Terry McMahon's Awesome Blog

I worked in the New York State Office of the Attorney General the summer after my first year in law school. I was so proud to work for an AG who was willing to step up when the incompetent and politicized federal Department of Justice wouldn't. Sure, a lot of those Wall Street indictments turned out to have been based on thin evidence, but at the time I was thrilled that my boss was a bold and strong Democrat.

I first met the AG when the interns were shepherded into a small room in groups of about 30 at a time to hear him speak. I found out later that a lot of his anecdotes were taken from his stump speech, but he seemed at once fresh, innovative, brilliant, and above all else a friendly and normal guy who just happened to be unbelievably good at both politics and the law. I was a believer. Best of all, we got photos with him, as a group, and I was slick enough to stand right next to him in our photo. We got the photos back a few weeks later: I looked great, the AG looked great, and the photo was too blurry to make out much of anything besides our identities. Still, it was a real treat to meet him.

The next time I met Eliot Spitzer was after he became governor of New York. I was helping out the Edwards campaign on some of their NYC fundraisers, which mostly meant that I stood around at a table in front and checked people in to the art gallery or ridiculous Upper East Side condo hosting the event. One night, we realized that the apartment, while enormous, had no natural place to put the table, so we just set up shop in the building's lobby as the residents came and went around us. The setup was a little weird, but the evening went by without incident until one of the residents walked in. "Hey governor," I said, and sure enough, Eliot Spitzer just so happened to live there. He graciously came over and talked to us poor schlubs for a couple of minutes, though I'm sure he didn't feel like it at the end of a long day. Again, he was charming and friendly.

I've met a fair number of politicians, and they are almost always underwhelming in person. I don't hold it against any of them, since neither charisma nor brilliance is really part of the job description. Still, being around Eliot Spitzer felt like a genuinely rare experience: meeting someone supremely talented who was actually living up to his potential while still being a nice guy. I was sure Spitzer would become president someday, even after his shaky first year as governor. I assumed that this Princeton/Harvard Law guy, with his limitless ambition, bold policies, and alpha-male personality, needed an experience like this, where he'd get smacked down for the first time in his life and finally learn humility. The last piece of the puzzle.

I guess it doesn't matter how badly that photo turned out. I've cared about politicians who have lost. I've cared about politicians who have been caught up in scandals. I've cared about politicians who have made me proud even if they couldn't come through in the clutch. I've just never felt let down before. I guess it's one thing if a politician turns out to do something so colossally unexpected that you have no idea to react. I'm certainly surprised that Eliot Spitzer was involved in prostitution, but I thought he had moved past the arrogance of thinking he could do that kind of thing and have a successful political career too. I guess I just thought this was the kind of bad habit that could be fixed with a little effort.

Maybe it's tougher than that, and it's unfair to expect someone to fix their unfortunate personality traits once they're elected to high office. It would be a shame if that were true. Governor, I'm sorry this is the end. I really hoped.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 11:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I'm going to need a few examples of John McCain opposing military action before I take him seriously on foreign policy.

Unless he rhymes a few more upcoming wars with Beach Boys songs, in which case I'll support him pretty vigorously.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 5:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Democrats:

Clinton 31
Obama 28
Edwards 24

Republicans:

Romney 35
Huckabee 28
McCain 18

That is not how I want it to go, but that's my guess.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 6:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Cross-posted over at the Law Students for Edwards blog.

I'll quote the CNN Political Ticker in full:

Howard Dean says it is incumbent on Democrats to bring the war in Iraq to a close, or risk becoming the minority party again.

“The American people hired Democrats last November to ensure we end this war, so let me be clear.” Dean made the remarks Saturday in the Democratic response the President’s weekly radio address. “We know if we don’t keep our promise, we may find ourself in the minority again. But we have to face the reality. The Republicans in Congress are standing with President Bush as he stubbornly wields his veto pen in the face of overwhelming opposition to this war from the American people.”

I honestly don't see what's so difficult about this. Principled disagreements about the war and its direction are fine, but as a strictly political matter, the war is wildly unpopular, Democrats rode a wave of anti-war sentiment into control of both houses of Congress, and Democratic capitulation on the war funding bill last month collapsed Congress' approval rating. If Democrats want to win in 2008, they need to stand strong against the war.

The worst part is I've heard a line of thought that believes that if Democrats succeed in ending the war now, they'll be painted as weak on national security. Now, leaving out the point that Republicans will attack Democrats on national security from now until the end of time no matter what happens, ending the war would be a fantastic move politically.

How about this for a tagline: "Republicans got us into this war. Democrats got us out." Works for me.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 9:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A friend of mine posted to the NYU Law Democrats listserv today asking leaders of the various "NYU Law for ____" groups to post why they support their candidate. Since I've taken it upon myself to launch Law Students for Edwards, I figured I'd write a little something. And since I'm starved for posts here, I might as well post it here:

First off, I can speak only for myself, but I really think it's all just a gut feeling. But even though you don't choose who you fall in love with, I'll detail my opinion of John Edwards in hopes that some folks will consider things they previously haven't. (Side note: I love everyone running and would be thrilled to work for any of them in the general.)

I signed on with the first Edwards presidential in March 2003 for a bunch of reasons. My first goal was taking back the White House, and I thought Edwards was most likely to win. I still do: I have a long-held theory that the best presidential candidates are the ones who appeal to the mainstream and the base. Rocket science, I know, but I was always amazed at how our current president could appeal so well to both economic and social conservatives, while making swing voters and the mainstream press still think he's an effective leader. That's a tricky balancing act and I think Edwards, then and now, is especially well positioned for it. Everyone always tries to come up with ways to figure out electability, and, well, I think that's it. I also like deserving underdogs, which is why I'm a Democrat and probably while I like trial lawyers, especially real honest ones like Edwards. (For the record, the reason you didn't hear about awful plaintiffs Edwards represented is because none exist. I know for a fact they looked.) And even though we've all heard it a million times, I like his story: a guy who majored in textiles at NC State in case the lawyer thing fell through, since his dad, not having his own college degree, was shut out for promotions he deserved at the mill. So that's why I liked Edwards before I worked for him.

I thought he acquitted himself really well in the campaign (aside from losing, which I think is more the result of the Terry McMahon Curse). I would read through his policy book (I don't know if it's online, but I still have it) and find nuggets of small-bore policy proposals that weren't exciting but could help countless people live better lives: exactly the politics I look for. I also thought the distinction he drew in his tax plan - we should cut taxes on work-based income instead of on wealth-based income - was a stroke of genius, as did Will Saletan at http://www.slate.com/id/2084686/ in a really terrific article from those heady days in 2003. So that's why I liked him as a candidate: I liked how he framed the debate to focus on the people who, as Bill Clinton put it, worked hard and played by the rules.

I think his 2005-2006 was the best off-cycle performance of any presidential candidate I've ever seen. He met with foreign leaders to learn about the rest of the world. He started a poverty center, focusing on an issue that helps himself the least and helps the country the most. He built up an exciting internet presence (PC Magazine just called johnedwards.com the best campaign website, and let's not forget that Dean '04 manager Joe Trippi just came on board) and he spent 2005 and 2006 campaigning for Democrats in almost every state, while successfully advocating for a minimum wage increase in a bunch of states too. I don't know what he could have done better.

As for this campaign, he's taken all those experiences and become more himself and less a politician. What I love the most about Edwards '08 is that it's about as far as a presidential campaign can go from being about the candidate. It's about ending poverty, it's about re-establishing America's position in the world, and it's about returning the sense of community to America. But he never claims that only John Edwards can do all that; rather, his online operation is geared around a community service organization, OneCorps, that adopts a new progressive policy every month that can be helped by real-life actions by everyday people. (Cut down your carbon footprint, that kind of thing.) He wants to change the campaign structure from waiting for a savior to take back the White House to taking steps now to make a real difference.

I think his "it's not about me" approach is best illustrated by a remark he made a few days after they announced that Elizabeth's cancer had returned. Now, sure I was inspired at their strength in deciding to make the most of every moment they have. But what really got me was this quote from their 60 Minutes interview:

First of all, there's not a single person in America that should vote for me because Elizabeth has cancer. Not a one. If you're considering doing it, don't do it. Do not vote for us because you feel some sympathy or compassion for us. That would be an enormous mistake. The vote for the presidency is far too important for any of those things to influence it.

It's not about him, it's not about her, it's about the mission. That's why I support John Edwards.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 10:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Election Night 2006 was apocalyptic for New Hampshire Republicans. Traditionally New Hampshire's dominant party, they lost the governor's race for the fifth time in six elections (and yes, I worked on the one Democratic campaign that lost), and Democrats picked up both U.S. House seats and made staggering gains in both houses of the state legislature to win control of both houses for the first time since around the Civil War. (Without looking up the numbers, I recall the 2005-2006 GOP advantage in the state House to be something like 250-150 and in the state Senate to be 16-8. Yet Democrats still took over both chambers.)

Today, we have real proof that elections have consequences. The state House has already passed a civil unions bill that appears likely to pass the state Senate next week. Democratic Gov. John Lynch, reelected in 2006 with 74 percent of the vote, announced today he will sign the civil unions bill should it come to his desk. So barring a surprise setback, it looks like all the roadblocks to making civil unions a reality have disappeared.

