Democrats Relieved? Not So Fast, My Friend
As a late Election Night of 2010 turned slowly into The Day After, the sighs of relief from Democrats and their pals in the media were clearly audible. Although they had lost the House of Representatives in overwhelming fashion, the “firewall” of Senate seats, mostly in notionally Democratic states, had held. Harry Reid would not only retain his own seat, but also return to the majority leader’s office. The horde of (in their eyes) vicious Tea-Party revolution had been stopped at the last barricade.
Or so they assumed. As sports personality Lee Corso likes to say, “Not so fast, my friend.”
There’s no stasis in electoral politics; the end of one election simply means it’s time to start thinking about the next one — and a number of Democratic senators who didn’t have to stand for re-election on Tuesday are thinking very hard indeed today.
Of the 21 (!) incumbent Democrats in 2012, nine are in deep-blue “safe” states and their seats are likely to remain Democrat even in the case of retirements (Feinstein-CA and Akaka-HI lead that potential list). Four more are in normally Democratic states that shifted to the GOP in the 2010 cycle — Stabenow-MI, Klobuchar-MN, Menendez-NJ and Bingaman-NM — and as such could be considered as possible takeover targets. Assuming Herb Kohl (who will be 77 in 2012) retires, you can likely add an open seat in Wisconsin to that count — but realistically, those seats would only be in danger of flipping in a really big GOP year.
I count seven incumbent Democratic senators up for re-election in 2012 who are, today, in serious trouble: Nelson-FL, McCaskill-MO, Tester-MT, Nelson-NE, Conrad-ND, Brown-OH and Webb-VA. Most if not all of the above, if they had been on the ballot Tuesday, would probably have lost to a GOP opponent — and they know it.
You can also add to the deep-trouble list the newest senator from West Virginia, Joe Manchin, who eked out a special election win this week only by doing a fair imitation of Ted Nugent. Manchin will be back on the ballot in 2012, and running as hard to the right as he can manage in the interim.
What’s interesting here is not so much a long-term prediction for 2012. The political ground will, of course, shift between now and then in ways that no one can anticipate. If the last four election cycles have proven anything, it’s that one who makes long-term predictions based on a single election is liable to look very foolish sooner or later.
But don’t consider 2012 yet, simply consider 2011 and what’s just happened in 2010. If you are one of those eight Democratic senators, how will you react the first time Harry Reid wants your vote on an issue your state’s majority can’t stand? Would you be willing to take the chance of following Blanche Lincoln and Russ Feingold — plus Evan Bayh and Byron Dorgan, who jumped before they could be pushed — right (or more accurately, left) off the cliff?
The numbers are as interesting for the Republicans as for the Democrats. The large boost in Republican numbers gives Mitch McConnell a lot of room to operate. Stripping away the odd Maine lady or 2012-challenged Scott Brown won’t provide nearly enough votes for anything to pass.
Actually, your 21 number doesn’t include Liebermann or Sanders, both of whom caucus with the Democrats. That’s 23 seats to defend in ’12.
Sanders is of course safe in the Vermont SSR. Connecticut might be interesting. A stronger candidate than MacMahon could make it competitive, but I still see Lieberman as a probable, unless he’s knocked off from the left in the primary.
I think Liebermann is as good as gone, largely due to the health care bill. The left is furious at him for killing the public option and the right is furious at him for voting for the final Senate bill. He couldn’t win either partys’ nomination and while that didn’t stop him last time I don’t see him putting together the coalition he did last time around (majority of Republicans, plurality of independents and respectable minority of Democrats). The only question in my mind is whether he sees the writing on the wall or tries to make a go of it. Either way, I think Connecticut is at least potentially winnable for the GOP after Obamacare inflicts two more years’ worth of damage on Connecticut’s home industry (insurance).
But yeah, Vermont’s pretty much a lost cause for the GOP these days. I only mentioned him for completeness sake.
