Two Year Sprint

Temporarily Out of Order

Two Year Sprint fans--you will notice that this blog has been extremely poorly kept up in the last two months.  I usually try to post 2-3 times a week, if not more, but have only managed one post this month.  About 90% of this can be attributed to being extremely busy at work in the last couple months.

I tend to have an all-or-nothing approach to these sort of things.  I can't give all, so for the time being, I'm going to have to give nothing.  So I'm announcing a brief hiatus--probably no more than a few weeks or so.  I will definitely return and restore this blog to its former glory (?) so keep checking back from time to time.

I have also been pretty lazy about using Twitter during this time too, but I'll try to up the Twitter count to compensate.  You can follow me here. 

That's it--I'll be back soon!

--Jerome

The Specteracle in the Senate

A week after Arlen Specter's defection to the Democrats, it looks like both parties involved in the deal-making wouldn't mind a do-over.  Increasingly, Specter's decision seems more like an impulse inspired by anger toward the conservative movement, and less like the shrewd, survivalist move many proclaimed it to be. 

If a good compromise leaves no one happy, then this was one of the greatest compromises in a decade.  The Democrats and Arlen Specter both have some serious beefs.  I've listed a few, below.

--"I'm not a loyal Democrat!"  The symbolic victory of 60 Democrats was probably more important than the actual voting, considering Specter, Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln and others are likely to defect on key cloture votes anyway.  But Arlen Specter seems really uncomfortable in his new Democratic skin.  After allegedly telling Obama "I'm a loyal Democrat," he emphatically refuted that on Meet the Press last Sunday, saying, quite clearly, "I am NOT a loyal Democrat."  To me, this is odd, because he is now running in a Democratic Primary, and he has just delivered the key quote for Joe Sestak and other Primary challengers to use in advertising.  But clearly, he hasn't thought through how Democratic he needs to be if he wants to win a Democratic Primary.

Aside from this, he has also insisted that he would still oppose the Employee Free Choice Act (which, again, seems like an odd thing to proclaim loudly now that he's running in a Democratic Primary--he could still vote how he wants, but why brag about it?), and he apparently said that he hopes Norm Coleman (R-MN) gets seated (though he has since said he misspoke. 

The Democrats probably expected Specter to be their most conservative member, but he shows no signs of supporting the team just yet.  He can vote however he wants, but it just doesn't seem to make a lot of sense that he hasn't gotten on board.  Is he waiting for a better counter-offer from the Republicans?

--Supreme Trouble.  The ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee is now hard-line conservative Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL).  The Judiciary Committee has to vote to recommend whomever Obama nominates to replace Souter on the Supreme Court.  Now, the Democrats have enough members to approve the justice, but it would be nice for the ranking minority member to be cooperative and possibly even supportive, as opposed to someone who will rally the opposition against the nomination, and be a high profile spokesman against it.

Who was the previous ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee?  Arlen Specter.  Specter is pro-choice, so he wouldn't have made a big deal about Roe v. Wade being overturned, and he'd be likely to work w/ Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) in promoting whomever Obama picks, so long as he or she wasn't too radical (which I don't think he or she will be.)  Now, the Democrats have a big fight that they probably didn't have befor, or at least not in the same way.

--Embarassing rallies of support to follow.  Obama, Biden, and Harry Reid all promised to campaign for Specter this cycle.  But how are they going to justify supporting Specter if he doesn't at least start voting like a Democrat occassionally?  Answer--they will half-ass it, and they will look silly doing it.  Can you imagine Obama "Yes-We-Can-ing" to a crowded Philadelphia hall to promote of all people Arlen Specter?  This tarnishes his image, as it makes him look more establishment and more like "the man," and divorces him from his grassroots support a bit.

--Now Arlen Specter has to win a Democratic Primary--whoops.  After Specter switched, I was absolutely shocked at the naivete of the pundits, many of whom are usually quite astute, saying "Ed Rendell and Barack Obama have promised to clear the field, so that Arlen Specter has an easy path to reelection in the Democratic Primary."  This seemed to be the unanimous opinion, and only a couple days ago did I hear anyone suggest Arlen might not win a Democratic Primary.

Say what?!?!!?

Look, Obama and Rendell can make as many calls as they want to potential challengers, but Democratic Primary voters are quite liberal, and they don't want to vote for a Lieberman-esque Democrat who they've vote against in the past.  In 2004, Specter got 28% of the Democratic votes in the General election, with 71% going to Democratic nominee Joe Hoeffel.  Why would that change in a Primary? 

