Elections

I have been re-reading quite a few of the Federalist Papers for the constitutingamerica.org project and for a summer class I am teaching on the Foundations of the Constitution. A recurrent theme therein is the importance in a federal republic of assuring the connection between constituents and their representatives. NPR has commissioned a poll that demonstrates the electoral difficulties in which Democrats find themselves this year. But, rather than blame the ideological excesses of the Obama administration and the Congressional leadership, NPR takes aim at the influence that voters’ preferences have over the members of Congress and, strangely, bemoans that connection as the “tyranny of the constituency.” NPR goes on to attack gerrymandering as the evil behind the voting patterns in Congress. But, without that gerrymandering, many more Democrats likely would be in trouble (as NPR acknowledges), and the tyranny of the constituency would be magnified. In elections in past generations, partisan swings of 100 seats in the House were not unknown. That order of magnitude is unlikely in today’s finely-crafted districts. NPR is not specifically arguing, as far as I can tell, that gerrymandering produces increased polarization and increases the influence of more ideologically committed primary voters (though that is certainly a justified supposition). The fault here is in the gerrymandering, not for the benefit of unions or the oil industry or any other interest group, as such, but for the benefit of parties and incumbents. The problem certainly is not in the fact that districts do exactly what they are supposed to do, that is, represent the interests of the local constituencies. Those interests would, the Framers hoped, vary across the nation and shift in an ever-changing mosaic of political influence that would prevent the formation of dominant and stable factions that would benefit themselves to the detriment of the whole. Via Instapundit.

There are campaign commercials. And then there are CAMPAIGN COMMERCIALS! This one’s a classic.

H/T Ali Vazin 

A long-term Democratic Congressman, West Virginia’s Alan Mollohan, has been defeated in the primary. This is a mixed bag for both parties. Republicans wanted to run against Mollohan because of his scandal-plagued tenure and his vote for Obama/Reid/PelosiCare after he posed as a Bart Stupak-following “pro-lifer.” His defeat means that the Democratic candidate in the general election won’t be tainted in that fashion. Moreover, the new nominee, Mike Oliverio, is a state politician, so he will have a good political ground-game already in place. All of that helps Democrats’ prospects of keeping the seat.

On the other hand, Mike Oliverio ran against Mollohan because of the latter’s pro-ObamaCare vote. Moreover, he has announced that he would prefer to see someone other than Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, if someone else came along. That cryptic remark has led some conservatives to wonder how loyal Oliverio will be, and whether he can be induced to switch parties. I don’t think the latter will happen, even though the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee was somewhat cool in their reaction to Oliverio. People don’t turn soon after their initial election. It would be political suicide. The problem for Democrats in this scenario is that the Republicans now know that running against ObamaCare and Nancy Pelosi works even with Democrats in the district, and they can paint Oliverio as, ultimately, still a vote for Nan the SanFranGran. Certainly, running against the President should work nicely. Another break is that, while Mollohan would have been the fatter target in the fall, Oliverio does not bring the considerable patronage and money advantages of incumbency. Plus, he is still a Democrat in a likely Republican year. On a larger scale, no matter what the result in November, Oliverio’s win shows further evidence of the developing tide.

West Virginia is an odd state, politically speaking. It generally votes reliably Republican in national elections. But it is still frustratingly pro-Democrat in state and local contests where there are remnants of the old FDR coalition that survive. These are the types of people that Obama insulted in his aside to the San Francisco wine-and-cheese elitists as gun-and-Bible clingers. Hillary drubbed Obama in the West Virginia primary for that reason, and John McCain won big that November. The liberal Swing State Project has the district as R +9, though it is unclear whether that is based on registration figures or performance in the last presidential election. If it is the former, it makes the Republican the clear favorite. If it is the latter, as I wrote, national votes do not necessarily translate well to local elections in West Virginia. Swing State believes that Oliverio would still overperform the district to the liberal side, even if he is to the right of Mollohan. I think that is correct, and a point that the Republicans should make very vigorously during the campaign.

In a normal political year, Congressional veterans in the majority party rarely retire in the absence of scandal or terminal illness. Representative David Obey has neither. Moreover, such veterans are even less likely to retire if they are committee chairmen. Even less likely is such retirement if the veteran is the chairman of a particularly powerful House committee, such as Appropriations. Obey holds that chairmanship.

But this is no ordinary political year, and Obey retired, shocking Congressional Democrats including the leadership with which he was so closely allied. In contrast to previous years, Obey was in a very tough race, one that he likely still would have won. His retirement makes the district competitive if the election turns out to be a Republican year. In ordinary circumstances in an open election the Democrat would have to be slightly favored in that district. Obey’s assessment shows, though, that these are not ordinary circumstances.

With a 2-1 registration edge, Democrats should have no worry about holding on to John Murtha’s old district. But these Democratic voters are the type that Barack Obama disparaged as gun-and-Bible clingers, and which Obama and Biden disowned when they deprecated coal as a readily-available fuel for the future. That’s why the leadership is very worried about losing the seat. With polls showing the Republican slightly favored, a certain panic mode is setting in. Add to that the almost incomprehensible fact that the Republican candidate Charles Djou is competitive in the Hawaii special election for Congress (though not necessarily the November election), and there is a reason for concern.

Jim Geraghty at the Campaign Spot blog at National Review Online analyzes the House districts and concludes that over 90 Democrats are vulnerable for some reason or other.

Another welcome development, and one for which one can thank President Obama (in a positive sense of the phrase) and Michael Steele, is the large number of Blacks running in Republican primaries. As someone who voted for Alan Keyes in the Republican primary in 1996, before Keyes went over the political cliff, I am very pleased to see this outreach. Conservative principles should provide a natural connection among large middle class segments of people of all races in this country. Even the New York Times has noticed.

Meanwhile, on the downside, I fully concur with this sentiment, that prominent Republicans (Boehner, Sessions) should stop crowing about November. It’s not a done deal, and it is high time to tone down some of the public rhetoric that has begun to annoy. Complacency loses elections, and establishment Republicans have a way of being complacent and losing focus. See, Steele, Michael. The GOP has lost some ground on generic ballot preference. Though the shift is so minor at this point that it could be margin of error sampling movement, it provides a useful reminder that the GOP has to sell itself to the voters. The Democrats cannot be expected to do the GOP’s heavy lifting by continuing to self-destruct for the next six months.

It is a strong indication of an electoral shift when members of the majority party switch party affiliation or retire en masse, particularly in close districts. Both have happened to the Democrats over the past six months. Democratic House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer admits that the tea party protests have prodded some members to consider retiring.

But how bad can it get for the Democrats? For some time now, I have been saying that Democratic losses are likely to be around thirty seats in the House, give or take five or so, and three to five in the Senate. I am inclined to go for 25-30 in the House, but I’m feeling optimistic. That’s not enough to retake either body, but it will put the GOP in an excellent position to block any further leftward looniness. There will still be plenty of Democrats in close districts who will not want be able to afford further experiments in socialism. My own estimates based on historical minimum movements and my own caution have tracked those of Democratic pollsters. I try not to get overconfident because it is still six months from the election. Plenty of time for the GOP to mess things up. But I think a pick-up of the size I mentioned is a fairly solid bet. Even the worst-case scenario, with an economic improvement of unlikely magnitude and speed, and with suddenly popular Obama initiatives here and abroad, would predict at least a roughly twenty-seat House pick-up based on historical movement.

Now let me go on a limb. I think there is subtantial upside potential for the GOP. Again, that reflects the judgment of Stuart Rothenberg, as well. This is an audacious prediction that pegs a 1994-style win and a Republican take-over of the House as the most likely result and far from the worst that could befall the Democrats. “Moreover, it is well within the realm of possibility - not merely a far-fetched scenario - that Democratic losses could climb into the 80 or 90-seat range. The Democrats are sailing into a perfect storm of factors influencing a midterm election, and if the situation declines for them in the ensuing months, I wouldn’t be shocked to see Democratic losses eclipse 100 seats.”

Losses of that magnitude once were not that uncommon in American elections. But they haven’t been seen since the 19th century. It is unlikely that we will see anything like that. On the other hand, I have not seen this kind of massive discontent among people who matter. Ever. Typically, political movements are like winds that blow across the ocean’s surface. Some are localized tempests, like the aging-hippie anti-war demonstrators of the 2000s and the periodic anarchist anti-globalism protesters. Others have more staying power, but are still primarily superficial phenomena, such as the anti-Vietnam War protesters. The tea party protesters are not like a storm that roils the ocean surface, but like a tsunami that shakes the entire body of water. I have seen localized movements like this in California, such as the tax revolt of the 1970s and 1980s, and the struggle against forced school busing around the same time. But those were focused on particular issues. While they caused significant political upheaval and change, they dissipated once that change was achieved. The tea party movement is national. The closest analogy I see to the current political protests is the civil rights movement. But even that, earth-shaking as it was, focused on a limited issue and affected a limited, though broadly sympathetic, constituency. Still, it can be said to be comparable in scope and passion.

The case for a massive GOP win is based on the effect of a confluence of three significant electoral factors, a weak economy, a controversial agenda by the majority party, and an overextended majority party that managed to win many weak districts in the previous election. Only rarely are all three factors present in an election. In 2010, they are. The economy is likely to remain weak for some time, and news (real or contrived)of improvement in the numbers only goes so far if the actual numbers remain weak. To say that the Democrats have a controversial agenda is to put it mildly. That is why the GOP needs to understand that the President is bluffing when he challenges them to “go for it” and campaign against Obama/Reid/PelosiCare. They can afford to be the party of “no,” while the Democrats look with increasing desperation for any straw of bipartisanship to grasp. That’s why Lindsey Graham’s cap-and-tax compromise is politically stupid. The Democrats need the GOP, not the other way around. Dare the Democrats to try to push more of their agenda.

Finally, the Democrats are greatly over-extended. They have won almost 60 net seats from the GOP in the last two elections. If the Republicans lose only half of the seats they hold in Democratic-leaning districts and win all the seats Democrats hold in Republican-leaning districts, the GOP will pick up 60 seats. For the 1994 sweep, only one of the three factors was present. When two of the factors are present, the majority party has lost an average of about 50 seats in elections since 1930. The GOP needs 40 to retake the House. There is only one election since the 19th century when all three factors were present. In 1938, the Democrats lost 79 seats.

When Obama was elected, there was a lot of talk among some of the commentariat that wrote off the Republicans derisively as a “regional” (Southern) party and spoke of 2008 as a major realignment. I wrote that the crucial tests will come in 2010 and 2012. I doubted that such a realignment had occurred because I saw Obama as a unique candidate whose success was no measure of partisan loyalty. Moreover, given his ideological Leftism, I thought that there was a good chance that he would overplay his hand based on a mistaken claim of an electoral mandate. I was unconvinced, therefore, that 2010 and 2012 would be “confirming elections” that would make 2008 a political realignment rather than a fluke.

The writer, Sean Trende, confirms that Barack Obama has wrecked the Democratic brand. The Democratic success at the presidential level in the 1990s and their eventual Congressional successes were the result of Clinton’s “New Democrat” coalition that allowed Democrats to win in areas they hadn’t won in the past, particularly in the West. As Trende writes, “Today there are well over a hundred Democrats in these Mountain West/Jacksonian/northern Suburban/working class districts. This includes, by my count, about fifty such seats that the Democrats won from Republicans between 1996-2006, offsetting Republican gains in the Deep South and rural North and preventing Republicans from amassing big majorities during that time.”

But Obama has managed to shatter that coalition. Trende again: “Obama lost the ‘Jacksonians’ before he was even elected. [The “gun-and-Bible-clingers” remark didn’t help—T.C.] As I noted in my November piece on the Clinton coalition, the 2009 gubernatorial elections indicated that the Jacksonians are continuing to abandon the Democrats, both up and down the ticket. But 2009 also demonstrated that other critical pieces of the Clinton coalition were abandoning Obama, pieces where Obama himself had actually improved upon Clinton’s showings. Suburbia moved toward the Republicans in 2009 in both New Jersey and Virginia, and then did so again in 2010 in the Massachusetts election (Scott Brown handily carried the suburban Fifth, Sixth and Tenth Districts). The Massachusetts election revealed other problems for the Democrats as well. White working class voters in the Second, Third and Ninth Districts voted for the Republican. The President is also showing real weakness in one more area that is critical to the Democrats’ coalition: The Mountain West….The President is underwater in all of the Mountain West states except for New Mexico, and badly so.”

