Posts Tagged ‘democrats’


Another Self-Inflicted Economic Crisis

Posted on: January 2nd, 2013 by Kyle. | No Comments

Charles Blow is spot-on yet again with his latest column in which he bemoans the continuous nature of the self-inflicted economic crises that we have witnessed over the past couple years: first with the debt ceiling and then with the so-called fiscal cliff, a combination of tax increases and cuts to defense spending and Medicare. While yesterday’s vote to stave off a tax increase on the middle class was a success, it was done by kicking the can down the road rather than resolving fights over the debt ceiling and spending cuts. Blow writes:

“Be clear: there is no reason to celebrate. This is a mournful moment. We — and by we I mean Congress, and by Congress I mean the Republicans in Congress — have again demonstrated just how broken and paralyzed our government has become, how beholden to hostage-takers, how vulnerable to extremism.

A fiscal cliff deal was cut at the last possible minute, covering a minimal number of issues. It was far from perfect and barely palatable. It was a compromise, and compromises are inherently imperfect. No one likes the whole of it, but they balance the bad parts against the good and see beyond dissension.

As the fiscal cliff votes came down to the wire, many repeated the aphorism: don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. But sadly, we are beyond even that. Now the perfunctory has become the victim of the grueling.

The American people suffered through another moment of manufactured suspense brought on by political malpractice. There was no grand bargain. There was only a begrudging acquiescence.”

Blow goes on to note that the Congress ending on Thursday will be the least productive one in modern history with only 173 public laws past by the end of 2012. Even the “Do Nothing” Congress, which Harry Truman bashed on his way to an electoral victory, enacted 906 laws in their two year period between January 1947 and December 1948. The one main function of Congress, to pass laws, is rendered ineffective by an intransigent group of extremists who are hell-bent on blowing up government itself.


Steps at the U.S. Capitol Building - Washington, D.C.

Now if your goal is to gum up the works of government, one would say that this Congress has done a pretty good job. Many conservatives would be gleeful to see the government shut down and the credit rating of the United States downgraded. But what exactly does that mean for the business community who so dutifully funds the Republican Party?

During the last debt ceiling crisis, in August of 2011, the stock market shaved off over 4 percent of its value, the steepest decline since the start of the recession in 2008. It eroded U.S. GDP growth and slowed the pace of job recovery. With no certainty over fiscal policy, thanks to ideologically rigid politicians, investors are left to seriously wonder whether the U.S. government (i.e. Congress) will make good on its debt obligations. Why would anyone in their right mind invest in a country where every few months there is a new self-inflicted economic crisis?

And let’s be clear on that: the debt ceiling and the so-called “fiscal cliff” are self-inflicted wounds that did not have to happen. In fact, the “fiscal cliff” was created in the aftermath of the debt ceiling debacle of 2011 when Republicans in Congress refused to extend the country’s debt ceiling – even though they had already committed the money in their budgets – unless cuts were made. Now they want to undo the cuts that they themselves had negotiated and extend tax cuts to millionaires. Thankfully, they lost on at least one of those issues but are positioned to yet again drag the country through another economic turmoil over the debt ceiling in roughly two months from now.

Unfortunately, there’s not a simple political solution, either. Many of the Republicans who would be willing to vote for an economically sane approach to governance fear a primary challenge from the right more than they do a general election from the left. This is due in large part thanks to gerrymandered districts, created by politicians in statehouses across the country for political gain to both ensure their party’s control and to protect incumbents. Unless the Supreme Court rules that gerrymandering is unconstitutional (it clearly is a violation of the First Amendment when politicians can silence voters through the lines that they draw) or voters pass state-by-state referendums to create independent map-drawing commissions, we are likely to continue to see a Congress that is inflexible and unresponsive to the demands of voters.


Election Prediction 2012: President, Senate and House

Posted on: November 5th, 2012 by Kyle. | No Comments

The 2012 election cycle has been a long and costly battle against two very different ideologies. By this time tomorrow night we may very well know who the next president will be until January 2017. The most likely outcome based on polling, trends and historical state allegiances portends well for President Obama, Senate Democrats and House Republicans.

