomenon, not simply isolated spasms in response to single issues or local circumstances.
This is a stark and potentially durable change in politics. The old structures that protected incumbent power are weakening. New structures, from partisan news outlets to online social networks, are giving anti-establishment politicians access to two essential elements of effective campaigns: publicity and financial support.
In effect, the anti-institutional forces that coalesced in recent years now look like an institutional force of their own.
There certainly was an anti-incumbency and anti-establishment mood among voters yesterday - there’s no denying that.
Last month we pointed to a Gallup poll that found voters more upset with incumbents than ever. For the first time in 20 years, less than a majority of Americans (49%) said that their member of Congress deserved re-election while an incredible 40% said they did not.
But this is only half of the story.
If you look at all the incumbents who lost in primaries in recent elections, there is one thing that makes them all similar - they were centrists.
In 2006, Senator Joe Lieberman was upset by the viscerally liberal Ned Lamont in a Democratic primary because of the incumbent’s support for the Iraq War. Lieberman was forced to become an independent in order to keep his Senate seat.
Similarly, Governor Charlie Crist (R-FL) has been forced out of the GOP in the Florida Senate race. Although he had not yet faced the more conservative Marco Rubio in a primary, Crist dropped out from his party and is now running as an independent.
Specter made a similar move last year to avoid a risky Republican primary with the more conservative Pat Toomey. He hoped that by becoming a Democrat he could hang on to his seat. In the end he was forced out of office in a Democratic primary by a more liberal opponent.
Even in Arkansas - a state that is by no means liberal - Blanche Lincoln is still fighting off a challenge from a more liberal primary contender. The Paul-Grayson matchup in Kentucky also characterizes a loss for the middle-of-the-road.
So why is this the trend?
An important rule for political success is “keep your base happy” - once they’re less than thrilled with your performance they’ll either stay home in a general election or vote you out in a primary. The base is the source of support that is constantly motivated politically.
Moderate voters don’t pay all that much attention to politics and they don’t vote as regularly - and they certainly don’t vote as often in primaries. They don’t tend to knock on doors or make phone calls. They’re not dependable for political success.
In recent years these facts have become all the more important - when raising small amounts of money online from your base is easier than getting a few large contributions from richer non-political donors, appealing more to the base is critical.
Ultimately this is very characteristic of why the American political landscape is as polarized as it is at the moment.
So as much as it’s true that Washington is unpopular and the incumbency effect seems like a less positive trait than usual, keep this in mind: incumbents and establishment candidates will do fine this year.
Summary: Democrats in the upper chamber will have to defend some indefensible votes this November.
As you may have heard by now, the healthcare reconciliation bill will have to go back to the House of Representatives. The fear among proponents of the bill was that Senate Republicans would offer amendments that Democrats could not pass up, which would automatically mean it would need to go back to the House for approval.
What actually happened: the Republicans won on a point of order at 3:00 AM this morning using a parliamentary rule that by necessity changes the bill in question. Democrats have thus far been resilient to resist tempting amendments.
This means that little in the bill changes, it will likely be passed about an hour from now, and be approved by the House later tonight. President Obama will then likely sign this last piece of healthcare legislation in to law by next week.
And as we mentioned Monday, healthcare reform success should help Democrats in the midterm elections this November.
At least in the House - the Senate may be a different story.
So far the Senate GOP has introduced no less than 146 amendments to the reconciliation bill that Democrats have had to vote against to guarantee swift passage. They’ve been steadfast, but it comes at a price.
• S.AMDT.3556 - Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) introduced an amendment “prohibiting coverage of Viagra for child molesters and rapists” under the government’s health insurance exchange.
• S.AMDT.3639 - Senator John Thune (R-SD) introduced an amendment to “ensure that no State experiences a net job loss as a result of” healthcare reform.
• S.AMDT.3564 - Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) introduced an amendment that guarantees “the President, Cabinet Members, all White House Senior staff and Congressional Committee and Leadership Staff are purchasing health insurance through the health insurance exchanges” established in the overhaul.
Now who would disagree with these measures?
Most people wouldn’t. And that’s exactly the point. Republicans are making sure that Democrats have to choose between a rock and a hard place.
The rock: the healthcare bill faces a tougher time getting passed.
The hard place: Democratic Senators at risk in 2010 have to face attack ads that say “Senator So-and-So voted to give rapists Viagra at the taxpayer’s expense.”
The hard place is a lot more important.
According to Nate Silver’s most recent Senate Forecast, there’s more than a 50% chance that the Democrats will lose at least 5 Senate seats this year. There’s even some chance - albeit, a small one - that they could lose the majority.