Trende believes that Obama’s personal ratings are not worse because of his incredibly high support among Blacks, liberals (like academics), and the young (mainly students and young professionals) that are concentrated in relatively few districts. The result is that this uneven political distribution and a fracturing coalition leaves the Democrats vulnerable in many more districts. “If brand damage is truly seeping over into Congressional races - and the polling suggests it is - then the Democrats are in very, very deep trouble this election. There is a very real risk that they could be left with nothing more than Obama’s base among young, liberal, and minority voters, which is packed into relatively few Congressional districts. It would be the Dukakis map transformed onto the Congressional level, minus the support in Appalachia. That would surely result in the Democratic caucus suffering huge losses, and in turn produce historic gains for the GOP this November.”

While Trende’s analysis may turn out to be far too gloomy for Democrats in November, his reasoning is backed by much polling and anecdotal evidence. His conclusions cannot be dismissed out of hand. Here’s hoping he’s (mostly) correct, though even much more modest gains might suit the Republicans just fine.

As tax increases are looming, two-thirds of voters say that Americans are already overtaxed. Not astonishingly, the political class disagrees and, as usual, is disconnected from the rest.

Republican politicians, lost in the Beltway fog, may be going wobbly on pushing repeal of Obama/Reid/PelosiCare, but 58% of American voters support repeal, with 50% strongly supporting repeal.

Rasmussen has GOP ahead on generic ballot by 9% among likely voters. Other polls show smaller margin, but the trend is clear and steady.

When you’re running neck-and-neck with Ron Paul for President among likely voters, it’s time to reappraise your situation. Well, at least you’re still doing well compared to that “Worst. President. Ever,” George W. Bush. Oh, wait.

This should be the beginning of the end of the Democrat/media campaign to demonize the tea parties. Most voters believe that the tea party has a better grasp of the issues than does Congress. Far more also identify with the tea party in their views than with members of Congress. Similarly, there is a more favorable view of the ethics of the tea party than of Congress.

Health care law support back down in intensive care. Republicans gain in poll. More evidence of the same, proving that the President’s campaign trip for the law has not worked. Why would it? It is not as if he was silent in the run-up to the Democrats’ cram-down of the bill. The Democrats know they are in trouble. If they weren’t, Mr. Obama would not be running around trying to sell the bill after it became law.

Details of the bill’s unpopularity. Most say it will cost too much.

Obama “bounce” gone. Remember that Gallup polls more favorably to Democrats (both internally and because they usually use “Americans”/”voters”) than does Rasmussen (who usually uses “registered voters” or “likely voters”). Both polls show same movement. More of the same. More significantly, a majority of those who state a position do not believe that the President deserves to be re-elected.

As someone who in 2008/2009 favored the selection of Michael Steele as chairman of the Republican Party, I have reluctantly concluded that he should resign. This is not an epiphany but a gradually evolved position. Nor is this the result of the recent black eye that the GOP leadership received when news came out that some staffers had taken potential donors to frolic at an odd West Hollywood dance club.

Incidentally, as usual, the media have sensationalized this story by getting all manner of details wrong, as the above-linked article shows. Moreover, the media have shown more interest in the GOP donors in this case than in the Obama donor who has been charged with threatening to kill Congressman Eric Cantor. The issue here is not the unusual party venue, as such. Both parties, and their lobbyists, have such events frequently, though the political fundraisers I have attended have been held at much more mundane venues. I don’t care about that, though others, such as Hugh Hewitt, see potentially longer-term damage. Apparently the club has a show reminiscent of the Tom Cruise-Nicole Kidman movie “Eyes Wide Shut,” itself a rather boring film overall.

Instead, the problem with Michael Steele is a compounding of unforced errors. I supported Steele because I thought that, as a successful candidate for lieutenant governor of Maryland and a nearly successful candidate for U.S. Senator from that very Democratic state even in an anti-GOP year, he had rhetorical skills fine-tuned through political acumen. Instead, he too often has engaged in stylings that sound like the school nerd trying to sound hip, at the expense of the party that he is supposed to lead. His attempts to match President Obama with cool flippancy have missed their mark and had to be walked back repeatedly.

I also supported Steele because I figured that his campaign experience had given him an appreciation for the administrative discipline and deftness needed to prod fundraising and oversee expenditures. Now comes news of questionable financial practices, some of which are detailed here. If a party chairman is living high, especially during tough economic times and when his party is seeking to rebound from massive losses, he is hurting the cause. That goes double when comments such as the following dog the chairman: “Complaints, almost always expressed off the record, have been bitter. ‘This is not somebody who is out recruiting candidates,’ said an aide who worked closely with Steele. ‘He is not meeting with donors. He’s not asking for money. The guy is writing his book or doing his speaking gigs, or whatever the hell else he fills his days with. Those are his priorities.’” Howard Dean, he is not.

There are always ankle-biters and nay-sayers, and such periodic carping, without more, can be a sign of strong leadership as readily as of incompetence. But as the evidence continues to leak out and the missteps accumulate, even the appearance of incompetence can become its own reality. When the party does not control the White House, there are inevitably various personalities within the national party vying for dominance. The party chairman is the symbol of the party, and must balance astutely the need for dynamic leadership with the calming influence of a steady hand that keeps the apparatus functioning.

The emerging picture of Michael Steele is that he is no Lee Atwater. Nor is he a Haley Barbour, the former chairman and now very successful governor of Mississippi whose response to Hurricane Katrina displayed executive and administrative skills in notably short supply across the border in Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin’s New Orleans. Even in this small matter, Steele has shown little leadership. Instead, after firing the lowly staffer who organized the trip to the club, the Republican National Committee senior staff tried to deflect blame onto others. Though this, too, will pass, the questions about Steele’s profligacy, self-aggrandizement, and lack of leadership and political common sense will continue.

One more thing. I certainly don’t hold this against Steele because, as some overheated conservative bulldogs would have it, he is Black. If a White man were exposed as incompetent and prone to gaffes, I would be just as critical. See, for example, comments about Joe Biden. That goes double for the sensitive position of chairman of the “out” party. I also would have no problem supporting another Steele critic, former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, one of the party chairmanship contenders who lost to Steele. Blackwell is Black, and I only preferred Steele because I thought he was a better speaker who could get the party’s message out more forcefully than Blackwell.

Some conservatives apparently have decided, as blogger Dan Riehl has, to take a page out of the tiresome victimhood playbook of liberals and tag any criticism of a Black person as racist. That tactic is bound only to make such commentators sound desperate and alienate people from Steele even more. I wish such folks would follow their own advice and not cause needless distractions from what should at least be a healthy discussion about whether the current leadership’s questionable tactics (and, perhaps strategy) will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in November.

I was frequently critical of Republican Party excesses on domestic spending when the Republicans were in power. I like President Bush, but I still object to his Medicare Drug benefit (which has been reported to be, surprisingly, less expensive than anticipated) and to “No Child Left Behind.” I also strongly believe that he did not wield his veto pen often enough to control budgetary excess by Republican members of Congress seeking to stay in power. Actually, he did not wield it at all. I was extremely uncomfortable with the, probably inevitable, abuse of earmarks and spending by the Republicans when they controlled Congress. To conclude, as one surely must, that the Republicans are rank amateurs in profligacy with other people’s money compared to the Democratic pros, is to damn the latter but not excuse the former.

That said, when the Republican members of Congress do the right thing, as they have done in regard to Obama/Reid/PelosiCare, they deserve respect and support. They have played a poor hand remarkably well. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has been seen as insufficiently charismatic to stand up to the President in a public relations contest or to be the face of the Republican Party in an election cycle. Aside from the fact that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid did not hurt the Democrats as their party’s faces in 2006, the pressing need for the Republicans in 2009 and 2010 has been for someone to slow down the Democrats. An insider with knowledge of the procedures that could be used to frustrate a 60-40 majority that is also in control of the White House and the House of Representatives is more important for the immediate task at hand than is a charismatic or programmatic faction leader. McConnell has performed his role almost flawlessly. (The dust-up with Senator Bunning over the latter’s insistence that the Democrats comply with their own “Pay-Go” rules to fund unemployment benefits by making them revenue-neutral could have been handled better.) Marshaling all 40 Republicans, including Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, George Voinovich, and Lindsey Graham, to unanimous opposition to Obama/Reid/PelosiCare is an incredible political feat. It failed to prevent passage, but the leadership was able to tie the Democrats in knots until the cavalry could arrive in the form of new Massachusetts Senator Larry Brown. Notice that the Democrats have been forced to change their entire approach to legislation (to their political detriment) in anticipation that McConnell will be able to continue to work that magic.

Things are similar in the House. I am not an enthusiastic supporter of Minority Leader John Boehner. Though he is telegenic enough, his tan and his manner of speaking remind me too much of the archetype of the slippery politician. He is too tied to the Republican excesses during the Bush years. I was pleased to see him get forceful during the final stages of the health care debate, but his passion seemed too forced and “acted.” All of that said, he has assembled a team that managed to outperform the President (to the latter’s most evident displeasure, judging by his expression and tone) at the contrived “health care summit” and to have the Democrats in the fight of their political lives despite their 253-178 (after resignations and deaths)advantage. Republican Whip Eric Cantor produced party discipline that kept even one Republican from leaving the fold and, together with the support of dissident Democrats, made opposition to the health care bill bipartisan, while support became a blatantly partisan cram-down. Meanwhile, Cantor, Paul Ryan, and some counterparts in the Senate produced credible Republican alternatives to prepare for the fall campaign.

To an impressive and surprising degree, the Republicans have informally shaped the debate on this issue, starting with Sarah Palin’s broadsides that the President and Press Secretary “Dilbert” Gibbs just could not bring themselves to ignore. The Democrats were forced down a path that, surely, none of them saw when they decided to take the health care “reform” journey early last spring. With their control of the government, the Democrats figured to make short shrift of the Republican minority and enact a bill that would include, if not single-payer, at least a “government option,” as well as all sorts of other anti-business, anti-profit, anti-liberty, anti-individual restrictions, mandates, and regulations. They would then bask in their success and the continued adulation by the media O-bots to adopt the rest of the “progressive” agenda, such as cap-and-tax environmentalist throttling of the energy market, card-check for labor, financial support for ACORN and other Obama pals from the community-organizing sector of rent-seekers, and so on.

Then came the tea parties, the disastrous “mingling with the commoners” town halls, the exposure of deception after deception about the President’s plan, the increasingly week-kneed Democratic legislators feeling political heat, the sequence of missed and postponed artificial deadlines, the Reid bill written in secret, the partisan divide in Senate approval of a bill no one had read, the President’s overexposure as he was in full campaign mode clogging the airwaves trying to sell the bill, the increasing rancor between the House and the Senate over how to proceed, and the leaks of spats and conflict among White House advisers.

By continuing to push on and refusing to walk the issue back from the brink among disastrous polling, the Congressional Democrats put themselves in the position of having to approve a bill that was defended not on its merits, but as a way to save the Obama presidency, as the President himself described it in his appeals to House Democrats whose support was crucial. The bill no longer was about what was good intrinsically, either for the people’s health or for fiscal stability, but about what was good for Mr. Obama personally.

Ultimately, the Democratic leadership’s pitch to press on for a vote shows their precarious position. They had to make a massive and politically painful push for a vote that would get them punished politically by the voters, or accede to the Republican call to “start over” and get punished politically by their base. They chose the former. Rather than be seen as ineffective, they believed that succeeding shows they can govern. They would have suffered politically, in any event, but, in their calculation, they would suffer less having passed the bill.

I profoundly disagree, and I believe that the Republicans played the game perfectly. I have long thought that the GOP’s best strategy is to keep Democrats proposing things and to drag out the debate in very open and public fashion. Force the Democrats to talk, force their positions into the open, and, inevitably, force them to go behind closed doors to produce some legislative monstrosity without transparency. Then force them into painful political machinations to get enough votes. If the proposal fails, the country immediately benefits a lot from that defeat, and the Republicans benefit moderately, but later. If the proposal passes, the country immediately is hurt, and the Republicans later benefit a lot. But then the country also benefits eventually from Republican gains.

In the health care debate that worked. The Democrats may say that they showed that they can govern and that President Obama can get things done. Come on. It took over a year (since it’s not finished yet). Despite a 60-40 majority in the Senate, they had to produce a bill hatched in Harry Reid’s office, filled with odious backroom deals that have come to exemplify political corruption in the “Louisiana Purchase,” the “Cornhusker Kickback,” “Gator-Aid,” and various other special deals (such as the Connecticut pay-off that President Obama could not identify in his interview with FOX’s Bret Baier).

