Polls find Democrats can be reassured in at least two districts
Democrats have a lot to worry about in countless House districts, but they can at least count on offsetting their losses by picking-up DE-AL. A new PPP poll confirms that the seat vacated by Republican Mike Castle is one of the cycle’s most certain - if not the most certain - takeovers: Presumptive Democratic nominee John Carney leads 47% to 24% against the one Republican who has announced so far, businessman Fred Cullis.
His advantage against former state Senator Charlie Copeland is more modest (44% to 32%), but it’s not like Carney’s lead is hinging on his name recognition advantage: A full 54% of respondents do not have an opinion of their former Lieutenant Governor, which suggests that he still has a lot of room to grow and take advantage of Delaware’s Democratic lean. Another favorable sign for Carney’s prospects is that he leads among independents - the very same respondents that give Castle a 29% lead in the poll’s senatorial half.
Another House poll from which Democrats should generally be satisfied recently came out of NY-01 - and it is an internal survey released by the campaign of Republican candidate Randy Altschuler. It shows Democratic Rep. Tom Bishop leading Altschuler 46% to 26%. While it’s a sign of vulnerability for an incumbent to be under 50%, that rule is less prevalent for surveys that have done such a minimal effort of pushing undecided voters. It will be worth keeping an eye on the district as we head into 2010 (after all, the district went for Bush in 2004 and only narrowly swung to Obama last year), but don’t forget that many incumbent Democrats are seeing voters rush to support their Republican challengers, no matter how little-known and low-profile those are. Add to that the fact that this is a GOP internal with a 6% MoE, and Bishop’s 20% lead is a good start.
One Blue Dog could get rid of primary challenge, another replaced by a less moderate Dem
One of the Blue Dog Coalition’s most conservative members is Rep. Allen Boyd, who represents a red-leaning district (FL-02) that encompasses Tallahassee; he acquired a high-profile when he was the only Democrat in Congress to support George W. Bush’s plan to privatize Social Security. As such, state Senator Al Lawson looked like he was in a position to gain traction when he announced early in 2009 that he would challenge Boyd in the Democratic primary. In a district with a significant African-American population, Lawson had a clear path to running to Boyd’s left and he recently. released an internal poll a few weeks ago finding him ahead by 4%.
Yet, he has failed to gain enough traction fundraising-wise - a huge handicap given that Boyd is a particularly well-financed incumbent; and national Democratic worries over keeping the seat if Boyd loses the primary have heightened since it’s become clear how tough 2010 will be for the party. Now, Lawson is signaling he might pull the plug on the House race to run for Chief Financial Officer instead, which would not only be a huge relief for Boyd but would also cut short one of the few ideologically charged House primaries on the Democratic side. Sure, Lawson has yet to finalize his decision, but candidates don’t tend to muse about dropping out of a race unless they are very seriously considering it.
Meanwhile, state Senator Roy Herron increasingly looks like the front-runner to win the Democratic nomination to replace retiring John Tanner. State Senator Lowe Finney recently announced he would not run, and while there are still other names floating the bottom-line is that the national party looks very satisfied with the way in which the past week unfolded. (We’ve got to wonder whether the DCCC or Tanner had not given Herron heads-up that this announcement was coming.)
Politico notes that Herron’s hold on the nomination is a good development for liberals, as he would be a step to the left relatively to Tanner, who is a leading Blue Dog. (Well, Politico spins this as bad news for Democrats, suggesting it might cause Herron difficulty winning but he has held a tough legislative seat for decades - and it doesn’t look like the DCCC has much to complain about here.) A former minister, Harron looks to be interested in channeling religion towards progressive economic policies and a larger governmental role in helping the lower-class - or so it sounds from the description of Herron’s 2008 book.
Might the GOP establishment coalesce against Ethan Hastert?
In 2008, Democrat Bill Foster benefited from facing a weak Republican nominee and he is hoping for the same luck in 2010. If the GOP nominates Ethan Hastert, Foster could benefit from his inexperience, his obvious connections to the House’s unpopular Republican leadership and to his work as an assistant for Scooter Libby - all problems for his electability that now look like they are being accepted by Republicans. Last week, businessman James Purcell announced he was dropping out of the race to ensure Hastert does not get hte GOP nomination - a move that could help the primary prospect of state Senator Randall Hultgren (and thus arguably hurt Foster).
“Ethan is a very nice young man, but the reality is that his family is a liability in the general election,” said Purcell. “Dennis Hastert is the very kind of Republican that voters resoundingly rejected in 2006. I don’t believe Ethan will be able to get past that, regardless of how far right he runs in the primary.” Sure, Purcell’s argument (that the Hasterts are too moderate) isn’t what I had in mind when I questioned Hastert’s electability, but ultimately it goes to show that Hastert epitomizes the establishment for many people. He could have trouble exciting the conservative base while also turning off independents who want to turn the page of the Bush years.