President

As I posted on Saturday, President Obama is a heavy favorite to win the Electoral College and thus the presidency. Nothing has changed in the two days since then to disrupt the status quo of the race. In fact, the numbers that have come in since then reinforce a narrow win for the incumbent. Based on the polling average from Pollster.com and on the trends of the race, I predict President Obama to be a 2-3 point favorite in the popular vote and a 332 to 206 favorite in the Electoral College.

For a deeper explanation of where these projections come from I would suggest reading Saturday’s post. The bottom line is that President Obama has a solid base of support in Democratic-leaning states along with consistent leads in a number of swing states (most notably Ohio). Obama has momentum in Florida and Colorado that should be enough to put him over the top in those states on Tuesday night. The map is below:

Senate

After losing six Senate seats in the 2010 election, Democrats looked likely to repeat a decline in their ranks in 2012. It was almost universally accepted that Democrats would lose control of the Senate, given the grim map where they had to defend 23 seats to only 10 for the GOP. A number of incumbent Democratic senators decided to retire in red states, making the situation that much worse for Democrats.

Against all odds, Democrats look poised to actually gain seats after this year’s election. A number of strategic blunders on the part of Republican primary voters, gaffes by candidates and surprisingly strong recruitment by the Democrats has led to a situation where I am predicting a net gain of 2 seats from 53 to 55.

Nothing underlines the Republican Party’s collapse in this year’s Senate races more than Todd Akin, who suggested that the female body had a way to “shut down” an unwanted pregnancy that resulted from rape and thus abortion in such cases was unnecessary. National Republicans pressured Akin to get out of the race but he stayed in and will likely cost their party a seat that they were otherwise likely to pick up from Senator Claire McCaskill. McCaskill is a first-term senator with middling approval ratings who won in the wave election of 2006 with less than 50% of the vote.

Republicans threw away another senate seat when they knocked off Indiana’s long-time senator, Dick Lugar, in a Republican primary. It is still not clear what exactly Lugar did to invoke the wrath of Tea Party conservatives – Lugar remains a stalwart conservative – but their choice of Richard Mourdock has not gone over well in Indiana. Mourdock’s Akin-like comment that God “intends” for pregnancy to occur from rape essentially guaranteed that Joe Donnelly would pick up the seat for Democrats.

A third candidate, Olympia Snowe, decided to retire rather than face the will of far-right Tea Party primary voters. Independent Angus King, who is heavily favored to win Tuesday, will caucus with Democrats. These three seats alone, which were otherwise shoe-ins for the Republican candidates, are the difference between Republicans gaining and losing seats. Democrats will at worst retain their majority on Tuesday and at best gain two seats.

House

Democrats hoped that the gain of over 60 seats for Republicans in 2010 would mean that the tide would fall back and result in a net gain of at least the 25 seats that are needed for Dems to win a majority. It does not appear to be in the cards. The average of polls shows the national popular vote for House races to be neck-and-neck. Gerrymandering by Republican legislatures in a number of large states, including Michigan, Ohio, North Carolina and Pennsylvania, make reaching the necessary 25 seats unlikely. Republicans will retain their majority but Democrats will gain between 5 and 10 seats.

Conclusion

In 2008, I accurately projected the outcome in every state except three: Florida and Indiana (which went for Obama) and Missouri (which went for McCain). Ultimately, I was too conservative in my view of Obama’s performance in 2008. In 2010, I correctly projected the outcome of the country’s Senate races. We’ll see how 2012 turns out in the days to come as ballots are cast and votes are counted. I’ll analyze the results in a new post when all of the data is in. Until then, go out and vote!

*Edit*

A previous version accidentally colored West Virginia blue. The estimated Electoral Vote total of 332 is unaffected by this error.


Democrats Win By Defending Middle Class

Posted on: August 18th, 2011 by Kyle. | No Comments

President Obama is holding up remarkably well against his potential Republican challengers, despite low approval ratings. The economy is in a state of disarray with wild swings in the stock market and evidence that we may be heading into a second recession. Politically, it could not happen at a worse time for the president as he gears up for re-election.

However, history shows that when Democrats stand for middle class voters, they win elections. Franklin D. Roosevelt won four consecutive terms as president in the 1930s and 40s, despite entering during the Great Depression, which did not completely end until our entrance into World War II. A lot of this had to do with the public’s trust in the president that he was looking out for their interests against a Republican Party that looked out for big-business.

