CPAC 2010: Day 1

What a weekend! CPAC 2010 was a conservative getaway filled with great speakers and an environment unlike any other.  The energy that filled the rooms of the Marriot Wardman Park Hotel was indeed a far cry from the doldrums the movement found itself in merely a year ago when critics cried out that conservatism had died.  No speaker missed a chance to make fun of those claims and, instead, all seemed to relish in the movement’s new-found momentum.

Now that I have recovered from the fast pace of getting up early in the morning to ride the Metro out to the events every morning and listening to a grueling schedule of lectures and panels for three days, I am going to go back through my notes and write a detailed analysis of the event.

Marco Rubio

Day one of CPAC got off to a great start with an address from Marco Rubio, the candidate in the Republican primary in Florida challenging Charlie Christ for the Senate seat.  Rubio set the tone for the event which tried to distance itself from the traditional establishment within the Republican Party represented by Christ and instead situate itself with the principles of conservatism represented by Rubio.

Rubio started out exalting the Tea Parties as the “single greatest political pushback in American history.” He highlighted the importance of 2010 as a “referendum on the very identity of America.” In an obvious jab at his opponent in the Republican primary, Rubio said that the US Senate already has one Arlen Specter too many and that the nation did not need two Democratic Parties.

Rubio received a standing ovation for his statement that Americans want leaders to fight against the “change” being presented right now in Washington.  Instead, he suggested a long list of priorities that the Senate should be focusing on:

• Cut taxes across the board,
• Eliminate death and capital gains taxes
• Lower corporate taxes
• Stop cap-and-trade
• Trust American innovation
• Put consumers in charge of healthcare spending
• Lawsuit abuse reform
• Get serious about getting control of National Debt
• Do whatever it takes for however long it takes to defeat Islamic terrorism
• Put captured terrorists in military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay (big standing ovation)

He moved on to tell a little bit of his life story.  His parents were exiles from a place where they were limited in life.  There was a cap on how far they could go no matter how hard they worked.  He made the point that America is different because the dreams that are impossible everywhere else are possible here.  He closed by saying that he owes everything to God, his parent’s sacrifices, and the United States of America.  His speech was followed by an extended standing ovation from the crowd.

Sen. Jim DeMint – South Carolina

Following Marco Rubio’s speech could have been difficult for many, but Sen. DeMint picked up right where he had left off.  He began by saying that he could use a man like Rubio in the United States Senate which was received with significant applause.

He said that we had reached a critical mass of conservative hope and change and that it had become the American people vs. the Democrats and he liked those odds.

He gave a plug for his web site, www.senateconservatives.com, and called for a balanced budget and a one-year moratorium on earmarks.  He noted that the borrower is slave to the lender.

Also, once again in an obvious slap to moderate Republicans in races across the country, DeMint said that he would “rather have 30 Marco Rubios in the Senate than 60 Arlen Specters.”

He listed Marco Rubio (FL), Chuck DeVore (CA), Mike Williams (TX), and Pat Toomey (PA) as better kinds of Republicans who will fight the conservative fight alongside him.

He then went on to list the qualities needed in the 2012 President, a position his name has been mentioned for.

• Can’t govern from a teleprompter
• Federal government must do less, not more
• No more bailouts
• Will not spend money we don’t have
• Will not throw out the faith of our fathers
• Will not give in to terrorists
• Will stop using other people’s money to impose goodwill on others
• Will return power, people, and money to states

State Rep. Josh Mandel - Ohio

Josh Mandel is one of the youngest office-holders in the country.  At CPAC, he told his story of how much hard work can achieve despite all expectations.

He first ran for city council at the age of 18 and was elected because of his hard work ethic.  He knocked on the doors of every voter in the district and was elected despite all of the naysayers.

Mandel had also enlisted in the United States Marines and was deployed to Iraq.  After he returned, he proposed legislation to reduce property taxes even though the others said it couldn’t be done.  He fought for it anyway and went to the people, hundreds of whom showed up for the next city council meeting.  Even though the other city council members told him he would be embarrassed, his legislation passed by a vote of 6-1.

Then, he decided to run for the state legislature in a district partially represented in Congress by Dennis Kucinich.  He knocked on 19,679 doors and won the election once again defying all expectations.

In 2007, he volunteered to return to service in Iraq despite the option to stay and serve in the legislature.  In 2008, when he returned, he was challenged by an opponent who labeled Mandel an absentee legislator.  Needless to say, he was reelected with over 70% of the vote.

Mandel held up the pair of shoes he wore out on the campaign trail, how worn down they were, and told of how he keeps them mounted on the wall behind his desk so that people who visit him in his office see the holes in them and how worn down they are and are reminded of the work he puts into his office every day.

He left the audience with two commitments he has made and charged the audience to do the same:

1. Sand on principle.  Don’t blindly follow the leaders.
2. Don’t be outworked.

Dick Armey

Dick Armey is a name from the past for many of us, but he demonstrated in his speech at CPAC that he still knows a thing or two about the political climate in the country.

He charged President Obama and the Democrats in control in Washington of aiming to redistribute income, knowing how to take advantage of bad times by claiming them as catastrophes and using them as excuse to gain control.

He said that, despite Democratic aims, the private sector pulls the government, not the other way around.  Using some good ole Texas logic, he noted that “when a jockey is fatter than the horse, you will lose the race.”

Liz Cheney

Dick Cheney’s daughter Liz presented an expert dismantling of President Obama’s handling of the war against terror.  Perhaps one of the best lines of the day was when she quoted her daughter who, upon hearing news talk about shutting down Guantanamo Bay, asked, “Is President Obama really trying to bring terrorists into the United States?”

