Post Decries Negative Campaigns

The Washington Post this morning covers the disturbing proliferation of negative campaigning, particularly related to sex. You might think that this was an odd time to start the backlash against Democratic attacks related to Mark Foley, the lying smears about Jerry Weller, and the 'outing' of Republicans - you know, right when Jim Webb is on the defensive. You might also think it's odd for the Post to complain about negative campaigning, after flogging 'macaca' for so long.

But wait for it: the attacks that the Post is concerned about are by Republicans.

The Year Of Playing Dirtier
Negative Ads Get Positively Surreal
By Michael Grunwald
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 27, 2006; A01

Rep. Ron Kind pays for sex!

Well, that's what the Republican challenger for his Wisconsin congressional seat, Paul R. Nelson, claims in new ads, the ones with "XXX" stamped across Kind's face.

It turns out that Kind -- along with more than 200 of his fellow hedonists in the House -- opposed an unsuccessful effort to stop the National Institutes of Health from pursuing peer-reviewed sex studies. According to Nelson's ads, the Democrat also wants to "let illegal aliens burn the American flag" and "allow convicted child molesters to enter this country."

To Nelson, that doesn't even qualify as negative campaigning.

"Negative campaigning is vicious personal attacks," he said in an interview. "This isn't personal at all."

By 2006 standards, maybe it isn't.

On the brink of what could be a power-shifting election, it is kitchen-sink time: Desperate candidates are throwing everything. While negative campaigning is a tradition in American politics, this year's version in many races has an eccentric shade, filled with allegations of moral bankruptcy and sexual perversion.

At the same time, the growth of "independent expenditures" by national parties and other groups has allowed candidates to distance themselves from distasteful attacks on their opponents, while blogs and YouTube have provided free distribution networks for eye-catching hatchet jobs.

"When the news is bad, the ads tend to be negative," said Shanto Iyengar, a Stanford professor who studies political advertising. "And the more negative the ad, the more likely it is to get free media coverage. So there's a big incentive to go to the extremes."

The result has been a carnival of ugly, especially on the GOP side, where operatives are trying to counter what polls show is a hostile political environment by casting opponents as fatally flawed characters. The National Republican Campaign Committee is spending more than 90 percent of its advertising budget on negative ads, according to GOP operatives, and the rest of the party seems to be following suit...

Back to the top.

Novak Trashes Barron's; Predicts Dem House

Evans and Novak write this week that House Democrats look likely to gain about 21 seats, which would give them control of the House. They suggest a Democratic gain of 4 seats in the Senate.

I put the House a little closer; my current count is an 18-20 seat gain for the Democrats.

Notably, Evans and Novak also trash the much-discussed prediction of Barron's that the House would stay Republican. Their criticsms are very similar to mine.

Update: Larry Sabato has weighed in with his latest assessment. He estimates that Democrats will gain 21-26 seats in the House, 4 to 6 in the Senate, and 5 to 7 governorships. Read the whole thing to get commentary on what the GOP ground game is worth (2 points or so) and the potential effect of the NJ decision.

Back to the top.

NJ Skepticism

Buoyed by polls that show Tom Kean and Bob Menendez close in New Jersey, the GOP is getting ready to invest as much as $5 million in the state's Senate race.

This is an interesting gamble, given how much money the GOP has flushed down the New Jersey rathole in recent years.

In 2004, the last Quinnipiac poll showed Bush and Kerry tied at 46%, a week before election day. The New York Times was calling New Jersey a 'swing state,' and the perception that the race was close led Bush to speak on homeland security in New Jersey only a few weeks before election day. But as USA Today noted, even though polls consistenly showed the race to be a close one, Kerry ultimately won by 7 points.

In 2000, early polls in New Jersey showed a close race between Bush and Gore, with some even showing Bush ahead. A belief that the race had gotten close again late in the campaign led Bush to hold a rally in the state only a few days before the election, in the hopes of a blowout victory in the Presidential race. The result? Bush lost by 16 points.

Some of this is laid out in a post-mortem on the 2000 race here. The chief political director for the Newark Star Ledger describes New Jersey as a 'weird state,' where 'polls show things close and tend to break Democratic in the end.'

By spending a lot of money in an expensive media market, the the GOP is betting that things will be different in New Jersey this year.

Back to the top.

Ford, Corker, Racism and Lawbreakers

Harold Ford and the Democrats think a recent ad paid for by the RNC is racist. I've linked to the ad as explained by a Democrat who agrees.



