With the word leaking out last night that Justice David Souter will retire from the Supreme Court at the end of the current term, President Barack Obama is presented with what may be his greatest opportunity -- now, or perhaps even over eight years should be re-elected in 2012 -- to shape the judiciary and create a permanent legacy for his own presidency. However, while some in the administration and elsewhere might prefer to elevate a moderate nominee who will engender less controversy and thus obtain somewhat easier approval from the Senate, I believe that Obama do the exact opposite and be bold in his choice to replace Souter. Obama should look to appoint both a young and established liberal intellectual to both give himself a more-lasting imprint on the Federal judiciary and to ensure a more robust liberal bloc on the High Court over the next generation.
In making a SCOTUS nomination, Presidents today are ultra careful in picking a nominee without a hint of written controversy or bold thinking -- left or right -- in their background. I am suggesting that not only should Obama not rule out someone who might have a little bit of controversy in his or her background, but that he should actively seek such a nominee. Indeed, while being bold may not be something the young administration wants to do just months out of the gate and with a myriad of other problems in the hopper, Obama and Democrats will never, ever have as great a chance as they do right now to pick a bold and clearly liberal choice to the Supreme Court.
For those who are not lawyers or big SCOTUS followers, I am not going to use this post to focus on any legal minutia; instead I am going to look solely at pragmatic and political concerns inherent in Obama's impending decision and why he should resist the conventional wisdom of a Sonia Sotomayor. I am not even going to go over the rosters of names you're seeing all over the place because I do not think that is terribly important right now given the deluge of similar analysis across the web today.
The State of the Supreme Court: Advantage Conservatives
As it stands today, conservatives have a decided advantage when it comes to control of the Supreme Court. This should be no real surprise given that seven of the nine Justices were appointed by Republican Presidents. Yet beyond that, conservatives look to have a strong hold on the Court in the years to come because Republican Presidents were also wiser in their appointments than Democrats (actually, just Bill Clinton). This is because Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush actively sought out nominees who were young and could sit on the High Court for over a generation. To demonstrate what this means, let's examine the current Court roster:
Chief Justice John Roberts Jr: 53 years old, 50 when appointed by Bush II
Justice John Paul Stevens: 89 years old, 55 when appointed by Ford
Justice Antonin Scalia: 72 years old, 50 when appointed by Reagan
Justice Anthony Kennedy: 72 years old; 51 when appointed by Reagan
Justice David Souter: 67 years old; 50 when appointed by Bush I
Justice Clarence Thomas: 60 years old; 43 when appointed by Bush I
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg: 76 years old; 60 when appointed by Clinton
Justice Stephen Breyer: 70 years old; 55 when appointed by Clinton
Justice Samuel Alito: 59 years old; 55 when appointed by Bush II
Clearly, Republicans have a more conservative Supreme Court today because GOP Presidents have been in office to proffer nominations for most of the current Justices. But a part of this control comes from the foresight of Presidents Reagan, Bush and Bush in tapping jurists who could serve for the long haul. 50, 55, 50, 51, 50, 43, and 55 were ages of the GOP-appointed Justices at the time of their elevation. Breyer was a fair 55 when picked by Bill Clinton, but Ruth Bader Ginsberg was 60 years old when she was named to replace Byron White in 1993. Faced with a conservative-dominated Supreme Court even in 1993 and 1994, President Clinton showed an astonishing lack of foresight in going with, simply put, old nominees for the vacancies he was given when the Court was already Republican-dominated in the early nineties.
For those who don't follow the Court as much, Justices Stevens and Souter have turned out fair more leftist than their original sponsors ever anticipated, and today they are both part of the generally-named liberal core on the Court, along with Ginsburg and Breyer. Chief Justice Roberts, along with Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito make up the conservative bloc. Justice Kennedy is the Court's biggest swing vote, but it is fair to say that he sways to the right on more matters than not. Still, even Kennedy aside, there is a four-man conservative group with an average of 61 (53+72+60+59) years old. The liberal bloc's average age (including Souter) comes to 75.5 (89+67+76+70) years old; excluding Souter the average is 78.3 years old -- almost 20 years above the average of the conservative core. I grant that the latter numbers are skewed heavily by Justice Stevens' advanced age, but the fact is that he is on the Court and apparently still running strong. Therefore, we have no idea when he will finally hang up his spurs, and must include him. What are those numbers again?
Average age of the Conservative Core: 61 years
Average age of the Liberal Core: 78.3 years
Consequently, what we have today is a Court which is controlled by a majority conservative group, and which, barring an unforeseen retirement or passing, will be controlled by this group in the years to come. In other words, barring the shocking retirement of Justice Scalia in the near future, these Justices will control the tenor and direction of the Court's jurisprudence regardless of who President Obama replaces Justice Souter with (or even Justice Stevens, assuming he retires in the coming years). Given these circumstances, Obama should look long and hard at who he wants to on the Court (duh!).
Building a Liberal Intellectual Center on the Court
In my view, this is the crux of the choice facing Obama as he considers Souter's replacement. Does he go with the expected choice, likely a more moderate, milquetoast judge who is today sitting on the United States Courts of Appeal and has been careful to not issue many opinions which could be seen as politically controversial? Or does he decide to make a bold choice and tap a clearly liberal individual who has expressed her ideology and bold viewpoint(s) at some point? Naturally, there are many ways to frame Obama's decision and it is not such a simple matter as looking at one angle, but I want to look at the decision from this viewpoint.
I have zero doubt that the initial inclination of many politicians and even some higher-ups in the administration is to take the less-controversial route, and tap a nominee on one of the Federal circuit courts who possesses a written record that does not smack of liberal leanings, or really any leanings at all. The thought process behind this is that such a nominee might encounter Republican resistance -- heck, it is not possible to find a nominee who would be unopposed by the right -- but he or she will nonetheless be much more easily confirmed.
Additionally, I think that one of the key aims of the White House in its pick is to find a non-white male, specifically a female, black, Hispanic, et al., or some combination thereof. This is why you are going to hear the name Sonia Sotomayor many, many times over the next few months, up to when Obama names his choice. Indeed, Sotomayor is both a woman and a Hispanic, so she possesses two assets Obama is likely seeking; not to mention, she has a good life story and is a longtime member of the Second Circuit, arguably the second most prestigious court after the Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit, and thus she has instant legal credibility as a nominee.
Nonetheless, I think Sotomayor, as well as several other potential nominees whose names have been bandied about for years are uninspiring, and frankly mediocre political choices, and Obama should look in other directions. Put another way, in part because individuals like Sotomayor are perceived as the best -- read: safest -- potential selections, Obama should look elsewhere for three important reasons.
Searching for Brennan
While its legacy remains intact in many key areas, much to the consternation of liberals, the Warren Court has been gone for some time. It was finally replaced by the Rehnquist Court in the late 1980s and 1990s, and even a bit today by the Roberts Court's decisions. The Warren Court represented the high point in modern legal history where a robust bloc of liberal judges controlled American jurisprudence. Led by Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, William Douglas, and Thurgood Marshall, the Warren Court made a lasting impact on a plethora of matters which exists up through today, despite the best efforts of skeptical conservative jurists. The last living parts of this body disappeared with the retirement of Marshall in 1991, and death of Brennan in 1997. Since then, the liberal spirit that embodied the Warren Court has been left without a voice. With this nominations, and perhaps with others, Obama can make a bold move to find new similar voices in the mold of Brennan and Marshall. In fact, I believe that Obama should actively seek out a leading liberal voice to do just that, as the opportunity to carry out such an appointment in today's super-polarized environment may never be greater than it is now.
In seeking Justice Souter's replacement, Obama should consider first and foremost not moderate "consensus-builders" but clear liberal thinkers in the mold of William Brennan. Should he do so, he could put the stamp on his own legacy, and ingratiate liberals by hearkening back to the Warren Court.
Now, what do I mean exactly? Obama should try to implant a new core component on the Court to help bolster what is clearly an aged liberal bloc. Obama should aim not for another Breyer -- an unquestioned smart and qualified lower court judge -- but instead look for another Marshall: an individual who may have a clearly left-wing bent in his or her legal outlook, and who also may have the unique social background to influence his or her jurisprudence. This may seem counter-intuitive given today's confirmation wars, but in the end Obama should actively look for a jurist who has written, orated and expounded on the big legal questions of the day, and not look for the Roberts-lite model who carefully eschewed ever expressing anything noteworthy all in the name of confirmation expediency.
This would take boldness, a boldness to find and tap a nominee with a clear and established liberal record, and stand by him or her while all the stones and rocks are being thrown, and the ensure their confirmation with numerous cowardly senators looking for cover.
55 or older need not apply
This consideration is the easiest to delineate. Simply that Obama should look very closely at the age of a prospective nominee, and he should reject certain choices if they are too old. While it is impossible to pinpoint the "right" age of a choice, I think that Obama should nix any one who is over 55 years old, if not 53.
As demonstrated above, the liberal core today is way too old, especially when compared with the conservative bloc of Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito. Appointing an older nominee over 55 or perhaps closer to 60 would do very little to help begin to put in place a liberal bloc -- and thus a liberal legacy -- for the new President. Should Obama put on some one in the late 50s, that person might end up retiring before Roberts and Alito despite being tapped some years after those choices. Such a possibility should be untenable for Obama and his brain trust.
As a result, many of the people supposedly on the President's list should be axed. Others on the cusp of 55, including both Sotomayor and Obama friend and famous law professor Cass Sunstein are right on the our line, and that fact should be given strong consideration. In my view, the closer a credible possibility is to the good side of 50, the better.
This mean seem overly-simplistic, and thus kind of silly; I can understand that. But the fact is that if Obama wants to make an impact on the Court, and begin to remake the Court's makeup, he cannot go with a nominee who won't be around Washington for at least a generation. The change to remake a new Court in the mold of the Warren Court -- or whatever you'd like to call it -- is going to take many years and many changes on the body, and thus can only be ensured with truly young, new blood.
The Time is Ripest
The third key reason for Obama to make a bold (and liberal) selection is that the current national political environment and the makeup of the Senate are more advantageous for Obama to make such a move than they have been in decades, and they may not be this favorable to a Democratic President again for 100 years.
For one thing, Obama today enjoys impressive approval ratings, and they have remained steady for some time. Sure, those numbers won't stay in the 60s forever, but right now -- and likely for the near future -- they are solid, and as a result, Obama has a good deal of political capital to spend. And there are few areas of greater importance today that the U.S. Supreme Court.
Second, is the composition of the Senate, where Democrats have a very large majority which verges on 60 votes -- the number needed to turn off Republican filibusters. With Arlen Specter's high-profile switch earlier this week, Democrats now sit at 59, and it is likely they will get to 60 whenever Al Franken is seated, an eventuality I think will occur at before Obama's nomination is ultimately voted on. It's not every day that a President enjoys a 60-seat majority in the upper chamber, and Obama would be crazy not to take advantage by putting on someone with unquestioned liberal credentials as opposed to a moderate who he hopes could garner a couple of Republican stragglers.
Make no mistake: basically irregardless of any nominee Obama will pick, Republicans will strongly object and fight. Even if Obama picks the most uncontroversial, moderate jurist, he can expect nearly every Republican Senator to vote 'no.' The judicial wars have become too partisan, and much too important for Republicans to ever strongly support any high Democratic nominee, whether it be for the Supreme Court or for an important seat on a circuit. Obama can expect incredible opposition for just about any of the names being bandied about, as well as others not being considered.
Judicial nominations today are the golden issue for the Republican base. During the second Bush administration, GOPers returned to the issue time and again as a means of ginning up their base -- using endless fundraising appeals, and who can forget the "Justice for Judges" Senate marathon where Bill Frist halted all business to have the Senate discuss a handful of judicial nominations for 50 hours straight? -- and bashing Democrats as "obstructionist." This is because many conservatives view the judiciary, and the High Court especially, as a crucial place of focus, and that the ability to place strong conservatives on the Federal courts is the key step towards undoing Roe v. Wade and other decisions they view as abominations. With Republicans no longer in control of the confirmation process -- GOPers had a robust 55-seat majority in 2005, allowing them to easily place Roberts and Alito on the bench with little trouble or resistence -- they may not be able to stop Obama's nomination, but they sure as heck will object, if for no other reason than to reinvigorate their base after long strings of bad electoral news.
