Going to Electoral College

For the last three posts, I have been chronicling the various Senate races taking place across America this November.  I will continue to cover these as the primaries take place in the states, but for now, I want to turn to the main event – the Presidential Election.

If you’re reading this blog, you’ve probably heard that Mitt Romney has now all but confirmed his position as the Republican nominee for President.  This has looked inevitable for a number of months, but once Rick Santorum dropped out in early April, it became a formality for him to be nominated.  As a result of this certainty in the Republican nominating process, the general election campaign has started in earnest, with President Obama starting to ramp up the attacks on Romney.

With this in mind, I thought that an interesting topic for a blog would be the process by which either Romney or Obama will be elected President in November.

In America, unique amongst all democracies, the election for the Head of State is decided by the use of an institution called the Electoral College, which was invented by the Founding Fathers and codified in Article 2 of the Constitution.

Now, the Electoral College itself is not really that important, it is simply the body which puts into effect what the voters decide using the process set out in the Constitution to elect members of the College.  Once the election is decided, and the winner in each state is determined by a simple majority of the vote cast in each state, the members of the College elected by each state meet in their respective state capitals and cast their vote for the candidate who wins their state.  This is a rubber stamp process and, with a few historical exceptions (so called “Faithless Electors”), the members of the college have no discretion to vote for anyone other than the popular vote winner of their state.  The ballot boxes are then sent to the House of Representatives.  The sitting Vice President presides over a joint session of Congress, which counts the votes, and the candidates with the most votes from around the country win the Presidency and Vice-Presidency respectively.

What is more interesting is how the members of the College are elected.  Each state (and the District of Columbia, which is effectively Washington DC, which is not in a State) has the right to elect a certain number of electors – with the number based on the population of the state in question.  The number of electors is decided by adding the number of Representatives a state sends to the House of Representatives (which is the measure based on population) and the number of Senators (of which each state has two).  The District of Columbia, which doesn’t have any Senators, is also given credit for having two for the purposes of this process.

What this means is that no state can have fewer than 3 Electoral Votes (EVs) in the Electoral College, as each state has at least one Representative and two Senators.  Even states with tiny populations, such as Wyoming, Alaska etc, get 3 votes in the Electoral College.  The largest state, by some distance, is California, which has 55 electoral votes courtesy of its huge population; which gives it 53 Reps as well as its two Senators.  Since 1964, the total of all the EVs from all the states (and DC) has been 538 votes.  As a simple majority of all the EVs from around the country is needed to win the Presidency, 270 EVs is the magic number.  It is possible for there to be a 269-269 tie, which has happened twice, but not since 1824.  It would be mega-exciting if it happened again, but it is pretty unlikely.

I think a picture is required here, so this is how the Electoral College votes were assigned in the 2008 election – Obama v McCain:

This election was a pretty large win for Obama – 365 EVs to 173 EVs.  Although the map looks disproportionately red (Republican), this is because the Republicans always win the Mid-West states, which are geographically enormous, but have very small populations (mainly because they are predominately corn fields).  As these states only have small numbers of EVs, they are not particularly important in the Electoral College process.

There are a number of criticisms of the Electoral College as a means of electing the President.  The primary one is that it creates the notion of “swing states”.  What this means in practice is that about ten states are vital to either party’s chance of having their nominee elected President.  This is because these are the states which are pretty evenly split ideologically, rather than the other 38 or so, which are very Democratic or Republican.  The effect of this is that 95% of the campaigning in the election is done in these states, whilst the rest of the country is largely ignored.  So you have massive states like California and New York (which will always elect the Democrat) completely ignored in the election process in favour of much smaller states like Missouri, which are evenly split.  This would not happen if the election was determined by a popular vote.  Suddenly, states with massive populations would become vital at the expense of smaller states.

So, which are these lucky (or unlucky, depends whether you like elections or not) states?  You’re going to have to believe me on this one – but I can guarantee you that Obama will certainly, come hell or high water, win states which total 197 EVs.  Similarly, Romney will win states which total 159 EVs.  Add to that number states which, baring a landslide, will be won by either party – 24 for Obama and 22 for Romney.  This takes their basic totals to 221 EVs for Obama and 181 EVs for Romney.  This gives Obama a significant advantage.

Therefore, the election is only fought over 136 EVs.  Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent to win approximately 25% of the total electoral votes.  If you happen to live in these states, there will be no respite – every television programme will be constantly interrupted by political adverts, not a day will pass with your door unknocked or your phone unrung.  Such is life in a swing state.

These states are currently*:  Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Colorado, Michigan, Missouri, Iowa, Pennsylvania and that most famous of all swing states, Florida.

There are other criticisms too.  It is undemocratic – in that electors in small states such as Wyoming (3 EVs for a population of 532,668, a vote for every 177,556 people) get a lot more for their vote than in California (55 EVs for a population of 34,756,666, a vote for every 631,939 people).

It can also lead to the unedifying spectacle of the winner of the national popular vote losing to the winner of the Electoral College.  Most famously, this happened in 2000, when Al Gore won the popular vote in the whole of the country by 533,000 votes, but lost in the Electoral College by 5 EVs.  This happened because Gore won most of the big states, like NY and California by a huge margin, but lost some crucial, smaller, swing states by a tiny margin.  As all of the EVs for a state are awarded to the winner, no matter how small the margin, he lost the election to George W. Bush.  This “winner takes all” nature of the Electoral College also works to discriminate against third parties.  For example, in 1992, a third party candidate, Ross Perot, won 19% of the popular vote, but didn’t get any EVs, because his support was spread across the states, and wasn’t concentrated enough to win any one state.

