2010 Elections: Update (Senate)

There have been a few changes since my last analysis, posted just after the Massachusetts disaster.

Sen. Evan Bayh has pulled out; good riddance to faint hearts, one would say, but it does mean the likely loss of a seat for the Democrats. Due to the timing of Bayh's pullout, Ex-Evansville-Sheriff Representative Ellsworth (EESREW) will win the Democratic nomination in a backroom deal, which won't help him. He's even more of a DINO than Bayh, he will give up a defensible House seat (which will then be lost), and he probably won't win the general election. So, all around, another disaster.

We will get a bit more "granular" now on the Senate outlook, as revised. The starting point is that 64 of the 100 senators don't have to run in November. Their party makeup is: 39 Democrats, 23 Republicans, and independents Bernie Sanders (who counts as a Democrat, for most purposes) and Joe Lieberman (who doesn't, regardless of whether he is continued to stay in the Democratic caucus--I could see some reasons to do it, to try to appease him, but would argue against it). The minimally acceptable target is 50 Democrats (with Biden to break ties if necessary), so by my count the Democrats need win a minimum of 10 races of the 36 out there. Not so bad, really, though I would say that 52-53 are really required, so that Ben Nelson or some future Ben Nelson can't hold the body hostage.

The following 5 races are safe for Democrats, by all accounts: Hawaii (Inouye), Oregon (Wyden), New York (Schumer), Maryland (Mikulski), and Vermont (Leahy).

The following 6 races are very likely holds for the Democrats: Wisconsin (Feingold), Washington (Murray), New York (Gillibrand, or another Democrat if she can't win the primary), California (Boxer), and the open, previously-Democrat-held seats in Illinois (Giannoulis, now pulling ahead in a very blue state), and Connecticut (Blumenthal, now that vulnerable Dodd has pulled out).

Then there are these six tossup states, ones where the Democrats have chances that are clearly salvageable: Nevada (Majority Leader Reid's re-election, probably the marquee race of the year), Pennsylvania (recent Democratic convert Arlen Specter's re-election, or the election of Rep. Joe Sestak if he defeats Specter in the primary), Michael Bennet of Colorado (or a different Democrat, if he doesn't win his primary), New Hampshire (the seat being vacated by Republican Judd Gregg), Ohio (the seat being vacated by Republican George Voinovich), and Missouri (the seat being vacated by Christopher Bond).

Given this assessment, my strategy is as follows:

1) As I have threatened, I will not give to the DSCC unless there is a recorded vote on the public option;
2) I will watch closely the 11 safe or very likely Democratic wins above and may make tactical contributions if one or two of those seem in danger;
3) I would like to see some successes in some of the tossups, which will determine the perception of whether the Senate results are disastrous or only mildly unfavorable (though again, control of the Senate should not be at stake in them);
3a) I am particularly receptive to the idea of support for loyal lieutenant Reid, Good Neighbor Bennet, the very impressive Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania, and Hodes in New Hampshire.

We'll see about Missouri--about which I'm always pessimistic--and Ohio (the Democratic candidates haven't yet caught my interest, though the state remains interesting), along with Florida, if a three-way race emerges.

In the short run, I'm only giving to Bennet.

*I consider the following races to be lost causes at this point:
the near-certain re-elections of Republican incumbents Crapo (Idaho), Thune (S.Dakota), Bennett of Utah, Murkowski (Alaska), Vitter (Louisiana--and shame on the voters there!), Isakson (Georgia), Grassley (Iowa), DeMint (S. Carolina), Coburn (Oklahoma) and Shelby (Alabama)--10 in all;
the very likely holds of North Carolina (Burr) and Arizona (McCain, or in the unlikely event he loses his primary, Hayward), Kentucky (the open seat of Jim Bunning, whether it's the mainstream Republican or Ron Paul's son Rand), Florida (the open seat formerly of Mel Martinez, unless Charlie Crist breaks from the Republicans and runs as an independent, which will create a whole new scenario), and Kansas (an open seat, whoever the Republicans run)--five more;
and four likely-to-certain losses of seats by the Democrats in Arkansas (Blanche Lincoln, or her primary election conqueror), the aforementioned Indiana, North Dakota (due to the pullout by the irreplaceable Kent Conrad), and Delaware (due to the pullout of the heir apparent, Joe Biden's son Beau).
This would put the Republicans at 42 seats, without the six tossups listed above.