Protecting our at-risk incumbents would be a lot easier if they didn’t have to make some of these votes.
Some of you have probably seen this by now, but if not, it’s time you did. Carly Fiorina’s senate campaign in California recently released this ad attacking her GOP primary opponent, Rep. Tom Campbell, via FCINO.com.
It’s hilariously bad. So bad that you may want to stop watching it half-way through. But I guarantee you’ll want to watch it through the end.
Now, in fairness, this was a web-ad rather than a television spot. But even so, if I was the consultant who produced it, I would be pretty embarrassed by my work.
You may be asking “why sheep?” “Why devil sheep?” “Why the pigs?” “Why so long?” I only wish I could answer these questions. Referring to the strange Reagan campaign commercial from 1984, our old friend Prof. Arnold Shober said today “this is the ‘There’s a Bear’ Ad gone wrong.”
And since it was released earlier this month, Fiorina has been getting a lot of (probably well-deserved) flack for the piece. I honestly cannot understand why they haven’t abandoned this strategy yet.
Plus (just in case this alone isn’t enough for you) there have been a lot of spoofs of it posted on YouTube.
With hours left before polls close in the Bay State, political junkies, insiders, and the press are looking forward to what are expected to be close results.
We’ll be blogging during the returns tonight, but for the meantime, here are some good articles on the race…
• “Five Things to Watch for in Massachusetts” (Politico): To make some sense of the early returns, POLITICO put together a guide of five things to watch as the results come in, after polls close at 8 p.m. (EST).
• “538 Model Posits Brown as 3:1 Favorite” (FiveThirtyEight): The FiveThirtyEight Senate Forecasting Model, which correctly predicted the outcome of all 35 Senate races in 2008, now regards Republican Scott Brown as a 74 percent favorite to win the Senate seat in Massachusetts on the basis of new polling…which show worsening numbers for Brown's opponent, Martha Coakley.
• “Martha Choakley?” (FiveThirtyEight): It's still not entirely clear to [author Tom Schaller] that Martha Coakley will lose today… Still…Even though a short, six-week race in February of an off-year cycle is more than the normally disadvantaged, minority Republicans could hope for, that argument could be turned inside out, too: how much damage can a majority-party standard bearer like Coakley do to herself in such a short time? Quite a bit, apparently.
As of right now, I would agree that this race is not over. Coakley still has a reasonable shot of pulling off a victory. But this will be close, and the odds are surprisingly against her.
We’ll see you back here when polls close tonight.
UPDATE: Here are some more stories coming out of Boston...
• In what should be good news for Coakley, the Globe reports that voter turnout has been pretty high so far today. However, it appears that the enthusiasm gap is much higher for Brown, which may be why David Axelrod is saying Brown ran an impressive campaign.
• The Boston Globe also broke with protocol earlier today and briefly posted the results of the exit polls taken so far. The Boston Phoenix made sure to post the results on their website. They have Coakley winning over Brown 50% to 49%. Usually, however, releasing exit polls early is a burden to the one in the lead.
Summary: With Lieberman holding up the Senate healthcare bill, Democrats need to explore their options looking forward to 2010.
Every liberal in the country following the ongoing healthcare debate is furious. Much of this anger is directed at one man in particular: Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT).
After Senate Democrats met to reach a compromise bill that could pass the 60-vote threshold for cloture, they cut the public option and replaced it with a plan to allow 55-64-year-olds to opt-in to Medicare, and give the government power to negotiate non-profit plans with private insurance companies.
For Lieberman, that was not good enough. He continued to threaten a “no” vote on cloture, preventing a final up-or-down vote on the bill. The White House pushed Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to accommodate Lieberman’s concerns and cut the Medicare expansion provision.
Progressives, who have argued that reform without a public option is hardly reform at all, seemed to wake up to the threat Lieberman poses for passage of a bill. Headlines from the Huffington Post this week read along the lines of the Connecticut Senator holding healthcare hostage.
To be sure, the fight over healthcare reform on the part of political activists is still heavy on the conservative end, but as this recent Politico video demonstrates, neither side of the debate is happy with Lieberman.
What other developments have come out of Lieberman’s stubbornness?
• Liberals are becoming as likely to oppose the Senate bill as conservatives. Former DNC Chairman - and a big advocate of healthcare reform - Howard Dean, M.D. told MSNBC last night that “you can’t vote for this bill in good conscience.” The video below includes Dean’s interview, as well as a lot of insight towards how progressives are feeling right now.
Now, not all liberals are going to necessarily agree. In a late-night post this morning, Nate Silver suggested that progressives were “[expletive] crazy to oppose the Senate bill.”
