The Hunt For Red November

Let's set the bar for Tuesday's elections.  Here is how I see it:

If the Republicans end up controlling the House and Senate, they win (We win!).

If the Democrats pick up just one house of Congress (more likely to be the House, natch), they gain a mid-size victory.

And if the Dems can collect both the House and Senate, well, to quote the great Pedro Martinez, I'll tip my hat and call them my daddy.  For about two minutes, so don't become accustomed to it.

And right now, I am not out shopping for taseteful, easily tipped hats.  However, the Republican prospects in the House look grim.  Currently at TradeSports, punters make it a 23% probability that the Reps can hold the House and a 70% probability that they will hold the Senate; the figures at the Iowa market are similar.

And now, a bit of a mood-brightener - even if the Reps suffer a defeat, what does it mean for the Nutroots?  This is not a zero-sum game, after all - there are plenty of moderate Dems running and voting, so my question is, what sort of an evening will allow the Nutroots to declare victory over the hated (but feared!) DLC?

For example, if Joe Lieberman defeats Ned Lamont, as appears likely, that is a Nutroot loss.  So help me out - are there specific candidates we should follow whose defeat signals weakness (or victory, strength) amongst the left?

On a related note, the Times has yet another story telling us that if the Dems win it will be because of their conservative candidates.  The latest, from Montana, is titled "A Redder Kind of Democrat in a Close Montana Contest" and tells us about Senate candidate Jon Tester.  (The Times raved about Montana's Red Dem Governor Brian Schweitzer here, so the concept of Dems running as Republicans has been tested successfully.)

I flagged a Times "Red Dems Rising" story from Oct. 30; here is another from Oct 31 in Ohio, and from Nov 2 set in Kentucky.

So yes, both Republicans and progressives may end up losers on Tuesday night.

MORE:  Bonus Paranoia - why is the Times running a daily story on Red Dems?  Are they (a) reporting the news; (b) trying to tamp down bouyant expectations on the Upper West Side; or (c) trying to undermine the scary "Where's Nancy Pelosi?" rhetoric from the right?

And speaking of Nancy, where is former impeached judge turned leading candidate for House Intelligence Chair Alcee Hastings?

Comments

[Cecil Turner]

Per Krauthammer:

Since the end of World War II, the average loss for a second-term presidency in its sixth year has been 29 House seats and six Senate seats. If you go back to FDR’s second term, the House loss average jumps to 35. Thus a 25/6 House/Senate loss would be about (and slightly below) the historical average.

He then notes incumbency advantages have grown, so perhaps the standards should shift a bit, but that seems to me a reasonable metric for a big "win/loss." Anything less is moderate to a wash. Dems taking over the Senate or Reps keeping the House would be big. In any event, likely to be more entertainment than action for the next couple years. And I'm not sure if that's a good thing™ or bad.

[Sue]

Charlie Rangel said yesterday that a lot of the democrats who are likely to win are coming from republican districts, which means they are conservative democrats. He also noted they will have run on conservative values and issues. Not likely to change their positions too much, in order to retain their seat the next go around. And not likely to help in the battle to cut taxes, etc., but will be a good thing for deciding chair heads.

[lurker]

As long as the democrats do not reverse any of the current bills, it may be a good thing...

until 2009 when the tax cuts expire.

If the democrats gain majority of either or both houses, the odds that the democrats extending the tax cuts will probably be nil.

If the federal deficits continue to come down by at least half, then the facts will disprove them in their campaign slogans. I listened to a few minutes of Howard Dean when TIVO restarted its system. Howard Dean was trying to propose his DNC plan by repealing the Patriot Act, tax cuts, address the Republican budget deficits, pull troops out of Iraq, blah blah blah.

I changed the channel as I was just beginning to fume; knowing how wrong he is.

[lurker]

I am not convinced of the new conservative democrats. After all, they voted against Lieberman when he ran for the democratic primary. Is he considered one of the more conservative democrats? I don't think so but at least he understood the need for invading Iraq.

[lurker]

Incidentally, did you read Byron York's article about Shelley Sekula Gibbs? At least I made one spelling error by selecting S-H-E-L-L-Y!