First off, let's note that the ad accuses Ford of being a lying, immoral, anti-gun, terrorist-loving, tax raising liberal. And the best answer he can come up with is 'that's racist!' If that's his best defense, Bob Corker can start drafting his victory speech.

But besides that, it's pathetic that the Democratic party has reached the point where it would claim that it's racist to even suggest that a black person and a white person might have sex together. But as the ad I linked makes clear, Republicans are racist no matter what they do. It is racist to suggest that black women find Ford attractive; it is racist to suggest that white women do. There is no way to avoid the racism charge. It's another clear demonstration that today's Democratic party can't look past a person's skin color, and see everything through the prism of race.

Further, Ford wants Corker to break the law, and get the ad withdrawn. Worse, he assumes that Corker can and will do so:

Corker’s campaign called on the RNC to stop airing the commercial the day it aired, Oct. 20, saying it is “over the top, tacky and is not reflective of the kind of campaign we are running.” In addition, the Corker campaign released a memo it addressed to Tennessee television station managers Monday asking them to pull the ad.

Corker cannot directly address his complaint to the RNC, as candidates are not allowed to coordinate with the national parties on advertising paid for by independent expenditures — even to request that an ad be pulled from circulation.

But Democrats argue that Corker is simply playing the good cop and could have the commercial pulled if he chooses.

“Everyone knows that if Mr. Corker wanted these despicable and offensive ads taken off the air, all he has to do is ask the Washington Republican leadership to do so. But he has failed to do so,” Ford said in a statement.

By Ford's logic, the decision of the RNC to pull the ad would almost constitute prima facie evidence of illegal coordination between Corker and the RNC. Nevertheless, looks like the ad has been pulled.

Back to the top.

The Importance of the NJ Decision

Mickey writes on the NJ decision, and makes a good argument that its political effect will be relatively minor. But while we won't have myriad pictures of gay couples flying to Atlantic City to marry, and it won't lead the news on CNN and Fox every half hour, that doesn't mean it won't have a significant impact.

The picture that Mickey paints would be dramatic indeed. It would probably push gay marriage forward as one of the top issues in the election - along with Iraq. Nancy Pelosi would have to address it, and declare how Congressional Democrats would deal with it. I believe that the whole discussion would probably lead to a small, but significant effect among independent voters. Now, none of that is likely.

But midterm elections are base elections, and the discussion all year has been whether the Republican base was as motivated as the Democratic base, and whether evangelicals would be disillusioned with the GOP for a range of reasons, including Mark Foley. I think that has become a much smaller concern now. I suspect that social conservatives will take serious note of this - particularly as it becomes clear that the Supreme Court may ultimately hear a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (challenges have already been brought and rejected, as recently as this month).

Opponents of the DOMA have argued since it was first considered that it is unconstitutional (look here, here, and here for example). The argument holds that giving states the explicit right not to recognize some marriages certified by other states is a violation of the Constitution's 'full faith and credit' clause. It also asserts that DOMA's establishment of heterosexual marriages as the only ones recognized by the federal government is a violation of the 14th amendment's 'equal protection' guarantee.

It is only a matter of time before a court rules that DOMA is unconstitutional, and requires states to provide equal treatment to gay marriages certified by New Jersey, or some other state. That challenge will ultimately go to the Supreme Court. As social conservatives are reminded that their votes this year will influence the makeup of the Supreme Court that hears that challenge, they will come out to vote, and they will 'come home' to the GOP. I think that means an important boost (two points or so?) for Republican candidates in conservative states and districts.

Read Glenn's collection of responses here.

Update: Larry Sabato is always worth a read. Check out his take on the NJ decision here:

A Republican gift of yet-to-be-determined value arrived yesterday in the form of a significant judicial state ruling the Crystal Ball had quietly been anticipating from a distance... The state high court's decision to mandate the legislature to pass full legal rights to New Jersey's same-sex couples could not have come at a worse time for Democrats all across the country...

So long as the GOP is able to both keep the story alive and dedicate some resources to capitalize on it--a big if, might we add--New Jersey's ruling holds the potential to revive dormant conservative hostility towards judicial liberals at a time when many conservatives, disheartened by the Foley scandal and other Washington improprieties, may have considered sitting this midterm out... But more importantly for our purposes, added evangelical turnout could prove a decisive boon to GOP turnout in key races for control of Congress all over the nation--perhaps in Tennessee and Virginia's absolutely crucial Senate races.

