I have a theory about what will happen in the 2010 House elections. The Democrats will lose seats — they have to, given that the economy is in the crapper and that they gained 50+ seats the last two cycles — but not as many as they should, for the simple reason that so many Republican challengers will be terrible. My district, NY-29, is shaping up as a classic example. It’s a brutal district for Democrats with around a +5 Republican Cook PVI and an even larger Republican registration advantage. It’s lily-white, largely rural, and pretty old — fertile soil for the tea bag tree. There aren’t that many birther types, because this *is* the north, but some of the counties in the district are technically part of Appalachia. In short, it should be tough sledding for the freshman Democratic incumbent, Eric Massa.
But it may not be, because the Republican challenger, Tom Reed, is a complete idiot. I almost can’t believe he did this:
The Steuben Courier reports that Tom Reed was the recent recipient of a “Restore New York” grant facilitated by State Senator George Winner. Reed, who owns the Masonic Temple in Bath, will match that grant with $820,000 of private funding.
The obvious question is how long Reed has owned the building, and how much he paid for it. If the answers are “not long” and “not much”, then he has a huge problem.
Never mind that Reed opposes stimulus spending, the real issue here is that this might possibly be illegal. Certain ethics rules apply once you’ve announced your candidacy and these may be in violation of them. At the very least, it looks very bad.
It would be one thing if Reed tried to do this on down low, but in fact the whole thing was trumpeted in a press release by the Republican State Senator who brought in the grant.
I’ve been watching a lot of tennis this week, so I don’t want to use the term “unforced error”. Maybe “code violation” would be more apt.
Update. Just to spell what’s so wrong with this (from Fighting29th):
It’s not too tough to put together a group of investors to “risk” $820K to get $1.18 million in free money. Those investors know full well that there’s an excellent chance that they’ll make a profit when the newly renovated Bath Masonic Temple is sold, since your money and mine is serving as a $1.18 million cushion to protect their investment.
ellaesther
Quite honestly, as a die-hard, life-long Democrat with a powerful progressive bent, this is exactly what worries me about the implosion of the GOP.
In any two-party system, the party in power needs a functioning opposition in order to bring its A game. I want the GOP to shape up, because I think this two-party democracy needs two functioning parties. Call me crazy.
zoe kentucky
He owns a masonic temple??!??
That’s just a pretty bizarre personal fact all by itself. Why would that deserve any stimulus spending? It’s a private club, right? With membership restricted to (white, priviledged) men only?
The Grand Panjandrum
Tax Cuts! Deregulation! Freedom!
I think you’re right about some of the very bad candidates being run by the GOP. I’m watching it unfold here in NH and its quite fascinating. This will be my first full cycle here. (We got here last year at this time so I didn’t really know the locals very well.) The one thing all of them have in common is that they have to pass with the base and even that is almost purest hardcore conservative. That ain’t gonna pass muster in a general these days. They had twelve years, and once they got a President it went down hill so fast a good portion of the working population won’t recover for years.
zoe kentucky in pittsburgh
In any two-party system, the party in power needs a functioning opposition in order to bring its A game. I want the GOP to shape up, because I think this two-party democracy needs two functioning parties. Call me crazy.
I actually couldn’t agree more– although I think we need more than a two-party system. I live in a city that has been dominated by dems for a very long time. It shows in our government, it’s more or less an old white boys club that lets women and minorities in who are willing to play by their old rules.
ellaesther
@zoe kentucky: Also, this, too. BTW.
WTF? Who owns a Masonic Temple?
DougJ
The one thing all of them have in common is that they have to pass with the base and even that is almost purest hardcore conservative.
What’s weird is that the Republican base isn’t that hardcore conservative around here. If it came down to a primary, the more moderate candidate would probably win. But there are almost no primaries in NYS.
JK
@ellaesther:
and Doug,
My greatest fear about the midterm elections is the over-the-top, off the wall, inaccurrate interpretation the MSM will provide concerning the results.
