Topic: Cap and Trade
CQ: "Much of the credit for the strong showing went to the Club for Growth"
Posted on Apr. 25, 11 | 09:57 AM by Barney Keller | Topic: Cap and Trade
Today's CQ gives the Club for Growth credit for pushing spending federal spending cuts and the BBA:
Club Takes Notes On Budget Votes
Permalink: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=15028
Member Comments (0) Add a Comment
Club Takes Notes On Budget Votes
CQ Weekly, 4/25/11
By Alan K. Ota, CQ Staff
Just before the spring recess, a faction of House Republicans came close to victory on a fiscal 2012 budget pushing spending cuts even deeper than the resolution offered by Budget Committee Chairman Paul D. Ryan , R-Wis. The alternative budget drafted by the Republican Study Committee nearly succeeded before party leaders worked the floor to switch enough votes to defeat the plan, 119-136. (Most Democrats voted “present.”)
Much of the credit for the strong showing went to the Club for Growth, a group of anti-tax, small-government evangelists who sometimes back primary challenges to Republicans the group doesn’t think are conservative enough. Club president Chris Chocola had staged a blitz in favor of the plan offered by the most conservative wing of the House GOP.
Now the club is prodding Republicans to back an ambitious balanced-budget constitutional amendment cosponsored by the group’s former president, Sen. Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania, and his 46 Senate GOP colleagues, that also would cap spending at 18 percent of gross domestic product.
...
Chocola has not decided whether to punish House Republicans if they spurn Toomey’s proposal in favor of a weaker alternative, which has 219 cosponsors. But he makes it clear his group won’t brook excuses in counting its key votes for this year. “There are no asterisks on our score card,” Chocola said.
Many Republican incumbents fear the club’s clout in primaries, says former Republican Rep. Bill Frenzel of Minnesota, a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution. “The safer your district,” Frenzel says, “the more trouble you are in.”
Member Comments (0) Add a Comment
Club for Growth Hails Senate Repeal Effort
Posted on Feb. 02, 11 | 06:31 PM by Michael Connolly | Topic: Cap and Trade
WASHINGTON – The Club for Growth today commended the 47 Senators who voted for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s ObamaCare repeal amendment, and urged future votes on repeal legislation throughout the 112th Congress.
“Today’s vote reconfirms that the fight to repeal ObamaCare continues to gain strength,” said Club President Chris Chocola. “The majority of Americans want it repealed, the majority of states are suing to overturn in, the House of Representatives passed a repeal bill, and now the Senate has come within four votes of a majority in support of repeal. This issue isn’t going away -- too many jobs, too many lives, too much freedom is at stake. The fight for health care freedom will not end until it is it won.”
The Club for Growth launched its Repeal It project last January, before ObamaCare was even passed. Since then, more than 400 federal lawmakers and candidates have signed a pledge to repeal the federal health care takeover.
“The Club for Growth commends Senator Jim DeMint for first introducing this legislation, and Senator McConnell for forcing today’s vote, and we encourage all Senators to continue bringing repeal legislation to the floor until it is passed into law,” Chocola added.
###
Permalink: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14732
Member Comments (4)
“Today’s vote reconfirms that the fight to repeal ObamaCare continues to gain strength,” said Club President Chris Chocola. “The majority of Americans want it repealed, the majority of states are suing to overturn in, the House of Representatives passed a repeal bill, and now the Senate has come within four votes of a majority in support of repeal. This issue isn’t going away -- too many jobs, too many lives, too much freedom is at stake. The fight for health care freedom will not end until it is it won.”
The Club for Growth launched its Repeal It project last January, before ObamaCare was even passed. Since then, more than 400 federal lawmakers and candidates have signed a pledge to repeal the federal health care takeover.
“The Club for Growth commends Senator Jim DeMint for first introducing this legislation, and Senator McConnell for forcing today’s vote, and we encourage all Senators to continue bringing repeal legislation to the floor until it is passed into law,” Chocola added.
###
Permalink: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14732
Member Comments (4)
Romney’s Big(ger) Problem
Posted on Feb. 01, 11 | 12:22 PM by Michael Connolly | Topic: Cap and Trade
Jen Rubin at Right Turn is right about the inadequacy, thus far, of Mitt Romney’s defense/explanation/answer about RomneyCare in Massachusetts. His tack, repeated this morning on ABC, has been a legalistic defense of states’ rights:
Remember that aside from health care, Romney’s biggest political vulnerability is the sneaking suspicion many conservatives have that Romney is a bit too slippery. His opponents in 2008 were able to show Romney’s “evolving” positions on everything from immigration to campaign finance reform to abortion.