Having said all that, there have been various attempts to reform the Electoral College, all of which have failed.  I personally like the system because it adds intrigue and is interesting for nerds like me.  However, I can see its flaws – and think that it will be reformed eventually, although not for the foreseeable future.  One idea that I quite like is for EVs to be assigned proportionately – so if Obama wins 60% of the popular vote in California, he would get 60% of the EVs.  This would discourage the idea of swing states, and spread the election around the country, which can only be good for the democratic process.

* I will do a piece later in the electoral cycle about how these states will give their EVs – but that’s for another post.

Senate Races (part 3)

I apologise for the lack of posts in the past month, I’ve had a bit of a manic March (with trips to Durham, Iceland and the Alps) and to be honest, I’ve been a bit bogged down with all these Senate races (after this post, I’m going to be somewhere around 8,000 words…).  So this is it for the Senate races for now – the final ten.  I will try and do a blog on the state of the Republican nomination later in the week/early next week.

So here we go:

Rhode Island:  Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) is running for his second term in office in the very liberal New England state of Rhode Island.  He is a shoo in for re-election, in part because he is a Democrat in very friendly territory, but mainly because the Republicans don’t have a candidate as yet.  He did only win 53% of the vote in 2006, but that was against the very popular Lincoln Chafee (who was then a Republican, but in 2010 won the Governorship as an Independent.)

Status:  Easy Democrat hold.

Tennessee: Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) is also running for his second term in the much more Republican friendly state of Tennessee.  However, like Sen. Whitehouse, he is also heavily favoured to win.  The only Democrat who stands a chance of beating him is former Governor Phil Bredesen (D-TN), who left the Governorship in 2011 after the end of his second term.  However, he has shown no signs so far of getting into the race, leaving Corker with an easy stroll to re-election.

Status:  Solid Republican hold.

Texas: Three term incumbent Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX) is not running for re-election in Texas this time, so both parties are looking for a candidate to contest the general election in November.  However, the reason for the vacant nature of the seat is quite interesting.  In August 2009, Hutchinson announced that she would challenge incumbent Governor Rick Perry (the same Rick Perry who turned out to be such a terrible Presidential candidate earlier this year) for the Governorship of Texas.  In doing so, she said that she would keep her Senate seat for the time being, but promised to resign should she win.  She lost humiliatingly, by 22%.  This put her in a difficult position, as she had demonstrated little regard for her current job during the campaign.  Under pressure, she confirmed that she would resign anyway in late 2010.  There is a primary on both sides, but Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst (R) is favoured to win on the Republican side, with former Rep. Paul Sadler likely to pick up the Democratic nomination.  Although Republicans dominate Texas, it is not as difficult for a Democrat to win here as is often thought.  However, to do so, Democrats need a top drawer candidate who can tap into the massive Hispanic vote.  They haven’t got one this time, and so Dewhurst is the favourite to be the next Senator from this huge state.

Status:  Probably going to be Dewhurst v Sadler.  Dewhurst is the favourite because of the ‘R’ next to his name.

Utah:  One of the most Republican states in the Union, this is a state which will only elect a Republican to the Senate.  So the question here is which Republican will win their party’s nomination.  Normally, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) would be a certainty for his 7^th term.  However, in 2010, tea party activists managed to unseat Sen. Bob Bennett, who was a similar sort of Senator to Orrin Hatch (i.e. extremely conservative, but sometimes willing to work with Democrats.)  Hatch seems to have learnt his lesson from his friend’s demise, and is not taking anything for granted.  Utah has a slightly odd system in that each party has a convention first, where anyone can take part, and then the top two candidates go through to the official primary, with the winner of that contest allowed to run in the general election.  As long as Hatch gets through the convention, he should be fine – and so far he is polling well ahead of the challengers.  If he were to get 60% of the convention vote, he would bypass the requirement for a primary, and would then be sure to be returned to Washington in November.

Status:  Whichever Republican wins in the conventions/primary will stroll to victory in the general, and it looks like it will be Hatch this time.

Vermont: Vermont is the home of the only, self-proclaimed, socialist in the Senate, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT).  Although he runs for election as an independent, he caucuses with the Democrats, who don’t put a candidate up against him in general elections.  Sanders is extremely popular in Vermont, which is very liberal, and should win comfortably in November.

Status:  Sanders to hold the seat, and continue to be a Democrat in all but name.

Virginia:  One of the most interesting races of the cycle will take place in Virginia, which is itself one of the most hotly contested states on a Presidential level.  The seat is currently held by Sen. Jim Webb (D-VI), who won his only term in 2006.  It is very unusual for a Senator to retire after one term, but Webb has obviously decided that politics isn’t as fun as it sounds.  So, there is a real humdinger of a race brewing between former Governor, and Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Tim Kaine (D) and former Sen. George Allen (R), who was unseated by Webb in 2006 by 0.6%.  Allen was quite a popular Senator until he made one of the most famous gaffes in American political history in 2006, when he referred to an Indian-American reporter as a ‘macaca’, which basically means monkey.  Even then, he only lost by less than 1%.  A lot will depend here on how Barack Obama does in Virginia in November, a state which he won in 2008, and which has become steadily more favourable to Democrats over the last decade.  I fancy Kaine to pull this one off, but it will be very close.  The candidates have been polling within the margin of error all year, and it could go either way.

