AMERICAN.COM

In his State of the Union address, the president fell into the trap of thinking that the midterm election results were not that bad and safely behind him.

The president passed on an opportunity to address debt, deficits, and government spending, central concerns for midterm election voters. Of course, the president’s supporters can point to the proposed five-year spending freeze and threat to veto bills with earmarks. But this is pretty weak tea, especially combined with his call for new spending to modernize the economy.

The president’s failure in the State of the Union may derive in part from his many successes over the past two months. He successfully moved to the middle in striking the tax deal compromise with Republicans, has appointed many experienced centrist advisers who understand the needs of business, and he healed the nation with his Tucson speech. And for these he has been rewarded with improved poll numbers.

But there is still the matter of that pesky election. Is it so easy to overlook the loss of more than 60 House seats, six Senate seats, and hundreds of state legislative seats? Some of that result can be explained by the bad economy and the natural tendency of the president’s party to lose seats in a midterm election. But it is also hard to deny the central theme of the Republicans who won office that the size of government, debt, and deficits has gotten out of control.

No one would expect President Obama to agree with Republicans on all of the means to shrinking our deficit, but surely he should have done more to emphasize that he shared the same end.

The latest Census tells us that the South and West are America’s fastest-growing regions. This 2010 headline is not surprising. It could have been written for every census since 1940.

In the past ten years, the South grew 14.3 percent, the West 13.8 percent, the Midwest 3.9 percent, and the Northeast 3.2 percent. One new wrinkle is that the South grew faster than the West. The West had been the fastest-growing region in every census taken in the 20th century.

The South is our largest region. For the first time, it now has more population than the Northeast and Midwest combined. The South has nearly 115 million people, the Northeast 55 million, and the Midwest 67 million. The West is now the second-largest region, with 72 million, surpassing the Midwest in the ten years since the 2000 census. The South added more population from 2000-2010 (14.3 million) than the three other regions combined.

No state in either the Midwest or Northeast grew faster than the national growth rate. No state in the West grew slower than the national growth rate. Montana grew at exactly the national growth rate of 9.7 percent. California was the second-slowest growing Western state at 10 percent, a growth rate which would be remarkable for a Midwestern or Northeastern state.

The four states with the fastest rates of growth were in the West: Nevada (35.1 percent), Arizona (24.6 percent), Utah (23.8 percent), and Idaho (21.1 percent). But California makes up more than half of the West’s population, and with California’s slower growth, the region as a whole had its growth rate fall behind the South’s.

The South’s growth is strong, but not uniform. Louisiana (1.4 percent) and Mississippi (4.3 percent) experienced slow growth. Alabama (7.5 percent) and Arkansas (9.1 percent) were below the national average. Four border states that the census counts as part of the South experienced growth below the national average: Oklahoma (8.7 percent), Kentucky (7.4 percent), Maryland (9.0 percent), and West Virginia (2.5 percent).

The powerhouses for growth in the South were Texas (20.6 percent), North Carolina (18.5 percent), Georgia (18.3 percent), and Florida (17.6 percent). Texas added just under 4.3 million people, about the same as the gain in all of the Northeast and Midwest states combined. These four states plus Arizona and California added nearly 15 million people, more than half of the gain for the United States.

Image by David.

Are there any Democrats representing conservative districts that held on last night? Yes. But most lost.

Jim Matheson survived in a Utah district where President Bush won with 66 percent of the vote in 2004.

But every other Democrat holding a seat that Bush won with 60 percent or more of the vote was replaced by a Republican last night. They are: Minnick, Taylor, Bright, Skelton, Pomeroy, Rodriguez, Kratovil, Childers, Ellsworth, Herseth-Sandlin, Boucher, Carney, and Gordon.

Which are the most Democratic seats that Republicans won last night?

There are four seats that Republicans won where John Kerry won 53 percent in the close 2004 presidential election.

In Pennsylvania, Republicans beat Paul Kanjorski and won the open seat vacated by Joe Sestak. In Minnesota, the GOP knocked off Jim Oberstar. In Illinois, Republicans held onto the open seat vacated by Mark Kirk.

Republicans did not win any seats that Kerry won with 54 percent of more of the vote.

In fact, they lost the three more Democratic seats that they previously held: an open seat in Delaware, Joseph Cao’s seat in Louisiana, and Charles Djou’s seat in Hawaii.