In a political moment craving authenticity, and already carrying a bit of a reputation for flip-flops (however deserved), Romney may face even greater risks disavowing RomneyCare than in embracing it. Insufficient as Romney's current health care answer is, the current answer may be as good as it gets.
UPDATE: Another take is this, from Ben Smith at Politico, who thinks the legalistic nature of Romney's argument is actually a strength:
Member Comments (4)
“I’m not apologizing for it, I’m indicating that we went in one direction and there are other possible directions. I’d like to see states pursue their own ideas, see which ideas work best,” Romney told [George Stephanopoulos].
As Rubin notes, this probably isn’t good enough. But Romney’s problem may be worse than that. Remember that aside from health care, Romney’s biggest political vulnerability is the sneaking suspicion many conservatives have that Romney is a bit too slippery. His opponents in 2008 were able to show Romney’s “evolving” positions on everything from immigration to campaign finance reform to abortion.
In a political moment craving authenticity, and already carrying a bit of a reputation for flip-flops (however deserved), Romney may face even greater risks disavowing RomneyCare than in embracing it. Insufficient as Romney's current health care answer is, the current answer may be as good as it gets.
UPDATE: Another take is this, from Ben Smith at Politico, who thinks the legalistic nature of Romney's argument is actually a strength:
Romney's argument is now much stronger. Because the main objection to ObamaCare, as its critics call it, is no longer a matter of policy nuance. Now critics primarily make the case that it's an unconstitutional expansion of specifically federal power. And on that turf, the similar structure of the plans doesn't matter. Romney enacted his at a state level, and states have -- conservatives argue -- more power to regulate the insurance industry, as they do with car insurance.
Permalink: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14725
Member Comments (4)
McCotter's Analogy of the Tax Compromise
Posted on Dec. 20, 10 | 03:06 PM by Andrew Roth | Topic: Cap and Trade
Alluding to the new GOP majority in the House next year, Rep. Thad McCotter offers a great analogy for why he opposed the tax compromise:
Member Comments (0) Add a Comment
"Imagine prior to the Battle of the Little Big Horn, General Custer looking at his troops and saying, "We must strike now before there are more...of us."
Permalink: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14610
Member Comments (0) Add a Comment
Coming to Theaters April 15 -- Atlas Shrugged
Posted on Dec. 13, 10 | 11:45 AM by David Keating | Topic: Cap and Trade
After decades of waiting, and incredible twists and turns, Atlas Shrugged will finally appear as a film April 15.
There is an interesting Forbes article on the film and John Aglialoro, the Cybex CEO turned movie producer. After he acquired the film rights 18 years ago, he spent millions on screen adaptations, but could not put together the right studio deal, so he decided to produce it.
If you want to learn more and follow it to the release day, you have a choice of an official Facebook Fan Page, excellent outsider blog, and the official movie website (not yet live).
Permalink: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14584
Member Comments (2)
There is an interesting Forbes article on the film and John Aglialoro, the Cybex CEO turned movie producer. After he acquired the film rights 18 years ago, he spent millions on screen adaptations, but could not put together the right studio deal, so he decided to produce it.
If you want to learn more and follow it to the release day, you have a choice of an official Facebook Fan Page, excellent outsider blog, and the official movie website (not yet live).
Permalink: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14584
Member Comments (2)
Chocola on The Kudlow Report
Posted on Dec. 10, 10 | 08:52 AM by Michael Connolly | Topic: Cap and TradeCool It, the Movie
Posted on Nov. 22, 10 | 06:45 PM by David Keating | Topic: Cap and Trade
I've got to hand it to Bjorn Lomborg, author of the book “The Skeptical Environmentalist.” He's done it again, bringing calm analysis to a politically charged subject in the new documentary film "Cool It," which went into wide release over the weekend.
While you likely won't agree with everything in the film, keep in mind its audience for how to spend hundreds of billions -- the European Union, not Congress.
No, what is truly amazing how it can make writers at newspapers like The New York Times and The Washington Post reflect on the facts about climate change and reconsider Al Gore's scary documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth."
By the second half, however, Ms. Timoner has found her footing, and the film really digs in. Debunking claims made by “An Inconvenient Truth” and presenting alternative strategies, “Cool It” finally blossoms into an engrossing, brain-tickling picture as many of Al Gore’s meticulously graphed assertions are systematically — and persuasively — refuted. (I was intrigued to hear Mr. Lomborg say, for instance, that the polar-bear population is more endangered by hunters than melting ice.)