Status:  A true toss-up, I have a feeling Kaine might win it, with Obama set to campaign very heavily in Virginia in November, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Allen was to win.  This is certainly a race which the DNC and RNC will be throwing a huge amount of money at.

Washington:  Washington state has been solidly Democrat for most of the last two decades, and seems likely to return Sen. Maria Cantwell to Washington DC for a third term in November.  She won 57% of the vote in 2006, in albeit a very favourable climate for Democrats, and she faces a relatively weak opponent in State Sen. Michael Baumgartner (R) this time around.

Status:  Cantwell to win with about 60% of the vote.

West Virginia:  Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) won a special election in 2010 to fill the seat left by the death of legendary Senator Robert Byrd.  In that election, he campaigned as a conservative Democrat in a state where President Obama is hugely unpopular.  Then Gov. Manchin even released a campaign advert where he shot a bullet through Obama’s cap and trade bill, which was then working its way through the Senate, and was very unpopular in coal mining West Virginia.  In actual fact, he has been quite a reliable Democratic vote in the Senate, and it will be interesting to see how this affects his bid for a full 6 year term of his own.  He is helped hugely that his Republican challenger will be the same opponent he beat in 2010, businessman John Raese (R).  He only got 43% of the vote in 2010, in an election hugely favourable to Republicans, so there is no reason really to suspect he will do much better this time, albeit in a state which will vote solidly for the Republican Presidential nominee.

Status:  Expect Raese to tie Manchin to Obama as much as possible, but I expect Manchin to hold on.

Wisconsin: Albeit in a state which has voted solidly Democrat in the last few Presidential elections, the Democrats have got a bit more of a fight on their hands than they might have expected.  The extremely wealthy, popular, incumbent Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI) decided to retire at 76, even though he could have been easily elected to the Senate another two or three times if he lived long enough. To make this worse, their strongest candidate by far, former senator Russ Feingold (D), decided not to run for his seat, even though he would have been the odds-on favourite.  It seems likely that Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) will get the Democratic nomination.  The Republicans have two serious candidates, former Gov. Tommy Thompson and former Rep. Mark Neumann.  It could be a big fight between them.  In any event, Kohl’s retirement turned a sure-fire Democratic hold into a knife-edge battle.

Status:  Baldwin (D) will probably be the favourite in the general election, but it will be much closer than the DNC would have liked.  A lot depends on how the candidates perform.

And finally…

Wyoming: This is a bit of an anti-climax to have as my final state, as Wyoming is the most Republican state in the Union, giving Obama only 33% of the vote in 2008.  Sen. John Barrasso (R) is a certainty to be re-elected, as he is popular and is a Republican.  So far, no Democrat has even volunteered to be the sacrificial lamb.

Status:  Easy win for Barrasso.

Well, I hope you’ve enjoyed my (very long) run down of the Senate races this time.  The elections for the Senate could the most important aspect of the 2012 electoral cycle.  It seems unlikely that the Democrats will be able to wrestle back control of the House of Representatives, and as I write, it seems quite likely that President Obama will win re-election.  However, the Senate really is on a knife-edge.  At the moment, including Independents, the Democrats have a 53-47 advantage in the upper chamber.  However, they are defending 23 seats this time, as a opposed to only 10 held by Republicans.  If a 4 of those seats (net) flip to the Republicans, a second term President Obama will be faced with both chambers of the legislature vehemently opposed to his agenda and, as a consequence, he will be politically impotent from the day he is sworn in in January 2013.  There is a lot at stake.

Senate Races: February/March 2012 (part 2)

As promised, here is my take on the next batch of 2012 Senate races.

Before I continue, this week Sen.  Olympia Snowe (R-ME) shocked the Republican party by announcing that she would not be running for re-election in Maine this November.  This was very unexpected, she is well liked, had over $3m in her campaign fund and was heavily favoured to win.  She made her decision because of her deep frustration with the way the Senate operates, with two bitterly divided parties unable to come together to pass bipartisan legislation.  Of course, as one of the few moderates in the Senate, her departure will make that ideal even more difficult to pursue.  Her announcement also has major knock-on effects for her party.  Obama won Maine by 17 points in 2008, and will be expecting a similar margin this time around.  A generic Republican will lose here to a generic Democrat, and so the race is on in both parties to find someone who can appeal to a wider portion of the electorate.  Unless the GOP can find that person, this is seat now leans Democrat and makes Republican dreams of taking control of the Senate that much more unrealistic.

I finished my last post with a look at one of the most exciting races this time around in Massachusetts.  The next part starts in Michigan.

