MyDD on Facebook and Twitter

Just a reminder that MyDD social networks; you can find us on both Facebook and Twitter. On Facebook, it's a fan page. Become a fan and put us over 300! No, there's no reward, but you do get the satisfaction of being awesome.

And on Twitter, you can seperately follow most of the front-pagers:

  • Jerome Armstrong is @jeromearmstrong
  • Jonathan Singer is @jonathanhsinger (but Tweeting about the possibility of a new handle)
  • Josh Orton is @joshorton (and is able to Tweet more than blog these days)
  • Desmoinesdem and the Bleeding Heartland blog are @desmoinesdem
  • Nathan Empsall is @nathanempsall. I Tweet in spurts.
  • Charles Lemos is @charleslemos - Tweeting in English and re-Tweeting in Spanish!
  • Andre Walker and the George Politics Unfiltered Blog are @gaunfiltered
  • Jason Williams and The Side Track blog for Utah politics are @thesidetrack

Frontpage blogger

It's time to bring on another frontpage blogger here on MyDD. We've a storied history here, and have seen many writers move onto campaigns over the years; so were gonna replenish the ranks ahead of the midterms.

If you are interested, or want to nominate somone from here, let me know via the contact page.

I'm off to Arizona for the Pollie awards, and then onto the SF Bay area for a couple of days.

UPDATE: Andre Walker is going to start frontpaging. He's been here since 2005, and knows the digs well. Welcome aboard Andre.

Continuing the Conversation with Charlie Cook

The past few weeks and months I have been writing quite a bit about my view, contrary to those held by many inside the Beltway and Charlie Cook specifically, that the Democrats' control of the United States House of Representatives is all but lost at present. Don't get me wrong, I am not so obtuse to believe that the political environment favors the Democrats. But I just don't buy the notion that the Republicans are on the verge of retaking the House in the upcoming midterm elections.

Yesterday I wrote a post noting internal Democratic polling showing one of the red state Democratic incumbents the Cook Political Report currently rates in the "tossup" category leading by margins well in excess of 20 points against named challengers. "If the Republicans can't even be competitive in an R+16 district featuring a freshman Democrat in a race Cook now labels as 'a tossup,'" I asked, "how, exactly, are they supposed to win back the 40 seats they need to regain a majority in the chamber?"

Charlie has been kind enough to respond with four comments on my post. I have included the full text of each comment below the fold, for those interested. Here are a few grafs culled from these comments that seem to be representative.

Jonathan, I think what this poll suggests is that Democrats in tough districts who have opposed the Democratic Congressional leadership and the President on just about every important matter, have a decent chance of surviving.
My job, having started the Cook Political Report in 1984, is to call them as I see them. We saw a big wave coming in 1994 but underestimated it then. In 2006 we saw one and nailed it. We saw signs of problems and began writing and talking about it last summer and see little sign that we are wrong. If more Democrats had the cover that Bright had, maybe we would be.
Yes, we have been writing "Dems in trouble" for about eight months now, but it isn't much different from when we were writing that Republicans were in trouble during the 2006 and 2008 cycles. And Republicans were in fact in trouble. Our job is to watch races individually and look for trends. If the partisans for the side on the short end of the trends don't like it, they typically attack the messenger. you can be sure that Republicans weren't happy with what we were writing in the months leading up to the 2006 election, but we were right.

All of the points that Charlie makes are fair. I don't dispute that the polling I cited showing a red district freshman Democrat presumed to be endangered nevertheless leading his GOP challengers handily involves one of, if not the most conservative Democrat in the House (though I do not know that this disproves my contention that if the Republicans can't win in an R+16 district they aren't going to retake the House this fall). I also don't dispute that Charlie was right about 2006, a prediction for which he should be credited (even if he was not alone in such a forecast). What's more, I appreciate that he came by to engage, not only with my post but also with the commenters in the thread. In fact, I would be interested in hearing more from him, specifically on a point I raised in my post immediately preceding the post in question (and in other posts) -- namely that if the GOP were really on the verge of retaking the House, why are so many would-be Republican chairmen retiring rather than waiting out a few months for their pending majority.

