Can the new Democratic members win in 2010?

Jonathan Allen is an award-winning political reporter for Congressional Quarterly, where he began his Washington journalism career in 2000. He has covered presidential, congressional and gubernatorial elections, House and Senate leadership and the federal budget. In the past year, he has won the National Press Foundation's Dirksen Award for Distinguished Reporting of Congress and the National Press Club's Hume Award for Excellence in Political Journalism. He is a frequent guest on national and local television and radio programs, including On the Record with Greta Van Susteren and Hardball with Chris Matthews.

This discussion is over, but please read the transcript below.

• Bill from Scranton: Will Specter's move to the Democratic Party save his job for him?
• Jonathan Allen:

  I think it's too early to tell.

  There could be a backlash among Democratic primary voters against Specter if he gets serious competition on that side of the Pennsylvania ballot.

  It remains to be seen whether Pat Toomey will be the Republican nominee. If it's Specter vs. Toomey in a general election, Specter would be the prohibitive favorite.

• Ted in Austin: Nancy Pelosi says she was not told about the kinds of interrogation methods used on prisoners during the war on terror. This has been on the TV and in the newspapers a lot. How could she not know?
• Jonathan Allen:

  What she is saying is that she was told in a September 2002 briefing that the methods were available to interrogators and legal but not that they had been used.

  We now know that Abu Zubaydah had been waterboarded 83 times in August of that year.

  So, either Pelosi was told and she is not telling the truth now, or there was a pretty big omission in the briefing she got. The now-public records of the briefing she received suggest that she was told about EICs or "enhanced interrogation techniques" but make no mention of waterboarding. If there are any transcripts of those briefings, they have not been made available by either the Speaker's office or U.S. intelligence agencies.

• Tammy from Minot, ND: Will any of the money being spent to help the economy bring some industry to a place like North Dakota?
• Jonathan Allen:

  Yes and no.

  Certainly stimulus money will be helpful in slowing job losses and perhaps creating new jobs in North Dakota. So, to the extent that those funds fuel the existing economy or bring in some new businesses, yes it will boost the state's industrial base.

  For example, here's a contract for a North Dakota company, Keplin-Gracon, to demolish the sauna in the ladies locker room at Grand Forks Air Force Base and replace it with shower stalls (hat tip to Pro Publica).

  However, the stimulus money, which largely went out through existing programs, isn't likely to create the kind of shift in the way business is done or resources are used that would directly result in whole new industries or large numbers of major businesses relocating to North Dakota.

  Perhaps some of the president's energy plans would have more of an impact on the state's industry, particularly with regard to the use of alternative fuels.

  The state has a Web site devoted to tracking recovery funds, but there isn't much on it yet.

• Earl from Johnstown: Out local congressman here, Mr. Murtha, has been in the news a lot, and some of it hasn't been good. We like him because he brings federal money. Is he doing anything he shouldn't?
• Jonathan Allen:

  Congressman Murtha hasn't been charged with any crimes.

  There's nothing wrong with a congressman looking out for his or her constituents -- after all, that's part of what they are sent to Washington to do.

  
  That said, the coincidence of contracts going to firms whose executives contribute heavily to Murtha's campaign and those of his closest allies in Congress and which hire lobbying firms with very close ties -- including campaign contributions -- to Murtha raise a lot of questions about how public money is being spent.

• Ed from Washington: Have you seen any indication yet that the Republicans are coming up with a positive message for 2010, or are they just waiting around, hoping Obama will fizzle out?
• Jonathan Allen:

  I think Republicans in Washington are starting to understand that they are no longer representative of the broad swath of the American electorate that decides elections.

  Their numbers -- and philosophical spectrum -- have been thinned to the point that they almost exclusively represent heavily Republican districts, they have few minorities, and they have no obvious place to go to expand their share of the electorate.

  
  Of course, the party out of power is always best served by the party in power angering the electorate. But Republicans know they can't sit around and wait for a very popular and respected president -- not to mention incumbent Democratic congressmen -- to have the public turn on them.

  
  I think that's why they put together this National Council for a New America. While Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney might be seen as retreads in some circles, they can also be viewed as Republicans who won statewide elections in tough states, in part by bringing innovative policy to the table that attracted the votes of moderates.

  
  It's a small start, but some seem to recognize the problem.

• Calvin from Virginia.: Why is Sen. Mitch McConnell still the Republican Senate leader?
• Jonathan Allen:

  Somebody else would have to both want the job and have the votes to beat McConnell.