The Crystal Ball reads the implications of this political hot potato with caution. It's possible that the story could fade from media memory in a day and ultimately be forgotten by voters; it's also possible that the political impact of the Garden State's ruling could be conveyed by religious conservative organizations under the radar, only surfacing to haunt the Democrats on November 7th. Time will tell...

Back to the top.

Bachmann Leads in Minnesota

The latest poll from Survey USA puts Michelle Bachmann ahead of Patty Wetterling by 6 points.

Back to the top.

Key Republicans Improving Position

The Hotline picks up polls of three bellwether races for determining House control. They show Clay Shaw, Rob Simmons and Peter Roskam all leading in their races. Although anything is possible, you'd think that if all three of those people win their races, the chances of Democrats taking the House are rather slim.

Democrats currently count about 10 Republican seats that are certain gains. Simmons and Shaw probably fall into the tier right after that - seats they'll need to get to a 15 or 20 seat gain.

Back to the top.

Liberals Who Don't Know What's Good for Them

Looks like the New Jersey Supreme Court has given social conservatives something besides Mark Foley to think about as they head to the polling booth. I suspect that court-ordered recognition of same-sex unions will count for much more than one former Congressman. Social conservatives in red states like Montana, Virginia, and Tennessee have been reminded that values issue like marriage are still salient.

I am sure that Harold Ford, Jon Tester and Jim Webb oppose gay marriage. I don't think that will help any of them, although Tester was far enough ahead that he still may win. But I suspect Bob Corker and George Allen can go to the 'prevent defense.'

By the way - you have to love the audacity of the imperial judiciary. The Supreme Court gives the Legislature 6 months to address the issue.

Glenn is on it, and I suspect that once Mickey writes on it, it will be worth reading.

Recall too, that Dick Morris believes the social conservatives were already 'coming home' to the GOP.

Back to the top.

Closing Time

You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here.

The Hill looks at where the NRCC is focusing its resources in the final days, and how GOP incumbents are fighting for re-election.

Back to the top.

Dick Morris Loses All Credibility

It was only 8 days ago that Dick Morris wrote in The Hill:

Churchgoing whites are the core of the Republican base. The fact that they are now breaking even in the approaching midterm elections foretells total disaster for the GOP. For this group to leave is, quite literally, the political equivalent of the last dog dying! It is now likely that they will lose both houses of Congress.

With this kind of defection, Republican Sens. Mike DeWine (Ohio), Conrad Burns (Mont.), Rick Santorum (Pa.), Jim Talent (Mo.) and Lincoln Chaffee (R.I.) seem likely to be gone. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist’s (R-Tenn.) seat seems likely to go to Rep. Harold Ford (D-Tenn.). And Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) may also be on his way out. In New Jersey, after trailing Tom Kean Jr. for most of September, Sen. Robert Menendez (D) seems to have moved out to a small lead that will probably grow.

And all of this trend is before the final weeks when downscale Democrats, who have not yet focused on the elections, “come home” and vote their historic party loyalties.

The defection of the Republican base is likely to be felt even more keenly in the House races. The very gerrymandering that GOP leaders had hoped would leave their House margin invulnerable may now backfire as the Republican white churchgoers, whom the district lines had incorporated into swing Republican districts, now defect and vote Democrat or stay home in massive numbers. The gerrymandering designed to keep Democrats out may have the perverse effect of keeping disaffected Republicans in the swing districts, magnifying their effect on the election.

Can the Republican Party reunite with its base? It’s hard to see how they can win it back until the 2008 election. A Hillary Clinton candidacy would obviously help them to regain the fierce loyalty of their base, but she would also bring in millions of single women voters who would support her candidacy by huge margins. The recent census data showing that half of all households are unmarried indicates how extensive a political force single women can become.

So it will take 2 years to reunite with the base, huh? I suppose so, unless it takes only 8 days:

06 ELEX: BACK TO TOSS-UP
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

October 24, 2006 -- The latest polls show something very strange and quite encouraging is happening: The Republican base seems to be coming back home. This trend, only vaguely and dimly emerging from a variety of polls, suggests that a trend may be afoot that would deny the Democrats control of the House and the Senate.

With two weeks to go, anything can happen, but it is beginning to look poss- ible that the Democratic surge in the midterm elections may fall short of control in either House.

