Chalking Up Montana As A Democratic Loss
I had intended to write a column today to take an overview of all the close races for Senate seats. Every so often, I like to take a look at what the chances are for both parties to make gains in November (or, this year, to see whether the Republicans are going to gain a majority, realistically). Instead, after seeing the recent news from the New York Times, what is now called for is kissing goodbye any chances that the Montana Senate seat up for grabs will stay Democratic. To be blunt: there is now exactly zero chance of that happening, and we should all chalk up one guaranteed Republican gain in the Senate. The revelations that John Walsh plagiarized a major paper in college have now completely torpedoed his chances for retaining the seat. To be fair, there was little chance that Walsh was going to win in any case. But the difference between "little chance" and "no chance" can be measured in hope. There is now no hope for Democrats in Montana, this year.
Democrats were likely to lose this seat because the strongest candidate decided not to run. Brian Schweitzer is a well-liked ex-governor and would likely have held onto the Senate seat for Democrats. But he wasn't interested in becoming a senator -- perhaps because he has his sights set higher, on a presidential run. He expressed his feelings in no uncertain terms, by stating: "Congress is a miserable place. If a bus ran over a senator or a congressman tomorrow, we wouldn't even miss them." So Schweitzer wasn't ever going to save this seat for Democrats, even though lots of Democrats sincerely wished he had done so. John Walsh sits in the Senate now because he was appointed to the seat when Max Baucus became ambassador to China. So even though he's already in the Senate, he's never been elected to the spot by the state's voters. Being this type of "incumbent" doesn't really guarantee election (at least not in the way that an elected incumbent has such an advantage). Few Democratic strategists really expected Walsh to win this year, reflecting his standing in the polls versus his Republican opponent.
Walsh is a military man, and proud of it. Democrats aren't known for having lots of ex-military politicians in general, so Walsh was a welcome addition to the party (Democrats are all about diversity, right?). But his military record was already slightly tarnished by a previous mini-scandal, and the fact that he copied -- without attribution -- anywhere from one-fourth to one-third of his final paper for a master's degree from the War College is going to make him completely unacceptable to the voters. Running as an ex-military candidate means running on a military tradition of honor, but when that honor is tarnished it can cut even deeper than with non-military politicians, in the eyes of the public.
Plagiarism isn't a major crime, of course. Politicians plagiarize all the time, in fact -- sometime consciously, sometimes not. They'll use a phrase or a paragraph in a speech and not give credit for the idea's originator. Sometimes they get caught, sometimes they get away with it. Even when caught red-handed, some politicians manage to put it behind them (such as Rand Paul, who has been caught multiple times without it hurting his standing much with Kentucky voters).
Finding such plagiarism is a pretty hard slog, too. Just think of the amount of opposition research required to unearth plagiarism on a college paper from a long time ago. You'd have to do a pretty thorough search of everything publicly available (even when the only copy is sitting on a dusty shelf in some college library), and then you'd have to run literally every sentence from every bit of writing you found through a search engine, to find out if anyone else had publicly written exactly the same thing. Most of this incredibly boring work would turn out to be fruitless. You'd have to sift a lot of hay to find one needle.
Obviously, someone took the time to do so for John Walsh. Whether it was the New York Times who performed this laborious search or whether it was done by Republican opposition researchers and the results just passed along to a reporter is really immaterial. It doesn't matter who baked the cookies when you're caught with your hand in the jar, in other words. The point is the plagiarism was found and has now been exposed. Walsh has no ready explanation. That's all it is going to take.
Now, you can argue (plenty of politicians already have) that plagiarism isn't all that big a deal. This argument is a lot stronger when you're making it because you used someone else's words in a political speech. Nobody expects a political speech to come with footnotes, after all. And since politicians (from the same party, at least) routinely offer support for the same issues, there's bound to be a lot of overlap in general. But that's in political speeches and political writing. Plagiarism has a sliding scale, in the world of politics, and speeches are at the lowest end of that scale. The other end -- the worst possible infraction -- would be to pass someone's writing off as your own in a book that you write to put money in your pocket. For example, if it had been discovered that Hillary Clinton had "borrowed" one-fourth of her new book, she would likely be disgraced so badly she wouldn't even run for president. It's a cardinal sin, as opposed to lifting a few sentences in a political speech.