Michigan: You would think that Michigan would be a state where the Democrats would face real challenges winning elections post-recession.  Although it is usually solidly democrat in presidential races, the state has been hit very hard by the recession, and voters swept a raft of Republicans to state office in 2010.  However, Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) remains reasonably popular, and won 57% of the vote in 2006.  The Republicans haven’t decided who to nominate, but the frontrunner had appeared to be former Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI).  However, he committed a major faux pas last week, with an incredibly insensitive advert featuring an actress speaking broken English (she has since apologised) attempting to say that the Democrats have been complicit in shipping jobs overseas to China.  I also expect the recovery of the American car manufacturing sector (mainly based in Detroit) following President Obama’s unprecedented recovery package (which was opposed by almost all Republicans) to play in Stabenow’s favour.

Status:  Seems like a Democrat hold, but it depends on the economy, and whether Hoekstra is damaged long term by his disastrous advert.

Minnesota: Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) is a seemingly popular incumbent, with approval ratings around 65%.  She attempts to gain her second term having won her first election with 58% of the vote.  She has a challenger in the shape of former State Representative Dan Severson (R-MN), but he faces an uphill battle.

Status:  Klobuchar is strongly favoured in a state which Obama won by 10 points in 2008.

Mississippi: Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) should cruise to reelection in a state which he has represented since 2008, when he won a special election to replace former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS), who had resigned in late 2007.  There are three Democrats contesting the primary, but they are wasting their time, as Mississippi is one of the most solidly Republican states in the union.

Status:  Wicker to win in a landslide.

Missouri: First term Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) faces a difficult re-election campaign in this most bellweather of swing states. McCaskill only won 50% of the vote last time, and will be happy to win that amount again this time.  She has been strongly supportive of President Obama, and that might not be as big a disadvantage as was thought a year or two ago.  Obama will spend a lot of money in Missouri, which he only lost by 1% in 2008, so that should help McCaskill down the ballot.  She is being challenged by former State Treasurer Sarah Steelman (R-MO), who has been tipped for big things for some time, and also Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO), who will fight Steelman for the Republican nomination.

Status:  This is going to be a tough re-election campaign for McCaskill.  She has gained a record as a prestigious fund raiser, and this will be a big help in the general election.  She has to be the slight favourite at the moment, but this will a close call, and could go either way.

Montana:  From one very close re-election of a first term Senator to another.  Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) won by less than 1% in 2006 over then incumbent Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT).  As I mentioned in my previous post, Tester was one of the beneficiaries of the wave which helped Democrats all over the country win tight elections.  He will struggle this time.  However, he is now the incumbent, and has all the benefits this entails.  Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT) who represents the whole state as the ‘at large’ Representative in the House for Montana is challenging him, and is a certainty to win the nomination.  The polls show them to be locked at about 46% each, and so this is a true toss up race.

Status:  Montana is trending Democrat nationally, although Obama did lose it by about 3 points in 2008.  He might consider dropping some money into Montana this time, although its 3 electoral votes make it a very small prize.  I expect Montana to vote Democrat in a Presidential election within a decade or two and this trend might be enough to put Tester over the top.  Tough call though.

Nebraska: Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) has announced that he will not stand for reelection in 2012 after two terms in the Senate.  This is a huge blow for the Democrats, as Nebraska is quite solidly Republican nationally.  Former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-NE) originally announced he would not seek the Democrat nomination, but he changed his mind after some intense lobbying from the national party.  He is pretty much the only hope for the Democrats, and it is a boost for him to throw his hat into the ring.  The GOP has a competitive primary between Attorney General Jon Bruning (R-NE), who is probably the favourite at this point, State Senator Deb Fischer (R-NE) and State Treasurer Den Stenberg (R-NE).

Status:  Kerrey’s entrance into the race makes this a less likely Republican pick up of this seat, but you would still imagine that the GOP is the favourite in the Cornhusker State.

Nevada:  Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV) is seeking election in a state which swung decisively to the Democrats at a Presidential level in 2008.  The reason why Heller is seeking election is an interesting one.  Former Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) won reelection for his second term in 2006 with 55% of the vote.  However, in June 2009, he admitted to having an affair with the wife of his chief of staff, Doug Hampton.  This story got even better when it turned out that Ensign’s parents tried to offer the Hampton $96,000 to keep this little indiscretion secret.  This would have been OK if the money was given as a gift, as Ensign tried to argue, but it became pretty clear pretty quickly that it was hush money, and so Ensign had to resign in May 2011 – with then Rep. Heller appointed as his replacement.

Sen. Heller will come up against Rep. Shelley Berkley in November.  She is the best candidate the Democrats could have hoped to recruit here, and it will be a very close race between the two.

Status:  Tough one to call this in a race which is one of the only realistic chances the Democrats have of gaining a seat.  Appointed Senators often have a tough time being elected in their own right, and Obama will spend big in Nevada to try and replicate his 13 point win from 2008.  Maybe just Republican favoured at the moment, but very tight.

New Jersey: One term Sen. Robert Mendendez is running for reelection in this solidly Democrat state.  Although Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) did win as a Republican here in 2009, Democrats, especially incumbent Senators, always start with a big advantage.

Mendendez is being challenged on the Republican side by State Sen. Joseph Kyrillos, and possibly a couple of other state level officials.

Status: Should be a solid hold for the only hispanic ever to represent New Jersey in Washington.