Health Care: Blues, Cross (& Double)

I didn't watch the "Health Care Summit"--when I heard that Republican Senator Olympia Snowe, the key potential vote for a bipartisan bill, was not invited to attend by her party's leadership, then I knew that this was not a session tht would produce anything from a legislative point of view. It's clear that this was a step toward bypassing the Republicans and moving to the final stages of the process. The Democrats are singing the blues about this, as they know that the only thing worse than passing this messy, unsatisfying bill is not passing it. I think the people who are more cross about it are the President (who had to put up with moderating this nonsense for several hours), and those Democrats who want to move on to other subjects, soon; the Republicans are happy to obstruct and think they have a winning hand.

The Republicans did have one interesting idea: that is of making the government's subsidies directly to a "high-risk pool" in each state, for those with chronic health conditions whom the insurance companies would not cover. This would have some benefits--insurance premiums should be lower for the rest (though something--like a public option, or rate regulation--might well have to be done to force premium rollbacks); it would cost less government dollars (it would affect far fewer people). It would not fit with the current proposal of seeking coverage for all, though, with the result that we would still have the current problem of uninsured people seeking to enter the system only when problems arise, with the adverse consequences with which we have, by now, become familiar. It would also be yet one more boon to the insurance companies, who are starting to see that they can game this system effectively to their benefit. It may still become a last resort if the current effort fails to reach completion.

It is now clear that the way forward is for the House to pass the Senate's bill, and for both houses of Congress to pass a "reconciliation bill" that makes some necessary fixes to that bill. That "reconciliation bill" would be governed in the Senate under rules which would strictly limit debate without the need for cloture votes requiring 60 votes, so a simple majority would suffice to bring passage (as it would in the House). The challenges which would remain, and they are major ones, are gaining a majority for the Senate bill in the House, and a majority for the reconciliation bill in the Senate.

The cries of woe from the Republicans about the procedure to be utilized in the Senate are hypocritical and will not matter to voters. I disagree that it is inappropriate to use the process for this bill, and the Senate parliamentarian will watch that matters which do not bear on the budget are not included in the reconciliation.

I have supported the petition started by Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado, which has gradually added more signatures from Democratic senators, calling for a recorded vote on a public option. The public deserves to know who is with the public interest, and who is in the insurance companies' pocket. An amendment to include it may or may not get the required number of votes (50, if VP Biden votes for it--that should be interesting!); if it passed, it could make the endgame even more complicated. I think it would make it easier to get by the House, but not in the Senate, and I don't think it would qualify as something to be included in the reconciliation bill, but rather as an amendment to the pending Senate bill. These considerations lie behind Sen. Jay Rockefeller's lack of support for the petition; a bit of a double-cross, but with the best of intentions.

The final mess is the question of the abortion language: the expected process would require the Senate's language be used, which several House members have sworn to block. Speaker Pelosi will have to get tough with them (and I think she's proved she's willing), and President Obama will need to have her back on this one.

Sports Updates

The Winter Olympics should be generating good ratings, with a near-optimal first-week performance from the US team. I don't think things will be quite as dreamy this week; focus will move to the men's hockey tournament, and there expectations are now too high. Canada would be looking for revenge after the 5-3 loss in the qualifying round, but they have to get by Russia first.

I have to complain about evening anchor Bob Costas and his I-know-something-you-don't-and-you-have-to-endure-hours-of-teases-and-commercials-to-find-out-what-it-is smirk. Afternoon anchor Al Michaels would be better, or better yet, show some live events! This is a North Anmerican time zone, this time....

Reds Hope Eternal in Spring
There isn't really that much hope for the Cincinnati Reds this year, though I am encouraged by their investment in Cuban defector Arnoldis Chapman, a lefty with a live arm. He got a five-year contract for some $30 million, a huge gamble by Reds' historical standards, but I'm not sure he is ready for major league bats just yet.

I have to say the Yankees, once again, have made the right moves--I particularly like their pickup of Curtis Granderson, who sure looks like the new Bernie Williams to me. I guess it would be nice if the Red Sox lose out to the Tampa Bay Rays for the wildcard, but I will probably be reduced to rooting for our neighbors in Colorado once again. I love the Phillies' lineup but will be rooting against them this year, I feel, due to their ungrateful trading away of Cliff Lee.