Blue Dogs lost badly last night. Of the 54 members of the House Blue Dog Coalition, 28 lost, and another four are in close races not yet called.

Looks like Republicans will gain between 650 and 700 seats in state legislatures. This would be the largest gain in the past 50 years for the outparty in a midterm election. By comparison, Republicans in 1994 gained 505 state legislative seats. Democrats in 1974 gained 625 seats. Republicans now control the legislature in some unanticipated places like Minnesota, North Carolina, and Michigan.

Republicans still headed for big win in House, but the limits of the gains in conservative seats can be seen. Republicans pick up only one of four potential pickups in North Carolina, Bobby Etheridge’s seat. Health Shuler, Larry Kissell, and Mike McIntyre all re-elected.

Democrats also hold one of three vulnerable Indiana House seats, Joe Donnelly’s. And Ben Chandler in Kentucky leads by a few hundred votes in a race that might go to a recount.

In other conservative districts, the news is bad: Ike Skelton (Missouri), Lincoln Davis (Tennessee) and Gene Taylor (Mississippi), to name a few that even a month ago would have been hard to imagine Republicans winning.

The first seat from off the radar screen that could change hands is Melissa Bean’s in Illinois’s 8th district. It is within hundreds of votes with 99 percent reporting. Illinois House seats looking more favorable to GOP than expected. Three pickups (Halvorson, Foster, and Hare), and competitive to hold Mark Kirk’s House seat.

Early results show Democrats in conservative districts losing. Big news that Rick Boucher has lost to Morgan Griffith in Virginia-9. GOP doing well in the three Democratic-held conservative seats in Indiana. Still early, but watch if these results repeat themselves in the North Carolina seats of Kissell, Etheridge, McIntyre, and Shuler, as well as Chandler in Kentucky.

If Republicans win these seats, they are on their way to a very big win.

The other seats to watch are moderate or slightly Democratic leaning suburban seats. Can Republicans win in Connecticut-5, for example, or in Virginia-11? If they can knock off incumbents in both the conservative-leaning districts like Boucher’s and in suburban seats, then watch out for an even bigger win than anticipated.

But good news for Democrats winning the West Virginia Senate seat. To win the Senate, Republicans now have to win all the close races leaning their way, as well as Washington state and California to take the majority. Not likely.

Christine O’Donnell is the poster child for people who argue that the tea party movement is driving the Republican Party too far to the right to win in November.

And critics of O’Donnell are right, at least about her own prospects. O’Donnell’s victory over moderate Rep. Michael Castle (R-Delaware) in last night’s primary almost certainly means that Republicans will not pick up a Democratic seat in the Senate. And while Republicans will make significant gains, the loss of this possible takeover means that Republicans will have to win every tossup seat and a few where they trail narrowly to get to 51 Republicans in the Senate.

Critics, however, are wrong to think that the O’Donnell phenomenon will have wider currency in the general election. Almost all of the Senate tea party candidates who have scored upsets against establishment candidates will end up winning against Democrats in the fall. Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Joe Miller, and Ken Buck are likely to win. Sharon Angle, even in the face of strong establishment criticism, is about an even bet to beat Harry Reid.

But O’Donnell’s win does raise questions about how a tea party–fueled Republican Party will win in a less favorable Republican year than 2010 or in Democratic-leaning states like Delaware.

For this election, however, it mainly means that a Republican will not represent Delaware in the Senate next year.

There were no huge surprises in primaries held yesterday in Kansas, Michigan, and Missouri. But one thing was clear. Many more voters showed up for the Republican primaries than on the Democratic side.

It is dangerous to make too much of this fact, because primary turnout can be affected by a particularly competitive race on one side or by a multi-candidate race, and primary turnout is not always an indication of general election turnout.

But it is clear that, in these three states, the energy and turnout was on the Republican side and this is consistent with many other indicators of Republican enthusiasm and Democratic apathy for the 2010 contests so far.

Look, for example, at the turnout for the gubernatorial primary in Michigan, a relatively competitive state, but which generally has a Democratic lean in presidential contests and in which President Obama beat Senator John McCain by over 16 percentage points. Yesterday, there were competitive contests for both the Republican and Democratic gubernatorial nominations. But nearly twice as many votes were cast in the Republican primary. More Republicans showed up for this primary than for the Republican presidential primary of 2008, which was an early and competitive affair.