She said that the administration should focus a little more on interrogating terrorists and a little less time convicting CIA officials who she said kept us safe after 9/11 and are patriots.

She went into detail of how the enhanced interrogation program that has received so much attention was shut down by President Obama, but he did not follow up to ensure it was replaced.  Instead, he has focused on other things and, to the best of her knowledge, not a single terrorists has been interrogated while they have been busy in other places.

She noted the ties that Yemen had to all recent terror attacks and noted with disgust a recent statement from administration officials that they were shocked to see Yemen connections to another attack.

She received a standing ovation for proclaiming, “President Obama, you will never silence us!”

Then, she mentioned her father who she said she usually talked to before giving a big speech.  This time, she brought him with her.

Dick Cheney

The former Vice President received one of the warmest welcomes of the whole conference, a long standing ovation perhaps excited most of all because nobody knew he was coming.

He started by saying that a welcome like that was almost enough to make him want to run for office which was greeted by more applause.  He then said it wasn’t quite enough, though.  He continued by talking about how proud he was of his daughters and that there comes a time to step aside and let the next generation take charge. 

“2010,” he said, “is gonna be a phenomenal year.” He then predicted that Barack Obama would be a one-term President which was, of course, followed by a standing ovation.

Sen. Scott Brown - Massachusetts

Sen. Brown was met with a lot of enthusiasm by the CPAC crowd which showed much appreciation for the fact that he had taken Ted Kennedy’s seat for Republicans and had provided a spark for the conservative movement.

Aside from mentioning that he had indeed driven there in his truck, there was not a whole lot of substance to the speech to report.

Mitt Romney

One of the frontrunners for the nomination in 2012, Romney provided a sneak peak into his strategy for election.

He began with one of the best delivered jokes of the entire conference.  After saying he had just arrived from the Vancouver Olympics, he asked if everybody had heard the news that the gold medal had been stripped from American Lindsey Vonn.  He briefly paused to a gasp from the crowd.  He then explained that it had been determined that President Obama had been going down hill faster than she had.

The humor didn’t end there.  He said that President Obama giving himself a B+ for his first year was the biggest exaggeration since Al Gore’s invention of the internet.

After even going so far as to defend President Bush, which hasn’t really been done by any politician since about 2006, he began to attack President Obama’s agenda.  “Obama called his agenda ambitious, I call it reckless.”

“America,” he said, “is not better off than it was $1.8 trillion ago.

He then laid out what seems to be his preliminary platform.

• Health coverage for the uninsured should be a state issue
• The answer for healthcare is market incentives
• Truth trumps hope
• People shape enterprises
• People shape countries
• Founders shaped country built around freedom of the people
• We are a nation of pioneers

He then classified the Democrats currently in charge as “liberal neo-monarchists.” He said that they are trying to take control of the country and, while pounding the podium with his fist, shouted, “We won’t let ‘em do it!”  He received a large standing ovation for the statement which was followed by a strong closing line once again attacking Pres. Obama.

“America has been a force for good like no other in the world and for that we make no apologies!”

Rep. Thaddeus McCotter – Michigan

The contrast between Mitt Romney’s energetic speech and what followed from Rep. McCotter could not be greater.  In a tone that would have fit right in to the funeral predicted by liberals for conservatism one year ago, Rep. McCotter stated the grave nature of the policies enacted by Democrats in DC.  Unfortunately, the only thing I took away from the speech was how utterly depressing his speech was.

Rep. John Boehner – Ohio

Introduced as the next Speaker of the House, Rep. Boehner received a large ovation upon his introduction.  He promised that, if given the majority later this year, they will run the House differently from both Republicans and Democrats in the past.

First of all, they will get the reform started after the Republican Revolution in 1994 going again.  They will post every bill online for at least 72 hours prior to the vote.  They will put cameras in the Rules Committee meetings.  They will outlaw “monuments to me,” which is when politicians get their names put on buildings or other things they earmarked the funding for.  He also said more ideas could be found at http://gopleader.gov/readthebill.

He also said that, for now, he will continue to insist that Democrats start over on healthcare legislation.  He also said that 340 out of 435 House races across the country have Republican candidates already and it was his aim to challenge every single one.

He has also created a web site with more information regarding his agenda at http://freedomproject.org/

He said that he will not attempt to co-opt the Tea Parties.  Instead, he said that Republicans will respect them, listen to them, and walk among them.  This was greeted by significant applause.

He closed by stating that he hoped to be open, transparent, and to listen for good ideas.  He left with a standing ovation.

Wayne LaPierre

The final speaker of Day One was Wayne Lapierre, Executive VP and CEO of the NRA.  A little out of place, he spoke a lot about the fight that took place under the Clinton administration and made only passing references to the current administration.  This was highlighted by playing many clips from Meet the Press and other television news programs from the 90s in which he had spoken out against Clinton’s policies including a controversial statement regarding Clinton’s intentions of allowing people to be killed for political purposes.

He noted that all of the laws needed to protect people from gun crimes were already on the books, but they were not being enforced then and still aren’t today.  He said the key is not new laws, but enforcement.

He said the NRA is going to go in front of the Supreme Court soon with a case that would incorporate the second amendment to cities and states by applying to them a ruling that only applies in federal districts currently.

