The battle for the US Senate, updated

It's been almost six weeks since my last update, and I am not as enthusiastic about the Democrats maintaining control of the upper chamber as I was then.  Nate Silver has something to do with that.

The FiveThirtyEight Senate model is launching (September 3). We’ll be rolling it out in stages, with additional features, functionality and further methodological detail. We’ll also be unveiling our new set of pollster ratings and publicly releasing our database of all the polls used to calculate them. So there’s a lot more to come.

But if you’re looking for a headline, we have two. First, Republicans are favored to take the Senate, at least in our view; the FiveThirtyEight forecast model gives them a 64 percent chance of doing so.

The reasons for the GOP advantage are pretty straightforward. Midterm elections are usually poor for the president’s party, and the Senate contests this year are in states where, on average, President Obama won just 46 percent of the vote in 2012.¹

Democrats are battling a hangover effect in these states, most of which were last contested in 2008, a high-water mark for the party. On the basis of polling and the other indicators our model evaluates, Republicans are more likely than not to win the six seats they need to take over the Senate. This isn’t news, exactly; the same conditions held way back in March.

An equally important theme is the high degree of uncertainty around that outcome. A large number of states remain competitive, and Democrats could easily retain the Senate. It’s also possible that the landscape could shift further in Republicans’ direction. Our model regards a true Republican wave as possible: It gives the party almost a 25 percent chance of finishing with 54 or more Senate seats once all the votes are counted.²

There is much more and deeper analysis at the link.  The other factor clouding my optimism is the Brothers Koch and their massive piles of campaign money coming to the Republicans' rescue.

The secretive political network of conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch has aired more than 43,900 television ads this election cycle in an attempt to help Republicans take control of the Senate in the upcoming November election.

That amounts to nearly one out of every 10 TV ads in the 2014 battle for the Senate according to a new Center for Public Integrity analysis of data provided by Kantar Media/CMAG, an advertising tracking service, covering spending from Jan. 1, 2013, through Aug. 31, 2014.

The total includes the six most active nonprofit groups in the Koch brothers’ coalition: Americans for Prosperity, the American Energy Alliance, Concerned Veterans for America, the Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, Generation Opportunity and the 60 Plus Association.

Their prominence has led to denunciations by Democrats, and praise from Republicans, as they’ve bombarded incumbent lawmakers with negative ads and exulted conservative challengers. No other right-leaning coalition has been as active.

Didi I mention that Harry Reid has called a Senate vote for Monday, September 8 on revoking Citizens United?  Now's the time to call your Senator, especially if their names are John Cornyn and Ted Cruz.  That's after you sign the petition and send them a personal e-mail (find them at the link in this paragraph).

Koch-connected groups reportedly intend to spend $290 million to help Republicans make gains in Congress this November. Thus far, Kantar Media/CMAG spending estimates indicate the groups have invested at least $14.5 million. This amount is undeniably a conservative estimate, as it includes only TV ad buys — not production costs or expenditures related to radio ads, online ads, direct mail, canvassers or other activities.

These so-called “dark money” nonprofit groups are not required to disclose their funders to federal election regulators, unlike candidates, parties, political action committees and super PACs.

And although election-related advocacy can’t be the “primary purpose” of these groups, they’ve nonetheless established themselves among the nation’s most powerful political forces.

The dark money is gushing into our democratic republic like a pipeline leak into our water supply, fouling everything it touches.

Through the end of August, this spending spree has included about 8,600 ads in North Carolina, 6,900 ads in Louisiana, 5,800 ads in Iowa, 4,900 ads in Michigan, 4,700 ads in Arkansas, 4,600 ads in Colorado, 3,600 ads in Alaska and 2,400 ads in Oregon, according to a Center for Public Integrity review of Kantar Media/CMAG data.

And it's only a drop in the bucket of what's to come.  We'll be immune to much of it in Texas, since Cornyn's challenger, David Alameel -- deep-pocketed, but too weak progressively speaking -- has yet to make a difference in his race.  But dark money in Texas is definitely a concern.  You may recall that Rick Perry vetoed a disclosure bill that came out of the last legislative session.

Let's review again the Senate races that will tip the scales.

In three states currently held by Democrats - Montana, South Dakota and West Virginia - Republican victories are all but certain, leaving the GOP only three pickups to wrestle control from the Democrats.

In North Carolina, New Hampshire, Arkansas, Colorado, Alaska and Louisiana, Republican challengers threaten to knock off Democratic incumbents. Three more races - Iowa, Georgia and Michigan - feature open races where the Republican candidate stands a good chance, offering nine possibilities in total.

It's not all about the Republicans on the offensive, however. While far fewer than the Democrats, Republicans still have a few seats they'll have to vigorously defend: Kentucky, Georgia and, to a lesser extent, Kansas.

To a greater extent, Kansas.  And that's despite the KSSOS ruling yesterday that the Democrat who quit earlier in the week must remain on the ballot.  The Republicans are officially panicked that one of their locks is now a tossup.