  I'm not sure there is anyone at the moment that fits either description, and it seems pretty clear nobody fits both.

• Rohno from Arizona: What is the probability that we will see "Goldwater Republicans" (i.e., where "conservative" means focusing on a reduction of governmental influences upon our lives with a strong sence of seperation of church and state) switch parties or move to be independent? What, if anything, is the Democratic party doing to foster such decision making among their conservatice but socially responsible counterparts?
• Jonathan Allen:

  There are very few true libertarian conservatives in elective office these days, which limits the pool of possible GOP defectors. If it were to happen, it would probably come from a western state other than California.

  I haven't heard any rumblings of party switches in the House of Representatives, though I have asked around a bit. That doesn't mean it won't happen.

• Phil from Raytown: Do you see the Republicans making any comebacks in 2010 or is next year just another disappointment for them?
• Jonathan Allen:

  It's certainly possible, if not likely, that Republicans will make gains in the House.

  That's what history suggests given their large victories in the last two consecutive elections and what the map suggests given how few obvious targets remain for Democrats.

  That said, it's a long way off and Democrats have had some recruiting successes already in places where Republicans have long held districts that should be competitive. Too early, but don't be shocked if the House changes by fewer than 10 seats in one direction or the other.
  
  At this point, the Senate looks bleak for the GOP.

  Each party will be defending 18 seats in the 2010 election, but Democrats have put together an impressive stable of candidates not only in seats where Republicans are retiring but in some where incumbents are looking to defend, particularly Kentucky.
  
  Democrats will have to work hard to defend some of their incumbent seats, including Connecticut and Colorado. In a year in which so many races are likely to be competitive, candidate quality will matter a lot -- even more than it always does -- because the resources of the party committees will surely be stretched thin.

• AJ from South College Park, MD: Which races could be the most expensive in the House this coming election, and do you think the problems between Murtha and that lobbying group could be a drain on the Democratic ticket?
• Jonathan Allen:

  Challengers don't typically make the decision to run until later in the election cycle, so it's hard to know who will be running where right now. One race that is sure to attract significant money is in Cincinnati's 1st District, where a rematch is shaping up between freshman Rep. Steve Driehaus and former Rep. Steve Chabot.

  Chabot has already raised more than $200,000 -- and more than Driehaus -- for part deux.
  
  Several Democratic freshman have put together big fundraising quarters, which may help them keep tough challengers from running against them.
  
  A list of the top 10 first quarter fundraisers can be found at here at www.cqpolitics.com

• Edmund in Kansas: I have read that Senator Harry Reid is going to have trouble getting re-elected. But I have also read that his seat is safe. I have two questions: How would he rank as a Senate majority leader? And is he in trouble from the voters?
• Jonathan Allen:

  It sounds great, but Senate majority leader is a terrible job. You have few carrots and even fewer sticks with which to keep your troops in line. Perhaps more important for your question, the things you have to do to lead the party in Congress are often not popular back home. That was certainly the case with Tom Daschle.
  
  Harry Reid has been aware of the potential to befall Daschle's fate and has worked to make sure the same doesn't happen to him.

  But Nevada is a true swing state, and his approval ratings make him appear vulnerable.

  The question for Republicans is whether any of them are well enough known and popular enough to beat him. Scandals have hit some GOP leaders, and Reid doesn't look quite as imperiled now as he did a few months ago.
  He has piled up a ton of money to take on any challenger.
  
  Where does he rank in terms of majority leaders? It's hard to say. He's less effective than Lyndon Johnson and Trent Lott, but many believe he is a step up from Bill Frist.

• Drew from Indianapolis: Do you think it's possible that if the Democrats overreach, they might see some of their own members switch to the Republican party?
• Jonathan Allen:

  I think it is extremely unlikely that elected Democratic officials would swith to the Republican Party.

  If you are a member of Congress, you are effectively giving up your influence by going from the majority to the minority. On the level of individual voters, that could happen.

• Bill from Ann Arbor, MI: Do you think Republicans can get back some Senate seats in 2010?
• Jonathan Allen:

  It's possible. But I wouldn't rate it as likely at this point.

  There are too many variables right now to say for certain whether they will net seats, inlcuding their recruiting and fundraising, the president's popularity, and dumb luck.

• Mike from Washington, DC: Could it be true that the more President Obama is seen interacting with Congress, the more that the House Democratic freshmen feel he is there for them and will take a tough vote for him? And if so, why?
• Jonathan Allen:

  It's hard to say 'No' to the president -- particularly if he's of your own party and particularly if he is popular.