Missouri is also a nationally competitive state that leans a bit to the Republican side in presidential elections, and is where McCain eked out a 2008 victory over Obama. Here, both Republican Roy Blunt and Democrat Robin Carnahan faced minor opposition in their respective senatorial primaries. But 83 percent more Missourians voted in the Republican Senate primary than in the Democratic one. Democratic turnout was about 316,000 voters, while more than 577,000 voted in the Republican primary. A much more competitive Republican primary for governor in 2008 only drew about 400,000 voters.

Finally, in Republican-leaning Kansas, where McCain beat Obama by 15 percentage points, the same pattern held. Both sides had competitive races for Senate; 322,000 Republicans showed up, but only 81,000 Democrats.
Compare the Republican number to a competitive multicandidate gubernatorial primary in 2006, which only drew about 190,000 voters.

The energy is on the Republican side.

Image by irrational_cat.

Rand Paul has beaten Trey Grayson in Kentucky’s Republican senate primary. Paul is his father’s son (Ron Paul), or at least shares his father’s populist, Tea Party conservative politics. Grayson was a strong candidate, a conservative by almost every definition, and was supported by most of the Republican establishment, including the senior senator, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Paul’s win shows the energy of the populist conservatives, who have knocked off several establishment Republicans. It also sets up the November general election as a test of whether Tea Party sentiments will help or hurt the GOP. Some will argue that Tea Party activism will elect more committed, but less electable candidates. But in a good Republican year like 2010 and in a conservative state like Kentucky, Paul can win.

Image by Gage Skidmore.

Senator Evan Bayh’s comments on his retirement speak for themselves. He is worried about the effectiveness of Congress in recent years. He is in a difficult position as a Senate moderate. And he has other ways to contribute to the public good outside of his service in the Senate.

Bayh did have a potentially difficult reelection race in November. Indiana is still a Republican state, the winds are blowing in the GOP direction, and the entrance of former Senator Daniel Coats into the race (despite Coats’s very imperfect candidate roll-out) meant that he would have a substantial opponent. But despite all of these factors, Bayh was still a very strong candidate with at least an even chance of winning even under trying conditions.

The main takeaway from Bayh’s retirement is that we should worry about the diminished role of moderates in Congress and about our polarized political parties. In the best of times, Senate moderates play an integral role in the legislative process. Unlike the House, which is leadership-driven, Senate rules allow small groups of moderate Republicans and Democrats to come together to find a compromise to make a final deal on important pieces of legislation.

But with our parties more polarized, with large Democratic majorities and a liberal base and left-wing bloggers cutting Democratic moderates to shreds, and with Republicans’ fortunes improving and not looking to give any support to Democratic proposals, there was no great role for a thoughtful Senate moderate like Bayh.

Henry Olsen’s piece in National Review is a tour de force and worth reading for those interested in the future of the political parties and particularly the dangers that Republicans face in the coming years.

I agree with his advice to Republicans, and most of his analysis of the situation.

First, the analysis. Olsen is right that Republicans have significant demographic challenges ahead. He essentially agrees that there is an “emerging Democratic majority,” a thesis put forth several years ago by Ruy Teixiera and John Judis in a book of the same name. In a nutshell, the thesis is that Democrats have strength in growing demographic groups such as Hispanics and professional educated voters, while Republicans’ strengths are concentrated in the shrinking groups, the elderly and white working class voters. Olsen also in on the same page as Karl Rove and George W. Bush in identifying the need of Republicans to find a way to attract a greater share of the Hispanic vote to go with their existing coalition. Olsen’s account of the Whigs’ inability to knit together their voters and the new German and Irish immigrants points to how a party can not only falter, but self-destruct under such circumstances.

But Olsen does not draw out how difficult a project it will be to create this broader coalition. Bush made strides in this direction, attracting significant Hispanic support in Texas and in each of his presidential elections (particularly in 2004). But the populist vs. elite camps of the party are deeply divided on immigration and may make Olsen’s broader tent impossible.

Olsen’s identifying the immigration issue, plus his call for a conservative pragmatism, seems right. The GOP needs more Bob McDonnells and Scott Browns, not wide-eyed, good government types or stodgy conservatives, but people with a mix of conservatism and at least a part of the populism that is mainstream in the middle class. Of course, it is always good advice to find candidates who can unite your base and reach out to some fellow travelers. And it is easier when your party is in opposition and different factions can unite around what they are against rather than what they stand for.