I've probably paid closer attention to politics in New Hampshire than in any other state, even my own, so this is particularly exciting for me. This would make New Hampshire the fifth state (after Vermont, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Connecticut) to allow either gay marriage or civil unions. I think marriage equality is the major civil rights issue of our day, and I'm thrilled to see real progress in such a great state.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 3:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I mean, how can he not?

But in an unusually critical assessment of his party's political blunders and failures in the last election cycle, the Nevada lawmaker said, "We're not off-guard anymore, and we are busting our rear ends over here now."
...
"We were elected to govern as Republicans, and we lost our way and the voters saw little difference between us and the Democrats. We need to get the heart and soul back in our party," he said.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 1:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Not to cite Paul Waldman any time he writes anything, but his latest blog post is spot-on. He covers two topics: the media tendency to ask Democrats tougher questions on religion than they do Republicans, and the vulnerabilities the Republican presidential candidates face on those same questions. Here's how it starts:

So now John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton have all been asked, with varying results, whether they agree with Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace’s assertion that homosexuality is “immoral.” Much ink has been spilled on their answers. But I haven’t seen that the leading Republican candidates for president have been asked the question, and I’d be interested to hear the results.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 1:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I just read Chris Cillizza's look at Mitt Romney's ridiculous decision to start running TV ads, and there are a couple points that show clearly that this is a colossal mistake . For the record, Edwards was considered appallingly early when he became the first candidate to start broadcasting ads in June of the last cycle. Even beyond strategic measures, this is getting ridiculous. I don't want to live in a permanent presidential campaign.

Problem one:

But, in going up with a 60-second commercial in select markets in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Michigan and Florida, (over the next week) Romney is vastly expanding the universe of people he hopes to reach and forcing his opponents to re-evaluate when they might begin their own paid advertising campaigns in early states. (emphasis added)

So airing TV ads before the primaries start on states besides Iowa and New Hampshire is almost certainly wasted money. TV ads a year before the primary is absolutely wasted money. TV ads a year before the primary in the fourth-biggest state in the union is borderline insane. Don't forget: the people making these decisions are the ones who get high-level appointments in the White House.

My second problem is this:

Romney still trails Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani badly in both state and national polling. Romney must, therefore, start to make his case for the nomination sooner rather than later.

This brings up a larger point that really baffles me. Cillizza has been doing this for years. He knows this already. Is he forgetful, or is he just making stuff up to try to make the race as exciting as possible for as long as possible? So either he's not putting in the effort to learn lessons from each successive campaign, or he's not interested in reporting the honest nature of presidential campaigns. Fantastic!

Posted by Terry McMahon at 12:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It's way too fucking early for this.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 3:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I got this from Bluegrass Report since the primary source requires registration:

ELIZABETHTOWN — Anne Northup said she does not like to criticize,

Posted by Terry McMahon at 11:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Barack Obama:

"There's a big part of me that's pretty lazy," he says.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 10:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Yep, I'm fairly confident I'm going to fail out of law school and I'm still spending class time reading politics on the internet, so you know it must be December. Instead of listening to my corporations review session (stock? board of what?) I spent the last ten minutes reading this story of life as a GOP volunteer shipped up from DC to Rhode Island to try to save Lincoln Chafee on the weekend before the election. It is hilarious and it'll either open your eyes or bring back painful memories, depending on your experience.

Here's the link again. I urge you to give it a read.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 10:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

From the Portsmouth Herald:

Going from a constituency of 15,000 to 1.2 million would be quite a challenge, but political leaders in the state believe Portsmouth Mayor Steve Marchand may have the stuff to challenge U.S. Sen. John Sununu in 2008.

And, for the record, I hope he does. People in the article call Steve "very smart, very personable" and "a very hard worker," all of which is true. He's also a fundamentally good guy and exactly the kind of person we need in the Senate. The article calls him "wildly popular" as mayor, and he's already shown a terrific ability to win over the ideologically disparate elements of the New Hampshire Democratic Party. I always thought former Governor Jeanne Shaheen would run against Sununu, but Steve Marchand may be an even better candidate.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 5:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I'm thrilled with how the elections turned out, especially the amazing fact that Democrats didn't lose a single seat in either the House or the Senate, and they kept their hold on all their governorships. And it took me a few days to realize this, but Democrats also took back the Senate by beating six Republican incumbents without losing a single seat. That is ridiculous: open seats are easier to take over by leaps and bounds, and the fact that Democrats somehow beat six ideologically diverse incumbents (Chafee, Santorum, DeWine, Allen, Burns and Talent) makes regaining the Senate all the more impressive.

I'm also impressed by how many of the House winners came out of nowhere. Most of the Democratic pickups were in districts considered uncompetitive at the beginning of the cycle, and very few of the candidates heralded as major stars actually wound up winning. It's tempting to chalk it up to a number of factors - the netroots doing a better job of finding and promoting candidates than the DC establishment, the early effort to recruit Democratic war veterans largely washing out - but I have a feeling that it's simply a matter of which Republican incumbents were better prepared for strong challengers. I can think of very few examples (Clay Shaw in Florida and maybe Rob Simmons in Connecticut) where Republican incumbents knew all along they would face a tough opponent and lost anyway. A good example that distinguishes netroots support from late-breaking races is Kansas' 2nd district, where Democrat Nancy Boyda made a really stunning upset of incumbent Republican Jim Ryun. This race was never on the netroots' radar screens, but the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee made a big investment in the district a week or so before the election, catching by surprise the DC Republicans who didn't expect to have to compete there. So even though the DCCC was much more interested in the district than Democratic bloggers, that didn't mean the Democratic candidate lost: it was the element of surprise that won it. I'm not sure if how far we can extrapolate from these results, but this is a concern of mine for 2008 House races.

Still, 2006 retired the increasingly troubling feeling (deja vu for us Red Sox fans) that maybe the Democrats could just never have a successful Election Day again. I'm also excited that another one of my major concerns about democracy looks like it's beginning the path to a solution. For the first time in a while, Republicans as well as Democrats have been upset at how many voters are incorrectly refused the opportunity to vote. Democrats are more concerned about what appears to be a stolen election for, appropriately, the seat Katherine Harris is giving up in Florida, but a fair number of actual Republican officeholders were prevented from voting due to registry mistakes or not bringing proper ID. Provisional ballots, where they let you vote anyway and then check later whether they can count it, are a good start. Two good posts on DailyKos, though, illustrate how we should just drop polling places entirely and move to vote-by-mail. Apparently these systems work marvelously: there's much higher turnout, people have time to study the candidates, there's an automatic paper trail, and if you happen to work late on election day you don't have to skip voting. You can read the arguments here and here. I'm feeling good that we can turn these proposals into reality fairly soon.

But despite all the progress, I'm still only cautiously optimistic about Democratic expansion into previously Republican-dominated areas. I love this "the Republican Party is now a regional party confined to the Deep South" idea, but it's a little early to start gloating. I understand that Democrats are now the dominant party in the Northeast, things went well in the Midwest, and we're making serious inroads in the Plains states and the Rocky Mountain states, but Bush carried most of the states from Oklahoma to Montana with 60% of the vote in our last presidential election and the people of Kansas have still never elected a Democratic senator. I'm optimistic that this will be a progressive region someday, but let's celebrate once we pick up Senate seats in Wyoming and Texas and our presidential candidates start carrying Utah.

The other sad part of Election Day were that a lot of Democratic candidates came very close to winning. It's terrific that Democrats picked up three seats in New York, but two other New York candidates hit 49%, another candidate took 48%, and all three of them lost. There are plenty of other examples throughout the country, like Darcy Burner in Washington or Gary Trauner in Wyoming. I'm not sure what this means in a big-picture sense, but it does underscore the importance of tactics. After 2004, Democrats realized their relative inadequacy at get-out-the-vote programs, and hopefully by 2008 they will catch up.

I'm also optimistic about 2008 because the Senate outlook looks terrific. Look at these posts on DailyKos and TAPPED to see two competing but similarly optimistic outlooks, and neither of those mentions that U.S. Rep. Artur Davis is thinking of challenging Jeff Sessions, even if an African-American Democrat running for Senate in Alabama probably starts at a disadvantage.

Finally, the truth is that even though the balance of power has shifted, Washington is still a pretty fucked-up place. I have two great examples of the judgment calls Washington reporters bring to their jobs. Look at this quick comparison of Newsweek covers after the 1994 and 2006 elections to remind yourself how unwilling the mainstream media is to cheer for Democrats. And if you want to see a real profile in courage, read this article from a longtime CBS reporter in Washington who says that the Republican leadership who came to power in 1994 is "a bunch of weirdos." Seriously, he felt like now was the appropriate time to point this out. Thanks for the news, buddy. I also read this post by Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz alum Glenn Greenwald where he responds to the ridiculous and usually sexist Washington insider critiques of Nancy Pelosi thusly:

It's what these pundits and journalists do. They have pre-conceived, vapid notions about everything and everyone -- all driven by deep self-love for their own superior wisdom -- and they dixstort reality and crowd out sober analysis of everything that matters.