Hope this will turn out to be a landslide election in her favor to eliminate all odds of a democratic challenge of our votes.

We will see.

[Sue]

I think the ultimate irony will be if Sekula-Gibbs wins. I wonder why she didn't drop the hyphen for the race though? Shelley Gibbs is a lot simpler than Sekula-Gibbs. And if they put Shelley Gibbs in the machine, will it count? Tuesday night looks to be a long night, not just in TX-22, but all over the country.

[Sue]

I voted on Thursday, with the new machine. We were given a choice, though, machine or paper ballot. I chose the machine to see how easy/hard it would be. Not hard at all. I wish I had looked at the name/type of machine it was to see if it was the same. I suspect it was. I'll do a quick search to see if I can find out. I am in Texas, BTW, just not the 22nd district.

[verner]

I can report from Tennessee that Corker is the likely winner. In a way, I think it is a shame. I like Harold Ford Jr.--though the "come to Jesus" stuff is getting a bit old." He is a democrat that I could stomach, and it would be good to see him in a position of power and influence in their party.

But Jr. has two problems a) his last name is Ford, and b) he is still a democrat. The Ford family is legend in TN for dirty politics. The election of his Aunt Ophelia--trying to take over Uncle John's state senate seat after Uncle John got busted for bribery, and occasionally firing his 38 at truckers going too slow in the fast lane on I-40--was overturned when they found too many dead voters on the rolls in precincts that voted almost exclusively for her.

And now they've found 10 stolen "smart cards" from a polling station in Shelby County that I guarantee is not a Corker stronghold.

If HF Jr. really wanted to shake things up, he sould switch to the Republican party.Even Alan Colmes said the other night that he sounded more like Sean Hannity!

I think Jr. would have an increadibly bright future in the GOP. He could join forces with rising stars like Steele, and help change the party for the better. (A little acknowledged fact, middle class African-Americans tend to be very socially conservative on a host of issues, and are getting left behind by the Pelosi wing of the Democrat Party.)

In any case, it certainly appears to be true that most of the candidates that the dems recruited were certainly from their "conservative" wing. Wonder if Ms. Pelosi will win the speakership with all the new blood? Maybe not.

[Sue]

Verner,

I have always liked Ford too. I tend to forgive candidates for some of their election season antics, as long as they don't make a practice of acting stoopid! However, he isn't my congressman, he is a democrat, and I am not in the mood for a Pelosi speaker reign, even if short lived. ::grin::

[lurker]

I don't know why Shelley did not drop "Sekula" from her last name. The machines do not allow for dashes either. I thought that was strange.

Didn't the Ford Family have communist ties?

The conservative democrats would not have much patience with Pelosi.

How do the House polls look over the weekend?

[Sue]

I did a quick search in google for 'voting machine texas' and the first page of displays are all voter fraud stories and the evils of Diebold. I suspect a secret google bomb was dispatched.

I haven't kept up with the controversy, but I would imagine that everyone in Texas is using the same machine, in order to avoid the fiasco of 2000. I will be happy to stand corrected if that isn't the case. The machine I voted on is very user friendly. It had a dial that you used to hi-lite the candidate you were voting for, it had an enter button and a cast your vote button. Before you cast your vote, a screen displayed showing what your votes were. I didn't do a write-in, so I don't know how simple/hard that could be.

[Patton]

I am going to go out on a limb and predict the Republicans retain both House and Senate.

But thats just a dumb military guy talking, I'm no Jon Carry.

[Sue]

lurker,

They seem to be about the same as they have been. It all hinges on voter turn out.

[jerry]

Where is Bob Ney today, where is his friend Abramoff, where is the outrage? Hidden behind an inky cloud of Republican spin, of course.

And where is that abandoned US soldier in Sadr City anyway?