They then had to pass this in the House following a publicized process whose fascinatingly repellent nature will forever identify the legislation and, in the eyes of many, brand it as illegitimate. Even then, they had to bargain and deal until almost the last minute to get a 219-212 victory, though the margin probably would have been bigger, except that the Speaker gave free hall passes to some endangered Democrats to vote against the proposal, given its unpopularity with Americans.

The Democrats have won this battle. They are far from winning even this war, and, in any event, their victory would make King Pyrrhus wince. As polls confirm, they have managed to make the Republicans a respectable and increasingly-trusted political force, though the GOP still has to work hard to cement the deal. The Democrats have solidified the public image of them as elitist and deaf to public wishes. Examples abound. There was Nancy Pelosi’s, “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.” There was the provocative and conscious decision of the Democrat House leadership to march through the protesters, with Pelosi carrying a huge gavel, rather than take the tunnel that they usually take when walking from their office building to the Capitol. This was done presumably to provoke the protesters into saying something stupid that could be exploited for political gain and to show the peasants who possessed all the power. Then there was impeached (for bribery) and convicted former federal judge and now Congressman Alcee Hastings informing everyone that there were no rules when Democrats want to get something done, and that the rules were made up as they went along.

They are also exposed as having the radical agenda about which so many conservatives warned. They have smashed any notions of bi-partisanship and assured long and bitter memories that even profound changes in the relationship between citizens and the state can be passed, contrary to the President’s own previous declarations, by a bare majority formed exclusively by one party. This has changed the political calculus profoundly. The use of procedures designed for limited purposes in a manner that shows complete disregard of any sense of self-restraint will be long remembered. In any institution or association, there are formal rules that help constrain behavior. But, ultimately, much depends on informal customs and on a sense of political propriety and self-restraint that keeps one from doing what theoretically one might be able to do. It is the “spirit” or “character” of the institution or the association. Or of the society. It is the extent to which success of the political system still depends on the virtue, in the classical sense, of its participants. Observance of its constraints becomes most important when the temptation to ignore those constraints is the greatest. These boundaries were breached in an ugly and disturbing orgy of partisanship run amok, for the sake of Mr. Obama’s “success.”

Politics is a contact sport, and the Democrats cannot be faulted for using the power they were unwisely given by an electorate tired of political incompetence and excesses resulting from Republican complacency and deafness while in power. Moreover, Democrats cannot be faulted for bending the rules or for clever evasiveness and even some deceptiveness. It comes with the job. They are politicians and, out of character or circumstances, no different from their Republican counterparts. But there is a difference. They have just gone too far and stepped over the line. They became overconfident, entitled, and arrogant, and their ideological blinders failed to attune them to acceptable limits. In short, they got greedy for power and overreached. A political bridge too far. 

That brings up the President. Mr. Obama’s image has taken a hit. Whether that hit is above the waterline and causes merely serious damage, or whether it is below the waterline and sinks him, we will not soon know. He and his acolytes in the press may profess to think that he comes out of this as a strong leader. But he has had to grovel before members of Congress and personalize the vote as a favor to him. Reluctant Democratic members of Congress, even if they survive the election, will not forget this. He owes them.

Obama’s image as a cool, post-partisan healer is gone. Gone the way that his image as a post-racial President died with Obama’s knee-jerk reaction to the arrest of Harvard Professor Gates and through the addiction of his supporters, in the administration or out, to claim or imply at every turn that his critics are racist. As a student of radical organizer Saul Alinsky, Obama is, and (unlike George W. Bush) always has intended to be, a divider. His talk of bipartisanship or nonpartisanship will only fool the most gullible. His future policy initiatives will only reinforce that image of pitting one group in society against another, and he will be judged accordingly. Polls already tell the story of that fall. Having fallen faster and farther in his approval numbers after inauguration than any President, his “strongly disapprove” ratings now match George W. Bush’s (though his overall negative ratings are still lower). However, it took Bush six years and relentless personal attacks from the Democrats, the media, and the elites. It took Obama fourteen months.

There is an air of popular discontent with which the Republicans can connect. The Democrats are in trouble, though how much is still in the air. Some of the outcome in November no doubt will be influenced by the economy.  But something more profound has been let loose through the Democrats’ health care reform miscalculation. I hope that the Republicans continue to play the game as well as they have over the past year. If they do, they may convince enough people not only that they are the only game in town as an alternative to Democratic overreach, but that, in 2010 and 2012, they deserve to be handed another chance at governing.

If the President and other Democrats thought that the Obama/Reid/PelosiCare cram-down would redound to their great political benefit, they may need to reconsider. Mr. Obama tied with “Anybody” as the Republican nominee in 2012 in a new CNN poll of registered voters. Worse, by 54-44, they believe that Obama would lose. Worse still, 20% of Democrats think that there should be a different nominee for their party. It’s still very early. I still think that Obama will run, be renominated, and be re-elected. However, I recall a post I wrote recently speculating about why he might opt not to run. A while ago, I wrote a post wondering how long Hillary would stay in the administration. Will she be the Ted Kennedy to Obama’s Jimmy Carter in 2012?

The Democrats’ message, eagerly abetted by the media, that the Republicans are isolated and need to fold up their political tents and go home is the usual bluster, not reality.

More evidence of the Democrats’ “success”: Before the enactment last weekend, 54% opposed the bill. Now that it has been signed, 55% of voters still oppose the health care bill. Senior citizens oppose it even more strongly. Rasmussen tilts slightly Republican, but not so far as to eliminate the continuing opposition to that law that also shows in other polls. Moreover, this also shows the lack of a “bump.”

A CBS post-passage poll shows that 62% of all adults want the Republicans to keep fighting Obama/Reid/PelosiCare. It also shows that all adults still disapprove of the bill, with an approval rating of 42%-46%. Two comments about the results: CBS generally tilts to the Democrats more so than Rasmussen to the Republicans. Also, polls of all adults are generally more favorable to Democratic positions than polls of likely voters or even of registered voters.

Regarding the legal challenges to Obama/Reid/PelosiCare, 49% of likely voters support the challenges, while 37% are opposed.

In the generic Congressional ballot, Republicans are up by 8% among likely voters, a slight dip from a 10% edge last week. Nationally-recognized political analyst Professor Larry Sabato still has his predictions of Republican victories in November at +27 House seats, +7 Senate seats, and +7 governorships.

Rasmussen now has Republicans ahead of Democrats in the generic Congressional ballot by 9%, a spread that has held rather steady since New Year’s Day. Rasmussen polls slightly Republican, so that his gap may be a little bigger than one in an average of various polls. Moreover, this is a telephone poll, so there may be greater uncertainty about how closely it tracks overall voter sentiment in either direction. But he is usually very close on the results, and even Democratic-leaning polls are showing an alarming gap. Very important in this number is the nearly 2.5 to 1 favor the GOP enjoys among independents.

Rasmussen also shows a serious loss of faith by Americans in the government. This is troubling and does a lot to explain current vote trends. A couple of noteworthy points. First, this is a somewhat (but not entirely) partisan matter. As one would expect for several reasons (their people in the White House and the Congress, their pro-government ideology, their “elitism”), more Democrats view government favorably than do others. But even a plurality of Dems sees government as acting outside the consent of the governed. This sentiment predictably tends to benefit Republicans. But the news is not all good for the GOP, as that party, too, is seen as out of touch with the voters, though less so than the Democratic Party. Second, there is a split between the mainstream and the political class. This is not unusual, but it appears to be moving to a higher order of magnitude, and the elites are seen as more out of touch with the broader population. The challenge to the political order is moving away from focusing on particular policies, or even broader programs, to questioning the elite’s very political legitimacy.

Karl Rove handicaps the Senate after November based on current trends: 49 Democrats, 48 Republicans, 2 Independents (who will continue to vote with the Dems), 1 toss-up. Still early, but the trends keep hardening and represent movement over 30 days. Since his last projection, only California has gone (slightly) more Democratic.

In fact, a thin Democratic majority in the House and the Senate would be worse for President Obama than a GOP takeover. If the Republicans were to win, they would have to demonstrate some cooperation with the President, as their fortunes in a perverse way would be tied to his. If they simply oppose him, he (and the Democrats) can more credibly run against the Republicans in 2012 for obstructionism. While he can be expected to do that anyway, it becomes less credible if the GOP makes a great show of cooperation and of presenting their own proposals. The president always has a better pulpit than the Congress, if he uses it wisely. President Bush used it unwisely (too rarely), and President Obama has used it unwisely (too frequently). But in a P.R. battle, Mr. Obama will easily beat a Speaker Boehner and a Senate Majority Leader McConnell. So the Republicans would have to be on the offensive with their own ideas as the basis for negotiated agreements(think post-1994, but without a government shut-down).

If the Democrats eke out a victory, there is no incentive for the GOP to help Obama in order to help themselves, at least on domestic issues. The voters’ message of the need for a GOP check on the President will still have been sent, a message the GOP will seek to reinforce for the 2012 election. The longer-term prognosis would still be bad for the Democrats. The Republicans can continue to play opposition politics with greater impunity and let the Democrats fire away at each other.

The Democrats, in turn, will know this. They will have the responsibility for the President’s programs, a responsibility that will have just cost them dearly at the polls. They will blame him for dragging them down, but they don’t have the luxury of playing vocal opposition if they are still the majority. As voter turn-out in 2010 is likely to be high for an off-year election due to anti-incumbent (and anti-Obama) enthusiasm, their vulnerable members can feel only slightly less vulnerable in anticipation of a potentially higher and more favorable voter turn-out in 2012. Expected Republican gains in state and local elections (if recent elections are an indication) will enhance the ability of Republicans to gerrymander Congressional seats to their benefit, just in time for 2012. This is not likely to produce Democratic party discipline for any controversial Presidential agenda item or for Pelosi-style leftism.

The Democrats keep sailing into stronger political headwinds, to change the metaphor. The latest is Indiana Senator Evan Bayh’s decision to retire rather than run for re-election in 2010. Bayh was a fairly moderate Democrat. But he is from a primarily Republican state and, though he was ahead in the polls, could count on a significant battle this year. It is possible that he is resigning for personal reasons, as he says. It is possible that he prefers executive positions (he was governor of the state) over legislative ones. It even may be that he is considering a challenge to President Obama in 2012, if matters continue to deteriorate for the administration. But, whatever the reason, it leaves the Democrats having to defend a now-open seat in a GOP-leaving state during what may well be turning into a Republican year.

Even ABC is getting the news about GOP resurgence after other polls, such as Rasmussen, have been reporting it since last fall. The public wants the Republicans to block Obama and the Democrats, which translates into greater public support for the GOP’s positions on issues than for President Obama’s. That is a necessary step. For the Republicans to build an enduring position of power, it was not enough for the public simply to oppose the Democrats. Rather, it was necessary for the public to be open to Republican positions. The Democrats’ overreaching has allowed the Republicans to come out of the post-2008 political wilderness sooner than one might have hoped. But it is up to the Republicans to present their positions smartly and to develop substantively palatable positions. One has to hope that they will use the opportunity wisely. Given the GOP’s tendency to shoot itself in the foot, that is by no means assured.

Then comes a report from Andrew Malcolm at the L. A. Times’s Top of the Ticket blog that polls are showing Barbara Boxer in trouble. Incumbents traditionally need a more than 50% support level at this point in the election cycle to be considered safe. Boxer is still ahead of the potential Republican nominees, but the margin is about 4%, down from the 10% spread of three months ago. Worse for her, she is polling in the mid-40s. After Scott Brown in Massachusetts, all bets are off, even in California.

Political analyst Michael Barone has said that there is only one safe Democratic Senate seat this year, Chuckie Schumer of New York, and only 103 out of 258 safe Democratic House seats. There are now predictions of a Republican take-over of the House and the Senate. I still think that is a long-shot, especially regarding the Senate. The Republicans would have to run the table to get the ten seats needed. But it has been done. In 1980, they won 12 seats to take over the chamber for the first time in a couple of decades. But with party switches and Democratic retirements in Republican areas, the long shot is getting shorter. There are nearly 50 Democratic Congressmen in districts won by John McCain in 2008 despite the Democratic wave. Only 41 GOP victories in McCain districts would tip the House.

More evidence of a trend. In special elections for the N.Y. state assembly, Republicans won three out of four seats. More important, they took two seats previously held by Democrats. The Democrats held on to only one of the four. One of the Republican wins was in a district held by the Democrats for nearly two decades. This trend mirrors what happened in state and local elections last November, when the developing Republican trend emerged.