“I understand that most of the liberal skepticism over the Senate bill is well intentioned. But it has become way, way off the mark. Where do you think the $800 billion goes? It goes to low-income families just like these. Where do you think it comes from? We won't know for sure until the Senate and House produce their conference bill, but it comes substantially from corporations and high-income earners, plus some efficiency gains.”
Silver argues that come 2016 (even after inflation) a family of four earning $54,000 per year will still pay significantly less for coverage.
His only mistake might be that the public option would, in fact, help hold down costs. The data he uses is from a CBO report that took the public option into account. Without the public option, premiums may rise a lot faster than 7.5% per year.
• Politico reports that Lieberman’s Connecticut colleagues are “fed up” with him. U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) even told the news service “No individual should hold health care hostage, including Joe Lieberman, and I’ll say it flat out, I think he ought to be recalled.”
• When asked if he would run as a Republican when his term ends in 2012, Lieberman told CNN it was “a possibility” and that “all options are open.”
• The House Democrats are becoming increasingly frustrated with the slow pace of the Senate. Some went so far as to say “Sometimes I get the feeling that some of those guys [in the Senate] just like to see their names in the paper and see their faces on TV,” and “If you just take a look at the number of bills we’ve sent to the Senate and what they’ve done, I don’t know what they’re doing with their time honestly.”
• Upset that one or two Senators could uphold an entire bill years-in-the-making - like Lieberman and Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) have done with healthcare - Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) recently announced that he was considering introducing a bill that would eliminate the Senate filibuster.
From the Omaha World-Herald:
"It really is an abuse," Harkin said. "It's an abuse of a person's position as a senator to demand, because we need one more vote, just to demand everything. It's really unfair to the rest of the Senate, rest of the caucus."
He said lots of senators, himself included, have to come to terms with disappointments in the health care bill.
"To sort of lay down an ultimatum, 'Well, it's got to be this or nothing and I'm walking away from it,' well that's not the way you do legislation," Harkin said. "If you want to be a legislator, maybe it's not the right place for a person to be that takes a position like that."
Harkin said he's not sure about the level of support among other senators for eliminating the filibuster. He noted that he proposed legislation to do so years ago.
But perhaps Joe Scarborough made the best point this morning on his MSNBC program, “Morning Joe”, where he said that passing a healthcare bill progressives were unhappy with would be worse for the party’s 2010 prospects than they realize. It would keep the base at home come election time in November.
We made a similar assertion a few weeks ago when we listed the Top 5 things Democrats needed to do in 2010:
“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.”
Democrats do have some leverage over Lieberman that they still seem reluctant to use: his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. Threatening to strip him of that role if he filibusters a favorable healthcare bill is the only way Senate Democrats can expect to pass a bill and keep the base happy.
In fact, most Americans agree with this course of action. A recent Research 2000 poll found that a plurality of Americans (by a 47%-32% margin) support this punishment. More importantly, 81% of the Democratic base agrees.
The healthcare debate is sure to shape the outcomes of the 2010 midterm elections. The Tea Parties have been strong and they may drive some key GOP victories. But Democrats need to be equally concerned about alienating their own supporters. 2010 will be a backlash year for Democrats, but fail on healthcare reform and the hardest backlash will come from the progressive base.
Following Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court back in May, we commented that the GOP would be unlikely to filibuster her confirmation because of a fear of losing Hispanic votes.
Of course, with Sen. Al Franken being sworn in earlier this month, it is extremely unlikely that Senate Republicans could pull off a filibuster anyway. But even if they wanted to, as blogger Glenn Thrush said, “every GOP leader with a pulse knows that opposing her could accelerate the stampede of Latinos out of the GOP in the southwest, west and Texas.”
In fact, our very first post back in October explained how winning Latino support was putting then-Senator Barack Obama over the top in states like Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada. The GOP has tried to be cautious of the growing significance of Hispanic votes.
Apparently, that fact is of no concern to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Ranking Minority Member, Jeff Sessions (R-AL). Since the confirmation hearings began earlier this week, Sessions has been in (what appears to be) full campaign mode against her.
Just watch his message consistency as he questioned her on Tuesday:
Sessions knows full well that nothing can derail a Senate Judiciary confirmation like charges of racism. When President Ronald Reagan nominated him to be a District Court judge back in 1986, the GOP-controlled Judiciary Committee rejected him upon the following stories:
Senate Democrats tracked down a career Justice Department employee named J. Gerald Hebert, who testified, albeit reluctantly, that in a conversation between the two men Sessions had labeled the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)… "un-American" and "Communist-inspired." Hebert said Sessions had claimed [the NAACP] "forced civil rights down the throats of people."