Wisconsin is a prime modern-day example of this. Republicans rode into office in 2010 with a message about economics and jobs. They quickly turned towards dismantling unions, a traditional protector of the middle class, despite the fact that they never even ran on it. The result: a historic six Republicans in the state senate faced recall elections. Two of them were defeated and the other four were all under 60% in traditionally Republican districts. Democrats moved from a 19-14 minority with little power to a 17-16 minority that will effectively stop radical legislation.

Rick Perlstein, author of the new book Nixonland, writes about how defending the social safety net helps Democrats to win elections:

…there’s also a story in Nixonland about how the Democratic Party wins, why it loses and the good things that happen when the party gets the formula right. I surely hope Obama did not miss it.

It concerns the two major axes upon which major national elections get fought. Sometimes they become battles over the cultural and social anxieties that ordinary Americans suffer. Other times they are showdowns about middle-class anxieties when the free market fails. Normally, in the former sort of election, Republicans win. In the latter, Democrats do—as we saw in 2008, when the tide turned after John McCain said “the fundamentals of the economy are strong.

I hope that the president learns a thing or two from Perlstein’s book. His move towards what he perceives as the political middle with incessant talk about deficit-cutting has hurt his standing among middle class voters. There is no doubt that the country faces long-term deficit issues, but the jobs picture is far more serious and urgent. President Obama should pivot towards jobs by unveiling a bold and detailed jobs plan while at the same time defending programs like Social Security and Medicare that the middle class rely on. Take it to the American people. Dare the Republicans in Congress to rebuff your plan. Not only would it be good politics, it would be good for the country to see real economic leadership. We need it.


Top of Ballot May Help House Dems in Some States

Posted on: October 27th, 2010 by Kyle. | No Comments

Even people that are not all that familiar with politics have heard of presidential coattails. We saw it quite clearly in 2008 when Democrats won marginal to conservative districts on the back of President Obama’s enormous turnout effort throughout the country. While that cannot be replicated this year (the president is not on the ballot), Democrats can point to a number of key Governor and Senate races where the top of the ballot could make the difference in House races.

California

Meg Whitman dumped over $150 million into the governor’s race this year, yet she trails Democrat and former governor Jerry Brown by double digits. She came out against employers that hired undocumented workers, but had a maid for ten years that was in the country illegally. This basically killed any chance she had of becoming governor.

In the Senate race, Democrat Barbara Boxer has consistently held a narrow lead over conservative Republican Carly Fiorina. A Republican has not won a Senate race in California since Pete Wilson in 1984. With polls moving towards Boxer in the final days, it is hard to see this 26 year old streak ending in 2010. As a result, Democratic House candidates can expect a bump from a strong top of the ballot.

This could help with races in California 11 and California 20 where polls show tight races for Representatives McNerney and Costa. Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez, who finds herself in a tough fight in traditionally Republican Orange County, may also benefit. The only Republican that looks vulnerable is Dan Lungren of California 3 near Sacramento.

Connecticut

As I posted yesterday, Connecticut’s Senate seat currently held by retiring Democrat Chris Dodd is now strongly favored to remain in Democratic hands. The race has moved into a double-digit advantage for state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal over former WWE CEO Linda McMahon. Democrats are also favored to win the governor’s mansion, which is currently held by a Republican. Winning both of these races should boost Democratic Representatives Murphy and Himes.

New York

Andrew Cuomo is the overwhelming favorite to win Tuesday’s gubernatorial race against Tea Party candidate Carl Paladino, who suggested that he would “take out” a reporter on tape. His over-the-top style is likely to hurt Republicans down the ballot and possibly cost Republicans a pick-up of 2 or 3 House seats in the state. The two Senate races (one of them a special election for the seat formerly held by Hillary Clinton) are blowout races as well.

Republicans are certain to pick-up the seat of former Congressman Eric Massa, who resigned in disgrace last December. Democrat Scott Murphy of New York 20, John Hall of New York 19, Bill Owens of New York 23, and Michael Arcuri of New York 24 all find themselves in close races. They could benefit from strong top-of-the-ballot performance on the Democratic side.