In Florida, the staunchly conservative candidate, Marco Rubio, has surged ahead of the establishment Republican governor, Charlie Crist, in the primary for the Senate seat. Crist has been hurt by his support of the Obama stimulus. As the article notes, Obama is a toxic 0-7 in political campaign rallies.

In Illinois, the centrist Republican candidate has a good shot at beating the Democratic candidate for President Obama’s old seat. Moreover, the Republican nominee has a decent shot at unseating the Democratic replacement for disgraced governor Rod Blagojevich.

In Arkansas, incumbent Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln is trailing her likely Republican challengers by 15 and 23 points, respectively. “If her numbers get any worse, she’ll change her name from Blanche to Cringe.”

I was going to move past the Massachusetts election, but I have seen so much strange analysis, I can’t resist taking one more shot. Predictably, the White House, Nancy Pelosi, and Martha Coakley have different ideas of who is to blame for the loss and what the loss means to the current formula for the socialization of health care.

1. No single factor caused this loss. The thoroughly Democratic tilt of the Massachusetts electorate required, in the words of National Review Online commentators, “A Perfect Storm” for a Republican victory. That is indeed what occurred, but it was not just “circumstance.” The blowhard leadership of the Democratic Party created the conditions for the storm. By the way, that finger-pointing began even before the polls closed, which was another early sign that Coakley had lost. Their leaked memos reflected the campaign’s realization of their predicament based on their internal polling to which others were not privy.

2. Martha Coakley ran an inept campaign. But plenty of lackluster campaigns succeed, while energetic and creative campaigns do not. Scott Brown ran a clever, upbeat, and energetic campaign; the retort in the debate to the Gergen question about Ted Kennedy’s seat and the response to President Obama’s derisive comments about his lack of qualifications because he drove a truck showed Brown’s adroitness. Some Democrats, including Obama adviser David Axelrod, complimented him on it. In an otherwise closely-contested jurisdiction, that can make a clear difference. Massachusetts is not such a state. BTW, why would President Obama raise the qualification issue over someone who has had much more political experience than Obama had when he ran for the Senate? More political tone-deafness.

3. Martha Coakley is not an exciting candidate. But she is not repulsive, either. Scott Brown was a more exciting and glamorous candidate. That might make a difference, especially in a race to replace a political legend with a huge personality. However, machine candidates usually win, even against more attractive candidates. Moreover, in one-party jurisdictions, they almost always win. The state legislatures and Congress are filled with people, on both sides of the aisle, who are lackluster candidates, have dull personalities,  and are somewhat less than the sharpest blades in the drawer, but who still won. Indeed, there are plenty of personally or politically corrupt office holders and those with vindictive, narcissistic, and otherwise repellent personalities, who have no problem getting elected over and over, even against more attractive candidates.

4. If it was not the attractiveness deficit or the incompetence that sunk Coakley, one has to look to political factors. Certainly the personal deficiencies hurt Coakley and might have meant in sum that ordinarily she would have won by only 10-15%, instead of the 30% by which she led early in the campaign. Former Massachusetts Congressman and Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill used to say that “all politics are local.” That is a generally good maxim for non-presidential campaigns. But it is less so for U.S. Senate campaigns than for others. Moreover, with the kinds of communication that exist now and with the intrusiveness of the national government on the every-day lives of people, even off-year local elections are more “national” than they used to be.
Scott Brown, as well as the Democrats, nationalized the election, despite the post hoc spinning by some Democrats and some in the media that this had nothing to be with national issues. Brown repeatedly in his campaign ran on the point that he was the 41st vote against health care. At his victory rally, there were several chants of “41.” He campaigned against the deficit, against the soft-on-terrorists national security policy, and in favor of tax cuts and economic growth. He did not campaign on local issues of highways and schools. Nor did he campaign on political divisions within the state.
The Democrats, in turn, repeatedly argued that the election of Brown would derail the Obama “hope and change.” As I posted a few days ago, Coakley herself emphasized that a loss for her would endanger Democrats around the country in 2010 and threaten the Democrats’ national agenda. The Democrats brought in the President (another unfathomable political decision) on an emergency run at the 11th hour, a move widely seen not just as a measure of political desperation but one to remind voters that the election threatened Obama’s program. So it is clearly the substance of the Democrats’ national agenda that hurt Coakley the most, although, again, in as deeply Democratic a state as Massachusetts, that would not have been enough to defeat her.
Finally, there was national interest in this election to a degree I have never seen for a local election. So, like it or not, even if the candidates had not nationalized the themes of the election, the American people nationalized it by their will. No amount of spin by the administration or the Democrats and their media allies can change that.

5. The substance of the issues mattered here to an extent unusual for such a contest. The results were clearly a repudiation of the substance of the administration’s health care fiasco, as well as of the secret process and back-room deals by which it was achieved. Beyond that, it is also a rejection of the rest of the administration’s domestic policy. The “Louisiana Purchase” of Senator Landrieu’s support, the “Cornhusker exemption” to get Senator Nelson’s vote, and the repeated statements by the Democratic leadership that, come hell or high water, they would get something to the President all coincided with the collapse of support for Coakley. The same happened with the decision by the leadership that the “something” would be worked out in back rooms, without the usual conference committee process, to exclude the Republicans and prevent further stalling of the legislation. This was a strategic decision taken last summer when opposition to the program took on national proportions through the town-hall meetings and “tea party” protests, but it became a front-burner issue last month. Third, it shows disdain for the administration’s dealings with terrorists. Janet Napolitano’s and Mr. Obama’s initial “The system worked” reactions also occurred during the accelerating melt-down of the Coakley campaign.
Most Americans are suspicious of radical programs, and there is a clear recognition, pace Democratic Senator Evan Bayh, that the left-wingers are in control of the Democratic Party and setting the agenda. Trying to nationalize a huge chunk of the economy in a matter that involves fundamental personal choices through health care “reform,” producing multi-trillion dollar annual deficits expected to decline under the administration’s rosy projections to only three-quarters of a trillion dollars, choking economic growth through environmental legislation (cap-and-trade) and taxes on capital, and watering down national sovereignty through attempted international “climate change” agreements is quantitatively too much for eight years of an administration, let alone for the first year. Qualitatively, it is simply too radical. The U.S. is a center-right nation, politically. The Democrats misunderstood their 2008 victories as a mandate for radical change, even though their standard-bearer abandoned his pre-campaign and early primary season radicalism and assiduously adopted centrist positions with the occasional carefully-pruned class-warfare sop to his radical base. Obama won on vague feel-good “hopeychangeyness,” combined with W fatigue, general disdain for a tone-deaf Republican Party, Republicans’ coolness towards a nominee they didn’t trust due to his penchant for insulting them, and the national catharsis of voting for someone with the characteristics so accurately described by Senator Reid as related in the book passage for which Reid spent several days apologizing.

6. Reaction against the President, rather than his agenda. There is no rage so profound as a lover spurned. Obama carried Massachusetts by 2-1. True, there was heavier voter turn-out in 2008. But this election had considerably higher turn-out than the usual special election. Indeed, it seems to have had higher turn-out than the usual scheduled mid-term election. Brown carried towns that Obama had carried. Polls show that support for Obama’s Presidency, even as distinct from support for particular policies, has cratered. His performance rating has collapsed more since his inauguration than for any other president; in his defense, part of that is due to the fact that he started with exceptionally high approval ratings and expectations during the “era of good feelings” in the first half of 2009. The Democrats thought that the very appearance of Obama in the state could save Coakley. It may have brought out a few more Democrats. But even among late deciders, Coakley only held a small lead over Brown.
The decision to bring in the President clearly misfired. It is a testament to the self-delusion of the President, his advisers, and the Democratic establishment that they thought the mere appearance by the President could pull this off. Touch his robe, believe, and everything will be healed. His speech was lackluster and elitist. He seemed to be going through the motions.
But this tactic costs him every time he does it. He has gone on four highly-publicized personal interventions. He went to Copenhagen to get the Chicago Olympics for 2016. Result: Chicago loses big in the first round. He goes back to Copenhagen to get a “climate deal.” Result: No deal, but the Chinese rebuke the U.S. and make demands as if they are dictating peace terms. He campaigns hard for New Jersey governor Jon Corzine’s re-election bid in a state only marginally less Democratic than Massachusetts over the last thirty years. Result: Corzine loses by 4%. Now he goes to Massachusetts to help Coakley. Result: Coakley loses a historic election by 5%. Then there were, still within recent memory, the 2009 World Apology Tour, and the repeated unseemly bows to foreign monarchs and dictators. His overexposure on TV does not help him preserve the stature and dignity of the office. Cumulatively, these show a President who is seen as personally and politically weak, not some untouchable and exalted healer. Even a president with the political advantages Obama had cannot spend political capital in the profligate way he has (or how he spends America’s economic capital).

7. Anti-incumbent fever is to blame. There is some evidence for that among the voters. Usually, that means voters don’t like the party in charge, but still profess to like their own representatives whom they see as “different.” Now, there is actually more opposition to their own representatives. But anti-incumbent fever works most effectively in swing states and districts. That is not Massachusetts. Moreover, it requires an incumbent. Here, there was none. And, to the extent Ted Kennedy was perceived as the “incumbent,” there is no way he would have lost this election. If anything, then, this was an election against the Democratic Party as a whole, once again a “national” matter. If that is true, and I think it is for a number of reasons, it should scare the stuffing out of every Democrat. Brown received a quarter of the Democratic vote. Call them the remnant of the Reagan Democrats. I believe it was political analyst Michael Barone who called this type of voter “Jacksonian.” It is the soft populism about which I posted recently. Many other Democrats did not bother to vote. Brown received the votes of three-quarters of “independents” who voted. That is a rejection of the Democrats, lock, stock, and barrel.

The result here was due to a combination of factors, then, strongest among them popular rejection of the Democratic Party, their national agenda, their tactics, and their leadership.

This article at Politico by Jim Vandehei and Mike Allen hits the nail on the head. In a sense, I wish that the Democrats did not get this warning from the electorate. I would have preferred them to continue acting out their political arrogance. The Massachusetts result may give them a shot at political salvation in November. Before the election, the calculus was, “Better to get something enacted and take the hit in November.” Perhaps the potential magnitude of the hit has now sunk in. On the other hand, the liberal leadership and the left wing of the party may not be able to help themselves. They may still prefer to take the stale loaf of Obama/Reid/PelosiCare and hope to avert a complete political collapse by the intervention of political events over the next ten months.

Both Clinton lawyer Lanny Davis and Bush adviser Karl Rove place the cause of the loss primarily on negative reaction against the substance of the Obama administration’s policies.

One piece of American history lore is that a British band played “The World Has Turned Upside Down” as they marched out to lay down their arms after the 1781 battle of Yorktown that effectively ended the Revolutionary War. Whether or not that is historically accurate (something that many historians doubt), the tune certainly would have served the occasion. It was, after all, an originally rag-tag people’s army that, after significant assistance from a professional force, defeated the military “machine” in an upset that a sane wagering man would have bet against.

That must be the atmosphere surrounding the Democratic Party political machine that has controlled Massachusetts with little interruption (three more or less one-term governors) for three decades. The seat that Scott Brown won had been held by a Kennedy (or, briefly, a Kennedy-controlled placeholder) since 1952. More astounding yet is that Brown is unabashedly conservative on most issues (tax cuts and the economy, health care, energy, national security, defense), much more so than the restrained endorsement of moderately conservative positions that one got from the Republican governors in Massachusetts. One of those, William Weld, ran to the left of his Democratic opponent, Boston University President John Silber.

With the Massachusetts Miracle in the bag, it has to dawn on Democrats that none of their seats are safe. Well, except San Francisco seats. The denizens of that city live in their own parallel reality that leaves them untouched by the usual rules of human behavior. It is also fitting that an early version of “The World Has Turned Upside Down” was a political protest against the oppressive Oliver Cromwell and his suffocating political agenda to remake England.

Some Democrats recognize the danger. Even before the votes were counted (and one piece of evidence among several that told me how things would go even before the counting began), Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana declared that the left-wingers have taken over the Democratic Party and warned Democrats that they ignored the result at their political peril. Perhaps the Senator is talking to himself, as he is running for re-election in 2010 in a very red state. However, he is also very popular in that state, so he should be safe. But, then, he voted for the Senate version of Obama/Reid/PelosiCare, something that the polls continuously show is exceedingly unpopular.