[lurker]

Bob Ney (R) Resigns, William Jefferson (D) Still Hasn’t

[Other Tom]

Off topic a bit, but let us all rub our hands together in glee at the prospect of a ringing defeat for one Jack Carter, whose candidacy is unquestionably a referendum on his father. Let us all harken back to those wonderfully comedic years of the short-lived Carter administration. One immediately recalls such things as the "malaise" speech, the hemorrhoid incident, the "Montezuma's revenge" remark in Mexico, and the killer rabbit. Or how about the oil "crisis" as the "moral equivalent of war?" The cardigan sweater, the White House thermostat set at 66 degrees, lights out on the national Christmas tree. Or when, seeking to ingratiate himself as a sports fan with a Houston audience, he referred to quarterback Ken Stabler as "Ken Stadler." Or when he introduced Hubert Humphrey at the Democratic convention as "Hubert Horatio Hornblower." Or "I have lusted in my heart." Oh God he was a true piece of work. (And let us not forget the grim visage of the perpetually constipated Rosalynn, who makes Kate Michelman look like a giddy dance-hall girl.)

But the comedy loses a bit of its lustre when we recall the agonizing, hand-wringing paralysis following the embassy takeover, the Carter-signature Desert One catastrophe, the misery index above twenty, and all the rest. The people of Nevada have been presented with a rare opportunity: to tell the world what they really think of Jimmy Carter, all over again.

[lurker]

Other Tom, if the people of Nevada are not happy with Harry Reid, they need to vote with their disappointment of Reid.

[lurker]

And, as an hindsight, I'm beginning to wonder if the democrats will think not twice but thrice about pulling our troops out.

Why?

Because they will be afraid of being blamed for the next 9/11 attack.

[lurker]

Victor Davis Hansen's Before Iraq is excellent!

[windansea]

"red dems rising" I like it and would love to see rational democrats regain control of their party

Jerry...you are sounding shrill lately, what happened to your sense of humor?

[cboldt]

-- "And where is that abandoned US soldier in Sadr City anyway?" --

The question answers itself.

[Martin]

Re: Krauthammer's krap

The Dems gained seats in Congress in the 6th year of Clinton's presidency.

[lurker]

The dems also gained seats under Reagan. So?

You missed Krauthammer's point.

[Martin]

Reagan wasn't a Dem. I've made a new vow not to insult people here, but you're making it very hard.

[Other Tom]

Krauthammer's figures were averages--get it?

Having lost 52 seats in 1994, it would have been quite difficult for Clinton to avoid picking up a few in 1998. The loss of 52 House seats in an off-year election is the modern gold standard for repudiation of a presidency. We will see how this year compares.

[Martin]

I better spell it out for you:

Clinton was the last sixth year president before now. His party won seats in Congress in his sixth year.

Krautface now says the Bush Repubs are bound to lose, well, because it's historically inevitable!

Except for 1998. Right.

[Sue]

I believe the comparison was to wartime presidents. But carry on...

[Martin]

"it would have been quite difficult for Clinton to avoid picking up a few in 1998"

Why do you say that? Is there a maximal number of seats Republicans can hold? Was 1994 it?

[Sue]

Ahh...I didn't read his article. However, I did watch him last night and his point last night was on wartime presidents. So either way, he is correct. Averages or wartime.

[Other Tom]

Martin: I suppose it bears repeating--Krauthammer's figures were the average for the off-year election in a president's second term. Do you dispute them? Krauthammer makes no exception for 1998; he includes the 1998 figures in calculating the average.

Why on earth do you point out that Reagan wasn't a Democrat? He was a Republican; his party lost seats in the House in his sixth year. Clinton was a Democrat; his party gained. The average in sixth-year elections since WWII is a loss of 29 for the president's party.

Is there something you don't grasp here?

[Sue]

I thought the democratic gains in 1998 were punishment for republicans impeaching Clinton? Has the talking point changed again?

[SunnyDay]

you're making it very hard

try not to let others control your behavior.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'I like Harold Ford Jr'

Yeah, he'd be a lot more logical Presidential candidate than Obama. Too bad the Dems don't have a lot more Fords and fewer Pelosis.

[clarice]

OT" How could you discuss that putz Carter without mentioning gas lines and 19% interest rates? Worst. President. Ever. And worst ex-President, too.