New Mexico: Five term Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) has announced he will not be seeking reelection to the Senate in November, setting up a scramble on both sides for candidates.  NM swung hugely in favour of President Obama in 2008, as he scored a comfortable 15 point margin of victory.  For this reason, I expect the Democrat candidate to be favoured in November.  Of course, that depends on who the candidate is.  For the Democrats, Rep, Martin Heinrich (D-NM) and State Auditor Hector Balderas have declared their candidacy.  Heinrich is favoured, but Balderas will appeal to the huge hispanic community in this border state.  For the GOP, former Rep, Heather Wilson (R-NM) will fight it out with Lt. Gov. John Sanchez for their party’s nod.

Status: Still a toss up until the candidates are chosen, but I expect the Democrats to hold on here all things being equal.

New York: Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) is up for reelection in 2012 after winning the special election to fill the seat of Hilary Clinton in 2010.  She is expected to cruise to victory, especially as the Republicans don’t have a candidate yet in this bastion of Democratic support.

Of more interest to me is not only that Gillibrand is quite attractive, but also that I think she has a real prospect of being the first female President of the United States (assuming she would want to run).  If Obama wins reelection, she could make a run in 2016 but as she is only 45, time is on her side.

Status: Easy Democrat hold.

North Dakota:  Four term incumbent Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) announced last year that he would not seek reelection.  This was a major blow to the Democrats, because although ND has history of electing Democrats to the Senate, it is quite a solid Republican state.  At large Rep. Rick Berg has announced he is running for this seat, but as he was only elected to the House in 2010, inexperience could count against him.  The Democrats have at least managed to find a decent candidate in former state Attorney General Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), but although she is polling well against Berg, she has got it all to do in November to hold this seat for the blue team.

Status:  Uphill battle for the Democrats to hold this one, I expect Berg to win for the Republicans.

Ohio:  Ohio is the classic swing state in Presidential politics.  It was won by Obama in 2008, but he will have a much more difficult job this time around.  Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) was elected in the Democrat wave of 2006, and is favoured for reelection, even though his personal poll numbers are pretty poor.  He is probably going to be up against State Treasurer Josh Mandel (R-OH), who is almost certain to run.  However, Mandel is only 34, and is seen as very green.  He would face a difficult challenge to dispel those doubts and unseat Brown in November.

Status:  Depending on who the Republicans pick as their candidate, Brown is slightly favoured to win his second term.

Finally (because I am up to nearly 2000 words for this post), I shall have a look at Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania: In 2006, Sen. Bob Casey Jr. (D-PA), son of popular former Gov Bob Casey (D-PA), won his first term by defeating then Sen. Rick Santorum (remember him) by the now infamous 18 points.  There is no reason to think that Casey will not achieve a similar margin this time (although not over Santorum, who is attempting to fry bigger fish).  The only reasonable Republican candidate so far is former Rep. Sam Rohrer (R-PA), but he will face a tough race in what is friendly Democrat territory, even though it was once famously described as Pittsburgh and Philadephia with Alabama in-between.  Luckily for Democrats, many more people live in those two big cities, than live in the Alabamaesque bit in the middle.

I will be back with one final part soon – only 10 states to go now!

Senate Races: February 2012 (part 1)

One of my favourite things to do is to research Senate races (yes, I really am that exciting).  Not wanting to brag (although I am about to), my final Senate prediction before the 2010 midterm elections was spot on, which I was quite proud of in a difficult election to predict.  Link

Consequently, I feel I have at least some justification to crack out my crystal ball once more.  It is very difficult to accurately predict what is going to happen in a Senate race 9 months from election day, as an election for the Senate is driven much more by local factors than the countrywide race for the Presidency.  Equally important is that a number of the races don’t have a settled field of candidates yet, and none of the state parties have completed the primaries (which can change everything – see Delaware 2010).   However, this post is going to be a long one (hence why it is going to be in at least two parts), which sets the scene for the hopefully monthly updates to follow.

In 2012, there are 33 seats being contested in the 100 member Senate (every 2 years, 1/3rd of the Senate is elected).  Importantly, the 2012 elections come one full cycle (each Senator is elected for 6 years) after the Democratic wave election in 2006.  As a result, the seats which are up this time are heavily skewed towards those held by Democrats, rather than Republicans.  They are currently held by 21 Democrats (plus two independents who are Democrats in every way but name) and just 10 Republicans.  This puts the Republicans at a huge advantage in terms of the allocation of resources between close Senate races.  It also means that the Democrats are having to defend some seats which are in unfriendly territory, but which were won in 2006, when dissatisfaction with then President George W. Bush was at its highest.  The landscape is not going to be as favourable for Democrats in 2012, and some of those seats, won in 2006, will be very difficult to defend 6 years later.

Right, I’d better get on with it, otherwise I’m going to be here all night!  So, here is my first state by state senate update:

Arizona: Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) has decided to retire from the Senate after 3 terms.  He will be 70 on election day, so that isn’t a huge surprise.  He only won 53% of the vote in 2006 and Arizona is a state which is slowly becoming more Democrat over the years as huge amounts of, generally liberal, hispanics move in from Mexico.  However, you can’t beat something with nothing.  Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) has already thrown his hat into the ring on the Republican side, and he will be a tough opponent for the Democrats.  So far, there is no-one of any standing running for the Democrats, and they need to find a candidate quickly, especially as President Obama is planning to play quite heavily in Arizona, which should help any Democrat running statewide.

Status:  Lean Republican, but could be competitive with the right candidate.