The part of Olsen’s thesis I am more skeptical of is his account of a growing middle of unaffiliated voters. Olsen notes this divide, the possibility of future Ross Perots and other populist Independents who appeal to the space between the two polarized parties. Here, Olsen is right that we are seeing a growing share of the electorate not identifying with one party or the other. But it is also true that most Independents have strong tendencies toward one party or the other in their voting histories. There are still very few voters who are completely up for grabs from either party. Our campaigns then focus on turning out base voters and Independents who lean toward their party, rather than persuading an undecided middle.

So Olsen’s advice for Republicans makes a lot of sense, but the danger for Republicans is not so much from a middle party taking their support, but rather from the demographic challenges that they face over the next 20 years. Republicans are not likely to self-destruct like the Whigs and be replaced by another party. More problematic for the GOP is the possibility that the Democratic base (both its core members and Independents who lean toward it) grows slowly over time and the Republican base shrinks so that only in very good Republican years can the party hope to win the presidency and command a majority.

Image by peterw8.

Unlike Virginia, where Republican Bob McDonnell will win a comfortable victory, the New Jersey governor’s race is close and hard to call. The bad news for Democrats is that the incumbent governor Jon Corzine is deeply unpopular. Polls show him consistently in the high 30 percent to low 40 percent mark when matched up against his opponents.

The bad news for Republicans is that a lackluster campaign by Republican nominees Chris Christie coupled with the candidacy of Chris Daggett, a Republican running as an independent, have made this race close.

The real key on Tuesday is what percentage of the vote Daggett gets. Corzine is never going to poll a majority of voters, and Daggett takes more votes from Christie and the opposition to Corzine than from the governor himself.

A few weeks ago, Daggett polled at 20 percent or near 20 percent in a couple of polls. Since then, his support in polls has dropped, although remains often over 10 percent. Daggett is simply not high enough in the polls for many potential supporters to cast their votes for him. Look for his support to fall a bit further on Election Day.

A simple guide to the outcome of the election focuses on Daggett. If Daggett gets 8 percent or less on Election Day, Christie should win. If he polls 12 percent or above, Corzine should win. If he polls somewhere in between 8 and 12 percent, the race is too close to call.

Republican Governor of Florida Charlie Crist appointed his former chief of staff, George Lemieux, to fill the U.S. Senate vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Mel Martinez. Lemieux is a place holder. He will not run for election for the seat in 2010. The leading candidate for the seat is Governor Crist himself.

The seat has taken several interesting turns. First, the news that Senator Martinez would not run again created an open seat (there are six Republican open Senate seat races and two Democratic ones in November of 2010), and it initially raised Democratic hopes for a takeover.

When Crist decided to run for the Senate seat, Republican prospects for keeping the seat increased dramatically. But there is another candidate on the Republican side: former speaker of the Florida House Marco Rubio, who is younger than Crist, more conservative, and of Cuban descent. Despite some conservative grumbling, most polls show Crist beating Rubio by a significant margin.

But Martinez surprised many with his early resignation. He could have served out his term and not sought re-election. Crist was then faced with a delicate choice of whom to appoint to serve out the remainder of the term. He was smart not to choose himself. Nine governors have had themselves appointed to Senate seats and stood for election, and eight of those nine lost. The only exception was Happy Chandler, governor of Kentucky and grandfather of current Representative Ben Chandler (Chandler appointed himself in 1939). And of the eight who lost, five lost in the primary. Clearly voters don’t like a governor who tries to give himself a leg up for a future election with an appointment. The issue arose again indirectly with Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski appointing his daughter to fill his own vacated Senate seat (she won, but nepotism was a significant campaign issue she had to overcome). And recent governors have learned the lessons of their predecessors: the last sitting governor who appointed himself to fill a Senate seat was Wendell Anderson (D-MN) in 1977 (he lost in the election of 1978).

The appointment of Lemieux is not the same as Crist appointing himself, but his appointment of someone so personally close to himself does point in that direction.

The likelihood is that Crist will win the primary and the general election, but he would have much preferred if Martinez had served out his term rather than forcing him to make an appointment that could damage his own election prospects.