Here's the evidence:

* Pollsters Scott Rasmussen and John Zogby both show Republican Bob Corker gaining on Democratic Rep. Harold Ford Jr. in Tennessee, a must-win Senate seat for the Democrats. Zogby has Corker ahead by seven, while Rasmussen still shows a Ford edge of two points.

* Zogby reports a "turnaround" in New Jersey's Senate race with the GOP candidate Tom Kean taking the lead, a conclusion shared by some other public polls.

* Even though Sen. Jim Talent in Missouri is still under the magic 50 percent threshold for an incumbent, Rasmussen has him one point ahead and Zogby puts him three up. But unless he crests 50 percent, he'll probably still lose.

* Even though he is a lost cause, both Rasmussen and Zogby show Montana's Republican Sen. Conrad Burns cutting the gap and moving up.

* In Virginia, Republican embattled incumbent Sen. George Allen has now moved over the 50 percent threshold in his internal polls. (He'd been at 48 percent.)

Nationally, Zogby reports that the generic Democratic edge is down to four points, having been as high as nine two weeks ago.

...


Why are Republican fortunes brightening?

The GOP base, alienated by the Foley scandal and the generally dismal record of this Congress, may have fast forwarded to the prospect of a Democratic victory and recoiled. They may have pondered the impact of a repeal of the Patriot Act, a ban on NSA wiretapping and a requirement of having an attorney present in terrorist questioning - and decided not to punish the country for the sins of the Republican leaders.

...

Right now, we would have to say that control of Congress has gone from "lean Democrat" to a "toss-up." And that's progress for the Republicans.

Back to the top.

NJ Gay Marriage Decision Tomorrow

So says the New Jersey Supreme Court (Hat Top: Hotline).

Well, if the decision is indeed, to require gay marriage, this is likely to be a significant shock to the political debate. Read Mickey, who nailed it.

So here are the potential events to help the GOP in the next two weeks: NJ Supreme Court decision, signing of the Secure Fence Act, conviction and sentencing of Saddam Hussein. That sounds like a hopeful formula. Combined with a financial advantage and the turnout machine, and the GOP might pull through.

Back to the top.

Some Minor Notes

What would happen if a Republican did this?

A test might be how much play this story gets. (Trivia Note: Hayworth is the IP-endorsed candidate for Arizona's next open statewide office).

Refusing to debate is usually a sign that you're comfortably ahead. Hooray!

Check out the Washington Post's Midterm Madness, and pick every one of the 468 House and Senate races up this year.

The President will reportedly sign the Secure Fence Act on Thursday.

According to the gay news site 365gay.com, the New Jersey Supreme Court is unlikely to issue its gay marriage ruling this week, and may not issue it until after the election:

NJ Gay Marriage Ruling Unlikely This Week
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
October 24, 2006 - 11:00 am ET

(Newark, New Jersey) The New Jersey Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage, widely expected to have been issued this week to coincide with the retirement of Chief Justice Deborah T. Poritz, now appears unlikely.

Portiz turns 70 on Thursday. Her last day on the bench will be Wednesday and both supporters and opponents of gay marriage have said they believe the ruling would be issued before then. (story)

But the court Tuesday on its Web site said that no rulings are expected on Wednesday. That also makes it unlikely any decision will be issued this week.

Some legal analysts now suggest the court will not deliver a ruling before next month's election out of concerns it could influence, one way or another, the outcome. They point to the ruling on same-sex marriage handed down in Massachusetts which came more than a week after the 2004 election.

And did you know that China has natural gas?

Back to the top.

Porkbusters Making a Difference

I've been wondering what to expect from the Congressional GOP, if they retain their majorities. Will they conclude that voters will never throw them out, and indulge every venal desire they may have, or will they embrace Winston Churchill? Churchill said lots of great things, including this:

Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result

Republicans who decide to live by this quote might realize that majorities can be fleeting, even if you do your best to act like Democrats. They might decide that the chance to promote conservative reforms cannot be wasted.

It looks like Arlen Specter of all people, may be getting the message:

Specter Mulls Labor-HHS Without Earmarks
October 24, 2006
By Emily Pierce and Erin P. Billings,
Roll Call Staff

Facing an FBI investigation of his top staff and scrutiny of his own financial records, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said he currently is weighing “the pros and cons” of whether to eliminate earmarks entirely from the annual Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and related agencies spending measure.

Specter, whose staffers are being investigated for allegedly improperly securing earmarks for businesses owned by their family members, currently chairs the Appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over the bill. He said in a recent interview that he plans to talk to his fellow Senators about the idea of ridding the measure of targeted spending provisions but has yet to reach a final determination.