California: Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has served three and a bit terms, and has announced her bid for reelection.  California is a pretty blue state, and it will be difficult for any Republican to beat her.  In 2010,  Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) was challenged by a well financed Republican, who she soundly beat.  Boxer and Feinstein are quite similar candidates (except arguably Feinstein can raise more money) and it will be a big surprise if Feinstein isn’t returned for another 6 years.

Status: Safe Democrat hold.

Connecticut: Here we come across the first of two ‘independents’.  Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) was a Democrat senator for three terms (and the Vice President candidate in 2000 for Al Gore), until in 2006 he was beaten by Ned Lamont in the primary.  Undeterred, he ran as an Independent in the General Election and won.  However, he seriously blotted his copybook when he loudly supported John McCain, a Republican, in the 2008 election.  Consequently, he was under serious pressure to not run again, and for once, listened and retired from the Senate.  Connecticut is a seriously blue state, and Rep. Chris Murphy (D-CT) is favoured to win the Democrat primary against former Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz (D-CT).  On the Republican side, the sacrificial lamb will either be Linda McMahan (whose claim to fame is that she used to run WWE Wrestling), who lost in 2010 for the other seat, or former Rep. Chris Shays.  This will probably be quite an entertaining primary, if somewhat pointless.

Status:  Unless something dramatic happens, should be a solid Democrat seat.  And they will be rid of Lieberman, which will be a very welcome addition.

Delaware:  The scene of the tea party’s biggest disgrace in 2010.  Rather than nominate then Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) as a candidate with a chance of winning the general election, they went for the tea party endorsed alternative, Christine “I’m not a witch” O’Donnell, who is as mental as she sounds.  The Democrat, Chris Coons won comfortably.  In 2012, the senior senator, Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) is up for re-election.  He won 70% in 2006, and as the Republicans don’t even have a candidate yet, he will stroll to relection.

Status:  Easy Democrat hold in a very Democrat state.

Florida: Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) has announced he will run for his third term in 2012 in the ultimate swing state.  He did win 60% of the vote last time, but I would be surprised if it wasn’t closer this time.  He will have Obama at the top of ticket (which might be a good or a bad thing), so there will be plenty of campaigning hitting the airwaves.  The Republicans have former Sen. George LeMieux (R-FL) and Rep. Connie Mack IV (R-FL) fighting it out for the nomination.

Status:  Nelson is favourite at the moment, and the race leans Democrat.  However, should be an interesting race, especially if one of the Republicans gets some momentum.

Hawaii: 87 year old incumbent Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI) has unsurprisingly announced his retirement at the end of this term.  Hawaii is very friendly territory for the Democrats, and with favourite son President Obama on the ticket, it should be a comfortable hold for either former Rep. Ed Case (D-HI) or Rep. Marie Hirono (D-HI), who will contest the primary.  However, very popular former Gov. Linda Lingle (R-HI) has said she will run, and that will make it a bit closer.  She has got a huge battle ahead though to win this very blue state.

Status: Should be a no-contest, although Lingle might make it interesting.  Strongly leans Democrat I would think.

Indiana: Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN) will be 80 in 2012, but nevertheless has announced his intention to run for a seventh term.  He will be challenged by state treasurer Richard Mourdock, who is attempting to outflank Lugar to his right and objects to Lugar’s willingness to compromise with Democrats on certain issues.  However, the tea party is not the force it was in 2010, and it would be a surprise if Lugar lost the nomination.  Rep. Joe Donnelly (R-IN) will be the Democrat nominee, and although Obama will play hard in a state he won by only 1% in 2008, I would be surprised if it was enough for Donnelly to pull this one out.

Status:  Lugar should hold this for the Republicans – safe(ish) Republican.

Maine: The school of thought coming out of 2010 was that Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) would be vulnerable to a primary challenge in 2012.  Maine is very Democrat in presidential politics, but has two very popular female Republican senators.  However, the tea party fire has subsided, and it appears that Snowe will win the nomination again this time.  She is being challenged by Scott D’Amboise, but I would be stunned if he wins the nomination.  For the Democrats, State Representative John Hinck, State Senator Cynthia Dill and former Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap will contest the primary.  In theory, this should be fertile ground for them, but Snowe is popular for her independent voting record (and won 74% in 2006), and will be tough to beat.

Status: Should lean Republican.  If Snowe is successfully primaried, the Democrats will get a huge boost.

Maryland: Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) is looking for his second term, and is heavily favoured to win in blue Maryland.  He beat Michael Steele in 2006, who has since had a disastrous tenure as Chairman of the Republican National Committee.  That Steele seems to be the Repulican’s best hope for the election again this time shows the issues the GOP has in Maryland.

Status:  Cardin to win at a canter.

And my final state for this post (the rest will come tomorrow or Saturday):

Massachusetts: This is an absolute humdinger of a race, and the Democrat’s best chance of a gain from the Republicans.  Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) surprisingly won the 2010 special election for the seat previously held by legend of the Senate Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA).  It cannot be underestimated how Democrat heavy Massachusetts is, but he still managed to overcome a very lacklustre campaign by Martha Coakley (D-MA) to stun the Democrat establishment.  He is now running for a full term in his own right, and will face a very tough challenge from Harvard professor Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).  Harvard professors do not usually have the common touch required to appeal to a broad range of the population, but Warren is different, and has lit up the race with some stunning populist speeches.  Brown has a huge amount of money on tap though, and the RNC will pour resources into this race in an attempt to hold onto the seat.

