March Senate Predictions

I’m going to forecast some Senate races in 2008. These are obviously extremely preliminary, but early polling data can give us a rough estimate over what to expect in the fall. And I decided to be gutsy and not lump them into “Democratic favored” or “leans” categories…

I’ll keep up with Senate race predictions on my new “Senate Races” section.

Democrats Keep: (11 seats)

Pryor (D-AK), Biden (D-DE), Durbin (D-IL), Kerry (D-MA), Levin (D-MI), Reed (D-RI), Rockefeller (D-WV), Harkin (D-IA), Baucus (D-MT), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Johnson (D-SD)

Republicans Keep: (14 seats)

Stevens (R-AK), Sessions (R-AL), Chambliss (R-GA), McConnell (R-KY), Wicker (R-MS), Dole (R-NC), Inhofe (R-OK), Graham (R-SC), Alexander (R-TN), Cornyn (R-TX), Roberts (R-KA), Cochran (R-MS), Enzi (R-WY), Barrasso (R-WY)

Democratic Takeover: Close races but are currently trending Democratic takeover (4 seats)

Norm Coleman (R-MN) to Al Franken, John Sununu (R-NH) to Jeanne Shaheen, Pete Dominici (R-NM) to Tom Udell, Open Seat to Mark Warner (D-VA)

Republican Takeover (1 seat)

Mary Landreau (D-LA) to John Kennedy

Too Close: Close races with no clear front-runner (3 seats)

Bob Schaffer vs. Tom Udall- Colorado, Gordon Smith (R-OR) vs. No Clear Challanger, Susan Collins (R-ME) vs. Tom Allen

I put in the “too close” category because there are truly a few races that will be very close in November, or at least they’re trending that way right now. Republicans Smith, Collins, Sununu and Coleman are vulnerable while Democrats have their eyes on open seats in Virginia & Colorado. If everything goes as planned for the Democrats, they could walk away with a net gain of 5 seats in November, giving them a 56-44 majority in the Senate. It currently looks like, unfortunately, Mary Landreau (D-LA) will lose her seat. In the after math of Hurricane Katrina, thousands of New Orleans residents fled Louisiana, depressing the city’s Democratic electorate. Landreau squeaked by in 2002 (before Katrina). Now it looks like without the base that elected her, she will be unable to win in November. That’s the only bad news for Democrats–and the only reason she is vulnerable is because of the political implications of a natural disaster. Republicans are certainly going to be on the defensive this year.

Once again, this is where I stand as of right now. I’ll post more in depth info about some of these races and new predictions as the year progresses. Public opinion changes, events happen, controversies erupt: you never know what can swing an election.

The 2008 Electoral Map

In the first national poll of presidential preferences, SurveyUSA asked 30,000 respondents in all 50 states, if the election were held today, who would you vote for.

The Results:
Both Democrats Beat John McCain
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hillary Clinton 276
John McCain 262

States Democrats Pick Up:
West Virginia, Arkansas, New Mexico, Ohio, Florida

States Democrats Lose:
Washington, Oregon, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire

View Clinton/McCain Electoral Map
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Barack Obama 280
John McCain 258

States Democrats Pick Up:
Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Ohio, Virginia

States Democrats Lose:
Florida, Pennsylvania, New Jersey

View Obama/McCain Electoral Map

I’m always skeptical of national polls, but it’s interesting that this is the first conducted in all 50 states for the general election.

Where’s the Bounce?

Hillary Clinton’s website currently says, “Keep the momentum going!” Her 3% victory gives her campaign the right to claim that she’s building momentum. But is it?

I would say (as once released in a memo by Clinton Chief Strategist Mark Penn following Obama’s Iowa victory) “Where’s the bounce?” Where is Hillary’s bounce after winning New Hampshire?

Barack Obama was endorsed by the Nevada SEIU and the major Culinary Workers Union that represents over 60,000 union members. Next Saturday, they will surely be a force in Nevada’s democratic primary. As it stands, they’re one of the major political aparatuses in the state of Nevada, and with their ground support working in conjunction with Obama’s all ready impressive Nevada field operation, I see a serious race building up in the nation’s first western caucus.