Summary

Overall, Day One of CPAC 2010 was a great way to kick off a great weekend.  There were several electric moments from the passionate speech of Marco Rubio to the surprise introduction of Dick Cheney.  It was great to hear from such a wide range of conservative leaders of today and tomorrow and see that they are concentrating on returning the Republican parties to the fiscally conservative roots from which it came.

2010 Election: Reset

I have gotten a little ahead of myself by going into individual analyses of competitive races, without really going into much detail setting up the score and what the stakes are. To do that, I have taken all 36 elections and went ahead and, without any calculations, purely from a quick observation of Wikipedia and RealClearPolitics, made some early calls. I left all of the races that have been concentrated on by RealClearPolitics to delve into later and read quick summaries of the races on Wikipedia to determine the most likely outcome of the least competitive races. Most of the races feature long-time incumbents with little challenge if any from the opposite party. A few of the races have significant favorites, but still felt like they were competitive enough to call leans. With all this in mind, let's look at the latest states that I have called:

Alabama - Republican
Alaska - Republican
Arizona - Lean Republican
Georgia - Republican
Hawaii - Democrat
Idaho - Republican
Iowa - Lean Republican
Kansas - Republican
Maryland - Democrat
New York (Schumer) - Democrat
Oklahoma - Republican
Oregon - Lean Democrat
South Carolina - Republican
South Dakota - Lean Republican
Vermont - Democrat
Utah - Republican

Now, let's update the standings:

Current count (including leans):

Democrats: 45
Independents: 2
Republicans: 35

[*Edit* Wanted to note that I count Independents as Democrats in most of my calculations because despite the interesting theories surrounding the possibility of Joe Lieberman switching over to caucus with Republicans should the majority swing in the balance, I find it more likely he sticks with Democrats. Despite recent events he still has a lot more in common with them than with Republicans.]

That leaves us with 18 seats left in play. The magic number for Democrats is 4. If they can get 4 out of those 18 seats, they will hold onto the majority. Can Republicans pull off their magic number of 16? It's certainly a long road, but with the current political climate, it's all down hill!

My plans for the next week:

The Senate analysis will be put on hold for a little while as, tomorrow, I will be attending CPAC where I will take good notes and come back here with daily reports. After the dust settles from CPAC, I will resume the Senate analysis and hopefully get some more projections done! After the Senate is complete, I will move onto the House and try to get a handle on the situation there.

2010 Election: California Senate

Incumbent: Barbara Boxer (D)
Challengers: Tom Campbell (R)
Carly Fiorina (R)
Chuck DeVore (R)
Key Dates: Primary - June 8, 2010
PVR Projection: Lean Democratic

Background

One of the biggest signs of the extent to which Democrats are threatened in the 2010 elections is the fact that Barbara Boxer is facing significant opposition. Boxer has represented California in the Senate since 1993, prior to which she served in the House of Representatives for 10 years. In fact, in her most recent bid for re-election, she received more than 6.9 million votes, more than any Senate candidate ever.


Republican Opposition

Still, Boxer is in for a challenge this year. Three Republicans are fighting for the chance to challenge Boxer in November and there are some big horses in the race.

First, there is Chuck DeVore, a state assemblyman who resigned from his position as minority whip over an agreement made by party leaders to the largest tax hike in the history of any state in the country. He declared his intentions to run for the Senate early on and is representing much of the Tea Party message that is fed up with out of control spending. He made an appearance on Glenn Beck's television program in which he clearly found his market. (If you want to see it, go here http://www.chuckdevore.com.) He proudly displays the interview on his home page.

Also appearing on Beck's show was Carly Fiorina, another Republican candidate for the seat. She also takes a hard line on taxing and spending. She has signed the taxpayer protection pledge, promising "no new taxes on anything." She believes that this is essential to reign in federal spending.

The most recent entrant in the Republican field and already the leader in every poll is Tom Campbell. A big name in California politics, Campbell was once thought to be a contender for the gubernatorial election coming up. Campbell has a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Chicago where his faculty advisor was Milton Friedman. He graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School and was a proffesor of law at Stanford. He represented Silicon Valley in Congress from 1988-1998. During his tenure as State Finance Director, California's budget was balanced with no tax increases and no new borrowing.

The Polls

With the recent entry of Tom Campbell into the race, only very recent polls serve as strong indicators of where things actually stand. In the Republican Primary, an average of the 2 most recent polls by PPIC and Field puts the race like this:

Tom Campbell - 28.5%
Carly Firoina - 20.5%
Chuck DeVore - 7%

Obviously, this race has a lot left in it, but Campbell seems to have a significant lead, especially considering the head start the other two candidates had on him.

In potential matchup polling, there are only three polls which include all three Republican candidates.

The averages for these polls stand as follows:

Barbara Boxer - 46%
Tom Campbell - 40%

Barbara Boxer - 48%
Carly Fiorina - 39%

Barbara Boxer - 48.3%
Chuck DeVore - 38.3%

(*These matchups should be viewed with a significant amount of context. Barbara Boxer is a true incumbent with all incumbent advantages. This early in the race, she should be expected to have a lead by default simply because her challengers have yet to have time to get their name out. Still, current data is all we can look at until somebody invents a time machine. I look forward to watching this race as it develops to see how the numbers change.)