The New York Times Critics Pick Movie
"Cool It," in other words, is an attempt to rehabilitate Lomborg's image. But it also presents an alternative to solutions like cap-and-trade legislation. Several alternatives, in fact. If it's propaganda, it's surprisingly effective.
With the charismatic, articulate (and, yes, kind of hunky) Lomborg in front of the camera for much of the film - along with a parade of scientists who support his views - "Cool It" makes a convincing case that there are better things we can do than drive a Prius. Not that there's anything wrong with that, he says; it's just not going to solve much.
The Washington Post
With its follow-the-money mind-set, the documentary works its way through problem and solution many times over, always in a brisk, no-nonsense way. By bringing in a diverse group of big thinkers to take part in a very animated, sometimes agitated, discussion, the filmmaker has succeeded in bringing what could have been a very dry mountain of data, theories and experimental research to vibrant life.
Timoner came to the project a skeptic herself, and that serves the film well. Though the charismatic Lomborg is very much the center of the storm, she lines up an impressive number of experts from the environmental and scientific research community to stand on either side of the divide. Nearly every assertion Lomborg makes is met by a devil's advocate — though the late Stephen Schneider, Nobel winner, MacArthur fellow and long a professor of environmental biology at Stanford University, carries much of that load. Still, there is little doubt from the beginning who will win the final round.
The Los Angeles Times
The movie is a lot better than the trailer, and is worth seeing. Be sure to invite your liberal friends who loved Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth."
Permalink: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14513
Member Comments (1)
While you likely won't agree with everything in the film, keep in mind its audience for how to spend hundreds of billions -- the European Union, not Congress.
No, what is truly amazing how it can make writers at newspapers like The New York Times and The Washington Post reflect on the facts about climate change and reconsider Al Gore's scary documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth."
By the second half, however, Ms. Timoner has found her footing, and the film really digs in. Debunking claims made by “An Inconvenient Truth” and presenting alternative strategies, “Cool It” finally blossoms into an engrossing, brain-tickling picture as many of Al Gore’s meticulously graphed assertions are systematically — and persuasively — refuted. (I was intrigued to hear Mr. Lomborg say, for instance, that the polar-bear population is more endangered by hunters than melting ice.)
The New York Times Critics Pick Movie
"Cool It," in other words, is an attempt to rehabilitate Lomborg's image. But it also presents an alternative to solutions like cap-and-trade legislation. Several alternatives, in fact. If it's propaganda, it's surprisingly effective.
With the charismatic, articulate (and, yes, kind of hunky) Lomborg in front of the camera for much of the film - along with a parade of scientists who support his views - "Cool It" makes a convincing case that there are better things we can do than drive a Prius. Not that there's anything wrong with that, he says; it's just not going to solve much.
The Washington Post
With its follow-the-money mind-set, the documentary works its way through problem and solution many times over, always in a brisk, no-nonsense way. By bringing in a diverse group of big thinkers to take part in a very animated, sometimes agitated, discussion, the filmmaker has succeeded in bringing what could have been a very dry mountain of data, theories and experimental research to vibrant life.
Timoner came to the project a skeptic herself, and that serves the film well. Though the charismatic Lomborg is very much the center of the storm, she lines up an impressive number of experts from the environmental and scientific research community to stand on either side of the divide. Nearly every assertion Lomborg makes is met by a devil's advocate — though the late Stephen Schneider, Nobel winner, MacArthur fellow and long a professor of environmental biology at Stanford University, carries much of that load. Still, there is little doubt from the beginning who will win the final round.
The Los Angeles Times
Permalink: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14513
Member Comments (1)
Top 150 Most Vulnerable House Democratic Seats -- Final Update
Posted on Nov. 02, 10 | 05:21 PM by David Keating | Topic: Cap and Trade
Charlie Cook yesterday updated his race ratings in 16 House races, and then after I posted what I thought was the last update, Stu Rotheberg last night updated two more races. Both updates were in the Republican direction.
There are now 102 Democratic seats that can be classified as highly vulnerable, meaning no better than "lean Democratic."
Here are the current estimates by category:
* 59 seats are very slightly to safely Republican.
* 21 are toss ups.
* 22 are leaning Democratic.
To provide more detail, 32 seats are lean to solidly Republican. Another 27 are toss-up/tilt Republican. 20 are pure toss-up. Only 1 is toss-up/tilt Democrat.