Walsh's plagiarism falls somewhere in between. It wasn't for personal profit, but it was for personal gain (to earn himself an advanced college degree). It wasn't for political reasons, and he was definitely passing others' work off as his own. Which makes it a pretty serious offense, especially when you add in the whole question of honor for an ex-military politician. I could -- barely -- see a certain type of politician survive such a scandal, but the circumstances would have to be otherwise perfect to do so. If this had been uncovered right after an election (instead of right before), then a politician might be able to survive it in the next election. If the politician were well-loved by his constituents (with sky-high approval ratings), then people might brush it off as a youthful mistake. If the politician were extremely charismatic and hadn't built his public persona around being ex-military, then the voters might also forgive and forget. Unfortunately for Walsh, though, none of those really apply to him.
Walsh is (not to put too fine a point on it) now toast. His shot at holding onto his Senate seat is essentially over. Democrats should focus their energy on winning other Senate races this time around, and should just chalk up Montana as a loss. Many already did so when Schweitzer said he wouldn't run, but now everyone should just throw in the towel on this particular race. It ain't over 'til it's over (which I fully cite the great Western philosopher Yogi Berra for stating); but at this point for Walsh, it really is over.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Never give up hope Chris. I've heard that the other one is a stealth Scientologist.
The senate race in KY actually involves bombardment by TV ads about *job* creation and retention.
"That is not my job. It is the primary responsibility of the state Commerce Cabinet" - Mitch McConnell
In the old days, MM would blanket the airwaves with ads about the pork he brought home. That was more effective than saying "not my job". Now he says that he had nothing to do with funding that dam. Somebody else did it. Ditch Mitch.
"Congress is a miserable place. If a bus ran over a senator or a congressman tomorrow, we wouldn't even miss them."
That any American politician would make a public statement such as that betrays an extremely sad state of affairs and does not bode well for the future of American leadership, at home or abroad.
(Democrats are all about diversity, right?)
{{cough}} {cough} bullshit {{cough}}
:D
Forecast models show the GOP with a net gain of 7 seats in the Senate, thereby insuring an effective majority.. :D
Liz,
That any American politician would make a public statement such as that betrays an extremely sad state of affairs and does not bode well for the future of American leadership, at home or abroad.
Something we can totally and utterly agree on...
Michale
Never give up hope Chris. I've heard that the other one is a stealth Scientologist.
"REALLY!!??? That's great!!!! And... You can PROVE that, right!?? Oh yea, that's right. I forgot. You were absent the day they taught Law at Law School."
-Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN
:D
Michale
Democratic senator cites PTSD in apparent thesis plagiarism
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/23/sen-john-walsh-cites-ptsd-in-thesis-plagiarism-explanation/?intcmp=latestnews
Yep... He's toast...
Michale
Forecast models show the GOP with a net gain of 7 seats in the Senate, thereby insuring an effective majority.. :D
That's consistent with the NYT estimate, which I consider credible, but that basically means the race for senate control is pretty close to a tossup. All remotely likely forecasts boil down to just 9 or so competitive, or slightly competitive, states. You can almost ignore the rest.
At this early date, net Republican gains in the range of 4 to 8 seem to cover the fat part of the frequency distribution. The chances of anything else seem pretty remote.
That's consistent with the NYT estimate, which I consider credible, but that basically means the race for senate control is pretty close to a tossup.
Uh... no...
If GOP gains a net +7 that means they will have 54 seats which is a clear majority and gives the GOP effective control of the Senate..
Or am I missing something???
Michale
The chances of anything else seem pretty remote.
Well, that's simply not true!
The chances that I'll be reading comments and responding here after early November are relatively excellent.
The chances that I'll be reading comments and responding here after early November are relatively excellent.
WOOT!!!!! :D
Michale
The chances of anything else seem pretty remote.
Well, that's simply not true!
The chances that I won't be reading comments and responding here after early November are relatively excellent.
(note: comment #9 needs to be deleted/ignored; that shouldn't be a problem)
Awww carp!!! :(
Michale
Of course, things could happen that would substantially reduce those odds. :)
Of course, things could happen that would substantially reduce those odds. :)
Troo... The Administration could actually do something that ALL Americans would be proud of...
Stranger things have happened.. :D
Michale
Indeed. :)
Michale [8] -
Um, no.