“I’ve talked to a lot of my colleagues,” he said. “There’s a reluctance to give them up. But we’re seeing more problems pop up all the time. ... It’s an atmosphere that makes even good things look questionable...

While the spotlight on Specter’s staff may be creating some internal pressure to eliminate earmarks in future bills, he is likely to face a tough sell with both his Senate and House counterparts...

“Our decision last year not to do earmarks wasn’t very popular,” said John Scofield, spokesman for the House Appropriations Committee Republicans. Scofield noted that last November all Democrats and a fair number of Republicans joined forces against the earmark-free fiscal 2006 Labor-HHS bill and defeated an appropriations conference report for the first time in 10 years.

Scofield said House Appropriations Chairman Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) would be “open to talk” about the idea, even though Lewis and other House appropriators vigorously opposed a recent rule change that requires Members to identify the earmarks they have secured.

However, if predictions of a Democratic takeover of the chamber are realized on Nov. 7, Specter may find himself negotiating any earmark ban with House Democrats, who frequently have complained over the past 12 years of Republican rule that the Labor-HHS bill gets shortchanged.

Indeed, eliminating earmarks from Labor-HHS likely would adversely impact some of the Democrats’ highest priorities since the bulk of targeted spending provisions in the bill go to community centers, hospitals, schools and job-training programs...

Wow. This would suggest that conservatives who vote against Republicans because they want to teach them a lesson and give Democrats a shot, might actually be voting against their own interest.

Isn't that a crazy thought?

Back to the top.

Polls Can be Wrong

A useful reminder from Erick at RedState.

Back to the top.

India Checks Its Watch, Clears Its Throat

Will the Senate get around finally to agreeing that 1.1 billion people would be good to have as allies?

PJ

Shortening my Stay in Purgatory

When I was a kid, I was always told that any suffering and adversity I went through would shorten my stay in purgatory. Well, reading election predictions might be my guarantee to a straight shot right past purgatory and on to the pearly gates (or fiery damnation, as the case may be).

Stu Rothenberg today notes (subscription required) that the wave this year is bigger than 1994, and says that if Republicans were sufficiently exposed (that is, if the GOP held more nominally Democratic or marginal House seats), we could suffer as much as a 60 seat loss:

How High the Wave? Don’t Just Think 1994; Think 1974, 1958, 1982
October 24, 2006
By Stuart Rothenberg,
Roll Call Contributing Writer

With only a couple of weeks until Election Day, we know there will be a Democratic wave on Nov. 7. And we can be fairly certain that by historical standards it will be high — possibly very high. But we still don’t know how many Republicans once considered safe will be swept out of office.

The national political environment currently is worse than it was in 1994, when the Democrats lost 52 House seats, eight Senate seats and 10 governorships, and when Republicans won GOP control of the House for the first time in decades.

You heard me right: It’s worse this year than it was in 1994, when voters were dissatisfied with the first two years of the Bill Clinton presidency.

President Bush’s approval ratings are worse than Clinton’s were — Bush’s are in the upper 30s, while Clinton’s were in the mid-to-upper 40s — and the 16 percent approval rating for Congress in the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll ranks far below where Congress stood prior to the 1994 midterms (24 percent).

Similarly, the generic ballot in the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll was much closer back in ’94, when Republicans held a 5-point edge right before the elections. Now, there’s a 15-point Democratic advantage...

Given that, the past four true midterm wave elections saw the victorious party winning 52, 48, 48 and 26 seats, suggesting a reasonable range for success for Democrats this year.

Given that the political environment right now is worse for Republicans than at any time since 1974 — and that Republicans hold 232 House seats, which is far, far above their level in any of the four previous cycles — their vulnerability is great.

Of course, it matters where a party starts, since an overextended party (that is, one holding lots of seats that ought to belong to the opposition) inevitably has more seats at risk, while one that holds relatively few districts has fewer to lose.

The GOP’s 48-seat loss in 1974 was stunning because the party started the election holding fewer than 200 seats. In 1982, Republicans lost 26 seats starting at roughly the same point.

While the GOP isn’t overextended now, its 15-seat majority suggests it is now near the upper limit of its “normal” range. It holds a few Democratic seats, and Democrats hold a few Republican seats, but most districts are represented by the “correct” party. Still, with Republicans holding 232 seats in the House, the party has plenty of districts to lose.

So where does this leave us?