And today Obama was endorsed by former Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry (D-MA). A huge endorsement that lends the Obama campaign the support of more establishment Democrats. Adding to Kerry was the endorsement of South Dakota Sen. Tim Johnson, and Rep. George Miller of California. Says MSNBC’s Chuck Todd:

California congressman George Miller (D) is also backing Obama’s presidential campaign. This is perhaps the closest thing to getting a Nancy Pelosi endorsement as you can come without actually getting it. Miller is incredibly close with her politically. He wouldn’t be doing this without her consent of sorts.

Tons of endorsements following his New Hampshire loss: unions, senators and a representative with a close connection to the Speaker of the House. But where are Hillary’s endorsements? Where’s her bounce?

Certainly not in the fund raising battle. In the first 8 days of this month, Obama raised $8 million dollars compared with Hillary’s $3 million. The morning after his loss in New Hampshire, he received $500,000 in contributions online.

And lets be honest, no one in the press wants to see Hillary win. No one wants to report that the establishment candidate trumped the little guy. It’s no wonder they hyped the polls and coverage in the days leading up to New Hampshire… it’s just not a good story.

And in the realm of poll numbers- traditionally after a victory in an early state, your candidate makes gains. Hillary’s win may have slowed Obama’s momentum, but it certainly has not killed it. He is still leading by wide margins in South Carolina and his field operation in Nevada is growing stronger. (Still no polls out of Nevada yet).

Insider Advantage, Jan. 9, 2007
Obama 40%
Clinton 33%

Rasmussen, Jan. 9, 2007
Obama 42%
Clinton 30%

Honestly, Hillary will have to destroy him with win after win to kill his momentum. She can claim she has it, but in reality, she has neither the poll numbers, nor the endorsements, nor the finances to demonstrate it. Obama is a runaway train in the Democratic party; he’s emblematic of a movement and I don’t know if the Clinton’s can stop it.

I guess we’ll see.

New Hampshire: What the hell happened

New Hampshire Final Results
Clinton 39%
Obama 37%

First thing’s first. I think this discussion of the Hillary Clinton “surge”, “comeback” and/or “decisive victory” is overplayed if not factually inaccurate.

For reasons unknown and unforeseen, every poll taken in New Hampshire was wrong. Obama went into the New Hampshire primary with an RCP average of 8.3%. New Hampshire polls had Obama up; a Suffolx University poll had him up by 5, and WMUR by 9.

But I dispute the media calling this a victory for the Clinton campaign. It was extremely close, and a win is a win for the Clintons. But don’t make the mistake of thinking that she had to “overcome” anything–the only thing she had to “overcome” was lowered expectations as a result of faulty polling.

Tomorrow, several media and consulting firms have a lot of explaining to do.

The Petrified Clintons

The Clinton campaign doesn’t know what to expect in New Hampshire. Following a dramatic Iowa loss, the New York senator is bracing for her worst nightmare in the Granite State: an influx of independents (roughly 45% of New Hampshire’s voting bloc) and youth for the Illinois senator.

The latest polls from New Hampshire show an Obama surge, though the depth of that surge is unknown. What is known for certain is that Obama is up and Clinton is down. Looking at a graph from pollster.com we can gain a better understanding of where the candidates were as far back as early 2007: Clinton on top, Obama below.

Starting around October and into November, the Clinton’s developed a mentality that their firewall, should Obama or Edwards win Iowa, was New Hampshire. They assumed that their high numbers in the state would stall any candidates’ momentum. A memo was leaked from within the Clinton campaign last May suggesting a pull out from Iowa; it’s safe to suggest that Clinton Chief Strategist Mark Penn realized Iowa’s unfavorable climate toward Hillary.

But the firewall theory proved faulty. Hillary Clinton polled high only because people know her from 15 years in the national spotlight and once people started paying attention to the election, they reexamined their choice. Senator Obama was not well known nationally, and still isn’t if you believe he is 20 points behind. But in the early states where people were getting to know him, he became a sensation. The Clintons soon had a new title pinned to their backs: the establishment.

