According to The Huffington Post, 17 Republican congressman have indicated their willingness to vote for a “clean continuing resolution.” Combined with 200 Democratic votes, those 17 House Republicans could end the government shutdown.So who are they? For the most part, they’re exactly what you’d expect: Moderates from the mid-Atlantic. But there are a few exceptions and, perhaps surprisingly, relatively few are vulnerable in 2014. Take a look at the big picture:
As predicted, the government has shutdown after congress failed to pass a new funding bill. But for a few brief hours, it looked like a gang of Republican moderates might bolt from the GOP and avert a shutdown. In the end, the moderate revolt failed to materialize—but not without possible consequences for the resolution of the shutdown and upcoming fight over the debt ceiling.
There was a moment, approximately 327 days ago, when many Republicans agreed that they needed a rebrand to overcome a modest disadvantage in national elections. The last 327 days haven’t gone according to plan. A Pew Research survey showed the GOP’s favorability rating down to just 33 percent—the lowest in twenty years of polling. Immigration reform is in critical condition, if it’s even alive.
This afternoon, Politico reported that Texas State Senator Wendy Davis, a Democrat who attracted national attention for filibustering a bill restricting access to abortion, will run for governor in 2014. A Davis candidacy will surely thrill Democrats and reignite dreams of turning the Lone Star state “blue,” but don’t kid yourself: Davis is doomed.
Yesterday, the Washington Post published a chart showing a “compelling” relationship between higher turnout and President Obama’s performance last November. The implication was that Obama’s turnout operation was pretty central to his reelection campaign. I happened to be at the Atlanta airport when I first saw this, so I wasn’t positioned to write a quick response (although that didn’t prevent some serious eye rolling).
Terry McAuliffe, the Democratic candidate for Virginia governor, isn’t popular.
Last week, I wrote a long piece about PPP’s troubling methodological choices. Some people assumed it was a continuation of a fight the previous day between Nate Silver and PPP, but it’s not. And other people latched onto various elements at the expense of others. Many of those elements are important, like PPP’s baffling incompetence, or its decision to surreptitiously let the self-reported ’08 vote inform the racial composition of the electorate.
How is Pat Quinn this lucky? The Democratic Governor of Illinois might have the lowest approval rating in the country, with some polls showing him stuck in the twenties. Quinn’s rival for that title, Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chaffee, decided not to run for reelection after concluding he would have lost a Democratic country. For a while, it looked like Pat Quinn might face a similar primary challenge.
This morning, I posted a long piece on PPP's opaque, ad hoc methodology. If you haven't read it, I hope you'll find it worth the time. PPP's director, Tom Jensen, had two unconvincing responses.
The problem with PPP's methodology
No pollster attracts more love and hate than Public Policy Polling. The Democratically aligned polling firm routinely asks questions that poke fun at Republicans, like whether then-Senator Barack Obama was responsible for Hurricane Katrina. Not coincidentally, Republicans routinely accuse them of being biased toward Democrats. Last fall, PPP was front and center in conservative complaints about allegedly skewed polls. But when the election results came in, PPP’s polls were vindicated and the conspiracy-minded critics were debunked.