I'll give two examples of annoying behavior that doesn't help anybody. First, I remember one time I was at a Democratic job fair and I was breathlessly introduced to some guy who was political director at the DSCC (or something), in the way that's supposed to make you think you're talking to someone special. Our well-established protagonist was catching up with friends, one of whom asked him why he hadn't helped a certain younger contact find a job in DC. "Oh, I didn't know he was your friend!" said the godfather with a grin. "I just saw the name and thought I didn't recognize it, and then why would I call them back?" Chortle chortle. I love this attitude: if you don't know someone, there's no reason to talk to them. You know you've made it when you have so many friends that you can function without reaching out to new people. That's awesome, and it establishes this guy as the alpha male, regardless of what everyone said in high school. Except for two things: one, Democratic politics is devoid of accountability, and half of why this guy was in the position he was in was because he didn't go to law school or find a job back wherever he was from. Two, that is a ridiculous attitude for a prominent figure in a political party: the point of a party is to bring in more people, especially the dedicated young activists who are trying to get involved. That's a pretty cheap elitism to sacrifice the next generation over.

Similarly, I was at the same early 2003 job fair, and I was standing with my friend Brian at the bottom of a staircase with a crowd of people lined up behind us. (It was a popular event, and they were only letting in so many people at a time.) Some Democratic staffer comes strolling out and announces to the crowd that the best experience you can get is to work on a campaign that year, during the off-year, specifically citing the New Jersey and Virginia legislative races. (For reference, and I don't know why the guy didn't mention this, while NJ and VA only had races that year for the state legislature, Kentucky, Louisiana and Mississippi all had competitive governor's races.) My friend Brian says, "what about the San Francisco mayor's race?" (This is the one that ended up with Gavin Newsom barely beating out a Green Party candidate and then legalizing gay marriage.) The Democratic staffer guy, who mind you had only come out to let us know how much more experienced he has, paused for a second, mentioned the name of some other kool kid he knew, tried finding them for 30 seconds, looked kind of lost, and then when Brian said "should I talk to the California Democratic Party?" confidently proclaimed, "yeah, talk to the California Democratic Party" and promptly walked away. Brian turns to me: "Or, 'hey, I can't find the person who's working on that race, so give me one of the 50 resumes you brought and I'll find a way to get it to someone on that campaign.'" Ever since then I've been especially attuned to connecting people when I can. It's just common sense. Oh, that was the next thing Brian said: "Would the Republicans have blown me off like that?"

These stories are neither conclusory, relevant, or well-written, but I hope they underscore the atmosphere of getting a Democratic job in DC so much as it resembles the long-delayed consolation prize for not being very cool in high school, and a poorly operated one at that. Election Day was a good start for fixing Washington, but we have a very long way to go.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 2:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Alaska-GOV:
Prediction: Tony Knowles (D) 51 - Sarah Palin (R) 48
Reality: Palin 49 - Knowles 41

CO-04:
Prediction: Angie Paccione (D) 50 - Marilyn Musgrave (R-inc.) 48
Reality: Musgrave 46 - Paccione 43
This is a tough loss since Musgrave is so awful and thinks that gay marriage is the biggest danger facing America. Hopefully Paccione will win this one in 2008, when Colorado becomes a swing state too.

CO-05:
Prediction: Jay Fawcett (D) 48 - Doug Lamborn (R) 47
Reality: Lamborn 59 - Fawcett 41
My first state with two misses! This prediction was not close. I admit I look ridiculous here in retrospect, but for some reason I thought the Ted Haggard scandal would depress turnout more than it did. That's my mistake.

CT-02
Prediction: Rob Simmons (R-inc.) 51 - Joe Courtney (D) 49
Reality: Courtney 50 - Simmons 50
This one was very close, with Courtney winning by about 100 votes. The only Haverford alum in Congress took a long time to give up, but ultimately he's no longer joining Chris Shays as the only House Republicans left from New England. I still think my guess was pretty good.

CT-04
Prediction: Diane Farrell (D) 51 - Christopher Shays (R-inc.) 49
Reality: Shays 51 - Farrell 48
Things didn't go as well for Connecticut Democrats as I had hoped, what with Shays retaining yet again and that mess of a Senate race. This is congressional run #2 for Farrell, so despite hitting at least 48% both times, it looks like we'll need someone new against Shays next time. When is that guy going to get sick of the acrimony in Congress and retire?

FL-13
Prediction: Christine Jennings (D) 52 - Vern Buchanan (R) 47
Reality: Buchanan 50 - Jennings 50
This election was stolen and needs to be re-run, for separate reasons. On the stolen part, the National Republican Campaign Committee called voters repeatedly, at early-morning hours, calling back more often if people hung up quickly. They suggested in the calls that they were coming from the Democratic candidate, so everyone would get mad at the Democrat. They did that here to Christine Jennings, and the current total has her down 400 votes out of over 237,000 cast, so I don't feel badly about mis-calling this race. Incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says that there needs to be criminal penalties for shit like this, because civil damages (i.e. payouts from lawsuits) aren't doing the trick. As for the re-run, amid reports that the electronic voting machines were screwed up and didn't have this race listed, something like 18,000 people just didn't vote for anyone in the congressional race. I don't know if that's a high number for how many people voted, but going off the rest of their ballots, those 18,000 voters skewed heavily Democratic. Again, this race was "decided" by 400 votes. It's not unprecedented for campaigns with indecipherable wins to be re-run, and this time I think we would get a representative who represents the will of the district.

Idaho-GOV:
Prediction: Jerry Brady (D) 49 - Butch Otter (R) 47
Reality: Otter 52 - Brady 44
This might not have been my best pick.

Illinois-06:
Prediction: Tammy Duckworth (D) 49 - Peter Roskam (R) 47
Reality: Roskam 51 - Duckworth 49
Thanks to DCCC chair Rahm Emanuel for putting $3 million into this race when there were clearly better options. I am starting to suspect that if the DCCC treated this as a normal race instead of its marquee race we would have won: Duckworth has an appealing personal history but that just isn't enough to win a campaign. Narrow primary loser Christine Cegelis had a much more energetic campaign.

Iowa-02:
Prediction: Jim Leach (R-inc.) 55 - David Loebsack (D) 43
Reality: Loebsack 51 - Leach 49
Aw! I did NOT see that coming! I call this the second-biggest upset of the night.

Maryland-GOV:
Prediction: Robert Ehrlich (R-inc.) 51 - Martin O'Malley (D) 49
Reality: O'Malley 53 - Ehrlich 46
O'Malley held a big lead for most of this campaign, but by Election Day it looked like it had narrowed into a tie. Momentum matters in politics and the World Series, so I don't feel too moronic for missing this call, even if it's one of my worst predictions overall. I'm not complaining!

Minnesota-GOV:
Prediction: Mike Hatch (D) 52 - Tim Pawlenty (R-inc.) 47
Reality: Pawlenty 47 - Hatch 46
Now, if I had said something like "There's no way Tim Pawlenty's support goes above 47," then I look like a smart guy. Here, not so much. I thought Pawlenty would be swept up in the anti-Republican mood both nationally and within Minnesota, but apparently it didn't work out that way. On paper these both look like strong candidates, but I guess I'm not as sharp on Minnesota politics as I could be.

MN-01:
Prediction: Gil Gutknecht (R-inc.) 51 - Tim Walz (D) 48
Reality: Walz 53 - Gutknecht 47
Apparently Gil Gutknecht is a really good guy, and now he'll be a really good guy in the private sector. Seriously, I've never understood why people want to keep elected officials who differ from them drastically on the issues that matter. It's not my responsibility to make sure that members of Congress have gainful employment; if I don't like their politics, I think they should leave. Anyway, Gutknecht's loss is mitigated by Tim Walz being one of my favorite candidates and now one of my favorite congressmen. From his Wikipedia entry:

Walz was inspired to run for office in part by an occurrence at a 2004 rally for George W. Bush in Mankato "where he and two students were removed due to a John Kerry sticker on one of the students' wallets". Walz had no opponent in the race for the DFL nomination for the seat in the September 12, 2006 primary election. He beat incumbent Republican Gil Gutknecht in the general election on November 7, and will take office in January 2007. In his victory speech, Walz said, "maybe they should have let us in" to that event.

NE-03:
Prediction: Scott Kleeb (D) 51 - Adrian Smith (R) 47
Reality: Smith 55 - Kleeb 45
This is another one where I was really far off. I had heard the internals for both parties looked really good for Kleeb going into the final weekend, but apparently this is one of the few districts in the country where a late visit from President Bush will actually help your campaign. This is a tough one to take since Scott Kleeb is so awesome and Adrian Smith is such a bad fit for the district. I've heard rumors of pushing Kleeb into the Senate race if Chuck Hagel retires in 2008, but that may be too ambitious.

Nevada-GOV:
Prediction: Dina Titus (D) 54 - Jim Gibbons (R) 45
Reality: Gibbons 48 - Titus 44
I underestimated Nevada voters' ability to look past assaulting a cocktail waitress when they choose a governor. That was my mistake.