…Hebert testified that the young lawyer tended to "pop off" on such topics regularly, noting that Sessions had called a white civil rights lawyer a "disgrace to his race" for litigating voting rights cases…
…Another damaging witness--a black former assistant U.S. Attorney in Alabama named Thomas Figures--testified that, during a 1981 murder investigation involving the Ku Klux Klan, Sessions was heard by several colleagues commenting that he "used to think they [the Klan] were OK" until he found out some of them were "pot smokers."…Sessions, he said, had called him "boy" and, after overhearing him chastise a secretary, warned him to "be careful what you say to white folks."
So, when you want to court Latino voters - as President George W. Bush did fairly well in his two national elections - letting a man like Sessions be the chief opponent of a Sotomayor confirmation seems like a particularly dumb move on the part of the GOP.
Why is Latino support so critical?
Hispanics are the second largest ethnic group in the United States, and they’re continuing to grow. As NBC’s Chuck Todd and Sheldon Gawiser pointed out in their book Why Obama Won:
"Young voters are more diverse racially and ethnically than older voters and are growing more over time. Just 62% of voters under 30 are white, while 18% are black and 14% are Hispanic…in 2000, nearly three-quarters, 74%, were white."
And as we all know, young voters were particularly supportive of Obama. The correlation is that as younger voters grow older - and more and more young people reach the voting age - Hispanics will become a more and more prominent voting bloc.
What makes Sotomayor’s Supreme Court nomination so important is that there are still few Latinos holding high offices in the U.S. government. Hispanics represent about 15% of the American population, but only about 6% of the House of Representatives and 2% of the Senate. Furthermore, in 2008, only 7.7% of federal employees in the civil service were Hispanic, with only about 3% holding senior roles.
This might be an important reason as to why Hispanics made up only 7.4% of the total vote in 2008 - they seldom have one of their own to support.
While there are many non-partisan groups for the advancement of Hispanics in public life out there - such as the National Association of Latinos in Elected Office, The Leauge of United Latin American Citizens, and La Raza - the most successful groups of these sorts would be partisan.
The reason is simple: those involved with the parties themselves are often more experienced and would have a greater incentive to build support by recruiting Latinos for public office (namely, building a base to win elections for their party).
And between their nativist stance on immigration and now Session’s stark opposition to confirming Judge Sotomayor, the GOP is becoming less and less likely to be the party to achieve this goal. Thus - despite their efforts to the contrary - it seems evident that the Republicans will continue to lose out on the growing Hispanic vote.
Today Senate Republicans blocked their first Obama Administration nominee. David Hayes, the nominee for Interior deputy secretary, would have been easily confirmed had it not been for a failed cloture vote.
The vote for cloture was 57-39 - just three votes short.
It all began when Interior Secretary Ken Salazar put an oil-and-lease sale in Utah on hold. That sparked Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT) to call for an opposition to incoming Interior Department nominees.
It seems like a strange move for all but two GOP Senators - John Kyle and Olympia Snowe - to rally behind Bennett for his local constituency in a partisan effort to filibuster a non-political civil servant such as Hayes. Especially for the Interior Department. But that’s exactly what they did.
What’s really incredible is that Bennett said that Hayes was qualified for the position and "I want to do everything I can to get Hayes confirmed as rapidly as possible."
Now Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says he’ll wait until Al Franken is seated - if he needs to - in order to confirm Hayes. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin pledged to bring the Hayes confirmation back to a vote on Monday.
Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) told reporters today "What we have today is a classic hostage-taking," while Salazar said in a press statement:
"This was a tired vote of bitter obstructionism … It may be uncomfortable for some to watch us have to clean up mess after mess -- from corruption to lawbreaking -- that is the previous administration's legacy at Interior, but to cast a vote against such a qualified and fine person is the height of cynicism."
While Salazar stood by the decision to hold-up the lease, he told Bennett in a letter yesterday that he would instruct Hayes (once nominated) to go to Utah and review the situation.
Beyond this, the confirmation process of Obama nominees has been the slowest for any President in ages. The last time it was comparatively slow was in 1981, where (by this point in the year) Democrats in the Senate had confirmed 125 Reagan nominees. This year the GOP has only confirmed 104 of Obama’s.
But why are Senate Republicans doing this?
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) joined the opposition to Hayes because of her disagreements with the Obama Administration on enforcement of the Endangered Species Act.
But that only accounts for one GOP Senator, and it really isn’t a good answer.
The truth is that this could serve as a huge setback to the GOP. If this story gets the attention it deserves it would make the Republican Party seem as hyper-partisan as ever.
If we were Senate Republicans, we would use the upcoming Supreme Court nomination to replace Justice David Souter as an opportunity to save what grace the GOP has left with the voters.
