Since Chris has put out his predictions today (here and here), I think I should follow up with my own assessment, just to get you really jazzed. Some caveats on my predictions:
I, of course, look at numbers- polling, early voting, etc.- when making my predictions. But I also rely on instinct and emotion, which is why I would never suggest people make big bets on my predictions. There are certain races where my head tells me one thing but my heart absolutely won't let me predict a loss.
I find myself torn between not wanting to be too optimistic on the one hand, and on the other hand thinking all this enthusiasm and field work is going to allow us to really roll up some big numbers. My predictions here are more the former than the latter.
Here is my final assessment on the state of the elections right now:
This election year is a wild one compared to most of the straight ahead, target the same nine states in the Presidential, target five or six Senate races, target 15-20 House races, focus on the same predictable frequent voting swing voters elections of the past 20 years. The quote of the weekend, maybe the most fun quote of the election, came from a Republican operative saying, "There are no safe Republican seats in this election. That doesn't mean we're going to lose them all, but there is no election we couldn't lose." Wow. It's like the 50 State Strategy on steroids.
So while there is still a slim chance McCain could pull out a miracle (Obama or Biden say something dumb, McCain cuts the national lead by a few points, a bigger Bradley effect then we thought, and we lose all the key swing states by narrow margins-unlikely, yes, but not impossible), the main operative question now in Congressional and Senate races is how big is the wave? This is where it gets wild and unpredictable. In 2006, we had a strong wave, but it wasn't as bad for the Republicans as it could have been-we left 17 seats on the table that we could have easily won. So if Obama fades a bit in the national polling, the Obama GOTV operation doesn't turnout as big as we hoped for, and the Republican GOTV operation is better thought, the wave is pretty modest: 15 or so House seats, five or six Senate seats. But if the wave keeps building, and the turnout among youth and African Americans and Hispanics and single women is huge, we could be looking at big, big numbers.
Here are a few thoughts on some of the wave building stuff out there:
One question the McCain campaign's decision to keep targeting Pennsylvania in spite of his 11-point deficit is whether a race can be considered done when there is a double-digit deficit with two weeks to go. The question also applies to Senate races like the Collins-Allen race in Maine, the Inhofe-Rice race in Oklahoma, and the Johanns-Kleeb race in Nebraska, all of which have about 11-14 point leads for the Republican according to the most recent public polling.
In keeping with my overall theory about politics and polling, I think the answer to that question is that it depends on what other factors are in play in the state in question and the race in question. Here's three of the biggest variables that need to be considered in all four of the above state contests:
I have been asked by a number of donors, as well as some people deciding where to go for GOTV, what the most important overall states to put money into at the end (either to state parties, ballot initiatives in the states, or outside organizational projects). Here's my list of the top states overall at this stage of the race:
1. Ohio. Dead heat in the Presidential, four-to-six big Congressional races, State House in play.
2. Florida. Close in the Presidential, up to seven Congressional districts in play.
3. Virginia. Close in the Presidential, three Congressionals in play.
4. Colorado. Close in the Presidential, contested Senate race (although moving strong in our favor), one big Congressional race.
5. North Carolina. Close in the Presidential, contested Senate race, one big Congressional race.
6. Missouri. Close in the Presidential, governor's mansion up for grabs, two big Congressionals.
7. Nevada. Close in the Presidential, one big Congressional, State Senate up for grabs.
8. Indiana. Close in the Presidential, big governor's race, State House up for grabs.
That's all I'm going to list for now. Lots of other states have at least one major thing going on, but these seven strike me as the ones that have multiple important things happening, and they all matter in the Presidential.
Based on all the polling, voter registration, and absentee/early voting data I am seeing, and on conversations with key operatives in the field and other analysts following Senate races, I believe Kentucky and Georgia should be moving up on everyone's radar screens.
Between our steady and perhaps even expanding generic congressional national polling lead, the massive Obama GOTV operation (57 swing congressional races are in Obama targeted states), and the huge DCCC money edge, we have a legitimate shot at really blowing out our pickup margin.
Chris Bowers predicted a 22-28 seat pickup, the DCCC has an incredible 63 candidates on its Red to Blue program, and now DCORP's latest poll of the 50 most competitive Republican-held districts shows us steadily picking up our polling numbers each of the last two weeks. According to DCORP, we are now eight points up in the 20 top-tier targets, meaning we could easily pick up 15 of them. Even more importantly, we are only slightly down in the next two tiers down. Even without the Obama turnout taken into account, even if the upward polling trend doesn't continue, we are currently poised to pick up close to half these races. On top of the 50 GOP-held districts being polled by DCORP, there's another 13 races the DCCC is targeting and while when you get that for down the chart, it gets tougher and tougher to pick up wins, you still might add two or three in this bottom 13.