With the national environment being as it is — and given the last round of redistricting, which limits possible Democratic gains — Republicans probably are at risk to lose as few as 45 seats and as many as 60 seats, based on historical results. Given how the national mood compares to previous wave years and to the GOP’s 15-seat House majority, Democratic gains almost certainly would fall to the upper end of that range.

The paucity of competitive districts limits Republican risk, but how much? Unfortunately, I don’t have an answer. But if redistricting cuts that kind of wave by half, Democrats would gain between 22 and 30 seats next month. And if the new districts slice Democratic gains by a smaller but still significant one-third, Democrats would pick up from 30 to 45 seats.

Dangerously big waves can be very strong and very unpredictable. They can bring widespread destruction and chaos. Republicans now must hope that this year’s midterm wave isn’t as bad as national poll numbers suggest it could be, because those national numbers suggest a truly historic tidal wave.

I wonder if it's too early in the morning to start drinking?

Back to the top.

Happy News Roundup

Don't run the car with the garage door closed. There is some good news for the GOP today as well. Safe GOP House members are funding other races, John Doolittle looks good for re-election, and Republican incumbent Barbara Cubin reportedly told her libertarian opponent, who has MS and uses a wheel chair, that she would have slapped him across the face 'if he weren't sitting in that chair.'

Oh wait, that's bad news.

Back to the top.

Depressing Morning for Polls

I've been watching to see if GOP polls were improving in the last few weeks of the campaign, and this is one morning that I wish I weren't. Looking around the blogosphere I see Francine Busby closing in on Bilbray, Northup slipping in Kentucky, Democrats leading in 7 of 9 key Senate races, Shays tied with Farrell, and Hill leads Sodrel.

For the record, Republicans probably have to win all 4 of those House races to keep control.

Back to the top.

Meet the New Leaders

Check out Captain Ed's posts on the prospective incoming House committee chairs, if Democrats take the House of Representatives. Read about Jane Harman and Alcee Hastings and John Conyers.

Back to the top.

Dissatisfaction with GOP and Democrats

CNN has a poll out this morning, but I can't find any more than the brief story they are highlighting: Voters Doubt Either Party has a Plan. The highlight that CNN is teasing is this one:

Asked if the Democrats had a clear plan, just 38 percent said they did, while 58 percent said they did not. Republicans fared worse, with 31 percent saying they had a clear plan and 67 percent saying they did not.

However, 63 percent of poll respondents said they believed Democrats could provide strong leadership, compared to just 49 percent who expressed confidence that the GOP would keep a firm hand on the wheel. And while 50 percent said they doubted the Republicans' leadership capacity, only 35 percent expressed the same doubts about Democrats.

This does little more than confirm what we all already knew: that Democrats are winning not because voters support their ideas, but because they are so fed up with Republicans. I think it shows the weakness of the 'no plan' charge as an issue; voters already 'know' that the Democrats have no plan, and they don't care. Republicans therefore need to improve their standing in the public eye. And they have two weeks to do it. Their focus should be on immigration, the war on terror, and the economy, and the fact that Democrats plan to raise taxes and weaken national security (the Democrats do have a plan, after all).

On the subject of dissatisfaction with the two major parties, Political Wire says that there is evidence coming that third-party candidates are having an impact in a surprising number of races nationwide. I think that in the broadest terms, 3rd party candidates tend to favor incumbents by splitting the anti-incumbent vote. Thus if thise 3rd party candidates are in races where incumbents are in close races for re-election, those incumbents are helped. One example might be Connecticut's 4th Congressional District, where the Green Party candidate just dropped out, clearly hurting Chris Shays's chances of re-election.

In other 3rd party news, Political Wire also notes that the Green Party candidate has 14% of the vote in the latest Illinois gubernatorial poll. This is one case where the 3rd party candidate is probably hurting the incumbent Democrat, as there are probably very few Green Party voters who would otherwise be voting Republican. Of course, it doesn't matter in this race, as the Republican candidate is trailing badly.

Welcome RedState readers and thanks Erick, for the traffic. While you're here, feel free to look around, or check out the latest evidence that some Congressional Republicans are getting the message on pork-barrel spending.

Shooting Yourself in the Foot

Geoff Davis represents a swing district in Kentucky. He makes the same mistake that has burned other Republicans in recent years: not knowing how to answer when asked about casualties in Iraq.



Back to the top.

What Will the Democrats Do

A lot of conservative sites are taking a look at what the incoming Democratic leadership will/would do if they take control of Congress. Take time to look around the blogosphere, including this piece from Tim Chapman.