Every time one of these democrat thugs votes with the Republicans in hopes of saving their seat, the Republican party should make a big deal of cheering them, thanking them, and appreciating them, while at the same time setting aside more money and people to defeat them in their next election. Every time they agree with us, move forward by a month the date we will start actively working against them in their district. If they’re voting with us to save themselves at this point, they have a long history to look at that will prove that the only interest they have is in themselves and not in their constituants. And every time they vote with us they undermine some of the support they have with democrats who sent them there originally.
Smile as you approach these people with with a very sharp knife at the ready. The democrat party must be eliminated as a national party, period. The only good democrat is a former democrat and even they aren’t to be trusted for at least an election cycle or two.
Regards
Agreed. We must learn to be meaner and more determined in our campaigning and politics. The old ways of being polite, proper, and upright are behind us. Sure, we can have a good attitude and such but we must be willing to hit them when it hurts and keep hitting them until they stop getting up.
…and no more of this “safe state” nonsense. We need to do in California what they did in Colarado, and we need to stop their current assault in Texas before it goes any farther.
Two problems I see with your scenario (which I would like to be correct, but…)
1) You’re assuming McConnell won’t lead the Senate Republicans down a squishy path himself (see his remarks on DeMint and the incoming Tea Party supported Senators-elect).
2) You’re assuming the Democrats will play by the rules in the Senate when they’ve shown clearly that they will do anything it takes, underhanded or illegal, matters not to them, to get their radical agenda through Congress. Why they’d suddenly start playing by the rules now, I have no idea. I doubt it will happen either.
A great analysis.
As Obama led so many of those Democrats to the slaughter over the course of the last 2 years, I thought for sure a coalition of Blue Dog Democrats (at this point, gone the way of the dodo) would put a stop to him.
They have only themselves to blame because they got swept up in the progressive euphoria when their constituents were clearly, at cancelled-town-hall-meeting after cancelled-town-hall-meeting, telling them to rein it in.
It seems silly to have to say it, but if you are avoiding your constituents because of their ire, re-calibrate your positions and tell the leadership to shove it.
Your article is exactly on this point– the remaining senators look at the bloodied political corpses of their former comrades and will, politely, tell Obama to shove it.
The point above about McConnell is well-taken…he may not have the spine that DeMint does. But he’s seen the carnage and, aside from those with lifetime appointments from blue states, he’ll be paying attention. I also think it helps to have Rand Paul as the junior senator from the very same state…I’m sure McConnell’s Kentucky operatives saw firsthand the forces that would be unleashed if he caves.
But there is no reason to make it explicit. As of 8 AM yesterday, everyone aside from Obama and the few with him in the bunker knew that the game was over.
And it will be this very Senate wariness that will keep the lame-duck BS from going forward.
I see an additional factor. If the newly Republican controlled state legislatures and Republican governors start getting their states sorted out while the blue states wallow in their filth, then Democrats will become endangered.
As for the Senate, well they’ve been locked up unable to move with cries that the country is ungovernable. If McConnell is able to move legislation, then the contrast will be bright. We certainly can’t expect Reid to move legislation simply because he no longer has a deep majority.
What is needed is some fiscally conservative Democrats to challenge in the deep blue states. I we can get some like minded people and break this parliamentary mindset of the each member of Congress being not much more than a pawn of the leadership, then we can get back to the governance envisioned by the founders.
First things first, is send legislation from the House to repeal Obamacare. Get everybody on record as voting for or against. If it makes it, force Obama to veto it. Do that by June. Then do it by June of 2012 again. And force backtracking on anything this lameduck Congress does that is the least bit controversial. And if the Republican leadership won’t do it, start a rebel campaign and burn them in the blogs and the press.
“First things first, is send legislation from the House to repeal Obamacare. Get everybody on record as voting for or against. If it makes it, force Obama to veto it. Do that by June. Then do it by June of 2012 again. And force backtracking on anything this lameduck Congress does that is the least bit controversial. And if the Republican leadership won’t do it, start a rebel campaign and burn them in the blogs and the press.”