Unfortunately for Republicans, none of that should matter since, as the vote-count below demonstrates, Obama should be able to get 51 votes for confirmation (we will get to the filibuster question afterward).
Counting the votes
Let's go through the entire Senate roster and determine how a vote might look for any Obams SCOTUS nomination
Absolutely, positively 100% sure to vote for any choice
Daniel Akaka (HI), Mark Begich (AK), Michael Bennet (CO), Jeff Bingaman (NM), Barbara Boxer (CA), Sherrod Brown (OH), Roland Burris (IL), Maria Cantwell (WA), Ben Cardin (MD), Tom Carper (DE), Bob Casey (PA), Chris Dodd (CT), Richard Durbin (IL), Russ Feingold (WI), Dianne Feinstein (CA), Al Franken (MN), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Kay Hagan (NC), Tom Harkin (IA), Dan Inouye (HI), Tim Johnson (SD), Ed Kaufman (DE), Ted Kennedy (MA), John Kerry (MA), Amy Klobuchar (MN), Herb Kohl (WI), Frank Lautenberg (NJ), Patrick Leahy (VT), Carl Levin (MI), Joe Lieberman (CT), Claire McCaskill (MO), Bob Menendez (NJ), Jeff Merkley (OR), Barbara Mikulski (MD), Patty Murray (WA), Bill Nelson (FL), Mark Pryor (AR), Jack Reed (RI), Harry Reid (NV), Jay Rockefeller (WV), Bernie Sanders (VT), Chuck Schumer (NY), Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Debbie Stabenow (MI), Jon Tester (MT) (facing a very hard re-elect in 2012, but I think he hunkers down on this vote), Mark Udall (CO), Tom Udall (NM), Mark Warner (VA) (moderate freshman, but hard to see him opposing), Jim Webb (VA) (facing a difficult challenge in 2012, but he's his own man), Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), and Ron Wyden (WA).
Naturally, some of these votes will be weaker than others. Begich was just elected in red Alaska, barely beating Ted Stevens, but he does not face the voters again until 2014. Bennet could also face a tough race next year, but I can't see him bucking the President. Hagan is from North Carolina, but she won by nine points, and Pryor just won a second term unopposed. Warner just won his first term with incredible ease. The two hardest votes could be Tester and Webb, as both face potentially rough races in 2012, but both of their temperments -- tough as heck -- and political outlooks (mostly socially liberal) are precisely the kind to back the President on a tough vote like SCOTUS.
The total from this list comes to 51 votes, a exact majority needed for confirmation, and we have not even gotten to the nine weaker Dem votes. Those are Max Baucus (MT), Evan Bayh (IN), Robert Byrd (WV), Kent Conrad (ND), Byron Dorgan (ND), Mary Landrieu (LA), Blanche Lincoln (AR), Ben Nelson (NE), and Arlen Specter. Of these, I would expect Conrad and Dorgan to vote 'aye', even though they are from North Dakota; both are usually stand-up votes. Ditto Bayh, despite his strange push to the center of late. Lincoln is facing re-election next year, so who knows? Byrd and Landrieu are entirely unpredictable, and Nelson and Specter could certainly vote against since they are probably the two most Republican-leaning Dem votes in the Senate. And these are conservative estimates; the point being that cobbling together a simple majority for any nominee should be imminently doable.
On the GOP, we can pencil in just about every one of them voting 'no' regardless of the nominee. Senators Collins, Lugar, Snowe, and Voinovich could possibly vote for some nominees, with Snowe and Collins voted for any female nominee, in my opinion. That makes, by my count, 36 GOP Senators who are guaranteed 'no' votes for the Souter replacement.
Filibuster trouble?
Which leads us to the $64,000 question: could Obama's nominee by filibustered? It seems clear me that any Obama nominee will able to muster a majority in the Senate despite the presence of many moderate Democrats and others who face tough re-elections over the next two cycles. Therefore, the most troubling thing that could derail his nominee's chances in the Senate would be a Republican filibuster aimed at bottling up the nomination. To properly assess this possibility, we should look at two issues: first, the chances of Republicans deciding to mount a filibuster, and second, whether or not they could find any Democrats to join the filibuster in order to ensure that cloture -- three-fifths of the body -- can not materialize.
To be candid, a Republican filibuster of Obama's nominee would represent the absolute height of political hypocrisy. When Bush II was in office, and Republicans reigned in the Senate, they screeched and howled when Democrats held up a small handful of Bush's nominees to the courts of appeal. Bush himself as well as Republicans in the Senate led by then-Majority Leader Bill Frist assailed the blocking and called Democratic use of the filibuster to bottle up judicial nominations against Senate rules. In turn, they threatened the so-called "nuclear option" which would have eliminated Democrats' filibusters and led to partisan warfare on the Senate floor even greater than that which pervaded the institution at the time (and today).
For Republicans to decide now today that filibustering judicial nominees is a-okay after decrying their use so vociferously would smack of hypocrisy and partisan double standards. Really, it would defy fair and reasoned explanation. Perhaps amusingly, despite all of that, I expect a great many Republican Senators to push using a filibuster on Obama's nominee. Times have changed since 2003-to-2005, and desperate times call for desperate measures. Republicans have lost over a dozen seats over the past two midterm elections. Today they sit at just 40, a small minority. Their options are very limited, and perhaps more important, their caucus is dominated almost entirely by strong conservatives who take glee in partisan batles and view the judicial nominations process as more vital than any matter other the Senate considers -- ground zero for the culture wars.
I think a great many Republicans, probably a majority of the current caucus will support a filibuster should they find Obama's choice particularly objectionable. To Republicans, even if a filibuster was doomed from the start, it would at least be a means of ginning up the party faithful on a favorite issue and perhaps improve immediate party fundraising. And we all know that in light of the recent "tea parties" and subsequent activities, elected Republicans are today not averse to playing solely to their hardcore supporters.
Whether or not Mitch McConnell and the GOP leadership would be able to convince their entire caucus to support a filibuster is another matter. While the 40-Member caucus is nearly entirely right wing, there would be no margin for error here: McConnell would have to convince every person in his caucus to filibuster, and then go and find at least one Democrat to join in. The first matter would hardly be guaranteed, mostly because of the presence of Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. That McConnell could arm-twist and cajole his caucus into being united against Obama's choice is not a possibility I would dismiss; in fact, I believe he could do it, simply by appealing to their diminished status. However, the hardest part might be getting the Maine twins on board, and I think their support for filibuster would depend solely on the specific nominee; in other words, they would not be a sure filibuster vote regardless of nominee as a Tom Coburn or Jim DeMint would be.
To be frank, if Obama ends up nominating a woman, I can't see Snowe and Collins voting against her confirmation, much less voting to uphold a filibuster. This is especially true if someone like Sonia Sotomayor is the pick. But let's assume that Obama nominates a very established male liberal for the post, and as a result, not only do Republicans mount a filibustering effort, but that Snowe, Collins, Lugar, and Voinovich all jump on board. If all of that happens, I still think a filibuster would fail. It would fail for the simple reason that I can't see even a single Democrat voting with Republicans to block a nomination.
Even the most unscrupulous, self-interested pol would have a hard time bucking his leadership and the White House and go support a filibuster. Should a Member decide that he or she can't vote 'aye' for one reason or another, they can always vote against confirmation in the end (assuming their vote is not vitally needed). But they would be forbidden from filibustering. In terms of the most dangerous possible switch-over, Arlen Specter, I find very hard to envision him casting one of his first big votes as a Democrat to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee and thus embarrass the President. Such a move would assure Specter of a nasty primary fight -- something he would just as soon avoid now. If Specter has any political sense, he wont do something so foolish.
As a result, I don't see a filibuster as particularly viable, or at all likely to succeed even if the Republicans are united. What this means is that Obama has the ability to make a bold choice for Souter's replacement, and he should almost certainly have more than enough votes to assure confirmation. Given this reality, he should be timid in who he decides to nominate.
Conclusion
I set out to write this little piece mostly because I've been hearing the name Sonia Sotomayor for some time, and I find her potential nomination both uninspiring on a personal and political level. Sure, Sotomayor is the "obvious" choice because she is a woman, she is Hispanic, she has a nice life story and a great pedigree, and she sits on a respected appellate court, therefore making her nomination both ground-breaking and completely viable.
Yet, I think Obama can do better, much better. In my amateur legal view -- I did not go to Hah-vahd, I did not clerk, and I am not one of those lawyers who likes to tell people in casual conversation that I was on the law review (in part because I wasn't!) -- Sotomayor is legally undistinguished, and has written few noteworthy opinions and even fewer legal articles which espouse anything bold. And this does not only apply to Sotomayor, but to numerous appellate court judges who are likely being considered and are today being mentioned in the many articles pervading media and cyberspace.
The fact is that is I view the U.S. Courts of Appeals as a judicial Senate of sorts. It is full of smart, and super-ambitious judges who dream of perhaps one day sitting on the High Court, much in the same way that many senators dream of sitting in the Oval Office (though, to be fair, I think all senators dream of being President). As a result, many of these judges are incredibly meticulous in writing narrow, vanilla opinions and articles in hopes of never saying anything controversial while at the same time perhaps attracting the attention of a White House counsel or someone at People for the American Way who could push their name as a confirmable Justice one day. This view well describes some of the Court today: certainly John Roberts and maybe Stephen Breyer. And these are precisely the names that Obama should not seek to duplicate.
For one thing, nowhere in the Constitution does it require that a Justice by a former judge on a Federal circuit court, despite the fact that that is where most Justices now come from. Additionally, Obama does not have to pick someone who is over 55 years old. Being old is not a constitutional prerequisite.
From the liberal perspective, what the Supreme Court most needs now is an intellectual thinking capable of leading a new bloc and generating new ideas for the new century. If it were up to me, I would pick someone like Noah Feldman, a 39-year old Harvard Law School professor. Feldman is a brilliant legal thinker, and he has written and expounded on a host of legal topics of considerable significance. Yes, he has said many controversial things that would drive conservatives up a wall and lead to nasty (but nonetheless fun-to-watch) confirmation hearings, but he's a true intellectual, and perhaps most important, he could serve for 40 or more years.
I just use Feldman as an example of what I think Obama should look for: a bold, smart selection. Realistically, Obama is not going to pick Feldman because he is too bold, and also because he wants to tap a minority candidate or a woman. But from a political standpoint, it is my hope that Obama, a former constitutional law professor with perhaps a greater appreciation for the judicial process than any President in recent history, will fully recognize the need to consider a new direction for his choice, and he won't take the default route of a court of appeals judge with a milquetoast record. Someone like Feldman who is being considered seriously is Elana Kagan. Given that she is under 50 years old, she might be the best option of the names today being circulated (though, the fact that she has been Solicitor General for around a month might complicate matters). Someone like Cass Sunstein -- a well known law professor, and also Obama friend -- would be good, but his age of 55 concerns me some.
I have no doubt that Obama is taking the issue extremely seriously. This is one decision where he is a super-expert in making a wise choice. But he should decide not to put someone too old on the Court. In this layman's view, 55 years old should be the high mark, if not even lower than that. And at the very least, he should not shy away from any choice simply because that person might be seen as too controversial because they've actually expressed their views in public.
If he wants, Obama can use this nomination as the first step towards finally finding for liberals their new judicial icon, both to replace what men like William Brennan provided, and to counteract the overshadowing work on Antonin Scalia, and now John Roberts. It's up to him whether he wants to be safe or bold.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Richardson's Fall
Politics is a rough business. Just ask Bill Richardson. In the first extended interview of Richardson since he withdrew as Obama's Commerce Secretary nominee, the Washington Post paints a somewhat sad picture of the governor.