Kentucky Republican Senator Jim Bunning’s announcement of his retirement is the latest in a string of good news for Republicans who had been worried about their prospects in the upcoming 2010 Senate elections. While midterm elections typically favor the party out of the White House, a few months ago, Republican fortunes looked grim. Even after losing 14 seats in the past two elections, Republicans were defending more seats (19 to 15), and a flurry of retirements left five Republican open seats and none for Democrats. With that kind of news, Democrats could easily have surpassed their current 60 seats, which is a high-water mark for either party in the last 30 years.

But with four members of the Senate leaving their seats to join the current administration and a series of good candidate recruits by Republicans, the GOP’s outlook is more upbeat. Bunning’s retirement creates another open seat, but most observers considered him the weakest incumbent in the class. Republicans now have at least an even chance to hold that seat. The bottom line: Republicans are still defending more competitive open seats, but they are much less likely to end up losing seats than they were in January.

Look for my longer analysis of the competitive Senate races coming shortly.

It has been nearly eight years since 9/11, and Congress has not done nearly enough to protect itself against a catastrophic terrorist attack. That is how I recently testified before the House Judiciary Committee.

We all remember that in addition to the three planes that hit their targets on 9/11, there was a fourth pane, United 93, that was brought down because it took off late, the passengers learned of the fate of the other planes via cell phone calls, and they bravely stormed the cockpit.  The 9/11 Commission has confirmed that the plane was headed for the U.S. Capitol.

What if Congress had been hit by a devastating attack (an attack by a plane or with weapons of mass destruction)?  What if hundreds of members of Congress were killed or incapacitated? The days after 9/11 show how active Congress was in the response to the attack, passing authorization of force in Afghanistan, appropriating funds for recovery and rebuilding, passing the Patriot Act and other security measures, and saving vulnerable industries from financial ruin.

In 2003, the AEI-Brookings Continuity of Government Commission studied this problem. The Senate would rebound quickly from an attack because governors could appoint temporary replacements quickly. The House would likely not be able to meet, or would limp along for months, because the only way to fill House vacancies is by special elections, which take on average four months. Even worse is the problem of many members incapacitated, which could keep both the House and the Senate from achieving a quorum and would leave no way to replace these incapacitated members.

Our commission recommended that in extreme circumstances of many deaths or incapacitations, temporary appointments should be made to fill vacancies (until special elections could take place) and temporary appointees could step in to fill in for incapacitated members until they recovered. This would take a constitutional amendment, but it would mean that we could have a fully functioning representative Congress within days of an attack.

Unfortunately, Congress has done little since 9/11. They have passed dubious measures to try to speed up elections and to allow for a very low quorum and an unrepresentative House with a handful of members to speak for the whole country.

Some striking numbers just came out of the census’s November population survey. In this very large survey of voters, nearly 28 percent said they had voted before Election Day (other estimates are that more than 30 percent voted before Election Day).

The way we vote has changed dramatically over the past 25 years. Before then about 5 percent of people cast absentee ballots, mostly out-of-town business travelers, overseas voters, and those too ill to make it to the polling place. Then states, especially Western states, started to promote voting by mail as a convenience to voters. The numbers of absentee ballots have skyrocketed. Oregon now votes 100 percent by mail, Washington state more than 90 percent, and California more than 50 percent. In the late 1990s, a second type of early voting started to take hold in other states, voting at polling places that are open for several weeks before Election Day.

One great hope for both voting by mail and voting early in person was that the convenience of voting would increase voter turnout. Numerous academic studies have shown otherwise. Except in small, low turnout local elections, these forms of voting attract the same kind of voters as Election Day voting. But of the two methods of voting, early polling place voting is by far superior. With a mail or absentee ballot, your ballot is not secret. Your vote could be coerced by a spouse, church, union, or employer, or it could be bought because the buyer can see how you vote. Voting at a polling station behind a curtain gives voters the ability to resist such pressure. Also, voting by mail is more susceptible to fraud and the interception of ballots. Finally, the Franken-Coleman race showed that many absentee ballots are not counted. Sometimes they are legitimately not counted because voters did not provide proper information or made a mistake on the ballot. But often they are also incorrectly discarded by local administrators.

As the rates of voting before Election Day reach nearly one-third of all votes cast, many states are considering adopting these forms of convenience voting. If they do move in this direction, early voting at a polling place is the superior choice.