Besides, in this case, institutional support is overrated because there is absolutely zero grassroots support.  (Actually institutional support is almost always overrated--how many times did we have to hear about Hillary Clinton winning Massachusetts and California in the Primary even though Ted and Caroline Kennedy endorsed Obama?  Who cares?)  Obama and Rendell can discourage other candidates from running, but Democratic Primary voters aren't going to just vote for Specter because Obama says so.  Knowing that, how on earth will they keep a challenger from entering the race?  Nature hates a vacuum, and a field with only Specter leaves an enormous vacuum for a liberal candidate to enter.  Maybe one who say, does not enthusiastically deny being called a "loyal Democrat" with the virulence reserved for denying being a pedophile.

--Back to Freshman Year.  The biggest slap so far, and one that must have Republicans absolutely cracking up, is that Arlen Specter will NOT receive the same seniority that he had as a Republican, despite Harry Reid's assurances that he would.  Ouch.  The Dems voted on it, and though it was a closed door vote on whether he should keep his seniority, I would guess votes were evenly split between "No," "Hell no," and "Over my dead Senatorial body."  Probably didn't help that he referred to his seniority as an "entitlement" on Meet the Press."  Harry Reid, once again, looks weak and ineffective. 

So what happens now?  I think they'll forge some compromise with Arlen Specter but he'll mostly have to swallow losing his committee assignments, and then he'll eventually get a clue and vote in line with the Democrats but ultimately lose in a Democratic Primary. 

Sixty

According to the Fix, Arlen Specter (R-PA, wait, D-PA) is switching parties.  This is huge news.  Once Al Franken is confirmed in Minnesota, the Democrats will have a 60-vote filibuster proof majority.  Here's his statement. 

This is exciting for Democrats, though it is possible for them to be a little too gleeful.  Specter insists that he will not be an automatic vote for cloture (to end filibusters) and notes that his position in opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act hasn't changed.  But it looks like he will be caucusing with the Democrats, and he will have much less pressure on him to vote with the Democrats than in the past. 

From a totally unscientific glance at conservative blogs, it looks like so far the Republican reaction is, "meh."  They already considered Specter useless and a traitor, and they view this as just making his traitor status official.  However, they are definitely nervous about having 60 Ds and 40 Rs, even if that last D has suggested he won't always vote with the Democrats. 

The Republicans entire legislative strategy now depends on filing procedural motions against Al Franken to hopefully delay his term another 5 1/2 years. 

Looks like the impetus for this decision was probably this poll showing Specter down 21 points in the Republican Primary to conservative former Congressman Pat Toomey in his re-election bout. 

I Promised Myself I'd Blog About North Dakota Once Every Several Years

 Politico has an article today on Senator Byron Dorgan (D) from North Dakota and how he has opposed Obama supposedly because North Dakota is a "deeply red" state, and because the Republican Party wants to tie Dorgan to "the most liberal elements of President Barack Obama’s agenda."

I want to quibble with the premise here a bit.

How is North Dakota a "deeply red" state?  The state is center-right, but "deeply red" to me sounds like Idaho, or Utah, or Alabama, or Louisiana, or Oklahoma, or Texas. 

I suppose the strongest piece of evidence refers to the fact that North Dakota hasn't voted for a Democrat on the Presidential level since 1964.  But Obama got 45% of the vote in North Dakota--which was one of his four best McCain state performances.  He lost it by only 8 points.  But Obama won Colorado and Iowa by 9 points, and no one would describe those states as "deeply blue states."

North Dakota's entire Congressional delegation is Democratic (two Senators and one Congressman).  Senator Dorgan won his last three elections (starting with the most recent) by 39, 28, and 20 points.  Senator Kent Conrad (D) won his last three elections by 40, 23, and 16 points.  Congressman Earl Pomeroy (D) won his last three elections by 24, 32, and 20 points. 

Now, North Dakota has a popular Republican Governor--his favs are 68% favorable, 27% unfavorable, which are very strong numbers--but even he loses to Dorgan by more than 20 points in a hypothetical Senate match-up between the two of them. 

So, no, North Dakota is not deeply red, and Dorgan is probably very safe, even if he supports Obama most of the time. 

Why am I making a big deal about this?  Because I'm tired of this lazy media premise, which is usually pretty shaky at best, that Democratic Senators in red states need to run from Obama.

Back on Track

Obama has been pretty busy during these first few months of his Presidency, but his most tangible accomplishment is the fact that he has instilled a little more confidence. 

From Political Wire:

Americans Say Obama is on Right Track

For the first time in nearly five years, a new Associated Press/GfK poll finds more Americans than not say the country is headed in the right direction, 48% to 44%.

Though most Americans are still "intensely worried about their personal finances and medical expenses," they nonetheless appear realistic about the time President Obama might need to turn things around. They also view their new president as "a strong, ethical and empathetic leader who is working to change Washington."