NH-01:
Prediction: Jeb Bradley (R-inc.) 54 - Carol Shea-Porter (D) 45
Reality: Shea-Porter 52 - Bradley 48
This is the biggest political upset I have ever seen. Shea-Porter was an absolute underdog in the primary, but you can explain away her win because her primary was the only strongly contested race that day, and her supporters were the only ones eager to go to the polls. That sometimes happens. The general election, though, is an entirely different story: plenty of candidates think they can win an election by not raising money, hardly running any TV ads, and somehow energizing the community enough that everyone will just turn out and vote for them. That plan is usually ridiculous, but Carol Shea-Porter just pulled it off. There is a DailyKos post by the tech guy on her campaign which is truly amazing, as he goes through what it was like to be on this campaign in both the primary and general elections. That link has my highest recommendations. (One example for my campaign-veteran friends: they couldn't afford the state party voter file, so they went to every town hall's voter registration lists and made their own. That's ballsy, brilliant and the sign of a really dedicated team.) I thought my prediction here was being generous.

New Mexico-01:
Prediction: Patricia Madrid (D) 53 - Heather Wilson (R-inc.) 47
Reality: Wilson 50 - Madrid 50
This race was very recently called. What happened here was that in their last debate, Wilson's question for Madrid was something like, "how are you going to protect New Mexico voters from a tax increase?" The answer (which, to be fair, I had to think about) is to ignore the question and say that after Heather Wilson, her friend George Bush, and the Republican Congress racked up such a record deficit, there no longer are any easy answers, and maybe Heather Wilson should have thought about basic budget balancing before she voted for the war in Iraq, costing taxpayers millions a day. Madrid kind of froze, started an answer, and froze again. That moment turned into pretty much the only ad the Wilson campaign ran from there on out. Wilson was really living the dream there: every candidate and staffer always hopes that their question in the candidates-ask-each-other section of the debate will somehow magically knock the other candidate out of the race. This is the only time I've ever seen it happen.

New York-29:
Prediction: Eric Massa (D) 50 - Randy Kuhl (R-inc.) 49
Reality: Kuhl 52 - Massa 48
It's fantastic that Democrats picked up three House seats in New York, but it's depressing how close they came in so many other races: Democratic candidates lost three House races in New York while still taking at least 48% of the vote. Hopefully that bodes well for next time but there's always the possibility 2006 was the best shot in a while.

North Carolina-08:
Prediction: Larry Kissell (D) 54 - Robin Hayes (R) 45
Reality: Hayes 50 - Kissell 50
This one is still up in the air until all the provisional ballots are counted (and may actually switch) but I'm counting it as a loss. It's a shame, too, since Kissell is so awesome. I'm not sure if he'll be an even better candidate next time or if Hayes was more vulnerable caught off-guard.

Ohio-01:
Prediction: John Cranley (D) 50 - Steve Chabot (R-inc.) 48
Reality: Chabot 53 - Cranley 47
Despite lots of success in the races for governor and senator, I was expecting Democrats to pick up more seats in House races in Ohio than they did. I'm not really sure what happened; the environment was toxic both nationally and statewide. I can guess that most of the GOP incumbents like Chabot hadn't been softened up in a while, but there were plenty of incumbents nationally who lost their first serious challenge in years.

OH-02:
Prediction: Victoria Wulsin (D) 51 - Jean Schmidt (R-inc.) 48
Reality: Schmidt 51 - Wulsin 49
It's still amazing that Democrats have kept this district competitive, but it may be that Schmidt's repeated inanity has contributed too. I guess we'll see in 2008: find out the district's presidential vote and compare it to the national popular vote, then compare that difference to what it was in 2004. I hope and suspect that this district is beginning to become more Democratic.

OH-15:
Prediction: Mary Jo Kilroy (D) 53 - Deborah Pryce (R) 45
Reality: Pryce 51 - Kilroy 49
I really thought Pryce, the fourth-ranking Republican in the House, would be swept up in the anti-Republican environment, but apparently she did a great job campaigning. I still think we can take her out next time.

Pennsylvania-04:
Prediction: Melissa Hart (R-inc.) 51 - Jason Altmire (D) 49
Reality: Altmire 52 - Hart 48
Melissa Hart will retire from Congress without me knowing much about her, but I do know a bit more about Jason Altmire. He worked for the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, he was a legislative aide on health care in the 1990s, and he played for Florida State when they won the Sugar Bowl. When I originally saw that Democrats had a serious House candidate named Jason, I assumed he was in his late 30s, and sure enough, he is. I went to the Social Security Administration's awesome Baby Names Database and discovered that Jason, besides being the #2 name for boys for five years in a row in the 70s, went from out of the top 100 to a top-10 name in the span of five years from 1966-1971. Does anyone know how this happened? Was the lead singer of Strawberry Alarm Clock named Jason?

PA-06:
Prediction: Lois Murphy (D) 51 - Jim Gerlach (R-inc.) 49
Reality: Gerlach 51 - Murphy 49
I think this is the exact same margin from 2004, and it would be odd if it were again so close. I'm not sure how many times Murphy can run, but it seems like one of these times she should be able to pull it off. That said, I think Myrth York shouldn't have run a third time for governor of Rhode Island after winning the nomination and failing twice, so hopefully PA-06 has someone else who can come through for Team Democrat.

PA-08:
Prediction: Mike Fitzpatrick (R-inc.) 51 - Patrick Murphy (D) 48
Reality: Murphy 50 - Fitzpatrick 50
Man, I did not do well on the Pennsylvania House races.

Virginia-02:
Prediction: Phil Kellam (D) 50 - Thelma Drake (R) 49
Reality: Drake 51 - Kellam 49
I just don't get the feeling that Thelma Drake is that strong a candidate. I think if Kellam learns from his mistakes this time around, he could beat her in 2008.

Wisconsin-08:
Prediction: John Gard (R) 54 - Steve Kagen (D) 45
Reality: Kagen 51 - Gard 49
This one was a pretty random guess, and I missed. Kagen's a doctor, though, which reminds me of a funny anecdote Howard Dean told. Apparently when he first became governor of Vermont there weren't many doctors in public office, so he used to go to medical conventions and tell doctors to run for office. Then he discovered that all the doctors who ran were right-wing Republicans (I'm sure he was thinking of Bill Frist here) so he decided to stop. Steve Kagen: reversing the trend!

Wyoming-AL:
Prediction: Gary Trauner (D) 49 - Barbara Cubin (R) 47
Reality: Cubin 48 - Trauner 48
This one hurt, mostly because Cubin is so terrible. I hope she loses next time.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 10:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Alabama-GOV:
Prediction: Bob Riley (R-inc.) 55 - Lucy Baxley (D) 42
Reality: Riley 58 - Baxley 42

Arizona-SEN:
Prediction: Jon Kyl (R-inc.) 51 - Jim Pederson (D) 46
Reality: Kyl 53 - Pederson 44
I keep waiting on Arizona to become a Democratic state. It's notoriously conservative, being the home of both Barry Goldwater and John McCain. Clinton carried it in 1996, but that seems to have been the major federal success of Arizona Democrats. Hopefully next time.

AZ-01
Prediction: Rick Renzi (R-inc.) 53 - Ellen Simon (D) 45
Reality: Renzi 51 - Simon 44

AZ-05
Prediction: Harry Mitchell (D) 49 - J.D. Hayworth (R-inc.) 48
Reality: Mitchell 51 - Hayworth 46
This may be a race in which I predicted a Democratic takeover simply because I don't really like the Republican incumbent, and I got it right simply on dumb luck. On the other hand, this wasn't an unbelievably close outcome, and the outcome may have had something to do with Mitchell's longstanding popularity. Now, I have a pretty high standard for the argument that voters have a long history with a guy and will vote for him as a result. In Louisville in 2004 we argued that the district had been voting Tony Miller as Circuit Court Clerk for 18 years, so they'd feel comfortable voting for him for Congress, and reality didn't really bear that out. Harry Mitchell, on the other hand, was mayor of Tempe for about 20 years, and there's even a statute of him in the town square. Protip: if there's a statue of you in the town square, you might be a viable candidate for Congress.

AZ-08:
Prediction: Gabrielle Giffords (D) 56 - Randy Graf (R) 43
Reality: Giffords 54 - Graf 42
Giffords spent one term in the Arizona House before running for Arizona Senate, and one term in the state Senate before running for Congress. That rocks. Also, Giffords was a Fulbright scholar and went to the Kennedy School of Government, and she returned to Arizona in 1996 to take over the family business when her father took ill. That rocks. I like Gabrielle Giffords.

Arkansas-GOV:
Prediction: Mike Beebe (D) 56 - Asa Hutchinson (R) 42
Reality: Beebe 55 - Hutchinson 41
Oddly enough, Democrats have super-majorities in both houses of the state legislature (and four of the five members of Congress, both U.S. Senators, and now the governor) but the last time Arkansas voted for a Democratic presidential candidate, excepting President Clinton, was in 1976.

California-GOV:
Prediction: Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-inc.) 55 - Phil Angelides (D) 42
Reality: Schwarzenegger 56 - Angelides 39
I looked up the last time the Democratic candidate for governor of California didn't break 40%, and it turns out it was 1986. It almost happened in 1994. That said, California didn't skew heavily Democratic until the late 90s, and I am sure this is the first time the Democratic candidate for governor finished about 20 points behind the statewide performance of the last Democratic presidential candidate here.

CA-04:
Prediction: John Doolittle (R-inc.) 54 - Charles Brown (D) 45
Reality: Doolittle 49 - Brown 46
Even though Brown lost, I'm still impressed. Do you think the Brown campaign ran with or away from any other associations that may exist with the name "Charlie Brown"?