I also think Mitch McConnell is toast, and Michelle Nunn is all but a prohibitive favorite today.  Mark Begich, despite this recent misstep, has run an extraordinarily good race -- he's effectively distanced himself from Obama in deep red Alaska -- and New Hampshire is smart enough not to elect that carpetbagger Scott Brown.  I don't think Michigan is flipping, either; they have a deeply unpopular Republican governor and a lousy economy, and that state is still blue.

Iowa is a real horse race and will be all the way to the end, and the other states I will watch to see if the GOP can get the three they need are North Carolina (Kay Hagen, D inc.), Arkansas (David Pryor, D inc.), Colorado (Mark Udall, D inc.), and Louisiana (Mary Landrieu, D inc.).

Hagen and Landrieu aren't running away from Obama; they need boosted African American turnout in their states to get past the finish line.  Pryor seems to be both savvy and lucky.  Udall's contest is see-sawing back and forth between he and his challenger, the odious Cory Gardner, and it has many moving parts, among them women's issues and immigration.  Of the four Democratic incumbents, Udall's race is the closest IMHO.  If Mitch McConnell rights the ship, Kansas and Georgia hold, Iowa falls, and one of CO, LA, NC and AR go red, the GOP gains the narrowest of majorities.

Still a tall order but within their grasp.

But if McConnell loses, Nunn wins, and Iowa stays blue then the Republicans have to win all four.  I don't see that happening, but it depends, across the board and across the country, on weak Democratic turnout defying somewhat historical odds and turning back the red wave.  We'll only know more about that as Election Day draws close.

Update: A few third party candidates might have a say in the matter.

General #StrikeFastFood on tap today

It might a little difficult having your fast-food lunch today.

Fast-food workers in more than 150 U.S. cities are planning protests on Thursday to press for a wage increase to $15 an hour and allow them to unionize jobs from the fry-basket at McDonald's to the cash register at Burger King.

"We're going to have walkouts all over the country," said Kendall Fells, organizing director of the movement called Fight for 15. "There are going to be workers who don't show up to work or who walk off the job at 12:01 a.m. or at noon."

Yeah, screw the King from two weeks ago.  They shouldn't be under consideration for your business anyway since they're treasonous anti-American deserters...

The protests come as cities across the United States propose minimum wage increases while Democrats in Congress seek to raise the federal minimum wage ahead of November's mid-term congressional elections.

A recent report by the Economic Policy Institute think tank found the typical worker in the restaurant industry makes $10 an hour compared to $18 an hour typically earned in other industries.

One in six restaurant workers, or 16.7 percent, lives below the official poverty line, compared to 6.3 percent of those working in other industries, the report said.

Fast-food workers are even poorer, earning an average of less than $8 an hour, according to the Service Employees International Union, which supports the fast-food workers' protests.

"Nobody who works 40 hours a week should be living in poverty," U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, said on Twitter. "I applaud the fast-food workers all across the country who will be striking on Thursday to raise the minimum wage to a living wage."

Good ol' Bernie Sanders. I hear he might run as a Democrat in 2016.

Anyway, have lunch at a Mom-and-Pop today.  That would be ten times better for everybody than giving any money to that Rick Perry-loving CEO of Carl's Jr.  Besides, that fast food crap'll kill ya.

I'm lovin' this typo.

Update: Arrests galore today across the country, five in Houston.  And this was the scene at the McDonald's headquarters outside Chicago.

Obama: Bush 2.0

Dan Froomkin, re-introducing himself at  at Glenn Greenwald's The Intercept, has enunciated the reasons why I never looked back after jumping off the Obama bandwagon five years ago.

In some cases, Obama has set even darker precedents than his predecessor. Massively invasive bulk surveillance of Americans and others has been expanded, not constrained. This president secretly condemns people to death without any checks or balances, and shrugs as his errant drones massacre innocent civilians. Whistleblowers and journalists who expose national security wrongdoing face unprecedented criminal prosecution.

In a few cases, Obama publicly distanced himself from Bush/Cheney excesses, but to little effect. He forswore torture, and promised to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. But by actively covering up what happened in the U.S.’s torture chambers, and by refusing to hold the torturers and their political masters in any way accountable, he has done nothing to make sure that the next time a perceived emergency comes up, it won’t all happen again. And Gitmo, which he treated as a political rather than moral issue, is still very much open for business.

It's pretty damning stuff IMO, and the reason as we know that Democrats nominated Obama in 2008 is because he wasn't Hillary Clinton.  So brace yourselves for Bush 3.0 in 2016.

As surely — if not as enthusiastically — as his predecessor, Obama has succumbed to the powerful systemic pressures that serve the needs of the military-intelligence-industrial complex.  Secrecy is rampant. Politics drives policy. There is no accountability. Congressional and judicial oversight have become a bitter joke. And the elite press gets tighter and tighter with those to whom it should be adversarial.

