by Cliston Brown | Sep 28, 2014 | Election Analysis
This week’s updates, in terms of the raw numbers, show a shift to the Republicans in the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House and in two gubernatorial races. Looking at the most recent available public polling, this blog now believes that it is clear that the Republican Party is on pace to capture 51 seats—and the majority—in the Senate. It also appears that the GOP is on pace to make a net gain of eight seats in the House, for a 242-193 majority, and to lose a net of two governorships, as compared to this blog’s opinion last week that Republicans were on pace to lose four. Updates to the ratings are pointed out below, and the chart of all competitive races, and their ratings, can be found by clicking here.
Senate Race Updates
Iowa
I have long recognized the weakness of the campaign of Democrat Bruce Braley, currently a U.S. representative from Iowa’s 1st District, who was caught on tape some months ago making a remark disparaging the notion of a farmer (Iowa’s Republican Senator, Chuck Grassley) becoming the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Meritorious or not, this remark was bound to cause him trouble in Iowa, and the results of a Sept. 24 Des Moines Register Iowa Poll, by respected pollster Selzer & Co., indicate he has never recovered from the gaffe. Selzer’s Iowa Poll now shows Republican Joni Ernst ahead by 6 points. While the last 12 polls have had Braley ahead in three and Ernst ahead in three, with the other six tied, Ernst appears to have the edge and this blog is moving Iowa from “Leans Democratic” to “Leans Republican,” and this puts Republicans on track to claim 51 Senate seats on Election Day.
North Carolina
I have always considered this state the best shot, in all the 2012 Romney seats held by Democrats, for the Democrats to hang on, and the recent polling indicates that Sen. Kay Hagan (D) is ahead by a slim but consistent margin. She has led in 10 of the last 11 polls since mid-August, and her opponent, Republican Thom Tillis, led by only 1 point in the one poll which he led. I am now moving this race from “Leans Democratic” to “Likely Democratic.”
Oregon
The campaign of Republican challenger Monica Wehby has been a train wreck, beset by numerous allegations against Wehby that include plagiarism and stalking. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D) holds double digit polling leads, and I see no way that he loses this race. This blog is moving Oregon from “Likely Democratic” to “Safe Democratic.”
South Dakota
The uncertainty inherent in a three-candidate race, with former Republican Sen. Larry Pressler achieving sizable polling numbers as an independent, has kept South Dakota at “Likely Republican.” However, Gov. Mike Rounds (R) continues to hold a double digit lead, and this blog is moving South Dakota from “Likely Republican” to “Safe Republican.”
Colorado
Although the most recent public polls give a slight lead, on average, to challenger Cory Gardner (R), a Quinnipiac poll giving him an 8-point lead appears to be an outlier. The preponderance of the public polling still favors Sen. Mark Udall (D), but if more than two notable polls show a Gardner lead, a reassessment of the race may be in order. For now, this race stays “Leans Democratic” but moves onto the Watch List. Keep in mind that recent elections have shown Democrats outperforming their polling numbers in Colorado on Election Day.
Alaska
Sen. Mark Begich (D) has not led in a single poll since August 3rd, and this blog already has this race designated “Leans Republican.” The average lead for Republican challenger Dan Sullivan is just shy of 5 points. If Begich’s numbers do not begin improving soon, the race will shift to “Likely Republican,” but I am going to keep it unchanged right now until more data is available. At this point, I am confident enough of a Republican lead in this race to move it off the Watch List. In recent elections, Republicans have considerably outperformed their polling numbers in Alaska on Election Day.
House Race Updates
New York 11th District
It has long been presumed that Congressman Michael Grimm (R), embroiled in legal issues, would lose this district centered on Staten Island and also including a small part of Brooklyn. However, a Siena College poll published Sept. 17th actually showed Grimm with a 4-point lead over Democrat Dominic Recchia. Given the district’s Republican lean and the results of the recent poll, I am moving the race from “Leans Democratic” to “Leans Republican” and placing this race on the Watch List.
