Update on 2006 Elections

Lots of bobs and weaves, as expected, since my August 20 "Excessively specific" forecasts. One big new piece this week, though, requires some attention.

La Cage Aux Foley

The Republican spin machine has shut down in mid-cycle due to the Foley scandal. Pundits across the land are throwing up their hands and saying they simply don't know the effect this one will have. The Tarot (a/k/a "terra") Scare Card campaign was working to some extent (aided by some good financial news and lowering gas prices), and Republican operatives were starting to feel privately confident about the outcome (approaching their public bravado). Now, the general impression seems to be, who knows?

We will have to wait at least two weeks for the Foley scandal effect to harden into reliable polling data, and it will only be reliable once the initial surprise factor and 24-hour news coverage settles down. See below for polling information on the key race we're following here in New Mexico, NM-01, between the Republican incumbent Heather Wilson and her Democratic challenger, NM Atty. Gen. Patricia Madrid.

Regardless of the pundits' floundering, we can pose a couple of notions on the effect here:
1) A couple of races will take major swings. Foley's, of course, was a safe Republican seat (as they say, he was "cruising" before the scandal) that now leans Democratic. The Republicans have come up with a notable substitute candidate, but his name will not be on the ballot, and the Democratic candidate's status has gone from long-shot to made in the shade.
A second race directly affected by the scandal is that of NRCC Chairman Reynolds (NY-26); surprisingly, he was already in a tough race, but now he will need to divert more of the Republican Congressional campaign's funds to his own coffer if he wants to survive. That could have some domino effect elsewhere, too. Apparently, Clay Shaw in a district adjacent to Foley's is taking a hit as well.

2) Turnout from Republican "values voters" (estimated at about 10% of the electorate) will be negatively affected, I'd guess about 20%. This effect will be distributed unevenly, but think of it as a 2% hit, on average, to Republican vote levels, and maybe more in Bible Belt districts (and there are many of those in key races this year; I'm looking particularly at Indiana, where two Republicans are seriously in difficulty, Arizona, and in Florida, Foley's home state).

3) More names will get caught up in the coverup of Foley's transgressions, but at this point it is impossible to predict which ones. Apart from Reynolds, most of the Republican leadership are in safe seats, but there could be some guilt by association with Foley, and a couple of other closeted gay Republicans or their aides may decide either to out themselves or get pre-emptively outed by scared party folks.

4) The only way Democrats are likely to get hurt by this is if they focus too much upon it (for example, by referring to something in the episode as a crime, which is unproven at this point), by picking too much on the amiable, typically incompetent, but mostly ineffectual Bushite pack Joker Speaker Hastert, or if they are revealed to have been involved in ABC News' initial scoop of the explicit Instant Messages Foley sent. Harping on Foley and the coverup in particular, or taking a tack that is morally arrogant could re-energize now-despondent Republicans. On the other hand, the Foley episode does underline three broader themes the Democrats should utilize: hypocrisy, corruption, and poor Congressional oversight.

5) Most races will not be decisively affected as they are gerrymandered for sure success for incumbents.

Based on the negative impact, I would shift my projection of the outcome from 221-214 Republican to 218-217 Republican, and the overall margin nationally from 53-47 Democrat to 53-45 (I'll take advantage of this to show something for 3rd parties, which probably should've had one percent in my previous estimate). The projected results combination amounts to an electoral scandal of redistricting, which may or may not get much attention on Election Night.

(I'm indebted to my friend David Bebout for the coinage of the subtitle. "La Cage Aux Folles" was the French movie about two aging queens who decide to break out of their "Birdcage".)

Senate Update

At this point, I see no reason to change any of my substantive predictions and find that most of my individual expectations are being borne out. Republican incumbents going down (but not Foley-related going down) are, clearly, Santorum (PA), Burns (MT), and Chaffee (RI). DeWine (Ohio) still looks like a loser to me (current polls show it a dead heat), and, as I expected, the open seat in Tennessee (ex-Frist's) will be a nail-biter leaning toward the Democrats. That makes five seats picked up for the Dems, who need six. The open seats previously held by Democrats in MN (Klobuchar the Dem. candidate) and MD (Cardin being the nominee, not Mfume as I thought earlier) are now looking relatively safe.