I really don't want to spend any more time mentioning anything about 2016 for a couple more months.  It is simply worth noting that one of the most powerful voices for holding our leaders accountable just got himself a new soapbox.  I'll be following along.

Do you have the proper ID to vote in November?

Because you're going to need it, no matter what happens in court.

The trial in Corpus Christi started on Tuesday is called Veasey v. Perry, and it is being held in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Proponents of voter ID laws argue they are needed to prevent voter fraud and they aren’t intrusive or discriminatory; opponents claim voter ID laws discriminate because the laws require minorities to go through difficult steps to obtain an ID and the burden is a modern-day equivalent of the dreaded poll tax.

U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos is hearing arguments in the current case, and the judge’s could also set a precedent where Texas is put back on the pre-clearance list, despite the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Shelby County case in 2013.

There are many Houstonians of low socio-economic background -- many of them African American -- without proper ID, according to this map (courtesy Houston Press, click to enlarge or go to the original at the link).

And as we know -- either first-hand four years ago, or second-hand more recently -- the Texas attorney general, Greg Abbott, considers voter registration in poor neighborhoods of Harris County to be a criminal offense, worthy of requiring SWAT teams to enforce, confiscate, and destroy records.

Is your license current (as in not expired)?  Does it show your current address?  You can fix this online (which beats waiting in line, offline).  No driver's license, or need help securing an ID?

Free voter IDs are offered by the state, though one third of Texas' 254 counties do not have Department of Public Safety stations that can provide the cards, and opponents say voters must still pay for copies of birth certificates or other documents to obtain the ID.

Battleground Texas can help you with that.

 You might be eligible for a mail-in ballot, which would make an ID unnecessary.  Instructions to request one in your home county are here.

NOW is the time to make certain you don't encounter some kind of holdup, especially if you vote on Election Day, because there is very little time to fix any problems at that time.

Get it done, and then help your neighbors, especially if they are older and less well-off.  Everybody needs to cast a ballot in this election in order to affect change -- even in the slightest way -- the decades-long, one-party monolithic rulership in Texas.

Update: Socratic Gadfly reminds rich, white Republicans that the only ID they will need at the polling place is their checkbook.

More Updates: The Brennan Center has a report from the courtroom on the trial, and the Texas Senate Democratic Caucus asks Michael Berry's wife for more mobile voter ID stations.

It's all football and politics from now on

And you won't find much football around here.

Kuff and Texpatriate and Texas Leftist are all doing candidate Q&As... and I will do a few myself.  My blogging compadres' recent efforts are worth repeating.

-- Kim Ogg for Harris County District Attorney.  Even Big Jolly agrees she is the best woman for the job.  This is a no-brainer, y'all.

-- Texpate presents the latest of a handful of questionnaires from candidates; they include John Whitmire (incumbent Democratic state senator, District 15), Sam Houston (Democrat for Texas attorney general) and Green Party candidates Kenneth Kendrick (Texas agriculture commissioner) and David Collins (Harris County Judge).  All four -- but in particular, Kendrick -- are on my 'strongly recommended' list.

-- Socratic Gadfly introduces the Texas gubernatorial candidates with his characteristic snarkiness. He saves the harshest criticism for the stealth candidacy of Brandon Parmer.  You might recall that at his party's state convention in March, Parmer failed to show up... and nobody knew where he might be.

This one isn't a brainer, either.

The GPUS also has posted a list of its candidates running for office across the country, but for some reason lists only one Texas challenger, John Tunmire, who is running in Wendy Davis's old Senate district.  I love the Greens and what they stand for, but sometimes their level of competence really tries my patience.

-- Burnt Orange Report's Joseph Vogas updated that blog's candidates tracker using the official status from the TXSOS.  He included this fascinating tidbit.

Among the final changes made, Ben E. Mendoza has filed as an independent in House District 77 against Democratic State Representative Marisa Marquez and and Paul Ingmundson has filed as a Green against Democrat Mike Villareal in House District 123. These two filings mean Democrats Marquez and Villareal are no longer unopposed. This is especially important in the case of Villareal who has said he plans to resign from office to run for Mayor of San Antonio. Villareal plans to resign as soon as the general election is over in early November. Had Villareal resigned earlier this month, Green candidate Ingmundson would be running unopposed and would win by default. 

The Green Party of Texas almost -- by happenstance it would seem, although my guess is Rep. Villarreal (note the spelling, Joseph) did make some calculations to prevent it -- had its first statehouse representative.

And in answer to my question, Vogas pointed out that the Texas Tribune's 2014 brackets are incorrect, as none of the independent candidates they show running for governor and lieutenant governor have qualified for the ballot.  So BOR's is the definitive list.

Got more scoop, rumor, innuendo, gossip, slime, scuttlebutt?  Little birds whispering words on the street into your ear?  Send it my way: PDiddie at gmail dot com.