Hawaii 1st District
A recent Honolulu Civil Beat/MRG poll showed former Congressman Charles Djou (R) leading Democratic nominee Mark Takai by 4 points. Given that polling in Hawaii is sometimes wildly off the mark, as well as Hawaii’s considerable Democratic skew, it is hard to take this poll at face value. That said, Djou has previously won the district, albeit in a special election, and even when he lost the seat, he competed well. I am moving this race from “Likely Democratic” to “Leans Democratic” and moving it to the Watch List.
Gubernatorial Race Updates
Michigan
A series of polls showing a tightening race, including a poll showing Democratic challenger Mark Schauer with a slight lead on August 10th, caused me to take a gamble and bet on Schauer’s trend line. Since that time, recent polling has shown Republican Gov. Rick Snyder reopening a lead, and I am moving this race from “Leans Democratic” to “Leans Republican.” I am keeping it on the Watch List for now.
Wisconsin
Democratic challenger Mary Burke appeared to be making a move in the polls, but the last two have gone back in the direction of Gov. Scott Walker (R). This is a very tight race, but with Walker leading in a slight majority of polls right now, I am moving this race back from “Leans Democratic” to “Leans Republican,” but also putting it on the Watch List.
Maryland
Democrat Anthony Brown is averaging a 15-point lead over Republican Larry Hogan, and Maryland is a heavily Democratic state. This blog is moving Maryland from “Likely Democratic” to “Safe Democratic.”
Minnesota
Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton has not trailed in a single public poll and, on average, leads Republican challenger Jeff Johnson by 9 points. This blog is moving Minnesota from “Likely Democratic” to “Safe Democratic.”
Nebraska
There is no evidence that Democrat Chuck Hassebrook is making inroads in this heavily Republican state against Republican Pete Ricketts, who led the most recent public poll by 20 points. This blog is moving Nebraska from “Likely Republican” to “Safe Republican.”
New Hampshire
Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan has not led Republican Walt Havenstein by fewer than 12 points in a single reputable public poll. This blog is moving New Hampshire from “Likely Democratic” to “Safe Democratic.”
South Carolina
No reputable public polling has shown Democratic challenger Vincent Sheheen within 10 points of Gov. Nikki Haley (R) in the last 11 months. Despite the fact that these two candidates had a close race four years ago, there is no way to keep this one in the “Likely Republican” column, and I am moving it to “Safe Republican.” Frankly, I missed the boat on this one by not moving it earlier.
Colorado
A recent outlier by Quinnipiac showing Republican challenger Bob Beauprez with a 10-point lead has skewed the numbers to give him a slight lead, on average, but this poll is so far afield from all other recent polling that I tend to discount it. As in the Senate race, I am also factoring in the fact that Democrats, in recent years, have outperformed their polling numbers in Colorado and keeping this race at “Leans Democratic” in favor of Gov. John Hickenlooper. However, I am moving it onto the Watch List.
by Cliston Brown | Sep 20, 2014 | Election Analysis
The Wide World of Politics Blog Election Ratings reports two changes this week.
First, developments in the Kansas Senate race have led me to move this race from “Leans Republican” to “Leans Independent.” The recent ruling of the Kansas Supreme Court that Democrat Chad Taylor may, in fact, withdraw his name from the ballot is clearly beneficial to independent candidate Greg Orman, and one-on-one polling pitting Orman against incumbent GOP Senator Pat Roberts shows a clear Orman lead. This blog now sees Orman as a slight favorite, though it remains to be seen if the professional help Roberts has recently begun to receive from GOP HQ in Washington will help him right his sinking ship.
This rating change now puts the Republicans at 50 seats—1 shy of a majority—and the Democrats at 48 seats, with two independents, Orman and Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), positioned to determine the Senate majority. King currently caucuses with Democrats.
The second rating change involves the Illinois governor’s race. Incumbent Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn has been struggling for a plethora of reasons, but recent polling has shown Quinn rebounding considerably and moving ahead of Republican businessman Bruce Rauner. Given Quinn’s big move in the polls, and his history of overcoming long odds to prevail, not to mention the state’s strong Democratic edge, this blog has now moved the Illinois governor’s race from “Leans Republican” to “Leans Democratic,” though it also has been added to the Watch List.