Even if the Republicans make only marginal gains in the House and Senate, I guarantee most pundits will be proclaiming that Obama has been mortally wounded.
I can already see Charlie Rose moderating a roundtable of wankers proclaiming that Obama has sustained major body blows and that his re-election prospects are very dim.
ellaesther
(Wait, hold on. There’s a zoe kentucky AND a zoe kentucky in pittsburgh on these boards?
In the parlance of the internet, I has a confuzed!)
DougJ
Even if the Republicans make only marginal gains in the House and Senate, I guarantee most pundits will be proclaiming that Obama has been mortally wounded.
Yes, I agree completely. But I think that would be bad for the Republicans, because it would just encourage them to continue tea bagging.
Realistically, they have to find a way to get non-white voters to support them at least a little bit. The longer they stick with the teabagging, the worse things will get for them.
Kirk Spencer
Two caveats to your ‘they have to lose seats’ point.
1) If the economy goes up, they’ll lose fewer seats; and
2) If an adequate (much less good) health care bill gets passed, they’ll lose fewer seats.
On the economy, I think it is going to go up. Oh, my “four futures” all still exist, but consider that a major sub-element came out pretty good last week. Retail sales were up in August even when autos weren’t included. Now we’re not headed up yet, and there are some worry points (CRE is, I think, done crashing – but it’s not recovering for a while. Just for one example). It could be a dead cat bounce, and it could turn out to be the start of a second lost decade, and it could even be blown up. But there’s a slightly better reason to expect the economy to be turning around – finally.
(Sub-point. Unemployment is always a following indicator of the turnaround. If the economy reverses in the first three months of next year, unemployment will start to decline during the second quarter — and we might even start thinking things are over by the elections.)
Second point, health care. We’ll get something, but I’m not laying money on how good it’s going to be once the sausage making is done. As I said, though, all it has to be is adequate to have a large impact on voters in many districts – and consequently worth at least a point or two to many of these at-risk Democrats. Of course, if it sucks the most frequent sound you’ll hear in November will be the sound of idiots being flushed down the drain.
Separate point, related to your main. The Republican party is now (by my estimate) over 50% zealot controlled. The problem with zealots is that they drive away all potential fellow travelers as those folk are too impure. I don’t know if it’ll be clear enough in 2010, though from anecdotes it appears there will be enough of that to staunch Democratic bleeding. By 2012, however, it’ll be overwhelming. In that election I expect a comfortable win by Obama and many Democratic congress-critters against the TEA/Birther/912/(etc) controlled Republican party. Sure, they’ll be “pure”. They’ll also only be about a third of the voting nation – counting the yellow dogs.
The Grand Panjandrum
@DougJ: That is unusual. I’m not sure about NH but I’ve been to a few gatherings and they have a pronounced fiscal conservative streak here. Tax resistance from both the Left and Right are time honored traditions in northern New England.
Skepticat
@ellaesther:
Actually there are a lot of Masonic Temples in private hands. Apparently there aren’t as many active Masons as there once were. The building in Salem, Massachusetts, has our congressman’s office in it, as a matter of fact.
Brian J
Being very general, it’s very possible that they’d lose seats. There just aren’t very many districts that Democrats can run candidates in that would be worth supporting. To gain any additional seats, you’d have to go into redder and redder areas, running more conservative candidates than most would be comfortable with. Plus, there’s the usual rules that apply to off-year elections.
But this is an area where specificity is key. Exactly how many seats do we expect the party to lose? 15? 20? 30? It seems very unlikely that they’d lose the House unless conditions are so bad that Jesus Christ himself couldn’t get elected as a Democrat, and certainly the more seats they lose the worse the result is, but the current advantage they have is so massive that a 20 seat loss probably wouldn’t be tragic. For one thing, the same districts or similar ones could always be competitive again in 2012.
Has anyone, by the way, speculated about the Democrats actually gaining seats? It seems very unlikely, almost improbable, but if the current crop of Republican officeholders is any indication, they aren’t attracting the real winners of potential legislators in this country.