Pennsylvania

Polls had Republican Senate candidate Pat Toomey up by double-digits not more than a couple weeks ago. Today, the two are virtually tied. While Toomey may yet win this statewide race, he will likely benefit most from a Republican surge in districts where the party is already the strongest. The fact that Democrat Joe Sestak has managed to close the gap means that Democrats in marginal districts around the Philly suburbs could see a boost as well.
Democrats are currently likely to lose at least two seats in Pennsylvania, districts 3 and 11, where incumbents trail by double digits. The Democrats most likely to benefit are ones in close races: Chris Carney of Pennsylvania 10, Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania 8, Mark Critz of Pennsylvania 12.

This is not to suggest that the top of the ballot will save all of these candidates or even benefit the Democratic Party universally across the country. There are some states where gubernatorial races may hurt Democrats (Arizona for instance) and the same for Senate races (Republican’s expected win will drag down House Democratic candidates in Indiana). It may, however, make the difference in close races where more high profile races for statewide office help House incumbents.


Health Care Vote Will Hurt Republicans in November

Posted on: March 23rd, 2010 by Kyle. | No Comments

Now that health care reform has passed both chambers of Congress and is going to be signed into law today by President Obama, the election year political messaging begins. A lot of attention has been given to the 17 House Democrats seeking re-election in districts John McCain won in 2008 after having voted for health care reform. But there are 32 House Republicans that voted against the bill in districts that President Obama won in 2008.

In other words, while Democrats will have to defend their vote in tough districts, nearly double the number of Republicans find themselves in similar situations. Worse yet for the GOP, there is evidence that support for the bill is significantly improving from where it was just a couple months ago when Democrats lost the Massachusetts Senate seat long held by Ted Kennedy.

President Obama’s approval rating on health care stood at 36-54 opposed in January (according to CBS) and was up to 41-51 by this past weekend before the vote took place. That’s a shift of 8 points in about a two month period and that is before the House even passed the bill. Undoubtedly, those numbers will continue to improve as the positive coverage from the bill’s passage continues. The president’s overall job approval is at 49-41 positive, an improvement from 46-41 in January.

What these numbers show is that the negative feelings towards this bill have peaked and the positive feelings are on the way up. As various aspects of the bill begin to be felt relatively quickly, such as kids being able to stay on their parent’s insurance plan until age 26 or the ban on pre-existing conditions, approval will continue to improve. Americans will realize that the Armageddon that Republicans literally said would take place after the bill passed was nothing more than scare tactics.

Not only are calls for repealing the bill ridiculously unrealistic (President Obama would veto any repeal), they also will ring hallow in November. Voters will question why the Republican Party is campaigning on a platform of repealing a ban on pre-existing conditions, filling the Medicare prescription doughnut hole, extending health insurance to 32 million Americans and reducing the deficit by over $1 trillion over the next two decades.

Let’s get back to those 32 House Republicans that voted against health care in districts that President Obama won. Below is a list of all of them:

Judy Biggert IL-13
Brian Bilbray CA-50
Mary Bono Mack CA-45
Ken Calvert CA-44
Dave Camp MI-4
John Campbell CA-48
Anh “Joseph” Cao LA-2
Michael Castle DE-AL
Charles Dent PA-15
David Dreier CA-26
Randy Forbes VA-4
Elton Gallegly CA-24
Jim Gerlach PA-6
Mark Kirk IL-10
Leonard Lance NJ-7
Tom Latham IA-4
Frank LoBiondo NJ-2
Daniel Lungren CA-3
Donald Manzullo IL-16
Thaddeus McCotter MI-11
Howard “Buck” McKeon CA-25
Erik Paulsen MN-3
Thomas Petri WI-6
David Reichert WA-8
Mike Rogers MI-8
Peter Roskam IL-6
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen FL-18
Paul Ryan WI-1
Lee Terry NE-2
Patrick Tiberi OH-12
Fred Upton MI-6
Frank Wolf VA-10
Bill Young FL-10

Two are running for the Senate, Mark Kirk of Illinois and Mike Castle of Delaware. Both of those districts are favored to be won by Democrats. Representative Cao sits in a heavily Democratic New Orleans district and was only elected because the sitting member was a convicted felon. He voted for the House bill last November, but opposed it on Sunday. You can count him as a lame duck. Democrats are sure to win that seat back.

Go down the list and you can see some vulnerable names in Democratic or Democratic-trending districts: Peter Roskam and Judy Biggert in the Chicago suburbs, Jim Gerlach whose failed bid for governor has undoubtedly put him behind the game in his suburban Philadelphia district, Dan Lungren of California went from 62% support in the 2004 election to 49% in 2008.