CA-11:
Prediction: Jerry McNerney (D) 51 - Richard Pombo (R-inc.) 48
Reality: McNerney 53 - Pombo 47
This was a great contrast: the wind turbine engineer beating the anti-environmentalist chair of the House Resources Committee. For the record, McNerney ran a simply outstanding campaign. I was looking at his press photo page, and they were sharp enough not only to include mega-high-resolution photos but great shots that effectively summed up the campaign. There's one with McNerney standing by a bunch of wind turbines, one of McNerney standing by President Clinton at a huge McNerney rally, and one of McNerney with former Republican congressman Pete McCloskey, with one of those backgrounds alternating between "Republicans for McNerney" and "McCloskey for McNerney." He also did a terrific job of energizing local activists. He deserved to win, and I hope he's in Congress for a long time.

CA-45:
Prediction: Mary Bono (R-inc.) 59 - David Roth (D) 39
Reality: Bono 59 - Roth 41
We may have gotten rid of the only Haverford alum in Congress, but at least there's still a Scientologist.

CA-50:
Prediction: Brian Bilbray (R-inc.) 51 - Francine Busby (D) 45
Reality: Bilbray 54 - Busby 43

Colorado-GOV:
Prediction: Bill Ritter (D) 56 - Bob Beauprez (R) 41
Reality: Ritter 56 - Beauprez 41
My first and only correct pick. For next time, I'm torn between finding out whether there are third-party candidates in each race next time (which would affect whether my predicted percentages add up to 100), not spending that much time doing further research when I spent enough time making the prediction guide in the first place, and, of course, not doing this at all. Still, if I had the total percentages right, I would have nailed a lot more than just this one!

CO-06:
Prediction: Tom Tancredo (R-inc.) 53 - Bill Winter (D) 46
Reality: Tancredo 59 - Winter 40
Man, I paid for that perfect pick in the governor's race with some mediocre predictions in the Colorado House races. You can see even worse performances in the misses. Anyway, I guess xenophobia is still popular in these parts.

CO-07:
Prediction: Ed Perlmutter (D) 54 - Rick O'Donnell (R) 45
Reality: Perlmutter 55 - O'Donnell 42
I believe Democrats now have four of the seven Colorado congressional seats, and the remaining three will be contested in 2008. I am very excited to have new swing states.

Connecticut-SEN
Prediction: Joe Lieberman (CfL-inc.) 47 - Ned Lamont (D) 42 - Alan Schlesinger (R) 11
Reality: Lieberman 50 - Lamont 40 - Schlesinger 10
Actually, my disappointment over this loss is mitigated somewhat by everyone's percentage being divisible by ten. Look at that! Also, we gave Republicans a thumpin' everywhere else. My favorite political writer, Matt Taibbi, said, "I can't see any way to describe any day in which Joe Lieberman wins an election as a good day." I disagree, but this is still pretty depressing. One of the top staffers for the Lamont campaign, David Sirota, wrote a post-mortem on the campaign. I found this section edifying:

Immediately after the primary, we could have, for instance, done a better job of embarrassing Lieberman for having the nerve to ignore a taxpayer-funded democratic election and exploit a legal loophole for his own personal gain. The campaign made a strategic error in trusting the Chuck Schumers of the world when they told us not to hammer Lieberman, because they were working to politely ease him out of the race. Those efforts never happened because, as we saw, Senate Democrats really had no interest in getting him out.

CT-05
Prediction: Chris Murphy (D) 53 - Nancy Johnson (R-inc.) 45
Reality: Murphy 56 - Johnson 44
I thought my prediction was generous to Murphy, actually; that's a big margin for a 33-year-old challenging a 24-year incumbent. Johnson ran pretty good ads, too, so I'm not sure how he did it. Nonetheless it's good to see Connecticut will finally have a Democratic majority in its House delegation. Actually, I'm pretty sure Chris Shays is chairman of the House New England Republican Caucus, given that House members from New England skew 21-1 Democrat. Awesome!

Delaware-AL
Prediction: Mike Castle (R-inc.) 55 - Dennis Spivack (D) 44
Reality: Castle 57 - Spivack 39
Well, this turned out to be nothing. Still, I bet Democrats target it for 2008: Delaware isn't even a swing state.

Florida-GOV
Prediction: Charlie Crist (R) 52 - Jim Davis (D) 47
Reality: Crist 52 - Davis 45

FL-SEN
Prediction: Bill Nelson (D-inc.) 61 - Katherine Harris (R) 37
Reality: Nelson 60 - Harris 38
What else can we get Katherine Harris to run for?

FL-09
Prediction: Gus Bilirakis (R) 54 - Phyllis Busansky (D) 45
Reality: Bilirakis 56 - Busansky 44

FL-16
Prediction: Tim Mahoney (D) 52 - Joe Negron (R) 46
Reality: Mahoney 49 - Negron 48
This kind of freaks me out for how the district will go in 2008, but honestly I doubt many voters thought they were voting for Mark Foley. Still, here's hoping Mahoney puts all his congressional office funding into constituent service.

FL-22
Prediction: Ron Klein (D) 50 - Clay Shaw (R-inc.) 49
Reality: Klein 51 - Shaw 47
I switched this pick at the last second too! I love how I view all my correct picks as strokes of genius, and with all my incorrect picks, well, these things just happen.

Georgia-GOV
Prediction: Sonny Perdue (R) 55 - Mark Taylor (D) 43
Reality: Perdue 58 - Taylor 38
Ugh. Remember Perdue was considered completely unqualified when he beat Roy Barnes in 2002. Hey, would Roy Barnes run for Senate?

GA-08
Prediction: Jim Marshall (D-inc.) 51 - Mac Collins (R) 48
Reality: Marshall 51 - Collins 49
This was only close because Georgia Republicans pulled a Texas-style re-redistricting effort. I wouldn't be immediately opposed to a constitutional amendment mandating that states not redraw their congressional maps more than once a decade.

GA-12
Prediction: John Barrow (D-inc.) 52 - Max Burns (R) 47
Reality: Barrow 50 - Burns 50
This was the closest Democrats came to losing a seat in any of the House, Senate, or gubernatorial races. That is unprecedented. Also, I still don't understand what made Max Burns such a good candidate.

Idaho-02:
Prediction: Bill Sali (R) 47 - Larry Grant (D) 43
Reality: Sali 50 - Grant 45
When Bill Sali was in the Idaho state legislature he suggested that breast cancer is caused by abortions, causing the Democratic House leader (a breast-cancer survivor herself!) to run from the room in tears. Ladies and gentleman, your House Republican freshman class president!

Illinois-GOV:
Prediction: Rod Blagojevich (D-inc.) 54 - Judy Baar Topinka (R) 43
Reality: Blagojevich 50 - Topinka 40
Another round numbers result! I love these.

IL-08:
Prediction: Melissa Bean (D-inc.) 51 - David McSweeney (R) 48
Reality: Bean 51 - McSweeney 44

IL-10
Prediction: Mark Kirk (R-inc.) 52 - Dan Seals (D) 47
Reality: Kirk 53 - Seals 47
I think Seals can win this one in 2008. Also I love when CNN calls IL-08 a "key race" and it turns out to be not as close as IL-10. Smooth. I love pompous journalists who claim an "inside scoop" on which races are the most contested, and then they really have no better idea than you would if you spent the weekend before the election looking at polls (which is probably what they actually did) or wrote 18,000 words predicting races. For the record, no campaigns that I failed to cover switched party control.

Indiana-02:
Prediction: Joe Donnelly (D) 53 - Chris Chocola (R-inc.) 47
Reality: Donnelly 54 - Chocola 46

IN-03:
Prediction: Mark Souder (R-inc.) 54 - Tim Hayhurst (D) 44
Reality: Souder 54 - Hayhurst 46

IN-07:
Prediction: Julia Carson (D-inc.) 52 - Eric Dickerson (R) 48
Reality: Carson 54 - Dickerson 46
Hey look, three races in the same state that had the same percentage result! Also, I really hope Carson either gets healthy, campaigns more, or retires from Congress next time. This one could be close.

IN-08:
Prediction: Brad Ellsworth (D) 53 - John Hostettler (R-inc.) 46
Reality: Ellsworth 61 - Hostettler 39
"Hostettler has a great ground game," I said. "This one will be close," I said. I wonder how many other House incumbents failed to break 40.

IN-09:
Prediction: Baron Hill (D) 50 - Mike Sodrel (R-inc.) 49
Reality: Hill 50 - Sodrel 46
Outside of Texas, the only House Democrat to lose his seat in 2004 or 2006 is Baron Hill. And now he's back!

Iowa-GOV:
Prediction: Chet Culver (D) 52 - Jim Nussle (R) 47
Reality: Culver 54 - Nussle 44

IA-01:
Prediction: Bruce Braley (D) 53 - Mike Whalen (R) 46
Reality: Braley 55 - Whalen 43
I give myself more credit than this looks here. The polls were close!

IA-03:
Prediction: Leonard Boswell (D-inc.) 54 - Jeff Lamberti (R) 46
Reality: Boswell 52 - Lamberti 46
I know that Lamberti is the state Senate President, but this still doesn't bode well for 2008.