This rating change now shows an even split at the gubernatorial level, with Republicans and Democrats each poised to control 25 seats, though two of this blog’s ratings (favoring Democrats in Michigan and Wisconsin) are out of step with most predictions at this point. This blog favors Democrats Mark Schauer in Michigan and Mary Burke in Wisconsin due to their recent upward polling trends. It remains to be seen if a plagiarism flap involving Burke will halt or reverse her momentum.
Click here for the newest ratings sheet.
by Cliston Brown | Sep 13, 2014 | Election Analysis
Now that all states have held their primaries and the general-election nominees have all been determined, I am publishing my first list of race ratings for the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, and governors’ races across the country. Here I will provide some basic explanations of my Election Race Ratings Chart.
First, I have selected only those races that have been deemed competitive, either by myself or another leading, reputable election analyst (such as Larry Sabato, Charlie Cook, Stu Rothenberg, etc.). Therefore, not every race will appear here. Those offices that are not listed are considered safe for the party currently holding them.
My chart lists, from left to right, the state or district; the Democratic candidate; the Republican candidate; and my current rating of the race. If the state or district is currently held by a Democrat, it is colored blue; if the state or district is currently held by a Republican, it is colored red. Lighter shades of blue or red denote an “open seat” race in which no incumbent is seeking reelection. In the candidate columns, incumbents are listed in bold type. In the rating column, races in which I rate the Democrat a favorite will be colored light blue if it leans Democratic; medium blue if it is likely Democratic; and dark blue if it is safe Democratic. Similarly, I use light red, medium red and dark red, respectively, for leaning, likely or safely Republican.
As to the ratings themselves, I will differ from the more established analysts in one crucial respect: I do not list any races as toss-ups. In races that appear extremely close, I am exercising my best judgment to project them either “Lean D” or “Lean R.” I make these judgments based on the following factors:
1) Current polling numbers (where available). This is the key factor, but these are much more available in Senate and gubernatorial races. Many House races have little, if any, reputable public polling readily available.
2) Current polling trends; even in a case in which a candidate may still be trailing by a small margin, if his/her polling trends are clearly moving upward, I may move a race rating in his/her direction. (Key examples here include the governors’ races in Michigan and Wisconsin, which I currently rate “Lean D” due to the upward trending of the Democratic candidates in that race. If those trends reverse in the coming weeks, I will reassess.)
3) The district’s electoral history—for example, if a state or district has a history of flipping depending on whether it is a presidential year or a midterm; if the race is a rematch of a close race in a previous election; if the trends in a state or district are moving in favor of one party or the other; etc. (A key example is the 10th District of Illinois, which has a Democratic partisan voting index, but where Republican House candidates traditionally overperform and where the Republican candidate, Bob Dold, has previously been elected to the House.)
4) An unusually impressive (or unimpressive) candidate, or a relatively new or unknown candidate who may appear to have great potential (A key example is Republican nominee Marilinda Garcia in New Hampshire’s 2nd Congressional District.)
In marginal races that would normally be listed as toss-ups in which I still have a strong degree of uncertainty, I add a black box next to the rating to denote that the race is on my “Watch List.” A race may be watch-listed for any of the factors listed above.
This site will publish an updated list every Saturday between now and the election. At this moment, my ratings indicate the Republican Party will pick up a net of 7 seats in the U.S. House, for a 241-194 majority, and 6 seats in the U.S. Senate, for a 51-49 majority. The Democratic Party, meanwhile, appears headed for a net pickup of 3 governors’ mansions, which, if accurate, would leave the Republicans with a 26-24 advantage.
In future ratings, this site will also make estimates as to the partisan control of state legislatures after the November elections.
For the current race ratings, please click here.
by Cliston Brown | Jul 6, 2014 | Political Commentary
I stayed the night last night in an unfamiliar city in southern California, and needed to get some breakfast before embarking on an eight-hour drive home. As I knew nothing about the town, I didn’t know where I could find a good breakfast place, but there was a Denny’s right next to my hotel. It’s not the most spectacular food, but it is predictable and cheap, and when it comes to road food in an unfamiliar location, predictable-and-cheap is often preferable to the alternatives.