IL-14 is an R+1 district. Can anybody tell me why Foster would be among likely vulnerable incumbents? Sure, he’s the type the GOP has to pick off to win back the House, but unless they bring in a couple billion dollars, districts like this won’t even be in play. Bush won by twelve, Obama by eleven=virtually even. Plus he isn’t a freshman. There are only 14 more Democratic district that the GOP controls, and I believe Democrats hold 61 more conservative districts.
I don’t know how reassuring that NY-1 poll is for the Dems. If Bishop has to sweat through a long election night in 2010, the Dems are probably losing something like thirty to forty House seats nationwide. I can think of at least eight Dem House seats just in the NY/NE region that are more vulnerable to a GOP takeover than Bishop’s seat, including NH-i, NH-2, CT-4, CT-5, NY-20, NY-23, NY-24 and NY-29 (and perhaps even NY-25).
kewgardens, NY-25? That is a seat that even John Kerry won.
From what I’ve read, Lawson is as conservative as Boyd and that’s a reason why grassroots Democrats had been lukewarm about his candidacy (thus his anemic fundraising).
“President Bush’s plan to privatize social security”–don’t you mean President Bush’s plan to privatize 5% of social security?
don’t you mean President Bush’s plan to privatize 5% of social security?
They always miss that part.
They also always miss the part that says that even if they had put the money in 30 years before the 2008 crash, and took it out at the lowest point of the crash, they’d STILL get more money then the Government would have given them.
But nevermind. What we need is more Government control and more regulation to “protect” people.
Because everybody knows, by the time I reach 65, my SS money will be waiting safely for me.
Oh, wait…
Where does the 5% come from? I have looked online and cannot see any reference to just a 5% privatization. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_debate_(United_States). I didn’t check conservapedia, I will leave that to you.
Seems rather arbitary to choose 30 years. If you said putting money in 2001 and taking it out last year you would have gained nothing, again an arbitary timeperiod.
Social Security seems to have worked well for 40+ years. You seem very ideological when there are relatively simple ways to fix the issue. Raise the retirement age, increase by inflation rather than wages, invest some of the current trust fund surplus in the market etc.
I would place a bet with you that when you reach 65 (or whatever the retirement age is then) that you will receive a reasonable Social Security pension in addition to your own pension plans.
Didn`t the Bush plan add $2 trillion to the deficit (back when trillions were rare!). I suppose some things are worth borrowing for.
I’m a resident of IL-14. I don’t think it much matters who the Republicans nominate. Foster has worked hard to make himself known in the district and will likely hold onto it until he chooses to retire. The city of Aurora is the population center of the district and it has swung to voting heavily Democratic at all levels. It would take a huge wave in the remainder of the district to dislodge Foster, a wave of national proportions that won’t have anything to do with the local candidates. That is my two cents worth until I see polling results that change my mind.
These polls don`t tell us that much more than was suspected. It is still 11 months to go and in some cases primaries to get through. So still time for events to quickly change conventional wisdom. I noticed the sample size is small which means the MoE was larger.
Cliff: They also always miss the part that says that even if they had put the money in 30 years before the 2008 crash, and took it out at the lowest point of the crash, they’d STILL get more money then the Government would have given them.
Except that there isn’t any money for “them” to put in. Present workers fund present retirees; there’s no money that goes into a personal account that one “gets back” when one retires. (There is a surplus at the moment that will diminish as the boomer generation stops paying in and start getting benefits.)
The biggest problem with Bush’s privatization scheme was that they never had a mechanism for funding benefits for today’s retirees while also funding individual accounts for today’s workers. That was a tremendously expensive proposition.
But some people always miss that part.
The biggest problem with Bush’s privatization scheme was that they never had a mechanism for funding benefits for today’s retirees
Well gee, why didn’t you just say so? I thought you opposed it because you didn’t want me to go broke when I was old? At least that’s what every D on the planet said.
And actually, similar to Obama’s “Health Care” bill, it never really was written in concrete, and nobody ever actually knew how it would work. And if you allowed for the money earned on personal accounts to partly offset losses in revenue to current retirees, they could pay for themselves.
But I’m sure you didn’t actually research the question.
Cliff - you are making assumptions that the growth in the stock exchange will be equivalent to the past 30 years of stock market gains. The past 30 years have been exceptional in terms of returns so it is dangerous to assume that they will continue. Quite a few learned people have suggested the past 20-30 years were exceptional due to the introduction of the pc, lean management techniques etc which revolutionized business.
Cliff - And if you allowed for the money earned on personal accounts to partly offset losses in revenue to current retirees, they could pay for themselves.
You say above partly offset, does that mean there would still be a sizeable gap?
I assume you don`t mind if millions of elderly American’s retire in poverty because they were too “stupid” to earn $60K plus each year.
Cliff: Well gee, why didn’t you just say so? I thought you opposed it because you didn’t want me to go broke when I was old? At least that’s what every D on the planet said.
That’s not what “every D on the planet” said. There were plenty of people talking about the transition costs of paying for individual accounts for today’s workers while still paying for the benefits of today’s retirees. (After all, I didn’t think up that issue on my own; I’m not nearly smart enough for that.)