Kansas-GOV:
Prediction: Kathleen Sebelius (D-inc.) 55 - Jim Barnett (R) 45
Reality: Sebelius 58 - Barnett 40
I cannot give myself credit here; the polls were never close. Sebelius is Kos' early pick for VP in 2008. Did you notice that the state Attorney General who tried to find out who had had abortions lost?

KS-02:
Prediction: Nancy Boyda (D) 50 - Jim Ryun (R-inc.) 49
Reality: Boyda 51 - Ryun 47
Note that it is not an upset if I predicted it correctly. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ignored this race until the last week or so, coming in with a big ad buy at the last minute. This is the first instance I've seen in politics of lulling someone into a false sense of security actually working.

Kentucky-02:
Prediction: Ron Lewis (R-inc.) 53 - Mike Weaver (D) 46
Reality: Lewis 55 - Weaver 45

KY-03:
Prediction: John Yarmuth (D) 52 - Anne Northup (R-inc.) 47
Reality: Yarmuth 51 - Northup 48
I dislike Jack Conway less for not helping us in 2004 now that we (eventually) took the seat back this time. To recap: Jack Conway almost beat Northup in 2002, declined to help Tony Miller much in 2004 so that Miller would lose and Conway could run again in 2006, Miller wound up losing by so much that it scared Conway off from running in 2006, and then somebody else ran and won the seat. That's good irony. But it's water under the bridge, and if he wants to run for governor in 2007, all the best. This was one of the first dominoes to fall for Team Republican on election night, and conservative commentators sounded upset that voters turfed out some kind of sweetheart hero who stood up so well for her constituents. That's not true. Anne Northup's campaigns are so genuinely mean that I can't imagine anyone would ever want her back in the public sphere. She has no significant accomplishments in Congress that a member of Congress isn't supposed to do already, and her signature effort, building two bridges between Louisville and Indiana to ease congestion, hasn't even broken ground after her ten years in Congress. This and her personal style (from what I've seen) make me think she won't have much more success in the future even without pointing out some of the more unsavory stories I've heard. Good riddance.

KY-04:
Prediction: Geoff Davis (R-inc.) 52 - Ken Lucas (D) 48
Reality: Davis 51 - Lucas 44
Lucas is reputed to be the only Democrat who can win in this district, so that's depressing. Also, I paid close attention to this district in 2004 when George Clooney's dad ran, and this district never seems to have public polling.

Louisiana-02:
Prediction: William Jefferson (D-inc.) 42 - Everyone else 48
Reality: Jefferson 30 - Everyone else 70
Since Jefferson was under 50% in this open primary, there's a runoff next month. I think he's done.

Maine-GOV:
Prediction: John Baldacci (D) 39 - Chandler Woodcock (R) 35 - Barbara Merrill (I) 16 - Pat LeMarche (G) 10
Reality: Baldacci 38 - Woodcock 30 - Merrill 21 - LeMarche 10
You know, for a four-way race this isn't half bad. I mostly overstated Woodcock's support and understated Merrill's support by about 5%. Also, rumor has it that we're finally going to get a top-tier Senate candidate in Maine next time, which is very exciting.

Maryland-SEN:
Prediction: Ben Cardin (D) 52 - Michael Steele (R) 47
Reality: Cardin 54 - Steele 44
I wish I could say Steele was done, but even if he missed out on RNC chair he's still going to get a TV show and run again sometime soon, either for governor in 2010 or Senate again when Mikulski retires. Funny how these Democratic-held Senate seats looked close at the time, and yet none of them turned out that way.

MD-01:
Prediction: Roscoe Bartlett (R-inc.) 56 - Andrew Duck (D) 42
Reality: Bartlett 59 - Duck 39
It's hard for me to fault candidates who get results like this too much, since this is pretty much the result of both of the non-presidential races I worked on. Still, that's pretty disappointing.

Massachusetts-GOV:
Prediction: Deval Patrick (D) 58 - Kerry Healey (R) 29 - Christy Mihos (I) 11
Reality: Patrick 56 - Healey 35 - Mihos 7
Kerry Healey did a smidgen better than I thought she would, but this was a landslide for pretty much the entire campaign. This is the first time a Democrat has been governor of Massachusetts since Dukakis.

Michigan-GOV:
Prediction: Jennifer Granholm (D-inc.) 53 - Dick DeVos (R) 46
Reality: Granholm 56 - DeVos 42
Earlier in the summer, DeVos had leads in this race outside the margin of error. It must have been tough for Granholm to hold her fire while he attacked her throughout the summer, but she saved her money for the fall and it paid off. She successfully turned the massive job losses in the state to a referendum on Bush, by blaming the president and linking Bush to DeVos. That's very slick.

MI-SEN:
Prediction: Debbie Stabenow (D-inc.) 52 - Michael Bouchard (R) 47
Reality: Stabenow 57 - Bouchard 41
If I had to make a prediction on this race a year or so ago, I probably would have guessed something very close to the eventual result. Michigan polls looked soggy for Democratic candidates for a while, though, and Republicans put a ton of money into Michigan in the final week of the campaign. Looks like a smooth move now!

MI-11:
Prediction: Thaddeus McCotter (R-inc.) 60 - Tony Trupiano (D) 40
Reality: McCotter 54 - Trupiano 43
Apparently this is a swing district in presidential races, and I wouldn't be surprised if it became more competitive in future cycles. Actually, two Democratic challengers in Michigan came within five and six points of actually winning, which I totally didn't see coming.

Minnesota-SEN:
Prediction: Amy Klobuchar (D) 60 - Mark Kennedy (R) 39
Reality: Klobuchar 58 - Kennedy 38
I had been worried at the start of the cycle that Minnesota Democrats never seemed to put up all-star candidates for federal office, but Klobuchar turned out to be a really terrific candidate. I just hope Al Franken's as good when he tries to turf out Norm Coleman in 2008.

MN-02:
Prediction: John Kline (R-inc.) 55 - Colleen Rowley (D) 44
Reality: Kline 56 - Rowley 40

MN-06:
Prediction: Michele Bachmann (R) 50 - Patty Wetterling (D) 49
Reality: Bachmann 50 - Wetterling 42
Patty Wetterling has a compelling personal story, but I'm starting to wonder whether she can translate those skills into the political arena.

Missouri-SEN:
Prediction: Claire McCaskill (D) 51 - Jim Talent (R-inc.) 49
Reality: McCaskill 50 - Talent 47
McCaskill won by having a strong rural performance, apparently regretting not doing much outside of St. Louis and Kansas City on her unsuccessful 2004 run for governor. This is both a good sign for whatever dynamo we put up as our presidential candidate in 2008: I think rural voters, especially outside the South, are much softer Republicans than the national commentariat believes.

Montana-SEN:
Prediction: Jon Tester (D) 51 - Conrad Burns (R-inc.) 48
Reality: Tester 49 - Burns 48
Conrad Burns has already yelled at reporters that he doesn't have to deal with them anymore.

Nebraska-SEN:
Prediction: Ben Nelson (D-inc.) 62 - Pete Ricketts (R) 27
Reality: Nelson 64 - Ricketts 36
This may have been my worst prediction in terms of math. You would think that if I predicted third-party candidates to take 11% of the vote I could have checked first to see if literally any third-party candidates were running. Not so much. In any event, this stomping more or less makes Ben Nelson the leader of prairie Democrats and hopefully helps him prevent a serious challenge next time he runs. Also I'm pretty sure this means that Ricketts' first run at public office is also his last.

NE-01:
Prediction: Jeff Fortenberry (R-inc.) 55 - Maxine Moul 44
Reality: Fortenberry 59 - Moul 41
For the record, the generally ignored 2nd district was much closer than this, coming in at 55-45.

Nevada-SEN:
Prediction: John Ensign (R-inc.) 58 - Jack Carter (D) 41
Reality: Ensign 55 - Carter 41

NV-02:
Prediction: Dean Heller (R) 53 - Jill Derby (D) 47
Reality: Heller 51 - Derby 45

NV-03:
Prediction: Jon Porter (R-inc.) 52 - Tessa Hafen (D) 47
Reality: Porter 48 - Hafen 47
I can't really claim an understanding of the dynamics of this race, but Hafen is a former Harry Reid press secretary, so Reid's support may have helped keep this one close.

New Hampshire-GOV:
Prediction: John Lynch (D-inc.) 69 - Jim Coburn (R) 28
Reality: Lynch 74 - Coburn 26
You know this is an unusual year when you predict the Democratic candidate for governor in New Hampshire to take 69% of the vote and he actually exceeds your expectations. That's ridiculous. Actually, this is the fifth time out of six that a Democrat has won the governor's race in this state, and in addition to the House pickups in the next post, Democrats took the state House and Senate too. This is not a minor accomplishment: apparently Democrats last had control of both houses of the state legislature just before World War I, and since then Democrats controlled the state Senate for only one term, by a 13-11 margin, and haven't controlled the 400-member state House since. Democrats now control the Senate 14-10 and, after picking up roughly 80 seats, now control the House too. I can't overstate the psychological impact this has on New Hampshire politics: generation after generation of Republican speakers have run the state House, with the only question being whether they're conservative or really conservative. In fact, last term the House Speaker was Doug Scamman and the Democratic Leader was Jim Craig, and their fathers had been House Speaker and Democratic Leader back in the 50s. Some things look like they'll never change, and then, before you know it, it's a whole new ballgame. Lynch has ruled himself out of a Senate run against John Sununu in 2008, though Jeanne Shaheen is considering a rematch. I've been hoping for that outcome: I think Lynch will make a terrific Senate candidate when Judd Gregg comes up for reelection in 2010.

