As expected, it was a good night to be a Republican candidate for state office, an incumbent running for re-election for Congress from Iowa, and a bad night to be a Supreme Court Justice up for retention in Iowa. (Popular Progressive predictions: Governor: Branstad; all House Representatives and Senate incumbents; State Offices: Fitzgerald, Miller, Vaudt, Northey, Mauro; and at least 1 of 3 SCJs would be retained)
The big headline: Iowa House and Senate mirror national trend-- House solidly in Republicans hands (59 to 41), Senate majority still Democrats--barely (13 to 12 in contested races).
This and That
Surprising was the ouster of Democrat Michael Mauro as Iowa's Secretary of State particularly as his opponent was widely assailed by members of his own party. Most likely, his defeat was caused by straight ticket voting, not nedcessarily an enthusiam for Republican Matt Schultz who has promised to mandate photo IDs for voting purposes and to make election day voter registration "provisional" which is likely to lower numbers of voters. (Popular Progressive prediction: Wrong--predicted Mauro to retain position).
Also surprising were the margins that the Constitutional amendments to provide funding to create a trust fund for a permanent, constitutionally protected tax specifically focused on environment conservation and restoration statewide and against a state constitutional convention were passed. (Popular Progressive predictions: Correct outcomes, but the margin was much higher than anticipated)
Locally, the the repeal of the 21-only ordinance was narrowly defeated, owing to a better than expected turnout of the greater Iowa City community in favor of Iowa City's bars adhering to keeping underage people from bars after 10 pm. This is a huge feather in the cap of Iowa City mayor Matt Hayak and other city council members who put their ambitions in jeopardy by pushing for the ordinance and fighting against its repeal. (Popular Progressive prediction: correct about closeness of count)
Quick Counts
The Iowa House: Dems = 41 Reps = 59 (Popular Progressive prediction: Dead wrong, Dems did not maintain control)
Iowa Senate: Dems = 13 Reps = 12 )Popular Progressive prediction: barely right and with two races still in play, may prove to be wrong)
Judges: Supreme Court = 0/3 retained; Other Courts = 70/70 retained (Popular Progressive prediction 1/3 correct on Supreme Court retention)
Overall predictions: Of the 21 predictions made for this election, Popular Progressive was correct at least 17 times or 81% for this cycle.
Showing posts with label 2010 Mid-term Elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2010 Mid-term Elections. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 3
Monday, November 1
What I Think Will Happen in Iowa on Tuesday
Prognostication is subject to a lot of skepticism, and rightly so, particularly if there are based on mostly conjecture and a little bit of polling data (in my case, the Des Moines Register's most recent poll for state races and The University of Iowa's Electronic Market).
In Iowa, we are likely to see the Governor's office change hands, as well as at least one court justice be recalled. The key to these two separate votes is the turnout of voters. Regardless of the turnout, Chet Culver and Patty Judge will not receive the vote of confidence they believe they have earned.
We are likely to see a couple of tight races for Congress in the eastern end of the state and the incumbents House members Loebsack and Braley will hold on by a thread--not because they aren't the best candidates, but because they have played political hardball to battle against the millions of dollars of negative ads run against them by both their opponents and the America's Future Fund. Across the state, the usual suspects will keep their seats, including senior Senator Grassley by more comfortable margins.
Despite two very good candidates in the form of Jon Murphy and Francis Thicke, both the incumbent Secretary of Agriculture Northey and State Auditor Vaudt are likely to remain in place, as are the State Treasurer Fitzgerald and the Secretary of State Mauro. There will be a closer race for Attorney General than otherwise should be the case given the inexperience of Republican Brenna Findley, but the incumbent, Tom Miller should continue in the job by less than a 15% margin.
The Iowa House will still have a Democrat majority, but not by more than a handful and the Senate should continue as a Democrat stronghold.
The State Constitutional Convention will likely be voted down and the land and water conservation measure will be approved, but not by much.
On a Johnson County level, the 21-only referendum in Iowa City will be close and may turn out to be a squeaker for rolling back the 21-only ordinance, judging by early voting numbers. Supervisors Janelle Rettig and Sally Stutsman, Senator Joe Bolkcom, Representatives Vicki Lensing and Mary Mascher, Recorder Kim Painter, and Treasurer Tom Kriz will be retained, deservedly, but without opposition. State Senator Bob Dvorsky will also be retained, as will State Representative Dave Jacoby, despite oposition by a pair of Libertarians.