Maybe it is dreary to me alone, but I find Richardson's past few months kind of amazing. Sure, he never had a legitimate chance at the White House, but as late as last year, he was the political king of New Mexico, and a strong contender to be a United States Senator or Secretary of State. Instead, Richardson passed on a Senate run (in my opinion, because he thought it would be small potatoes to someone who had already been in Congress and the cabinet; which is too bad, since he would have won in a walk), and Obama passed Richardson over for the SOS slot for Hillary Clinton, despite Richardson's primary endorsement of Obama. (While Richardson was not happy about the decision, deep down he had to appreciate Obama's political calculus in selecting his former bitter foe over a helpful ally, proving once again that in politics, expediency almost always trumps loyalty.)
Anyway, after reading this piece, I thought of that great line in "The Dark Knight", where Harvey Dent (or maybe it was Bruce Wayne, or both), says "you either die a hero, or you live long enough to become the villain." I hate to equate real-life matters to movies, and I am not saying Richardson is a hero, but clearly he is a man who may have stayed on the big stage just a bit too long, and as a result he finds himself as yesterday's news.
Maybe it is dreary to me alone, but I find Richardson's past few months kind of amazing. Sure, he never had a legitimate chance at the White House, but as late as last year, he was the political king of New Mexico, and a strong contender to be a United States Senator or Secretary of State. Instead, Richardson passed on a Senate run (in my opinion, because he thought it would be small potatoes to someone who had already been in Congress and the cabinet; which is too bad, since he would have won in a walk), and Obama passed Richardson over for the SOS slot for Hillary Clinton, despite Richardson's primary endorsement of Obama. (While Richardson was not happy about the decision, deep down he had to appreciate Obama's political calculus in selecting his former bitter foe over a helpful ally, proving once again that in politics, expediency almost always trumps loyalty.)
Anyway, after reading this piece, I thought of that great line in "The Dark Knight", where Harvey Dent (or maybe it was Bruce Wayne, or both), says "you either die a hero, or you live long enough to become the villain." I hate to equate real-life matters to movies, and I am not saying Richardson is a hero, but clearly he is a man who may have stayed on the big stage just a bit too long, and as a result he finds himself as yesterday's news.
Monday, April 13, 2009
The New PVI Ratings (and what they mean), Part II
For congressional Republicans, the proof is in the numbers and the numbers are not good. The Republicans have done an absolutely pitiful job in recruiting moderates and preserving districts that are even to swing in their leanings. Sure, Democrats benefited enormously from two consecutive national "change" elections where voters moved to throw the perceived "bums" (the Republicans) out of power and move to punish the party of the hugely unpopular George W. Bush.
But a big part of the results were that Democrats seized their opportunities through superb fundraising, and even more importantly, outstanding recruitment of candidates who were ultimately able to win moderately red districts and very, very red districts. At the same time, Republicans were almost impotent in their quest to recruit. Make no mistake, however, this was not some new phenomenon borne of our of 43rd President. As our last post shows, Democrats have had a built-in advantage in branching out to districts for some time.
To wit: consider Gene Taylor (elected 1989), Jim Matheson (2000), Ike Skelton (1976), Rick Boucher (1982), and Chet Edwards (1990). Each of them was elected several terms ago, and all of them have become well entrenched in their insanely Republican homelands.
And the Republicans? Mike Castle was elected in 1992, Frank LoBiando in 1994, Pat Tiberi and Mark Kirk in 2000, Jim Gerlach in 2002, Charlie Dent and Dave Reichert in 2004, and Cao in 2008. For those eight Members, that comes out to an average of 7.5 years, or just under four terms a pop.
In order to not draw on a limited sample for the Dems, let's look at the elected years of all of the Democrats (note that I will clump in special election winners from odd years in the next election cycle; so, for example, Gene Taylor, who first won his seat in 1989, will be listed in the 1990 cycle) to make a fuller comparison:
2008 (21): Halvorson, Foster, Adler, Grayson, Schauer, Kissel, Dahlkemper, Kosmas, McMahon, Boccieri, Massa, Nye, Periello, Kirkpatrick, Markey, Teague, Griffith, Kratovil, Childers, Bright, Minnick.
2006 (15): McNerney, Walz, Donnelly, Gillibrand*, Arcuri, Wilson, Kagan, Hall, Giffords, Mitchell, Shuler, Altmire, Space, Ellsworth, Carney
2004 (5): Bean, Herseth-Sandlin, Chandler, Melancon, Boren
2002 (2): Marshall, Lincoln Davis
2000 (2): Matheson, Ross
1998 (3): Moore, Rodriguez, Hill
1996 (5): Berry, Snyder, Ethridge, McIntyre, Boyd
1992 (3): Stupak, Holden, Pomeroy
1990 (3): Taylor, Edwards, Peterson
1988 (1): Tanner
1984 (1): Gordon
1982 (4): Boucher, Ortiz, Mollohan, Sprat
1976 (2): Skelton, Rahall
1974 (1): Murtha
All together, the average tenure of service for these 69 Democratic Members of Congress comes to approximately 7.6 years, or just about four terms. This comes out to be the same as the GOP average, where the universe is clearly far smaller. Excluding the 21 freshman (plus Childers and Foster), the number ticks up to 10.98 years, or five and a half terms. In case you can't tell, these are pretty big numbers. And at least to me, they demonstrate impressive staying power for Dems in many districts they really have no place winning and then keeping.
The reason I spell out these averages here is because I want to refute the notion that Democratic control of these districts is not indicative of anything salient, and that once another electoral tide appears, this one against the Blue Team, then many of these Members will be washed out. Not so.
Note that 15 of the Members above came to office before the Republican Revolution of 1994. In other words, they withstood the enormous anti-Democratic tide of that year -- many of them easily -- and they have hung on ever since. To me, this is critically important because it shows that Democratic success in congressional elections has not hinged on the 2006 and 2008 elections alone. The seeds of triumph were planted in the ground and grown up before then, in numerous examples years before.
What this all means is practical terms is that Dems have a tremendous blueprint in place for winning and holding seats across the country, while the Republicans have a terrible existing model. The Republican Party will be unable to win back Congress and then hold it again if it cannot find a way to either (1) dislodge a lot of the above Dems, either through direct challenge or via retirements; (2) begin to promulgate their own candidates who can win in deep blue territory; or (3) both.
So what's their best option before them? Let's consider the route of taking these seats back for Team Red. There is certainly low-hanging fruit here. Minnick and Bright are in overwhelmingly GOP districts, and they won their seats by less than 2% apiece. Other freshman had problems winning last year, and can be beaten with some luck and gumption by the Republicans.
But problems abound, most notably that a great many of these Democrats, particularly the entrenched ones, are not that old and are thus unlikely to retire soon. For example, Gene Taylor and Chet Edwards are both under 60 years old, Ben Chandler is 49, and Jim Matheson is only 48! None of them will ever lose, barring some very unforeseen development, and this should drive Republicans nuts because they should own these seats like the Giants own the Cowboys in big games.
There are exceptions, of course. Minnick and Bright, for one, Skelton's seat once he retires (assuming he doesn't leave in 2012 and his seat is dissolved when Missouri loses a seat in the next census), Grayson (who I think has one term written all over him), and Kratovil, who will face enormous obstacles to hang on next year. The fact still remains that making significant inroads in Dem-occupied red lands could take the Elephants many years. Still, their best bet is that group of 36 name that gained elected over the last two cycles. The GOP needs to try to pick off some of those to ensure they don't become entrenched and end up as a group of new Taylors and Tanners. Unfortunately, since several of the '06 crop won second terms with such ease, it may be too late for many fronts.
In my mind, this leaves proper recruitment as both the best shortterm and longterm panacea for the Republicans. I know, I know: this is some revelation! Yet, for a party that has so clearly done a piss-poor job of branching out politically into districts as well as the Donkeys, it might not be as clear to the GOP House brass as it is to keen political observers like T2L's readers.
One of the worst things that has happened to the Republican Party in the last several years, besides losing the House, the Senate, and the White House, is that the party has become painfully marginalized, mostly because its moderate elements have been defeated, retired, excommunicated, or have shriveled up and died politically.
These names are many: Jim Saxton (a pro-environment Republican who was denied the Resources chairmanship by his party several years back), Nancy Johnson (ousted in 2006), Clay Shaw (also knocked out in '06), Wayne Gilchrest (moderate beaten in a primary in 2008), Joe Schwarz (another moderate knocked out in a primary in 2006), Sherwood Boehlert (retired in 2006), Marge Roukema (denied the Financial Services gavel in 2002, retired, and replaced by an ultra-conservative), Jim Kolbe (retired in 2006 and replaced with a popular Democrat), and finally the smartest GOPer and moderate in the House, Tom Davis, who retired after the Virginia GOP effectively blocked him from running for Senate for not being conservative enough; ironically, his replacement was trounced by a Democrat.
The loss of these moderates has crippled the GOP, not just because many of their seats became votes for Pelosi for Speaker, but because the absence of their voices hurts the ability of the party caucus as a whole to be fully pragmatic and productive. As of now, the House Republican caucus likely resembles an echo chamber, where all the Members from Texas, Utah, Georgia and the like all repeat and endorse the same failed strategies and extremists perspectives. These Members needed those voices, a fact many of them likely cannot (or willfully will not) fathom. Until they do, the House GOP caucus's mission to get back to majority status will not happen. Period.
Tomorrow I want to highlight a fresh story from today which highlights the dangers of conservative marginalization, and its plain absurdities in a political environment that remains caustic to Republicans.
But a big part of the results were that Democrats seized their opportunities through superb fundraising, and even more importantly, outstanding recruitment of candidates who were ultimately able to win moderately red districts and very, very red districts. At the same time, Republicans were almost impotent in their quest to recruit. Make no mistake, however, this was not some new phenomenon borne of our of 43rd President. As our last post shows, Democrats have had a built-in advantage in branching out to districts for some time.
To wit: consider Gene Taylor (elected 1989), Jim Matheson (2000), Ike Skelton (1976), Rick Boucher (1982), and Chet Edwards (1990). Each of them was elected several terms ago, and all of them have become well entrenched in their insanely Republican homelands.
And the Republicans? Mike Castle was elected in 1992, Frank LoBiando in 1994, Pat Tiberi and Mark Kirk in 2000, Jim Gerlach in 2002, Charlie Dent and Dave Reichert in 2004, and Cao in 2008. For those eight Members, that comes out to an average of 7.5 years, or just under four terms a pop.
In order to not draw on a limited sample for the Dems, let's look at the elected years of all of the Democrats (note that I will clump in special election winners from odd years in the next election cycle; so, for example, Gene Taylor, who first won his seat in 1989, will be listed in the 1990 cycle) to make a fuller comparison:
2008 (21): Halvorson, Foster, Adler, Grayson, Schauer, Kissel, Dahlkemper, Kosmas, McMahon, Boccieri, Massa, Nye, Periello, Kirkpatrick, Markey, Teague, Griffith, Kratovil, Childers, Bright, Minnick.
2006 (15): McNerney, Walz, Donnelly, Gillibrand*, Arcuri, Wilson, Kagan, Hall, Giffords, Mitchell, Shuler, Altmire, Space, Ellsworth, Carney
2004 (5): Bean, Herseth-Sandlin, Chandler, Melancon, Boren
2002 (2): Marshall, Lincoln Davis
2000 (2): Matheson, Ross
1998 (3): Moore, Rodriguez, Hill
1996 (5): Berry, Snyder, Ethridge, McIntyre, Boyd
1992 (3): Stupak, Holden, Pomeroy
1990 (3): Taylor, Edwards, Peterson
1988 (1): Tanner
1984 (1): Gordon
1982 (4): Boucher, Ortiz, Mollohan, Sprat
1976 (2): Skelton, Rahall
1974 (1): Murtha
All together, the average tenure of service for these 69 Democratic Members of Congress comes to approximately 7.6 years, or just about four terms. This comes out to be the same as the GOP average, where the universe is clearly far smaller. Excluding the 21 freshman (plus Childers and Foster), the number ticks up to 10.98 years, or five and a half terms. In case you can't tell, these are pretty big numbers. And at least to me, they demonstrate impressive staying power for Dems in many districts they really have no place winning and then keeping.