Projection

When these numbers are put into my calculations, the PVR Projected Probabilities of victory for each party are as follows:

Republican Projection Score: 39%
Democratic Projection Score: 47%

This places the California Senate race as a Democratic +8%, making it a Democratic Lean.



http://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=326688
http://boxer.senate.gov/en/senator
http://chuckdevore.com
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,585264,00.html
http://www.campbell.org/meet-tom/biography

2010 Election: Colorado Senate

Incumbent: Michael Bennet (D)
Challengers: Andrew Romanoff (D)
Jane Norton (R)
Tom Wiens (R)
Ken Buck (R)
Key Dates: Primary – August 10
PVR Projection: Lean Republican

Background

Although he is an incumbent, Michael Bennet has never participated in an election of this size. After the previous Senator, Ken Salazar, was appointed President Obama’s Secretary of the Interior, Bennet was chosen by the Governor of Colorado to hold the office until the November election. Prior to his service as Senator, Bennet had been Denver’s Superintendent of Education and Chief of Staff for the Mayor of Denver.

Democratic Challenger

Interestingly, Bennet is being challenged within his own party by former speaker of the Colorado House Andrew Romanoff. While Romanoff trails in fundraising in no small part due to his pledge not to accept any PAC money, one recent poll put him in the lead. The two candidates are meeting for their first debate tonight.

Republican Opposition

The Republican field is even messier. Three primary candidates have emerged to challenge for the Senate seat in November.

Jane Norton, former Lt. Gov. of Colorado, has gotten off to a fast start for the nomination. Still, she faces strong opposition within her own party. She has already managed to get on the bad side of former Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo who blasted Norton publicly for her “pro-amnesty rhetoric.” His criticism stems from a comment made by Norton that the country needs a “workable immigration system.” Norton’s greatest strength, perhaps, is her last name. Her husband, Tom, is a former U.S. attorney. Also in the Norton family tree is former state attorney general and Interior Secretary Gale Norton, former state Senate President Tom Norton, and University of Northern Colorado President Kay Norton.

Trying to overcome the name advantage are a pair of Republican candidates. Tom Wiens is trying to position himself as the outsider candidate in this, the year of outsiders. He has already put more than $640,000 of his own money into the campaign, claiming a need to balance the playing field. Wiens has also pledged not to serve more than two terms, if elected.

Also in the race is Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck. Buck is taking a hard-line conservative stance by supporting a balanced budget amendment, a permanent ban on earmarks, and a staunch anti-illegal immigration position. His fame comes primarily from launching a probe into the identities of thousands of undocumented workers only to have the move ruled illegal and the program shut down.

The Polls

While polls are hard to come by for individual primaries, much can be gained from polls that focus on all possible eventual matchups in the general election. The following graph demonstrates the most recent results.

The problem with the Colorado polling data is that all but one poll released since September of last year have come from Rasmussen which has simply been different from other polling agencies recently. It will be interesting to see if they turn out to be correct but much of the discrepancy comes from the estimation of likely voters in the midterm elections. Rasmussen has tended to suggest larger victories for Republicans than other polling firms.

With this caveat in mind, we can look at the above polling figures and see that Jane Norton is the clear leader. At this point, She holds a 9 point lead over Michael Bennet and an 8 point lead over Andrew Romanoff. Both Wiens and Buck still possess a lead over the Democratic opponents, but only by 2 points in all scenarios. This position is reversed, though, in the Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll from January 13th. In that poll, all contests were a statistical tie with a slight edge possibly going towards the Democratic Candidates.

Projection

The projection for this race will be a mathematical calculation based off of the recent polling averages. The chances of each candidate winning their primary is computed based off of comparing success against common opponents in the polls and averaging results. Then, the probability of success for each party in each scenario is multiplied by the probability of each scenario occurring. This will result in an overall probability for each party. This overall probability will be the projection score of the race.

A probability will be coded under the following metric:

< +5% – Dead Heat

+6 - +10% – Lean

> +10% – Solid

After calculating, the probabilities for the Colorado Senate race are as follows:

Republican Projection Score: 44%

Democratic Projection Score: 38%

This places the Colorado Senate Race as a Republican +6%, making it a Republican Lean.

http://www.kdvr.com/news/sns-ap-co--coloradosenate-debate,0,3205791.story

http://bennet.senate.gov/about/

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/kunc/news.newsmain/article/1/0/1612933/Regional/Romanoff..Bennet..Square.Off.Tonight

http://www.cologop.org/

http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/article.php?aID=7317

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/15/jane-norton-senate-run-ta_n_286831.html

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32836.html

http://www.npr.org/blogs/politicaljunkie/2010/01/your_2010_election_calendar.html

2010 Election: Senate Overview

Before going into the nuts and bolts of individual elections, I would like to provide an overview of the United States Senate: where it is and where it has been.

The US Senate is made up of 100 Senators, two from each state. The Senate was the product of a number of compromises when the founding fathers framed the Constitution. On one hand, the Senate is meant to represent the states more so than individual citizens. Originally appointed by state legislatures, Senators have only been directly elected in most states since 1913 after the ratification of the 17th Amendment. Still, Senators are elected by entire state populations, not districts like Representatives, which makes them further removed from the interests of the individual voter, forced to represent a broader range of ideas. Senators, it was thought, would represent a more elite form of thinking, not to be swayed too quickly by the fleeting passions of the masses. Further adding to this notion was a long term of 6 years for all Senators. They rotate these terms so that one third of the Senate is up for re-election every two years. This allows for Senators to spend more time governing and less time worrying about re-election.

Also important in the compromise that produced the Senate was the debate between states with large populations and states with small populations. The smaller states like Delaware were afraid that the large states like Virginia would control a body proportioned by population and their voice would never be heard. The Senate is proportioned equally among all states regardless of population, giving the smallest states the same voice in legislation as the largest.