As for the election, I'm an optimist. And more significantly, Barone is giving me reason to be.

I believed Ehrlich would win when he first ran for governor--against all odds. I predict Steele will also. In largest part, it's because of something not measurable on slide rules.They are smart, charming, decent and capable and people look at them and know it. In some part, too, it's because the Md Dems have taken terrible advantage of Black voters, and those voters know it.

Whatever happens in the House count (and I do think a Dem takeover would be a disaster), a win by Steele would be a major blow for the Dems IMO.

[Other Tom]

"Why do you say that?"

I say that because, for some time now, this has been a "50-50 nation." (Surely you have seen the endless commentary on this subject in recent years.) That being the case, the answer to your second question is yes, there is indeed a maximal number of seats the Republicans can hold, and the same is true of the Democrats.

It is no disgrace to be unable to grasp the concept of "averages." A certain degree of analytical ability is required, and not everyone can handle it. Is there some way we can assist you with this?

[Bob]

As clarice pointed out yesterday, they are predicting Rain on Tues pretty much across the RED states.

Democrats
hope rain, rain stays away

A new study of voter behavior confirms something political operatives have long suspected: rain hurts Democrats and helps Republicans. The study found that 1 inch of rain reduces overall turnout by slightly less than 1 percent and cuts the Democratic vote by 2.5 percentage points.

Looks like the wimpy Democrats are not only afraid of their shadow, but now it's rain too... I guess if they can't blame Rove for stealing the election, they'll go after the weatherman. Maybe they'll even have Al Gore make another brilliant statement that it's Global Warming again! ...can you smoke in the rain?

[Martin]

I dig averages Other Tom.Have you checked out Bush's average approval ratings lately?

Hey Bob-now Republicans are praying for rain?

I knew their evangelical wing wanted to drag the country into religious moronitude, but I didn't know it was so severe.

[Martin]

Hey- Rove having the Army Times call for the SecDef's resignation the weekend before the election! Genius indeed.

[SunnyDay]

Have you checked out Bush's average approval ratings lately?

Yeah, we're not going to vote for him.

[SunnyDay]

who publishes army times?

[cboldt]

-- "Is there a maximal number of seats Republicans can hold? Was 1994 it?" --

No. The maximum number is 435, looking just at the House.

Wherever did you come up with 1994 as the maximal number?

[clarice]

Gannett. It contains all sorts of news you can use stuff for the military--beenefits, et al and is distributed at posts throughout the world, but it is not editorially reflective of military views.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

The signs should read: It's the Committee charmanships, stupid!

How red dems vote is unimportant, who runs the committees changes the entire dynamics of what business is conducted or gets to a vote in the first place.

[cboldt]

-- "Too bad the Dems don't have a lot more Fords and fewer Pelosis" --

Which team are you rooting for? It might be better for the GOP if the DEM party was comprised wholly of Cynthia McKinney and Maxine Waters types.

[Tollhouse]

Yeah, the Army Times is the kind of like a union paper for DoD Army civilian employees with enough army stuff to confuse the outsiders. Same for the Navy Times and the Air Force times. Their market isn't the guy in uniform.

[SunnyDay]

Thank you Clarice! Exactly - Gannett is just a publishing house, catering to the military market/ Army Times is not "The Army."

[clarice]

BTW, we often laugh at the Kosniks overhyped claims about their ability to mobilize for campaigns, but Diana Irey( a very attractive candidate in every way) has successfully used the web to raise money and mobilize support in her fight against Murtha. Perhaps the difference is it's her website and she controls the content and there is a there there.

[SunnyDay]

My question - is Martin that dumb, or does he think we are that dumb?

[Martin]

I think you're that dumb.

[cboldt]

-- "who runs the committees changes the entire dynamics of what business is conducted or gets to a vote in the first place." --

41 Republicans voting in lock step can block 100% of the votes in the Senate. I once looked up the tactic of objecting to a motion to take up a matter for debate, and there was a particular bill where 8 cloture votes were taken on the motion to take up, all defeated. The matter never even came up for debate, let alone a vote.