Check back on Wednesday, November 3rd when I recap the election and attempt to justify what actually happened, and whether my predictions prove to be in error.
In Iowa, we are likely to see the Governor's office change hands, as well as at least one court justice be recalled. The key to these two separate votes is the turnout of voters. Regardless of the turnout, Chet Culver and Patty Judge will not receive the vote of confidence they believe they have earned.
We are likely to see a couple of tight races for Congress in the eastern end of the state and the incumbents House members Loebsack and Braley will hold on by a thread--not because they aren't the best candidates, but because they have played political hardball to battle against the millions of dollars of negative ads run against them by both their opponents and the America's Future Fund. Across the state, the usual suspects will keep their seats, including senior Senator Grassley by more comfortable margins.
Despite two very good candidates in the form of Jon Murphy and Francis Thicke, both the incumbent Secretary of Agriculture Northey and State Auditor Vaudt are likely to remain in place, as are the State Treasurer Fitzgerald and the Secretary of State Mauro. There will be a closer race for Attorney General than otherwise should be the case given the inexperience of Republican Brenna Findley, but the incumbent, Tom Miller should continue in the job by less than a 15% margin.
The Iowa House will still have a Democrat majority, but not by more than a handful and the Senate should continue as a Democrat stronghold.
The State Constitutional Convention will likely be voted down and the land and water conservation measure will be approved, but not by much.
On a Johnson County level, the 21-only referendum in Iowa City will be close and may turn out to be a squeaker for rolling back the 21-only ordinance, judging by early voting numbers. Supervisors Janelle Rettig and Sally Stutsman, Senator Joe Bolkcom, Representatives Vicki Lensing and Mary Mascher, Recorder Kim Painter, and Treasurer Tom Kriz will be retained, deservedly, but without opposition. State Senator Bob Dvorsky will also be retained, as will State Representative Dave Jacoby, despite oposition by a pair of Libertarians.
Check back on Wednesday, November 3rd when I recap the election and attempt to justify what actually happened, and whether my predictions prove to be in error.
Thursday, October 21
Waiting on the "Declaration" of Independents
In July I got an email from the Democratic Party to complete a survey. They ask if I was a Democrat. I honestly had to reread the Iowa 2010 platform and agreed with six of the priorities:
1. We oppose corporate personhood.
2. We support a single-payer health care plan for all citizens.
3. We oppose the Defense of Marriage Act.
4. We support separation of church and state.
5. We support energy independence with locally-owned renewable, eco-sustainable sources.
6. We support removing the cap on Social Security contributions.
What was absolutely missing in these priorities are the Economy and jobs. Democrats used to be the party of the working class person. They still are to a lesser extent, it helps if you are a member of a union. But when the economy and jobs don't make your top priority list, there is definitely trouble in River City.
There are some pretty significant disconnects for both Democrats and Republicans in their platforms and that causes pain for their candidates who ostensibly run on them. Why? Because they are not running for Democrat or Republican, they are Republicans and Democrats running for offices that require getting more votes than the next person. In other words, platforms are nice, but elections are won by keeping your party happy and winning over those people who have their own agenda--these are the Independents.
What I'm focusing on are the Independents who are notorious for "voting with their pocketbooks." Since the early 2000s, their pocketbooks, like many of ours, have shrunk considerably--despite tax-cuts by both Democrats and Republicans. While soccer Moms and Dads have disappeared in this year's dialogue because of the roar of the Tea Party, they are still out there and many of them are not excited about their choices. They are concerned about what will happen next.
For them, a Congress that will help them keep more money in their pockets is better than a Congress that they perceive will take more money out. Now, in fairness to Democrats who are in tight races and somehow being perceived as hurting working families, they(and no one from either party) wants to retract the middle class tax cuts that happened in the Bush and Clinton years. The difference is where the line is drawn. Democrats argue for drawing the line at individuals making less than $200,000 and families reporting less than $250,000 which equals 97 to 98% of all Americans. Republicans argue that any new tax is bad for the Economy.