Another 18 seats (down 4) are rated likely Democratic by at least one of the four, and in 8 cases two or more of the prognosticators.
Below is the list of the 150 Democratic seats most likely to switch.
Methodology:
I'm tracking four prognosticators who rate House races who I think do the best job -- Cook, Rothenberg, Sabato and CQ. My list of the Democratic seats most likely to switch is based on the most aggressive prognosticator in assessing the race in favor of the Republican. I have marked down Sabato to toss-up/tilt R if he is the only one at lean Republican. That's because Sabato forces his final picks out of the toss-up category, so to make his estimates comparable to the other three, I make that adjustment.
In the event of a tie between races, the prognosticator average breaks the tie and if the ranking is still tied, my computer rating of the voting behavior of the seat breaks that tie. Seats not considered in play by the four prognosticators are ranked based on my computer ranking of the seat's voting behavior and quality of the Republican nominee's campaign.
This analysis does NOT predict how many seats will flip to Republican. It just lists those that are at least somewhat competitive. It is likely that only a relative few of the seats listed after ranking #102 will flip to Republican. Don't expect more than at most a handful, if any, of the races labeled long shots to come in.
This list also does not include Republican seats in play. There are three that are likely to flip or leaning to the Democrats -- DE-AL (Castle, open), LA-2 (Cao), and IL-10 (Kirk, open).
Permalink: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14396
Member Comments (0) Add a Comment
There are now 102 Democratic seats that can be classified as highly vulnerable, meaning no better than "lean Democratic."
Here are the current estimates by category:
* 59 seats are very slightly to safely Republican.
* 21 are toss ups.
* 22 are leaning Democratic.
To provide more detail, 32 seats are lean to solidly Republican. Another 27 are toss-up/tilt Republican. 20 are pure toss-up. Only 1 is toss-up/tilt Democrat.
Another 18 seats (down 4) are rated likely Democratic by at least one of the four, and in 8 cases two or more of the prognosticators.
Below is the list of the 150 Democratic seats most likely to switch.
Methodology:
I'm tracking four prognosticators who rate House races who I think do the best job -- Cook, Rothenberg, Sabato and CQ. My list of the Democratic seats most likely to switch is based on the most aggressive prognosticator in assessing the race in favor of the Republican. I have marked down Sabato to toss-up/tilt R if he is the only one at lean Republican. That's because Sabato forces his final picks out of the toss-up category, so to make his estimates comparable to the other three, I make that adjustment.
In the event of a tie between races, the prognosticator average breaks the tie and if the ranking is still tied, my computer rating of the voting behavior of the seat breaks that tie. Seats not considered in play by the four prognosticators are ranked based on my computer ranking of the seat's voting behavior and quality of the Republican nominee's campaign.
This analysis does NOT predict how many seats will flip to Republican. It just lists those that are at least somewhat competitive. It is likely that only a relative few of the seats listed after ranking #102 will flip to Republican. Don't expect more than at most a handful, if any, of the races labeled long shots to come in.
This list also does not include Republican seats in play. There are three that are likely to flip or leaning to the Democrats -- DE-AL (Castle, open), LA-2 (Cao), and IL-10 (Kirk, open).
