Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D, New Hampshire) is afraid that she’ll lose.

Ah, my droogies: let me show you the wickedness of the world.  Or at least the wickedness of Jeanne Shaheen’s reelection campaign.

  • It all started when this rather bizarre post went up on the Jeanne Shaheen website (don’t worry, safe link).  You look at that, and you think to yourself: That looks a lot like the framework of an ad – complete with stock photos! – that the Shaheen campaign would very much like a third-party group to grab and turn into an actual campaign commercial, only the campaign can’t actually say that.
  • And the reason why you would think that is because that’s what it is.  You see, candidates cannot coordinate with third party political Super-PACs, thanks to the amazingly bizarre and remarkably pointless regulatory regime that we like to call ‘campaign finance reform.’ But as that link shows, there’s nothing stopping campaigns from putting up public ‘Important Messages,’ and then looking surprised when a third-party group turns that message into a campaign ad. (more…)

The DSCC’s sudden, yet inevitable betrayal of Nate Silver.

I so totally knew that they would use this argument.

Democrats aren’t taking Nate Silver’s latest Senate prediction lying down.

In an unusual step, the executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee on Monday issued a rebuttal the famed statistician’s prediction – made a day earlier – that Republicans were a “slight favorite” to retake the Senate. Silver was wrong in 2012, the political committee’s Guy Cecil wrote in a memo, and he’ll be wrong again in 2014.

“In fact, in August of 2012 Silver forecasted a 61 percent likelihood that Republicans would pick up enough seats to claim the majority,” Cecil said. “Three months later Democrats went on to win 55 seats.”



For the ‘Dice have no memory’ files: the DSCC argument for 2014.

In a nutshell: Only three Democratic incumbents have lost reelection in the last decade.

…which is interesting, until you remember that the Democrats lost seven Democrat-held Senate races in 2010, and one in 2012.  If you’re wondering how that could be, well, either way you look at it it’s easier to maintain a high incumbent-reelection ratio when you’re sufficiently ruthless about getting weak incumbents out of the door. I don’t criticize the Democrats for that; pruning is what you have to do.  But it does a disservice to your own party’s contributors when you pretend that any election cycle is like any other.  The brutal truth is that this time around the Democrats have a large number of freshman Senators up for re-election who can’t be tossed out; and that their best two pickup states at this time are both long shots.  So you assume defense, going in. And it’s an off-year, which will help the Republicans more.

The Republican party is in a good position, in other words. Not good enough to suit its own partisans, but a deep and abiding pessimism is frankly baked into that particular partisan cake and there’s not much that any of us can do about it.

Moe Lane

Written by in: Politics | Tags: , ,

QotD, See, That’s The Democratic Party’s Problem Right There edition.

The Hill, about the problems that the Democrats are facing next year in keeping their Senate majority:

[Brian] Schweitzer’s decision [to not run for the open Senate seat in Montana] deflated the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee’s annual retreat on Martha’s Vineyard, where many senators heard the news.

Because nothing says ‘Left-populist’ like ‘private Martha’s Vineyard retreat.’

Moe Lane

Written by in: Politics | Tags: ,

I am expecting volatile Senate results for a while.

Just a link-free, quick observation: while I expect the House to not shift too much over the next few cycles (we will pick up some seats in 2014, probably, and lose some seats in 2016, probably*), I AM expecting a fairly large shakeup in the Senate in 2014, 2016, and 2018.  Why? Simple: in 2008 and 2010 we had somewhat drastic swings in Senate representation, and a slightly drastic one in 2006.  That means that 2014 and 2016 will have a good number of freshmen Senators being checked for the first time; and while the 2018 election will have less freshmen to be tested, some of the Democrats that did survive last cycle shouldn’t have.

So it should be brisk business for the the NRSC and DSCC for the next six years or so.


That’s it.  And that’s a guess, honestly.

Moe Lane

*And that will have no link whatsoever to whoever wins the Presidential election.

Written by in: Politics | Tags: , ,

#DSCC Recruitment follies: still floundering in WV-SEN.

Just can’t quite see their way clear to get somebody strong to keep the seat.

Attorney Nick Preservati will not run for Senate in West Virginia, forcing Democrats to continue their search for a strong recruit in the 2014 battleground state.

Democrats have been hunting for a candidate in the Mountain State since Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., announced his retirement earlier this year. Rothenberg Political Report/Roll Call rate this race Lean Republican.

Last year, Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, a Republican, announced her campaign for Rockefeller’s seat. She remains the top Republican in the race.



DSCC learning nothing from SC-01 debacle?

Could be, could be:

Left to cope without the party’s top possible recruit, conservative Democratic Rep. John Barrow, who announced he would seek reelection to the House over a Senate bid, Georgia Democrats are now poised to nominate their own Colbert Busch: Michelle Nunn, a prominent nonprofit strategist who boasts a gilded surname in these parts.

Nunn’s father, Sam, once held the Senate seat up for grabs in next year’s race, but she claims no personal experience in the political arena and, like the Colbert Busch experiment, would likely pitch voters a technocratic vision of public service.

But Republicans say that formula has already been tested by voters whose conservative orientation closely mirrors the public sentiment found in Georgia.



A quickie preliminary look at the committees’ debt situation.

Interesting.  Below are the latest (just before the election) Debt and CoH (Cash on Hand) totals for the various committees:

Debt CoH
DNC 20.89 10.33
DCCC 0.57 10.06
DSCC 0.23 4.24
RNC 9.9 67.55
NRSC 0 8.22
NRCC 0 10.98



DSCC inadvertently reveals its 2012 battleground?

