Vulnerable Incumbents in the Senate

A few long-time US Senate incumbents are in a fight for their political lives.

One vulnerable incumbent is first-term Republican David Vitter (LA). Vitter won in 2004 with 51% of the vote, but has since been implicated in a prostitution scandal.

There are more Democrats who run the risk of losing in 2010. The most vulnerable Democrat is 30-year incumbent Chris Dodd (CT), who has consistenly run behind in the polls by double-digit numbers. Majority Leader Harry Reid is also running behind in Nevada. Short of the GOP taking over the House, the defeat of Reid would be the biggest story in the 2010 elections. Arlen Specter (PA), who won his previous five senate races as a Republican has since switched parties and is fighting a serious primary challenge.

Polls in California show that 3-term Democrat incumbent Barbara Boxer's race is now a toss up. Rounding out the list of vulnerable incumbent's are Michael Bennet (CO) who was appointed to his seat less than a year ago, and Blanche Lincoln (AR), whose support for health care reform has been unpopular in Arkansas.

When a rising star begins to fade ...

Senator Evan Bayh's roots as a popular Democrat hailing from a traditionally red state (Indiana) once earned him the keynote address at the Democratic convention in 2000. After considering a presidential run of his own back in 2004, he was one of a handful of Democrats on Barack Obama's short list to be Vice President during the summer of 2008. Apparently, the sky was the limit for Bayh's political prospects.

What a difference a year makes.

According to Chris Cillizza, who blogs on "the Fix" at Washingtonpost.com (See http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/), Bayh is no longer the darling of his party. Whereas Bayh voted 84% of the time with the Democratic majority in 2007-2008, he now ranks as the most conservative Demnocratic Senator in the 111th Congress. He has crossed party lines on the abortion funding measure, and has been an outspoken critic of several of the Obama Administration's economic policies.

Moderates don't win presidential nominations, and so Bayh must be setting his sights elsewhere....

The "Great Recession" versus "The Great Depression"

How does the current economic recession compare to the Great Depression of the 1930's? Our latest Political Perspective newsletter looks at a variety of economic indicators and compares these two time periods. The newsletter also provides ideas for teaching your American Government students about the American politics and the economy.

To read at the newsletter:

http://wadsworthmedia.com/emarketing/Fall_09/10E-PO0023/f09_ss_psych_nl_10E-PO0023OV.html

Public Opinion about Jobs Creation

Today President Obama is hosting a summit to discuss the problem of unemployment and ways to create new jobs in America. In late november, the Gallup Poll asked a national sample of Americans the question: "In your opinion, what would be the best way to create more jobs in the United States?" Here is the advice the public had to offer: 18% favor keeping manufacturing jobs in the U.S., 14% favor lowering taxes, 12% prefer giving aid to small businesses, 10% support creating more infrastructure for work, 7% want to reduce government regulation, 6% favor creating more green jobs, and 4% say -- that's right -- they would provide more stimulus funding.

The Report Card is Coming Soon ...

Democrats and Republicans in Washington D.C. today don't agree on much, but this much they do agree on: whether President Obama's first year in office will ultimately be judged successful probably depends on what he accomplishes in the next three-and-a-half weeks.

For a more pro-Obama spin on the President's first year, read Jacob Weisberg's account at:

http://www.slate.com/id/2236708/

Sen. Blanche Lincoln: A Profile in Courage?

Majority Leader Harry Reid is pushing for the first key vote on heath care reform in the Senate on Saturday. Reid needs 60 votes on the measure to avoid a GOP filibuster. All 40 Republicans have said they will oppose the bill; and so Reid needs all of the remaining 60 votes.

It appears that four of the Senators that Democrats need are waivering: Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Democrat Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Democrat Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, and Independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.

The health care package includes $850 in spending to expand Medicaid to cover 31 million who are now uninsured. The bill also includes a "public option" that allows states to opt out. On abortion, the bill separates federal funding from private premiums, with the latter funding abortion coverage.

Senator Nelson wants stronger language separating abortion funding from public coverage. Lieberman opposes the public option. While both of these senators indicate that they may oppose future versions of the bill based on these provisions, they also seem to indicate they will vote with Reid on Saturday.