Status: Hmm, a tough one to call.  Brown is a smooth operator, but he has drawn Republican ire in some quarters by voting with the Democrats on key issues.  However, he is from a blue state, and will always have to be a moderate to have any chance of re-election.  Warren is untested, and although she has started brilliantly, she could stumble when the heat is turned up later in the year.  I still fancy Brown to hold on, but it will be very difficult for him in a state which will give Obama 60+% of the vote.

I will be back soon with the rest of the races – hope you enjoyed, and feel free to leave a comment  (thanks to those that have so far, I will reply soon).

Defending the indefensible?

I didn’t ever really imagine that I would be writing to defend either of the subjects of today’s blog.  But I have felt moved for the past week or so to write about the banking industry and, sticking with the theme of this blog, Rick Santorum.

Santorum first.  I have to admit, I quite like Rick Santorum.  I can’t quite put my finger on it.  I don’t agree with most of what he stands for – I find his positions on abortion, contraception, gay marriage and, more generally, the role of Government (amongst other things) completely alien to my view on each of those issues.  However, what I do like about him is the way in which he stands by his views, irrespective of whether he believes them to be popular or not.  He believed that gay marriage, abortion etc were sinful when he was running for reelection in the (relatively) liberal state of Pennsylvania, and consequently lost by 18 points.  He believes that gay marriage, abortion etc are sinful now, when running for the nomination of a generally very right wing party.  And I respect that.  My view on politics is, and always has been, that people should not be castigated for their views if they are genuinely held, the ‘marketplace of ideas’ is what keeps democracy functioning without tyranny.  It is why I was drawn to the Conservative Party in the UK under David Cameron.  When he was still leader of the opposition, I went to one of his unscripted ‘Cameron Direct’ events.  There, in a very young audience, he was asked if he would reinstate free University tuition – and he said quite firmly that he would not.  That was obviously not the popular answer in that audience, but I respected him for saying what he believed.

It is this consistency of viewpoint which is now endearing Santorum to the Republican party electorate.  Whereas once he was seen as a bit of a joke candidate with no funding, and no organsiation, he won 3 sweeping victories last week in Missouri, Minnesota and, most shockingly, Colorado where Mitt Romney was the heavy favourite.  The genuine nature of his pitch is such a refreshing contrast to the frontrunner, Romney, who seems to have been on both sides of every argument over the course of his political life.

Now, don’t misunderstand me, I am still 100% behind Barack Obama’s reelection campaign, and I do wonder whether my desire to see Santorum win the Republican nomination is rooted in the knowledge that he would lose badly in a straight fight with the President, but if Santorum wins, it will be a fight between two different ideas of what America should be – and I for one would welcome that, and would be interested to see the outcome.

Now, something about banking.  I appreciate this is a bit of a departure, but it is something I feel strongly about.  (As I write, I can hear the howls of ‘tory boy’ from my more liberal friends.)  Since the last time I posted, the British press have been working themselves into a frenzy about the bonus culture in the city, and in particular, the bonus of RBS boss, Stephen Hester.  In the end, through a mixture of press outrage and political cowardice, he was forced to give up his £1m bonus.  Now, I appreciate £1m is a huge amount of money.  I get that.  However, it is what he is legally entitled to under his contract, and therefore, in my opinion, it is not helpful to this country, and to its economy, for a private legal contract to be disregarded in the court of public opinion.  It sends a terrible message to anyone looking to invest in the UK about how we do business.

The city is a vital part of our way of life, our prosperity as a country and the best way for us to get out of the recession in which we find ourselves.  It is unacceptable for the press to dictate what happens in the boardrooms of banks and other financial institutions.  What senior banking executives get paid is set in line with market forces.  Although obviously it is more complicated that this, if other countries, and other institutions abroad, were not paying the level of remuneration that RBS and others are paying here, then slowly the level of pay would drop.  But until that happens, the financial sector, and the City of London’s position as a leading financial sector is too important to risk because of the outrage of the Daily Mail.  There is nothing to stop major financial institutions moving abroad to where the press is less hypocritically outraged, the tax regime more favourable and the Government less opportunistic.  If that happens, we will all be much worse off.  Britain must remain attractive to business and must remain a centre of global finance.  All this fake outrage must stop without delay.

 

A Newt Beginning?

Following the most boring (even for me) New Hampshire primary for quite some time, I decided to leave blogging until South Carolina had been and gone.  And that was a good decision, because as someone once said “a week is a long time in politics”.

About a week ago, the nomination was officially, as it has seemed unofficially for some time, Mitt Romney’s to lose.  A blowout win in the NH primary (in his own back yard of course), to add to his somewhat more impressive Iowa caucus win (which has since been rescinded as it became clear that in fact Sen. Santorum won the caucus) seemed to have confirmed the former Massachusetts Governor as the Republican nominee to take on President Obama in the autumn.

However, then everything changed.  First, the other candidates, who for some time have seemed more interested in attacking each other in order to establish themselves as the non-Romney, rather than attacking the actual Romney, decided to turn on Mitt at last.  For the week preceding SC, Santorum, but especially Gingrich, have savaged Romney over his former career as CEO of Bain Capital, the non-disclosure of his tax returns and even, bizarrely, the fact that unlike most Americans, he speaks French (French Advert).