Back to the top.

Prominent Republicans Back Lieberman

The Hartford Courant covers the leading Republicans who donated to Lieberman after the Connecticut primary. It's worth noting how many leading Senate Republicans donated to Lieberman. The articles notes that Lieberman has always said that he will caucus with Senate Democrats.

But I find it truly hard to believe he would do something so manifestly against his own interest.

Among the post-primary contributors to the Connecticut senator, running as an independent for a fourth term, was Joseph Allbaugh, one of the four members of Bush's tight inner circle during his 2000 presidential campaign, and two Republican Senate committee chairmen.

Also giving was Melvin Sembler, former ambassador to Italy and longtime friend of the Bush family, former assistant Republican Senate Leader Don Nickles, and dozens of others from Texas, Missouri, Colorado and other states where Lieberman usually does not find contributors.

The effort to get Bush loyalists into Lieberman's camp was triggered by White House political guru Karl Rove's Aug. 8 phone call to the senator, just before Lieberman learned he would lose to Ned Lamont in the Connecticut Democratic Senate primary...

The White House has kept up the drumbeat, consistently sending other signals as Lieberman continues to push for funds in the campaign's closing days. Thursday, for instance, Bush praised Lieberman at Republican rallies in Pennsylvania and Virginia, and Vice President Dick Cheney has made it a part of his standard stump speech to decry how the Democratic Party has "turned its back" on the senator.

Lieberman campaign manager Sherry Brown said the campaign has had no contact with the White House or the Republican Party, though she said of the GOP money, "We reached out and people reached out to us." Usually that meant that traditional Lieberman fundraisers contacted Republicans for cash, something they were often unable to do in the past.

"We're happy when we get support from anybody," Brown said.

The latest campaign finance reports, for the period ending Sept. 30, show Lieberman having raised $14.8 million. Lamont raised about $9 million in the same period, and has given an additional $2.5 million of his own to the campaign since then. Despite his lead in fundraising, Lieberman has been complaining that he's the financial underdog in the race...

According to those familiar with the events and the pitches for money, no one is dangling the prospect of a re-elected Lieberman voting with Senate Republicans. The senator has consistently said that if he wins a fourth term, he will caucus with Senate Democrats...

From Texas came typically Republican donors like Allbaugh, Bush's 2000 national campaign manager and now an Austin-based business and homeland security consultant; Benjamin Warren, chief executive officer of ITC Trading Company; Leo Fields, a Dallas investment adviser; Alex Thomas, a San Antonio investor; and Robert Marbut, a San Antonio television executive.

From Florida, there was Sembler and his wife, Betty; Lake Worth builder Bruce Toll; St. Petersburg college executive Carl Kuttler; and Weston attorney Teddy Klinghoffer.

And from all over the country came other big GOP names: Maryland attorney Peter Winik; New York corporate executive Lewis Eisenberg; Greensboro, N.C., foundation executive E.S. Melvin, Washington consultant Debra M. Bryant and Chattanooga retiree Dudley Porter...

The senator also benefited from political committees set up by Republican politicians. Former Tennessee Republican Sen. Fred Thompson, who worked with Lieberman for years on the homeland security committee, made a donation.

So did the Big Tent Political Action Committee, which is controlled by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa.; Impact America, controlled by Sen. Gordon H. Smith, R-Oregon, and the Hawkeye PAC, run by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles R. Grassley, R-Iowa.

More common are the donations from those PACs or Washington-connected donors who routinely give to candidates from both parties.

For instance, Lieberman got contributions from George David, United Technologies chairman and chief executive officer, and David P. Hess, president of Hamilton Sundstrand, a UTC division. Both have also given to President Bush and to Democrats.

Lieberman's campaign hosted a crowded fundraiser in late September at the Phoenix Park Hotel on Capitol Hill, an event that attracted hundreds of well-wishers. The suggested donation was $1,000 per person, and the event featured not only lobbyists and politicians, but personal friends of the Liebermans.

Those friends, as well as a lot of Democrats, continue to give large sums. Lieberman's latest campaign finance report shows little if any drop-off in giving from his usual sources. He continues to raise significant sums from Jewish communities all over the country, as well as pull money from moderate Democrats including author Ben Wattenberg, Clinton administration Director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey Jr.; former diplomat Max M. Kampelman; Clinton administration Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin; and former Indiana Sen. Birch E. Bayh.