The real wildcards are Lincoln and Landrieu. Politico.com reports that Landrieu will make her decision sometime on Friday. Lincoln, who stands for re-election next year in a state where polls show opposition to Obama's heath plan, is probably the biggest wildcard. A negative vote from Lincoln or any one of the other 3 senators would set back the Democrats' efforts to pass heath care reform significantly.

In voting against the removal of President Andrew Johnson in 1868, Republican Senator Edmund G. Ross took a step that he knew would cost him re-election ... and it did. John Kennedy called this vote a "profile in courage."

Senator Blanche Lincoln has a potentially career-altering decision to make tomorrow: to move President Obama and the Democrat Health Care Reform one step closer to reality, or to save her political career? Will her vote be another profile in courage?

Rating Obama on the Issues

The ABC News/Washington Post Poll released it's latest yesterday on President Obama's performance. Despite a controversial health care bill, a double-digit unemployment rate, a soaring deficit, and criticism for the amount of time it is taking to formulate a plan for Afghanistan, the President's overall approval rating remains at 56%.

Here is the breakdown on the approval rating in specific areas:

Percent who “approve” of his job performance:

“overall” 56%
“international affairs” 60%
“terrorism” 53%
“the economy” 51%
“health care” 47%
“Afghanistan” 46%
“the budget deficit” 42%

The specific ratings indicate that Americans are clearly distinguishing between different aspects of Obama's performance. However, it appears that on the more general items Obama gets better grades than on the specifics. For example, on "international affairs" he gets a 60% approval rating while on "Afghanistan" he gets a 46%.

Similarly, on the "economy" he receives a 51% rating, but on the "budget deficit" he gets a 42%.

This raises an interesting question: Is the higher 56% overall rating derived more from his personal "likability," or more from how Americans think he is performing on specific issues?

Anything is possible ...

With her book tour about to launch, my students have been asking: Does Sarah Palin have any chance of winning the Republican presidential nomination in 2012?

Of course it is possible ..... (See http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/11/16/walter/)

As Walter Shapiro so aptly points out, beware the winner-take-all Republican primaries. Did anybody think back in 2005 that a 71-year old John McCain -- defeated handily in his race for the nomination in 2000 -- would sweep every delegate in the party's early February contests on route to an easy nomination victory in 2008?

States in Fiscal Distress

The economic recession has taken a large toll on jobs, savings, businesses, and the federal deficit. Severe fiscal problems in the states are another by-product of difficult economic times.

Declines in state revenue have produced over $250 billion in budget deficits across the states. A new report by the Pew Center on the States (see www.pewcenteronthestates.org) finds that (1) many states will continue to face deficits through 2012; (2) financial pressure on states is placing further burdens on fiscally strapped municipalities; and (3) in the current fiscal year alone, states have increased taxes by $24 billion and cut services by $54 billion.

The study identifies the 10 states that are fiscally most vulnerable: Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin.

Have your students use the Pew Center web site to see where their state stacks up. The rich data profile of the states provides plenty of information for a good class discussion of both federalism and state governments.

The Ultimate Senate Wildcard

Am I the only one fascinated by the evolution of Lindsey Graham as a Senator and political figure? When he led the successful fight to impeach President Clinton in 1998, and then assumed Strom Thurmond's seat in the Senate six years later, I had pegged him as a fire-breathing conservative in the tradition of Jesse Helms and his fellow South Carolina Senator, Jim DeMint. But since becoming a Senator he has gone against the conservative grain on several occasions: (1) As a member of the "Gang of 14", he stymied Republican leaders' use of the so-called nuclear option; (2) his consistent support of comprehensive immigration reform has earned him the ire of conservative activists; and (3) he voted in favor of Sonia Sotomayor's appointment to the Supreme Court.

If the Senate and the House cannot reconcile their health care bills, Graham may once again be dragged in as a deal maker. Though a consistent opponent of the Democratic House version, Graham is one of seven Senate Republicans who is on record as supporting a universal health care system (albeit one that would end the tax exemption on employer-provided health care benefits). Graham may once again be in a position to surprise his colleagues ....

"There's no need to fear ..."