The reason I spell out these averages here is because I want to refute the notion that Democratic control of these districts is not indicative of anything salient, and that once another electoral tide appears, this one against the Blue Team, then many of these Members will be washed out. Not so.
Note that 15 of the Members above came to office before the Republican Revolution of 1994. In other words, they withstood the enormous anti-Democratic tide of that year -- many of them easily -- and they have hung on ever since. To me, this is critically important because it shows that Democratic success in congressional elections has not hinged on the 2006 and 2008 elections alone. The seeds of triumph were planted in the ground and grown up before then, in numerous examples years before.
What this all means is practical terms is that Dems have a tremendous blueprint in place for winning and holding seats across the country, while the Republicans have a terrible existing model. The Republican Party will be unable to win back Congress and then hold it again if it cannot find a way to either (1) dislodge a lot of the above Dems, either through direct challenge or via retirements; (2) begin to promulgate their own candidates who can win in deep blue territory; or (3) both.
So what's their best option before them? Let's consider the route of taking these seats back for Team Red. There is certainly low-hanging fruit here. Minnick and Bright are in overwhelmingly GOP districts, and they won their seats by less than 2% apiece. Other freshman had problems winning last year, and can be beaten with some luck and gumption by the Republicans.
But problems abound, most notably that a great many of these Democrats, particularly the entrenched ones, are not that old and are thus unlikely to retire soon. For example, Gene Taylor and Chet Edwards are both under 60 years old, Ben Chandler is 49, and Jim Matheson is only 48! None of them will ever lose, barring some very unforeseen development, and this should drive Republicans nuts because they should own these seats like the Giants own the Cowboys in big games.
There are exceptions, of course. Minnick and Bright, for one, Skelton's seat once he retires (assuming he doesn't leave in 2012 and his seat is dissolved when Missouri loses a seat in the next census), Grayson (who I think has one term written all over him), and Kratovil, who will face enormous obstacles to hang on next year. The fact still remains that making significant inroads in Dem-occupied red lands could take the Elephants many years. Still, their best bet is that group of 36 name that gained elected over the last two cycles. The GOP needs to try to pick off some of those to ensure they don't become entrenched and end up as a group of new Taylors and Tanners. Unfortunately, since several of the '06 crop won second terms with such ease, it may be too late for many fronts.
In my mind, this leaves proper recruitment as both the best shortterm and longterm panacea for the Republicans. I know, I know: this is some revelation! Yet, for a party that has so clearly done a piss-poor job of branching out politically into districts as well as the Donkeys, it might not be as clear to the GOP House brass as it is to keen political observers like T2L's readers.
One of the worst things that has happened to the Republican Party in the last several years, besides losing the House, the Senate, and the White House, is that the party has become painfully marginalized, mostly because its moderate elements have been defeated, retired, excommunicated, or have shriveled up and died politically.
These names are many: Jim Saxton (a pro-environment Republican who was denied the Resources chairmanship by his party several years back), Nancy Johnson (ousted in 2006), Clay Shaw (also knocked out in '06), Wayne Gilchrest (moderate beaten in a primary in 2008), Joe Schwarz (another moderate knocked out in a primary in 2006), Sherwood Boehlert (retired in 2006), Marge Roukema (denied the Financial Services gavel in 2002, retired, and replaced by an ultra-conservative), Jim Kolbe (retired in 2006 and replaced with a popular Democrat), and finally the smartest GOPer and moderate in the House, Tom Davis, who retired after the Virginia GOP effectively blocked him from running for Senate for not being conservative enough; ironically, his replacement was trounced by a Democrat.
The loss of these moderates has crippled the GOP, not just because many of their seats became votes for Pelosi for Speaker, but because the absence of their voices hurts the ability of the party caucus as a whole to be fully pragmatic and productive. As of now, the House Republican caucus likely resembles an echo chamber, where all the Members from Texas, Utah, Georgia and the like all repeat and endorse the same failed strategies and extremists perspectives. These Members needed those voices, a fact many of them likely cannot (or willfully will not) fathom. Until they do, the House GOP caucus's mission to get back to majority status will not happen. Period.
Tomorrow I want to highlight a fresh story from today which highlights the dangers of conservative marginalization, and its plain absurdities in a political environment that remains caustic to Republicans.
New PVI Ratings (and what they mean)
In the last few days, the venerable Charlie Cook has released the latest Partisan Voting Index (PVI) numbers for all 435 congressional districts in the House of Representatives. As regular readers of T2L know, we rely heavily on Cook's famous numbers to provide a great gauge of a specific district's partisan lean, as well as great fodder for endless discussion of politics.
For those of you unfamiliar with the system, or curious about how a PVI is tabulated, here is what Cook says:
A Partisan Voting Index score of D+2, for example, means that in the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections, that district performed an average of two points more Democratic than the nation did as a whole, while an R+4 means the district performed four points more Republican than the national average. If a district performed within half a point of the national average in either direction, we assign it a score of EVEN.
To determine the national average for these latest ratings, we have taken the average Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote for 2004 and 2008, which is roughly 51.3 percent, and that of Republicans, which is roughly 48.7 percent. So, if John Kerry captured 55 percent of the vote in a district and Barack Obama carried 57 percent in the district four years later, the district would have a PVI score of roughly D+5.
Like any other measure, the PVI is not perfect. Assuredly, there are a myriad of other ways to evaluate political lean or partisanship in a state or particular legislative district. However, given its rich history and strong reputation, I think Cook's system is the best we have in creating a thorough evaluation tool for congressional districts.
Last year, we looked at the PVI numbers of the 110th Congress in a variety of ways. Indeed, there are so many fascinating ways to dissect and examine PVI data, that one could spend ages doing it. Here, we spent a good deal of time looking at crossover Members; in other words, Republicans representing districts that have Democratic-leaning PVIs, and Democrats who represent districts that lean towards the Republicans in national elections. After drawing them all out, the numbers were pretty stark, and they are worth pasting below for review:
110th Congress
Republicans representing Dem districts (14)
D+0 -- Tom Latham (IA-04)
D+1 -- Bill Young (FL-10), Vito Fossella (NY-13)
D+2 -- Heather Wilson (NM-01), Peter King (NY-03), Jim Gerlach (PA-06), Charlie Dent (PA-15), Dave Reichert (WA-08)
D+3 -- Jim Saxton (NJ-03), James Walsh (NY-25)
D+4 -- Mark Kirk (IL-10), Frank LoBiando (NJ-02)
D+5 -- Chris Shays (CT-4)
D+6 --
D+7 -- Mike Castle (DE-AL)
D+8, 9, 10... None
At the time I made this post (August), here is what I wrote about the Republicans' congressional situation:
These numbers are absolutely pathetic and should be troubling to any Republican. Of these 14, two seats -- Fossella's and Walshs's -- are almost assured of flipping in November, as both men are retiring (Fossella under bad circumstances), and the Democrats have strong nominees in each facing weak GOP opponents. Saxton is retiring, and the Democrats have recruited an excellent nominee (thought the race is a toss-up as the district has unique geographic which could favor the weak GOP nominee). And with Wilson leaving Congress after running for the Senate (and losing her primary), and Kirk, Reichert, and Shays all facing very tough races this year, all of their seats could potentially flip. At an absolute worst case scenario, half of these seats could be gone this time next year. More likely, I see four or perhaps five of them flipping -- still a good results for Dems and a bad one for GOPers. This would leave nine of ten GOP Representatives sitting in Democratic seats out of close to 200 Members in the caucus.
(As it turned out, Republicans ended up losing several of the seats which belonged to the retiring Members, as well as numerous other ones which did not appear quite as endangered in three months before the election.)
Democrats representing GOP districts (51)
R+0 -- Vic Snyder (AR-02), Carol Shea Porter (NH-01)
R+1 -- Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-08), Tim Walz (MN-01), John Hall (NY-19), Michael Arcuri (NY-24), Solomon Ortiz (TX-27), Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
R+2 -- Allen Boyd (FL-02), Tim Mahoney (FL-16), Bart Stupak (MI-01)
R+3 -- Jerry McNerney (CA-11), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY-20), Bob Ethridge (NC-02), Mike McIntyre (NC-07), Jason Altmire (PA-04), Lincoln Davis (TN-04)
R+4 -- Harry Mitchell (AZ-05), Joe Donnelly (IN-02), Dennis Moore (KS-03), Bart Gordon (TN-06), Ciro Rodriguez (TX-23), Steve Kagan (WI-04)
R+5 -- Melissa Bean (IL-08), Bill Foster (IL-14), Charlie Melancon (LA-03), Dan Boren (OK-02)
R+6 -- Bud Cramer (AL-05), John Salazar (CO-03), Collin Peterson (MN-07), Zach Space (OH-18), John Spratt (NC-05), Alan Mollohan (WV-02)
R+7 -- Baron Hill (IN-09), Nancy Boyda (KS-02), Ben Chandler (KY-06), Don Cazayoux (LA-06), Heath Shuler (NC-11), Tim Holden (PA-17), Rick Boucher (VA-09)
R+8 -- Jim Marshall (GA-08), Chris Carney (PA-10)
R+9 -- Brad Ellsworth (IN-09)
R+10 -- Travis Childers (MS-01), Stephanie Herseth (SD-AL)
R+11 -- Ike Skelton (MO-04)
R+12 --
R+13 -- Earl Pomeroy (ND-AL)
R+14 --
R+15 -- Nick Lampson (TX-22)
R+16 -- Gene Taylor (MS-04)
R+17 -- Jim Matheson (UT-02)
R+18 -- Chet Edwards (TX-17)
And here is what I said about the Democratic breakdown back in August (forgive the extended remarks):
The total here is a whooping 51 Members in GOP-leaning districts, with an impressive eight of them in seats which are R+10 or more. Try to conceptualize this for a moment. R+10 means that the district averages 10 percentage points higher to the GOP side in presidential elections. Think about that a minute. These are seats that go to the Republican presidential nominee by huge margins. And not all of them have been around forever: Childers was elected this May, Lampson in 2006 (after serving in the House prior to Tom DeLay's redistricting plot redistricted him out of his seat), Herseth-Sandlin in 2004, and Matheson in 2000.
Right off the bat, I acknowledge that several of these individuals won their seats under unique circumstances involving corrupt or otherwise seriously flawed GOP incumbents. This list includes Gillibrand, Space, Cazayoux, Carney, and Lampson. Furthermore, many of these Members -- 18, to be exact -- won in the tidal wave of '06, and therefore, some of them will probably have close races this fall. There is no question that specifically, Shea Porter, Boyda, Cazayoux, Carney, and Lampson are going to have a tough time winning.
But this should not take away from this list broadly illustrates. It speaks volumes to the Democrats' outreach that they have just over 50 Members of their caucus in districts that are Republican, with over half in R+5 or greater districts. This is nothing short of amazing, even if it is partially the product of a rare wave election. Indeed, most of these men and women, even several in the infancy of their career, have already carved out electoral niches for themselves, and face minimal opposition this November. Others like Skelton, Pomeroy, and Edwards are basically unbeatable in enormously Republican districts. Sure, just about all of these seats will be gone when some of these men decide to hang it up, but the fact that they have held on this long says a lot about the political diversity of House Democratic Caucus and the national Democratic Party in general. Further, there are also plenty of Republicans whose districts will promptly turn the year they decide to "spend more time with their families."
Taken together, the 14 vs. 51 number says a great deal about the present state and future direction of the parties. Going further, whereas only two GOP reps have D+5 or greater districts, 28 Democrats are in R+5 or more districts. And I have no even gone into this year's map, where a plethora of Democrats appear even or slightly ahead in red districts.