NH-02:
Prediction: Paul Hodes (D) 52 - Charlie Bass (R-inc.) 47
Reality: Hodes 53 - Bass 45
There was a great shot in the Union Leader of Hodes fist-pumping when he won. He plays guitar too: lawyers can be cool.

New Jersey-SEN:
Prediction: Bob Menendez (D-inc.) 53 - Tom Kean Jr. (R) 47
Reality: Menendez 53 - Kean 45
I am concerned that Kean will make another run at this in 2008 against Frank Lautenberg in 2008, who apparently wants to run for reelection despite being 84 and one of the least popular senators in the country.

NJ-07:
Prediction: Mike Ferguson (R-inc.) 56 - Linda Stender (D) 44
Reality: Ferguson 49 - Stender 48
For the record, I only brought this race up in my prediction to dismiss Stender's chances. This was the closest I came to missing a campaign that wound up switching hands. I have changed my opinion on Stender, and I hope she can pull it off in 2008.

New York-GOV:
Prediction: Eliot Spitzer (D) 70 - John Faso (R) 27
Reality: Spitzer 69 - Faso 29
You know Spitzer's a failed governor out of the gate given that he can't even take 70 percent of the vote statewide. That said, always nice when your opponent can't crack 30. Someone asked me who they should support for governor a few days before the election, and I thought they were joking.

NY-SEN:
Prediction: Hillary Clinton (D-inc.) 63 - John Spencer (R) 34
Reality: Clinton 67 - Spencer 31
Unlike every other campaign staff in the country, Senator Clinton's top-level campaign team is going to stay on through December 31st. This is just for clean-up and stuff, and there's no connection between her top strategists staying on board for no reason and anything else she may be planning on doing. Also, although the $30 million she spent on this campaign obviously went largely to 2008 preparation, I am no longer convinced that she's that much of a frontrunner. This is going to be the most crowded Democratic field in decades, and I'm not convinced that Barack Obama won't do better than her in early polling (note that John Edwards has already topped her in Iowa polling), and no one besides White House alums seem to want her as their first choice. We may have to wait for President Herseth before we have a First Husband.

NY-Comptroller
Prediction: Alan Hevesi (D-inc.) 49 - Chris Callaghan (R) 48
Reality: Hevesi 56 - Callaghan 39
Man, thank goodness that's over.

NY-03:
Prediction: Peter King (R-inc.) 57 - Dave Mejias (D) 41
Reality: King 56 - Mejias 44
I think this one can become competitive in 2008.

NY-19:
Prediction: John Hall (D) 52 - Sue Kelly (R-inc.) 47
Reality: Hall 51 - Kelly 49
I'm still not sure exactly what Sue Kelly did to lose, but I guess being a Republican was good enough in competitive districts this year. Also, despite having been a 70s rocker, John Hall is the most conservative-looking of all the Democratic challengers I saw this year.

NY-20:
Prediction: Kirsten Gillibrand (D) 54 - John Sweeney (R-inc.) 46
Reality: Gillibrand 53 - Sweeney 47
Does this mean there's an opening at Boies Schiller?

NY-24:
Prediction: Mike Arcuri (D) 52 - Ray Meier (R) 47
Reality: Arcuri 54 - Meier 45
It's hard to say early on which seats will be uncompetitive in 2008; so much depends on who steps up. But this was a Republican-held open seat, with strong challengers on each side, and Arcuri still won by nine points. Hopefully that scares off a few folks.

NY-25:
Prediction: Jim Walsh (R-inc.) 53 - Dan Maffei (D) 46
Reality: Walsh 51 - Maffei 49
Awesome! I was concerned my prediction skewed too heavily Democratic. Too bad the blogosphere and the DCCC both ignored this district.

NY-26:
Prediction: Tom Reynolds (R-inc.) 54 - Jack Davis (D) 46
Reality: Reynolds 52 - Davis 48
I wonder how this would have gone if the Democratic candidate had gone out and campaigned? Also, I hear this one turned on a freak snowstorm last month that allowed Reynolds to come home and play the experienced congressman who knew how to pull the levers of Washington to get federal help for the district.

North Carolina-11:
Prediction: Heath Shuler (D) 56 - Charles Taylor (R-inc.) 44
Reality: Shuler 54 - Taylor 46
I just like saying "Congressman Shuler." Also, the national pundits seem to think that Heath Shuler is the world's most conservative Democrat, and they're right. Congressman-elect Shuler's first substantive post-election event was about unfair trade agreements with Senator-elect Sherrod Brown, who as we all know is way too liberal to be elected statewide in Ohio. The lesson: there's a reason they're nationally recognized political analysts and I'm some chump with a blog.

Ohio-GOV:
Prediction: Ted Strickland (D) 60 - Kenneth Blackwell (R) 39
Reality: Strickland 60 - Blackwell 37

OH-SEN:
Prediction: Sherrod Brown (D) 54 - Mike DeWine (R-inc.) 46
Reality: Brown 56 - DeWine 44
Sherrod Brown is way too liberal to be elected statewide in Ohio.

OH-06:
Prediction: Charlie Wilson (D) 55 - Chuck Blasdel (R) 45
Reality: Wilson 62 - Blasdel 38
This may not be the swing district I suspected.

OH-12:
Prediction: Pat Tiberi (R-inc.) 58 - Bob Shamansky (D) 41
Reality: Tiberi 58 - Shamansky 42
I completely made up this prediction, and I was so close to getting it right!

OH-13:
Prediction: Betty Sutton (D) 56 - Craig Foltin (R) 43
Reality: Sutton 61 - Foltin 39
This also may not be much of a swing district.

OH-18:
Prediction: Zack Space (D) 55 - Joy Padgett (R) 44
Reality: Space 62 - Padgett 38
The spread here is because of scandal, but I'm still impressed. Space may actually pull this one out in 2008.

Oklahoma-GOV:
Prediction: Brad Henry (D-inc.) 58 - Ernest Istook (R) 42
Reality: Henry 67 - Istook 33
I don't even know why I do this stuff sometimes; I thought I had both candidates and the state dynamics pegged, and I'm still nine points off. Note that Istook is a sitting congressman in a rock-red Republican state. What do you think it feels like to run for governor as a congressman, lose, and then come back to Washington for the lame-duck session? By the way, I hope Henry runs for Senate someday.

Oregon-GOV:
Prediction: Ted Kulongoski (D-inc.) 53 - Ron Saxton (R) 46
Reality: Kulongoski 51 - Saxton 43
Hearing Kulongoski tell it, electoral challenges are more like nuisances. Oh, there's always someone wanting to take you out in the primary if you stand up to unions right before an election year. Oh, the Republicans always come up with somebody. I'm impressed these challenges always seem to end up as unimpressive as he makes them look.

Pennsylvania-GOV:
Prediction: Ed Rendell (D-inc.) 57 - Lynn Swann (R) 42
Reality: Rendell 60 - Swann 40
On Election Day, I saw a van go by with speakers on top, exhorting us all to go vote for Ed Rendell. That's right, Back To The Future style. That made my day. (Actually, maybe taking back the House and Senate made my day. Or at least Anne Northup losing.) So what does Rendell do after this? I don't think he's viable as a presidential candidate, and he's already been DNC chair. I figure either he gets a national TV talk show or he runs for Senate in 2010. I'm happy with either.

PA-SEN:
Prediction: Bob Casey Jr. (D) 55 - Rick Santorum (R-inc.) 45
Reality: Casey 59 - Santorum 41
This race would have gone the other way had I not walked through Philadelphia for a few hours on the afternoon of election day making sure all the polling places were functional. The major crisis that day was a Democratic city committee member passing out "How do you know your vote counted? You don't" cards that a voter considered electioneering. (It's not: that's just issue advocacy, even if it should still probably be outside the polling place.) Anyway, this was high-level stuff well out of the intellectual range of anyone who's not in law school, so it's good they had us doing it. Alas, Santorum has decided that the support of 41% of the Keystone State is not enough to propel him to the presidency. I'm a little disappointed: I was hoping he would help splinter the socially conservative vote and help nominate someone who doesn't really scare me. (As for gaming out the other side's presidential primary, let's just remember that the Carter White House was thrilled when Reagan won the nomination.) I think Casey is a good guy, and hopefully he'll be progressive enough in the Senate that he'll avoid a primary in six years.

PA-07:
Prediction: Joe Sestak (D) 54 - Curt Weldon (R-inc.) 44
Reality: Sestak 56 - Weldon 44
Man, good riddance. I also like saying "Sestak."

PA-10:
Prediction: Chris Carney (D) 54 - Don Sherwood (R) 45
Reality: Carney 53 - Sherwood 47
The only reason it was this close is because this is such a Republican-leaning district. Carney will face a tough challenge next time around.