How is it logical to the independent voter that voting for a progressive or even blue dog Democrat will hurt them financially? The crux is in the idea that the remaining 2% whose taxes would go up will withhold spending, thus hurting the small business person or working stiff. Categorically, this is goofy-think. If the middle class receives tax cuts, they are likely to spend money on stuff they haven't been able to buy, pay down debt, or even "gasp" put some money into savings. All are a good thing while the economy is stagnant. Money spent either on debt service or put into savings goods frees up money to be lent and money spent keeps or puts more people to work.
Also, if those who have been not been paying their "fair share" are fully in the mix like the rest of us, the debt on the rest of us comes down fairly dramatically in a much shorter time frame and at no significant hardship to those in question. This may be unpalatable to those in that 2 to 3% range, but they aren't going to go on a peanut butter and mac and cheese diet over it either.
Also, if we ever hope to transform our economy, we need to free up resources from things like war and national defense and use it to rebuild our nation's infrastructure. For example, electricity can be generated and delivered relatively cheaply from sources other than oil or coal on smart grids and people can be moved from region to region by high-speed rail, if the investment is there.
We need education that train/retrain people to work in the new economy. Democrats are investing in this by making it possible for more people to go to college or technical schools.
Reviving the economy calls for everybody who wants a job to have one. Democrats and Republicans both are off the mark in pointing their fingers at each other. It is possible to invest both in public works to build infrastructure and invest in the private sector to build new capabilities. There is no magic to this. What is lacking is a confidence that the investment will pay off. Partisan bickering and gamesmanship are the Debbie Downer of confidence being restored (as well as lobbying efforts that attempt to quash competition).
If this election is a referendum on who "gets it"--the frustration that the Independents feel about their wallets, the Republicans will likely mop the floor with the Democrats who have been tone-deaf with this issue on November 2. If the election hinges on thoughtful people who are demanding a functional government, it may turn out to be a much closer race than expected and we'll all be better off for it. In any case, it will make 2012 a much more interesting year.
1. We oppose corporate personhood.
2. We support a single-payer health care plan for all citizens.
3. We oppose the Defense of Marriage Act.
4. We support separation of church and state.
5. We support energy independence with locally-owned renewable, eco-sustainable sources.
6. We support removing the cap on Social Security contributions.
What was absolutely missing in these priorities are the Economy and jobs. Democrats used to be the party of the working class person. They still are to a lesser extent, it helps if you are a member of a union. But when the economy and jobs don't make your top priority list, there is definitely trouble in River City.
There are some pretty significant disconnects for both Democrats and Republicans in their platforms and that causes pain for their candidates who ostensibly run on them. Why? Because they are not running for Democrat or Republican, they are Republicans and Democrats running for offices that require getting more votes than the next person. In other words, platforms are nice, but elections are won by keeping your party happy and winning over those people who have their own agenda--these are the Independents.
What I'm focusing on are the Independents who are notorious for "voting with their pocketbooks." Since the early 2000s, their pocketbooks, like many of ours, have shrunk considerably--despite tax-cuts by both Democrats and Republicans. While soccer Moms and Dads have disappeared in this year's dialogue because of the roar of the Tea Party, they are still out there and many of them are not excited about their choices. They are concerned about what will happen next.
For them, a Congress that will help them keep more money in their pockets is better than a Congress that they perceive will take more money out. Now, in fairness to Democrats who are in tight races and somehow being perceived as hurting working families, they(and no one from either party) wants to retract the middle class tax cuts that happened in the Bush and Clinton years. The difference is where the line is drawn. Democrats argue for drawing the line at individuals making less than $200,000 and families reporting less than $250,000 which equals 97 to 98% of all Americans. Republicans argue that any new tax is bad for the Economy.
How is it logical to the independent voter that voting for a progressive or even blue dog Democrat will hurt them financially? The crux is in the idea that the remaining 2% whose taxes would go up will withhold spending, thus hurting the small business person or working stiff. Categorically, this is goofy-think. If the middle class receives tax cuts, they are likely to spend money on stuff they haven't been able to buy, pay down debt, or even "gasp" put some money into savings. All are a good thing while the economy is stagnant. Money spent either on debt service or put into savings goods frees up money to be lent and money spent keeps or puts more people to work.