Besides, even if they have a mediocre to poor night, it’s very possible, if not almost certain, that the Democrats will gain seats in the Senate. Assuming things are on the positive end for them, it’s within the realm of possibility that they could even get to 67. Of course, that’s with the conservative Democrats and Independents caucusing as Democrats, but still, that’s a pretty powerful number.
The Grand Panjandrum
@DougJ: C’mon they already have Michael Steele and Alan Keyes what could possibly go wrong with those two on your team?
Sloth
A lot depends on the economy, but that said, I expect it will come down to what happens with the current direction of the “republican” party. If they continue on their current trajectory, I’m sure they’ll have a hell of a base turnout, but that base will amount to 20% – max – of the country. They will have driven out anyone who is not ideologically pure, and their version of ideologically pure would seem to be Paulite, heavy on religion, and more than a touch racist. That particular mix, if it gains mainstream traction, is going to result in massive base turnout against them.
And they will have ejected anyone even remotely competent. Palin and Joe Wilson are not exactly the brightest bulbs in anyone’s light fixture.
Also, right now, even the sane members of the republican party will be running as the party of “no”, essentially defining themselves as what they are against rather than what they are for – and they will have little to nothing to show for their last few years. That’s a hell of a hard sell.
Brian J
I’m still not entirely convinced that “Michael Steele” isn’t Larry David with some heavy make up and a mustache. I mean, “Michael Steele” looks to be so damn stupid that it’s hard to describe, and have you ever seen the two of them in the same room together? I haven’t.
General Winfield Stuck
It’s still too close to Bush for there to be a big GOP gain. They will pick up some seats they lost closely in wingnut districts, and if not this cycle, then the next will see the virtual extinction of the white democratic CC’r in the deep south. And I look for Landreux to fall, though she is tough as nails and could well pull it out.
The Senate lineup so favors dems in 2010, it should make up for any punishment by voters on the economy, that likely won’t start creating decent jobs till too late next year for it to matter.
And the pundits have a stake in keeping the numbers balanced to perpetuate the eternal dem/repub street fight. And for someone like Charly Cook to buckle to the rush predicting for dem defeat speaks for itself and the rest of the braintrust punditry. They are not so stupid as pure self interested. Though many are dumb as Turkeys.
Brian J
What makes you say that?
SpotWeld
Connecticut tossed a governor for similarly outrageous financial chicanery.
I suspect New Yorkers will be similarly fed up.
someguy
C’mon, DougJ. Enough with the negative vibes. Man, you have no faith at all.
I’m reasonably certain that people are just collecting and sitting on bombs to drop in the weeks before the election. This is always a depressing time of the cycle because, if you’ve got a bomb, why drop it now? You wait until mid-October, when it can do the most damage. I can’t wait until October ’10, when we get to find out which Republican candidates have been charged with soliciting sex (1) in bathrooms; (2) from underage pages; (3) from goofy mistresses 4500 miles away. Nevermind the ones who are stealing money from the public fisc, dropping racial epithets in their speeches and college course work, and [you fill in the blank]. It’s a little too early to be quittin’.
General Winfield Stuck
@Brian J:
Just the trends of southern resistance to democrats via Obama mostly. Plus the loss of a lot of dem votes in still unsettled New Orleans. And I didn’t say she would certainly lose, just that I wouldn’t be surprised, and it will be her toughest election yet.. Though her challengers don’t seam all that great, so maybe she will win.
Ailuridae
@General Winfield Stuck:
Lincoln (AR) not Landrieu (LA) I presume as she handily won re-election in 08. I think it makes sense that Lincoln could be in trouble but the saving grace is that Arkansas GOP hasn’t fielded legitimate contenders for either Senate seat when they are up and this time looks no better.
I don’t have any dislike for Charlie Cook. If you have a model and as polling changes it says big changes are afoot then its likely your “duty”as a pundit to make that information available. However, I think he constantly looks at public sentiment as these punctuated dots across a time line rather than a likely curve. He was one of those screaming the loudest 53 weeks ago about how vulnerable Obama was without looking at any historical data to understand how that point in polling got there.