Amen and Amen. Make ‘em squirm. Make ‘em all squirm.
I don’t trust any DC GOPer to do anything except protect thier asses…therefore if there are TP rallies of size in April protesting Tax Day, the DC pols will fall in line.
Guys to watch…Issa, what committee grahm gets etc
Is Lindsey up for re-election in 2012? I’d love to see him get primaried.
Regrettably, “Goober” Graham is safe until 2014.
I predict that hyperinflation will by here by mid-2012. At that point, anything can happen, so no one should count chickens anywhere just yet.
This election was probably California’s last chance—and it blew it big time! I never say never because sometimes things can change for the better. Nevertheless, the odds are that we must politically ignore the state. We cannot afford to waste anymore effort and money to get Republicans elected statewide. The GOP ended up wasting valuable resources that could have been spent elsewhere. A number of elections were inevitably lost in other areas of the country because funds were diverted to California. This state is likely to remain blue forevermore! The crazies have almost completely taken over.
I agree about leaving California to its own strange self, but I don’t think it is lost forever. California is like the rusting hull of an old ship. It somehow stays afloat even as the rusting hull becomes paper thin. Then, gusherino! as it finally rusts out the hull breaches, the ocean rushes in and she’s a sinker. It just needs patient observation until that happens. Then California may well feel blue but it won’t stay blue coloured, politically that is.
The evidence does not seem to support your optimism. Purple and red state voters are leaving California in droves. I can’t imagine the situation reversing anytime within the next twenty years. The situation was never this bad in California. Am I wrong? Can you point to any examples from the past?
Over in http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/california-wins-landslide-in-dumbest-state-award/ an interesting comment caught my eye.
We (the rest of the country) need to start making plans for California’s eventual collapse.
One of the first bills for the new House needs to be a process to strip a state of it’s status in the vent of a economic collapse.
I propose…
1) in the event of an insolvency, the state goes into receivership. The state Constitution is nullified and all contracts and agreements are broken.
2) All state funds and assets go to the federal government.
3) All state elected officials and employees both past and present, are removed from office, and their pensions are revoked.
4) Congressmen from the failed state revert to territorial representatives with the limited voting rights of other territories. Senators are removed.
5) The former state is declared a Territory, with all rights and responsibilities.
6) The POTUS with consent of the Senate, appoints a territorial Governor.
7) The Territorial Governor oversees the payment and restructuring of the former states debts.
8) Once the Territory has shown two years of solvency, the Territory has the right to apply for statehood, using the rules of the Enabling Act of 1802
Make sure that the analysis is even handed, rather than politicized, and I am
positive that the ball can be started.
For I can see the House, with bloggers, making the case that the Democrats are
employing selective vision in order to do nothing, or employ token efforts which they call “important measures”. For the debt will have to be dealt with, and one way is partial payment to those whom expect to be paid.
Because the problem is still toxic assets as far as the eye can see, debt which is on the books, and debt which is off the books.
I don’t claim to be a Constitutional scholar. California probably needs to return to its former territorial status. Is this truly possible? The state is a lunatic asylum. One can actually make an excellent argument that most of its citizens should be treated like children! Sadly, I am not joking.
Per the Senate apportionment protection clause, California would have to consent to that, as would any other state subject to it.
Hmmm – the only example that comes to mind is Cuba. They have already sunk and are making noises about closing the asylum and rejoining the real world. After California sinks, I think recovery would take at least 10 years.
The Dominion of Newfoundland. Faced with unserviceable debt and corrupt politicians, it gave up responsible government in 1934 and returned to Crown Colony status for the next fifteen years, finally joining the Dominion of Canada in 1949.
I agree. California will self-correct 2 and 4 years from now, but will face a very, very rough patch before then
Within a year I expect California to find itself unable to meet its obligations by borrowing or tax/fee increases, go the the federal till and be denied by the House.
Brown will resort to a state government shutdown to try to get emergency relief. There are some shenanigans Obama can try to pull from the WH to end run a bailout around the House , but the Senate won’t get behind him either. Not the 50% he would need. Too many Dem senators will be looking to survive the 2012 elections to support any electorally toxic votes.