The Senate is also much more given to parliamentary procedure and tricks than the House. Specifically, the filibuster, though rarely used in practice, allows for any Senator to speak for as long as he would like to hold up a vote so long as the opponents cannot muster a “supermajority” of 60 votes for cloture to force a vote on the bill. This allows for minority parties to present greater opposition than their counterparts in the House but also makes it much harder to get controversial bills passed. Once again, the Senate demonstrates its tendency to moderate and slow down the legislative machine on Capitol Hill.

As we turn our eyes to the 2010 elections, it is important to understand this institutional framework of the Senate, as well as recent trends in party control. The graph below shows the share of seats among Democrats and Republicans (third parties were thrown out in order to simplify the data) since the end of the Civil War.



As you can see, despite brief periods of strong partisan control after the Civil War and the Great Depression, very modest gaps have existed between majority and minority parties. Still, there is a very clear pattern of consistent Republican majority right up until the Great Depression after which Democrats have had a significant advantage. The last 30 years, however, have been a very tight tug-of war with neither party demonstrating a clear advantage for more than three or four elections. In fact, the 2008 election gave Democrats the first supermajority since 1979.

Recent trending would suggest that Republicans should begin to see the pendulum swing back in their direction; however, this does not mean that they will regain control of the Senate. The majority party has only lost more than 5 seats three times since 1979 out of 16 elections.

This election is certainly shaping up to be an interesting one, though, with Democratic Senators retiring left and right and a Congressional approval ratings as low as 11% according to the most recent Economist survey!

So what exactly is at stake in this election? 36 seats will be voted on in 2010, not counting the Republican victory in Massachusetts. The year began with Democrats holding 60 seats and Republicans holding 40. That distribution looked like this:



The Independents, of course, caucused with the Democrats providing them their 60 vote supermajority.

The victory of Scott Brown made the distribution 59-41 and broke the Democrat supermajority. Now, with 36 seats potentially up for grabs, the distribution looks more like this:



Obviously, Democrats still hold a significant advantage. There is enough lee-way, though, that Republicans could make a significant move.

Of the 36 seats up for reelection, it is an even split of 18 Republican and Democratic seats. An overall view of this race would not seem to indicate a favorable disposition for Republicans to make a move, but Republicans feel better about holding their seats than Democrats do about holding theirs. Over the next week, I will analyze individual races that will make or break the 2010 election for both parties. I will project a winner in each race and, after compiling them all, project the new distribution of seats in the Senate Chamber of the 112th Congress.

I will begin by taking a look at the Colorado Senate Election.



*Information obtained from various sources including Wikipedia and CongresOL.com*

2010: Republican Revolution Part 2?

OK.. OK.. So there is no Newt Gingrich touting the Contract with America, but could the elections of 2010 go down in the history books as the year that the Tea Party led to a complete power reversal in Congress? I think it is possible.  I will take time over the next few days to analyze both the House and the Senate and provide a summary of the most interesting races and make a few predictions along the way.

All of this should be taken with a huge grain of salt because there is a lot that will happen between now and November.  Will healthcare get passed? If so, under what conditions? Will another issue step into the forefront? Will the economy show signs of improvement or continue to falter? So many questions and so few answers.  Still, it is interesting to look at where we stand right now and adjust as new information arises.

First, I will analyze the Senate races of interest and make predictions there.  Then, I will move onto the House races.  My aim is to go into these analyses with no expectations and educate both myself and any reader on each of the competitive races and provide an overall outlook.

I would also like to develop a mechanism to be updated with the latest polling data from Pollster and RealClearPolitics to provide an up-to-the minute scoring system for the races so that I can return to this analysis periodically between now and November with updated predictions.

Now, I will begin work and return with Senate predictions.

A discussion on health care...

A friend of mine mentioned a poll regarding health care. I thought I would share a little bit of the ensuing conversation (which took place on Facebook) as I feel it was a good discussion of the topic.

My Initial Response

Rasmussen
Generally speaking, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and the congressional Democrats?
Favor: 38%
Oppose: 56%

Quinnipiac
While 44 percent think the proposed health care changes "go too far," 29 percent say they do not go "far enough" and 17 percent think the health care changes are "about right." The "not far enough" and "about right" total 46 percent.



Point One:

The poll does not support your opinion as much as you make it out to. It breaks down that 46% you were talking about into those who don't think it goes far enough and those that think it is right where it is. When you look at that break down, you can see very clearly that the largest group by far is the group that thinks it goes too far. That group is 50% larger than the next largest group which says it doesn't go far enough. The middle ground group which likes what you claim to be a watered down bill as it is shouldn't be so easily lumped in with one side over the other. In the end, only 17% like it as it is and nearly half of the country falls on the "it goes too far" side. The group on the other side isn't nearly as big.

Going back to your original point that Democrats would be better off making the bill more liberal... how exactly would that work, assuming this poll is close to accurate? It is easy to see that the bill is already too far for nearly half of Americans. The further you go to the left, the more people are going to jump ship to the right and be clumped in with that "goes too far" category.

My point from the beginning was that the reason we have the bill we have right now is that it was the most liberal bill that Congress and the President could afford to put out there because if they go any further, the people will massacre them in the polls. This poll demonstrates that perfectly. If anything, they might have already gone too far.

Point Two:

Even if you think the American people are wrong and it is a shame that you can't pass this healthcare bill, here is what I have to say.

You and everybody else on the left have tried so hard to make this a moral imperative. Guess what, it's not. This is not a healthcare bill. It infuriates me the way people continue to use that as the reference for this bill. This is a healthcare payment and regulation bill. It does absolutely nothing to ensure that one more person gets access to medical treatment. Not one thing.