Rhode Island-GOV:
Prediction: Don Carcieri (R-inc.) 53 - Charlie Fogarty (D) 45
Reality: Carcieri 51 - Fogarty 49
Wow! I don't know anyone who seriously thought Fogarty would win or even come this close. I wonder if he's a great campaigner or if the DSCC just turned out a bunch of Whitehouse voters and this is a subsidiary result. Also, this means 16 straight years of Republican rule in the great state of Rhode Island. Think Lincoln Chafee will run for governor in 2010 as a Democrat?

RI-SEN:
Prediction: Sheldon Whitehouse (D) 52 - Lincoln Chafee (R-inc.) 47
Reality: Whitehouse 53 - Chafee 47
Finally, what might be the most liberal state in the union finally has two Democratic senators. Chafee said after the election that he might leave the Republican Party, which might be the best example I've seen of "too little, too late." I have heard that Whitehouse is not unbelievably intellectually rigorous, which I hope is not true.

South Carolina-GOV:
Prediction: Mark Sanford (R-inc.) 56 - Tommy Moore (D) 43
Reality: Sanford 55 - Moore 45
The funny thing is that I checked out this result a day or so after the election and saw that Sanford had only won 51-49. I was shocked and amazed, to say nothing of thrilled for the future of South Carolina Democrats. Then I came back just now and discovered, actually, South Carolina just counts ballots really slowly. This is still a good showing.

SC-05:
Prediction: John Spratt (D) 56 - Ralph Norman (R) 42
Reality: Spratt 57 - Norman 43

South Dakota: Referendum to repeal the abortion ban
Prediction: Fail 55 - 45
Reality: Fail 56 - 44

Tennessee-SEN:
Prediction: Bob Corker (R) 54 - Harold Ford Jr. (D) 46
Reality: Corker 51 - Ford 48
Lost in the shuffle over Democrats taking back the Senate was the fact that Harold Ford did really, really well, and much better than predicted by the final polls. For an African-American Democrat to pull 48% of the vote in a Tennessee Senate race is nothing short of remarkable. I'm not sure Ford has any better chance against Lamar Alexander in 2008, but I do hope he runs.

Texas-GOV:
Prediction: Rick Perry (R-inc.) 38 - Chris Bell (D) 25 - Carole Strayhorn (I) 24 - Kinky Friedman (I) 11
Reality: Perry 39 - Bell 30 - Strayhorn 18 - Friedman 12
In my preview, I didn't sufficiently criticize Rick Perry's reelection slogan, "I'm proud of Texas. How 'bout you?" Besides the fact that being proud of your state and its people is elitist and offensive if you're from the northeast, this is a ridiculous argument: "if you're proud of the state you live in, vote to reelect its governor." First, I'm pretty sure there was Texas pride before Rick Perry inherited the governorship, so this boils down to "I didn't wreck the place," which for all I know isn't even true. (OK, it's true.) Also, everyone not between the ages of 14 and 18 is proud of the place they live in. Who wants to say "I live in a shithole?" Now Rick Perry's argument becomes, "I want to like the place I live in. How 'bout you?" Finally, I know this is rare in Texas-bred politicians, but the either/or proposition discourages a thoughtful approach to government. "I'm sorry, you want to fix the state water distribution system? Why aren't you proud of Texas?" Myself, I'm proud of Texas for letting the Democrat crack 30 in a four-way race. Apparently we may have some pretty good Senate candidates in 2008 against unpopular Senator John Cornyn too.

TX-17:
Prediction: Chet Edwards (D-inc.) 54 - Van Taylor (R) 46
Reality: Edwards 58 - Taylor 40

TX-22:
Prediction: Nick Lampson (D) 53 - Shelley Sekula-Gibbs (R) 41
Reality: Lampson 52 - Sekula-Gibbs 42
Even though I didn't get it right, this may be my favorite prediction on account of the difficulty of predicting a write-in performance. Sekula-Gibbs, mind you, is now a congresswoman, having won the special election the same day to hold Tom DeLay's seat until the next Congress takes office in January. It's worth noting that Tom DeLay's old staffers all resigned within two or three days of her taking office. (I repeat: these are the people who thought it was acceptable to work for Tom DeLay.) She called for a congressional investigation into this serious problem. She also became upset when neither the President of the United States nor the Vice President of the United States came to her congressional office opening, and she expects to solve the immigration problem during her seven weeks in lame-duck office. She may not be the Republican nominee in 2008.

Vermont-SEN:
Prediction: Bernie Sanders (I) 59 - Richard Tarrant (R) 38
Reality: Sanders 65 - Tarrant 32

VT-AL:
Prediction: Peter Welch (D) 51 - Martha Rainville (R) 46
Reality: Welch 53 - Rainville 45

Virginia-SEN:
Prediction: Jim Webb (D) 52 - George Allen (R-inc.) 48
Reality: Webb 50 - Allen 49
I am really, really happy that George Allen is out of the Senate. If he and Mark Warner run for governor in 2009, though, that would be one hell of a campaign.

VA-10:
Prediction: Frank Wolf (R-inc.) 54 - Judy Feder (D) 44
Reality: Wolf 57 - Feder 41
So do you think this affects Feder's standing as dean of Georgetown's school of public policy? Also, Wolf is a profile in courage; he came back from Iraq in September 2005 and told everyone how much Iraq is improving. Now, after the election, he points out that Iraq was unbelievably dangerous in September 2005 and he's not surprised it's gotten this bad. Way to buck the party line!

Washington-SEN:
Prediction: Maria Cantwell (D-inc.) 53 - Mike McGavick (R) 47
Reality: Cantwell 57 - McGavick 40
Ha!

WA-05:
Prediction: Cathy McMorris (R-inc.) 53 - Peter Goldmark (D) 46
Reality: McMorris 56 - Goldmark 44
Peter Goldmark is currently the Haverford alum most likely to be elected to Congress in 2008.

WA-08:
Prediction: Dave Reichert (R-inc.) 52 - Darcy Burner (D) 48
Reality: Reichert 51 - Burner 49
This one hurt both because Burner is a fantastic candidate who I really hope goes far and because for some reason the votes took a week to come in. And this was largely Seattle too, not exactly the most rural place on earth. I blame Dave Reichert.

West Virginia-SEN:
Prediction: Robert Byrd (D-inc) 62 - John Raese (R) 37
Reality: Byrd 64 - Raese 34
I decided to go back and see when the last time was when Robert Byrd's vote percentage was greater than his age. In 1982, Byrd was 64 when he won reelection with 68% of the vote. 2006 is actually his worst performance since being elected to the Senate in 1964.

WV-01:
Prediction: Alan Mollohan (D-inc.) 58 - Chris Wakim (R) 41
Reality: Mollohan 64 - Wakim 36
I try to avoid gloating, but I love thinking back to the pickups Republicans were supposedly going to make this cycle, and then seeing how they did.

WV-02:
Prediction: Shelley Moore Capito (R-inc.) 56 - Mike Callaghan (D) 44
Reality: Capito 57 - Callaghan 43

Wisconsin-GOV:
Prediction: Jim Doyle (D-inc.) 53 - Mark Green (R) 46
Reality: Doyle 53 - Green 45

Posted by Terry McMahon at 9:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I'll do some election recaps on Thursday. They may be shorter than the 18,000 words I put into the election preview. In the meantime, I'll link this YouTube video which is both outdated and really, totally awesome. I never knew George Michael could see so clearly what was going to happen. Or he was writing about Wham!, but it's still awesome. Link

Posted by Terry McMahon at 2:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

For the record, I did some checking and my 18,000-word election preview below is by far the longest thing I've ever written, which is both fantastic and frightening.

I also wanted to thank everyone who's been stopping by today, mostly through Technorati and Google Blog Search. Although I knew it was happening already, it's nice to see that there are people out there looking up Mike Arcuri, Kirsten Gillibrand, Tony Trupiano, Michael Steele, and "ted poe freak." Thanks for stopping by!

Posted by Terry McMahon at 9:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

WY-AL (Republican-held)
Gary Trauner (D) 49 - Barbara Cubin (R) 47
Winning this one would be nice. The district covers the entire state of Wyoming, which voted overwhelmingly for Bush in both his runs for president. The current incumbent is Barbara Cubin, who once said on the House floor that all African-Americans in African-American communities are being treated for drug use and most recently told her Libertarian opponent after the debate that she would have slapped him in the face if he wasn't in that chair. No, she didn't need leverage; the guy has MS and uses a wheelchair. Fortunately, our Democratic candidate is an all-star who has hit well over 10,000 homes in the district and seems like an upstanding guy. He'll be about a million times better than his opponent.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 2:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Governor (Democratic-held)
Jim Doyle (D) 53 - Mark Green (R) 46
Wait, I forgot, Mark Green is Republican congressman #5 who may lose both his state's gubernatorial race and cost his party his congressional seat. Doyle almost definitely would have lost had popular former governor Tommy Thompson decided to enter the race, but given that the Republicans only have Green and everything he's voted for in Washington, Doyle has been able to keep a noticeable if unexciting lead.

WI-08 (Open, Republican-held)
John Gard (R) 54 - Steve Kagen (D) 45
Actually, despite what I just said above, I don't think this result will be very close. It's always good to see doctors like Kagen running as Democrats, but this district is apparently fairly conservative and Gard is the speaker of the WIsconsin Assembly, so he's got some political experience already. It would be nice to see an upset here but I doubt it'll happen this time.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 2:24 AM |