Senate Control in the Balance

It could be argued that the ideal outcome for the Republicans this November would be a fifty-fifty split in the Senate. That would give Senate Democrats (plus the Vice President) nominal control over the chamber. They would then have all of the responsibility and none of the power.

What it would cost the Republicans is bragging rights. If the GOP were to take control of both chambers, it would as unambiguous a repudiation of the Democrat's agenda as one could imagine. Well, one could imagine a 100 seat shift in the House. If that Gallup poll is right, that is still a possibility. The impact of a shift of both houses into Republican hands would be monumental.

All year long a Republican takeover of the House seemed possible. Now it seems very probable. A takeover of the Senate was discounted until very recently. With only a third of the Senate in play, it looked as though the Democrats had plenty of safe seats to defend. Of course the miracle in Massachusetts raised the question of how safe any seat might be. Massachusetts Democrats had a habit of changing the election laws on a regular basis to ensure control of their Senate seat, and they surely thought that they could replace the late Senator Kennedy with a Democrat. They were wrong, and that made the endgame on health care a very messy business. It didn't help reassure the public about that legislation.

Fast forward to now, and the Senate looks up for grabs. RCP gives the Democrats 49 seats in the next Congress. One of them, I note, is Barbara Boxer and I still think Boxer is vulnerable. She has been above 50% in only one poll, which is a bad sign for an incumbent. Most polls seem to assume an unlikely surge in Democratic turnout.

RCP gives Republicans 46 seats, with five seats listed as tossups. One of the tossups, West Virginia, seems to be repeating the Massachusetts story. The governor arranged an election to replace the late Robert Byrd, so he could run for the seat. Though very popular, Governor Manchin is trailing Republican John Raese in two recent polls. I think that one is going for the GOP. If I am right, that's 47.

That leaves four: Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, and Washington State. The Republicans are going to take Colorado. Buck is ahead comfortable in almost all the recent polls. In Nevada, Harry Reid is behind a bit, after spending millions in advertising to bring Sharon Angle down. He has no cards left to play. I think Angle though a weak candidate will emerge the victor. That puts the Republicans at 49.

Washington State is much the same. The Republican, Rossi, has a lead in only one poll, but the RCP average favors Murray by only three and a half points. With independents favoring the GOP across the board, and the enthusiasm gap highly favoring Republicans, I think Rossi is likely to edge out the incumbent. That would make fifty seats in my calculations.

Illinois is such a basket case that I hesitate to make a call. The Republican, Kirk, is ahead by four points in the most recent Rasmussen poll. If my calls are right, a Kirk victory and/or a Fiorina victory over Boxer in California, would give Republicans control.

If this year really is a wave election, then Republicans will take the Senate. But the uncertainty of many of the above calculations compels me to return to the Delaware election. If Mike Castle were the Republican nominee, that one would be in the bag. As it is, Kristine O'Donnell is close to twenty points behind Chris Coons. Republicans had a once in a lifetime chance of capturing a Delaware senate seat. We blew it.

There are a lot of virtues, but prudence is the chief political virtue. Prudence means shrewd judgment in uncertain situations. Castle is not my kind of Republican, but he is my kind of Senate candidate in Delaware. A Castle victory would have made a Republican capture of the Senate more likely than not. Delaware Republicans backed the candidate they wished to see in office rather than the one they might get into office. That was imprudent.

Comments

[Mike Cooper]

Coons was not a lock. And how do you trust the moral judgment of someone who
thinks it should be a constitutionally protected right to kill babies? One very encouraging sign this election is that only 2 of the Republican Senate candidates, whether pursuing a Democratic seat or an open seat, are pro abortion-McMahon and Kirk.

[Mike Cooper]

oops, sorry. The last post should have started "Castle was not a lock."

[J. Gravelle]

Every time He opens His mouth, it costs the DNC polling points.

The future of the entire republic is at stake, and voters (every hundred years or so) seem to realize it. The president can only hurt his side of the aisle.

