December 04, 2008

12/4: Senate Speculation

Senate races -- past, present, and future -- have been a major topic in the blogosphere lately. First of all, bloggers continue to debate the significance of GA Sen. Saxby Chambliss's comfortable victory in Tuesday's runoff election. As we noted yesterday, many conservative bloggers are portraying Chambliss's victory as a great sign for GOP prospects in the 2010 midterms. However, liberal bloggers (along with a few conservative ones) are arguing that GOPers are foolish to rejoice over the fact that Chambliss was re-elected in a red state like GA. Markos Moulitsas argues that "a [Jim] Martin victory would've been the upset of the decade" and writes: "Special elections are funny beasts, and it's not worth reading too much into them."

Meanwhile, bloggers are buzzing about the news that ex-FL Gov. Jeb Bush is considering running for Mel Martinez's Senate seat in 2010. Most liberal bloggers view Bush as a formidable opponent and believe that the race "would start as his to lose" if he decided to run. Other lefty bloggers claim that Bush "has his weaknesses" and may be vulnerable to someone like FL CFO Alex Sink. Righty bloggers, for the most part, are welcoming the news that Bush is considering a run.

FL SEN: Bush Fatigue Doesn't Apply Here

Liberal bloggers worry that Jeb Bush will be a formidable contender if he decides to run for Senate in 2010:

• Daily Kos' brownsox: "Bush left office with high approvals, and would be the strongest candidate the Republicans could find for the seat (with the possible exception of Governor Charlie Crist, who doesn't seem interested in a Senate bid). His entry would clear the field for the Republicans, and might knock a few Democrats out of the field as well, although it being an open-seat race, someone decent would no doubt take the plunge, figuring that the toxicity of the Bush name alone could help out, despite Jeb's personal popularity. He could be beaten by a Democrat, but if he ran, he'd start the race as the favorite. He wouldn't be favored like [VA Sen.-elect] Mark Warner was favored, but the race would start as his to lose."
• FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver: "Bush left office in 2006 with approval ratings in the +20 range; they may have diminished slightly since then as a result of Bush Fatigue, but Floridians have little problem distinguishing Jeb from George W., even if that's less true of the rest of the country. Bush, should he choose to run, will have most of the advantages that an incumbent usually has: capital, name recognition, organization, enough stature to deter primary challengers. That is not to suggest that Bush would have a cakewalk into the Senate. He has his own baggage, and would be a fundraising magnet for Democrats. [...] Nevertheless, I think Martinez probably did do the Republicans a favor if their candidate winds up being Bush -- or Charlie Crist, who like Bush could run with most of the advantages of an incumbent."

Open Left's Matt Stoller argues that Bush "has his weaknesses": "In 1998, Jeb won the election against a weak opponent, [ex-FL LG] Buddy McKay, and triumphed in 2002 again against a relatively weak opponent, [lawyer] Bill McBride. Both times he was perceived as a moderate and highly competent Governor in a relatively apathetic state, and he's always able to shield his conservative views from public view because he's in a state level position. [...] Should he run for Senate, Jeb Bush will have an entirely different experience. If his opponent is Alex Sink, my guess is that he's going to have a really tough time. [...] Remember, the Bush family is immensely corrupt, but that doesn't emerge unless there's actual scrutiny. Jeb has never been subjected to any such scrutiny, but it's hard to imagine that this situation can continue if he gets a serious contender. The Bush family is in disgrace, and I don't see how that changes in just two years, especially with the rumors flying around about Jeb's personal behavior and business shenanigans. 2010 will probably not be a good year for Democrats, but just because Jeb Bush is popular now doesn't mean that he's necessarily a strong candidate in two years."

MyDD's Jonathan Singer thinks it will hurt the GOP if Bush runs for Senate: "In the past two election cycles, in which George W. Bush loomed large, the Republicans have lost significant number of House seats (closing on 60), Senate seats (at least 13) and Governorships (seven), moving from what appeared to be a national party into a regional one. Yet now they might have a Bush as their most prominent candidate and what could be the most watched election contest in 2010? Republicans may even be able to win the Florida Senate race with Jeb Bush as their nominee, but at what cost? If they're willing to believe that having Bush as their standard bearer in 2010 would be a net positive, I've got a bridge to sell them..."

On the right side of the blogosphere, Hugh Hewitt hopes Bush will run: "Jeb 2010? This would be very welcome news within the GOP, providing a great start to the cycle and encouraging other strong candidates to follow suit."