| Rank | 2010 Incumbent | District | Nominee | Rating | |
| 1 | Melancon | LA3 | Jeff Landry | Safe R | |
| 2 | Gordon | TN6 | Dianne Black | Safe R | |
| 3 | Ellsworth | IN8 | Larry Bucshon | Likely R | |
| 4 | Tanner | TN8 | Stephen Fincher | Likely R | |
| 5 | Snyder | AR2 | Tim Griffin | Likely R | |
| 6 | Moore, D. | KS3 | Kevin Yoder | Likely R | |
| 7 | Kilroy | OH15 | Steve Stivers | Likely R | |
| 8 | Markey | CO4 | Cory Gardner | Likely R | |
| 9 | Grayson | FL8 | Dan Webster | Likely R | |
| 10 | Halvorson | IL11 | Adam Kinzinger | Likely R | |
| 11 | Dahlkemper | PA3 | Mike Kelly | Likely R | |
| 12 | Edwards, C. | TX17 | Bill Flores | Likely R | |
| 13 | Massa | NY29 | Tom Reed | Likely R | |
| 14 | Kosmas | FL24 | Sandy Adams | Likely R | |
| 15 | Boyd | FL2 | Steve Southerland | Likely R | |
| 16 | Shea-Porter | NH1 | Frank Guinta | Likely R | |
| 17 | Kratovil | MD1 | Andy Harris | Lean R | |
| 18 | Driehaus | OH1 | Steve Chabot | Lean R | |
| 19 | Kagen | WI8 | Reid Ribble | Lean R | |
| 20 | Teague | NM2 | Steve Pearce | Lean R | |
| 21 | Marshall | GA8 | Austin Scott | Lean R | |
| 22 | Kirkpatrick | AZ1 | Paul Gosar | Lean R | |
| 23 | Nye | VA2 | Scott Rigell | Lean R | |
| 24 | Berry | AR1 | Rick Crawford | Lean R | |
| 25 | Titus | NV3 | Joe Heck | Lean R | |
| 26 | Perriello | VA5 | Robert Hurt | Lean R | |
| 27 | Stupak | MI1 | Dan Benishek | Lean R | |
| 28 | Baird | WA3 | Jaime Herrera | Lean R | |
| 29 | Hodes | NH2 | Charlie Bass | Lean R | |
| 30 | Sestak | PA7 | Pat Meehan | Lean R | |
| 31 | Spratt | SC5 | Mick Mulvaney | Lean R | |
| 32 | Boccieri | OH16 | Jim Renacci | Lean R | |
| 33 | Davis, L. | TN4 | Scott DesJarlais | Toss Up/Tilt R | |
| 34 | Pomeroy | ND1 | Richard Berg | Toss Up/Tilt R | |
| 35 | Herseth Sandlin | SD1 | Kristi Noem | Toss Up/Tilt R | |
| 36 | Foster | IL14 | Randy Hultgren | Toss Up/Tilt R | |
| 37 | Salazar | CO3 | Scott Tipton | Toss Up/Tilt R | |
| 38 | Hall, J. | NY19 | Nan Hayworth | Toss Up/Tilt R | |
| 39 | Mitchell | AZ5 | David Schweikert | Toss Up/Tilt R | |
| 40 | Kanjorski | PA11 | Lou Barletta | Toss Up/Tilt R | |
| 41 | Murphy | NY20 | Chris Gibson | Toss Up/Tilt R | |
| 42 | Murphy, P. | PA8 | Michael Fitzpatrick | Toss Up/Tilt R | |
| 43 | Obey | WI7 | Sean Duffy | Toss Up/Tilt R | |
| 44 | Hill | IN9 | Todd Young | Toss Up/Tilt R | |
| 45 | Carney | PA10 | Thomas Marino | Toss Up/Tilt R | |
| 46 | Mollohan | WV1 | David McKinley | Toss Up/Tilt R | |
| 47 | Schauer | MI7 | Tim Walberg | Toss Up/Tilt R | |
| 48 | Minnick | ID1 | Raul Labrador | Toss Up/Tilt R | |
| 49 | Childers | MS1 | Alan Nunnelee | Toss Up/Tilt R | |
| 50 | Adler | NJ3 | Jon Runyan | Toss Up/Tilt R | |
| 51 | Hare | IL17 | Bobby Schilling | Toss Up/Tilt R | |
| 52 | Space | OH18 | Bob Gibbs | Toss Up/Tilt R | |
| 53 | McNerney | CA11 | David Harmer | Toss Up/Tilt R | |
| 54 | Kissell | NC8 | Harold Johnson | Toss Up/Tilt R | |
| 55 | Rodriguez, C. | TX23 | Quico Canseco | Toss Up/Tilt R | |
| 56 | Klein | FL22 | Allen West | Toss Up/Tilt R | |
| 57 | Bishop, S. | GA2 | Mike Keown | Toss Up/Tilt R | |
| 58 | Bright | AL2 | Martha Roby | Toss Up/Tilt R | |
| 59 | Owens | NY23 | Matt Doheny | Toss Up/Tilt R | |
| 60 | Taylor | MS4 | Steven Palazzo | Toss Up | |
| 61 | Arcuri | NY24 | Richard Hanna | Toss Up | |
| 62 | Heinrich | NM1 | Johnathan L. Barela | Toss Up | |
| 63 | Schrader | OR5 | Scott Bruun | Toss Up | |
| 64 | Delahunt | MA10 | Jeff Perry | Toss Up | |
| 65 | Skelton | MO4 | Vicky Hartzler | Toss Up | |
| 66 | Giffords | AZ8 | Jesse Kelly | Toss Up | |