My mom is a retired Pediatrician. My fiance works in a hospital and worked in a Pharmacy for years. They can both tell you that NOT ONE PERSON gets turned away when their health is at risk from a hospital. Hospitals don't turn people away that don't have health insurance. They can't and they don't.

That is one of the reasons why the cost of healthcare is so high. So many people without insurance are already getting treated and those costs are being shoved off on those that can pay. There are already government grants for hospitals to treat those patients to cover some of those costs.

There are some drugs that people without insurance do not have access to, I will grant you that. They are expensive and it is simply too much to give away to people when there are people out there that can pay for it.

It is tragic but the absolute worst thing for that situation is for this healthcare bill to get passed. Those drugs are expensive for a reason. More than likely, they are either brand new and still covering the costs of research or they are made from rare ingredients, or they are just simply costly to make. This healthcare bill won't change any of that. It will not increase the number of these medicines produced one bit. It's not like they are sitting on a shelf somewhere rotting away because nobody can afford to get them. They are being used by the people that can afford them.

In the long run, though, because of the high prices and the profits that these evil medical companies run off of, there is incentive to increase the production of successful drugs. That is how the greatest medical system in the world operates. That is why we are able to outclass the rest of the world in cutting edge medical treatment. That is why my mom, who was diagnosed with cancer a few years ago, is still alive today. A research hospital in Little Rock (founded by Sam Walton of Wal-Mart fame by the way) is kept alive by that profit incentive. That is where she got her treatment. The drugs that she has taken since for both her Multiple Sclerosis and her cancer were developed because of that profit incentive.

In a government-run system, that profit incentive is gone and decisions are made in Congress who gets what money. It is entirely inefficient. Instead of somebody making decisions with their own money regarding what is an effective solution, it will be prescribed to them by Congressmen in Washington.

Right now, people take their kids to the hospital every day with a runny nose. It's completely ordinary and most of the time it is absolutely nothing that the doctor needs to be concerned about. Most of the time, the parents will overreact, but they will back off when they find out that they will have to pay whatever they have to pay for the cold medicine for the infant. Imagine now a system where the government places that medicine on an approved list and now there is no additional cost.

Let's bump it up another level. Imagine somebody who has a very light case of diabetes. The first suggestion of any doctor would be to go on a diet before going to any kind of medication. The first time they see the cost of Insulin shots they are more likely to listen to that advice. Obviously, there are lots of people out there who really need that Insulin. The government would have no choice but to put that on an approved list of medications and the decision would become much easier for the average patient: go on a diet and lose weight or take a free shot. That will place an enormous strain on the medical industry which simply cannot pump out enough medicine for everybody. They would have to shift their focus from the long-range cutting edge stuff on the mundane everyday stuff that everybody is going to be asking for. Future growth and research is sacrificed for today.

That is the kind of problem that you run into in the long-run implications of this healthcare bill. It's the same problems you run into any time the government tries to get involved for everybody's "best interest."

In the end, the capitalist system is the best system to handle situations with limited resources. It is much more efficient.

If you want to see what the country would look like in ten years after passing this healthcare bill, look at the state of Tennessee after Tenncare took effect. The medical system and the state government both nearly went bankrupt. Doctors began to refuse to treat patients who were on Tenncare because they simply couldn't afford to take patients that the government could no longer afford to pay for.

You want to improve the health care system in this country? Work on tort reform. The cost of medical malpractice is killing medical practices all across the country. The cost of malpractice insurance is going through the roof.

I've heard rumors that there is some tort reform buried in this healthcare bill somewhere. If there is, then it is a shame the Democrats don't have the sense to put that front and center where it should be.

Ok... I will finish my rant for now.

To summarize:
1) Publically-funded health insurance is bad
2) Government intervention in the healthcare industry is bad
3) Many more Americans agree with me that this bill would go too far than agree with you that it doesn't go far enough
4)The Democrats have completely lost this policy battle

My Friend's Rebuttal

1. Yes, the fact that our broken healthcare system results in tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths a year (see http://www.harvardscience.harvard.edu/medicine-health/articles/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually...-linked-lack-health-coverage ) touches a nerve with me. You can crow all you want about how you don't think that suggests a moral imperative for whatever reason, but you sound like someone who's trying to convince himself of that more than anything else.

2. I don't need you to explain polls to me. A plurality does not represent a majority, and if you're going to dismiss the HCR bill and its goals as some "liberal fantasy," you're going to have to do better than less than half of people thinking it goes too far.

And don't dismiss my polls about the public option as outdated and fail to provide any evidence of your own. I did my homework; I don't see you finding four polls that show opposition to the public option. The fact is, the public option has been consistently shown to be popular.... See More

3. The suggestion that Democrats are unpopular because Obama is attempting to follow through on healthcare reform, part of his PLATFORM that he ran on and WON with only months ago, is ridiculous. You don't have a republican victory in Massachusetts without deeply depressed Democratic turnout. This is about Obama's liberal base becoming disenchanted with weak healthcare and economic policy.

4. Nothing I posted suggested I thought "the American people are wrong."

5. The fact that members of your family work in the healthcare profession or have gotten sick doesn't make you any better informed about this issue. My dad's a doctor and my grandmother died from cancer, but I know what I know about this topic because I inform myself about it.