NBA
It's amazing how many times the last two Eastern Conference champions, Orlando and Cleveland, seem to play each other. As I anticipated in the preseason, the big story of the year is the Cavaliers' attempt to convince LeBron James to stay by surrounding him with ever more top players, though only an NBA championship is likely to be successful (and that is problematic, unless Kobe goes down). Their trade deadline acquisition of Antawn Jamison seems right on paper--a tall team player with a good shooting touch--but it remains to be seen if it pans out. Once again, I'll be rooting for our neighbors in Colorado.

Chelsea
The Champions League match in Milano tomorrow vs. Inter has me very nervous. Former Chelsea coach Jose Mourinho knows every secret of my team and will look to exploit. For one thing, they are coasting in Serie A, while Chelsea must battle every week to hold its lead. This is much too good a match for the Round of 16.

The key to a famous victory, I think, would be Chelsea's ability to set up either Nicolas Anelka or Frank Lampard, as I believe no effort will be spared to shut down our star center forward, Didier Drogba. Inter has been finding Spaniard Diego Milito in every game I've seen them play this year, so there should be a similar, offsetting effort to close out any opportunities for him to score. Petr Cech has been outstanding recently in the Chelsea goal, and I'm thinking a scoreless tie may be the objective, and may be good enough for now.

NCAA
I'm still loving Kentucky's team, which recalls the Fab Five freshmen-dominated roster of Michigan of about 20 years ago (Juwann Howard--who's still playing in the NBA, Chris Webber, etc.) Kentucky has three top frosh--Bledsoe, Cousins, and Wall--and a strong upperclassmen in Patterson--but today's economics and rules will probably send them all to the NBA after this year's tournament, hopefully with a championship. I like the dynamics, the way they play in the close games--I really think they have a good chance.

Meanwhile, our state's New Mexico Lobos are on a 12-game win streak and have now cracked the Top 10. I'm hoping they will not bomb out at the end of the year, and I'm particularly worried about a loss in the conference tournament putting them into a tough first-round matchup in the NCAA tourney.

Immigration: Why Not?

I don't seem to be linked into those networks of support, but I'm one who thinks that the Administration should put forward legislation to put the country on the road toward legalization of the undocumented immigrants. Yes, in this election year.

This may not guarantee any gains in this year's Congressional races, but that's not the proper perspective. The Democratic Party must look at its long-term interest, both due to the guaranteed growth in the Hispanic vote--a fact which really is more about motivation, turnout, and relative domestic fertility rates than it is about immigration legislation itself--and in terms of showing itself to be delivering on its promises, and therefore worthy of the people's trust.

Tactically, the Republicans will have to treat this a bit as they would the next Supreme Court nominee--if it's replacing Stevens or one of the other three liberals this year--gingerly. Their carefully constructed house of cards of accommodation with libertarian TeaPeople could easily tumble if a moderate proposal could be brought forward.

More than likely, the proposal would fall, but again, it's a battle--like the public option--which must be put forward by the Administration, or by its agents in Congress. Voters will require the transparency of allowing democracy to be exercised in formal, publicized votes.

If immigration, like the health care insurance reform in some form, or like public financing of Federal and judiciary campaigns (forward from 2011), are to be defeated by the filibuster, they must be done in public votes with full debate. This will help lead to the key outcome--forward movement, in the form of electing supporters of fairer exercise of democracy and expelling its opponents.

Visualize our children’s / grandchildren’s society, and the implications of that vision

That's it--see title above--those who are looking for the single, unifying Obama theme.


This is what the Administration should have as their longer-term mantra, once the Jobs preoccupation with Jobs eases.

The thrill is gone--when Harry Reid closed the book on Mitch McConnell, he killed the issue for this electoral season.

Shape of the Great Crater

Click on the title above.


Today's news: We are getting past the effect of the Bay State By-Election:

T.W. 2DC RTG 11amFr

That's right, Tiger Woods to discuss return to golf at 11 a.m. on Friday!

Finally, a solid basis for The New Optimism!

This Might Be It

Tomorrow, February 11 is the day Iran celebrates the anniversary of its revolution against the Shah in 1979. The Green Movement leaders have urged their followers to go into the streets and protest the repression.

President Ahmadinejad, for his part, is promising "a big surprise", and pro-government demonstrators are being bused into Tehran.

One can easily imagine massive violence, even riots, with harsh repressive measures (more executions?) to follow. To my prayers (currently for the sudden demise of one of the five right-wing Supreme Court justices) I will add one that the leaders of Iran's government see fit to stay the order to open fire on peaceful demonstrators.