Obama's approval rate is 64%, according to the survey.

So I get the sense most Americans are not buying the Republicans' message that Obama is a socialist who bows to Muslims, socializes with Hugo Chavez, and brags about outsmarting pirates.

I Blame the Economy

Sorry guys, I haven't been blogging much this month, it has been a surprisingly busy week at my super secret job in the real world.  I'm sure my blog's fans (if it has any) are quite tired of looking at pictures of the Queen and Obama looking like something out of Madame Tussauds' (though maybe one of them will point out that Wax Britannica was in fact a very clever title.)

Then, tomorrow I leave for Florida, where I will probably not be updating.  I get back on Monday. 

So look for Two Year Sprint to cease and desist being lame on or around Tuesday, April 14th, 2009. 

I'll try to send a few messages on Twitter, you can follow me here.

Wax Britannica

Don't the Obamas, the Queen of England, and some guy (guessing the Queen's butler) look like cardboard cut-outs or wax museum exhibits in this picture?

 

Maybe these are all decoys, and the real Barack Obama is on a beach somewhere trying not to think about the economy.

Also, if the eyes of the subjects are any indication, there appear to be no fewer than 3 photographers taking this picture simultaneously.

New York 20 Ties, Saratoga Spins

With 100% of precincts reporting in NY-20, Dem Scott Murphy is ahead of Republican Jim Tedisco by a whopping 65 vote margin.  We won't know if Murphy hangs on until they count the absentees, which I originally guessed would benefit Murphy, but it looks like the majority of absentee ballots are from military voters, which bodes better for Tedisco.  A recount is likely too, of course.

However, this gave both sides the opportunity to claim that they won!

If you'll remember, yesterday I said that if the Republican post game spin would be the following.

This is proof that the public rejects Obama's stimulus plan and the liberal majority that has taken over Congress!  Even in liberal New York, the American public knows the agenda has to be stopped.  This is a sign of things to come, on the scale of the 1994 Republican revolution, when the public finally realized what it means to have liberals having unchecked power. . . we never expected to win this district . . . --it's in one of the most liberal states in the nation, Obama won it, and a Democrat has won the Congressional race twice in a row--and by 24 points last time.  Even coming as close as we did shows that the Democrats are in trouble.

I was pretty close.  Here are the actual talking points, leaked (intentionally? unclear) frmo the NRCC to various media outlets.  I've bolded stuff that I mentioned specifically.

We are confident that Jim Tedisco has won and will be the next Congressman from New York.There is currently a Republican advantage among the absentee and military ballots, and it is now important to ensure that all lawful votes are counted.  Not even a last-minute endorsement from President Obama – who won this district less than 150 days ago – and a significant support from Washington Democrats was enough to put Scott Murphy over the top.  Tedisco closed the gap in a district that has not voted for a Republican since 2004. President Obama carried the district by a margin of 51%-48% in 2008. Kirsten Gillibrand won re-election in 2008 by a margin of 62%-38% against a challenger who spent $6 million. . .The fact that Democrats have failed to close the deal in an Obama won-district they’ve held for the past two cycles speaks volumes about the significance of Jim Tedisco’s advantage. It is a testament to the strength of Jim’s record of standing up for taxpayers in upstate New York; as well as the effectiveness of the Republican message of fiscal responsibility and accountability that Americans are demanding in the wake of the AIG scandal.

I said the Democratic post-game spin would be this:

George W. Bush won the district twice and that there is a party registration advantage of 70K voters for the Republicans. . . . This is the price you Republicans pay for continuing to follow Rush Limbaugh and trying the failed solutions of the past.  People are looking for answers on the economy, and you have none.  This is a district that you guys had a real shot at, and frankly you blew it because Americans know your leadership has no plan. 

Here's DCCC Chair Chris Van Hollen's (D-MD) press release, and I again bolded some of the same things I said they would say:

From 21 points down to securing a majority of the vote tonight, congratulations to Scott Murphy who ran an extraordinary campaign focused on his record as a successful businessman who helped to create jobs and his strong support for President Obama's economic recovery act.  As votes continue to be counted, we're confident that Scott Murphy will expand his lead.  Scott Murphy's strong showing in this district where Republicans outnumber Democrats by more than 70,000 represents a rejection of the obstructionist agenda and scare tactics that have become the hallmark of House Republicans.

Additionally, DNC chair Tim Kaine called the race a "repudiation of the failed politics and policies that Republicans continue to embrace."

Saratoga Party

As I mentioned yesterday, voters in a district nobody particularly cares about (NY-20, which represents Saratoga Springs) are voting in a special election today to replace Kirsten Gillibrand (D) who was appointed by Governor Paterson to fill Hillary Clinton's vacated seat. 