Brachiator
So, this is basically a laundered campaign contribution which also comes back to the “investors” as profit.
What a country!
Sly
Turnout will make or break 2010. The Senators who are in any sort of trouble are making the bet that they’ll woo enough independents by hemming and hawing about the public option to cancel out any loss they get from disaffected Democrats who stay home.
It won’t be anywhere near a repeat of 1994, where a whole host of moderate Democrats were swept out of office due to low party turnout, but I’m oddly comforted by the fact that these people don’t learn from the mistakes of their political forebears.
Plus, the party probably have too many Boll Weevils as it is. I won’t shed any tears over the corpse of Mary Landrieu’s political career.
ds
Landrieu is not up for election until 2014. Are you thinking of Blanche Lincoln?
“In any two-party system, the party in power needs a functioning opposition in order to bring its A game. I want the GOP to shape up, because I think this two-party democracy needs two functioning parties. Call me crazy.”
You’re crazy. The main effect of having a functioning opposition party in the American system is that it’s next to impossible to do anything except start wars.
It took the Hooverite Republican implosion to pass the New Deal. It took the Goldwater Republican implosion to pass the Great Society. Neither would have happened otherwise.
If we had a parliamentary-style system where the opposition can’t actually block legislation and basically just has to sit on the sidelines until it gets voted into power, it would be good to have two vibrant parties competing for votes.
In the American system, a strong, disciplined opposition party can gum up the works and block the majority from passing anything.
Martin
My guess is that if the teabaggers keep up their crap, Dem turnout will be pretty strong. They’d be better off cooling things off a bit.
JK
@Ailuridae:
The thing I resent about Charlie Cook is the way Chris Matthews, David Gregory, Charlie Rose et al slobber and drool all over this guy as if he’s God.
The last time I checked, Charlie Cook couldn’t walk on water and he couldn’t turn water into wine.
Cook has attained some level of proficiency in predicting political races, but the level of adulation that accompany his tv appearances is disgusting. Cook puts his pants on one leg at a time just like the rest of us. The pundits need to stop treating him as if he had grown up on Mount Olympus.
Warren Terra
I’ve given inconsequential sums to Massa from outside his district, so I’m invested in this race.
Good to hear his opponent is screwing up; more generally, is this sort of cash giveaway /ever/ legal?
DougJ
He was one of those screaming the loudest 53 weeks ago about how vulnerable Obama was without looking at any historical data to understand how that point in polling got there.
Do you have a link? I vaguely remember this too but I can’t remember exactly where I saw it.
General Winfield Stuck
@Ailuridae:
My bad. I thought it was Landreux up for reelection.
Ailuridae
@JK:
I think its a lot more interesting to look at the motives of Matthews, Gregory and Rose than it is to have a problem with Cook for assessing polling as it changes. Those three clowns are going to find a way to tell a “America is abandoning the Democrats because they abandoned the middle”tripe like they always do. Cook isn’t feeding that. Just look at his Senate rankings at the moment:
http://www.cookpolitical.com/charts/senate/raceratings_2009-09-10_11-31-25.php
Between Lean D and Lean R he has 15 total races that are truly up for consideration. One of seven previously held Democratic seat in that group will be open (Burris) while six of eight Republican seats in that group will be open (MO, TX, FL, OH, NH and KY). Whatever problem anyone has with Cook, over a long career there is scant evidence he’s moving polls for facetime.
Here’s his house races:
http://www.cookpolitical.com/charts/house/competitive_2009-09-10_12-22-31.php
Ailuridae
@DougJ:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/cr_20080913_6694.php
If you want to do something interesting (to me at least) but time consuming start five weekly posts before that and then read through the piece he wrote on 11/1/08. Week to week its almost as if he is describing a reality that can only be explained by that week’s polling without looking at the trend in the polling. I realize its unfair and partly the nature of the business but he comes across as disjointed and a little crazy.
I find sentences like this where he is quoting Gallup’s pollster but clearly agrees to be impossibly frustrating.