| 67 | Boucher | VA9 | Morgan Griffith | Toss Up | |
| 68 | Donnelly | IN2 | Jackie Walorski Swihart | Toss Up | |
| 69 | Connolly | VA11 | Keith Fimian | Toss Up | |
| 70 | Wilson, C. | OH6 | Bill Johnson | Toss Up | |
| 71 | Bishop | NY1 | Randy Altschuler | Toss Up | |
| 72 | Critz | PA12 | Tim Burns | Toss Up | |
| 73 | Costa | CA20 | Andy Vidak | Toss Up | |
| 74 | Larsen | WA2 | John Koster | Toss Up | |
| 75 | Grijalva | AZ7 | Ruth McClung | Toss Up | |
| 76 | Chandler | KY6 | Andy Barr | Toss Up | |
| 77 | McIntyre | NC7 | Ilario Pantano | Toss Up | |
| 78 | Pingree | ME1 | Dean Scontras | Toss Up | |
| 79 | Oberstar | MN8 | Chip Cravaack | Toss Up | |
| 80 | Etheridge | NC2 | Renee Ellmers | Toss Up/Tilt D | |
| 81 | Peters | MI9 | Rocky Raczkowski | Lean D | |
| 82 | Walz | MN1 | Randy Demmer | Lean D | |
| 83 | Sanchez, Loretta | CA47 | Van Tran | Lean D | |
| 84 | Boswell | IA3 | Brad Zaun | Lean D | |
| 85 | Kind | WI3 | Dan Kapanke | Lean D | |
| 86 | Loebsack | IA2 | Marianette Miller-Meeks | Lean D | |
| 87 | Kennedy, P. | RI1 | John Loughlin | Lean D | |
| 88 | Himes | CT4 | Dan Debicella | Lean D | |
| 89 | Shuler | NC11 | Jeff Miller | Lean D | |
| 90 | McMahon | NY13 | Michael Grimm | Lean D | |
| 91 | Altmire | PA4 | Keith Rothfus | Lean D | |
| 92 | Maffei | NY25 | Ann Marie Buerkle | Lean D | |
| 93 | Murphy, C. | CT5 | Sam Caliguri | Lean D | |
| 94 | Sutton | OH13 | Tom Ganley | Lean D | |
| 95 | Perlmutter | CO7 | Ryan Frazier | Lean D | |
| 96 | Braley | IA1 | Benjamin Lange | Lean D | |
| 97 | Carnahan | MO3 | Ed Martin | Lean D | |
| 98 | Ortiz | TX27 | Blake Farenthold | Lean D | |
| 99 | Michaud | ME2 | Jason Levesque | Lean D | |
| 100 | Hinchey | NY22 | George Phillips | Lean D | |
| 101 | Frank | MA4 | Sean Bielat | Lean D | |
| 102 | Matheson | UT2 | Morgan Philpot | Lean D | |
| 103 | Holden | PA17 | Dave Argall | Likely D | |
| 104 | Yarmuth | KY3 | Todd Lally | Likely D | |
| 105 | Rahall | WV3 | Elliot "Spike" Maynard | Likely D | |
| 106 | Bean | IL8 | Joe Walsh | Likely D | |
| 107 | Cardoza | CA18 | Michael Berryhill | Likely D | |
| 108 | Holt | NJ12 | Scott Sipprelle | Likely D | |
| 109 | Wu | OR1 | Rob Cornilles | Likely D | |
| 110 | Ross | AR4 | Beth Anne Rankin | Likely D | |
| 111 | DeFazio | OR4 | Art Robinson | Likely D | |
| 112 | Tierney | MA6 | Bill Hudak | Likely D | |
| 113 | Cooper | TN5 | David Hall | Likely D | |
| 114 | Lujan | NM3 | Thomas E. Mullins | Likely D | |
| 115 | Kucinich | OH10 | Peter Corrigan | Likely D | |
| 116 | Smith, Adam | WA9 | Dick Muri | Likely D | |
| 117 | Tsongas | MA5 | Jon Golnik | Likely D | |
| 118 | Barrow | GA12 | Ray McKinney | Likely D | |
| 119 | McCarthy, C. | NY4 | Fran Becker | Likely D | |
| 120 | Pallone Jr. | NJ6 | Anna Little | Likely D | |
| 121 | Dicks | WA6 | Doug Cloud | Long Shot | |
| 122 | Peterson | MN7 | Lee Byberg | Long Shot | |
| 123 | Boren | OK2 | Charles Thompson | Long Shot | |
| 124 | Cuellar | TX28 | Bryan Underwood | Long Shot | |
| 125 | Miller, B. | NC13 | Bill Randall | Long Shot | |
| 126 | Dingell | MI15 | Rob Steele | Long Shot | |
| 127 | Price, D. | NC4 | William "BJ" Lawson | Long Shot | |
| 128 | Doggett | TX25 | Donna Campbell | Long Shot | |
| 129 | Courtney | CT2 | Janet Peckinpaugh | Long Shot | |
| 130 | Filner | CA51 | Nick Popaditch | Long Shot | |
| 131 | Kaptur | OH9 | Rich Lott | Long Shot | |
| 132 | Weiner | NY9 | Bob Turner | Long Shot | |
| 133 | Capps | CA23 | Tom Watson | Long Shot | |
| 134 | Thompson, B. | MS2 | Bill Marcy | Long Shot | |
| 135 | Schwartz | PA13 | Carson Dee Adcock | Long Shot | |