It looks like President Obama is calling in the big guns to wrestle with Democrat Senators sitting on the proverbial heath care fence:

See: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2009/Nov/10/bill_clinton_meets_with_senate_dems_on_health_care.html

A case of too little, too late?

Gay Marriage and the Vote

The struggle for gay marriage rights suffered yet another rejection from voters in 2009, this time in the state of Maine. Last year California voters supported a ban on gay marriage.

Along with Maine and California, eight additional states have voted to ban either gay marriage or civil unions, and another three states have held referenda votes supporting the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

To date, every state referendum on the gay rights issue has been defeated. These defeats have led some to suggest that the gay rights issue mobilizes social conservatives to turn out, and thus can affect other election outcomes on the ballot more favorably for Republicans.

What role will this issue play in the 2010 mid-term elections? Is it “just the economy, stupid,” or will other issues such as gay rights play an even more significant role in 2010?

Watch the turnout ...

For all the talk about how today's election in New Jersey offers a referendum on the Democrats in general and President Obama in particular, the final outcome will primarily be determined by -- you guessed it --turnout. Barack Obama's election was made possible by an electorate made up of 27 percent minority voters. Jon Corzine would coast to reelection if similar numbers turned out today; unfortunately for him, the minority turnout in New Jersey won't even come close to that percentage. As Politico.com points out:

"Both campaigns and independent observers expect turnout statewide to be about 48 percent to 49 percent. That means at or just above 2.3 million votes. If it’s less than that, Corzine could be in trouble as it will most likely mean unhappy, or just plain uninterested, Democrats are staying home. “If turnout dips below 47 percent, it’s minorities not showing up,” said Monmouth University pollster Patrick Murray. To win, Corzine also needs to push the percentage of the electorate that is made up of minority groups above 20 percent."

The three most important factors in any election? Turnout, turnout and turnout.

(For the whole article, see http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29070.html )

All Eyes on New Jersey

Three major elections will occur tomorrow: the Virginia gubernatorial, the New Jersey gubernatorial, and the New York City mayoral races. These are typically the big races a year following a presidential election.

The polls consistently show that New York City Mayor Bloomberg will easily be re-elected to a third term. The polls also show a widening gap -- now about 12 points -- favoring Republican Robert McConnell over Democrat Creigh Deeds.

The nail-biter appears to be in New Jersey. Democrat incumbant Jon Corzine is facing a serious challenge from Republican Chris Christie. Corzine has outspent Christie by a factor of 3 to 1 ($24M to $8M), and that margin seems to have brought Corzine back into the race. Pollster.com,(http://www.pollster.com/polls/nj/09-nj-gov-ge-cvc.php), a terrific site that summarizes poll
data, calculates that from the average of all recent polls, the race is tied at 41.8% to 41.8%.

Complicating the dynamics of the NJ race is the presence of Independent candidate Chris Daggett, a former Republican, who is polling about 10% of the vote right now.

Looks like the 8% of voters who are undecided will be deciding the fate of who will occupy the governor's mansion for the next four years ....

Reid's Secret Weapon

Now that Senator Joe Lieberman (I.-Conn.) has left the Democrats' health care reservation with his declaration that he would not vote to end a Republican filibuster of the so-called "public option," President Obama's hope of securing 60 Senators in support of any plan that emerges appears more and more a matter of wishful thinking. Accordingly, expect the media's attention to turn away from key swing Senators (Snowe, Ben Nelson, etc). Instead, the attention will now focus on the key Senate strategists charged with steering a plan through the Senate that -- though it may gather less than the 60 votes necessary for cloture -- may still secure passage thanks to those Senators in opposition who are still willing to vote in favor of allowing a full-fledged debate on the floor of the Senate.

Senator Charles Schumer (D.- N.Y.), for example is considered an expert vote counter and deputy to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev):

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/10/schumer-spins-liebermans-filibuster-threat.html

Don't be fooled by Senator Schumer's remarks that Reid is the "best vote getter" and counter that he's ever seen ... Schumer may be banking on the warm relationship he enjoys with Lieberman to get him through this growing quagmire ...