Tomorrow morning, whether Democrat Scott Murphy or Republican Jim Tedisco win, we will be bombarded with spin from both sides on why this election either meant great things for their party, or if their guy loses, why this election doesn't really matter.

Here's what we're in for tomorrow:

If Tedisco Wins, the Republicans Will Say: This is proof that the public rejects Obama's stimulus plan and the liberal majority that has taken over Congress!  Even in liberal New York, the American public knows the agenda has to be stopped.  This is a sign of things to come, on the scale of the 1994 Republican revolution, when the public finally realized what it means to have liberals having unchecked power.

If Tedisco Wins, the Democrats Will Say:  Yeah ok Tedisco won.  Congrats, but big deal.  George W. Bush won the district twice and that there is a party registration advantage of 70K voters for the Republicans.  I hope Tedisco enjoys the crappiest office in Longworth and the old desk with the broken leg in the last row of the minority side of the House.  If he has any great ideas for fixing the economy, make sure he tells Speaker Pelosi--after all, she still commands a majority that has about 80 more members than his party.

If Murphy Wins, the Democrats Will Say:  See, this is the price you Republicans pay for continuing to follow Rush Limbaugh and trying the failed solutions of the past.  People are looking for answers on the economy, and you have none.  This is a district that you guys had a real shot at, and frankly you blew it because Americans know your leadership has no plan. 

If Murphy Wins, the Republicans Will Say:  Meh.  This was a Democratic seat and it stays a Democratic seat--so nothing has changed from our perspective.  Besides, listen, we're the first to say that our party needs to find a better way to articulate our plan for growing the economy.  It's a tough environment out there and our party's brand is tainted by some in the party who lost their way.  But we never expected to win this district anyway--it's in one of the most liberal states in the nation, Obama won it, and a Democrat has won the Congressional race twice in a row--and by 24 points last time.  Even coming as close as we did shows that the Democrats are in trouble.

No Matter Which Candidate Wins, Jerome Will Say:  Basically, all of these points have some truth to them.  I still think Tedisco will win based on the intensity of opposition to the stimulus (that is, even if a majority support the stimulus, those who intensely oppose it probably outnumber those who intensely support it).  Reports today are saying otherwise, however, as the DNC machinery continues to be much more well-oiled, and apparently Tedisco sent text messages to people in the wrong district to vote for him. 

So who benefits more from a win?  I think it is clearly the Republicans, just to get the psychological edge back by winning just one big race.  After the 2004 cycle, the Democrats were in the same funk the Republicans are in now.  In early 2005 (I think), there were two close heart-breaking races on the Democratic side.  Paul Hackett nearly beat Jeanne Schmidt in OH-02, and Francine Busby nearly beat Brian Bilbray in CA-50.  In my memory, only once the Democrats won the Governorship of Virginia in the fall of 2005 fairly handily did the Party remember, "Oh yeah, it is technically possible for us to win elections."  And 12 months later, they won back both Houses of Congrses.

Still, the Democrats need to win only in the sense that they don't have to give Republicans the satisfaction of winning one.

Republican Boogeyman On the Loose in NY-20

There is a special election tomorrow in NY-20 to replace Kirsten Gillibrand (D) now that she has been appointed to the Senate.  The Republican, Jim Tedisco, started out with a fairly solid lead, though Democrat Scott Murphy has had the momentum lately, with polls over the last weeks showing him closing the gap, then within the margin of error, then ahead slightly.

I actually think Tedisco will win.  This is a relatively off-the-radar, low turnout special election, and it comes right at a time where Republican activists are starting to really get worried about the Obama agenda and having too much power in Democratic hands.  So this may be an urgent race for conservatives in NY-20; however, for liberals in the district, it just means that the House loses one member of a fairly robust majority.

That being said, special elections are pretty hard to predict, so who knows.  The district is certainly a swing district--it voted for Bush by 8 points in 2004 and Obama by 3 points in 2008. 

Anyway, I bring this up is because of a mailer (pictured in this post) I saw on Ben Smith's Blog.  The Democrats are making the GOP the party of Rush Limbaugh, George W. Bush, and Sarah Palin the way the Republicans always try to make the Democrats the party of Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and Jesse Jackson. 

I think the mailer is a little stupid actually--I don't think Jim Tedisco exactly "works for" Sarah Palin--but our three boogeymen are more relevant than their three boogeyman.  Think about it--we can trot out the President who most people thing ruined our country, a controversial VP nominee who loves the spotlight but scares a lot of people, and the symbol of loudmouth extremism in talk radio.  They now have a Secretary of State who 70%+ approve of, an elder statesman who is quietly dying of cancer, and a figure made somewhat irrelevant by the election of a more mainstream African-American.