And by the way, when you’re “old” the system will still be paying benefits. Even if no adjustments are made, Social Security will be able to pay about 75% of current benefits when the surplus trust fund runs out in 2037.
And if you allowed for the money earned on personal accounts to partly offset losses in revenue to current retirees, they could pay for themselves.
Some estimates of the transition costs stated that it would be $1 trillion over the first 10 years and $3.5 trillion the decade after that. And even if private accounts eventually offset at least some of that amount after decades of investment, they would do little to exacerbate the substantial short term costs and add to the deficit which would likely make the credit markets extremely unhappy in the meantime. Indeed, some people argue that the risks, overhead costs, and borrowing costs could result in a lower rate of return than sticking with the current pay-as-you-go system.
And actually, similar to Obama’s “Health Care” bill, it never really was written in concrete, and nobody ever actually knew how it would work.
I think that’s because nothing was ever developed that came close to fiscal sensibility, so nothing ever had the votes, so nothing ever was submitted to Congress as an actual bill for debate. At least all the health care proposals are paid for.
But I’m sure you didn’t actually research the question.
I’ve looked into it. The Wikipedia entry has a pretty good discussion on the subject. Have you researched it?
Some information on Bush’s Social Security plan can be found here:
http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/02/retirement/stofunion_socsec/index.htm
I remembered Bush talking about “4%,” but it turns out he meant 4% of taxable salary, or around 1/3 of social security contributions. Still not quite privatizing social security, but more extensive than I made it sound like above.
I still find it amusing that liberals suddenly think we need “a mechanism for funding” extraordinarily expensive propositions.
OK, here is a deal: Republicans can have their Social Security Reform if they let Democrats pass Healthcare Reform. When Republicans keep blocking healthcare reform, Democrats should keep blocking Social Security Reform. Its only fair.
Nathan,
I think it is amusing that Conservatives suddenly think we need “a mechanism for funding” extraordinarily expensive propositions. Say like the Iraq/Afghanistan wars and the Prescription drug benefit.
But I assume you didn’t research the meaning of the word consistency.
Ron: I still find it amusing that liberals suddenly think we need “a mechanism for funding” extraordinarily expensive propositions.
What do you mean “suddenly”? Don’t conservatives accuse liberals of “tax and spend”? “Tax” implies that things should be paid for. Unlike, apparently (and as Moira pointed out), two wars, prescription drug benefits, and tax cuts (oh, I forgot, tax cuts pay for themselves despite all the evidence to the contrary…).
There are plenty of liberals in favor of fiscal responsibility. There are some conservatives in that camp too. But too many on both sides still want to sell the public a free lunch, and there are too many in the public still willing to buy it (and then complain about fiscal irresponsibility).
My bad. Prior post quoted Nathan, not Ron.
Monica,
dsimon put it perfectly: “Too many on both sides still want to sell the public a free lunch, and there are too many in the public still willing to buy it.”
I supported none of those huge outlays of fake cash you mention except for Afghanistan, since the Taliban and Al Queda must be fought down whether we can afford it or not. The outrageous tab run up by the federal government just in the last ten years–Afghanistan, Iraq, No Child Left Behind, the prescription drug benefit, bailouts, stimulus and now health care–has convinced me the two party system is broken. They’re acting like compulsive gamblers, convinced that if they pull the lever one more time, they’ll finally make up for all these shackles they’ve snapped around the feet of our grandchildren with one glorious payout that fixes the economy, grants everyone free medicine, and forces or cajoles (pick your flavor of Utopian poison) the world into loving America again. All while bemoaning the fiscal irresponsibility of the other party. It’s sick behavior. And I think the only cure at this point is a credible third party.
It just happens to be the Democrats ladling out their gruel at the moment, so their brand of hypocrisy is a lot more immediately galling.
Nathan: And I think the only cure at this point is a credible third party.
I don’t think a third party will help at all. The essential problem is the refusal of a majority of the public to take responsibility for the things they say they want out of government. Democrats are afraid to ask people if they’re willing to pay for the government they say they want, and Republicans are afraid to ask people if they want the government they say they’re willing to pay for.
they’ll finally make up for all these shackles they’ve snapped around the feet of our grandchildren with one glorious payout that fixes the economy, grants everyone free medicine
No one is pretending to offer “free medicine.” Democrats are requiring that health care reform be paid for.
As for the “shackles” placed on future generations, we can’t pay back our debts if the economy continues to suck. The economy needs to be fixed first, then we can start paying back the debt. Yes, it does need to be dealt with, but the consensus is that we’d be worse off long-term without indulging in deficit spending today.
Really, I’m starting to think that if today’s Republican party had been in charge during the Great Depression, we’d still be in it.
Addendum to 1st paragraph of prior post:
I don’t see how a third party addresses the problem of the public’s refusal to take responsibility for actually doing something about our fiscal problems. We live in a representative democracy, so perhaps our government’s fiscal irresponsibility is based on the public’s fiscal irresponsibility: they don’t want to make hard choices, so it’s no surprise that their elected representatives don’t make those choices either, regardless of party. And I don’t see why a third party would be any better at dealing with that problem than the two major parties.