President Obama vs. FOX

President Obama’s Director of Communications, Anita Dunn, made it clear recently that the Obama Administration was going to take on FOX. Dunn said “We are going to treat them (FOX) the way we would treat an opponent . . . We don’t need to pretend that this is the way legitimate news organizations behave.”

Despite these and other criticisms from the White House, FOX has continued the trend toward even greater domination of cable news programming. FOX's Glen Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly shows struck huge audience shares last week and across the past month. The Nielson ratings show that these shows, along with FOX news programming, are on pace for their best year yet. In the past two weeks, since the White House first began it’s criticism, FOX’s ratings have soared 9%.

Many of FOX’s gains in audience share appear to have come at the expense of MSNBC’s Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow shows, which tend to be more supportive of Obama’s policies.

This situation sets up an interesting class discussion about the dynamic relationship between the White House and the press. Did Obama’s attack on FOX backfire? Or did it simply mobilize those viewers who were already critical of Obama’s policies? Notwithstanding the FOX surge in ratings, is there any political advantage for Obama in casting FOX as providing a biased perspective?

Another useful exercise to generate class discussion on media bias: Divide the class into three groups, with one assigned to watching FOX, the second to MSNBC, and the third to CNN. Ask each group to watch one hour of programming on a particular evening, and in class ask students to report on the way news of that day was covered...

Momentum for warmaking

W. Taylor Reveley famously wrote two decades ago that while it takes just one man (the President) to start a war, it takes "two-thirds plus one" members of both houses of Congress (the number needed to override a presidential veto) to stop it.

In this light, consider the political bind that most presidents find themselves in when their generals publicly press for an expanded war effort: stand up against the general's demands, and risk being called weak; go along with the general and you at least enjoy some political cover if things go wrong.

In today's Washington Post, Richard Cohen draws historical comparisons between General McChrystal's current request for 40,000 more troops in Afghanistan, and General Westmoreland's request for more troops in Vietnam in 1967 (You may have to register to view the column):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/26/AR2009102602645.html

Like it or not, our system of warmaking rests greatly on the shoulders of generals, and their fallibilities may have grave consequences. A great question thus arises for class discussion: Is a President --any president -- in a position to stand up against pleas made by their generals?

Money and the Congressional Elections

While all 435 Houses seats will be contested next November, only about 10-15% of these races will be competitive. The most competitive races are, of course, characterized by large amounts of campaign fundraising.

Rep. Joe Wilson from S.C., who famously yelled "you lie" to President Obama during his address to Congress last month, finds himself in a 2010 matchup with Democrat Rob Miller which has raised $4.5 million ($2.7M for Wilson and $1.7M) in the third quarter of 2009 alone.

Opensecrets.org, the website for the Center for Responsive Politics, contains a wealth of information about campaign fundraising activities. It profiles the most competitive races:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/10/across-the-nation-big-money-co.html#)

The website also allows users to identify individual and corporate/PAC donations to indivdual campaigns.

Try having your students use this site to do research on their home congressional district: Is it considered a competitive district? Who are the candidates and how much money are they raising? Who is donating to their campaigns?

Blagojevich's Revenge

ABC News is reporting that Senator Roland Burris's recent threat to vote against any health care proposal that lacks the public option makes him "suddenly relevant"...

See http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=8859311

Who would have guessed that the indicted former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich might actually exact a bit of revenge against President Obama and the Democratic forces who abandoned him in his time of need ... Could his hand-chosen appointment, Roland Burris, singlehandedly derail the Administration's hopes of acheiving a compromise?

Highs and Lows of Presidential Approval

President Obama's Approval rating, according to the Gallup Poll, now stands at 53%. 41% of Americans now say they disapprove of the job that Obama is doing as President.

The very first Gallup approval rating taken on Obama was 69%, and that was the highest rating the President has received to date. See http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx for a history of Gallup's approval rating on Obama. The lowest rating obtained by Gallup was in early September when it registered at 50% approval for Obama.

If history is any clue, we can expect to find much variation in the approval of Obama over the course of his presidency. For example, President George W. Bush received the highest approval rating ever recorded by Gallup (92%)right after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Seven years later in February 2008, as the nation's economy worsened and the Iraq War drug on, Bush's rating fell to 19%, the lowest rating ever taken by Gallup.