GA SEN: Let's Not Get Too Overjoyed

Yesterday we observed that many conservative bloggers were playing up the significance of Sen. Chambliss's comfortable victory in Tuesday's runoff election. However, a few righty bloggers are urging their colleagues not to read too much significance into Chambliss's win:

• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "It's great that Saxby Chambliss has won his re-election campaign and that the Democrats now will definitely lack a filibuster-proof majority. That being said, at risk of sounding like the skunk at the garden party (or the Lowell Weicker of the Townhall blog), it strikes me that too much GOP congratulation is a mistake. After all, if a Republican couldn't win a run-off election in Georgia (and when Barack Obama has largely declined to campaign for him), wouldn't that be more of a sign of political cataclysm than the opposite being a sign of impending victories? [...] What will be interesting is what happens if and when Obama hits the campaign trail in 2010. It's fair to say that he will probably be able to count on a core base of support for himself no matter what he does; the question is whether he will be able to rally those same supporters by his campaigning when he himself isn't on the ticket."
• AmSpec Blog's David Weigel: "Martin, let's remember, was never expected to win this election. He had lost a race for lieutenant governor in 2006 and was pulled out of mothballs to stop crooked DeKalb County CEO Vernon Jones from winning the Senate nomination and dragging down the ticket. [...] Not until the bailout vote did Chambliss start to slip, and even then I don't think he slipped below Martin in any poll. [...] Obviously, a Chambliss loss would have been a shocking death blow to Republican hopes. But Chambliss's survival hasn't altered Democratic plans at all."

Meanwhile, RedState's Erick Erickson slams Chambliss for suggesting that his campaign be a "model" for GOPers in 2010: "Saxby, do you realize your campaign did no significant outreach to third party groups in the general election? Seriously. Now I know some of your staff will say otherwise, but I've talked to the gun groups, the small business groups, the Christian groups, the free enterprise groups, and others -- they are all pretty damn unanimous that your outreach efforts were terrible. Likewise, you put yourself into this position. You talk about returning to your conservative roots -- well you start first. The immigration compromise hurt you with the base. The farm bill hurt you with the business community. The energy compromise hurt you with the part of the base not hurt by the immigration compromise. Then the bailout vote set you on fire and nobody could bother even peeing on you after that. You've gotten squishy on financial issues. You've gotten squishy on business issues. You've gotten comfortable in the establishment and the base does not see you as dependable anymore. In short Saxby, you pissed off everybody. And people did not come out to vote for you. They came out to stop a filibuster proof Democrat Senate."

GA SEN II: What Are You Cheering About, Conservatives?

Liberal bloggers continue to downplay the significance of Chambliss's victory:

• Daily Kos' Moulitsas: "Of course, while a Martin victory would've been the upset of the decade, Chambliss hanging on is now a stunning repudiation of Obama, or other such silliness. Yet it's about as significant as [Sen.] Mary Landrieu hanging on in a Louisiana runoff in 2002 while Republicans engaged in 'Operation Icing on the Cake' (after taking over the Senate). Well, the GOP didn't get their icing on the cake, but 2004 was a good enough consolation prize. [...] What yesterday's election definitely taught us is something we already knew -- that Democrats generally perform better the higher the turnout. Too many of our core constituencies are low performing ones -- racial and ethnic minorities and young voters. Obama got them out, and made Georgia close. Martin did not, and he got blown away in what is still a Red state. Throw in the fact that Democrats acted like the mission had been accomplished (Obama couldn't be bothered to lend too much of a hand), and there was little reason for his supporters to put in a similar effort."
• Firedoglake's Blue Texan: "Let's imagine for a second that [John] McCain-[Sarah] Palin had won the election with 365 electoral votes, and the Democrats had lost of bunch of seats in the House and Senate, after losing a boatload in 2006. And let's say that the Democratic brand was in such bad shape that [Sen.] Chuck Schumer was forced to mount a runoff campaign in dark blue New York. And then let's imagine that every national Democrat under the sun, including Obama, [NY Sen. Hillary] Clinton, [NM Gov. Bill] Richardson, [MA Sen. Ted] Kennedy, [MA Sen. John] Kerry, [ex-VP Al] Gore, [Jimmy] Carter, [ex-NC Sen. John] Edwards, and the ghosts of FDR and JFK schlepped up to New York state to save Schumer. And just for the hell of it, let's say [VP-elect] Joe Biden shows up the day before the election and gives 4 speeches. Schumer then wins the runoff election. So what would we conclude from all of this? That Biden is more awesome than McCain and that the Republicans better watch out in 2010. Memo to Erick [Erickson] -- McCain-Palin won Georgia last month as any Republican ticket would. But if you really want to interpret Chambliss the old white guy Christian incumbent hanging on to his seat in a state that until 2003 flew the Confederate battle flag as a sign that Palin is the future of a resurgent GOP -- knock yourself out."
• Daily Kos' Jed L: "When the GOP brags about winning the run-off in Georgia, it's worth remembering that through early October, most mainstream political analysts (with the notable exceptions of brownsox and Swing State Project) thought Saxby Chambliss had his re-election campaign locked up. Take, for example, Stu Rothenberg on September 14 or Charlie Cook on October 2. Both said that Georgia was a safe Republican senate seat. [...] So when the GOP crows about their 'big victory,' they should keep in mind that they won where they were supposed to win, and that the flip-side of denying Democrats a 60-vote majority is that with Georgia in the bag, Republicans now hold just 41 seats."