With the right challengers facing each of these vulnerable Republicans, Democrats have a good chance at winning a few of these seats. The Republican takeover of Congress that conservatives are talking about seems a long way away when you add that to the Democrats which are already favored to pick up Mark Kirk’s seat in Illinois, Mike Castle’s in Delaware and Cao’s in Louisiana.

Despite phony concern coming from Republican leaders over the political impact that health care reform would have on Democrats, most evidence suggests that passing the bill enhances their chances of retaining majority status. The Democratic Party in Congress and President Obama have, without a single Republican vote, passed historic legislation to provide universal health care coverage for Americans. This goal has eluded every president since Tedd Roosevelt over 100 years ago. It’s an achievement that puts them in the history books and on safer political ground than they would have been if Republicans succeeded in killing the bill.

Let me be clear that I do not mean to say that Democrats will gain seats in the midterm election this fall. I believe that we will see modest losses in the House and a handful in the Senate. This falls well within the political history of the president’s party losing seats in a midterm election. Democrats won in places in 2008 that we normally wouldn’t have: conservative districts in Alabama and Idaho, among others. These are likely lost causes in 2010. But the talk of a takeover of both the House and Senate by Republicans is overblown. They will not win either chamber for a long time to come.


Health Care Reform Becomes Law as House Passes Bill

Posted on: March 21st, 2010 by Kyle. | 1 Comment

Democrats scored a major victory on Sunday night as the health care bill, which has been debated for over a year, has finally passed both chambers of Congress and is expected to be signed into law by President Barack Obama shortly. The vote was 219 to 212 with zero Republicans voting in favor. It is an achievement that eluded Presidents Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton.

The bill extends insurance to 32 million Americans that previously did not have health insurance, reduces the deficit by over $1 trillion over the next two decades, bans the insurance industry practice of denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions, and bans insurance companies from dropping coverage due to health. While Republicans have complained about a lack of bipartisanship, the bill includes over 200 Republican amendments.


Is America becoming a socialist nation?

Posted on: March 18th, 2010 by Kyle. | No Comments

It was not a common phrase in our lexicon until recently. Only after a black man was nominated and eventually elected president did the term “socialism” resurface to describe the Democratic Party’s leader. Bill Clinton avoided the accusation, as well as Al Gore and John Kerry. “Liberal” or “far left radical” was sufficient for them. But not for Barack Obama. Not for a president that many in white America fear as an illegitimate leader – one that only won 365 electoral votes and 53 percent of the popular vote – thanks to ACORN and falsified birth certificates. [end sarcasm]

It’s a serious charge, though, that I think we write off too quickly. While I would like to think that most Americans are reasonable enough to admit the simple reality that President Obama won the election in a landslide fashion and is indeed an American citizen, large numbers of Republicans come to different conclusions. Only 42 percent of Republicans polled by Research 2000 were found to believe that President Obama was a citizen of the United States. A majority were either convinced that he was not or were unsure.

So what motivates people to believe these fallacies? I believe that there are several causes, not the least of which is race. No one questioned a white president’s citizenship. The second is simply economics. There is a great deal of unease in our country today, largely derived from the economic anxieties that we live in, and rightfully so. But in these uncertain times people often come to conclusions that are, at best, flawed. They need someone to blame for all of their woes. President Obama is an easy target for them. He confirms their suspicions about a black man in the White House (emphasis on white).

I would rather not spend an entire post digressing about people’s (false) suspicions and conspiracy theories. I was invited to participate in a discussion about socialism in America on fire! Radio, an Internet radio program. You can listen to the full episode at this link or just click play on the player below. If you just want to hear what I have to say, you can skip to around 39:00 minutes, but the entire program is interesting:




What exactly is socialism, anyway? The standard dictionary definition of socialism is “a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.” If one wants to have an honest debate about government theory, properly defining terms is an important first step.

President Obama has never advocated for anything remotely close to a “command-and-control” system of government that socialism implies. Indeed, he has said throughout his political career and as president that he is a believer in the free market. At the same time, he has advocated for stronger protections of consumers through reforms of the financial system and health care system. One should not confuse government regulation with government control.