As I ordered—a shaved ham-and-egg sandwich with Swiss and American cheeses on sourdough and hashbrowns—the server asked if I’d like anything else, maybe a short stack of pancakes.
For a second, I was sorely tempted, and then it hit me that the question—which could be paraphrased as “Would you like 600 calories’ worth of pancakes, butter and syrup to go with the 1,100 calories of ham, egg, cheese, potatoes, bread and grease?”—was really a metaphor for the last 70 years of American politics: “You don’t have to choose one tasty meal or the other, hungry patron of mediocre breakfast food! You can have both!”
This is the same idea we Americans have been sold from the political menu since the end of World War II, and by and large, we have happily consumed it. “Guns OR butter? Who says you have to choose? You can have guns AND butter—and you can put that butter on that extra side of pancakes!”
In the heady postwar era, it really did seem like we Americans could have all we wanted and never have to concern ourselves with the consequences. While most of Europe and large swathes of Asia and Africa were devastated, America was the only major industrial power that was largely unscathed. America became the material colossus of the world, the leading supplier of goods. Factories worked in three shifts around the clock, and well-paid jobs were there to be had by anybody who grabbed a high school diploma one day and walked into the local factory the next.
Hindsight is always 20/20, and it is easy to look back and realize that it couldn’t last—that sooner or later the rest of the world would rebuild itself and compete with us, and that we would no longer be the only major seller of industrial and consumer goods, with inevitable consequences for the postwar U.S. economic boom. The economic crisis of the 1970s, with skyrocketing inflation and a growing dependence on cheap imports, made it plain to people such as President Jimmy Carter that the nation’s voracious consumerism needed to go on a diet. The late 1970s was an era of downsizing and increased efficiency—smaller, fuel-efficient cars, turning down the thermostat, installing solar panels. The gravy train was also over, certainly, in the political realm; we either had to raise taxes or cut services, or some combination thereof.
However, Ronald Reagan—who ironically rose to political prominence by delivering a speech, on behalf of the doomed 1964 Goldwater presidential campaign, titled “A Time For Choosing”—came along in 1980 and essentially told us all that no, we did not have to make any hard choices. We could continue to have all the essential government services, and we could also institute massive tax cuts (largely benefiting the wealthiest Americans). He gave us a third option by which we could avoid both raising taxes and cutting services, and we eagerly took it: Put it all on the credit card. We’ll pay it off later. Reagan told us we could have both the tasty sandwich-and-hashbrowns meal, AND the pancakes, and we listened because it was what we wanted to hear.
The truth is that we do face hard choices as a society, and the longer we put those choices off, the higher the bill is going to be. In the same way that a person who makes no responsible choices at the table will eventually suffer health consequences, the longer we go on failing to choose as a society, the more it will hurt us in the end.
So our choice is this: do we continue to allow a small number of extremely wealthy people to continue to hoard vast sums of money, more than many of them could spend in dozens of lifetimes, while everybody else lives either in poverty or the realistic possibility of poverty? And let’s be honest, that’s exactly the situation we face. How many Americans today live a life of quiet desperation, knowing that if they lose a job or suffer a major illness, they go from financially comfortable to bankrupt, or even homeless, in a few short steps?
Do we continue to pay our bills as a country on a giant credit card, knowing that at some point, future generations will have to pay the bill? Hell, they’re already paying the bill. As colleges have raised tuition to meet growing costs, students have had to take on massive amounts of debt that were largely unheard of prior to the 1990s. They are then entering a job market in which there are very few jobs for them, in part because older workers, whose ability to draw secure pensions has been severely eroded, lack the financial security to retire. Those same older workers, faced with working into their 70s, are also faced with partially or fully supporting their adult children—as upwards of a third of all Americans between 18 and 31 now live with their parents. And their adult offspring, more and more, are faced with delaying their careers, thereby delaying their ability to save money, pay off their loans, buy homes, have children if they wish, and eventually retire. We are just now starting to see the consequences of our failure to choose.