Needless to say, my view then was that the Republicans were in grave danger of becoming an entirely right wing and regionalized political party while the Democrats had much greater extended success in electing and subsequently re-electing and entrenching their Members in Republican areas, as the rosters showed.
There are a plethora of ways to look deeper at the numbers. One is to look at the extremes: whereas there are just three Republicans today representing districts of D+5 or greater -- pretty darn blue places -- there are 43 Democrats in districts with a PVI of R+5 or more. That is a ratio of more than 14-to-1. And of those 43 Democrats, 26 of them have been in Congress for more than two terms so far.
In light of the new PVI numbers which I am about to go over, my view has not changed at all. If anything, I feel even more strongly in my arguments of seven months ago, as Republicans have lost nearly all of their moderates in the House, and Democrats have further bolstered their ranks with conservatives from bright red districts across the country.
How could this be possible given the wide dispartity that was already in place in the 110th Congress? Well, let's take a look:
111th Congress
Republicans representing Dem districts (8)
D+1 -- Frank LoBiando (NJ-02), Pat Tiberi (OH-12)
D+2 -- Charlie Dent (PA-15)
D+3 -- Dave Reichert (WA-08)
D+4 -- Jim Gerlach (PA-06)
D+5 --
D+6 -- Mark Kirk (IL-10)
D+7 -- Mike Castle (DE-AL)
D+25 -- Joseph Cao (LA-02)
Democrats representing GOP districts (69)
R+1 -- Jerry McNerney (CA-11), Melissa Bean (IL-08), Deborah Halvorson (IL-11), Bill Foster (IL-14), Tim Walz (MN-01), John Adler (NJ-03), John Murtha (PA-12)
R+2 -- Alan Grayson (FL-08), Joe Donnelly (IN-02), Mark Schauer (MI-07), Bob Ethridge (NC-02), Larry Kissel (NC-08), Kirstin Gillibrand (NY-20)*, Mike Arcuri (NY-24), Charlie Wilson (OH-06), Solomon Ortiz (TX-27), Steve Kagan (WI-08)
R+3 -- Dennis Moore (KS-03), Bart Stupak (MI-01), John Hall (NY-19), Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-03)
R+4 -- Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-08), Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24), Mike McMahon (NY-13), John Boccieri (OH-16), Ciro Rodriguez (TX-23)
R+5 -- Vic Snyder (AR-02), Harry Mitchell (AZ-05), John Salazar (CO-03), Collin Peterson (MN-07), Mike McIntyre (NC-07), Eric Massa (NY-29), Glenn Nye (VA-02), Tom Periello (VA-05)
R+6 -- Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01), Betsy Markey (CO-04), Allen Boyd (FL-02), Baron Hill (IN-09), Heath Shuler (NC-11), Harry Teague (NM-02), Jason Altmire (PA-04), Tim Holden (PA-17), John Tanner (TN-08), Nick Rahall (WV-03)
R+7 -- Mike Ross (AR-04), Zach Space (OH-18), John Spratt (SC-05)
R+8 -- Marion Berry (AR-01), Brad Ellsworth (IN-08), Chris Carney (PA-10)
R+9 -- Ben Chandler (KY-06), Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD-AL), Alan Mollohan (WV-01)
R+10 -- Jim Marshall (GA-08), Earl Pomeroy (ND-AL)
R+11 -- Rick Boucher (VA-09)
R+12 -- Parker Griffith (AL-05), Charlie Melancon (LA-03)
R+13 -- Frank Kratovil (MD-01), Lincoln Davis (TN-04), Bart Gordon (TN-06)
R+14 -- Ike Skelton (MO-04), Travis Childers (MS-01), Dan Boren (OK-02)
R+15 -- Jim Matheson (UT-02)
R+16 -- Bobby Bright (AL-02)
R+17 --
R+18 -- Walt Minnick (ID-01)
R+19 --
R+20 -- Gene Taylor (MS-01), Chet Edwards (TX-17)
The two numbers to focus on here are eight and 69. As in, there are just eight Republicans sitting in PVI blue seats, and a whooping 69 Democrats in red seats. That nearly a 9-to-1 ratio. (Note that for the 111th, Cook has gotten rid of R+0 and D+0 districts, finding that any time a district can be rounded down to zero, it is now rated as "EVEN").
Despite four Dems in the 110th losing their seats last November -- Tim Mahoney (FL-16), Nancy Boyda (KS-02), Don Cazayoux (LA-06), and Nick Lampson (TX-22) -- all the others held on, and Democrats went from 51 to 69 (though, to be precise, some Members' districts went from red to blue in their PVI number). That is not an insignificant gain by any stretch of the imagination.
In total, I count 21 freshman Democrats on this list (including Travis Childers and Bill Foster who were elected in spring 2008 special contests). Additionally, there are 15 Democrats on the list who won their second term in 2008.
Conversely, only one of the eight Republicans listed was elected in the last four years, Joseph Cao, and he is a fluke congressman who I would bet my Xemex watch and Oakley sunglasses will be tossed out next year like garbage strewn about after Mardi Gras. In other words, the Republicans are not electing any new blood to moderate districts and they are stuck with a small pack of Members which seems to dwindle a bit every two years. Indeed, from the 110th, the seats formerly held by Heather Wilson, Jim Saxton, Vito Fossella, James Walsh, and Chris Shays are now in the hands of the Democrats, with only Kirk, Gerlach, and Reichert surviving rough challenges.
In the next post, I will consider the implications of these numbers.
For those of you unfamiliar with the system, or curious about how a PVI is tabulated, here is what Cook says:
A Partisan Voting Index score of D+2, for example, means that in the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections, that district performed an average of two points more Democratic than the nation did as a whole, while an R+4 means the district performed four points more Republican than the national average. If a district performed within half a point of the national average in either direction, we assign it a score of EVEN.
To determine the national average for these latest ratings, we have taken the average Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote for 2004 and 2008, which is roughly 51.3 percent, and that of Republicans, which is roughly 48.7 percent. So, if John Kerry captured 55 percent of the vote in a district and Barack Obama carried 57 percent in the district four years later, the district would have a PVI score of roughly D+5.
Like any other measure, the PVI is not perfect. Assuredly, there are a myriad of other ways to evaluate political lean or partisanship in a state or particular legislative district. However, given its rich history and strong reputation, I think Cook's system is the best we have in creating a thorough evaluation tool for congressional districts.
Last year, we looked at the PVI numbers of the 110th Congress in a variety of ways. Indeed, there are so many fascinating ways to dissect and examine PVI data, that one could spend ages doing it. Here, we spent a good deal of time looking at crossover Members; in other words, Republicans representing districts that have Democratic-leaning PVIs, and Democrats who represent districts that lean towards the Republicans in national elections. After drawing them all out, the numbers were pretty stark, and they are worth pasting below for review:
110th Congress
Republicans representing Dem districts (14)
D+0 -- Tom Latham (IA-04)
D+1 -- Bill Young (FL-10), Vito Fossella (NY-13)
D+2 -- Heather Wilson (NM-01), Peter King (NY-03), Jim Gerlach (PA-06), Charlie Dent (PA-15), Dave Reichert (WA-08)
D+3 -- Jim Saxton (NJ-03), James Walsh (NY-25)
D+4 -- Mark Kirk (IL-10), Frank LoBiando (NJ-02)
D+5 -- Chris Shays (CT-4)
D+6 --
D+7 -- Mike Castle (DE-AL)
D+8, 9, 10... None
At the time I made this post (August), here is what I wrote about the Republicans' congressional situation:
These numbers are absolutely pathetic and should be troubling to any Republican. Of these 14, two seats -- Fossella's and Walshs's -- are almost assured of flipping in November, as both men are retiring (Fossella under bad circumstances), and the Democrats have strong nominees in each facing weak GOP opponents. Saxton is retiring, and the Democrats have recruited an excellent nominee (thought the race is a toss-up as the district has unique geographic which could favor the weak GOP nominee). And with Wilson leaving Congress after running for the Senate (and losing her primary), and Kirk, Reichert, and Shays all facing very tough races this year, all of their seats could potentially flip. At an absolute worst case scenario, half of these seats could be gone this time next year. More likely, I see four or perhaps five of them flipping -- still a good results for Dems and a bad one for GOPers. This would leave nine of ten GOP Representatives sitting in Democratic seats out of close to 200 Members in the caucus.
(As it turned out, Republicans ended up losing several of the seats which belonged to the retiring Members, as well as numerous other ones which did not appear quite as endangered in three months before the election.)
Democrats representing GOP districts (51)
R+0 -- Vic Snyder (AR-02), Carol Shea Porter (NH-01)
R+1 -- Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-08), Tim Walz (MN-01), John Hall (NY-19), Michael Arcuri (NY-24), Solomon Ortiz (TX-27), Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
R+2 -- Allen Boyd (FL-02), Tim Mahoney (FL-16), Bart Stupak (MI-01)
R+3 -- Jerry McNerney (CA-11), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY-20), Bob Ethridge (NC-02), Mike McIntyre (NC-07), Jason Altmire (PA-04), Lincoln Davis (TN-04)
R+4 -- Harry Mitchell (AZ-05), Joe Donnelly (IN-02), Dennis Moore (KS-03), Bart Gordon (TN-06), Ciro Rodriguez (TX-23), Steve Kagan (WI-04)
R+5 -- Melissa Bean (IL-08), Bill Foster (IL-14), Charlie Melancon (LA-03), Dan Boren (OK-02)
R+6 -- Bud Cramer (AL-05), John Salazar (CO-03), Collin Peterson (MN-07), Zach Space (OH-18), John Spratt (NC-05), Alan Mollohan (WV-02)
R+7 -- Baron Hill (IN-09), Nancy Boyda (KS-02), Ben Chandler (KY-06), Don Cazayoux (LA-06), Heath Shuler (NC-11), Tim Holden (PA-17), Rick Boucher (VA-09)
R+8 -- Jim Marshall (GA-08), Chris Carney (PA-10)
R+9 -- Brad Ellsworth (IN-09)
R+10 -- Travis Childers (MS-01), Stephanie Herseth (SD-AL)
R+11 -- Ike Skelton (MO-04)
R+12 --
R+13 -- Earl Pomeroy (ND-AL)
R+14 --
R+15 -- Nick Lampson (TX-22)
R+16 -- Gene Taylor (MS-04)
R+17 -- Jim Matheson (UT-02)
R+18 -- Chet Edwards (TX-17)
And here is what I said about the Democratic breakdown back in August (forgive the extended remarks):
The total here is a whooping 51 Members in GOP-leaning districts, with an impressive eight of them in seats which are R+10 or more. Try to conceptualize this for a moment. R+10 means that the district averages 10 percentage points higher to the GOP side in presidential elections. Think about that a minute. These are seats that go to the Republican presidential nominee by huge margins. And not all of them have been around forever: Childers was elected this May, Lampson in 2006 (after serving in the House prior to Tom DeLay's redistricting plot redistricted him out of his seat), Herseth-Sandlin in 2004, and Matheson in 2000.
Right off the bat, I acknowledge that several of these individuals won their seats under unique circumstances involving corrupt or otherwise seriously flawed GOP incumbents. This list includes Gillibrand, Space, Cazayoux, Carney, and Lampson. Furthermore, many of these Members -- 18, to be exact -- won in the tidal wave of '06, and therefore, some of them will probably have close races this fall. There is no question that specifically, Shea Porter, Boyda, Cazayoux, Carney, and Lampson are going to have a tough time winning.