MN SEN: Fear The Frankenstein Monster!

Conservative bloggers continue to argue that Dem candidate Al Franken is trying to steal the Senate election in MN, which is currently undergoing a recount:

• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Here's how Democrats who want to steal elections play the game: the rules written before the election mean nothing. The only rule that means anything is that because 'every vote counts,' you must keep counting votes, some votes, any votes, until Democratic dirty tricksters can manufacture enough votes to get you ahead. Then -- and only then -- the counting is done. That's what Al Gore wanted to do. It's how Christine Gregoire won the governor's election in Washington back in 2004, and it's how Al Franken is going to try to win a Senate seat he lost at the ballot box. If, as expected, [Sen. Norm] Coleman wins the actual recount and is ahead when the results of the challenged ballots come through, Franken will insist that they count the absentee ballots despite the fact that Minnesota law clearly and unambiguously says that isn't done. If that doesn't work, Franken will to go to court and get enough votes added to his total or taken away from Coleman's total to win. If that fails, then it's off to the Senate, where he'll try to convince [Sen. Maj. Leader] Harry Reid to thwart the democratic process and force a revote rather than seat Coleman."
• Power Line's Scott Johnson: "Franken isn't talking or acting like a winner. As I wrote on Power Line this week, I conclude that Franken anticipates losing the recount. Franken has already resorted to litigation over rejected absentee ballots and threatened further litigation over the rejection of certain absentee ballots. He has met with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on the subject and won Reid's expression of concern implicitly raising the threat that the Senate Democratic majority may overturn the result reached in Minnesota if the rejected absentee ballots in issue aren't counted. Al Franken hasn't been funny in a very long time, but that is really unfunny."

EFCA: Make It Happen, Dems!

Liberal bloggers are urging passage of the Employee Free Choice Act:

• Daily Kos' Trapper John: "Without a real opportunity to join unions and build bargaining power, American workers will continue to experience stagnant wages. And as [AFL-CIO Assoc. Gen. Counsel Damon] Silvers eloquently explains, stagnant wages lead to unsustainable debt and a a downward economic spiral. The Employee Free Choice Act isn't just about fairness in the workplace -- it's a tool for engineering stimulus. And it won't cost the government a dime."
• digby: "Bloggers have been wondering whether or not the administration was planning to scale back it's support for the Employee Free Choice Act (based upon some rather broad hints and pundit speculation) and they say they aren't. This is important, especially at a time of such economic insecurity. [...] With the kind of support Obama's got going in, EFCA is something that's both achievable and necessary. Despite the hysterical commentary from the right these days, the fact is that unions strengthen the economy not weaken it."

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher thinks the Obama admin. is sending good signals: "David Sirota recently wrote about how the incoming Obama administration is largely staffed with conservative policy people, and progressive political appointments -- i.e., the people crafting policy are essentially conservative, while the people tasked with packaging and selling the policy are progressives. [...] The question remains, Sirota noted, as to how they will function together. Will the political people have any power of their own, or will they merely be considered pitchmen who are supposed to make bitter conservative pills easier for progressives to swallow? We got to see the machinery in action yesterday, when Pach wrote a post about his inquiry to the progressive pitchmen asking for confirmation about Obama's commitment to the Employee Free Choice Act after Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel did not mention it as one of the administration's priorities and implied that they might be willing to trade it for health care. The spokespeople said that they weren't empowered to respond. Yet today, a statement was given to Sam Stein of the Huffington Post confirming Team Obama's commitment to Employee Free Choice. It appears that even though the progressive 'handlers' have no power, the question Pach publicly asked reverberated at a level that someone thought it demanded an answer. And in the process, questions asked by [James] Boyce and Sirota got answered too, I think."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Our New Era Of Volatility

Time's Barbara Kiviat (h/t Yglesias):

"Here's a look at some different time periods and the number of days the S&P 500 has moved up or down more than 5% during the trading day:

• 1950-2000: 27 days
• 2000-2006: 7 days
• Jan. 1-Sept. 30, 2008: 20 days
• Since Oct. 1, 2008: 22 days

Historically, we've seen a 5% swing less than 1% of the time. Through September, we were running at about 10%. These days, we're hitting the threshold more than half the time. Wear your seatbelts."

LEST WE FORGET: Twenty Minutes Spent Making Tuna Fish Palatable

From The Onion:

"PERRY, NY -- Local resident Gary Ingram, 28, spent more than a quarter of an hour transforming a wet, grayish pile of canned tuna fish into something he would actually put in his mouth, sources said Monday. 'Gotta have some pickles in there,' Ingram said after draining the flaccid, oil-soaked fish and adding mayonnaise, red onions, and various other condiments to help mask its actual flavor. 'And you can't have a tuna sandwich without some chopped celery and a couple of shots from the ol' Tabasco bottle.' Ingram reportedly would have needed an additional 55 minutes of preparation time to make the tuna fish into something he would feel comfortable serving to a group of friends."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at December 4, 2008 12:40 PM