Cook Report 3/23

The latest House Race Chart from Charlie Cook is up. Let's look at the changes from 3/15: 

• NY-1 moved from "Likely Democratic" to "Lean Democratic".
• NY-23 moved from "Lean Democratic" to "Likely Republican".
• NY-4 moved from safe to "Likely Democratic".
• NY-26 moved from "Democratic Toss Up" to safe.
• NY-9 moved from "Republican Toss Up" to safe.
• NY-11 moved from safe to "Lean Republican".
• NY-13 moved from "Lean Republican" to "Republican Toss Up".
• NY-19 moved from "Lean Republican" to safe.
• NY-27 moved from safe to "Lean Republican".
• NY-2 and NY-22 moved from safe to "Likely Republican".
• NY-24 moved from "Likely Republican" to "Lean Democratic".
• NY-29 moved from "Likely Republican" to safe. 

As far as Minnesota House seats go, Chip Cravaack (MN-8) is still rated as a "Republican Toss Up", John Kline (MN-2) is still rated as "Likely Republican". Collin Peterson (MN-7) is still rated as "Likely Democratic". Bachmann (MN-6), Erik Paulsen (MN-3), Keith Ellison (MN-5), Betty McCollum (MN-4) and Walz (MN-1) are still considered safe.

Charlie Cook says Romney losing Independents

Charlie Cook, in his National Journal column, once again sounds the alarm over Romney:

At the start of this campaign, most independent voters, who generally follow politics less avidly than partisans do, saw Romney as something of a blank slate. Now, poll after poll shows that his numbers among independents have taken a beating. In an ABC News/Washington Post national survey earlier this month, Romney had a healthy 60 percent favorable and 29 percent unfavorable rating among Republicans. Among independents, it was 32 percent favorable and 48 percent unfavorable. In the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll among Republicans, 58 percent had a positive view of Romney, with 23 percent neutral and 18 percent negative. But among all voters, it was 28 percent positive, 28 percent neutral, and 39 percent negative. When this happens to the most “electable” candidate, it is not good for the party.

 Isn't this what I've been saying?

This year, it seems that Republicans have become self-absorbed and obsessed with their conservative base. They seem unable to acknowledge or unwilling to care that the rest of the electorate is watching and getting turned off by overheated rhetoric almost guaranteed to alienate all but the most conservative voters.

Cook, of course, has the obligatory remarks that Obama isn't a lock for re-election. Mostly, it's about the President's low approval numbers. He completely ignores that the Republican candidates are less popular, though. And he also seems to be secretly hoping for some kind of disaster that will hurt Obama:

There are so many land mines between now and Election Day for Obama: Iran and Israel and elsewhere in the Middle East; the impact of Middle East troubles on oil and gasoline prices; the sovereign-debt crisis and recession in Europe; a global economic slowdown; and the possible collapse of a European financial institution or two. But when you look at what is happening on the Republicans’ side, you kind of wonder whether they want to win or are happier just fighting among themselves.

Well, it is a National Journal article, you know.

Assuming Romney is the nominee, which Cook seems to take as fact, the more interesting question is whether the Republican base will allow him to move back toward the centre in the general election race. McCain was basically pushed further to the Right after winning the nomination. With the GOP believing its own spin that they are the majority, it could very well be that Romney will be forced to do the same thing in order to keep that base "energised". 

It might also be instructive to look again at Cook's February column where he voices similar doubts. Nothing has changed since he voiced those warnings. But, really, who in the Party has the ability to change course at this point? Nobody. The wingnut base is driving the car, and they aren't listening to anyone else.

Charlie Cook has a few doubts

Noted political analyst Charlie Cook took a cautionary tone in his latest National Journal column:

But now I wonder whether the economy will drive this election to the usual extent—or to the extent I had thought. More specifically, will the Republican Party nominate a candidate who can credibly compete for the independent voters whose support is so important in general elections? 