Democratic Senator Jim Webb of Virginia reacts against the Democrats’ self-defeating talk of delaying the seating of Scott Brown until after Obama/Reid/PelosiCare has been adopted. Unlike Harry Reid, Webb recognizes that the American people are fed up with the back room deals and the lack of transparency that the Obama administration and their Congressional allies have fostered. He also recognizes the deep unpopularity of the administration’s health care plan’s substance:

“In many ways the campaign in Massachusetts became a referendum not only on health care reform but also on the openness and integrity of our government process. It is vital that we restore the respect of the American people in our system of government and in our leaders. To that end, I believe it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated.”

The GOP should take great encouragement from the result. It bodes extremely well for the November election. The American people should take great encouragement, as well. The Brown victory means not just another vote to sustain filibusters. Even if, as some Democrat never-enders would have it, the Senate were to abolish filibusters, the election has thrown a barricade across the road to socializing health care. Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and others in the leadership have spoken brazenly about pushing ahead and getting anything passed. The usual left-wing ankle-biters, such as MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, have taken from the election the bizarre message that the Democrats need to accelerate their agenda and push it further to the left. Of course, the Democrats’ alternative is to walk back from their program and damage Obama’s signature issue, with the resulting loss of political aura. But the last may be the most palatable of the alternatives.

The saner Democrats and various advisers speak more somberly in private than partisan public posturing would suggest. The dynamic has changed. If the Democrats proceed as if nothing has happened, or adopt the Olbermann strategy, they are guaranteeing electoral disaster. The American public is in a sour mood. With the economy unlikely to improve significantly, if at all, by November, the arrogant “let-them-eat-cake” attitude of shoving the Obama/Reid/PelosiCare interest-group pay-off boondoggle down the public’s throat in open contempt for the voters’ preferences is playing into the image that has developed around the Democrats. Martha Coakley in Massachusetts personified that image of arrogance and elitism.

Republicans are in the enviable position of being able to take advantage of the populist current running through the country. It’s a different populism, embodied in the “tea party” movement, that is non-collectivist. It’s the anti-elitism that underlay Ronald Reagan’s politics and, to a lesser extent, the Gingrich/Armey “Contract With America.” It is the populism that is driving Sarah Palin’s prominence and influence. It’s a populism that is more in tune with values that Americans imagine themselves as having. Hence, it resonates more with them than does the Democrats’ tired anti-Wall Street class warfare rhetoric and policies that they are sure to break off the fence once more after this election. Such rhetoric may gain a short-term advantage, but it falls flat when you are the “in” party, your administration is full of academics and Wall Street/Big Law veterans, you appear weak on national security and you are letting an ideology not shared by the great majority of Americans dictate your policies.

On the other hand, the Republican Party has a habit of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. They seem to have an unlimited capacity for missteps. Witness Chairman Michael Steele every other time he opens his mouth. The Republicans’ job now is to avoid gloating. Quietly and firmly pursue what has worked in the recruitment of good and affable candidates and uplifting and positive messages. But the rhetoric must be backed by the development of a solid series of positions that are founded on the values Americans cherish. As I wrote last year, feel free to embrace frankly conservative positions. Don’t run away from social conservatism, but don’t make that the center of the campaign. Give more focus to national security and to domestic issues. Focus on pro-growth policies, including tax and spending cuts. Champion health care changes that emphasize private choice and insurer competition (break down state protectionism; expanded tax-advantaged health care accounts). Propose health care changes that focus on insuring against catastrophic medical events and, beyond that, limit the interference of third party payers (insurance companies or the government) with the doctor-patient relationship. Some of these already are aspects of Republican proposals. These need to be amplified, so that Republicans are seen as a party of responsible restraint, yet also a party of ideas. Such moderate, yet profound, changes are also much more within the comfort zone of most American voters.

Most of all, know how to play the increasingly strong hand you are being dealt. Don’t save the Democrats from themselves.

I have been posting analysis about the Massachusetts Senate election off and on. In the process, I have been citing to polls and analysis that clearly favors the Republican candidate Scott Brown’s chances. Among those who are concluding, albeit reluctantly, that the Democrats are in danger of losing the seat are various Democratic analysts. In the interest of fair play, let me attach two snippets from pro-Democrat analysts that favor the Democratic candidate.

The first is from left-wing commentator Ed Schultz, who prescribes the tried-and-true remedy of Democrats (New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, the old Mississippi plan, Senator “Pitchfork” Ben Tillman): Steal the election, if necessary.

The second is from left-wing sports score reader-turned-insane-political commentator Keith Olbermann, who describes the Republican candidate as “an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against women.”

What do these two have in common? Why, they are both stalwarts of MSNBC, owned by NBC, owned by General Electric, big supporter of Obama and cap-and-tax due to their investments in government-favored but still uneconomic “green” technology. Also, they both get to utter remarks that, if uttered by Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck would produce massive denunciations by the “mainstream media” and liberal politicians. But, of course, all one hears is crickets chirping. That can be due to two reasons. They are such non-entities that, whatever they say, has all the impact of, well, crickets chirping. Or it might be that the media are biased and that the elites apply double standards that apply differently to their spokesmen than to those of the American people more broadly. Or it might be both.

Some politicians are straddling the issue. President Obama put in a rather strange and disconnected appearance on behalf of the Democratic candidate by repeatedly making fun of the fact that Scott Brown drives a truck, which, according to the former SUV-driving Obama, “anyone” can do. As a campaign tactic, especially to combat the image of Democratic Party elitism, implicitly disparaging truck-driving voters seems a bit of a long-shot. But, according to Scrappleface, President Obama is covering himself in case his campaign appearance does not have the magic effect of rescuing the Democrat’s campaign. If Scott Brown wins with less than 60% of the vote, it will be a massive defeat for the Republicans and a resounding vote in favor of Obama/Reid/PelosiCare. If Brown does win, expect that to be the theme for the New York Times’s post-election analysis.

Despite Martha Coakley’s bragging that her husband is a retired Cambridge, Massachusetts, police officer, the Cambridge police union endorsed Scott Brown. No word from President Obama whether he thinks that the Cambridge Police Department acted stupidly.

UPDATE: While I will believe it when I see it, especially in a Democrat-controlled jurisdiction, the smart money betting is burying the Democrat in the race, Martha Coakley. The Brown contract was at 77 and has surged another 7 points as of the latest. The Coakley numbers are fast approaching the depths of the Byron Dorgan contract, putting her chances of election almost as low as those of Senator Dorgan, who has announced that he will not be running.

Not clear whether this headline is an endorsement or just an expert’s opinion: Barney Frank: Martha Coakley is not Barack Obama in drag. Either way, if I were Barney I’d be less casual about throwing around the phrase “in drag.”

I previously mentioned the desperation that has engulfed Massachusetts Democrats as they now appear to be in real danger of losing the Massachusetts Senate election. Republican Scott Brown has now taken the lead (60-40 at the latest) on the usually very accurate Intrade political handicapping site. The numbers are not vote percentages, but reflect the likelihood of victory or defeat. Evidence for that desperation is concern in the White House that has prompted the last-minute visit of President Obama to Massachusetts. There, Obama attacked Scott Brown, but then admitted he knew nothing about Brown’s policy positions. No longer the careful concern about facts before making charges about the suspects that the President exhibited when responding to the Fort Hood shooting and the attempted airliner attack by the crotchbomber. The President appears to be attacking Brown repeatedly for driving an older truck. That is politically tone-deaf, as it confirms the elitism that Obama, Martha Coakley, and the Democratic Party increasingly represent to many voters.

A further sign of the desperation is this Democratic Party ad accusing Scott Brown of wanting hospitals to turn away all rape victims. The reason? He supports freedom of conscience provisions for health personnel regarding birth control and abortions. That would be the same protections that Ted Kennedy assured the Pope in a letter would be provided for Catholics: “I believe in a conscience protection for Catholics in the health field and I’ll continue to advocate for it as my colleagues in the Senate and I work to develop an overall national health policy that guarantees health care for everyone.” Coakley appears to be more radical than Ted Kennedy, if one can imagine such a thing within a supposedly mainstream political party.

That also would be the same kind of protection that President Obama claims he supports and has guaranteed would be available in any federal support for abortion. That also would be the same kind of protection supporters of same-sex marriage claim would be available for religious institutions that don’t want to perform same-sex marriages. Conservatives have scoffed at those assurances. I have thought that those assurances were in good faith. I seem to have been mistaken in that belief.

Meanwhile, according to the N.Y. Times, former Democratic Senator and presidential candidate Bob Kerrey (no relation to the Massachusetts Senator and 2004 presidential nominee John F. Kerry) has made the bizarre accusation that Brown does not believe in evolution. Brown’s spokesman responded with a classic: “Scott Brown believes in evolution but in the case of Bob Kerrey he’s willing to make an exception.”

Then there is more demonstration of the out-of-touch political ineptness of Martha Coakley. Calling Boston Red Sox All-Star pitching legend Curt Schilling a “[New York] Yankees fan”? That remark came after taking a swipe at ice hockey fans lined up to see a Boston Bruins game. If her other inept comments don’t doom her campaign, rabid Boston sports fans are not going to look past these statements as further evidence of Coakley’s elitism. 

Charlie Cook came out with a special edition of his report that confirms the Intrade movement in Brown’s direction. The report summarizes the dramatic movement in the race as voters began to focus on the candidates and as the health care debate simmered in Washington. As an aside, the L.A. Times today speculated about the Massachusetts voters voicing a referendum on President Obama and his health care (and other domestic) policies. Cook’s report moved the race from solid Democratic in December to leaning Democratic on January 7 to toss-up on January 14. Today, he considers it toss-up in the sense that there are many variables that make state races, especially in special elections, difficult to call. But he says that it is a toss-up with a finger on the scale in favor of Brown that he believes will hold up on election day.

UPDATE: Intrade is now at 65-35 Brown over Coakley.

UPDATE #2: Rothenberg Political Reports (a Democratic polling firm) has moved the race from Toss-up to Leaning Take-over.

UPDATE #3: Pro-Brown trends based on an average of polls, including Democratic polls.

Massachusetts state attorney general Martha Coakley is the Democratic nominee to fill the Senate seat left open when Ted Kennedy died. The governor appointed an interim placeholder, who is not running for the seat. Coakley’s Republican opponent is state senator Scott Brown. Massachusetts has not elected a Republican Senator since Edward Brooke in 1972. Brooke, incidentally, was the first popularly-elected Senator of African ancestry.

Massachusetts, it is safe to say, is an exceedingly Democratic state, where Democrats outnumber Republicans three-to-one, though there also are independents. Coakley, who has the full backing of the Democratic establishment, should be able to win in a cake-walk. That may have been her thinking, as well, so she tried to avoid debating her opponent. Initial polls showed her ahead comfortably, as would be expected in a state where the Democrat typically starts with a 20-30 point advantage.

That has changed, and dramatically so. The polls are very close, with one of the most recent showing a 4-point Brown lead, barely still within the margin of error. The response of the Democrats has been panic. They have launched a series of bizarre attack ads, such as this gem from New York’s ever-classy Senator Chuckie Schumer. They have tried to seize the high ground of bathos by making this a race about keeping “Teddy’s seat” in Democratic hands. This tactic was aided and abetted by a question posed to Scott Brown by David Gergen at a debate. Brown hit the pitch out of the park by reminding viewers that the seat was not the Kennedys’ nor the Democrats’, but the people’s. While it may have been a bit over-dramatic, the retort gained Brown a lot of press and torpedoed the Democrats’ tactic.

Coakley has tried to go on the offensive, but has only succeeded in shooting herself in the foot. She has run an inept campaign and shown herself to be an empty suit to a degree that is impressive even for Massachusetts Democrats. She seems to have learned the art of the gaffe from the genre’s master, Vice-President Biden. Powerlineblog has begun a feature, Quotations from Chairman Martha. One of Coakley’s TV ads misspelled the state’s name. She said that Catholics opposed to birth control can exercise their freedom of religion by not working in emergency rooms. In an answer to a question about her foreign policy experience, she said that she has a sister who lives overseas and even has travelled to the Middle East, and that she (Martha) , too, has travelled abroad. On the last, I seem to recall the press and pundits, not to mention the “comedians,” having a field day with Sarah Palin’s statement that one can see Russia from Alaska (not the Tina Fey version). Though there is considerable interest in the Massachusetts race, there has been no similar coverage of Coakley’s response. Odd thing, that.