Not that, if they did, they intended to do that, mind you: they were probably just intending to scare their donors into giving them money (link via @MattCover) by screaming about how us awful, awful Republicans are so insistent that you should show have to show a picture ID when you vote. Well, they’re Democrats. Screaming about Republicans is what they do – besides, these days they don’t precisely have a plethora of other options that are what you’d call viable when it comes to winning elections.

But that’s not what interests me. No, what interests me is this sentence:

More than 5 million voters could be affected in states including Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, Nevada, Virginia and California…

Hmm. Let’s look at those states. Assessments of each one is based on the latest Cook ratings for the Electoral College and the Senate. (more…)


My humble suggestion for the new DSCC slogan.

Let me set the scenario: the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) has unfortunately realized that the 2010 election cycle – which would be where the DSCC spent 97.8 million and went into debt for 8.9 million in order to lose six Senate seats and gain zero – demonstrates handily that the DSCC cannot be trusted to come in out of the rain; wipe its own nose; or, indeed, wear its underpants underneath its outer clothing.  Accordingly, the DSCC is now outsourcing to actual functional adults every possible function that it can… which includes finding a slogan for the DSCC.  Seriously: as the Politico puts it, “…DSCC Chairman Patty Murray (Wash.) is looking for a pithy catchphrase to rally the troops…”  The Politico then proceeds to mock the DSCC for this, which is unusual – but, given the truly insipid slogans that the DSCC considering, perhaps the Politico simply could not help itself.

Certainly, I could not, so here’s mine.  I feel that it is pithy, actually conveys the message that the DSCC is attempting to convey, and even uses a historical/pop-culture reference to make it, in its way, a truly honest slogan in a way that most political slogans cannot be. So, here we go:

DSCC 2012


Is there going to be a small prize for the winner?

Moe Lane (crosspost)


#rsrh I regret to say, Charlie Cook is wrong.

I like and respect Charlie Cook and his Political Report, but the title of this article (“No Losers Here“) is blatantly incorrect. It’s an article about the two Congressional and two Senatorial national committees… and, in fact, two of them were losers this cycle. Hint: they were the ones with Ds in their acronyms.

To summarize:

  • DCCC. Never mind for a moment that the Democrat/Republican ratio went from 255/178 to 190/241, with prospects for another +3 GOP. Never mind that 62 seats flipped (25% of the Democratic caucus). And never even mind that GOP incumbent losses were in areas that we weren’t grieving to lose. Look at their own admitted battleground. 29 candidates: 17 challengers to GOP-held districts, and 12 recruits trying to hold open seats*. 4 won: 3 challengers, and one recruit.  That works out to a 14% success rate for the DCCC’s Red-to-Blue program… and it should have been 17%: IL-10 was not expected to be a retention for the GOP.  All of those were the ones where the DCCC thought that they had a chance, mind you: the rest of us thought that Van Hollen was being insanely, wonderfully optimistic.  Which he was: and, for the record, all that preparation that the DCCC supposedly made didn’t do diddly.  Convincing more Democrats to not commit suicide via voting at Pelosi’s direction would have.
  • DSCC.  The Democrats had 19 seats up for re-election.  They lost 6 (32%).  The Republicans had 18 seats up.  They lost 0.  Democratic incumbents lost in 2 states.  The Democrats likewise lost 4 open seats, in critical states like Pennsylvania and Illinois.  Worse for the Democrats, they failed to deliver in good prospects like Florida, Kentucky, Missouri, and Ohio – all of which were open seats.  They couldn’t even make the races close in states like Louisiana and North Carolina.  In other words: Menendez completely mucked up his recruitment drive.  He also had to rely on incumbency advantages to avoid losing the Senate, but that’s another post entirely.

And that’s pretty much all I have to say on the subject.  Except that this story should hopefully tell you everything that you need to know about who won, and who lost.

Moe Lane

*Which means close to half of the Democrats’ vaunted Red-to-Blue program was actually Blue-to-Red-and-Let’s-Try-to-Make-it-Blue-Again.


So, DSCC: which candidate will you abandon…

[UPDATE]: Welcome, Instapundit readers.

to firewall Connecticut?

Propelled by Connecticut likely voters who say they are “angry” with government, former wrestling executive Linda McMahon, the Republican U.S. Senate candidate, is closing in on Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, the Democrat, and now trails just 49 – 46 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

This compares to a 51 – 45 percent Blumenthal lead in a September 14 likely voter survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll, conducted by live interviewers.

Personally, if I were still a Democrat I would recommend Kentucky and Missouri – actually, if I were still a Democrat I would recommend Nevada, but Reid’s still too powerful in his caucus to make that feasible. Of the other Republican-held Senate seats, New Hampshire’s probably not been dedicated enough money anyway, everybody knows that Ohio’s a lost cause, and the Democrats don’t dare dump Meek in Florida at this point.  This is not the year for Democratic gains.  Which is fine by me: the Democrats do not deserve gains.

One last note: isn’t it just hysterical that it’s the Democratic party that needs to make hard financial choices in the homestretch?  This is why I stopped looking at the cash-on-hand totals; it became irrelevant once it became clear that the Republicans would have enough money to fight on the battlefields of our choosing and that the Democrats wouldn’t have enough money to defend everywhere simultaneously.

Linda McMahon for Senate.

Moe Lane (Crosspost)

PS: The Democrats should also decide whether they’d rather risk losing Connecticut, or Delaware.

Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com