This is clearly a case in which our government needs to say little more than to urge Iran's government to restrain itself from excessive violence. Afterwards, there may well be more to say, but we should not be viewed as inciting the Iranians to do that which they clearly want to do anyway.

What's New in Music

2010 could be the year that we finally realize there isn't much more new, and good, --that can be done in rock. I hope not.

The biggest news seems to be the "new" Jimi Hendrix album, Valleys of Neptune, due to be released March 9. It is new in the sense that none of the recordings have been released before, but not new in the sense that most of the songs have been released, at least in some form. That's OK--I'm still buying.

Billy Cox played bass in '69 (when most of these were recorded)--he says there are only two kinds of guitarists, those who admit Hendrix' influence and those who were influenced but won't admit it. That's from the LA Times article linked if you click on the title.

Next one to mention is Peter Gabriel's new album, due to be released tomorrow. That one's called "Scratch My Back", and it's apparently covers of some of his favorite songs. I'll bite there, too.

The other, one that I've heard only rumors, but I'm keen to hear more about, is a collaboration between David Byrne and Fatboy Slim.

Noms d'Oscar

"You're the first king we haven't eaten." My quote of the year, from "Where the Wild Things Are".

In the interest of staying positive, I will praise some of the movies nominated for Best Picture (along with some which were not so nominated).

Best Among the Best
First, I think the expansion of Best Picture to 10 nominees, from five, was a good move. It will affect only marginally the actual selection of the Best Picture, I think--the race will always probably narrow down rapidly to somewhere between one and four real candidates to win. Instead, the expansion gives the producers of the Oscars TV program a chance to discuss, promote and praise more films, which I think is smart.

Next, I would praise three films nominated for Best Picture, ones which I think would be worth their nominations in any year.

1) The Hurt Locker is a pure thriller, the story of a bomb-disposal team in Iraq, and of one incredibly brave individual on the team. The message of the movie would seem to be "War IS Hell, but some folks thrive in it"; it's one that might be a bit too positive for how most of us see the Iraq war, but could still be valid. It's the storytelling that makes the movie unforgettable, and for that we must praise, above all, director Kathryn Bigelow, who apparently has a real shot at becoming the first woman ever to win the Best Director award.

2) Avatar
I've already reviewed the movie. The plot has holes in it you could drive a space-going battleship through, so I would object to any consideration of the screenplay for awards (it wasn't nominated), and it is a cinch to win--appropriately--several technical awards. It is a titanic-sized box office blockbuster, and its nomination justly recognizes the movie's net success. It doesn't deserve to win, though--given the nominees, I'd go with:

3) Up In the Air
This is the movie which best caught the mood of our society in 2009, and it is one that features several strong performances, outstanding dialogue, and true moral tension. It's good for those who love George Clooney and for those who despise him, for it shows him both riding high and getting his comeuppance.

There is a strong correlation between the winner of Best Director and Best Film. All three of these movies' directors were nominated (the other two are Lee Daniels for "Precious: Based on the Novel by Sapphire" and Quentin Tarantino for "Inglourious Basterds". I think it is unlikely, and would be shameful, if "I.B." won either: the award that film is destined to win is Christoph Waltz for best Supporting Actor, with which I can easily live.)

Good Showings
Next, a few nominees that were worth inclusion in a field of 10:
1) A Serious Man--the Coen Brothers' new one (poorly distributed late last fall, just out in DVD) is "a serious movie", at least in the sense that it deals with some serious themes (in a frequently comical fashion). After a survey tour of American provincial themes in the Upper Midwest, Chicago, the South, and the Southwest, they brought it maybe a little closer to home with this study of Jewish life among the Gentiles in the Sixties. I'd rate it above "No Country for Old Men", about even with "The Big Lebowski", but below "The Man Who Wasn't There" or most of their earlier films ("Fargo", "Miller's Crossing", "O Brother Where Art Thou", or "Raising Arizona"). In other words, quite good.

2) District 9--I think the recognition of this bizarre sci-fi/satire set in South Africa was a good sign for the Academy. It's a natural cult classic, but with a large enough following to rate with the big flicks.

3) Up--It has several things going for it: creativity to the point of fancifulness, a couple of well-developed characters, and the best opening sequence I can recall in the history of animation. I guess that's enough.

4) The Blind Side--I don't begrudge the nomination, as some have done. It's a really good, true story, with a dream role for Sandra Bullock, and an ideal design for popularity with both men and women viewers. Actually winning the award would be a little too much indulgence of our desire for good feelings and happy endings, though.