But this should not take away from this list broadly illustrates. It speaks volumes to the Democrats' outreach that they have just over 50 Members of their caucus in districts that are Republican, with over half in R+5 or greater districts. This is nothing short of amazing, even if it is partially the product of a rare wave election. Indeed, most of these men and women, even several in the infancy of their career, have already carved out electoral niches for themselves, and face minimal opposition this November. Others like Skelton, Pomeroy, and Edwards are basically unbeatable in enormously Republican districts. Sure, just about all of these seats will be gone when some of these men decide to hang it up, but the fact that they have held on this long says a lot about the political diversity of House Democratic Caucus and the national Democratic Party in general. Further, there are also plenty of Republicans whose districts will promptly turn the year they decide to "spend more time with their families."
Taken together, the 14 vs. 51 number says a great deal about the present state and future direction of the parties. Going further, whereas only two GOP reps have D+5 or greater districts, 28 Democrats are in R+5 or more districts. And I have no even gone into this year's map, where a plethora of Democrats appear even or slightly ahead in red districts.
Needless to say, my view then was that the Republicans were in grave danger of becoming an entirely right wing and regionalized political party while the Democrats had much greater extended success in electing and subsequently re-electing and entrenching their Members in Republican areas, as the rosters showed.
There are a plethora of ways to look deeper at the numbers. One is to look at the extremes: whereas there are just three Republicans today representing districts of D+5 or greater -- pretty darn blue places -- there are 43 Democrats in districts with a PVI of R+5 or more. That is a ratio of more than 14-to-1. And of those 43 Democrats, 26 of them have been in Congress for more than two terms so far.
In light of the new PVI numbers which I am about to go over, my view has not changed at all. If anything, I feel even more strongly in my arguments of seven months ago, as Republicans have lost nearly all of their moderates in the House, and Democrats have further bolstered their ranks with conservatives from bright red districts across the country.
How could this be possible given the wide dispartity that was already in place in the 110th Congress? Well, let's take a look:
111th Congress
Republicans representing Dem districts (8)
D+1 -- Frank LoBiando (NJ-02), Pat Tiberi (OH-12)
D+2 -- Charlie Dent (PA-15)
D+3 -- Dave Reichert (WA-08)
D+4 -- Jim Gerlach (PA-06)
D+5 --
D+6 -- Mark Kirk (IL-10)
D+7 -- Mike Castle (DE-AL)
D+25 -- Joseph Cao (LA-02)
Democrats representing GOP districts (69)
R+1 -- Jerry McNerney (CA-11), Melissa Bean (IL-08), Deborah Halvorson (IL-11), Bill Foster (IL-14), Tim Walz (MN-01), John Adler (NJ-03), John Murtha (PA-12)
R+2 -- Alan Grayson (FL-08), Joe Donnelly (IN-02), Mark Schauer (MI-07), Bob Ethridge (NC-02), Larry Kissel (NC-08), Kirstin Gillibrand (NY-20)*, Mike Arcuri (NY-24), Charlie Wilson (OH-06), Solomon Ortiz (TX-27), Steve Kagan (WI-08)
R+3 -- Dennis Moore (KS-03), Bart Stupak (MI-01), John Hall (NY-19), Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-03)
R+4 -- Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-08), Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24), Mike McMahon (NY-13), John Boccieri (OH-16), Ciro Rodriguez (TX-23)
R+5 -- Vic Snyder (AR-02), Harry Mitchell (AZ-05), John Salazar (CO-03), Collin Peterson (MN-07), Mike McIntyre (NC-07), Eric Massa (NY-29), Glenn Nye (VA-02), Tom Periello (VA-05)
R+6 -- Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01), Betsy Markey (CO-04), Allen Boyd (FL-02), Baron Hill (IN-09), Heath Shuler (NC-11), Harry Teague (NM-02), Jason Altmire (PA-04), Tim Holden (PA-17), John Tanner (TN-08), Nick Rahall (WV-03)
R+7 -- Mike Ross (AR-04), Zach Space (OH-18), John Spratt (SC-05)
R+8 -- Marion Berry (AR-01), Brad Ellsworth (IN-08), Chris Carney (PA-10)
R+9 -- Ben Chandler (KY-06), Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD-AL), Alan Mollohan (WV-01)
R+10 -- Jim Marshall (GA-08), Earl Pomeroy (ND-AL)
R+11 -- Rick Boucher (VA-09)
R+12 -- Parker Griffith (AL-05), Charlie Melancon (LA-03)
R+13 -- Frank Kratovil (MD-01), Lincoln Davis (TN-04), Bart Gordon (TN-06)
R+14 -- Ike Skelton (MO-04), Travis Childers (MS-01), Dan Boren (OK-02)
R+15 -- Jim Matheson (UT-02)
R+16 -- Bobby Bright (AL-02)
R+17 --
R+18 -- Walt Minnick (ID-01)
R+19 --
R+20 -- Gene Taylor (MS-01), Chet Edwards (TX-17)
The two numbers to focus on here are eight and 69. As in, there are just eight Republicans sitting in PVI blue seats, and a whooping 69 Democrats in red seats. That nearly a 9-to-1 ratio. (Note that for the 111th, Cook has gotten rid of R+0 and D+0 districts, finding that any time a district can be rounded down to zero, it is now rated as "EVEN").
Despite four Dems in the 110th losing their seats last November -- Tim Mahoney (FL-16), Nancy Boyda (KS-02), Don Cazayoux (LA-06), and Nick Lampson (TX-22) -- all the others held on, and Democrats went from 51 to 69 (though, to be precise, some Members' districts went from red to blue in their PVI number). That is not an insignificant gain by any stretch of the imagination.
In total, I count 21 freshman Democrats on this list (including Travis Childers and Bill Foster who were elected in spring 2008 special contests). Additionally, there are 15 Democrats on the list who won their second term in 2008.
Conversely, only one of the eight Republicans listed was elected in the last four years, Joseph Cao, and he is a fluke congressman who I would bet my Xemex watch and Oakley sunglasses will be tossed out next year like garbage strewn about after Mardi Gras. In other words, the Republicans are not electing any new blood to moderate districts and they are stuck with a small pack of Members which seems to dwindle a bit every two years. Indeed, from the 110th, the seats formerly held by Heather Wilson, Jim Saxton, Vito Fossella, James Walsh, and Chris Shays are now in the hands of the Democrats, with only Kirk, Gerlach, and Reichert surviving rough challenges.
In the next post, I will consider the implications of these numbers.
Monday, March 2, 2009
To the Victor, Goes the Spoils
There's an interesting article in the St. Petersburg Times today I wanted to briefly highlight. Apparently, with the census not even completed and state legislative and congressional redistricting over two years away, a group of Florida Democrats is attempting to block Republicans from controlling the next round of redistricting by trying to pass state constitutional changes which would "require that voting districts be compact, contiguous, respect city and county boundaries whenever possible, and not favor incumbents or political parties."
State Democrats are concerned that Republicans, who control both houses of the state legislature, as well as the governorship (which looks very likely to remain in GOP hands if Gov. Charlie Crist seeks a second term in 2010), will draw maps that are decidedly unfavorable to Democrats in Tallahassee and in Congress, similar to the current maps which were put together by Jeb Bush and legislative GOPers in 2001.
While Democrats are rightly concerned by the specter of another round of harsh redistricting in 2011, I don't really agree with their efforts. Republicans deserve to be in charge of the process as they control Tallahassee with an iron fist. Democrats have had 10 years to retake the legislature, and they have failed, and they have not won the governor's mansion since Lawton Chiles was re-elected in 1998. Republicans have held on to their political power in fine style, and redistricting is one of the key plums that comes from their political consolidation in the Sunshine State. Similar efforts by both parties have been sprinkled across the national landscape in recent years, and I abhor each of them. If you are a staunch party member, and in your state your party has strong minority status, then you should not be able to draw the lines. That's just how it is. To the victor, goes the spoils.
In the article, several Dems loudly complain that the weird shapes of the districts themselves not only illustrate the fierce partisanship inherent in the process, but also that they make no sense and plainly look ugly. I find this line of argument more silly than anything else that is generally said in the fights that surrounds redistricting. The fact is that any districts, no matter how aesthetically pleasing their ultimate shapes turn out, are themselves arbitrary. There is no correct way for a district to be drawn or how it should look. Since the Founding, redistricting has been a political process, and districts themselves have very often not been "compact." The argument that a district is in some way offensive because of an odd shape is foolish; even if all districts were perfect shapes of equal size, they too would be arbitrary, even if they look nice and compact.
If Dems and Republicans don't look the way redistricting is happening in their state, they should work harder to take over their states' political positions and machinery so that they can draw the maps the next time around. This has been going on for hundreds of years, and it should not just change today because the losers are upset.
State Democrats are concerned that Republicans, who control both houses of the state legislature, as well as the governorship (which looks very likely to remain in GOP hands if Gov. Charlie Crist seeks a second term in 2010), will draw maps that are decidedly unfavorable to Democrats in Tallahassee and in Congress, similar to the current maps which were put together by Jeb Bush and legislative GOPers in 2001.
While Democrats are rightly concerned by the specter of another round of harsh redistricting in 2011, I don't really agree with their efforts. Republicans deserve to be in charge of the process as they control Tallahassee with an iron fist. Democrats have had 10 years to retake the legislature, and they have failed, and they have not won the governor's mansion since Lawton Chiles was re-elected in 1998. Republicans have held on to their political power in fine style, and redistricting is one of the key plums that comes from their political consolidation in the Sunshine State. Similar efforts by both parties have been sprinkled across the national landscape in recent years, and I abhor each of them. If you are a staunch party member, and in your state your party has strong minority status, then you should not be able to draw the lines. That's just how it is. To the victor, goes the spoils.
In the article, several Dems loudly complain that the weird shapes of the districts themselves not only illustrate the fierce partisanship inherent in the process, but also that they make no sense and plainly look ugly. I find this line of argument more silly than anything else that is generally said in the fights that surrounds redistricting. The fact is that any districts, no matter how aesthetically pleasing their ultimate shapes turn out, are themselves arbitrary. There is no correct way for a district to be drawn or how it should look. Since the Founding, redistricting has been a political process, and districts themselves have very often not been "compact." The argument that a district is in some way offensive because of an odd shape is foolish; even if all districts were perfect shapes of equal size, they too would be arbitrary, even if they look nice and compact.
If Dems and Republicans don't look the way redistricting is happening in their state, they should work harder to take over their states' political positions and machinery so that they can draw the maps the next time around. This has been going on for hundreds of years, and it should not just change today because the losers are upset.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Bunning Theatens to Quit ... Then Denies
In the on-going saga that is Kentucky Senator Jim Bunning, we get another story today. Apparently while speaking before a fundraiser crowd in Washington, Bunning floated the possibility of just getting up and quitting before his term expires in January 2011 if the national GOP did not give him adequate support. According to a report in the Louisville Courier-Journal, Bunning wryly noted that if he did this, he would get the "last laugh" on national Republicans as the governor of Kentucky is currently a Democrat and he would presumably appoint a fellow Dem to fill out Bunning's term. Today, Bunning angrily denied that he ever said anything to that effect, denouncing his homestate paper in the process.
As evidenced by his continued angry comments directed towards the NRSC and its chair Senator John Cornyn, Bunning is harboring a lot of resentment for Cornyn's and others' attempts to ease the junior bluegrass Senator into retirement. Recently, he threatened to sue the NRSC unless it backed him. He genuinely seems primed to run again despite his age and other issues. As we have discussed in the past, this is great news for Democrats.
At this point, anything can happen in this contest. Bunning is committed to running again, but a primary challenge from somewhere seems more and more likely as Bunning seems more and more out of it. The relative strength and credibility of a potential primary foe would determine if Bunning could be toppled before November 2010. Should Bunning hang on for the general, he would be in big trouble, especially as his erratic behavior and outbursts continue. At this point, the best the NRSC can hope for is that a good primary challenge will be able to win without national backing. The NRSC might be forced to publicly back Bunning -- despite trying to recruit a different candidate already, drawing Bunning's ire -- but that does not mean that GOP power-players won't work behind the scenes to bolster a primary foe who would not be a sure-loser in a general.
We'll continue to follow this one closely, if for no other reason than its inherent comic value.
