We now know the outcome, more or less, of the Washington State US Senate race-and it looks like it's going to be Patty Murray, D-(Actual No-Kidding Progressive), over Dino Rossi, R-(Guy Who Will Be Running Again For Something As Soon As He Can).
Murray managed to win in a State that is far more "purple" than you might think, in a vote-by-mail election that guarantees at least a few days of uncertainty.
You have to do some unusual math to figure out how these elections will go, and we're going to walk through how this race got called by NBC just a couple hours ago.
The past week has featured a lot of wild Senate news, meriting another update in the overall forecast. From post-primary polling in Arkansas, Kentucky and Pennsylvania, to pre-primary polling in California and Nevada, to the Blumenthal scandal in Connecticut, and now to Dino Rossi's likely entry into the Washington Senate campaign against Patty Murray, quite a few things have changed.
Oddly enough, the changes appear to almost precisely cancel each other out, resulting in virtually no change from the May 19th update. Democrats experienced marked improvement in California, Pennsylvania and Nevada, which offset their backslides in Washington and Kentucky. Overall, the last time Democrats were in a better position than this was on February 11th.
Note that I am now projecting J.D. Hayworth as the winner of the Republican nomination in Arizona, despite John McCain holding a 11.7% lead over the last three polls of that primary. The reason for this is that a lead of 11.7% is a pretty bad starting point for an incumbent, much less a former Republican presidential nominee. With numbers like that, my gut tells me there is no way McCain survives the anti-incumbent and teabagger waves this year.
Thirteen campaigns, from Wisconsin through Kentucky in the chart below, are really and truly competitive right now. If Democrats were to somehow sweep them all, they would actually gain a seat, and take 60 going into 2011. If Republicans were to capture them all, they would take a 53-47 majority in the Senate. This means both that control of the Senate is in play, and also that a huge amount will depend on the quality of individual campaigns from here on out.
Senate forecast overview, May 24th
Dems
GOP
Not up for election
41
23
Incumbent party safe
6
10
Sub-total
47
33
Current polling
5.08
14.92
Projected total
52.08
47.92
Notes: Because they caucus with Senate Democrats, Independents Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman are considered Democrats. For now, Charlie Crist is considered more likely to caucus with Republicans, and as such is included in the GOP's overall total.
The 20 Senate seats that might switch partisan control The chart below looks only at a broadly defined definition of "competitive" campaigns. Campaigns where incumbent party currently leads by 18.5% or more are considered "safe" and not listed.
As of last Tuesday, Senate polling currently projected to 51.83 Senate seats for Democrats after the November election. However, that projection was based on a 100% chance of victory in Washington State. While this poll does not change that victory percentage right now (no other poll has the campaign so close), it does suggest that this could be a difficult seat for Democrats to hold. This is especially the case if Rossi runs.
With Washington state in play, Republicans would have an outside chance of winning the Senate. It would require winning 17 of the 18 campaigns listed here. While this is certainly a tall order, it is not impossible. The Senate is no longer absolutely secure for Democrats in the 2010 elections.
I have been working with Boeing and my friends at the Machinists (my old union) on this tanker contract issue, and a couple of recent items on this are worth noting, especially in combination. The first is that Boeing has paid for a new study that says they would generate 70,000 new American jobs if they get the tanker contract. You have to take any study paid for by a company with a grain of salt, so maybe it’s not 70,000 jobs, maybe it’s less than that, but even if it’s 20% or 30% less, that’s a good chunk of new jobs that would go to American workers, practically immediately, as opposed to all the non-American jobs that would be created if Airbus got the contract.
What caught my eye in combination with this news, though, is this item: Patty Murray recently had a meeting with Boeing CEO Jim McNerney where she asked point blank where the new Air Force tanker will be built if Boeing gets the contract. The answer was straightforward: the Everett, WA facilities. Everett is a fully unionized plant by the Machinists. Those are good jobs, with good wages and good benefits. Most of the jobs created by an Airbus contract, even though they are affiliated on it with Northrop, will be outside of this country, while the few that would be directly created at an non-union American plant yet to be built in Alabama.
Seems like a pretty obvious choice to me. Good American jobs – 70,000 if Boeing is right – that have union wages and benefits versus mostly non-American jobs with only a smattering of non-union American jobs at a plant yet to be even built. This should be an easy call – politically and policy-wise.
Thank you for contacting me about the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. I appreciate hearing from you about this important issue.
As you know, in communities across America today, people are finding it increasingly difficult to fill up their tanks, pay for health care, and afford college tuition. Now, all Americans, even those who have paid their bills on time and have excellent credit, are at risk of being severely affected by the current credit freeze on Wall Street.
People want to know if this crisis is real. I have asked the same question of Treasury Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke. I have spoken with economic experts and Washington state business leaders. Companies like Weyerhaeuser and Microsoft have made it clear that something must be done. Power utilities such as Avista and the farm groups such as the Farm Bureau have told me that the government's proposal to stabilize our financial markets is critically needed. Throughout various sectors of our economy, there is deep and genuine concern about market collapse and the potential impact on jobs, credit and pensions.