The second point that I would make is that the kinds of programs that have been derided as examples of “socialism”, such as the so-called public option, are already in existence for large portions of the population. Seniors benefit from “socialized medicine” in the form of Medicare. Veterans benefit from Veteran’s Affairs hospitals. The poor benefit from Medicaid. This is not a new concept in American politics. Protecting those that are vulnerable in society has been a priority among Democrats for decades.

Many of the complaints from some that have called President Obama a socialist were actually policies enacted during the Bush administration. TARP, otherwise known as the “bailout” for Wall Street, was a policy pushed by President Bush and Treasury Secretary Paulson in September 2008. It was Secretary Paulson that asked Congress for near limitless control over hundreds of billions of dollars with no oversight to speak of. The “auto bailout” began under President Bush as well. $17.4 billion was given to GM and Chrysler during the last month of the Bush administration (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16740.html).

The bottom line is that the country is not moving towards socialism. We live in a democracy where elections have consequences. Those upset with President Obama’s policies vocally opposed him before he was elected and they lost. We have a long tradition in this country of enacting programs that protect the poor and those in need, as well as regulate industries that abuse their power. Those policies will undoubtedly continue to be advanced by President Obama and Democrats in Congress, as well as future Democratic politicians.


Passing Health Care Gets Tricky for House Democrats

Posted on: February 28th, 2010 by Kyle. | No Comments

Almost all of the attention as of late has been on the Senate, but the House of Representatives could prove decisive in the battle to reform America’s ailing health care system. Both chambers have already passed separate versions of the bill with the Senate voting 60-40 and the House 220-215. The House passed their version of the bill in November with the Senate voting on Christmas Eve. The President’s health care summit does not appear to have changed the math.

Percentage wise, the vote was a lot closer in the House than it was in the Senate. The reason that the Senate got all of our attention was because of the Republican’s obstruction tactics, namely the filibuster, which requires 3/5 for passage instead of a majority vote. The President and Democratic leaders in the Senate appear to be ready to break the Republican’s filibuster attempts by passing a “fixed” version of the bill using a procedural device known as reconciliation.

It’s worth noting that Republicans attacking Democrats for using procedural shortcuts are themselves using procedural roadblocks. The filibuster is not in the Constitution and it is not even a law. It is simply a rule within the Senate which can be revised at the start of each Congress. Reconciliation, however, is in fact a law that was passed in the 1970s to reconcile budget issues. This is exactly what Democrats are likely to use it for as they will make changes to their original bill such as how to pay for it.

Going back to the House, though, it is unlikely that Speaker Pelosi currently has the votes to pass the Senate bill. There are two major hurdles that Democrats will need to face before President Obama can finally sign the bill. The first is that Democrats have literally lost three of their members from resignations and a death. Representative Jack Murtha recently passed away, Rep. Neil Abercrombie resigned to focus on his bid for governor of Hawaii and Robert Wexler resigned to head the Center for Middle East Peace and Economic Cooperation. In other words, with these vacancies, the Democrats stand at 217-215, not enough to pass the bill. A majority of the chamber is 218. The sole Republican to vote with Democrats, Joseph Cao, has stated that he will likely vote against it the second time. That puts Democrats two votes short of a majority.

Is it possible for Nancy Pelosi to strong-arm Democrats that voted against the bill to vote for this revised bill? Certainly it is possible, she could threaten everything from fundraising to committee spots, but most of the Democrats that voted no are conservatives from mostly rural and/or Southern districts. She could make the argument that even Democrats that voted against the health care bill are in big trouble – perhaps because they are undercutting their base. In New Mexico, Harry Teague is trailing former Congressman Pearce by two points, even though he voted against the original bill. Would he be in a stronger position if he had voted to extend insurance benefits to the 45 million that currently live without it? Probably, especially in a relatively poor state like New Mexico.

The second problem for Democrats in the House is the issue of abortion. Bart Stupak of Michigan was successful in passing an amendment that would ban any insurance policies from covering an elective abortion in the bill’s insurance exchange, which would include policy choices from both private and public insurance plans. Democrats in the Senate sought to continue the ban on any public funds going towards abortion, but did not want to restrict private insurance plans in the exchange from offering it. It’s questionable whether pro-life Democrats will vote for the House bill if the Stupak amendment is not present and it’s equally questionable whether pro-choice Democrats will vote for a bill that includes it.