Not to quibble with the projections (which is, indeed, what I wanted to write for this column, in a way), if the GOP is +7 after November, it'll be at 52. They're at 45 right now.
Just to keep you honest... (heh)...
-CW
Michale -
What may have thrown you off is that there are two "I" senators, but these Independents reliably vote with the Dems. So you may see (technically accurate) stories which state "Democrats currently have 53 senators"... which would mean 47 GOPs, by subtraction (and make your math correct, incidentally)... these stories almost always have a "and two independents who caucus with the Dems" qualifying statement.
-CW
Not to quibble with the projections (which is, indeed, what I wanted to write for this column, in a way), if the GOP is +7 after November, it'll be at 52. They're at 45 right now.
52 is more than 50, if my math is correct..
It STILL fires Harry -The-Iraq-War-Is-Lost- Reid and gives up Majority Leader McConnell does it not???
Michale
I am curious...
What would be the numbers if every single Senate race went the GOP's way???
Democrat's way???
Michale
It STILL fires Harry -The-Iraq-War-Is-Lost- Reid and gives up Majority Leader McConnell does it not???
It STILL fires Harry -The-Iraq-War-Is-Lost- Reid and gives uS Majority Leader McConnell does it not???
Michale
And, once it does give us Majority Leader McConnell (WaPo Election Map says 87% chance) I well and truly hope that McConnell is as much of, if not MORE of, a prick towards Democrats as Reid was towards Republicans..
Be interesting to see how ya'all react when DEMOCRATS are on the receiving end of a total prick Majority Leader... :D
Michale
Michael, 8
"... am I missing something???"
Yes.
First, the forecast of a net 7 gain is just the highest probability net gain or loss, which isn't all that interesting by itself. What you really want to know is the probability of winning control of the senate, which you get by summing up probabilities of the different winning outcomes (Dems treat a tie as a win, Reps don't). You left out the take home until comment 21.
Second, you left out who made the prediction, until comment 21, which is important. WAPO is a bit of an outlier. Their assigned probabilities give the fewest competitive states I've seen.
CW admirably covered some other stuff for me (hat tip to CW.
As I pointed out in comments to Boehner's Laughable Lawsuit a few days ago, assumptions about the independence of individual state behaviors make a big difference in how you predict overall likelihood of victory from state by state odds. In 2012, I found the most successful forecasts were consistent with the assumption that states move in tight herds, with nearly all the model variance expressed in one national roll of the dice.
If I apply the latest WAPO state probability table to a national variance model, I get a very different prediction:
The Dems have a 54% chance of retaining control, 26% by outright majority, and 28% by a tie. That's down just a little bit from what happened when I ran WAPO's numbers earlier in the week.
With a strong state herd effect, Republicans have a 95% chance of winning 19 races, one of which (Montana) is a takeover. They have a 74% chance of winning all the above and 4 more takeovers (Arkansas, Louisiana, Iowa and Alaska. Then they hit Colorado, the only genuinely competitive race according to WAPO tables and the key getting a two seat majority. The odds of that are 46% The odds of adding another seat and getting a 4 seat majority are just 9%. My strong herd model is in pretty good agreement, with the 538 and NYT predictions, but since both of those probably use a very similar model, treat them as just one case.
There is no guarantee the strong herd effect I saw in 2012 will apply in this year, but I certainly don't discount the possibility.
In general, I'm skeptical about which states are genuinely competitive at this early date. Polling data is fairly sparse, and a lot of it is probably unreliable.
Michale [19] -
Here's a site to keep track (it's a slightly-leaning-right, but still-fairly-reality-based site, so you shouldn't have any "librul media" complaints):
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/2014_elections_senate_map.html
Right now, the split is 46/46 with 8 races up for grabs. This gives a split of a possible 54/46 split, either way. That's about the outside of all possibilities, at this point.
You're welcome.
If that's not enough, check in the left-hand column's links for "Senate: no toss-ups" to see how the field shifts as new polls come in.
-CW
Thank you :D
We'll know for sure in 101 days 18 hours and 36 minutes... :D
Michale
CW -
I like realclearpolitics too, but it only gives poll results and margins of error. RCP poll only maps course grained qualitative odds: likely, leans, tossup.
I wish more pollsters would give numerical odds, and be transparent about how they compute them.
Out of the 8 "tossups" that RCP indicates, only one has any chance at all going DEM..