Similarly, President Harry Truman registered an 87% approval rating in May of 1945, toward the end of WWII. Truman also holds the second lowest approval rating in Gallup history at 22%, taken in February 1952.

Leadership on Health Care from the Pine Tree State

Maine has always maintained a distinctive political character -- famous for its pointed firs, steady habits and unpredictable politicians. At the level of presidential politics Maine went for George H.W. Bush in 1988 and Bill Clinton in 1996; but it also gave 6 percent of its vote to Ralph Nader in 2000 and a whopping 30 percent of its vote to Ross Perot in 1992.

Senator Olympia Snowe (R-Me.) fits this state like a glove. Defying the Republican party line on Obama's health care plan, Snowe has nevertheless refused to jump on board fully with the Democrats. In the tradition of Maine's independent politics, Snowe has gone her own route, eventually signing on to the Senate Finance Committee's plan on Tuesday, while still hedging away from any commitment about her final vote on the floor. Maine politicians of every stripe have been lining up to sing her praises as she has become a key player in determining the bill's final outcome.
(See http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=289449&ac=)

Senator Margaret Chase Smith (R.-Me), the longest serving female Senator in history (1949-1973), exasperated liberals by supporting the Vietnam War, and exasperated conservatives by opposing Nixon's more extremist Supreme Court nominees.

Olympia Snowe becomes only the latest Maine politician to follow in this Pine Tree state tradition.

Some comic relief ...

For those in search of comic relief from all the hyperpartisanship featured in the recent discussion of President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, consider handing out to your students copies of the story below, or perhaps posting the story to your blackboard or WebCT class sites ....

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-fails-to-win-nobel-prize-in-economics-2009-10-12

World Views of U.S.

Surveys around the world conducted by the Gallup Organization have asked the question: "Do you approve or disapprove of the job performance of the leadership of the United States of America?"

This question has been asked in surveys in 42 countries. In 16 of those countries, the question was asked both prior to and after President Obama became chief executive. In Dijibouti, Lebanon and Palestinian Territories, those who approve of U.S. leadership has declined. In the other 13 nations, the approval ratings of the U.S. have improved.

Among all 42 nations with a U.S. rating tapped this year, here are some of the findings:

* In Kenya, where Obama has roots, the approval rating of the U.S. is now 93%. The U.S. tends to also get very high approval ratings from other African countires (Senegal 87%, South Africa 87%, Uganda 91%).

* The lowest U.S. rating comes from Palestine, where 7% approve. The rating from Iraqi is also low, 15%.

* In Afghanistan, however, the approval rating of U.S. leadership is 50%.

* In the United States itself, the rating of U.S. leadership is 58%.

For a look at the full Gallup study, see: http://www.gallup.com/poll/121991/World-Citizens-Views-Leadership-Pre-Post-Obama.aspx.

As Virginia and New Jersey go ...?

You've heard the conventional wisdom echoed over and over by pundits ... that in the year following a presidential election, the off-year gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey offer a key bellwether for the political state of the two major parties nationwide, and that they foreshadow the results of the following year's Congressional midterm elections. In recent weeks the Republican New Jersey candidate for Governor, Chris Christie, and the Republican candidate for Governor in Virginia, Bob McConnell, have both enjoyed leads in the polls.

Unfortunately, this conventional wisdom hasn't exactly held up in recent years. Certainly it's true that in 2005 the Democrats enjoyed easy victories in both states just a year before the Democrats took back both house of Congress. But 2001 did not fit the pattern, as Democrats won both races at a time when President Bush's approval ratings were at record highs, and a year before the President's party gained seats in the 2002 midterm elections. Nor was 1997 really a gauge of anything significant: Republicans won both governor's races that year, but the subsequent 1998 midterm elections proved to be the first in 64 years where the president's party failed to gain congressional seats in a midterm election.

Thus if Christie and McConnell hold on to their respective leads, it might signal a revival of Republican party hopes and foreshadow a positive Republican showing in the 2010 midterm elections.

Or it might not.

Support for Abortion Rights Drops

A Pew Research Center report shows that public support for abortion is on the decline (http://people-press.org/report/549/support-for-abortion-slips).