6. This isn't about people being turned away from a hospital when their health is at immediate risk. This is about people not being able to afford treatment that could drastically prolong their lives. A person without health insurance, or who is underinsured, simply is not going to have access to the same resources a fully insured person would. Why should rich people deserve to have a better shot at surviving? That's not the way it is in other places.

Read this article, and tell me why this woman deserved to die sooner because she didn't health insurance: http://tvguide.ca/TVNews/Articles/100120_survivor_contestant_dies_GD . Read this part, specifically: "The blond competitor had detected lumps on her breasts in 2004... but didn’t follow up with a physician BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE." Even if this were a case of of her not having health insurance because she didn't bother with buying it rather than not being able to afford it, a single-payer system clearly would have allowed her to see a doctor and might have saved her life.

And even if the poor could manage to get a decent amount of treatment through whatever grants and charity they might be able to find, you're defending a system that frequently forces people to go bankrupt because they're unfortunate enough to get sick and can't pay.

7. "There are some drugs that people without insurance do not have access to, I will grant you that. They are expensive and it is simply too much to give away to people when there are people out there that can pay for it."

Other countries do it. You're going on and on about protecting drug companies' profits while you're willing to let it slide that some people can't get the medicine they need to survive. I simply cannot understand those priorities.

And you sure are awfully quick to dismiss a system of healthcare shared by nearly every other developed country. Guess what: they've had the National Health Service for decades here in the UK. And Britain isn't some horrible communist dystopia; the people here like their system. The country's had its conservative leaders, but not even ultra right-wing Margaret Thatcher would touch the NHS, nor did people want her to.

8. I would never expect Tennessee to produce the best solution to anything, frankly.

9. Medical malpractice accounts for a very small portion of U.S. healthcare spending (see http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=az9qxQZNmf0o ). Tort reform is a red herring. Removing a corporate health insurance system with all the money it wastes on overhead, advertising, etc. would save far more money.

10. I look forward to gloating on your facebook page when healthcare reform passes.

Now, I'm sorry to have to pull an O'Reilly here and cut your mic, but I really have no more time to spend on this argument. This is my facebook page, not Poly Sci class. Besides, for all your protesting about "spouting off party lines," I've actually taken the time to dig through far more outside sources to backup my claims than you have.

So I hope you will consider the links I've posted and ponder why you're defending a system that allows 45,000 unnecessary deaths every year. If this were a forum thread, I'd lock it at this point, but it's not and I can't, so I'm just going to delete anything else that's posted here (because it's my facebook page and I'm tired and busy and have a project due soon and other things to do, etc., etc.). Maybe we'll pick it up again another day.

My Response

1. That "study" does not pass the looks test. They claim to compare uninsured versus insured taking into account things like income and education. I'm sure you would agree with the point that people who are insured and peo...ple that are uninsured are almost entirely exclusive groups in those categories. Access to health insurance is entirely dependent on income, so how exactly do they get an accurate cross-sectional sample comparing similar income levels? Even if their findings are accurate, it doesn't negate what I said originally. There are some drugs and treatments that the uninsured can't get, but if you read my original post you can see very clearly that this bill would do nothing to change that. It would, in fact, slow down if not ultimately cripple the cycle of profit incentives that lead to more efficient production of medical supplies making cutting edge treatment more readily available to the very people this bill is meant to help. I am infuriated that there are people dying of things we could have cured. I still would like to use reason to create policy that will help the long-term prospects of the issue, not jump to a short-term solution that hurts long-term efficiency. Liberals are all too quick to judge conservatives as self-interested and heartless individuals when really we are the ones looking out for everybody's long term interest by using our heads when our hearts call us to action.

2. Your attempt to dismiss my analysis of the poll I gave you is amusing. You continue to diminish the importance of a plurality. Your original status that spawned all of this was that the lesson from Massachusetts is that the Democrats needed to "grow a pair" and pass healthcare. Your insinuation is that they were too concerned with compromise and were watering down the bill, to the point that many grew frustrated with just how watered down it was. My poll demonstrates this is patently false as the number of people who find it to be too far right is incredibly small compared with the number who find that it goes too far left. Basically, when you break it down in that dimension, your argument is completely unfounded.
As for your polls, yes they are old and, yes, that matters. You have to be careful with polls that pick out specific parts of bills, especially when it is something like the "public option." Many people don't know what the public option is and even when they do the question doesn't really get at whether or not they think it is feasible. In fact, the following comment on the Reuters poll you posted says it well:
"I dont agree. You have to look at this holistically until these other issues are resolved through amendments. A public option that runs efficiently and covers everyone's medical needs with out ultimately raising premium costs, funding elective abortions, or raising the taxes (and federal deficit) of the average American would be great but people are rightly concerned that these goals are not realistic or attainable based on the historical record of government administered programs. Focusing on a public option only is like saying a person can have the option of receiving a Cadillac (who cant normally afford a Cadillac) without considering the purchase cost, insurance, registration, long term maintenance and fuel costs, and annual taxes. It just is not a realistic or a relevant understanding of public sentiment on the issue. That is why I believe the Reuters poll is misleading unless you resolve the other key contentious issues of the bill."
Don't think that I haven't done my research, though. That poll I gave you is not by any means the only poll showing the opposition to the healthcare bill. In fact, the RealClearPolitics.com average right now of all major polls shows that 50.4% oppose the Democrats' Plan and only 40.3% favor.