How will California self-correct? The last time I checked it was still illegal to use a machine gun on its idiots. California is losing roughly 500 people everyday. The sensible citizens are leaving.
‘How will California self-correct?’
I’m going to use Jerry Brown as a catchall title for both the executive and legislative branches in California.
California will not be able to fund its budget through taxes/fees increases or borrowing. Tax/fee increases are a negative return game in California already. They’ve hit the point where any increases are more than offset by a corresponding shrinkage in the tax base. No one is going to lend them money by buying their bonds much longer. That’s also already a problem. The underfunding of their liabilities is being hidden by accounting sleight of hand, but that too is beginning to fray. It’s all going to collapse in a crisis before the end of 2011, quite possibly before the summer, if Brown does not take draconian measures beforehand.
If he doesn’t, and he won’t/can’t given the expectations of the entitlement classes, California becomes insolvent at the state level – cannot meet financial obligations. Brown will have no recourse but to go for federal funds. (I believe federal bailout in the form of taking over responsibility for California’s state employee retirement has been the state legislature’s expectation since Obama was elected) Brown will play every card to force the fed’s hand up to and including shutting down essential services (but not the entitlement spigot). That won’t work. The US House will not fund it.
What occurs after will be interesting. Not sure whether a state can can be forced by the courts, rendering a judgment in favor of creditors, into receivership? Towns and cities can be. If so, all state fiscal obligations, contractual or otherwise, are restructured to meet a formula designed to bring the state solvent – meeting restructured obligations – and it stays in court ordered receivership until it does. If the state cannot be forced into receivership, it will get to the point where it runs out of essential services it can cut and starts bouncing checks.
The entitlement structure collapses in every scenario except draconian budget cutbacks.
How can California self-correct? Take your time going through these comments, because there are a lot, and there is a lot to grasp.
3 problems stand athwart, and they are toxic assets as far as the eye can see. Debt which is on the books, and debt which is off the books.
http://disqus.com/telegraph-f92cf054-109d-4ca3-90c3-cc134662c372/
What complicates matters is the corruption of those tasked with legislating, or being the executive branch (and I am not only referring to California), but also those states which are drowning in debt. Also keep in mind local governments which are voting themselves out of existence. This will take time
to sort out.
I’m worried about the money sloshing around in TARP.
Anything stopping the Treasury from spending billions in TARP money on California (or Illinois, which may go belly-up even sooner) without Congressional approval?
And is TARP money that is repaid (for example, money coming back from GM or Citibank)retired, or is it retained in a TARP slush fund that can be used to tinker in the future?
Either way, we have to kill TARP…
Ben “Helicopter” Bernanke is planning to spend $250 billion in unused TARP funds to buy Treasury bonds. (Not that any TARP money actually exists; it is nothing more than bookkeeping entries.)
That $250 billion is in addition to the $600 billion in “qualitative easing 2″ announced on November 3. Toss in some additional billions, as the Fed plans on buying more T-bonds with interest it earns on its existing investments. So we’re looking at close to $1 trillion of new monopoly money injected into the economy, mostly to boost the stock market with inflated prices so that people will erroneously believe the economy is improving.
When businesses and banks start spending and lending the $2 trillion they have been sitting on, and Uncle Ben’s latest trillion is pumped into the equation… we will see price increases like we have never experienced. How about $20 for a loaf of bread? In the commodities market, in the past 60 days alone, cotton prices are up 54%, corn prices are up 29%, soybean prices are up 22%, orange juice prices are up 17%, and sugar prices are up 51%. Those hikes will make their way to the grocery store by spring of 2011, as producers run out of supplies they purchased before the prices went up.
Note to Self:
Vote Sherrod Brown (OH) out in 2012.
Note to Tea Partiers & Republicans:
Make sure we have a solid, rubber-meets-road candidate to vote for.