What I would like to note, however, is that while I don't dispute the particular points that Charlie is making, I still don't buy his overall thesis. This isn't the first time that the two of us haven't seen eye-to-eye. The last time he came on the site to comment on one of my posts, back in December 2007, it was to defend the projection made by his publication that the Democrats would pick up between two and eight seats in the House in the 2008 election -- a projection I believed to be too dour towards the Democrats, about whom I wrote, "I'd be surprised if [they] didn't net a pick up of at least 10-15 seats in the House next fall." As it turned out, the Democrats netted a 21-seat pickup in the House that fall. In May 2006, he commented similarly, downplaying my reading of his House race analysis as a major shift towards the Democrats (while, in fairness, also saying "one could reasonably say that the House is close to 50-50, perhaps a bit better for Democrats"). Earlier that year he stopped by MyDD to comment on a post I wrote questioning whether the Democrats would necessarily be worse off in the event that GOP Congressman Bob Ney retired instead of running for reelection. Cook wrote, "If you are a Democrat, you need to really hope that Bob Ney does NOT retire." In the end, Ney did retire, but the Democratic nominee, Zack Space, won by a 24-point margin nonetheless.

My purpose in highlighting these exchanges is simply to provide some context to the comments Charlie made on my recent post. (It is most certainly not to prove any prescience on my part, a character trait of which my lacking has been plain to me for a long time.) In recent years, Charlie has stopped by MyDD either to defend his publication's projections from my criticism that they are not sufficiently rosy about the Democrats, or to criticize my projections for being excessively rosy for the Democrats. These comments aren't too dissimilar, with me stating my contention that his projections are too downbeat on the Democrats and him defending his views against such criticism.

Until we see the actual results of the 2010 midterms, Charlie isn't likely to convince me that I am being too optimistic about the Democrats' chances, just as I am unlikely to convince him that he is being too bleak. That's okay. But to the extent that the views represented in his publication have an impact on the outcome of the election -- that the Cook Political Report, like other similar journals, is read by contributers trying to discern how best to make their political donations -- I only wish that he were willing to exhibit some of the caution he showed on this site and others at around the same point in the 2006 cycle (when, again, to be fair, he also stated "one could reasonably say that the House is close to 50-50, perhaps a bit better for Democrats"):

While the vast majority of MyDD readers are Democrats and badly want to see a Democratic takeover of the House, our job is to be right, and we are often open to criticism for being cautious, but that is something that our subscribers over the last 22 years have come to expect.

At least from my vantage, it is not "being cautious" to state, as Charlie did just last month, that it is "very hard to come up with a scenario where Democrats don't lose the House." But we shall see -- and not so long from now, either (in just eight months, to be precise).

There's more...

MyDD Blog Talk Radio Post-SOTU Show

Join Josh Orton, Adam Conner, Aaron Banks, me and a very special guest tonight after President Obama's State of the Union Address for a great episode of MyDD Blog Talk Radio. Set your alarms for 10:30 PM Eastern/7:30 PM Pacific, when we'll begin our broadcast. Look forward to you joining us.

[UPDATE] The very special guest = Sam Seder. 

Brown Consultant Rejects a Friendly Wager

Yesterday, after GOP blogger and consultant for Massachusetts Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown razzed me for having contributed to Brown's Democratic opponent Martha Coakley, I replied with a simple proposal:

Interested in a friendly wager? I eat a little crow on [The Next Right] if Brown wins, you do it on MyDD if Coakley wins?

Shortly thereafter I asked Ruffini, "Or would you expect a point spread in a friendly wager over the outcome of the Brown/Coakley race?" Ruffini's response a few hours later:

If I come on MyDD, I'll be happy to repost this: http://is.gd/6ameZ [a link to a post on how Paul Hackett's loss in the 2005 Ohio special congressional election was a win for the Democrats -- clearly not a crow-eating post]

I took this as a rejection of my friendly wager, replying to Ruffini, "If you were confident in a Brown win, why wouldn't you agree to a wager that could have me eating crow on your site?" Matt Ortega similarly asked, "Brown consultant @PatrickRuffini refuses to wager Brown would win?"

Ruffini tried to flip things around, stating that the fact that I was assigning even odds to the race -- which I wasn't, as evidenced by my tweet asking if Ruffini expected a point-spread in such a wager -- was the story. "[A] Brown win would be a real miracle," tweeted Ruffini.

I don't know what the outcome of Tuesday's election in Massachusetts is going to be. Nobody does. But I was willing to put myself on the line under the belief that Coakley, the Democratic nominee, would pull out a victory. Ruffini, a leading GOP blogger, wasn't willing to do the same for the candidate he supports (and indeed is doing work for). And I think that speaks volumes.

Diaries

Advertise Blogads