The new Pew poll finds that 47% say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 45% say it should be illegal in all or most cases. A year ago, 54% said abortion should be legal in all/most cases and 41% said it should be illegal. Pew reports that support for legal abortion is at a 15-year low.

While 2 years ago 35% of Americans favored the idea of making abortions more difficult, 41% now favor that idea. Four years ago, 59% said that it was good to reduce the number of abortions, and today 65% say that.

The poll also finds that the shift in opinion is broad-based, appearing across most demographic groups, except President Obama's strongest supporters (African Americans, young people, and those unaffiliated with a religion).

What might account for this shift? Has the election of a Democratic president who supports abortion rights caused some people to re-think their position on the issue? Have pro-life groups been successful in moving public opinion on the issue?

Moreover, with the trend toward anti-abortion sentiment increasing, will Republicans and social conservatives be able to effectively use the issue of abortion to make gains in the 2010 midterm and 2012 presidential elections?

What type of economic curve?

Economists groping for a way to explain the shape of the current recession are suggesting that we may be on the verge of a less frequent pattern -- that instead of the normal "V-curve" or "U-curve" pattern for a recession (a simple rebound pattern) that we may be heading into a "W-curve" recession (referring to the possibility that after an initial recovery, our economy will head back down again in a "double dip" scenario). The United States arguably endured that type of "W-curve" in 1949, and then again between 1980 and 1982. The Great Depression of the 1930's featured several mini recessions along the way, including a W-curve mini-recession in 1932-1933. (See image above).

Then there's the more discouraging possibility of an "L-curve" recession similar to the one suffered by Japan in the 1990's after its real estate and equity bubbles burst.

What I haven't seen is persuasive analysis of how these various letter-shaped recessions could affect American politics differently. If the Obama Administration is anticipating a "W-curve" recession, will that influence its choice of economic policies, and if so how?

Unemployment and the Scope of Its Impact

The unemployment rate in the US is now 9.8%, as the Labor Department reported on Friday. That's the highest level since 1982 when the rate was 10.8%.

What the current unemployment rate does not reflect is the large number of Americans who lost a job and are no longer looking for work, which when added to the 9.8% reflects fully 17% of Americans.

Moreover, among those with a job, the average number of hours worked per week last month was 33 -- the lowest average since the 1960s.

A recent ABC News/Washington Post Poll (http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=4154543197421640958) found that 41% of American households have experienced a pay cut, and 27% say a layoff or job loss has hit their household. The total number of houseolds with a pay cut and/or job loss is 47%. The unemployment rate is an individual level measure and does not reflect the broader effect of job loss on those who rely on individual incomes.

The impact of the recession's toll on employment is much deeper than the current 9.8% unemployemnt rate suggests. Far more than one-in-ten Americans are directly impacted financially; rather it appears that about half of the US population has suffered an economic setback due to job loss. In addition, among those who have not yet been affected by a job loss, there certainly are many who are worried about it.

While many Americans feel the pinch of other fiscal problems caused by this recession (drops in the value of stocks, home values, retirement funds, loss of health care benefits, etc.), no economic problem is more widespread than unemployment -- and no other factor will weigh more heavily on Americans' minds as they assess the job government is doing and think about how they will vote in upcoming elections.

Pursuing His Place in History

No matter what happens during the remainder of Barack Obama's presidency, his historical legacy and place in history rest to a large extent with the outcome of the current health care debate. If the legislation that passes proves to be so watered down that it accomplishes little -- or if no legislation passes at all -- President Obama may still carve out a legacy of some sort. President Clinton, for example, rose from the ashes of his own failed health care initiative to win a second term and secure his place in the middle ranks of presidents (See C-SPAN's rankings at http://www.c-span.org/PresidentialSurvey/Overall-Ranking.aspx). Yet to join the ranks of great presidents like Washington, Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, President Obama cannot fail on such a defining issue as health care.

Consider asking your students to compare C-Span's recent ranking of presidents (determined by a survey of historians) with the results of the Wall Street Journal's rankings of presidents from 2005. (see http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007243). What types of achievements mark those who are considered "great" by both surveys?