Face it, the S.S. Democrat Party is sinking fast, and Obama is one heavy anchor, baby:
http://gravelle.us/content/obama-anchor-baby

You’d think with all that stimulus money, General Motors might be able to build Obama and His party a life boat: http://www.dailyscoff.com/?p=2689

-jjg

[duggersd]

Of course that 50/50 split is assuming a change in WI.

[Stan Gibilisco]

As a moderate Republican, I want to see a shift to the right, but not too far. I'd like to see a Republican majority in the House and a 50-50 split, or a narrow Republican majority, in the Senate.

If the Republicans "blow it" this time the way they did in 2000-2006, we'll face another Democratic revolution in 2012.

Ideas such as repealing Obamacare won't get far. How about "revise and refine"? Republicans should avoid the extremists on abortion rights, gay marriage, and all those social issues. It's the economy, stupid ...

[Miranda Flint]

Dr. Blanchard: Suppose you have a friend who is jobless. He comes to you asking for money. You give it to him and he spends it all on drugs and booze. Then he comes back and asks you for money. You give it to him and he gambles it away. He asks you for money. You think about it. He tells you he will starve if you don't help him. You give him the money. He spends it all on drugs and booze. He asks you for money. You refuse. He then has to find away to support himself.

The situation with left-leaning Republicans is similar. We vote for them. They spend our money on things like iPods and cocaine for monkeys. We vote for them and give them money. They blow it all on frivolous projects. We consider not voting for them. They cry that if we don't the Democrats will win. We vote for them. They act like Democrats. Now, this cycle could go on forever. OR we could stop voting for them until they give us a real, conservative alternative. Christine O'Donnell will probably lose. Mike Castle might have won. But I'm not sure that the message the O'Donnell win sent to Republicans wasn't worth that loss.

Stan: There is more than one way for Republicans to blow it. Alienating social conservatives because all one cares about is money is another. As a fiscal and social conservative, I believe that fiscal and social issues are interlinked.

Consider, for instance, the possible economic effect of abortion.

Social Security works well when there are enough young people working to support those who are older. It does not work when there are not. Because an aborted baby cannot pay social security taxes, an unintended consequence of abortion might be greater stress on the social security system.

On the issue of marriage: Young, single men are the most violent human beings on the planet. Get rid of marriage and society becomes a lot less stable. Encourage women to behave like men ans the domesticating influence goes away. What happens to the economy when there is social unrest? Whether gay marriage helps solve this problem or exacerbates it is up for debate, but my point is that social decisions can have economic consequences. Therefore, I think it is foolish to ignore them.

[Stan Gibilisco]

Miranda:

You've got me thinking now! Good points, but are they too general?

An aborted baby does not pay social security taxes, but neither does a born one, until she gets a job. Nevertheless, she eats and goes to school and goes to the doctor from Day One, and that costs a bundle. (For the record, I consider myself pro-life; I'm playing devil's advocate here.)

I don't advocate getting rid of marriage. In fact, I'm indifferent to the issue of "gay marriage" -- because in my opinion, that very term constitutes an oxymoron. As a social libertarian I would not favor anything to discriminate against gays, but as a fiscal conservative I would not favor anything to give them special breaks that the rest of us do not get.

Although I'm as straight as an East River highway, I've been around a lot of gay men (lived in Miami Beach for five years 1992-97) and got the distinct impression that they, while mostly young and single, are less violent by far than their straight male counterparts. Yet other subgroups of the young, single male population are undeniably among the most violent living beings this earth has even seen. I refrain with difficulty from waxing more specific.

Overall, I get nervous when the government tries to dictate social behaviors in any way, be it insurance mandates, bans on abortion, or even the "drug war" (which, I dare say, we have spectacularly lost). Some social mandates are necessary to prevent anarchy; beyond that, I wonder.

You've sure got me thinking about my own views, anyhow. Thanks!

[Miranda Flint]

Stan: You are right. My arguments are too general, but I originally only wanted to establish that social and fiscal issues were not completely divorced from one another.

