Thinking Ahead, 2010

So, it's more than a year and a half until the next Congressional elections. I thought it would be interesting to speculate where we're going to be, politically, in two years.

1) Battle for the Senate
It'll be an uphill battle for Democrats. Republicans successfully framed '60' as a scary number. But FiveThirtyEight argues pretty convincingly that the six most competitive Senate seats are currently held by Republicans. It seems likely that the Dems could pick up at least a couple seats in New Hampshire, Missouri, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

But, depending on how things go for the next couple years, Dems may have to play significant defense in Nevada, Connecticut, Delaware, and maybe even Illinois (if Burris can split the opposition and win the primary).

The loss of any one of these seats will be seen as a serious blow for Dems: Reid (NV) is the Senate majority leader and Dodd (CT) was a presidential candidate, is chair of the Senate Finance Committee and a long-time incumbent, while Delaware and Illinois are solidly blue.

If Dems hold their own and pick up a couple, it'll be interpreted as wind behind Obama's back. As of this writing, this seems rather likely.

If Dems hold their own and fail to pick up seats, it'll be interpreted as a significant loss. With strong pick-up opportunities, it'll be interpreted that the Republican message has gained traction and will be seen as Obama losing his footing.

If Dems lose Nevada or Connecticut, they have to run the table to avoid being seen as election losers. That means they would have to pick up three or four seats.

If Dems lose more, it'll be interpreted as voter dissatisfaction with Obama and the Democratic agenda.

2) House Ebbs
Both 2006 and 2008 were considered "wave" years for House Democrats. No one wanted to be a Republican these years and Democrats were able to chalk up major gains. But the tide ebbs and flows. No one seriously thinks a third wave is coming. Congressional elections between presidential terms normally swing against the President.

The best case scenario is probably for Dems to hold onto their own numbers: ~255. (It's hard to imagine a world in which Dems can add any more than 10 seats in 2010.)

The most likely scenario, Dems lose seats. Maybe a dozen? This is not a line-by-line analysis of competitive seats. Just what is considered on the Hill as conventional wisdom.

3)Whither POTUS?
The third factor here is Presidential approval ratings. Much has been said about how Obama has sky-high approval ratings, though in a historical sense, they aren't really all that high.

Can Obama stay popular? I'm bullish on Obama and very optimistic about 2012. I doubt he'll get the turnout he got in 2008, or that he could possibly improve on his margin of victory, but I have a tough time finding a Republican who can seriously square off against him and come out ahead.



So what will be the final outcome of the 2010 elections? I imagine it's likely that it won't be seen as a strong vote in favor of Obama's agenda. At best, it'll be seen as mixed results. The most likely scenario I see is that Dems lose House seats and pick up some Senate seats.

How does that translate? Currently, the President sets the agenda, the House approves a liberal version and the Senate compromises on the liberal version to placate the moderates it needs to pass. What would be the effect of more Senate Dems and fewer House Dems?

Ironically, it might be easier to pass liberal legislation, even as the media narrative could shift to a notion that the country is turning away from supporting Obama and the Democratic agenda...

"Change" in Swahili

A friend recently emailed me and asked how I would translate the word "Change" into Swahili. I assumed she meant it in the same sense that was frequently attached to President Obama. Here's the email that I sent in response (with minor changes):

Translations are funny. Is "change" a noun or a verb? Is it passive or active? Is it the result or is it the process?

Kenyans tend to use the verb "kubadilisha" as "to change" something. To change clothes, to change your mind, to replace something. "Kubadilika" is to have been changed. "Kugeuza" is more like transforming, turning, or altering. "Kugeuka" means to have been transformed, altered. Though the words' meanings ("kugeuza" vs "kubadilisha"; "kugeuka" vs. "kubadilika") frequently overlap.

But those are verbs.

For nouns, we have "badilisho" and "mabadilisho", which mean "a change" and "changes", respectively. The emphasis being on the process. "badiliko" and "mabadilko" which mean the same thing, but emphasizing the results.

There's also "mageuzo" and "mageuko", which is more like "revolution"--the first one being more about the process and the second, more like the result. The word itself again has the ma- pluralizer, but, to me, it seems to suggest something larger than "mabadiliko" or "mabadilisho".

During the campaign, commentators and critics loved to point out that the word "change" was very generic. I don't know if they thought about it this much, but from a linguistic point of view, it really is.

But, let's put it in the context of a frequently repeated slogan, "Change we can believe in". Well, that makes it a noun, not a verb. I'm not a big fan of using "badilisho"/"badiliko" here because that seems to be too "small" for what that statement implies. It is not about "a change" or even "changes". It suggests systemic change. So I'm inclined toward "mageuzo" and "mageuko".

During the campaign it felt more like "mageuko" (i.e. the immediate result of the act of voting), and now it's more like "mageuzo" (i.e. an ongoing process).

Neither of these words are frequently used in the Kenyan (Nairobi) dialect of Swahili, but it's easily understood. The familiar words ("badilisho"/"badiliko" and their plural forms) don't seem to cut it.