What all this means is that if the election were held today, adding no seats for the Obama turnout operation, the expected youth/African-American tide of new voters, or any other factor, we would be likely to pick up at least mid-20s in House seats. Absent a last-minute fade in the polls, I think 25 should be our minimum goal, and that we should be pushing to stretch that number well past 30. I think the best way to make that happen is to give money to candidates (or state parties or outside groups working in these districts) who have been on the rise in recent weeks who are in those tougher districts to win. The candidates in open seats that are 50-50 or better D/R, that have been targeted by the DCCC for 18 months and have already raised way into the seven digits, are probably going to make it in this atmosphere. The exceptions in terms of needing help are people like Darcy Burner, who even though she's been targeted from the beginning by the DCCC, is still heavily dependent on the progressive community, and especially hated and feared by the GOP establishment. Another exception to this rule would be Betsy Markey in Colorado, who is despised by the right-wingers for taking on their hero, Marilyn Musgrave, and who is in a top-tier target state for Presidential and Senate reasons. So here are my up and coming "get us over a 30-seat pickup list":
Given my theory spelled out in Tuesday's post about prioritizing hard to win races so that we have a chance at a real governing majority, and given that I have been only writing about Presidential politics lately, I thought it was time to update my most important non-Presidential races list.
Although I am a big believer in the 50-state strategy and generally spreading the map, for many years now I have been consulting for some Democratic donors and progressive groups on how to maximize their political resources, so I have a tradition of creating a top 10 list of states for maximum investment in state parties, outside efforts, and campaigns in these states. I factor in the following things to my ratings:
• Presidential race importance (I factor this in even in the off-years, but obviously it gets maximum rating points in a Presidential election year)
• Competitive Senate races
• Competitive House races
• Competitive Governor races
• Competitiveness in terms of control in state legislative chambers
• Whether Secretary of State and other election administration officials are friendly, whether they are on the ballot
• Strength of state party
• Strength of outside organizational efforts I am aware of
• Relative costs of campaigning in the state (weighting inexpensive states a little higher because of the bang-for-the-buck factor)
• Ballot initiatives/referenda on the ballot in the cycle
Every year, there are certain political races that become really important symbolically and substantively in terms of the impact that an election cycle has on the country's politics. In 1994, the fact that Republicans took out Speaker Foley and the giant presence of Gov. Cuomo added to the huge symbolic weight of their victory. In 1998, the fact that we took out both D'Amato and Faircloth, the two leading architects of the Whitewater investigation strategy for the Republicans, had a huge impact on the interpretation of that election. In 2004, Thune's victory over Daschle became a symbol of the total GOP victory that year, and had a bigger impact on Capitol Hill politics than any Congressional or Senate election in years. In 2006, the stunning primary loss of Lieberman changed the way politicos in D.C. perceived the emerging progressive coalition. So far this year, the Donna Edwards primary landslide and the loss of Hastert's seat in the special election have carried big weight among the chattering classes.
Even beyond these highest profile races, though, there are slightly less seismic races that matter in the nature of how politics is viewed and how power flows. In 2006, Jim Webb's victory, fueled by the Macaca video, signaled an important new trend in politics. The combination of Webb, Tester, and Sherrod Brown winning victories on sharply populist themes created some real fear in corporate interests. Key committee chairs going down can change power dynamics dramatically, for good or bad, in Congress- for example, Pombo losing in 2006 made enviro members of Congress more aggressive.
So I thought it would be worth coming up with a list of the 10 most important races for this cycle outside of the Presidential. I factored in symbolic weight, elections that could bring people in who would be true progressive leaders, taking out especially bad conservatives, the importance of the race in terms of Presidential politics, the competitiveness of the race, potential longer-term importance (for example, beating George Allen and Rick Santorum last cycle took out two potentially strong Republican Presidential or VP candidates for 2008), and special reasons that might make media pundits and political insiders sit up and take notice.
Here's my list, and I'll be interested in other races you think should be on:
Every year, there are certain political races that become really important symbolically and substantively in terms of the impact that an election cycle has on the country's politics. In 1994, the fact that Republicans took out Speaker Foley and the giant presence of Gov. Cuomo added to the huge symbolic weight of their victory. In 1998, the fact that we took out both D'Amato and Faircloth, the two leading architects of the Whitewater investigation strategy for the Republicans, had a huge impact on the interpretation of that election. In 2004, Thune's victory over Daschle became a symbol of the total GOP victory that year, and had a bigger impact on Capitol Hill politics than any Congressional or Senate election in years. In 2006, the stunning primary loss of Lieberman changed the way politicos in D.C. perceived the emerging progressive coalition. So far this year, the Donna Edwards primary landslide and the loss of Hastert's seat in the special election have carried big weight among the chattering classes.