Your arguments, though, made me curious about the costs and benefits of being born and living in America. So I took a look at some figures.

According to United Press International (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/06/18/The-cost-of-raising-a-child-222360/UPI-39221276914536/), the average cost of raising a child to age 18 is $222,360. Meanwhile, according to the United States Census Bureau http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p23-210.pdf), the average high school drop out can expect to earn 1.0 million dollars over the course of his lifetime. High school graduates will typically earn $1.2 million. Those who hold bachelor's degrees can expect to earn $2.1 million on average. Those with doctoral degrees will earn $3.4 million on average.

So, if I am doing the math right (and that's a big if, as math has never been my strong suit) that works out to be a 300% return on the investment. Not bad!

Of course, that doesn't take into account the expenses that person incurs over time, so I'm not sure if it really proves anything, but it's interesting nonetheless.

[KB]

Miranda: Let me enlarge the analogy. You have to hire someone and you have three applicants. One of them is perfect for the job, but unfortunately she pisses off your CEO and you know good and well that the boss will never consent to hire her. The second has issues, and you know that he will do only about half the job to your satisfaction. The third is hostile to you and will do everything he can to frustrate you at every turn. If you pick number one, the boss will go with number three. Now: whose name to you send up?

That was exactly the situation facing the Republican electorate in Delaware. I'm sorry, but this was an easy call. This election is likely to return a lot of real Republicans and for that I am thankful. It will also return a garden variety leftist in Delaware. I think that gains us nothing.

[Miranda Flint]

Dr. Blanchard: Your analogy probably fits the situation better that mine. And, indeed, I am willing to concede that O'Donnell was, in many, a poor choice. But I am not sure I agree with your idea that prudence is the highest political virtue. Men like Fidel Castro and Idi Amin have often made shrewd decisions in uncertain times. But they have lacked more desirable virtues, such as ethics and a regard for human life. That has lead to unthinkable disasters. Prudence, if it is indeed only shrewd political calculation during uncertain times, might very well make one successful, but I do not think I would call it a virtue. Still, Machiavelli would be proud!

[KB]

Miranda: as usual you have put your finger on the philosophically interesting question. Following Aristotle, I think that virtues aren't really virtues unless they are part of a package that works for the human good. Phronesis, or prudence, might be defined so as to include only shrewd judgment that serves that end. But it's hard not to think that the same capacity is exercised also by successful tyrants.

Perhaps we can agree on this: prudence is a good thing when exercised on behalf of the good. Abraham Lincoln in 1858 comes to mind. Winston Churchill in the wilderness years is another example. When I say that prudence is THE political virtue, I mean only that Lincoln's understanding of natural right, which I consider the right understanding, would have done no good if it had not been accompanied by prudence.

As for Machiavelli, whom I cannot help but love and fear in equal measure, that is a larger discussion. You know well where my soft spots are.

[Miranda Flint]

Dr. Blanchard: I think we can agree that you are right in most cases. But, not, I think, in all. A move made on behalf of the good is not the same thing as a good move. Furthermore, it is easy to see how prudence, as you define it, could be exercised on behalf of the good without yielding good results. The trial and execution of Socrates comes to mind.

Bringing charges against Socrates might very well be considered a shrewd move. Those who supported it claimed to be interested in the good of the people and specifically the youth who they said Socrates was leading astray. If those who accused him were honest in their accusations, then one might argue that the execution was a prudent move made on behalf of the good. But it led to the death of one of the greatest minds in human history. Shall we praise Athens for its prudence , then, or not?

I am not entirely convinced that the Castle/O’Donnell issue isn’t a similar case. A vote for Castle would certainly have given voters a better chance of putting another Republican in the Senate. But it would have also encouraged liberal Republicans to behave in the same way as they have in the past – which has often meant that when Republicans really need support, the liberals amongst them jump ship. One has only to look at the case of Jim Jeffords to understand this.

So, just as killing off Socrates may have been prudent in the short term, so too is voting for Mike Castle. But a vote against Castle might be a better move in the long-term, if conservatives truly mean to bring about change.