  That is very much a dynamic that not only could take hold, but probably has already. The question for freshman Democrats in tough re-election races is whether the president will be able to help them come 2010.

• Brandon from Houston: In 2002, then-President Bush barnstormed the nation for Republican congressional candidates, but with such a commanding majority in the House, do you think President Obama will be bothered to spare some of his political capital to boost the chances of a vulnerable freshman Democrat like Steve Driehaus? Even if Obama largely ignores the race and only cuts a radio ad for Driehaus, are the advantages of incumbency alone enough to give Driehaus a slight edge in his rematch with Chabot?
• Jonathan Allen:

  I don't think there's any question that the president will make an effort to not only maintain the Democratic majorities in Congress but expand them.

  As Rep. Chris Van Hollen said to me earlier this week, the 2010 election will be seen as something of a report card on the president, and a Democratic win at the polls would give Obama's agenda momentum. He has already scheduled his first fundraiser for Democratic House candidates.

  
  Driehaus starts with a leg up because he's an incumbent and because he won by a significant if small margin. 14,000 votes is nothing to sneeze at in a district that Chabot carried with a little bit more than 9,000 two years earlier.

• Joseph from Baton Rouge: Do you think the midterm elections will negatively impact new Democratic members since Obama is not on the ballot?
• Jonathan Allen: That's the question that will keep Democratic strategists up at night with worry and Republican strategists up at night with hope.
  
  Turnout in midterm elections is always much lower than in a presidential year. If there's standard mid-term turnout in swing districts in 2010, Republicans will have a good opportunity to cut into the gains Democrats made in the 2006 and 2008 elections.
  
  But if Democrats are able to tap into the Obama campaign's extraordinary organizational effort, they may be able to swamp Republicans by turning out more of their voters than would typically be expected in mid-terms.
  
  Great question. I'll tell you the answer sometime in early November 2010.
• Condor from Charlotte: What is the chance that other moderate Republican senators switch to the Democratic Party in advance of their next elections? I'm thinking of Snowe and Collins and the like.
• Jonathan Allen:

  2012, when Snowe is up for re-election, is even further away than 2010.

  Snowe may not even run again. I wouldn't rule it out. But Snowe loyally has been a Republican -- if not always loyal to the party's agenda -- and it would be an even bigger suprise if she switched than it was when Specter did.

  Collins just won re-election as a Republican in Maine and, as one of the few people who can offer Obama the label of bipartisanship on any given agenda item, she has more influence as a Republican. Same goes for Snowe.

• Charles in Grosse Pointe: Is there any way of knowing yet if all the money the government has put into the car companies is going to do any good?
• Jonathan Allen: Not yet.
• Don in Monroeville, Ala.: How come nobody talks about term limits anymore? Seems to me a six-year cap across the board for the House and Senate would stop a lot of this partisan nonsense, while curtailing lobbying and elections and campaign finance mischief. Make it six years for the presidency as well.
• Jonathan Allen:

  Term limits were a good campaign pledge because they are popular. But getting a constitutional amendment is impractical.

  You would have to get two-thirds of the elected lawmakers to vote to end their own careers (good luck with that) and then get three-quarters of the states to ratify it (perhaps more feasible). But given incumbent retention rates, term limits would force the majority party to give up an advantage. Why would it do that?

• Dan from Winter Park, CO: Jon, I thought the Democrats pledged to clean up Washington. So why are we stuck with Charlie Rangel chairing Ways and Means and Chris Dodd chairing Banking, when both are embroiled in scandals that directly relate to their committee business? I get this is politics, but where did the accountability go?
• Jonathan Allen: The truth is there is precious little accountability other than that meted out by a Justice Department which has ramped up its scrutiny of Congress in recent years but has also caused problems with its conduct. The ethics committees shouldn't be thought of as tools for punishing members of Congress but for protecting members of Congress. Sometimes the committees' actions protect the individual member whose conduct is investigated and sometimes they reprimand an individual lawmaker to protect the other members.
• Mike from Washington, DC: Why does it seem that President Obama has spent more time courting Congress (meetings, social events, going to Capitol Hill) than President Bush ever did and do you think it will continue?
• Jonathan Allen: Despite Republican support for President Bush's policies when it came time to vote, he caused great consternation by neglecting Congress. I think it's a mistake that President Obama has learned from. Consulting with Congress and co-opting its members is helpful in moving an agenda that can be blocked more easily than it can be enacted.
  It may also reflect the different views of the powers of the branches held by the Bush administration (big on Article II) and the Obama administration (more reverent of Article I).