We have already experienced a slowdown in home sales and construction. Our home state bank, Washington Mutual, was unable to withstand the crisis and was acquired by another institution. Millions of Americans have tried to obtain a loan or refinance their mortgage, but have found it increasingly difficult to find a willing line of credit and in many cases have been unable to do so at all. If this crisis worsens, credit could freeze completely for consumers and companies who use credit to pay their employees or run their business operations. The bottom line is that without a steady stream of credit, American businesses will not be able to pay their workers and Americans will lose their jobs. Because of the impact the financial crisis could have on all Americans, from layoffs to access to credit, I supported the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.
I understand the frustration of people who want those on Wall Street to be held accountable for their actions and shoulder the consequences of their own misdeeds. Americans are being confronted with two undesirable options. Either do nothing and let the crisis worsen, or take action and use taxpayer dollars to solve a problem they did not create. Americans are rightfully angry. However, those who created the problem will not be those who are hurt most if the government does not act. My top priority is to do what is best for the people of Washington State and the nation, and that is why I believe government action is urgently needed in this situation.
The original plan presented to Congress by President Bush and Secretary Paulson was a non-starter. Congress rightly refused to give Secretary Paulson a blank check to spend hundreds of billions of dollars without oversight. Congress refused to allow executives of failing companies to walk away with millions of dollars in severance packages while taxpayers paid for their mistakes. This legislation is a more prudent agreement to anchor taxpayer dollars to strict Congressional oversight and scrutiny by independent economic experts. We added assistance for responsible borrowers hit by the foreclosure crisis and plans to recoup money from any institutions which use government money and then see a profit. In the future, it is possible that most, if not all, of the taxpayer money invested will be returned once this crisis comes to a close.
Congress has to be vigilant in our oversight of how this law is
implemented. I fought to ensure that every transaction that takes place regarding this funding will be on the Internet for all Americans to see. In addition, I strongly support the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) and other state and federal agencies' investigation into the
wrongdoing related to the current crisis on Wall Street. If fraud and criminal activity are uncovered, the individuals responsible must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Congress must take a hard look at the factors that brought us to this point and seriously address them. Congress will be holding ongoing hearings into the causes of this crisis and the regulation reform that is desperately needed and has been missing throughout the duration of the Bush Administration. The next administration has to work with Congress to pass and implement new regulatory measures so that taxpayers are never put in this position again.
It will take both investment and honesty to get our economy back on track. The next administration will inherit this economic crisis along with many other serious challenges. I hope our new President is honest with the American people about where we stand and what it will take to move America forward.
I believe that to move America forward, we need to invest in the
infrastructure and education that create economic growth and jobs. We have to invest in our workforce and find a way to make health care affordable and accessible. We have to increase funding for research and development and reward innovation. We have to implement a smart, forward-looking energy policy that ends our addiction to foreign oil. It is time to put America's families first and restore their faith that
government works for, not against them.
I grew up with a country at my back - one that when my own father got sick and could no longer work was there with Pell Grants and student loans and even food stamps when my family needed them. I will always remember that. I supported this legislation because the American dream of owning a home or going to college is simply too important to take a back seat to politics or to be put at risk by the misdeeds of Wall
Street.
As Congress continues to work to restore our economy, I will continue to stand up for our state and listen to your concerns. Thank you for contacting me, and please do not hesitate to contact me in the future.
I have learned from a trusted inside source that the Obama campaign has approached, and held talks with, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) as a possible Vice-Presidential selection.
Murray was first elected to the Senate in Washington State in 1992, the "year of the woman" in the U.S. Senate. Murray would be a reinforcing pick for Barack Obama in that she is one of the few sitting Senators or Governors who opposed the Iraq war from the start, voting against the Authorization for the Use of Military Force against Iraq. back in October of 2002. Murray also mirrors Obama in that, before her career in electoral politics, she was a citizen activist and community organizer on environmental and educational issues.
Murray also does much to balance a ticket for Obama. As an early supporter of Hillary Clinton, she would give that wing of the party a place on the ticket. Further, in addition to a different policy focus (environment and education), Murray was once dismissed as a "mom in tennis shoes" during her time as an activist. Murray would potentially appeal to many of the same demographics where Senator Hillary Clinton, particularly suburban women, but also those interested in "experience."
Personally, I think that Patty Murray would be an excellent Vice-Presidential pick by Obama, and I am glad that she is under consideration. While she isn't the sort of name that the elite fawning (Bloomberg), testosterone owrshipping (Webb), or conservative obsessed (Hagel, Nunn) punditry will suggest, she has many strengths and very few weaknesses as a VP selection. In addition be serviing as both a balancing and reinforcing selection, she consistently ranks in the top third of the Democratic caucus in terms of progressive voting record. Further, the possibility of two anti-war, community organizers at the top of the Democratic ticket is very appealing.
Patty Murray needs to be on the short list of Vice-Presidential selections. Along with Sherrod Brown, Wesley Clark, John Edwards, and Kathleen Sebelius, she is certainly on mine.
STATE BLOGS