| 136 | Polis | CO2 | Stephen Bailey | Long Shot | |
| 137 | Cleaver | MO5 | Jacob Turk | Long Shot | |
| 138 | Hinojosa | TX15 | Eddie Zamora | Long Shot | |
| 139 | Inslee | WA1 | James Watkins | Long Shot | |
| 140 | Israel | NY2 | John Gomez | Long Shot | |
| 141 | Castor | FL11 | Mike Prendergast | Long Shot | |
| 142 | Costello | IL12 | Teri Davis Newman | Long Shot | |
| 143 | Carson | IN7 | Marvin Scott | Long Shot | |
| 144 | Richardson | CA37 | Star Parker | Long Shot | |
| 145 | Schakowsky | IL9 | Joel Pollak | Long Shot | |
| 146 | Kildee | MI5 | John Kupiec | Long Shot | |
| 147 | Tonko | NY21 | Theodore Danz | Long Shot | |
| 148 | Higgins | NY27 | Lenny Roberto | Long Shot | |
| 149 | Gonzalez | TX20 | Clayton Trotter | Long Shot | |
| 150 | Sarbanes | MD3 | Jim Wilhelm | Long Shot |
Member Comments (0) Add a Comment
116 House Democratic Seats Now in Play
Posted on Oct. 12, 10 | 11:07 AM by David Keating | Topic: Cap and Trade
You may have seen my write up of the 150 Democratic seats most likely to switch. It's based on four top prognosticators and those four listed 111 in play.
Well last night, four more seats got added by Charlie Cook, going from Solid Democrat to Likely Democrat -- TX-27, NM-3, MA-4 and AZ-7.
These were ranked 112, 138, 142 and 149 on my list, so I think my list is doing a decent job of early radar for seats likely to be listed in play by the prognosticators.
I'll have an update on my top 150, hopefully later today. I was about to post it, but then a slew of new updates came out.
I'm sure some other seats will get added, or would bet a lot they will.
Keep in mind, a likely Democratic seat still means it is very likely the Democrat will win.
Some people have noticed the FiveThirtyEight projections. While I think it does a good job, its statistical model is not well suited to what may turn out to be a Black Swan election. Eventually FiveThirtyEight will pick up these shifts, so It is best thought of as a trailing indicator. I'm trying to make my list a leading indicator.
The seats now listed in play are given the following chances of flipping by FiveThirtyEight: 1.4%, 1.4%, 0% and 0.7%.
My top pick for the next "surprise" seat in play? MA-6. FiveThirtyEight says the Republican has a 0.2% chance of winning. I bet those odds will go up considerably in the coming weeks.
UPDATE: I'm sorry, but I just realized that the note that my list of races in play where I noted the rankings of 112, 138, 142 and 149 was based on a spreadsheet on my computer that I had not posted yet. Those races had moved onto my radar on my spreadsheet prior to Monday night's Cook updates but I had not had time to post them yet.
I have an update ready to go once Andy can format the table for me in HTML. This of course likely means that another set of updates will come out by the other three prognosticators.
Also, I miscounted. There are now 116 seats in play among Democratic seats. This post was earlier labeled as 115.
Permalink: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14248
Member Comments (9)
Well last night, four more seats got added by Charlie Cook, going from Solid Democrat to Likely Democrat -- TX-27, NM-3, MA-4 and AZ-7.
These were ranked 112, 138, 142 and 149 on my list, so I think my list is doing a decent job of early radar for seats likely to be listed in play by the prognosticators.
I'll have an update on my top 150, hopefully later today. I was about to post it, but then a slew of new updates came out.
I'm sure some other seats will get added, or would bet a lot they will.
Keep in mind, a likely Democratic seat still means it is very likely the Democrat will win.