*Edit*

According to CNN, due to the vacancies, the majority in the House is now 217.


California Gov/Sen, Illinois Senate Polls

Posted on: February 1st, 2010 by Kyle. | 2 Comments

There are interesting new poll numbers out of the states of California and Illinois. Over the weekend, the Public Policy Institute of California released polling numbers for the upcoming June 8 primary both in the race for Governor and Senate. The Democrats are favored to win both races as Republicans beat each other up in bloody primary battles. The GOP primary for governor at this point is not much of a race at all, with former eBay CEO Meg Whitman garnering 41% vs. 11% for Teabag candidate Steve Poizner. Since former Rep. Campbell dropped out of the race for governor, Whitman’s lead has grown.

In the race to challenge incumbent Democrat Barbara Boxer, Republicans have three candidates to choose from. Among them are Campbell, who switched from the governor’s race to the Senate race. It appears that was a good move as he currently leads his two rivals, former HP CEO Carly Fiorina and Teabag candidate Chuck DeVore. PPIC finds that Campbell has 27%, 16% for Fiorina, and a distant third for DeVore at 8%. Fiorina has positioned herself as a moderate alternative to the ultra-conservative DeVore, but has not gained much traction. While Fiorina was the early favorite, particularly of the establishment, that is clearly no longer the case.

The general election is shaping up to be a Democratic win, though, as President Obama enjoys a 61% approval rating in the state (34% disapproval). That’s considerably higher than much of the rest of the country and indicates that the party’s coalition is holding up – at least in the Golden State. Compare that to Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger whose approval rating is in George W. Bush territory – only 30% approve and 60% disapprove. Barbara Boxer has an approval rating just below 50% at 49% with 44% saying that they disapprove.

The other major poll out is of the Illinois primary for Senate, which will be held tomorrow. Democrat Alexi Giannoulias, the State Treasurer, leads the pack with 31% support, compared to 23% for Hoffman, and 23% for Jackson. The Republican Party is set to nominate the moderate Republican Congressman Mark Kirk, a Chicago suburbanite that voted for President Obama’s cap-and-trade bill but now says that he opposes it. While his support for those policies helped him in his Democratic-leaning Chicago suburb district, it is not popular at all with Republicans. That said, Kirk manages to poll better than both Hoffman and Jackson in this heavily Democratic state. Either of them winning the primary puts this seat once held by President Obama in serious jeopardy. The general election polls are below:

42% Giannoulias, 34% Kirk
37% Kirk, 36% Hoffman
38% Kirk, 36% Jackson

While Giannoulias leads Kirk by a healthy 8%, his two competitors are in extremely tight races with Kirk. Also decided on Tuesday will be the candidates to replace Mark Kirk in his suburban Chicago district, as well as competitive primaries for governor in both parties.


GOP Chairman Says Party Won’t Win Back House

Posted on: January 8th, 2010 by Kyle. | No Comments

If you watch television at all, particularly Fox Conservative Opinion Channel (otherwise known as Fox “News”), you have probably heard a lot of Republican pundits talk about how they are going to retake the House of Representatives in the fall election. While it certainly would not be out of the realm of possibility if current political circumstances continue, most respected analysts expect Democrats to lose roughly 15-25 seats. This would go along with historical patterns that see the president’s party lose seats in the second year of his first term (George W. Bush was the only modern exception directly after 9/11).

In order to win the House, however, Republicans would need to pick up 40 seats. That’s roughly double their current projected pickups. It is also more than Democrats managed to win in the 2006 elections or 2008 elections. In those years, with President Bush’s approval rating in the high 20s to low 30s, Democrats won 31 seats and 21 seats, respectively. President Obama’s approval rating stands around 50 percent, where it has been stabilizing for several months. Unless there is a significant drop in the president’s approval rating, it seems highly unlikely that Congress will switch hands.

The chairman of the Republican Party, Michael Steele, agrees with me. In an interview with that same Fox Conservative Opinion Channel, Michael Steele shut the door on the possibility. Sean Hannity asked him if Republicans would win back the House. His response: “Not this year.” He went on to cast doubt on whether Republicans should even return to power. “If we do that, are we ready? I don’t know. That’s what I’m assessing and evaluating now.”