Of course, the fact that he speaks French is not what, last night, caused him to lose South Carolina by a 12 point margin.  Rather, Gingrich won SC because he has managed over the past week to do what so many others have tried and failed to to do, which is to plant sufficient doubts about Romney’s past into the heads of voters.

What is strange about the way in which he has attempted to do this is to launch into a full scale assault on the way in which Romney earned his reported $250m fortune.  Bain Capital, which Romney helped to found and which he became the first CEO of, bought up struggling businesses, re-organised them and sold them on, often for major profits.  Of course, the way they did this was by making people redundant by modernising processes in old fashioned industries such as steel mills.  This is capitalism in action, and this is something which Republicans, and Americans in general, have supported wholeheartedly for generations.  Being rich in America, especially if you are self made, is a virtue not, as it often seems on this side of the Atlantic, something to be ashamed of.

However, the climate has changed.  Unemployment in SC is over 10%.  Suddenly, Republican candidates, people who have spent their whole political life in the party of big business, sensed weakness – and it seems to have worked, they seem to have been able to link the actions of companies like Bain Capital to the current problems of middle America.  This is a big challenge for his campaign going forward.

So, why have Conservative Republicans coalesced around Gingrich?  His campaign has been a mess for most of its existence.  In the summer of 2011, all of his campaign staff resigned en masse in protest at a lack of direction from their candidate – who was on a cruise in Greece at the time with his (third) wife.  When he did have his standard issue ‘not-Romney’ surge a few weeks before Iowa he blew his momentum in a bluster of outlandish statements and huge ego. As usual, the Votemaster sums up the state of the race:

“So why is the race so volatile? The truth is that about three quarters of the Republican voters really don’t like Mitt Romney. They see him as a slick phony who doesn’t have any core principles at all, let alone conservative ones. But the problem is that all the other candidates are deeply flawed. Michelle Bachmann is nutty as a fruitcake. Herman Cain has never run for public office before and is demeaning to women. Jon Huntsman is a plausible not-Romney, but he worked for Obama and embraces science. Rick Perry has a fantastic resume but he is all hat and no cowboy. Rick Santorum is too far to the right to be a serious general election candidate. Newt Gingrich has a volcanic temper and no ability to run an organization without the help of his various wives. All the Republican heavyweights who could have stood up to Romney, like Gov. Mitch Daniels (R-IN) and Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ), declined to run (much as all the top Democrats took a pass in 1992, letting an unknown governor from Arkansas, Bill Clinton, grab the nomination). So we have seen a Republican primary electorate wildly flitting from one not-Romney to another.”

Therefore, the next few weeks are uncharted territory.  Romney is fundamentally disliked by most of the Republican electorate.  However, the establishment in the party are wetting themselves at the prospect of Gingrich as their nominee – he is a loose cannon, with no organisation and no chance of beating the President in November.  The next test is Florida at the end of the month.  This could not be any different than SC as a contest.  Florida is huge with very expensive media markets.  This puts Romney at an enormous advantage, as he has all the money and an organisation carefully built up over 5 years.  However, Romney has no momentum, and frankily is not able to appeal to a party who fundamentally does not trust him to be their nominee.  My take is that Romney is still the prohibitive favourite, but if he has another week anything like as hideous (for him) as this week, anything could happen.

I’ll sign off with this video.  One of the most extraordinary moments in recent debate history – and the reason why Gingrich is still in the race.  He can connect with Republican voters, who hate the establishment media, and love it when he goes off on one of his rants.  This is Gingrich unloading on a journalist who asks him about the rumours of him requesting an “open marriage” with his second wife, who he ended up leaving for his current wife, Callista.  Video via BBC News

Tonight

Hello everyone, apologies for the hiatus in new Blue Dog Blogs.  Unfortunately, the Blue Dog Blogger currently has his elbow in an ice pack (which somewhat restricts typing), but I will be back tomorrow with a full post about the New Hampshire primaries, and what they mean for the Republican nomination fight.

The primaries are tonight, so look out for the results in the morning.  It will be a huge surprise if Romney does not win them, but NH is famous for not choosing the favourite.  For example, in 2008 the polls had predicted a big Obama win over Hillary Clinton, but she pulled it out comfortably on the day.  New Hampshireites pride themselves on upsetting the pundits, so that could be interesting to watch.

However,  Romney has lived in NH for most of the last 5 years, and although the gap has closed in the last few days, he is still about 10-15 points ahead in the polling.  What he does need to demonstrate is that he can appeal to a wide range of voters, so look to see if he manages to break the 40% barrier.  Anything less than that will still be a worry to his campaign.

It is also interesting to see who comes second.  It seems to be a race between Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman.  Huntsman, who I think would be an excellent nominee, has staked his campaign on NH, and if he doesn’t come second, he is struggling to continue for much longer in this campaign.  However, he has been gaining in the polls (for what they are worth in NH), and could pull out a solid result.  However, time is not on his side, another week and his, belated, surge could have got him a lot closer to Romney.

However, as always in the ‘First in the Nation’ primary, anything could happen – and I’ll discuss it all, and each candidate’s prospects for the nomination, tomorrow!