Just as you have a soft spot for Machiavelli. I have one for Churchill. And it was Churchill who said, “Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense.” I think voting for Mike Castle is giving up.

But I do agree that it does little good to have the right views if you cannot turn your views into actions (unless, of course it does something for your soul).

[KB]

Miranda: Our Winston said that it is not possible guarantee victory. It is only possible to deserve it. The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune can overwhelm any human being. Prudence is the ability to see what actions, in any set of circumstances, is most likely to achieve the good. Abraham Lincoln made more concessions to racism when he spoke in Southern Illinois. That's because the butternuts were genuinely opposed to slavery only because they were opposed to Negroes. Bringing them into his coalition was necessary if slavery was to be put on the road to extinction. I think he acted prudently.

As for those who killed Socrates, I cannot guess what they gained by it. I am pretty certain that they did not make Athens better, so I doubt that their actions were guided by genuine prudence. By contrast, Socrates acted with perfect prudence. He lived his life in an exemplary fashion, and in dieing achieved immortal fame for himself, his city, and philosophy. But then Socrates was perfect, if Plato, and Xenophon, and yours truly are to be believed.

Back to Churchill: he ordered the bombing of German cities because he guessed, rightly, that Hitler would respond in kind. That took the pressure off the RAF, which was close to collapse. It also meant that a lot of babies were burned alive. I think Churchill acted prudently, though the result was terrible.

Accepting Mike Castle as the Republican nominee for Delaware wouldn't have been giving up. It would have been doing the best you could do with Delaware. I like the dilemmas we face more than those that Lincoln or Churchill faced.

[Miranda Flint]

Dr. Blanchard: I find this new definition of prudence much easier to agree with. Prudence defined in this way certainly seems to be a good thing. But, I think sometimes, only time will tell which moves are really prudent.

Neville Chamberlain must have thought he made a prudent move before it became obvious that he had not. If sacrificing conservatism earns us a seat and that is its only consequence, then you are probably quite right. Choosing Castle would have been prudent. If, however, winning seats by sacrificing conservatism leaves the Republican Party in the hands of the most liberal elements, maybe choosing the conservative and risking a loss was the more prudent choice. Conservatives in other states have taken similar risks. Perhaps they were not prudent, but in cases like that of Marco Rubio, they seem paying off.

My objection to the arguments against the O’Donnell choice is mostly to the reasoning behind it. I am put off by arguments that seem to say that winning is better than ideology or ethics. If the arguments were that O'Donnell was not competent and could not perform the job as well as Castle, I could sympathize with them. I will admit to having my own doubts about that. But because the attacks have been largely based on an idea that ideology is not worth voting for, I have been rather stubborn in my defense of the choice. Winning is only good when what you are winning is worth it.

Still, if all we consider is the current race, then it’s hard to argue that you are wrong. And I agree that our dilemmas are much more palatable than either Churchill’s or Lincoln’s.

[KB]

Good heavens, we have come to agreement! Where's the fun in that? If my wildest dreams are realized, O'Donnell will win. She's a bit of a nut, but nuts sometimes sprout into trees. I don't think that winning at any cost is better than ethics or principle, but I do think that Castle would have been better than Coons. That was the basis of my choice.

[Miranda Flint]

You're right! I'll get back to being surly and unreasonable straight away!
(After agreeing that Castle would have been a better choice than Coons.)

[Ethan]

CDC officials in the United States April 23, 2009 ptioned out that the preliminary study to detect the prevalence of swine influenza virus is influenza virus type A, carrying the H1N1 strain of swine influenza virus subtypes, including avian flu, swine flu and human three types of influenza viruses of influenza gene fragments of DNA, and swine influenza in Asia and Africa, the characteristics of swine influenza virus. Medical tests show that the mainstream anti-viral drugs effective against this strain.

[Kartick]

No pics, but in my class we are studying the ptelans. My partner is a boy named Max and our topic is comets. We were both hoping for Uranus, because it's pretty interesting. Did you know it spins on it's axis sideways?