3. Certainly there is lower enthusiasm among Democrats right now than there was in the election of 2008. I am not contesting that at all. To pretend that is the only or even the primary thing in play though is entirely misleading. Polling indicates that Scott Brown's victory was fueled by "a whopping 41% margin among independents... Independents were also the deciding factor in the Virginia and New Jersey governors' races recently won by Republicans." (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/mary-kate-cary/2010/01/19/scott-brown-fueled-by-independents-anger-at-liberal-arrogance.html)

4. Try to follow this logic... 1. You believe that the Democrats should have tried to pass a bill with more teeth. 2. The poll I showed you indicates that far more people think this bill was either good as it was or too far to the left than in your position that it is too far right. 3. You believe that the Democrats should have done what a majority of people disagreed with and moved it further left. 4. You believe the American people are wrong."

5. So there is no value whatsoever in asking somebody who has worked in a pharmacy who has access to drugs and which drugs they don't have access to and why? Yeah... makes sense. The internet is a much better source.

‎6. Of course somebody with more money is going to have a better chance of living longer! There is no disputing that. Whether it is healthcare access or dietary concerns or education or crime rates where they live, that is going to be a co...nstant. This happens for a reason. There are limited resources. An economy is an instrument used to distribute those limited resources. The capitalist system is built around profit to expand production so that the number of resources is maximized over time. The socialist system is built around distributing the resources that exist as evenly as possible. I know that you are not a socialist and that the healthcare bill is not a socialist bill. I do think, though, that it falls into the same near-sighted flaw of the socialist way of thinking. It's predicated on the here and now. In the long run, a system based on profit and on requiring money to have access to medication (which is distributed at today's maximum production either way as this bill wouldn't change how many pills are made just who has access to those pills) will in the end increase the medication available. In the long run, more people have access than is currently possible. The alternative leads to a slowed growth in capacity which hurts the everybody in the long run, the rich, the poor, and everybody in between.
It is terrible that something like what this article describes happens. I still don't see what it has to do with this debate though. She chose not to go to the doctor. She could have gone. She had access. She chose not to because of the expense. There is a cost to healthcare treatment and somebody has to pay for it. Her life could have been very different had she chosen to go to the doctor when she first noticed it.
Yes, I am defending that system because it is that system that has taken us from a world where people would go bankrupt and die of diseases that today they have access to medication at their local pharmacy for next to nothing to prevent. It is that system that makes new treatments possible for diseases once thought to be a curse from God. Yes, I am defending that system.
What I want is for somebody to tell me how this healthcare bill is going to help the healthcare system in the long run.

7. Those priorities are due to everything else I have said. Profit drives innovation. Innovation is the very reason our system kicks all those other countries out the door. When people have a medical condition that requires the most cutting edge treatment available, they don't go to Canada and they don't go to Europe. They come here. It's because of innovation. It's because of profit. Oh, and it's because of those evil drug companies.
I had a chance to talk with several people from Great Britain this summer at the Young America's conference in Washington, D.C. There are plenty of them that are incredibly unhappy with their healthcare system. We even had multiple British speakers tell us to do everything we could to not let our country go down the same miserable road they did with their healthcare system. So, obviously, there is some disagreement when it comes to the success of the NHS.

8. So, obviously Tenncare didn't work because Tennesseans are just bad at everything. Great response.

9. Yeah, Republicans just want to do tort reform because it sounds good:
In 2008, medical malpractice costs totaled $29.8 billion. Since 1975, medical malpractice costs have increased at an annual rate of 10.3%. (http://www.instituteforlegalreform.com/issues/docload.cfm?docId=1044)
Despite winning 7 out of 10 suits brought against them, 89% of OB/GYNs report having had at least one claim filed against them with an average of 2.6 claims per OB/GYN. (http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr11-03-06.cfm)
According to a 2003 AMA survey, 45% of hospitals lost doctors or emergency department coverage due to liability crisis. 39% of medical students said that the current liability environment would effect their decision regarding what state to complete their residency training in. (http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/-1/mlrnow.pdf)
For every dollar of tort costs, only 46 cents goes to compensating plaintiffs for their losses. (2009 Economic Report of the President)
Since passing tort reform in 2004, including capping select non-economic and punitive damages, Mississippi has seen the following results:
The number of medical malpractice claims plummeted by 91% from its peak. The state's largest medical liability insurer dropped its premiums by 42%, and has offered an additional 20% rebate each year since tort reform went into effect.
(http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Heres-your-demonstration-project-Mr-President----its-called-Mississippi-59990137.html)
Helped to create 60,000 new jobs within the state in four years (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121037876256182167.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries)

Oh, and don't believe me, believe the Congressional Budget Office which predicted that tort reform at a national level would result in the following:
Total national premiums for medical liability insurance would decrease by 10%.
Mandatory spending for Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and Federal Employee Health Benefits program would be reduced by roughly $41 billion over the next 10 years.
Federal tax revenues would be increased by an estimated $13 billion over the next 10 years.
Federal budget deficits would be reduced by roughly $54 billion over the next 10 years.

Yeah, tort reform is nothing, just a myth made up by Republicans... (I can do my research to. This is all stuff I have been putting together for a report at my job.)

10. It is going to be incredibly tough to pass healthcare at this point. Nancy Pelosi admits they don't have the votes to pass the Senate version which means they will have to start over again. With Scott Brown in office and the prospects of more elections coming up in a matter of a few months, other Democrats are going to start jumping ship. If healthcare does pass, it will be an even weaker package than the current bill. I certainly don't think you will be in a gloating mood.
I hope that you have taken the time to read through my response. I look forward to any rebuttals you may have.

He did not reply any further and that is where the discussion ended. I have to say... pretty good for a Facebook discussion thread!