Having finally deigned to debate Brown (as her lead began to shrink), she said that she wanted all troops home from Afghanistan because there were no longer any terrorists in that country. That was particularly bizarre, given that ten days earlier eight CIA agents were killed in Afghanistan by a terrorist homicide bomber. And if, by her remark, she was claiming instead that the Taliban were gone from Afghanistan, she obviously hasn’t listened to President Obama or read the newspapers in the last six months. Say, maybe the press could ask her what newspapers she reads, as they did Sarah Palin. No, I’m not holding my breath, either. Now, the Democrats likely will hold the seat, despite Coakley’s incompetence and ignorance. But the mere fact that there is a credible opponent and that the Democrats have to work so hard to retain the seat, speaks volumes.

The over-the-top attacks on Scott Brown have one benefit. They have given rise to good politically conservative satire. Such as this: The next Martha Coakley attack ad. One word that one never utters in polite company around the many college campuses in the state is featured prominently. The very utterance of it causes women to scream, children to huddle fearfully, and dogs that don’t fit in purses to snarl. That word is “Republican.”

And there is the ever dependable Iowahawk who has decided to join the fun and prepare his own anti-Brown ad. He has also succeeded in getting his alcohol-fueled readers to come up with their own creations, a couple or so of which actually are funny. Iowahawk predicts, “If — God forbid — Brown wins, he will be the first Republican elected in the state since Cotton Mather, and America will soon descend into a post-apocalyptic fundamentalist hellscape of witch trials and cross-burnings, interrupted only by the ritual mass bulldozing of corpses killed by lack of access to affordable health care. Not to mention relaxed federal fuel efficiency standards!” He means this reaction among Democrats as a joke. I know better; I work at a (redundancy alert) liberal law school.

The one quote from Martha Coakley that actually has some heft comes from one of her fundraising appeals: “If I don’t win, 2010 is going to be hell for Democrats….Every Democrat will have a competitive race.” From your lips to God’s ear, Martha.

Pollster and analyst Charlie Cook, who is certainly no Republican, issues another ominous report for the Democrats: “The terms ‘gruesome’ and ‘psychologically devastating’ come to mind when thinking about the political developments over the last six weeks for Democrats.” He predicts a more than likely 20-30 seat loss for Democrats in the House, short of the 40 required to tip the chamber. If current conditions and trends hold over the next 10 months, a big but no longer huge “if,” I think he is in the ball park, though I think the likely loss is at the top of that range. Moreover, the 40-seat GOP gain needed to oust Speaker Pelosi and return her to a more relaxed schedule of Botox treatments is no longer as far-fetched as it was even last fall. Still an outside likelihood, but within the front yard.

As to the Senate, there is no chance of a Republican take-over. However, Cook considers seven competitive currently Democratic seats (open or with weak incumbents) in danger, with two more on the cusp of becoming endangered. Four currently Republican seats will be open, but he believes none of those will be lost. He projects a four to six seat loss for the Democrats.

Unlike his House projections, I think his Senate projections may be a bit optimistic for Republicans. While I have become more optimistic than my expectations of a 1-2 seat GOP gain, I think the gain will be 3 or 4. Now, if Republican Scott Brown wins the special election in deeply blue Massachusetts for the seat held by Ted Kennedy, I’ll have to rethink this. But for now, I don’t think that Barbara Boxer is endangered (truly unfortunately and a mark of shame for California voters). I also think that Chris Dodd’s retirement in Connecticut actually removes the seat from endangered for the Democrats. As to Cook’s seven currently endangered Democratic seats, the Republicans will pick up North Dakota. They also have a decent chance of picking up Nevada (by defeating the increasingly embattled Harry Reid), assuming that they can avoid the usual political self-immolation that seems to plague Nevada Republican politicians. They have a similarly decent chance of picking up Pennsylvania (by defeating the once politically smooth, but now rancid party-switcher Arlen Specter, assuming that he survives the Democratic primary). Delaware, too, may go Republican with a good candidate in former governor and current Representative, as the Democrats there seem to think that a Biden dynasty, with Joe’s legally-troubled son at the helm, would be a good thing for the state. Michael Bennet in Colorado is in distinct trouble politically and a likely good Republican nominee in former lieutenant governor Jane Norton is leading him. That assumes that Bennet is not defeated in the Democratic primary. However, Norton also handily defeats the alternative Democratic nominee, the former state house speaker Andrew Romanoff, in current polling. I don’t believe that the Republicans will be able to defeat Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas (they don’t realize that Reconstruction has ended and are still a very Democratic state except in presidential voting) or capture the open seat in Illinois (despite a very attractive and suitably non-rigorously conservative likely nominee in Mark Kirk).

That leaves a gain of 5 for the GOP. But, unlike, Charlie Cook, I am not convinced that the Republicans can hold all four of “their” competitive open seats (Florida is technically open, but the winner of the Republican primary between Governor Crist and former state house speaker Marco Rubio will be Senator). They will very likely retain Kentucky, now that Jim Bunning has left the scene. With 2010 shaping up to be a Republican election, it is certainly possible that they will keep the seats in Missouri, Ohio, and New Hampshire. But those were all close states in the last three presidential elections. All three went rather narrowly for George W. Bush in 2000. Ohio and Missouri did so again in 2004. Only Missouri went for John McCain in 2008. By all measures, then, Missouri should be safe. But local issues and local personalities enter the picture, and the Democrats have recruited yet another politician from the Carnahan family that has held a number of state-wide offices, including governor and Senator. The Republican is a former Congressman and the father of the current governor (whose own political standing is rather mixed). I don’t think that Missouri is safe. Ohio likely is safer and has the best chance of these three of staying Republican. New Hampshire is trending Democratic due to the increasing influx of people from Taxachusetts who then decide they want to make the state more like the place they left, but without the taxes. Still, the GOP remains strong and with the current political winds may well hold the seat. In other words, taking two of the seats is likely. Three is a distinct possibility, but running the table would take some luck. To me, then, the most likely scenario is a gain of 5 current Democratic seats and a loss of 1 or 2 current Republican seats, for a net GOP gain of 3 or 4. The GOP’s more likely year for a takeover of the Senate is 2014.

Cook doesn’t list the governors, but the Democrats are in trouble there, as well, as the fall 2009 elections already showed. Colorado is a definite opportunity for a Republican pick-up, though the embattled Democratic incumbent Ritter’s decision not to run for re-election improves the Democrats’ chances in a closely-contested but trending slightly Democratic state. On the other hand, California may well switch from (nominally) Republican to Democratic. What is interesting is that Democratic incumbents in New York and Massachusetts are in deep trouble. The New York governor will probably be defeated in the primary by a stronger candidate, Andrew Cuomo, the state’s attorney general and son of a former governor. That will save the seat for the Democrats in the fall. In Massachusetts, Deval Patrick will continue to slide. He is vulnerable. But will Massachusetts voters elect Republican Scott Brown to the Senate next Tuesday? And if they do, will they elect a Republican governor and do so by ousting a Democratic incumbent? Unlikely, even in a Republican election year.

I have posted several times over the past month or so about the political omens for the 2010 Congressional elections. Two strong measures of the political winds are switches in party affiliation by politicians and decisions of incumbents not to run for re-election. In 2006 and, to a lesser extent, in 2008, these measures fell heavily on Republicans, which foretold the electoral difficulties for the GOP. In 2009 and 2010, the winds have shifted and are threatening to swamp the Democrats. Following the Democratic losses in the 2009 off-year state and local elections (which, looked at broadly rather than at an individual race, also are a barometer of approaching political storms), there have been one Democrat who has switched to the GOP and several Democratic Representatives who have declined to run for re-election.

Now comes further such news. North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan has said that he will not seek re-election. Dorgan once was a left-leaning “prairie populist” in the tradition of many state politicians from the politically-schizophrenic Upper Midwest farm states that usually lean Republican, especially in national elections. He has tacked more to the political center and been consistently hailed in the press as a “moderate.” It is unclear, however, to what extent that shift is real and to what extent Dorgan has not changed but the ground has shifted under him through the Pelosi-Reid-Boxer-Obama lurch into leftist la-la-land.

Dorgan is 67 years old, which is not retirement age for Senators who are playing leading roles in the Senate as chairmen of committees involved in crafting major legislation. But he was facing a tough re-election fight, with polls showing him trailing in a contest against the popular governor of North Dakota, John Hoeven, who has won his last two elections with more than 70% of the vote. Moreover, Dorgan’s prominent role in crafting the Senate version of Obama/Reid/PelosiCare will make him an even more inviting target for Republican campaign ad barrages.

It is also likely, in that connection, that Dorgan has looked at the poll numbers of Nebraska’s Senator Ben Nelson, whom the media held up as a conservative, blue-dog Democrat. But, while the media and some conservative wishful thinkers emphasize the “blue-dog,” I prefer to emphasize the “Democrat,” especially when it comes to signature campaign promises by the Democratic standard bearer, President Obama, and the Democratic Congressional leadership. ”Blue dogs” will still vote as Democrats in sufficient numbers not to embarrass their leaders, especially this early in the President’s term. Nelson, predictably, caved after trying to cover himself with Nebraska voters by pulling a [Louisiana Senator] Mary Landrieu and getting a provision that taxpayers in other states will be subsidizing the increased Medicare costs for Nebraskans under the Senate health plan.

Still, Nelson’s poll numbers took a dive. They took such a dive, in fact, that Nelson bought airtime during the Holiday Bowl football game, in which the University of Nebraska was playing, to defend his vote on the bill. Polls showed him losing badly in a hypothetical match-up with the state’s Republican governor. The good news for Nelson is that he does not have to run until 2012, which is a long time in political terms, and will bring out more pro-Obama voters likely to vote for him than would the mid-terms. That said, it is difficult for a politician to recover from the low standing in which Nelson finds himself in a deeply Republican state. Moreover, the message here could not have been lost on Dorgan, who does have to run in 2010 in an only slightly less deep Republican state.

Then came the announcement by Connecticut’s Senator Christopher Dodd that he would not seek re-election. Dodd has been plagued by allegations of financial irregularities and suffers from a public perception of lack of honesty and trustworthiness. He was trailing his most likely Republican opponent, a former Congressman.

Having Dodd retire is a very smart move by the Democrats. Connecticut is a Democratic state. Not at the level of Massachusetts, California, or Maryland, but still solidly so. The Democrats have recruited the popular state attorney general to run, which, despite brave Republican talk to the contrary, likely means the Democrats will hold the seat. The Republicans made a similarly smart move by persuading Kentucky’s Republican Senator Jim Bunning not to run for re-election. Bunning, a strong conservative but not one of the sharpest blades in the drawer, was in serious danger of losing in a normally Republican-trending state even in a Republican year. With Bunning’s departure, the Republicans can fall back on the dynamics of recruiting an acceptable candidate (probably 37-year-old Secretary of State Trey Grayson, not Ron Paul’s son Rand) and the natural political leanings of the Kentucky voters combined with the anti-Democratic tides of the mid-term election to retain the seat even against relatively strong potential Democratic candidates such as a the lieutenant governor or the attorney general.

Then came news that Colorado’s Governor Bill Ritter will not seek re-election after just one term in office. Colorado is a swing state that had been trending more Democrat over the last several election cycles. Ritter is a telegenic politician and was considered a rising star in the Democratic Party. But he, too, was done in by low poll numbers and public antipathy to the Democrats. I see this, too, as a smart—and coordinated—political move by the Democrats. The Democrats also have a Senate seat to defend, with a weak incumbent, Michael Bennet, who was just appointed (by Ritter) to serve out the term of Ken Salazar, who, in turn, was appointed Interior Secretary by President Obama. By removing Ritter and replacing him with a better candidate, the Democrats remove the mutually reinforcing political drag of a governor with low poll numbers and a Senator with equally low numbers. Perhaps, from the Democrats’ perspective, the governorship can be saved. With some luck, this will energize enough Democrats to save the Senate seat, as well, although that is unlikely. Polls have consistently shown the likely Republican candidate, former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton, beating the Democrat.

But in this election, the governors’ races are probably more important that Senate races. The reason is the re-drawing of legislative district lines after the 2010 census. In most states, this is a political process, so the party in control of the state legislatures and governorships can use their political advantage to help entrench themselves over the next decade. With the success of the Republicans in state legislative and gubernatorial races in the 2009 off-year election, the warning flags are flying for the Democrats.