As evidenced by his continued angry comments directed towards the NRSC and its chair Senator John Cornyn, Bunning is harboring a lot of resentment for Cornyn's and others' attempts to ease the junior bluegrass Senator into retirement. Recently, he threatened to sue the NRSC unless it backed him. He genuinely seems primed to run again despite his age and other issues. As we have discussed in the past, this is great news for Democrats.
At this point, anything can happen in this contest. Bunning is committed to running again, but a primary challenge from somewhere seems more and more likely as Bunning seems more and more out of it. The relative strength and credibility of a potential primary foe would determine if Bunning could be toppled before November 2010. Should Bunning hang on for the general, he would be in big trouble, especially as his erratic behavior and outbursts continue. At this point, the best the NRSC can hope for is that a good primary challenge will be able to win without national backing. The NRSC might be forced to publicly back Bunning -- despite trying to recruit a different candidate already, drawing Bunning's ire -- but that does not mean that GOP power-players won't work behind the scenes to bolster a primary foe who would not be a sure-loser in a general.
We'll continue to follow this one closely, if for no other reason than its inherent comic value.
Obama Approvals Jump
A fresh Gallup poll finds that in the wake of his speech to Congress, President Obama's approval ratings jumped significantly after tailing off a bit last week.
February 18-20: 63% approve/24% disapprove
February 21-23: 59/25
February 24-26: 67/21
It seems that Obama got a nice boast from his nationally-televised speech at a time when it was sinking a bit, perhaps because of the stimulus fight in Congress. I think that it is fair to say that his approvals had been high already, but at +46, he is doing as well as a President can do. I guess the honeymoon period continues.
The split by party is pretty interesting
Democrats
Feb. 18-20: 89% approve
Feb. 21-23: 86%
Feb. 24-26: 90%
Independents
62-54-62
Republicans
27-27-42
As you can see, Obama's most recent jump gave from a nice rise among indies and Republicans, while he still enjoys near-universal support from Democrats. I don't think there is much chance that Obama will have high numbers from GOPers for too long, but if he can maintain his standing with independents, that may not matter.
For its part, the weekly Daily Kos/R2K poll finds that Obama's latest split is 71/25 (+46), after being 69/26 (+43) a week ago. The +46 mirrors Gallup's finding. Also of interest is that the approval ratings for congressional Dems went from 41/53 (-12) to 46/45 (+1) over the same time period, while congressional GOPers went from 18/70 (-52) to 17/68 (-51).
I think that these numbers confirm not just Obama's strength, but that his positive numbers are being imputed by many Americans to congressional Dems. Republicans in Congress, however, remain deeply unpopular. If these pitiful numbers persist at such low levels, GOP leadership might need to re-evaluate its guerilla tactics against the new administration. Personally, I would not expect that move even if GOP approval was 2/95, but it is something John Boehner, Eric Cantor and the boys should start pondering nonetheless.
February 18-20: 63% approve/24% disapprove
February 21-23: 59/25
February 24-26: 67/21
It seems that Obama got a nice boast from his nationally-televised speech at a time when it was sinking a bit, perhaps because of the stimulus fight in Congress. I think that it is fair to say that his approvals had been high already, but at +46, he is doing as well as a President can do. I guess the honeymoon period continues.
The split by party is pretty interesting
Democrats
Feb. 18-20: 89% approve
Feb. 21-23: 86%
Feb. 24-26: 90%
Independents
62-54-62
Republicans
27-27-42
As you can see, Obama's most recent jump gave from a nice rise among indies and Republicans, while he still enjoys near-universal support from Democrats. I don't think there is much chance that Obama will have high numbers from GOPers for too long, but if he can maintain his standing with independents, that may not matter.
For its part, the weekly Daily Kos/R2K poll finds that Obama's latest split is 71/25 (+46), after being 69/26 (+43) a week ago. The +46 mirrors Gallup's finding. Also of interest is that the approval ratings for congressional Dems went from 41/53 (-12) to 46/45 (+1) over the same time period, while congressional GOPers went from 18/70 (-52) to 17/68 (-51).
I think that these numbers confirm not just Obama's strength, but that his positive numbers are being imputed by many Americans to congressional Dems. Republicans in Congress, however, remain deeply unpopular. If these pitiful numbers persist at such low levels, GOP leadership might need to re-evaluate its guerilla tactics against the new administration. Personally, I would not expect that move even if GOP approval was 2/95, but it is something John Boehner, Eric Cantor and the boys should start pondering nonetheless.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Evaluating the House Stimulus Roll Call Vote
I wanted to write a post looking at some of the more surprising (or put less diplomatically, stupid) votes case by House Members in the stimulus conference vote. We all know by now that the Republicans voted in unison against the measure, but I think it is worth looking at some of the more stand-out votes on both sides of the aisle.
Noteworthy Democratic Votes
Democrats voting 'no' on both the initial vote and on the conference bill: Walt Minnick (ID-01), Bobby Bright (AL-02), Gene Taylor (MS-04), Heath Shuler (NC-11), Collin Peterson (MN-07), and Parker Griffith (AL-05).
For the most part, Democratic House leadership should not be too upset at these individuals, as most of them represent strongly Republican districts. Taylor is a very conservative Democrat and somewhat iconoclastic, but he represents one of the reddest districts in the Deep South (McCain won here 68-to-32), so it is tough for Democrats to ever criticize him, even if he is safe at home. Bright and Minnick were just barely elected last year (Bright by less than one percent and Minnick by less than two percent) in incredibly Republican areas. Leadership can't say anything about that. Griffith is also a freshman (he won by 52-46 in what was an R+6 district in Northern Alabama), but his district is slightly less red than the rest. Still, it would be hard for leadership to punish him in any way.
The last two names should draw the ire of Democrats. Peterson is very quirky, and he often votes with Republicans from his conservative Western Minnesota nest. This has been tolerated for some time, in part because the rural district is R+7 (according to the latest PVI), but Obama only lost here 50-to-47; in other words, this district is hardly Southern Mississippi. Furthermore, the seat is safe for Peterson until he retires (which he has threatened in the past). As the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Peterson should begin to watch himself a bit better, or as my friend wisely noted to me, he could face a Dingell problem down the road.
Ditto second-term Rep. Shuler, who voted against after winning 62% last year. I imagine the leadership is fuming at the Western North Carolina congressman right now, particularly when they consider Shuler's strength at home coupled with Obama's narrow 52-to-47 loss in the Eleventh District. Shuler, who is considering a run for Senate next year against Richard Burr might have really helped potential primary opponent state Attorney General Roy Cooper's case with national Dems with this vote.
Democrats voting 'aye' on the conference bill who come from districts that John McCain won last year: Marion Berry (AR-01); Vic Snyder (AR-02); Mike Ross (AR-04); Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01); Harry Mitchell (AZ-05); Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-08); John Salazar (CO-03); Betsy Markey (CO-04); Allen Boyd (FL-02); Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24); Jim Marshall (GA-08); Brad Ellsworth (IN-08); Baron Hill (IN-09); Ben Chandler (KY-06); Charlie Melancon (LA-03); Frank Kratovil (MD-01); Travis Childers (MS-01); Ike Skelton (MO-04); Earl Pomeroy (ND-AL); Harry Teague (NM-02); Mike McMahon (NY-13); Eric Massa (NY-29); Mike McIntyre (NC-07); Charlie Wilson (OH-6); John Boccieri (OH-16); Zach Space (OH-18); Dan Boren (OK-02); Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-03); Jason Altmire (PA-04); Chris Carney (PA-10); John Murtha (PA-12); Tim Holden (PA-17); John Spratt (SC-05); Stephanie Hersheth-Sandlin (SD-AL); Lincoln Davis (TN-04); Bart Gordon (TN-06); John Tanner (TN-08); Tom Periello (VA-05); Rick Boucher (VA-09); Alan Mollohan (WV-01); Nick Rahall (WV-03); Chet Edwards (TX-17) and Jim Matheson (UT-02).
This list includes a pretty good mix of veterans representing pretty red districts, old-timers representing very red districts, and freshman from a smattering of both.
Salazar, Hill, Marshall and Edwards deserve some special recognition because they are usually loyal even though they have district where they could always face a tough contest. Freshman and young members Kirkpatrick, Markey, Kratovil, Childers, Teague, Dahlkemper, Carney, and Periello should all be remembered later for casting what was a tough vote. Most of these names are young members who represent red districts, especially Childers, Teague, Periello, and Kratovil. They all showed some guts, and I am guessing their loyalty was noted by Pelosi and Hoyer.
Noteworthy Republican Votes
Republicans voting 'no' on the conference bill who come from districts that Barack Obama won last year: Dan Lundgren (CA-03); Elton Gallegly (CA-24); Buck McKeon (CA-25); David Dreier (CA-26); Ken Calvert (CA-44); Mary Bono-Mack (CA-45); Tom Campbell (CA-48); Brian Bilbray (CA-50); Mike Castle (DE-AL); Bill Young (FL-10); Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-18); Tom Latham (IA-4); Peter Roskam (IL-6); Mark Kirk (IL-10); Judy Biggert (IL-13); Don Manzullo (IL-16); Aaron Schock (IL-18); Joseph Cao (LA-02); Dave Camp (MI-04); Fred Upton (MI-06); Mike Rogers (MI-08); Thad McCotter (MI-11); Erik Paulsen (MN-03); Lee Terry (NE-02); Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02); Leonard Lance (NJ-07); Peter King (NY-03); John McHugh (NY-23); Pat Tiberi (OH-12); Steven LaTourette (OH-14); Jim Gerlach (PA-06); Charlie Dent (PA-15); Randy Forbes (VA-04); Frank Wolf (VA-10); Dave Reichert (WA-08); Paul Ryan (WI-01) and Tom Petri (WI-05).
This is another interesting list to pore over. Some of these votes are not only understandable from the rep's perspective, but they make cold political sense. There are also a lot of stupid votes here, many of them cast by short-sighted Members who could face a problem later for their hyper-partisanship.
Freshman: Not a lot of names here, mostly because the GOP did not win much last year. When it comes to freshman, they pretty much have to obey leadership early on or risk excommunication to crummy committees and other slights. Additionally, with men like Paulsen and Lance, they won their first terms so easily, they probably feel emboldened to oppose Obama even if their constituents voted for him. The same applies to someone like Schock, but he should be careful: his district is moderate and it is in Obama's backyard. Ditto second-termer Peter Roskam. I've already talked about Cao: he's a dope.
Long-timers who have grown fat and stupid: There are several people here who should know better. Mike Castle should be careful. His free ride could end at any time coming from Delaware. He should reflect on the lesson of Bill Roth in 2000.
Thad McCotter is just too partisan and too dumb to do anything against leadership. That he got 51% last year against a guy with no money should have taught him something, but clearly it did not. Mike Rogers won easily last year, but only because he had not major opposition. His distict is blue, but I think this vote is easily explained by (1) Rogers is a partisan bomb-thrower; and (2) he wants to run for governor next year and will have a very tough primary.
LoBiando has been safe in South Jersey for a long time, but a reckoning could finally be coming if Dems recruit a strong challenger to him. He should learn to shape up, but I doubt he will.
Both Tibieri and LaTourrette need to be very careful. Tibieri in particular has had a very conservative record in a district Obama easily won. It is coming time that both will have stronger Democratic challengers at some point.
Gerlach almost lost against a nobody, but I figure he is thinking about his own 2010 gunernatorial run (and primary) too.
Finally, even though Frank Wolf easily won, his district is changing very fast. He may retire before it is dark blue, but this vote won't help his standing. Randy Forbes is too crazy and arrogant to vote any other way (i.e. against the party line), but Obama's win in his district was an amazing occurence that bodes well for Dems in Virginia. Lee Terry clearly thinks Obama's performance in Omaha last year was a fluke.