Two of the ten nominees I haven't seen--"An Education" and "Precious". I think they were considered worthy by all, though they didn't rate quite high enough on the entertainment consideration for me to see.

Not Getting Their Seats on the Bus
Finally, to be a little critical, there are the movies I think should qualify for a ten-movie nomination field, but the Academy didn't. I would point out that the nominations for Best Film are done by vote of all members of the Academy. The expansion of the nomination field from five to ten films created a new dynamic, with results that were not so predictable. Should an Academy member vote for a clear leader, or, if they want to go artsy or intellectual, which one to choose?

The three I would name as notable misses:
1) The Fantastic Mr. Fox--the funniest movie of the year, and the one that most efficiently used its mode of expression. It did get nominated for best animated film (and musical score), but I think "Up" will have the edge. Mr. Fox is not getting its due.

2) Where the Wild Things Are--even more unjustly overlooked, as it got zero nominations. It didn't quite fit as either a kids' movie or an adult movie; that's because it's a much-too-serious look at how children see the adult world--something very rarely attempted. My greatest salute of the season goes to Spike Jonze for daring to try.

3) Bright Star--Another film that was released too early to get optimal consideration (as with "Where the Wild Things Are"); this biographical film of a key phase in the life of Romantic poet John Keats should have gotten nominations for the lead actress Abbie Cornish (as Keats' love, Fanny Brawne), while Jane Campion deserved consideration for both direction and screenplay. As it stands, it was nominated only for costume design.

"Fourth of the three" would be "The Cove", a powerful documentary about a hideous practice in one Japanese locality of isolating dolphins, selling off a bunch for the watershow circuit, and killing the rest of them for (heavily mercury-laden) meat. It should at least win for Best Documentary, though, which makes it not totally overlooked, and a nomination for Best Picture for a documentary would probably have been unprecedented (if not prohibited).

And, to close, three movies had multiple nominations for acting but were not nominated for Best Picture, which makes you wonder. I haven't seen any of them, but that doesn't mean I don't want to: "Invictus" (Best Actor nominee Morgan Freeman looks perfect as Nelson Mandela but doesn't sound it, while Matt Damon tries harder as a white Afrikaner rugby captain), "The Last Station" (Christopher Plummer as Leo Tostoy and Helen Mirren as his wife), and "Crazy Heart" (Jeff Bridges for lead actor and Maggie Gyllenhaal as supporting actress).*

Add it all up, and my conclusion is that the field of quality is exceptionally broad this year.

I've already made my picks for the Oscars; these are only slightly affected by the actual nominations (noted above, for Best Picture, I'll recognize reality and switch to "Up in the Air", and also back it for adapted screenplay). I'll make a wild guess on original screenplay--most of the ones you'd think were original were actually adapted--for "The Messenger" (though I think "Up" might also have a shot), and for Supporting Actor, I'll go against the grain and pick Stanley Tucci for "The Lovely Bones" over another villain, Waltz in "I.B."

*The other two movies with the distinction of having two or more actors nominated are "Precious" and "Up in the Air" (the latter, with one for Best Actor and two for Best Supporting Actress).

Stupid Bowl 44

This year's Super Bowl is not quite as stupid as usual: for one thing, the number one seeds of each conference made it. It's a bit surprising, but that doesn't happen very often.

Both teams have extremely potent offenses, and my own view is that neither team has sufficient defense to stop its opponent. So, the recommended bid is over on the Over/under. Last I saw, the line was 56 points (combined total), which is quite high, but I still think it will over--I'm expecting about 40 points by halftime (at least it shouldn't be the Stupor Bowl).

Unless there is a potent running game (and neither team really has one), one can expect a bit of time dilation effect in the Super Bowl--things happen very fast. It could be very one-sided, if there are a couple of early breaks, but I expect a lot of passing yardage, and a couple of big plays, before the first quarter is over.

So, the key is to somehow miss all the pregame nonsense, catch the first half (when the game is likely to be decided), see what the sexuagenarians The Who can put together for the halftime show, then either split or, if the game defies the odds and stays close, see the end.

My pick: 45-44, one way or the other--whoever has the ball last, wins. That would suggest a bet against the Colts (favored by about 6, depending), but I wouldn't advise that: they are the team with SB experience, and that often matters alot. I'm hoping (but not betting) that the Saints, who live in a carnival atmosphere all the time, won't have been distracted too much.