There are at least a couple of successful Democratic politicians who might be recruited to run for the Colorado governorship, the politically ambitious Denver mayor John Hickenlooper, and Ken Salazar. I would bet on the former, who is more likely to scheme to get the nomination, rather than the latter, who gave up a Senate seat for an executive position he’d have to surrender early in the President’s term. Hickenlooper’s main advantage is his position as mayor of the biggest city, with the media exposure and name recognition that brings. His main disadvantage is that he is the mayor of Denver, a place about which many Coloradans feel the same way as many Californians feel about San Francisco and Los Angeles. Combined. The Democrats are in serious trouble with the Senate seat in Colorado, but the Ritter announcement increases their chance of holding the governorship from likely loss to toss-up.

I think there will be more such announcements, either due to personal decisions by the Democratic incumbents or because of a concerted culling of the herd by Democratic Party operatives. The Obama administration can certainly do its part by promising to reward decisions by weak Democratic incumbents to step aside. A cushy executive branch appointment or diplomatic assignment can do wonders to salve the wounds suffered by political egos when they are pushed aside for the greater good of the party.

Last week, I posted about the drip-drip-drip of retirements of Democrats in vulnerable House districts in advance of the 2010 elections. Such retirements of members of the majority party from competitive districts, when otherwise unprompted by a decision to run for another office or advanced age, are usually a sign of political danger for that party and portray electoral vulnerability. I noted that the only clearer sign of electoral danger is when members of the majority party switch sides. That had not happened when I wrote those remarks.

Now it has. A vulnerable Democrat from an Alabama district has switched to the GOP. John McCain carried that district in 2008, and the Congressman won by a small percentage. It is highly likely that the district will go Republican next year. Freshman Congessmen typically are the most vulnerable of incumbents, for several reasons, such as electoral tides, fluke candidate pairings, and temporary local issues. Congressman Griffith has read the political tea leaves and decided, in inverse of an old advertising slogan, he’d rather switch than fight.

One sign of trouble for a party in Congress is when its members switch to the other side. It often bespeaks of a sense that your old party is going to be in the political wilderness for a while, though at times it can also be true ideological conviction or mere political survival. The case of Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter, who switched from Republican to Democrat is an example of the latter. Specter is up for re-election in 2010, and he saw his numbers among Republicans drop precipitously, so much so that his likely opponent, Pat Toomey was beating Specter handily in the Republican primary. Specter switched to try to survive in what is an increasingly Democrat-leaning state, though in the recent off-year elections, Republicans had a field day in the Keystone State.

Almost as dire a warning as party switching is a stampede of retirements (which does not include leaving a position to take another political job, e.g., as President), especially if they come from politicians in the majority party who occupy marginal seats. The majority party usually needs marginal seats that it may have gained during a lucky election cycle or as a result of the local peculiarities of a contest. In the House, it needs those seats to maintain its majority of at least 218 seats, as the solid districts typically account for only a minority of 160 to 190 seats. There is a certain benefit to incumbency that allows a politically skilled Congressman to hold a district in which his party may be a nominal minority compared to the opposing party, allowing for the votes of independents and even some nominal opposition party voters to carry the politician to victory.

Most politicians these days prefer to die in office and stay on until well in their 70s. They don’t want to retire. Hence, it was a bad omen for Republicans when a number of them announced their retirements in 2006 and, less so, in 2008. This established districts without a candidate having the benefit of incumbency during what were expected to be Democratic years in the election cycle. The press and the punditry at the time made much of those retirements.

Although it is still early, and overconfidence is to be avoided, many expect 2010 to be a Republican year. It is a mid-term election, during which the party that controls the White House typically loses seats. That goes double if that party also controls Congress (those marginal seats, again). Moreover, the Obama administration is seen as too hard-nosed and radical in domestic matters and too soft in foreign relations and national security. The Democrats in Congress are seen as even worse on those counts. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are public relations disasters for the Democrats.

On issue after issue, polls show the Republicans favored over the Democrats, the breadth of which may say more about voters’ dismay with the Democrats than fervor for the Republicans. The health care issue is turning into such a political fiasco that the Democrats are trying to get something, anything, done just to get the matter off the front page. There were a number of conservative pundits who predicted just that result six months ago, as the Obama administration’s health care offensive began to stutter and stumble. The public option in its various forms is being abandoned by the Senate, though I still think that the eventual House-Senate conference bill will try to sneak some version or seed of it back into the law. Now, the Medicare expansion appears to be going down, as are the public plan “fallback” and the Office of Personnel Management oversight of a privately-run collection of competing national plans.

On the generic Congressional ballot, Republicans have been consistently ahead of Democrats for several months now, in some polls by very significant margins. Apparently, those polls are better for the Republicans than the polling in 1993-94, before the Republican capture of the House. But generic polls do not necessarily translate into victories in particular districts, as one may loathe a political party but favor one’s own incumbent politician of that party as “different from the others.” Again, that is how incumbents in marginal districts survive.

That’s where resignations become significant. In the last few weeks, four Democratic incumbents in marginal districts have announced their retirements. In at least three of them, and perhaps all, the Republicans are likely to win. The latest is a committee chairman from Tennessee. Based on his incumbency, he survived in a district that John McCain carried 62% to 37% in an abysmal Republican year. With an energized Republican base and independents who increasingly reject the Democrats (or who hanker for divided government), it may not be worth for him to try to defend a seat that is likely to attract significant GOP attention in 2010. Voters’ willingness to look beyond party labels will only go so far when the party in power insists on governing on a radically ideological basis.

It will be interesting to see when the major media begin to pick up on these trends if they extend into 2010.

When Nancy Pelosi called the election on November 3 a great victory for Democrats to the amusement even of the assembled media employees, she obviously could not have been talking about the lopsided losses of the governorships of Virginia and New Jersey. She must have been talking about that great Democratic victory in the Congressional district in California. Oh wait, that District is a solidly Democratic gerrymandered jurisdiction. As Ed Morrissey explains, “In California, the state’s lieutenant governor only got a 10-point win in a district that had elected Democrats with at least 63% of the vote in four straight elections, against a Republican so unknown that the Democrats actually quoted a different David Harmer by mistake in one of their ads.”

So Madame Speaker must have been talking about that great Democratic victory in the 23rd District of New York, where Democrat Bill Owens edged out the Conservative Party and Republican Party candidates in a district that President Obama carried by 5% and which has only a nominal GOP edge of 1%.

Or did he? Election snafus in the two counties that were Owens’s opponent Doug Hoffman’s stronghold meant that his vote was undercounted. It now appears that the 10,000 absentee ballots will decide the race. Owens is still ahead by 3,000 votes, and Hoffman is unlikely to win, but the race is now in play.

While much can happen in a year, Madame Pelosi’s Democrats may have more of her kind of victory come the next election. Veteran political pollster and analyst Charlie Cook’s Political Report as dissected by Moe Lane at Red State has some ominous numbers for the Democrats. What is even more ominous is that Cook is an old Democratic pollsters and his numbers tend to shade Democratic. As Lane explains, the Democrats are looking at a loss between 31 and 48 seats. Before the election, I pegged Democratic House losses in 2010 at 20-30, but the continuing self-immolation of Democrats on domestic and foreign policy and the surprising scope of the Democrats’ losses in the election a week ago (which extended to many, many local offices, as well), leads me to believe that a 30-40 seat loss is not out of the question.

There are a couple of variables here. The administration could get lucky over the next year with the economy and with agreements abroad. They could get smart and have Obama act like a President instead of, alternately, a perpetual campaigner and a small-time Chicago pol. They could be successful in passing their domestic programs and getting that rancor off the front pages. More likely, however, is that the bad news will outweigh the good. Unemployment is not likely to decrease significantly. The issue of what to do about the Bush tax cuts, expected to expire after 2010, will come up as a campaign issue, and even a temporary stay until 2011 will not remove it completely from the political arena. With Obama/PelosiCare, cap-and-tax, the continuing huge deficit and debt projections, and tax hikes on the agenda, the President’s promised strategy of “nationalizing” the 2010 election is more likely to backfire than to be successful. Indeed, the very concept of “nationalizing” yet one more facet of American life may be just the wrong descriptive theme.

Another variable is the unfortunate, yet impressive, capacity of the Republican Party’s leadership, from RNC chairman Michael Steele to the various Congressional, Senatorial, and other campaign leaders, to snatch political defeat from the jaws of victory. Watching the Republican leadership organize campaigns and recruit candidates too often partakes of the morbid fascination of observing a car wreck.

Leaving those variables and the lengthy lead time to the side, I am still skeptical about a 48-seat swing, but, if exceptional candidates are recruited and the Democrats continue on their current path of political insanity, it is not out of the question. After all, Democrats represent 80 districts that were carried either by John McCain in 2008 or by George W. Bush in 2004. The Republicans only need a net gain of 41, I believe. Their best allies in that quest are the Democrats, led by Nancy Pelosi (“It’s fair to send people to jail who won’t buy health insurance under the new plan.”) The GOP campaign ads just write themselves.

Not to pile on—oh, why not?—here are some recent poll results. Obama and the Democrats are hemorrhaging support in Ohio, a state they had turned from the Republicans in 2006 and 2008. In particular, as has been shown in many other polls and happened in the recent elections, independents are turning away from the Democrats in droves. Andrew Malcolm of the L.A. Times blog analyzes the dismal figures for Obama and the Democrats coming from the Gallup poll. For the first time in a long while, the generic preference poll finds that more registered voters want a Republican than a Democrat in Congress. Among independents there is a 52-30 preference for Republicans. Meanwhile, Obama’s general job approval rating heads south. His approval on specific policies such as health care is even worse. Overall, his strong approval rating is eclipsed by 10% in his strong disapproval rating.

Karl at HotAir provides further analysis of that Gallup poll and a similar Pew poll. He notes from the details of the Gallup poll that the superficial preference difference of 4% actually understates the Republican lead. For one thing, Republicans tend to do better among likely and actual voters than among merely those that are registered, especially in midterm elections. Moreover, at least for now, Republicans are more enthusiastic than are Democrats, which can further affect voter turnout. And the unemployment figures may go considerably higher and peak close to the election.

In other polls, Senator Harry Reid is in deep political trouble in Nevada, despite (or because of) Obama’s help, and is losing in polls against either of two potential GOP challengers. Veteran Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd is trailing his likely Republican challenger by 11%. His approval rating is actually getting worse, and his disapproval rating is reaching towards 60%. In Delaware, where Joe Biden got the governor to appoint a seat warmer so that the seat could be turned over to Biden’s son in 2010, the very popular Republican House member and former governor Mike Castle will be the nominee and is ahead of Biden fils.

Nor is the Gallup poll an aberration. Other polls have shown voters, especially independents, trending towards the GOP and away from the Democrats since spring. There have been various polls showing Republicans ahead of Democrats in generic preference polls among likely voters at several other times over the past six months. So, the trend is solid and continuing.

I have previously said that I thought the Democrats would lose 20-25 seats in 2010, perhaps as many as 30 if they were unlucky in the closer races. At first I did not change my estimate after Tuesday’s election. But, based on further information, I would not be shocked if the Democrats lost the 40 or so seats needed for the Republicans to take control. The Democratic defeats in local elections in New York, New Jersey, and Virginia, and in the state-wide contests in New Jersey, Virginia, Maine, and Pennsylvania, were so profound and cumulative that such a result is no longer out of reach in 2010. Then I read about a successful non-partisan professional political pollster and analyst who concluded that the Democrats had at best a 50-50 chance of retaining the House in 2010. And that opinion was based on the polls before the magnitude of Tuesday’s Democratic debacle became clear.

Here are some additional articles about Tuesday’s election results that provide good insight into the political fall-out from the drubbing the Democrats took in New Jersey, Virginia, and other places.

The first, by Kimberly Strassel of The Wall Street Journal, explains the massive shift in voter sentiment in three Virginia congressional districts that were captured from the GOP by Democratic candidates in 2008’s Democratic tide led by the candidate of hope ‘n change and in one district that has been held by a Democratic incumbent. The Republican candidate for governor beat the Democrat by margins from 10% to 32% in those districts, with an average of about 22%. In elections for the Virginia legislature in those congrssional districts, the Republicans knocked off 5 Democratic incumbents in races that were not close, while beating back (by more than 30%) two Democratic challengers to their own incumbents.