Democratic Senate incumbents up for re-election in ’12
1 Dianne Feinstein of California
2 Tom Carper of Delaware
3 Bill Nelson of Florida
4 Daniel Akaka of Hawaii
5 Ben Cardin of Maryland
6 Debbie Stabenow of Michigan
7 Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota
8 Claire McCaskill of Missouri
9 Jon Tester of Montana
10 Ben Nelson of Nebraska
11 Bob Menendez of New Jersey
12 Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico
13 Kirsten Gillibrand of New York
14 Kent Conrad of North Dakota
15 Sherrod Brown of Ohio
16 Bob Casey, Jr. of Pennsylvania
17 Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island
18 Jim Webb of Virginia
19 Maria Cantwell of Washington
20 Joe Manchin of West Virginia
21 Herb Kohl of Wisconsin
Feinstein. I want her heart on a plate. Metaphorically speaking of course.
California’s Feinstein will be 79 in 2012. She will possibly retire.
Nebraska’s Ben Nelson will be 71.
As the article stated, Herb Kohl will be 77.
Hawaii’s Daniel Akaka will be 88 in 2012.
Hawaii’s Daniel Inouye’s term does not expire until 2016; but he is 86 years old and will himself probably expire long before then. Hawaii elected a socialist governor on November 2: Barack Hussein Obama Sr.’s college buddy, Neil Abercrombie – who would of course select a Democrat/socialist to fill Inouye’s and Akaka’s seats when they can no longer serve.
What you are failing to note is that the GOP Senators are not safe either. If they go up there with this mandate and hem and haw and do not actually cut government programs and spending, they will lose their jobs too.
I’m not a Lawyer but I stayed at the …
It is my impression that there are not Bankruptcy statues for States, there are Municipal statues as well as the Personal and Business ones. So Receivership is uncharted territory.
There are Pension Guarantees in Fed law, but do they cover states, possibly only Muni and Private. But the Federal guaranteed pension is its own schedule much less rich than the standard private one, kicks in at 65, and far less bennies. The Man from Bell would have only 35K per year not 350K
All I can say is I’m way ahead of you. I’m prepared for 2012 right now. And I plan on remaining that way.
Not to be nit-picky, but with regard to:
“Nelson-NB”
NB is the postal abbreviation for New Brunswick, Canada. Nebraska is NE. (I recall a computer system conversion at a company I worked for in the 1970s where we temporarily lost all the Nebraska accounts because a programmer entered NB rather than NE. It took us days to recover.)
Thanks. A dumb error on my part; I appreciate the correction.
In re: commodities. The harvests have been bad over much of the world. Russia is not exporting wheat so their people have enough. The Canadian wheat harvest is said to be mostly unsuitable for human consumption. Cotton, ditto poor growing conditions. There are other factors than politics at work here. Don’t even start on the food crops being turned into ethanol. Add to that the worsening activity of volcanoes, and at this point they are worried about a possible megaexplosion in Indonesia. If this is as bad as expected (and we can only hope the experts are wrong) it could set back agriculture for a couple of years, big clouds, no sun, no crops.
Other posters are right on democrats; They will NOT play by the rules. Someone in the house said earlier “We make the rules” And they don’t have to follow them.
Jim Webb (VA) will not run for re-election. He has been Harry Reid’s toad from the minute he set foot in Washington and the electorate will not forget it. As he well knows, all the GOP has to come up with is a passable candidate to beat him.
I suspect Webb will toady up to the Obamanable snowmen as much as ever — especially in the lame-duck session, with the plum of Sec of Defense perhaps dangled before him.
Why didn’t Evan Bayh (IN) run for re-election? Because he knew that, despite his popularity in the state, his votes for the Obama agenda killed his chances with independents. Then why didn’t he vote against these offensive bills in the first place? Was he afraid of being primaried out by lefty Dems in Indiana? I don’t think so, not in Indiana. Yet he toed the Reid line like a good little boy.
I don’t trust “blue dogs” and vulnerable Democrats. At best, they’re unpredictable.