The "Public Option" and the Congressional Vote

Today's "Daily Beast" (see http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheat-sheet/?cid=hp:cheatsheet1#cheatrow_9672) outlines the dilemma for President Obama and the fate of the so-called "public option" in the debate over health care reform. It also provides a great classroom example of the politics of the legislative process.

Here is the Obama dilemma: The public option is not likely to make it through the Senate without a filibuster. So the Senate version will have no public option. The House version of the bill can be passed with the public option.

So assume the House passes the bill with the public option and Senate does not. Debate in the Senate is over because the bill is passed, and thus there will be no more opportunity for a filibuster. Rather, the legislative process at this point simply requires a conference committee to reconcile the House and Senate versions, and then another vote in both the House and Senate. The reconciliation bill can either include or exclude the public option. A simple majority vote in the Senate could then pass the bill.

So it seems that the real debate in the health care debate is likely to boil down to a highly partisan law with the public option vs. a modestly bi-partisan law without the public option. The political implications of a highly partisan law can be used by Republicans to make significant gains in the 2010 midterm elections.

The long, complex debate over health care appears to be narrowing to this dilemma for Obama and the Democrats; and it seems that they can steer the legislative process in either direction -- a good case study in dancing legislation!

A Different Type of Health Care Map

The staff from Politico.com have created a list of the 10 "hot spots" for the health care debate across the country:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27650.html

The list includes the following: (1) Alabama, (2) South Jersey, (3) Arkansas, (4) New Hampshire; (5) Pennsylvania; (6) Oregon, (7) Western North Carolina, (8) Florida, (9) Southside Virginia and (10) Eastern Ohio. If you are teaching in or near any of these so-called "hotbeds", you might want to try asking your students what makes the area such a hotbed. Consider the following factors:

• Ideological fissures in the local electorate;
• Areas where the "generation gap" is most pronounced (younger people tend to support President Obama)
• Key local races in next year's local midterm elections in the area may well be decided by the fate of the health care program;

etc.

2010 US Senate Elections

Last Friday's posting (see below) discussed the GOP's prospects for winning a majority of seats in the 2010 House midterm elections. Today we take a look at the Senate.

Currently there are 60 seantors who align with the Democratic caucus and 40 with the Republican caucus. The GOP would need to keep all of its current seats and win back 11 from the Dems to achieve a majority (a mere 10-seat flip would produce a tie, with the tie-breaker being Democrat VP Joe Biden).

38 of the Senate's 100 seats will be contested in 2010. 19 of the 38 are currently GOP seats and 19 are Democratic seats. According to congressional election analyst Charlie Cook (www.cookpolitical.com) 12 of the 19 Democrat-held seats are solidly Democrat, and 11 of the GOP seats are not competitive. Barring a number of unexpected vacancies or a serious shift in the political winds, it is very unlikely that the Senate will find itself under Republican control as a result of the 2010 midterm elections.

Cook contends that the best prospects for the GOP are in Nevada (where Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is vulnerable), Connecticut (where 30 year incumbant Senator Chris Dodd is in trouble), and Illinois (where President Obama's former senate seat, occupied by interim Senator Burris, has been the point of controversy). Somewhat safer, but still vulnerable, are the Democrat seats held by Senators Boxer (CA), Specter (PA), Bennet (CO), and Lincoln (AR).

If the Republicans are to achieve divided government in the short term, they will need to focus their efforts on the House races rather than on the Senate.

2010 Midterm House Elections

If history is a guide, Republicans will gain seats in next year's midterm congressional elections.

Let's first take a look at the prospects for the House races (Next Monday we'll look at the Senate). 1978 and 1994 were the last two House midterm elections similar to 2010. In 1978, Jimmy Carter was a first term Democratic incumbent, and his party held strong majorities in both houses. The Republicans won back 15 House seats that year (but the Democrats still held a whopping 277-158 majority).

In 1994, Bill Clinton was a first term Democrat, and his party held a 256-176 majority in the House. Following a bruising loss in the battle to pass health insurance reform and the GOP's nationalized "Contract with America" campaign, the Democrats lost 54 seats in 1994, giving the GOP a majority for the first time in 40 years.

The current partisan distribution of the House is 256-D, 177-R. The GOP needs a net 40-seat shift in the 2010 midterm elections to gain a majority.