On the downside, I'm still expecting No Talent (MO) to disappoint us and survive. Jack Carter's within 6 points of Sen. Ensign (NV) in the most recent polls, but the experts still are considering this seat safe (!?), and I'm still expecting it to be a late-night, narrow Democratic loss. Menendez (NJ) and Kean, Jr. are in a race that will go down to the wire--I'm still scared, but I'll feign boldness and continue to say the incumbent will end up winning (this one could be decided on reduced Republican turnout--there are lots of suburban NJ Republicans who will be wringing their hands about the leadership's moral failures). I still think George Allen (VA) losing is a longshot. Lieberman looks like he will win, after all, but as I say that will only be a problem if the Democrats end up 50-49 and he's the swing vote they need.

So, I'm still predicting 50-50, Republicans win. The suppression of Republican turnout I'm expecting should affect these races, too, but I see that affect as only solidifying the seat pickups I already expected.

Wilson, Madrid, and Zogby

I read yesterday a shocking poll result on the House race we're watching most closely, the Albuquerque district NM-01. The respected pollster Zogby International now shows Madrid ahead of Wilson, 50-40, whereas all previous polls had the race a dead heat or very close to one. TPM Cafe has the result (http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/polltracker?page=1), part of a blizzard of poll results released in the past two days which may or may not be invalidated by La Cage Aux Foley.

I wanted more info on this result, so I went to Zogby's web site. They are being very careful not to draw attention to that particular result--I got the distinct impression that they don't quite believe it yet. Most of their press releases of this exercise of polling in 15 key contested House races held in the current Congress by Republicans don't mention this one in the highlights, but, if valid, this is the most dramatic and essential finding they had to report. Zogby's polling was done Thursday-Sunday, and the pollster looked in more detail at the results Thursday/Friday, i.e. before Foleygate, and Saturday/Sunday. He/they found that the Democratic margin, in aggregate, of those 15 races was 44-40 before, and 44-40 after.

This doesn't tell the whole story for me, though. Zogby's releases don't talk about individual races and whether the margin shifted (probably not enough sample), and these 15 races are neither a random sample of the national electorate, nor would they necessarily have been conducted on the same time frame. Also, last weekend was just when the story burst forward, with the coverup allegations coming out only gradually, and mostly later.

I feel that our race of interest here may be very sensitive to this issue. The district has a very high Hispanic population, 40% or more, and many Hispanics of the area--professionals, seeking the American dream-- are indeed what I would consider to be "values voters", and their party identification is somewhat soft. (This is a generalization I would not apply to about half of them, who are very strong, motivated Democrats.) Madrid has the chance to gather them up--she's the Hispanic in the race, after all.

All of us residents of New Mexico (at least those of us who ever watch the network channels) have been bombarded with a crossfire of nasty ads. Wilson's ads now are emphasizing her independence from Bush (they barely note that she's a Republican), but the many nationally-sponsored Republican ads are full of slimy innuendo about her opponent. Madrid's have been little better, but they are successfully emphasizing the themes that Wilson is a loyal Republican who's backed the war in Iraq. And, yes, I have seen some footage with her and Foley side-by-side in front of the microphones: is it possible she was also part of Foley's Congressional Coalition for Exploited Youth (or whatever it was benightedly called)?

Finally, New Mexico is going Democrat, big-time, in the statewide races, with Sen. Bingaman and Gov. Richardson winning in routs. They will have resources to offer to Madrid. I expect the next polls will show a reduced margin, but I think the race is hers to lose now, and I'm putting it in the Democratic column, along with the ones for Foley's and Reynolds' seats.

My math still leaves the Democrats one seat short in each house: you can imagine what a mess these last two Bushite years will be, if I'm right. I'm thinking that the public will be scandalized by the outcome, which will set the stage for further Republican deterioration in 2008, unless they find a new formula for success. This bird can't fly no mo'.