All the others are practically shoe-ins for a GOP win..
I mean, Landrieu in Louisiana??? Com' on!!!
Begich in AK???
KY?? GA?? "toss ups"!???
On what planet???
Michale
Michale [26] -
Of the 8, I could see as many as six or seven going Dem. Remember, it's only July and who knows what October will bring?
Alaska - Begich is doing a lot better than expected, although the state is notorious for being very hard to poll accurately.
Arkansas - Pryor also doing very well in the polls. The GOP considered this a walk-off, but it is not turning out to be the case.
Colorado - easy shot for Dem.
Georgia - Sam Nunn's daughter could indeed steal this state from GOP. Now that GOP primary is over, let's see what the polling looks like in a few weeks.
Iowa - Braley is fighting to recover from one bad anti-farmer gaffe. But before the gaffe, the state was considered in the bag for Dems, so we'll see...
Kentucky - OK, I think Grimes is a longshot, admittedly. But McConnell's approval rating in KY is so incredibly low, she just might pull it off.
Louisiana - You're right, this one is probably a loser for Dems.
North Carolina - Another one Dems could easily win.
We see it from different angles, but there are a whole lot of different outcomes I could see from these 8. Granted, I think Dems have already lost in MT, SD, and WV, so I'm already seeing them currently at only 52 to GOP 48.
Just keep in mind how you felt about Romney's chances, that's all I ask this year. Sometimes surprises happen...
:-)
-CW
Of the 8, I could see as many as six or seven going Dem. Remember, it's only July and who knows what October will bring?
Exactly..
Considering all the catastrophes and scandals plaguing the Obama Administration now, there is absolutely no reason to think that an October Surprise will favor Dems..
Alaska - Begich is doing a lot better than expected, although the state is notorious for being very hard to poll accurately.
Considering all the bone head moves made by Federal Agencies in Alaska, the prevailing mood is "Throw The Bums Out!!" Begich is not going to win..
Arkansas - Pryor also doing very well in the polls. The GOP considered this a walk-off, but it is not turning out to be the case.
Another state feeling the heat from Obama's Southern Border fiasco...
Colorado - easy shot for Dem.
I'll give you that one. Not as easy as, say, Montana for the GOP.. But still...
Georgia - Sam Nunn's daughter could indeed steal this state from GOP. Now that GOP primary is over, let's see what the polling looks like in a few weeks.
GA is the GOP's version of CO for the Democrats..
North Carolina - Another one Dems could easily win.
"Could"... But unlikely.. Another state reeling from the Obama Admin's bonehead moves..
Of the 8, Dems have ONE semi-lock (CO) and one true toss-up (IA)..
The Dems themselves have already conceded that they will likely lose the Senate...
Turnout's the key..
With the Right spoiling for a fight and the Left completely disillusioned by Obama's incompetence, scandals and lack of transparency, it's entirely possible, even probable, that the Right will sweep...
Just keep in mind how you felt about Romney's chances, that's all I ask this year. Sometimes surprises happen...
Trooo... I could be wrong again this year..
But, so could ya'all.. :D
Conventional wisdom would indicate the latter.. :D
Michale
Michael:
Bank error in your Favor!
I made a data entry error when I ran my national model using WAPO state probabilities. I dropped a decimal point and tabulated West VA as a near certainty for Democrats, when in fact WAPO (and pretty much everybody else on planet Earth) makes it a near certain pickup for Republicans. So, according to the WAPO tabulation, Colorado is "a speedbump too far."
Running my national model (zero local variance)with the correct WAPO probabilities(checked, double checked and checked again)gives Republicans a 74% chance of controlling the senate. That's in much better agreement with the WAPO assessment of 87%, but I can't improve the fit by adding local variance. WAPO isn't very forthcoming with the details of their prediction model, so I can't account for assumptions that would explain this unresolvable lack of fit between our models. The fact that just one state can make such a big difference shows how knife edge the outcome seems to be.
As I noted earlier, most other prognosticators show more states in play than WAPO does, but that doesn't mean their viewpoint isn't credible, especially this early in the season.
As I said in comment 7, Republican pick ups in the range of 4-8 seem most likely to me, given the limited data available. The WAPO numbers give results within in that range, their isn't a lot of scope given so many state probabilities near one and zero.