Even beyond these highest profile races, though, there are slightly less seismic races that matter in the nature of how politics is viewed and how power flows. In 2006, Jim Webb's victory, fueled by the Macaca video, signaled an important new trend in politics. The combination of Webb, Tester, and Sherrod Brown winning victories on sharply populist themes created some real fear in corporate interests. Key committee chairs going down can change power dynamics dramatically, for good or bad, in Congress- for example, Pombo losing in 2006 made enviro members of Congress more aggressive.
So I thought it would be worth coming up with a list of the 10 most important races for this cycle outside of the Presidential. I factored in symbolic weight, elections that could bring people in who would be true progressive leaders, taking out especially bad conservatives, the importance of the race in terms of Presidential politics, the competitiveness of the race, potential longer-term importance (for example, beating George Allen and Rick Santorum last cycle took out two potentially strong Republican Presidential or VP candidates for 2008), and special reasons that might make media pundits and political insiders sit up and take notice.
Here's my list, and I'll be interested in other races you think should be on:
We all want more Democrats in the Congress, but how many more is realistic? Senator Chuck Schumer has suggested as many as 8 Senate seats (Dems are ahead in 5 already: VA, NH, NM, CO and AK). The Cook Political Report has been quoted as predicting 5-10 House seats and 3-6 Senate seats. I'll say right now that I think 20 House seats is realistic. How?
First, as the SF Chronicle noted on Monday, 29 House GOPers have announced their retirement, and only 6 Dems plus Tom Lantos' vacant seat (CA-12). So the GOP has many more open seats to try to defend, so many that in their straitened financial circumstances, they can't expect to do much offense.
This creates a historic opportunity for the Dems. Normally, after a "wave" election such as 2006, when 33 House seats changed party, the winners lose at least a few seats in the next election. The Dems won 8 seats back in 1996, following the stunning 1994 election, when the GOP took a net 54 seats and control of the House from the Dems.
But this year is different. The big Dem retirements occurred in 1994, and were a big reason why the GOP took the House that year. In 2006, there were only the normal few retirements; the big GOP defections are occurring this year, as the GOPers consider another 2-4 years in the minority.
Secondly, 1996 was the midpoint of Clinton's first term, while in 2008 the public is clearly fed up with George Bush and the GOP, and may well sweep a Dem into the White House with the help of a swell of new voters, or new Dem voters. And then there is the money issue. The NRCC is dealing with an apparent embezzlement scandal on top of the loss of power, recruitment is down and their candidates just can't get any traction.
So the GOP is weaker than normal, and the Dems position is stronger, portending a possible second wave election. Here's how the races look as of today.
One way or another, the period of 24/7 obsession with the Obama/Clinton showdown is about to ease up. Either Obama will wrap up the nomination on Tuesday with wins in Texas and Ohio, or a win in Texas combined with a virtual tie in Ohio; or Clinton will claim another comeback kid title by winning both states, and push onward to Pennsylvania. Either, though, the intense pace of the campaign- 37 states on 27 days- is about to ease up for awhile. After Mississippi and Wyoming wrap up a few days after March 4th, we have about six weeks before Pennsylvania.
So perhaps all of us- myself included- who have been obsessed with this race should start getting more focused on other things. There are three big things that progressive should be working on right now:
1. Defining McCain. A lot is going on in this area of activity right now, and it should be. All of the progressive movement's tools ought to be put into play to define this guy accurately: as a neocon's hyperaggressive neocon, as a far right-wing extremist on 95% of the issues, and as one of the most hypocritically corrupt guys in D.C.
2. Help progressive candidates. We've already added one person to the ranks of progressives in Congress with Donna Edwards. Now we just have to keep adding to the list. Darcy Burner, Al Franken, and Scott Kleeb are at the top of my list for whom I want to help, but I'll be adding onto that list all year long.
3. Planning for 2009. If we add to our majorities in the House and Senate, and win the Presidency this fall, it will only be the 2nd time in 28 years that Democrats will have control of all three institutions. We have both a big opportunity, and a lot of political urgency, to accomplish big things in the next session of Congress. We need to be planning now on what we should be doing to take advantage of that opportunity- both on the policy side of things, and the political strategy side as well.
The tough thing is that, after eight years of neglect and worse by Bush, the agenda is enormous. We need to work to get out of Iraq, and to pass major reform legislation on health care, climate change, immigration, and reviving the economy. That is a massive amount of really big things to try and take on, but it's all important, so we need to do some serious planning and strategy in 2008.
Both organizations and the blogosphere have a major role to play in this planning work, and I hope they can work together to being to do the strategic thinking now.