Independents represented 29 percent of the electorate in 2008. In last year's combined Gallup polls, though, they were 40 percent—a record high. In 2000, Republican George W. Bush won the independent vote by 2 percentage points over Democrat Al Gore but narrowly lost the overall popular vote. In 2004, Democrat John Kerry actually carried independents by 1 point but lost the national popular vote by 3 points. The winner of the independent vote doesn’t necessarily win the general election. But a candidate has to be very competitive among independents to have a chance to win. In 2008, the GOP’s John McCain lost the independent vote by 8 percentage points and the election by 7 points.

Both Republican candidates are concentrating on winning the Republican base right now. That's what candidates do in a primary campaign, of course. But the danger is that the Party is being locked into positions and rhetoric that could be highly damaging to voters outside of the reliable Republican base in a general election.

Cook is one of those analysts who seems to default to favouring Republicans. When he starts expressing doubts, people on the Right usually listen. It will be interesting to see the reaction among conservatives to these remarks: 

Simply put, the passion and energy of the Republican Party today may well fail to produce a nominee with a decent chance of winning in November. My assumption was that Romney would be the nominee and would make a good run. Now, I have begun to doubt both propositions. His odds of winning the nomination are growing longer. And even if he does, he has twisted and turned himself into a human pretzel. I’m not sure how electable he is. The alternatives, however, seem even less so.

 So, yeah, keep pushing "social conservative" issues. Keep making crazy statements and spinning scary scenarios that everyone outside of the base just rolls their eyes at. Keep telling us that the President is a Muslim who is Constitutionally unfit for office, and who is at war with (your narrow version of) Christianity. Above all, continue with your arrogant assumption that Obama is a hated figure that only a tiny minority of "far Left" die-hards would vote for. You Republicans have been telling the country that conservatives are the majority, and that the more conservative a candidate is, the more likely they are to win. While you're at it, maybe bring out Sarah Palin a lot more often. Everyone loves her and listens to what she has to say, right?

Minnesota's 8th CD now a "tossup"

Charlie Cook changed the status of MN-8 from "Lean Republican" to "Tossup" in his latest ratings.

This means trouble for freshman Tea Party Rep. Chip Cravaack. Already in a D+3 district, and only winning election by 1% (48/47) - 4400 votes, he was not a favourite for re-election. He's accomplished nothing for his district, and spent most of his time in NH when not in DC.

Given the latest polling by PPP in MN that shows strong "buyer's remorse" over electing Republicans to the State Legislature, I don't see a strong "incumbent advantage" for Cravaack. His strong backing of Bachmann hasn't won over Independents, as the same polling shows that Bachmann is very unpopular outside of her narrow 16% "very conservative" base and gerrymandered district.

His big issue, aside from rabid anti-choice positions, was the Clean Water Act, and most particularly H.R 5088. This was the legislation introduced by Oberstar that Cravaack railed against. Cravaack can claim a small victory by tying it up in committee, but that was merely a holding action. That fight is over, and he can't claim to have done anything for the economy by voting the Party line on legislation that had no chance of passing the Senate. His votes were completely rubber-stamp in line with instructions from the Party, so it's hard to say that he's representing his constituents. A vote for Cravaack is essentially a vote for Boehner, because that's who tells Cravaack how to vote.

Meanwhile, Cook rates Democrat Tim Walz's seat as "Likely Democratic", though it's R+1. He held on to his seat against Randy Demmer, in spite of high wingnut hopes, and won by 5% in a great Republican year. Now Allen Quist and Mike Parry will battle over the chance to take on Walz in 2012. It will probably be Parry, who is the typical angry, crazy Tea Party-inspired kind of guy that the electorate is tired of. Quist is a really boring Religious Right bozo who embraced the Tea Party late in the game, and who is notable for failing to win his bid for Governor many years ago. If Quist wins, he'd be one of the few cases of the MN GOP recycling a loser, and he's probably only being considered because the MN Republican Party has been taken completely over by the evangelicals.

There hasn't been a dramatic shift to the Left in Minnesota, as much as there's been a massive and broad-based shudder of revulsion over what the Republicans have turned themselves into. And nothing right now is looking like they are backing away from their image of enraged, hateful, over-the-top, completely interchangeable nuts who all say the exact same thing.