Also, if those who have been not been paying their "fair share" are fully in the mix like the rest of us, the debt on the rest of us comes down fairly dramatically in a much shorter time frame and at no significant hardship to those in question. This may be unpalatable to those in that 2 to 3% range, but they aren't going to go on a peanut butter and mac and cheese diet over it either.
Also, if we ever hope to transform our economy, we need to free up resources from things like war and national defense and use it to rebuild our nation's infrastructure. For example, electricity can be generated and delivered relatively cheaply from sources other than oil or coal on smart grids and people can be moved from region to region by high-speed rail, if the investment is there.
We need education that train/retrain people to work in the new economy. Democrats are investing in this by making it possible for more people to go to college or technical schools.
Reviving the economy calls for everybody who wants a job to have one. Democrats and Republicans both are off the mark in pointing their fingers at each other. It is possible to invest both in public works to build infrastructure and invest in the private sector to build new capabilities. There is no magic to this. What is lacking is a confidence that the investment will pay off. Partisan bickering and gamesmanship are the Debbie Downer of confidence being restored (as well as lobbying efforts that attempt to quash competition).
If this election is a referendum on who "gets it"--the frustration that the Independents feel about their wallets, the Republicans will likely mop the floor with the Democrats who have been tone-deaf with this issue on November 2. If the election hinges on thoughtful people who are demanding a functional government, it may turn out to be a much closer race than expected and we'll all be better off for it. In any case, it will make 2012 a much more interesting year.
Monday, July 26
What's the Alternative?
Al Franken said it best when addressing the Netroots Nation, " I know progressives are frustrated...because it feels at times not everyone in our party is pushing at the same pace." Al's absolutely right, it isn't even closer to the direction that many in the progressive movement thought that the 2008 election outcome would propel us. So far many things, from healthcare, the environment and global climate change legislation, Wall Street reform, and civil liberties have been co-opted or watered down in a race to make sure "we" can win the mid-terms.
So many of us are ruminating on the idea that helping the mainstream Democrats will bring us more of the same. If this is progress, why bother? We are told to consider the alternative. If Republicans are able to win the House or Senate back, what will happen to even the short-term gains that have been made? And this is a truly frightening--not hopeful-- proposition
We are asked to "hope" a little longer, be willing to wait for "change" a little longer, but so far the return on our investment has been questionable. What the mainline has to consider is that when you make promises at election time, people really do count on you delivering on them. It is likely that some of the people who joined the Tea drinkers did so because they felt that what was promised was not being delivered. We all wanted "change we can believe in"--sadly, what we have gotten is politics as usual.
We are told that change is not instant, that we must keep our eye on the larger prize. We must do more to keep hope alive. But while platitudes make for great conventions, legislation is how we get things done. And does anyone really believe that the legislation pushed through in the last year and a half is for the people? If it is, I hope every Democrat running for reelection can articulate how it helps us on Main Street. We need to ask the mainline to consider the alternative of losing support by the people who pushed the hardest for change to happen.
So many of us are ruminating on the idea that helping the mainstream Democrats will bring us more of the same. If this is progress, why bother? We are told to consider the alternative. If Republicans are able to win the House or Senate back, what will happen to even the short-term gains that have been made? And this is a truly frightening--not hopeful-- proposition
We are asked to "hope" a little longer, be willing to wait for "change" a little longer, but so far the return on our investment has been questionable. What the mainline has to consider is that when you make promises at election time, people really do count on you delivering on them. It is likely that some of the people who joined the Tea drinkers did so because they felt that what was promised was not being delivered. We all wanted "change we can believe in"--sadly, what we have gotten is politics as usual.
We are told that change is not instant, that we must keep our eye on the larger prize. We must do more to keep hope alive. But while platitudes make for great conventions, legislation is how we get things done. And does anyone really believe that the legislation pushed through in the last year and a half is for the people? If it is, I hope every Democrat running for reelection can articulate how it helps us on Main Street. We need to ask the mainline to consider the alternative of losing support by the people who pushed the hardest for change to happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)