Congressional election analyst Charlie Cook (see www.cookpolitical.com) identifies 106 (of the 435) congressional districts that might possibly experience a shift in partisan control. 71 of these CDs are currently held by Democrats and 35 by Republicans. 48 of the 71 Democrat seats are in districts that Bush won in 2004 and McCain won in 2008, indicating that the GOP potentially can turn enough seats to win back the House -- assuming that they can hold onto most of their 35 competitive seats.

What are the primary factors that will influence the magnitude of GOP gains in 2010? First is the state of the economy particularly as reflected in the unemployment rate; second is how well-organized the GOP is in running a coherent national campaign; and third is the success or failure of the Democrats in passing health insurance reform this year.

An Historical Perspective: Obama versus Reagan versus Clinton

Many political scientists accept it as a token of faith that a president's hopes for reelection rest mainly with the state of the economy. Certainly most of the models that predict presidential elections incorporate economic indicators into the formula, including Emory University Professor Alan Abramowitz's highly successful model. (see http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_REPORT/erarchive/2008/September/Sept8/Election.htm).
Still, when communicating this fact to undergraduates, it is helpful to have specific historical comparisons. John B. Judis's fascinating article from The New Republic a few days ago offers exactly the right mix of graphic data and historical analysis to assess the challenges facing Obama on this score. The link is:
http://www.tnr.com/article/job-one

Judis's most interesting data compares Obama to Reagan and Clinton. The arc of Reagan's popularity in his first term tracked precisely with the unemployment rate; more than a decade later, Clinton's second-term approval ratings similarly tracked the unemployment rate almost exactly. (The charts Judis offers in his piece are especially telling). Finally, Judis consider's Obama's rising disapproval rating in his first year, which appears to track -- you guessed it -- the unemployment rate.

Judis's article makes interesting reading for professors, and offers lots of fascinating historical comparisons to discuss in class....

New Data on Public Perceptions of the First Amendment

Since 1997, The Freedom Forum's First Amendment Center has been studying the "State of the First Amendment" (SOFA) from the perspective of public opinion. SOFA examines public opinion about free expression rights and American uses of the news media for news and information. The most recent annual national survey was released a few days ago.

Highlights of the latest survey include:

* Despite the popularity of Twitter and other social media, Americans continue to rely primarily on TV for getting news.

* Less than 1-in-20 Americans trust social networking sites more than Internet sites maintained by local news media, and only 3% say that Twitter is a very reliable news source.

* When asked to name the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment, 55% were able to name freedom of speech. Far fewer were able to name freedom of religion (18%), freedom of the press (16%), freedom of assembly (14%), and right to petition (4%). Four-in-ten could not name any of the freedoms in the First Amendment.


For the full survey results as well as past surveys, go to: www.firstamendmentcenter.org

Where Your Students Should Go For Info About the Health Care Debate

I have been struggling of late when students interested in the health care debate ask me where they should go for information on the Internet. When the debate gets as complicated as this one has, I long for that one website where casual (and not so casual) observers of the heath care debate can go for all the information they might need, including legislation, transcripts of all hearings, links to blogs, columnists, think tanks, lobbyists etc. There are a few portals like that on the Internet, but the best I’ve seen so far is Timothy Noah’s “Health Care Reform: An On-Line Guide… “ on Slate.com. The link is at:

http://www.slate.com/id/2220222/

Noah is a senior writer for Slate and a former assistant managing editor at the U.S. News & World Report. He’s been updating this website frequently, so if you’re looking for a veritable “department store” of information about the health care reform debate with less obvious ideological overtones, I would send your students there first ….

The American Politics blog is coming!

On Monday morning, September 21, Professor Ken Dautrich and myself plan to launch this blog with tips, hints and suggestions on how to most effectively teach American politics using the three perspectives highlighted in our textbook: the historical, the popular and the global. Sometimes our suggestions will utilize technology from the Internet and elsewhere. But mostly we will offer advice and tips that can be used by any teacher or professor, no matter what resources one has at his or her disposal.

We look forward to getting your comments as well. Count on three or four new suggestions each week to help launch your own American politics lectures and seminars this fall!