Last Thursday during Clinton’s concession speech in Iowa, she surrounded herself with Madeline Albright, Bill Clinton, and Wesley Clark… it was almost something out of a wax museum… relics of the past, the old party gargoyles if you will.

Obama’s victory party projected something of a different tone. His speech was given before a youthful, alive and enthusiastic audience, and his very image and persona projected newness and change. He was not the candidate of the establishment; he was the new guy on the block–the Washington outsider, the change agent, who’s victory symbolized the power of overcoming expectations and running against “the machine.”

Obama now has the big momentum that may just carry him through New Hampshire. He is popular among independents and Democrats alike–a coalition builder who very well could win the Democratic nomination. The Clinton strategy: stall him. Should she lose in New Hampshire her campaign will focus on winning “closed-ballot” states where independents are closed from voting in Democratic primaries. The reality is that despite a competitive Democratic primary, Hillary wins over more party-line Democrats than Obama. Her lesson from Iowa: resist the independent vote and narrow the universe of potential voters to just party Democrats. Good for her campaign, but not for the party.

But with so much excitement coming from Obama, is this really the strategy we as a party want to pursue? Block our expansion by nominating a polarizing candidate who’s unfavorables are through the roof? Is that the kind of bitter, ill fought, mudslinging general election we want in 2008? And why take swipes at a guy who’s building the Democratic base, forming coalitions among those who don’t traditionally vote in primaries or elections: the young, the poor, minorities. Groups who came out in huge numbers for the Illinois senator in Iowa.

Because really, a big tent coalition like that can beat any of the Republican candidates in ‘08, and we can’t afford to lose again.

New Hampshire: A Three Way Showdown

Obama has two enemies: Hillary Clinton and John McCain. For Obama to be victorious in New Hampshire he must win over enough Democrats to beat Hillary Clinton, and enough independents to beat John McCain. Remember that New Hampshire is notoriously independent (45%).

Winning Democrats:
Target: Hillary Clinton

Barack Obama could win the Democratic vote in New Hampshire. Many polls have him pulling even with Clinton. Lets look an ARG poll out today:

American Research Group, Jan. 5., 2008
Among NH Democrats:
Clinton 34%
Obama 32%

Rasmussen Reports gives Sen. Obama a 65% chance of winning the New Hampshire primary. Many polls have him tied with Hillary among Democrats. A CNN/WMUR poll shows 60% of New Hampshire independents and Democrats planning to vote in the Democratic primary see Obama as an agent of change. Rasmussen’s poll shows Obama leading in the quality of electability, and what we’ve seen from Iowa is a strong urgency to vote against the establishment.

With Clinton’s aura of inevitability vanished, with her electability argument diminished, and with Obama’s message of change, I think it’s very possible for him to win New Hampshire. Clinton is currently struggling to define her message in the shadow of a devastating loss.

TIME magazine has a great piece on the Clinton Campaign’s internal turmoil.

Winning Independents:
Target: John McCain

Reports the Washington Post:

In virtually every demographic category where Obama found his greatest strength in Iowa, New Hampshire’s electorate has at least as many or more of those voters, based on a comparison of the entrance polls from Thursday’s caucuses in Iowa and from the 2004 Democratic primary in Hampshire.

Take independents. They constituted 20 percent of the caucus electorate in Iowa on Thursday, but four years ago in New Hampshire they constituted nearly half (48 percent) of the Democratic electorate.

Obama is competing with McCain for that independent vote. In Iowa, he won 51% of the Iowa independent vote.

Reports the New York Times:

Polls here say that almost two-thirds of these voters are leaning Democratic, making them particularly critical to Mr. Obama’s effort to win a second contest in a row. Meanwhile, Mr. McCain is trying to tap into this pool of voters to edge out former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts.

I think that Obama’s fresh appeal, that appeal to change, will give him more support than McCain in New Hampshire among independents.