Sooner or later, we Americans are going to have to understand that we have to choose the sandwich or the pancakes, and maybe eat only half of what we ultimately do choose. We have to unlearn the lie, which we have eagerly accepted, that we can have everything we want and that we never have to choose—that we can continue to spend trillions of dollars on a bloated military budget, and idiotic wars of choice like the war in Iraq, and that we can simultaneously continue to give tax breaks to bloated billionaires and corporations. Meanwhile our cities fill with the homeless and hungry; our bridges and roads crumble; we are losing an entire generation of Americans whose careers and paths to financial security appear hopelessly blocked; and our educational system continues to collapse, in part because of continued political meddling, and in part because teachers are so poorly paid and underappreciated that the most promising college students choose fields such as finance. We need to decide whether it is more important to fund the things that will benefit our society as a whole, or if we are going to continue to buy more of what we don’t need and can’t afford.
Even if you disagree, as I do, with the solutions Reagan advised us to choose in 1964, he was right about one thing: that we do, in fact, face a time of choosing. But he was wrong, when he told us in 1980, that he was just kidding.
by Cliston Brown | Dec 4, 2013 | Political Commentary
When I got home from work last night, HBO West was showing Fast Times at Ridgemont High. I hardly ever miss a chance to see this classic, which I believe came out in 1983. (For anyone who has been living in a cave for the last 30 years, the basic storyline is a year in the life of a group of teenagers at a typical American high school, learning how to be adults one youthful mistake at a time.) I’ve always thought it was a pretty good representation of that era, as best as I can recall (I was 10 at the time). Every time I see the movie, I can’t help but ponder the societal differences between then and now.
It struck me last night that the society of the 1980s, in some ways, was simultaneously more naive and less sheltered than today’s society. To wit: Stacy and Damone never gave a second’s thought to using birth control when they had sex—and yet, when Stacy became pregnant as a result, she immediately owned and took charge of the situation in a decisive, clear-headed way that I don’t think some adults could do today.
And that brings me to a related point which I think also demonstrates a major societal change in the last 30 years: confronted with an unplanned pregnancy at the age of 15, Stacy decides to have an abortion. The movie conveys that this is just a matter-of-fact thing: She’s 15 years old; of course she’s going to have an abortion. End of story. She has the abortion and goes for ice cream. There’s no long, drawn-out, agonizing decision-making process, no wailing, no seeking out of counseling, no crisis of conscience—either before or after the abortion.
Does anybody think that situation would be dealt with in the same way on screen today? I think it is clear that it would not. In most TV or movie productions we see today, characters who face unplanned pregnancies do not even consider abortion except obliquely and momentarily (such as in Juno, Knocked Up and Fools Rush In, to provide three cinematic examples), and then, they dismiss the option almost immediately. In fact, it seems the very word “abortion” can’t even be used. The most outlandish circumventing of the word comes from a character in Knocked Up, who hints that the procedure the Katherine Heigl character should consider “rhymes with shmashmortion.” Seriously?
Even more interesting is the fact that when abortion is summarily dismissed as an option in these films, it always results in a positive and “ideal” outcome. Let’s examine the three movies I’ve cited:
-
In Juno, the title character is “saved” from her appointment at an abortion clinic by a well-meaning protestor, and she ends up finding the perfect person to adopt the child she will bear. Of course.
-
In Fools Rush In, two total strangers, connected only by the fetus they conceived during a one-night stand, magically overcome tremendous cultural differences and fall in love.
-
Worst of all, in Knocked Up, a successful career woman’s pregnancy, resulting from a one-night stand with a perpetually stoned slacker, causes said stoner to straighten up, overnight, and fulfill his responsibilities.
So this is what the American cinema is selling—just have the kid, ladies, and everything will work out? Yeah, sure, because that’s realistic.
I wonder if anybody in 1983 thought we would be at a point today where we can’t even hear the word “abortion” in a movie, much less see a female character actually decide that abortion is the most appropriate choice for her. What’s next? Are we going to get to a point where we cannot view a movie about Charles Darwin in most American theaters because it focuses on his Theory of Evolution?
Oh, wait.
Recent Comments