As Strassel points out, there are 49 Congressional Democrats in seats carried by John McCain in 2008. That does not even cover the Democratic Congressmen in districts won by George W. Bush in 2004 but taken By President Obama, however narrowly, in 2008. “The mass defection in the independent vote, the uptick in the angry-senior vote, the swing in suburban voters, the drop-off in Democratic turnout—the figures have even hot incumbent blood running cold. The White House can shout that this is not a referendum on the president’s policies. What vulnerable Democrat wants to take that chance?”

That explains the House leadership’s rush to get a health care bill put to a vote. It also promises that in 2010 the White House and the left-wing Democratic House leadership will make a concerted push to enact other aspects of the Obama agenda. They figure that 2011 will see a different, and much less favorable, partisan alignement in Washington. But it remains to be seen how willing these endangered Democratic representatives are to join Nancy Pelosi’s mad march into the progressive paradise and off the political cliff.

Karl Rove provides additional statistical evidence and explains how the provisions of PelosiCare, from stunning expense to reduced quality of care, present a political minefield for Democrats. Rove points out that, in addition to Virginia and New Jersey, Republicans did well in Pennsylvania, winning six of seven state-wide contests. He attributes the Republican victories to a massive shift in independents to the Republican candidates.

Michael Barone points to the unions as the big losers and considers “card check” legislation dead. Barone notes that the Democrats have been winning the votes of the wealthier and poorer segments of the population, while the Republicans have become the party of the middle of the middle class. That is not a novel insight, but it reflects a political trend not uncommon for class warfare-oriented political organizations opposed by those who have to pay the big portion of the price for that warfare. The wealthier segments, often also more educated, have trended to the Democrats for reasons of social agendas. But economics trumps political correctness, and these more affluent voters do not want to pay for the “progressive” economic programs that promise significant tax increases and other higher costs.

Now that the votes are in, some thoughts about the election. On balance, the election is a resounding Republican win. It is difficult to overstate the impressive scope of the Republican victories in the races for governor of Virginia and New Jersey. This is the first time in more than a decade that the Republicans have captures the three top spots in Virginia (governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general). The margin of victory was nearly twenty percent, and represents a twenty-five point party shift from the 2008 presidential election. The scope of the victory has also strengthened the GOP’s control over the Virginia state legislature.

In New Jersey, the race was closer, with the Republican governor/lieutenant governor ticket winning by four percent. But this is a state that is among the most Democratic in the country, and the vote represents a nearly twenty percent party shift from 2008. Of the previous four times that a Republican won the governorship there, three times the margin of victory was less than 1 percent. The vote totals were affected by the presence of a third party candidate who is generally thought to have taken votes from the Republican nominee. Based on his soft-liberal positions, I am not convinced that his votes would have translated entirely, or even predominantly, into votes for the Republican, Chris Christie. So it is probably justified to discount any effect on the final margin of Republican victory.

The one Republican setback was in the contested New York congressional district, where the Democrats defeated the Conservative Party candidate. This was a strategic error by the local Republican bosses. They selected a big-government, socially left Republican politician to run in this special election. The Democrats selected a “blue dog” who has come out against a public health care option. With the Republican candidate to the left of the Democrat, conservative grass roots activists turned to an unsuccessful contender for the Republican nomination and ran him on the Conservative Party ballot. This individual, an accountant named Doug Hoffman, was opposed by the Republican Party establishment, which spent $900,000 on ads attacking him and the Democrat.

Eventually the official Republican nominee’s political support collapsed. She withdrew—and endorsed the Democrat, even making campaign calls for him. That was not unexpected, as her husband is a left-wing labor union lawyer associated with an ACORN political affiliate. There were many rumors that she planned to switch political parties after the election. The only national Republicans who supported Hoffman were Sarah Palin, Fred Thompson, and Tim Pawlenty. Only at the end did Speaker John Boehner chide the local Republican Party leaders and support Hoffman. Newt Gingrich was even later to the event, after having initially supported the left-leaning Republican nominee.

Despite all the campaign disadvantages, Hoffman still came within a few thousand votes of winning. I saw him on a TV appearance and found him to be a singularly ineffective speaker. Seated between Jeri and Fred Thompson, he came across as every stereotype of the nerdy accountant. I have read similar comments about him before and after the election. Nice guy, sincere and earnest, but uncharismatic, of middling intellect at best, and not well-versed in the issues.

What does this mean? Despite White House spin that this is not a referendum on the President, it is. Up to a point. These off-year elections are primarily driven by local personalities and local issues. In New Jersey, for example, there was a lot of reaction against the corruption that permeates the Democratic Party even beyond the rather lax standards of New Jersey politics, and against the incompetence of the incumbent Jon Corzine in governing the state and avoiding contamination from corrupt associates. Still, there are definite national connections, especially as the President campaigned for both gubernatorial candidates and did so extensively for Corzine.

The election is not a referendum on Obama as a person. He remains well-liked. It is, to some extent, a referendum on Obama’s performance and competence as President, but not the profound indictment that some Republican talking heads have tried to make it. What remains, though, is that there is a strong rebuke to the domestic policies that the administration has pursued. The reaction to these policies brought out the Republicans in stronger numbers than usual for such an election and gave the Republican candidates such strong support from independents. The Democrats lost big in two states that are quite different economically, socially, and politically. And they appear to have lost big in similar manner, which would show more than just local factors at work.

While the Republicans have reason for elation, they need to temper that with a dose of reality. The 2010 election is a year away. That is a long time in politics. Much can happen. Moreover, the Republican leadership still suffers from a certain cluelessness, as the New York race showed. In their defense, New York has an odd system for selecting nominees in special elections, and also has multiple parties on the ballot. It is to be hoped that in 2010, these ideological struggles will be resolved in the primary.

That said, I am not as sure as some conservatives seem to be that the Democratic victor in the New York election will be tossed out in 2010 by a full-blown Republican candidate. He will have the advantage of incumbency. He will vote moderately and buck his party’s leadership in a way that still satisfies them on crucial votes, but that he can use on less important votes to present a moderate image back home. Moreover, there is no guarantee that the Republican organization will conduct the recruitment of a candidate in 2010 in any less imbecilic manner. And I hope that the nice-but-in-over-his-head Doug Hoffman is not that candidate.

On a related point, the Democrats and their media allies are whistling past the graveyard if they think that third party challenges to regular Republican nominees will be widespread. The Hoffman race in New York was exceptional, due to a combination of odd election rules in New York, the unusual selection process for the special election, and the official GOP nominee’s status as an ideological outlier. Most conservatives in marginal districts know that they are better off supporting a Republican who is a bit wobbly but who agrees with them 60% of the time than a Democrat who agrees with them 20% of the time. But all bets are off when the Republican nominee agrees with them 20% of the time and the Democrat 40%. A good rule of thumb is for the party to select the most conservative nominee who can get elected in that district, a lesson that, one hopes, the leadership remembers in 2010 in its candidate recruitment efforts.

Another point for Republican candidates to remember is to soften social messages. Do not run away from them. Be forthright and defend them when they come up. Stand for principles. But emphasize economic and national security issues. With the exception of the last (which does not play a significant role in a state race), that’s what the successful Virginia gubernatorial candidate did.

As for the Democrats, they will likely puch their domestic agenda twice as vigorously. Look for the Left in the Congressional leadership to get as much and as radical of their program enacted before 2011 as they can. But also look to see some more compromise, as they cannot contemplate failure, despite the fury such compromise will produce among the more ideologically militant of their base. The Democratic Party leaders know they are likely to lose seats in the House. Just by historical patterns, and by virtue of the fact that the Republicans are within a dozen or so two seats of the absolute they can go in this country without an utter collapse, the Democrats could expect to lose at least 10-20 seats. Before this election, I would have thought about 20-25. Considering Tuesday’s results, that number for now looks closer to 30. In the Senate, the Democrats are all but assured of losing the filibuster-proof advantage. Because Republicans are defending more seats than are Democrats in 2010, I previously thought that the Republicans could hope to pick up at most a couple, maybe even three seats. While I still think that, by Tuesday’s reckoning, another one or two seats even sound plausible.

The Republicans still have a lot of work to do to translate the public’s distrust and fear of the Democratic Party’s dangerous left-wing domestic policies into durable support for the Republican brand. But one thing is certain. The Democratic Party theme about the demise of the Republicans and of conservative policies that was so widely accepted among the media after the 2008 election now sounds very much premature. Little works as well as the inevitable incompetence, overreaching, and arrogance of their opponents to allow a defeated political group to re-enter the contest.

Senator Arlen Specter and I share something. We are both believers. He believes that his switch return to the Democrats (he became a Republican when he was in his mid-thirties and beginning his political career) should be a wake-up call to the Republican Party. I believe that he is delusional, which should be a wake-up call to Senator Specter. It is beyond doubt at this point that Specter switched because of his imminent defeat at the hands of Republican voters. The party hasn’t moved beyond the voters. Specter has simply run out of political maneuvering room. I am not opposed to having squishes like Senator Specter in the party. The Republicans need some of them to achieve a governing majority. And Specter was not off the wagon enough to cause more than moderate chagrin, such as former Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee was. The latter didn;t even vote for “compassionate conservative” George W. Bush.

But the notion that the party has moved to the right compared to the Reagan years? The Republicans today generally oppose same-sex marriage. Did the Republicans in 1980 support same-sex marriage? The Republicans today generally oppose abortion on demand within a Roe-like framework. Did the Republicans in 1980 support abortion on demand? The Republicans today generally favor lower taxes and, with certain exceptions (W’s “compassionate conservatism”), lower government social expenditures. Did the Republicans in 1980 support higher taxes and more government social spending? The Republicans today generally support a strong defense and a missile defense shield. Did the Republicans in 1980 oppose a strong defense and the missile shield (Reagan’s “star wars”)? The Republicans today generally support judges who, unless the Constitution expressly demands it, defer to the political process to resolve social issues. Did the Republicans in 1980 support robust “judicial activism”? The Republicans today generally oppose a foreign policy that appeases left wing thugs and the Iranian mullahocracy. Did the Republicans in 1980 support such a foreign policy. The Republicans today strongly favor an alliance with Israel. Did the Republicans in 1980 oppose such an alliance? I could go on and on regarding affirmative action, decentralized government, social security, European alliances, etc.

One can only ask, “What is Specter talking about?” Since Specter is a very intelligent man, he cannot actually believe what he is saying.

UPDATE: It gets more bizarre. Now Specter is claiming that one of the reasons he left the Republicans is that Congress didn’t fund medical care as much as he wanted. He went so far as too make the despicable argument that Jack Kemp would be alive had the Congress done so. He claims that President Nixon’s 1970 statement about a “war on cancer” should have led to more funding, but didn’t. Aside from the revolting tactic of using the deceased Jack Kemp as a prop for his political opportunism, Mr. Specter should consider that his now-beloved Democrats controlled the Senate half the time since Nixon’s statement, and they controlled the House of Representatives 27 out of the 39 years. What a fool.

The comeback continues. Not a victory, not even a decisive blow. But the Republicans are off the mat, and have brushed off the knockdown count. While last summer and fall Republicans trailed Democrats in a generic Congressional preference poll by as much as 14%, they have taken a 3% lead. Such polls are volatile (telephone polls), and it is only one pollster, though an extremely respected one. And the election is 18 months away, with the powers of incumbency and the effects of gerrymandering of districts favoring the Democrats. Likely, these polls will continue to change.

Still, polls since February, when the Obama policies began to take shape in the minds of many voters, have consistently shown narrow spreads. In April, the polls have essentially been tied. The Republican lead in this poll is only the second one in over five years of such tracking by Rasmussen; the first occurred in mid-March. So, amid the scorched landscape, definite signs of life.

With the year coming to a close, every television and radio program seems to have its retrospective about 2008. I will not fall into that rut. To me, the obvious significance of 2008 is the election of the least qualified and potentially most leftist major party candidate to be President. The momentousness of that political folly dwarfs even the overall impact of the economic slowdown. Unless, of course, the least qualified and potentially most leftist major party candidate to be President manages to get those campaign promises that showed alarming ignorance about economics enacted into law.

The campaign provided lots of mirth, and I look forward to years of entertainment to come. The laughs during the election campaign came at a low price. Unfortunately, the cost of having fun at the expense of The One and his minions in the next few years will be considerably higher. Here is a look back at three clips from the campaign that are entertaining in different ways.

From Jib Jab, it’s Time for Some Campainin’:

From the Obama Youth Movement, a hymn of adoration for The One:

 Finally, from the Swamp Crows, some more salt-of-the-earth types singularly unimpressed by The Secular Messiah’s arrival, a defiant NObama declaration: