The Daily Strike-1/7/10-My Responsibility

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. Only a few days until Session II of the 111th Congress begins.

TERRORISM: President Obama today made remarks in which he took responsibility for the failures that led to the Christmas Day terror incident. It was a classic "Buck Stops With Me" speech, in which the President takes responsibility for being the President when something bad happens. It's not that the President thinks that he is responsible for the breakdowns in the intelligence community, but rather he wants the American people to know that he's in charge, that he gets it.

The President started the speech with a subtle rebuke to former Vice President Cheney, when he stated unequivocally that we are at war. He then outlined the intelligence failures in detail. Intelligence agencies knew about the suspect's radical past, but did not "connect the dots" in a way that would keep the suspect off of the vaunted no-fly list. The President also announced what he plans to do to rectify the situation. He will order his top terrorism advisor to find new ways to expedite putting terrorists on no-fly lists, and he asked the Secretary of Homeland Security to speed up the implementation of full body scanners at international airports.

Today's speech may have seem somewhat belated and contrived, but I don't ever remember George W. Bush taking responsibility for any lapses in intelligence. Not with 9/11, not with Richard Reid the shoe bomber, not ever. Also, George W. Bush would never have released any sort of negative internal review.

MASS-SENATE: We talked the other day about the upcoming special Senate election in Massachussetts to choose Ted Kennedy's successor. A recent Rasmussen poll showed the Democrat Martha Coakley beating the Republican Scott Brown by 9 points. This relatively small margin in such a liberal state caused the Cook Political Report to shift the seat from "Solid Democrat" to "Lean Democrat." I still think Coakley will win in the Bay State, but I can understand the freakout of Democrats if the nightmare scenario comes to pass: Ted Kennedy's replacement kills health reform. Friend of the blog KagroX reminded us today, though, that the Democrats have already passed a health care bill. If Brown was elected, and Democrats only had 59 votes, the Senate likely would not be able to pass health reform again. Luckily, they wouldn't have to. The House could simply vote to accept the Senate bill verbatim. House leaders should keep this option in the back of their brains regardless of who wins the Massachusetts race. With people like Lieberman and Nelson, there's always a chance that moderate Democrats could seek to make the Senate bill even worse than it already is. If the House agreed to what the Senate has already done, a bill could be sent directly to Barack Obama's desk.

I hope that the House and Senate bills can be reconciled, because I believe several House provisions should be included in the final version of the bill. But it never hurts to have a backup plan.

That's it for now. See you tomorrow.

The Daily Strike-1/6/10-Dodd and Negotiations

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. It turns out we wrote our entry a bit too early last night.

DODD: We reported last night on the somber news that Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan is not seeking reelection. After press time, news came out that another Democratic Senator, Chris Dodd of Connecticut, was also retiring. This time, the news was jubilant for Democrats. Dodd's popularity had plummeted over the last couple of years for a number of reasons, mostly because of alleged sweetheart deals with Countrywide and AIG. Even before the political environment turned against the Democrats, Dodd was losing badly to potential Republican challengers. In fact, most analysts considered the seat a lost cause.

Now that Dodd has retired, Democrats should be heavily favored to hold on to this seat. Popular Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has already said he will run for the seat, and a new poll out today shows him crushing Republican opposition. Lazy media outlets, of course, lumped the Dorgan and Dodd retirements together in an effort to push the "Dems heading for the exits" storyline, but I'd say Dodd's retirement makes yesterday pretty much a wash.

Amazingly, Colorado's Democratic Governor Bill Ritter also decided not to seek reelection. I don't remember ever hearing about three big retirements in one day. I guess that's why inside-the-beltway types are referring to yesterday as "Black Tuesday."

HEALTH CARE: Before Chris Dodd hides away in Connecticut, he will be helping Democrats reconcile the House and Senate versions of health reform. A group of House leaders met with President Obama today and outlined their priorities on what they want included in the final legislation. House leaders are strongly objecting to the Senate provision that taxes high-cost insurance plans. The House version of the bill is funded by an surtax on the wealthy. I sympathize with House leaders on this issue, because it's possible that middle class families will be impacted by the excise tax in the Senate bill. President Obama, despite his pledge not to raise taxes on anyone making below $250,000, is said to be strongly supportive of the Senate's financing mechanisms. Analysts have concluded that the so-called "Cadillac Tax" on high insurance plans will help bend the proverbial cost curve. House leaders are right to make an issue out of this, but being the pragmatist that I am, I think it will be very hard for the House to alter the delicate Senate compromise.

That's it for today, though I should mention that the White House Director of the Office of Management and Budget apparently has a love child. Good night!

The Daily Strike-1/5/10-Dorgan and Coakley (Kinda Sounds Like a Sleazy Law Firm)

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. This town is slowly coming back to life after the holiday break, with President Obama conducting some official business today. But then again, politics never takes a holiday.

SENATE RACES: News out tonight is that Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota will retire when his term expires next year. This is very bad news for Senate Democrats. Dorgan was still very popular in a Republican state. If Republican Governor John Hoeven had stayed out of the race, Dorgan almost certainly would have won reelection. With the seat vacant, Republicans will now be favored to win this seat. We talked last night about the increasing amount of vulnerable Democratic Senate seats, and Dorgan's retirement brings North Dakota to the top of that list (especially if Hoeven now chooses to run). The Democrats do have a good potential candidate in Rep. Earl Pomeroy, who represents the entire state in the House. But Pomeroy may not want to run as a Democrat in a Republican state in this political environment. If Pomeroy doesn't run, the Democrats basically don't have anyone on the bench.

Dorgan's retirement doesn't significantly change the Senate math for November. But as many others have pointed out, it does add to the narrative that Republicans have significant momentum heading into the midterm elections. As Marc Ambinder put it, it affects the "social psychology" of the two political parties. I just hope discouraging retirements and social psychology doesn't effect Democratic voting patterns in Congress!!

Before we get to November, we must first go through the Massachusetts Special Election to replace Ted Kennedy. State Attorney General Martha Coakley, the Democrat, is running against Republican State Senator Scott Brown. A Rasmussen (remember, they lean Republican) poll today showed Coakley with a 9-point lead, relatively small given the Democratic nature of the state. I don't think Coakley is in any real danger of losing. But the stakes in this race are large enough that Democrats should invest a little bit of money in making sure Coakley gets elected. If Brown wins, the Democrats lose their 60 vote coalition, and health care reform dies. Wouldn't it be tragic of Ted Kennedy's replacement ended up killing health reform? Massachusetts can NOT let this happen.

THE WHITE HOUSE: The President today held a key meeting with his National Security team to discuss the Christmas "Panty" bomber incident. The President told his team that the attack failed because of citizen bravery, not because the "system worked." In a way, today's meeting was a way to formally rebuke the intelligence community for missing signals that could have prevented the incident. In another way, this was just a way for President Obama to show that he cares about the threat of terrorism.

But I only accept views on terrorism from the most trustworthy sources. That's why my thoughts on the issue can be summarized by this brilliant tweet, from none other than Sarah Louise Heath Palin:

FaceBook post today re:Prez's mtg w/Security Advisers does nothing2change fact:his fundamental approach 2 terrorist threat is fatally flawed


Wow.

HEALTH CARE: Briefly, House Democratic leaders will meet at the White House tomorrow to begin the process of reconciling the House and Senate versions of health reform. Today, House leaders held a press conference to discuss the planned bill merging process. The House returns to business next week, which is when negotiations should really kick into gear.

That's it for now. We'll see you tomorrow. Leave some comments!!!!!

The Daily Strike-1/4/10-New Year Election Preview

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. Today was a slow day in politics, as the President was returning from a long trip to Hawaii (which is, incidentally, where The Big Picture currently finds himself). I thought I could take this opportunity to give my first take on this November's midterm elections. I'll try to update this every couple of months to reflect changes in the political environment, as well as individual races.

OVERALL ENVIRONMENT: It's hard to get a firm hold on the political environment 10 months before the election, but certainly, a narrative has already been shaped by the mainstream media. President Obama's policies have become increasingly far-reaching and unpopular, and an enthused conservative base and rough economy will lead Republicans to a sweeping victory in November. I think there is some truth to this hypothesis. I do think the Republicans will have a good year, perhaps even a great year. The biggest reason is that their base is extremely motivated by anger against the President, and they'll show up to the polls in droves. An enthused base not only brings out voters, but it brings out campaign volunteers and donations, factors critical to electoral success. In contrast, the Democratic base is relatively unenthusiastic. Yes, they still like Obama (angry bloggers notwithstanding), but there's a sense that a) they did enough politicking in 2008 to get him elected and there's no reason to campaign for a silly midterm election and b) the President has not been the Messiah some of us had hoped he would be. I think a lot of Democratic voters, especially those who aren't as into politics as we are, may see Democrats bickering and compromising away liberal priorities in Congress, and Democratic politicians attacking their own party's bills. These are not exactly ways to fire up the base.

I also think high unemployment and low growth are usually formulas for majority party losses. On top of that, a President's party almost always loses seats in midterm elections (with notable exceptions in 1934, 1998 and 2002). If you combine all of these factors, things look pretty bleak for the Democrats in 2010.

Now there are some caveats that might give Democrats a grain of hope in at least keeping Republican gains to a minimum. For one, the economy is seemingly on the upswing, and if things continue to improve, President Obama's numbers will probably inch up as well, which will help Democrats across the country. Two, the Republican party remains extraordinarily unpopular, even among conservatives. This unpopularity can manifest itself in several ways. I think conservative tea party activists could run against less doctrinaire conservative Republicans and cause a schism on the right.

The bottom line, though, is that Democrats have very little to get excited about. I remember in 2006 when a GOP operative told my Washington Semester class that Republicans would do well, because the election would be determined by "local issues," not by the national political climate. That proved to be very wrong then, and I think any Democrat making that claim right now shouldn't be taken too seriously. In the age of national campaign fundraising committees and national cable news/the internet, it will be very hard for Democratic candidates to make this election about local issues. What worried Democratic candidates SHOULD do is work very hard to enact policy programs that help people's lives. Ultimately, no matter where a Democrat might be from, his success in 2010 depends on the success of President Obama and the Democratic party. Anything an individual candidate does to undermine the President may look shrewed in the short-run, but it is stupid in the long-run.

So. how will this environment manifest itself in the various races? Let's break it down:

THE HOUSE: House Republicans will be aided by a couple of factors besides the national environment. For one, Democrats reached a high-water mark of seats in 2008, and thus will be defending many seats in conservative districts. Republicans will also benefit from the retirements of a few Democratic members in moderate districts. I do think that House Republicans will have a tough time gaining the 40 seats necessary to take back the House. There are not enough Democratic retirements yet to suggest a huge impending wave. Republicans would have to beat about 30 incumbents at this point, which is no small task. They also don't have a positive agenda to run on. It's ok not to have concrete policy proposals if you are opposing an unpopular majority, but Republicans need to give the voters SOMETHING besides tired Bush-era rhetoric. Currently, the Democrats hold a 257-178 advantage in the House. I predict that they will lose 25-30 seats, which should bring their majority at or below the level they enjoyed during the 110th Congress (2007-2008). I'd put the chances for a Republican takeover at about 25%.

THE SENATE: The Senate is more difficult territory for Republicans, since there are fewer Democratic targets. So far, 19 Democratic Senate seats are up for election next year. Republicans would have to take 11 of those without losing any of their own in order to capture the majority. That seems extremely unlikely at this point, though not completely out of the question. Democratic incumbents in Connecticut, Colorado, Nevada, Arkansas and Pennsylvania are in enough trouble that I would give them at most 50/50 odds of winning reelection. They are also reasonably likely to lose an open-seat race in Delaware. That's 6 very promising pick-up opportunities for the Republicans right there. Republicans have a strong candidate running for Barack Obama's old seat in Illinois. Though Illinois is a very blue state, a Republican victory is not out of the question. Republicans could also have a chance to gain a seat in North Dakota if popular governor John Hoeven decides to challenge Democrat Byron Dorgan. A true Republican wave might even knock off Democratic incumbents in California and New York, though I would say those are long shots.

Democrats actually have some solid pickup opportunities of their own. They have very solid candidates running for open-seats in Missouri and Ohio. In New Hampshire's open seat, the Democratic candidate is running slightly behind a couple of Republican challengers. There's an outside chance that Democrats could capture seats in Louisiana (if the Bayou state decides its tired of being represented by a prostitute patron) and North Carolina. Depending on whether popular Governor Charlie Crist survives a right-wing primary, Democrats could also have an outside shot in Florida.

If the political environment stays the way it is, close races will tilt towards the Republicans. I would say that 6-7 Democratic losses in the Senate will be offset by 1-2 gains, leaving the net Republican gain somewhere between 4 and 6.

GOVENRORS: Gubernatorial races are tougher to handicap, because they frequently are not decided by national issues. This year's gubernatorial landscape is, shall we say, a clusterf*ck. 37 states will elect Governors this year. Several of those races are open seats (18!), and many of those open seats are in states dominated by the opposite political party (For instance, there is currently a Democratic Governor of Oklahoma and a Republican Governor of Vermont). It is thus very hard to predict how these races will shake out over the next year. I would guess that as many as 12 state houses will switch party hands, with the majority of those switches being from Democrat to Republican. I'll predict a net gain of 3-4 state houses for the GOP, which would give them a slight majority of governorships nationwide.

So my message to Democrats: stay strong! Keep working on behalf the American people and you will be rewarded. But as a backup plan, make sure your liquor cabinet is well-stocked on November 2nd.

The Weekly Strike-1/4-1/10

Good morning and welcome to the Weekly Strike. I hope you had a wonderful New Year, and weren't too deprived of the blog during the holiday season. If you're just getting back into the swing of things, check out my year-end entry below on the most important lessons of 2009. Now, on to the week in politics.

THE WHITE HOUSE: The House is out of session for another week, and the Senate is out of session for another two weeks, so all attention will be focused on President Obama for the time being. Three issues will dominate his agenda this week: terrorism, health care and jobs.

On the terrorism issue, the President is still coordinating the response to the failed Christmas Eve plot targeting a Northwest airliner. The President's team started out shaky, with Homeland Security Napolitano saying that "the system worked" (when it most certainly did not if a known extremist can board a U.S-bound flight), but they seem to be getting their footing. The administration has acted far more competently in the past couple of days, by addressing the systemic and human errors that caused the breach, and by instituting new regulations for the TSA (side note: get ready for full body scans!!). It also helps that the Republican party went off the deep end trying to turn this into a political issue. First, Dick Cheney came out with his usual nonsense about how the President doesn't understand the War on Terror. Then, Republican Rep. Pete Hoekstra, who is running for governor of Michigan, sent out a fund raising email trying to turn the thwarted attack into cash. In fact, this might be a political pattern during 2010. Whatever missteps us Democrats might suffer, the absolute ineptitude of the Republican Party can still save us!

On the health care issue, the President will hopefully begin to wade in head first into House and Senate negotiations. Prior to the holiday break, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) objected to a unanimous consent request for a formal conference. Thus, if the Democrats wanted to hold formal conference negotiations to reconcile the House and Senate versions of the health care bill, they'd have to jump over a bunch of procedural hurdles. Instead, Democratic leaders will hold negotiations behind closed doors to work out some of the key remaining issues: subsidy levels, a national vs. state health insurance exchange, the size of the Medicaid expansion, abortion etc. Once an agreement is reached, the new bill will become a House amendment to the Senate-passed bill. The House will vote on that amendment, and then the Senate will vote to agree to the House amendment. Get it? Some people call this "ping-ponging," because the bill goes back and forth between chambers. But this is pretty much the same as holding a formal conference, because each chamber will only have to vote one more time to approve a final package.

Now is the time for President Obama to dive in head first. He needs to lay out his priorities and wield his considerable influence among Democratic leaders. I can see leaving the details up to Congress during the preliminary stages of the health care fight, but the stakes are too high at this point for him to stay on the sidelines.

And finally, on the jobs front, the new unemployment numbers will be coming out this Friday. I expect that unemployment will stay about where it is now, at 10%. Regardless of Friday's numbers, Democrats will still try and push through a job creation measure in Congress. The House passed a bill in late December that would invest in infrastructure projects, safety-net programs and aid to state and local governments. The House paid for these programs with leftover federal bailout money. I would love to see the Senate pass this bill immediately, but I don't think that's terribly realistic. More likely, the Senate will start working on its own bill later this month, and the President won't get something to his desk until March or so.

We'll keep an eye on these three issues and anything else that comes up this week. Leave us some comments as we start out our 2nd year here in Strike-land.