New Polls
American Research Group, Jan. 5, 2008
Obama 38%
Clinton 26%

Concord Monitor, Jan. 5, 2008
Obama 34%
Clinton 33%

CNN/WMUR, Jan. 5, 2008
Obama 33%
Clinton 33%

Rasmussen Reports, Jan. 5, 2008
Obama 37%
Clinton 27%

Repercussions: Edwards, Clinton dealt a devastating blow, Obama catapults into New Hampshire

I think this is it for John Edwards. This is the best he’s going to do. A second place showing is not enough to catapult him into New Hampshire where he does not have the ground organization or the fund raising reservoirs to compete with Obama and Clinton.

Now Obama has a huge fund raising and psychological advantage. On the fund raising side he’s going to raise millions within the next few days, and Clinton’s Silicon Valley supporters are going to be edgy, soon flooding her offices with calls expressing concern and anxiety over Obama’s feat. Psychologically, Obama has this huge lead in Iowa, which may very well resonate with New Hampshire voters when they read the headlines this morning.

But I’d like to focus specifically on John Edwards. He appeared on Larry King last night and had an interesting, yet hypocritical, spin to his second (nearly third) place showing. He said the Obama campaign won because they outspent him by millions and millions of dollars in advertising (nearly $9 million) and yet he beat the Clinton campaign who, as he said, also spent millions and millions of dollars ($7 million). He pointed to how little advertising he’s been doing in recent weeks, and his second place showing as a sign of momentum.

I say baloney. Edwards has been camped out in Iowa for the past 4 years, it’s devastating to his campaign that he did not capture the first place victory that they were dependent upon to bounce him into New Hampshire. It’s a equally devastating that the Clinton camp spent $7 million dollars in advertising–in the end, equal to Edwards’ time spent in Iowa. How hypocritical to suggest that one person spends millions, but hey, I beat the other person who spent millions as well, and point to the millions that person spent as a burden you’ve overcome. You can’t take two people who’ve spent millions, lose to one, win to the other, and say that spending millions is a burden you’ve overcome.

But enough about John Edwards, I think his economic populism will certainly not be able to turn out the massive amounts of independents to win in NH, nor will it appeal to the libertarianism of New Hampshire voters. I predict that after New Hampshire he’ll become increasingly irrelevant. (Thinking back to his 4th place finish in 2004).

Let’s begin to look at New Hampshire, at least initially. Polling there shows a tight race, like Iowa. Edwards attempted to spin it tonight on Larry King as still a three way race, but polls show a different story. This will be a Clinton-Obama show down.

The big question, can an Obama Iowa victory be the “umph” he needs to win New Hampshire? Well, he certainly has a catapult.

Franklin-Pierce, Jan. 1, 2008
Clinton 32%
Obama 28%

CNN/WMUR, Dec. 30, 2007
Clinton 33%
Obama 31%

American Research Group, Dec. 30, 2007
Clinton 31%
Obama 27%

Obama clearly within shooting range of Clinton in all these polls. I think within the next few days we’ll see some interesting new numbers come out of New Hampshire that show some kind of bounce. Of course he’ll still have to invest millions into the state and campaign hard, but hey, Hillary looks beatable, and independents may realize he’s their guy.

Equally bad for the Clinton camp: both her electability and inevitability arguments have been destroyed. Clinton is no longer seen as the most electable Democrat, and her aura of inevitability, that shield that we saw in earlier debates, has been punctured.

Of final notes in terms of political repercussions. Biden and Dodd drop out, Gravel, despite MSNBC’s report that he dropped out, is actually still in. Kucinich is to compete in New Hampshire. Earlier reports of deal making between Richardson and Obama and Biden and Obama have been publicly denounced, but were privately encouraged. Reports Political Wire: “Multiple reports — such as this one from The Hotline — confirming that Biden and Richardson backers are being urged to support Obama.” And this video from David Gregory.

New Hampshire, 12/23

Boston Globe Poll, Dec. 23, 2007
Obama 30%
Clinton 28%

New Hampshire, 12/21

USA Today/ Gallup Poll, Dec. 21, 2007
Obama 32%
Clinton 32%

New Hampshire, 12/20

American Research Group, Dec. 20, 2007
Clinton 38%
Obama 24%

meanwhile…

Rasmussen Reports, Dec. 19, 2007
Clinton 31%
Obama 28%