Some people have noticed the FiveThirtyEight projections. While I think it does a good job, its statistical model is not well suited to what may turn out to be a Black Swan election. Eventually FiveThirtyEight will pick up these shifts, so It is best thought of as a trailing indicator. I'm trying to make my list a leading indicator.
The seats now listed in play are given the following chances of flipping by FiveThirtyEight: 1.4%, 1.4%, 0% and 0.7%.
My top pick for the next "surprise" seat in play? MA-6. FiveThirtyEight says the Republican has a 0.2% chance of winning. I bet those odds will go up considerably in the coming weeks.
UPDATE: I'm sorry, but I just realized that the note that my list of races in play where I noted the rankings of 112, 138, 142 and 149 was based on a spreadsheet on my computer that I had not posted yet. Those races had moved onto my radar on my spreadsheet prior to Monday night's Cook updates but I had not had time to post them yet.
I have an update ready to go once Andy can format the table for me in HTML. This of course likely means that another set of updates will come out by the other three prognosticators.
Also, I miscounted. There are now 116 seats in play among Democratic seats. This post was earlier labeled as 115.
Permalink: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14248
Member Comments (9)
I See Dead Policies
Posted on Oct. 06, 10 | 10:19 AM by Michael Frese | Topic: Cap and Trade
Yesterday, driving near a hospital Sherry and I saw a car driven by a man in medical scrubs with the vanity plate ICDDPPL. I think the reference is to the tagline of M. Night Shyamalan's directorial and Joel Haley Osment's acting breakouts in Sixth Sense: "I see dead people." I didn't start laughing until it hit me that he was probably a pathologist who did autopsies.
Political pathologists are everywhere these days. Here's Gloria Borger, getting the death of progressivist agenda mostly right, except that she doesn't see it as that.
It is in its last throes, however. The reason for the "enthusiasm gap" that has been so much described, is partly that the right and middle are energized against the Democrats, but there's more. Conservative and Moderate Democrats are look-away-and-cover-your-eyes embarrassed that their party's long held ideals are now exposed as so clearly flawed, and so clearly rejected by a clear majority of the American body politic. The woman who stood up and said to Obama "I'm just exhausted of defending you," is representative of those folks.
They might be too tired to bother voting, and the more he shouts at them, the more embarrassed and tired they'll get.
[Also posted to Economic Liberty]
Permalink: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14206
Member Comments (0) Add a Comment
Political pathologists are everywhere these days. Here's Gloria Borger, getting the death of progressivist agenda mostly right, except that she doesn't see it as that.
It is in its last throes, however. The reason for the "enthusiasm gap" that has been so much described, is partly that the right and middle are energized against the Democrats, but there's more. Conservative and Moderate Democrats are look-away-and-cover-your-eyes embarrassed that their party's long held ideals are now exposed as so clearly flawed, and so clearly rejected by a clear majority of the American body politic. The woman who stood up and said to Obama "I'm just exhausted of defending you," is representative of those folks.
They might be too tired to bother voting, and the more he shouts at them, the more embarrassed and tired they'll get.
[Also posted to Economic Liberty]
Permalink: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14206
Member Comments (0) Add a Comment
Hatch: "We just voted to keep the status quo”
Posted on Sep. 23, 10 | 05:27 PM by David Keating | Topic: Cap and Trade
Politico reported that "Republican senators backed away from tougher sanctions against Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski for defying her party’s wishes in her state’s Senate race, a surprise move that could give her new ammunition in her uphill write-in bid for reelection."
You see Hatch's quote above. You would think that given what happened in Utah this year, that more senators would have gotten the message that the status quo is not acceptable.
All in all this is very disappointing and sends mixed messages to Alaska voters, and perhaps to Republicans in Utah too.
Murkowski's actions pose a risk that a Democrat could win the seat.
Senate Republicans are not doing enough to back the Republican nominee and their inaction puts policy gains at risk.
Don't they care?
Permalink: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14132
Member Comments (7)
You see Hatch's quote above. You would think that given what happened in Utah this year, that more senators would have gotten the message that the status quo is not acceptable.
All in all this is very disappointing and sends mixed messages to Alaska voters, and perhaps to Republicans in Utah too.
Murkowski's actions pose a risk that a Democrat could win the seat.
Senate Republicans are not doing enough to back the Republican nominee and their inaction puts policy gains at risk.
Don't they care?
PAID FOR BY CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC AND NOT AUTHORIZED BY ANY CANDIDATE OR CANDIDATE'S COMMITTEE. 202-955-5500.
Permalink: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14132
Member Comments (7)