The rest of the names can certainly get away with a vote like this because they are so insulated in their district. That being said, a look at this list reveals that if Democrats decided in 2011 to finally get tough with redistricting in California and Illinois, they could wipe out close to 10 Republicans (hi Judy Biggert and David Dreier) who have been getting away with conservative records in moderate districts. This is an issue I will post separately on soon.
Noteworthy Democratic Votes
Democrats voting 'no' on both the initial vote and on the conference bill: Walt Minnick (ID-01), Bobby Bright (AL-02), Gene Taylor (MS-04), Heath Shuler (NC-11), Collin Peterson (MN-07), and Parker Griffith (AL-05).
For the most part, Democratic House leadership should not be too upset at these individuals, as most of them represent strongly Republican districts. Taylor is a very conservative Democrat and somewhat iconoclastic, but he represents one of the reddest districts in the Deep South (McCain won here 68-to-32), so it is tough for Democrats to ever criticize him, even if he is safe at home. Bright and Minnick were just barely elected last year (Bright by less than one percent and Minnick by less than two percent) in incredibly Republican areas. Leadership can't say anything about that. Griffith is also a freshman (he won by 52-46 in what was an R+6 district in Northern Alabama), but his district is slightly less red than the rest. Still, it would be hard for leadership to punish him in any way.
The last two names should draw the ire of Democrats. Peterson is very quirky, and he often votes with Republicans from his conservative Western Minnesota nest. This has been tolerated for some time, in part because the rural district is R+7 (according to the latest PVI), but Obama only lost here 50-to-47; in other words, this district is hardly Southern Mississippi. Furthermore, the seat is safe for Peterson until he retires (which he has threatened in the past). As the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Peterson should begin to watch himself a bit better, or as my friend wisely noted to me, he could face a Dingell problem down the road.
Ditto second-term Rep. Shuler, who voted against after winning 62% last year. I imagine the leadership is fuming at the Western North Carolina congressman right now, particularly when they consider Shuler's strength at home coupled with Obama's narrow 52-to-47 loss in the Eleventh District. Shuler, who is considering a run for Senate next year against Richard Burr might have really helped potential primary opponent state Attorney General Roy Cooper's case with national Dems with this vote.
Democrats voting 'aye' on the conference bill who come from districts that John McCain won last year: Marion Berry (AR-01); Vic Snyder (AR-02); Mike Ross (AR-04); Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01); Harry Mitchell (AZ-05); Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-08); John Salazar (CO-03); Betsy Markey (CO-04); Allen Boyd (FL-02); Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24); Jim Marshall (GA-08); Brad Ellsworth (IN-08); Baron Hill (IN-09); Ben Chandler (KY-06); Charlie Melancon (LA-03); Frank Kratovil (MD-01); Travis Childers (MS-01); Ike Skelton (MO-04); Earl Pomeroy (ND-AL); Harry Teague (NM-02); Mike McMahon (NY-13); Eric Massa (NY-29); Mike McIntyre (NC-07); Charlie Wilson (OH-6); John Boccieri (OH-16); Zach Space (OH-18); Dan Boren (OK-02); Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-03); Jason Altmire (PA-04); Chris Carney (PA-10); John Murtha (PA-12); Tim Holden (PA-17); John Spratt (SC-05); Stephanie Hersheth-Sandlin (SD-AL); Lincoln Davis (TN-04); Bart Gordon (TN-06); John Tanner (TN-08); Tom Periello (VA-05); Rick Boucher (VA-09); Alan Mollohan (WV-01); Nick Rahall (WV-03); Chet Edwards (TX-17) and Jim Matheson (UT-02).
This list includes a pretty good mix of veterans representing pretty red districts, old-timers representing very red districts, and freshman from a smattering of both.
Salazar, Hill, Marshall and Edwards deserve some special recognition because they are usually loyal even though they have district where they could always face a tough contest. Freshman and young members Kirkpatrick, Markey, Kratovil, Childers, Teague, Dahlkemper, Carney, and Periello should all be remembered later for casting what was a tough vote. Most of these names are young members who represent red districts, especially Childers, Teague, Periello, and Kratovil. They all showed some guts, and I am guessing their loyalty was noted by Pelosi and Hoyer.
Noteworthy Republican Votes
Republicans voting 'no' on the conference bill who come from districts that Barack Obama won last year: Dan Lundgren (CA-03); Elton Gallegly (CA-24); Buck McKeon (CA-25); David Dreier (CA-26); Ken Calvert (CA-44); Mary Bono-Mack (CA-45); Tom Campbell (CA-48); Brian Bilbray (CA-50); Mike Castle (DE-AL); Bill Young (FL-10); Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-18); Tom Latham (IA-4); Peter Roskam (IL-6); Mark Kirk (IL-10); Judy Biggert (IL-13); Don Manzullo (IL-16); Aaron Schock (IL-18); Joseph Cao (LA-02); Dave Camp (MI-04); Fred Upton (MI-06); Mike Rogers (MI-08); Thad McCotter (MI-11); Erik Paulsen (MN-03); Lee Terry (NE-02); Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02); Leonard Lance (NJ-07); Peter King (NY-03); John McHugh (NY-23); Pat Tiberi (OH-12); Steven LaTourette (OH-14); Jim Gerlach (PA-06); Charlie Dent (PA-15); Randy Forbes (VA-04); Frank Wolf (VA-10); Dave Reichert (WA-08); Paul Ryan (WI-01) and Tom Petri (WI-05).
This is another interesting list to pore over. Some of these votes are not only understandable from the rep's perspective, but they make cold political sense. There are also a lot of stupid votes here, many of them cast by short-sighted Members who could face a problem later for their hyper-partisanship.
Freshman: Not a lot of names here, mostly because the GOP did not win much last year. When it comes to freshman, they pretty much have to obey leadership early on or risk excommunication to crummy committees and other slights. Additionally, with men like Paulsen and Lance, they won their first terms so easily, they probably feel emboldened to oppose Obama even if their constituents voted for him. The same applies to someone like Schock, but he should be careful: his district is moderate and it is in Obama's backyard. Ditto second-termer Peter Roskam. I've already talked about Cao: he's a dope.
Long-timers who have grown fat and stupid: There are several people here who should know better. Mike Castle should be careful. His free ride could end at any time coming from Delaware. He should reflect on the lesson of Bill Roth in 2000.
Thad McCotter is just too partisan and too dumb to do anything against leadership. That he got 51% last year against a guy with no money should have taught him something, but clearly it did not. Mike Rogers won easily last year, but only because he had not major opposition. His distict is blue, but I think this vote is easily explained by (1) Rogers is a partisan bomb-thrower; and (2) he wants to run for governor next year and will have a very tough primary.
LoBiando has been safe in South Jersey for a long time, but a reckoning could finally be coming if Dems recruit a strong challenger to him. He should learn to shape up, but I doubt he will.
Both Tibieri and LaTourrette need to be very careful. Tibieri in particular has had a very conservative record in a district Obama easily won. It is coming time that both will have stronger Democratic challengers at some point.
Gerlach almost lost against a nobody, but I figure he is thinking about his own 2010 gunernatorial run (and primary) too.
Finally, even though Frank Wolf easily won, his district is changing very fast. He may retire before it is dark blue, but this vote won't help his standing. Randy Forbes is too crazy and arrogant to vote any other way (i.e. against the party line), but Obama's win in his district was an amazing occurence that bodes well for Dems in Virginia. Lee Terry clearly thinks Obama's performance in Omaha last year was a fluke.
The rest of the names can certainly get away with a vote like this because they are so insulated in their district. That being said, a look at this list reveals that if Democrats decided in 2011 to finally get tough with redistricting in California and Illinois, they could wipe out close to 10 Republicans (hi Judy Biggert and David Dreier) who have been getting away with conservative records in moderate districts. This is an issue I will post separately on soon.
Delay Delay Delay Franken
In complete candor, I can't say I blame Republicans for pushing Norm Coleman's court case as a means of delaying Democrat Al Franken's ascension to the U.S. Senate. After all, with one extra vote in their pockets, Democrats will have an even easier to time of passing their legislation, needing only one Republican of the Collins-Snowe-Specter troika to switch sides to overcome any filibuster on key legislation. For this reason, after reading this Politico piece of GOP efforts to bolster Coleman, I really can't disagree with the Republicans, at least on the tactical political merits.
All of that being said, it is a near-certainty that Al Franken will be seated in the Senate. With 58 votes right now, Democrats will never allow Coleman to be seated, even if he somehow is able to change the outcome -- currently showing a 225-vote win for Franken -- in court. It just ain't happening. If that were to happen, Democrats would bottle the issue up until the end of time. Also, as the article notes, the body in charge of examining any seating issue, the Senate Rules Committee, is chaired by one Charles Schumer, one of the shrewest men in Congress today, the former head of the DSCC, and one of the most bare-knuckled partisans in recent political history. In the immortal written words of Stan Lee, 'nuff said.
Months ago I noted that it was Coleman's choice if and when to bow out. I posted that calling on a man to just give up after losing by less than 0.01% of the vote was something I would not do. While I still feel that way, it has been several months, and Norm Coleman has to decide whether he wants to keep pushing a fruitless case and being a pawn of his former colleagues. Then again, maybe he has no choice, and if he gives up to easily, he won't have a cushy landing as a lobbyist via his GOP friends. In Washington, DC, I would not dismiss that possibility.
This one is moving closer to a conclusion, likely with Al Franken occupying a regal desk on the floor of the United States Senate. Who would have seen that coming a few years ago?
All of that being said, it is a near-certainty that Al Franken will be seated in the Senate. With 58 votes right now, Democrats will never allow Coleman to be seated, even if he somehow is able to change the outcome -- currently showing a 225-vote win for Franken -- in court. It just ain't happening. If that were to happen, Democrats would bottle the issue up until the end of time. Also, as the article notes, the body in charge of examining any seating issue, the Senate Rules Committee, is chaired by one Charles Schumer, one of the shrewest men in Congress today, the former head of the DSCC, and one of the most bare-knuckled partisans in recent political history. In the immortal written words of Stan Lee, 'nuff said.
Months ago I noted that it was Coleman's choice if and when to bow out. I posted that calling on a man to just give up after losing by less than 0.01% of the vote was something I would not do. While I still feel that way, it has been several months, and Norm Coleman has to decide whether he wants to keep pushing a fruitless case and being a pawn of his former colleagues. Then again, maybe he has no choice, and if he gives up to easily, he won't have a cushy landing as a lobbyist via his GOP friends. In Washington, DC, I would not dismiss that possibility.
This one is moving closer to a conclusion, likely with Al Franken occupying a regal desk on the floor of the United States Senate. Who would have seen that coming a few years ago?
Fitzgerald Stays
One story that was buried in all of the stimulus discussion this week was of the announcement that President Obama will retain Patrick Fitzgerald as United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).
Regular T2L readers will recall we debated the question of whether or not Obama would keep Fitzgerald on once he was sworn in. While we noted that Presidents nearly always bring in entirely new slates of U.S. Attorneys -- to stock the important posts with loyal party members and to give key patronage slots to different state power players, among other reasons -- we decided in the end that Obama would probably keep Fitzgerald simply to ensure continuity in the Blagojevich case and to avoid any criticism that would have likely come Obama's way if he had booted Fitzgerald. The move simply gibed with Obama's cautious nature, so Fitzgerald's retainment really should not surprise anyone.
Now Obama has to hope that Fitzgerald lets the Rezko investigation die.
Regular T2L readers will recall we debated the question of whether or not Obama would keep Fitzgerald on once he was sworn in. While we noted that Presidents nearly always bring in entirely new slates of U.S. Attorneys -- to stock the important posts with loyal party members and to give key patronage slots to different state power players, among other reasons -- we decided in the end that Obama would probably keep Fitzgerald simply to ensure continuity in the Blagojevich case and to avoid any criticism that would have likely come Obama's way if he had booted Fitzgerald. The move simply gibed with Obama's cautious nature, so Fitzgerald's retainment really should not surprise anyone.
Now Obama has to hope that Fitzgerald lets the Rezko investigation die.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