* “The GOP convention has clearly altered the structure of the race for now, which had shown Obama consistently ahead in the Gallup Poll Daily tracking updates for all but a few days from the time he clinched the nomination in early June until the end of last week.”*
Did the GOP convention alter the structure of the race of was it a historically observable phenomenom that had little to do with the eventual outcome of the raise and was more likely noise?
Calouste
@Brian J:
There are districts where Jesus Christ himself couldn’t get elected as a Democrat no matter what. Heck, there are even districts where Jesus Christ himself wouldn’t even win the Republican primary.
clone12
Am I the only one who think that much electoral hilarity will ensue as a result of Democrats conveniently scheduling the immigration debate to be around 2010?
JK
@Ailuridae:
I basically agree with you. It just seems to me that whenever Cook appears with Matthews, Gregory, Rose, or anyone else, he doesn’t make a serious effort to provide a reality check when they make some outlandish pronouncement based on his projections.
General Winfield Stuck
@Ailuridae:
Mid-term elections are about turnout and base enthusiasm. The winger base is going to be enthused, and unless dems deliver a solid HCR bill with a public option, or at least go to the mat with the Recon. process, it won’t be pretty, but unlikely to change control of congress.
And the dems are on their own with health care reform;
Calouste
@Ailuridae:
Huckabee could run but then if he runs in 2010 he can’t run for President in 2012 and he would have to give up the Fox $$$$$. Unlikely unless he get ditched by Fox. He wasn’t very rich and he is now cashing in for at least a few years.
Brian J
Wasn’t 1994 more of a realignment? Certainly, what happened involving the Clinton administration had an effect, but weren’t a lot of the losses bound to happen, or at least not at all surprising based on where they were?
I’m having a hard time describing it exactly how I remember reading it, so if I come across as too vague, that’s why.
Calouste
@clone12:
Immigration reform in 2010 will be an excellent tactical electoral move for the Democrats to increase their turnout (wingnuts will turn out anyway), although things will get rather ugly. Main issue for them will be to get something that the unions don’t see as a mass import of cheap labor, so getting EFCA passed around the same time might be crucial.
Wile E. Quixote
I want to see Nancy Pelosi push for the Wyoming Rule after the census of 2010 to overturn the 435 seat limit imposed in 1911. Of course this would shatter a lot of gerrymandered districts so it will never happen, but it would be fun to watch, and it would reduce the influence of the wingnuts even further.
Brian J
Are you saying this because you think the Democrats in congress are giving us another example of how dumb they can be, since it could give the Republicans an issue with which to motivate their base? Or are you saying this because they will set the Republicans up for failure, particularly in the Southwest, as they scream louder and louder about brown people?
KRK
Lincoln getting the Chair of the Senate Ag Committee will probably secure her reelection chances among Arkansas voters, but it’s too bad. She’s a truly horrible selection for that position.
clone12
I think the GOP are getting set up. They more or less lost California after 187, and there are sizable Latino population in Arizona and Texas.
Linkmeister
@Wile E. Quixote: I’d just like to see mandatory non-partisan redistricting commissions in each state.
And full voting rights for DC.
scottp
How long before we see Tom Reed show up on “Flip That Temple?”
JD Rhoades
@ellaesther:
WTF? Who owns a Masonic Temple?
It’s just a building, y’all.
bob h
A Party that is leaderless, hysterical, the object of public contempt and ridicule is going to retake the House next year? Sure.
jayackroyd
Massa was on my netroots nation panel. very good on health care reform issues.
http://www.netrootsnation.org/node/1336
Comrade Darkness
@bob h: I have no problem with dems assuming this, right or wrong. Complacency is deadly.
All campaigns should be run like your side is up by 1 & 1⁄2 points in the polls.
Nick
@JK
Like what they said about Bill Clinton in November 1994
Nick
@Brian J:
I think it’s the latter…PA-12 showed me what an epic fail the anti-immigration debate is on elections. It might get the GOP vote out where they’ve already won, but not where they need to win.