"They're not there because they all love Joe's view on Iraq," said veteran Democratic fundraiser Peter G. Kelly. "They're there because they love Joe."

Apart from thinking that it makes the most sense for Lieberman to caucus with Republicans, I'll add that for all the money being sent his way, I certainly HOPE he does so.

Back to the top.

Measuring the Wave

Mark Blumenthal over at Pollster.com has posted the first two installments (here and here) of what looks like it will ultimately be an interesting piece at Pollster.com. He is looking at the coming Democratic 'wave' and wondering how big it will be - and what effect it will have.

He starts out with a good quote from Mark Mellman:

There's a big anti-Republican wave out there. But that wave will crash up against a very stable political structure, so we won't be sure of the exact scope of Democratic gains until election night. We really don't yet know which is ultimately more important -- the size of the wave or the stability of the structure.

In many ways, this is the central question of the election. How big will the Democratic wave be, and given the powers of gerrymandering and incumbency, how big an effect will it have?

The second of the two Blumenthal pieces looks at the greater enthusiasm on the Democtatic side, and begins to address whether this will lead to a turnout advantage.

Back to the top.

NYTimes Admits Error on Swift Revelations

Oops.

Well, no harm no foul, right?

Back to the top.

Secure Fence Act Sent to President

Speaker Hastert's office just sent out the following press release:

Speaker's Press Office
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: 202-225-2800

October 23, 2006 Ron Bonjean or Lisa C. Miller

Speaker Hastert, Senate Majority Leader Frist Joint Statement on Sending the Secure Fence Act for President's Signature

Democrat Leaders Voted Against Measure and Support Open Borders

(Washington, D.C.) Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) and U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, M.D. (R-Tenn.) made the following statement after sending the Secure Fence Act to the President for his signature:

"Today we are transmitting H.R. 6061, Secure Fence Act of 2006, to the President. This legislation is a key component to keeping America safe and stemming the tide of illegal immigration. The American people demand a secure border, and this Republican Congress has responded to the American people's demand for a secure border by increasing the physical barriers and infrastructure along the border, and by providing state of the art monitoring technology. We look forward to the President's signature of this legislation.

"Unfortunately, the House and Senate Democrat Leaders voted against the Secure Fence Act. The Democrat immigration plan would fail the American people, allow dangerous criminals into our country and would set our homeland security back to pre-9/11 levels."

Back to the top.

My Car is Smarter than I Am

If BMW has its way, that looks like it may be a real problem soon.

But is this a proper use of technology, or a recreation of the folly of Icarus? I'll have to find the transcript of the Pope's remarks, to see if these were luddite comments or not.

By the way, what's with the Pope's website? I mean, this looks more like a MySpace page than it does that of the Bishop of Rome.

Back to the top.

It Was Only a Matter of Time

Fantasy Congress? What are the rules for off-the-field violations?

I mean, if you draft a Kennedy, substance abuse is clearly a bigger problem than in other fantasy leagues. But how do you handle an indictment?

Back to the top.

Stories of GOP Revival May be Premature...

I've mentioned that I'm watching polls in the last few weeks of the race in the hope of seeing a general rebound for Republican candidates, and a solidifying of the ratings of challenged incumbents. This is exactly what I am not looking for: 'safe' incumbent Charles Bass trailing his challenger badly.

The latest independent poll has startling news for six-term Republican U.S. Rep. Charles Bass: He’s trailing Democratic rival Paul Hodes.

Hodes led Bass 48 percent to 39 percent with the other 13 percent undecided in the Becker Institute Inc. poll taken Oct. 6-8.

Statewide, the survey of 408 registered voters has a margin of error of 5 percent, but within a congressional district the number is much higher.

But Hodes will take it. That can only help his chances of getting some significant Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee money behind his candidacy.

Hodes is on the Red-to-Blue list of candidates as well as independent ratings of the Top 30 House races in the nation.

Bass was viewed unfavorably (40 percent) by nearly as many voters as viewed him favorably (43 percent), and that is never where an incumbent wants to be.

“This is by far the worst image recorded for Charlie Bass through 12 Becker Institute readings over the past seven years,’’ the poll summary said.

An American Research Group poll had better news for Bass, showing him still out front, 48-42 percent, with 3 percent for Libertarian Ken Blevens and 7 percent undecided.

Other Democrats fare very well in the survey but track what other recent polls have found:

• Lynch is ahead of Republican Jim Coburn, 70-19 percent, with 11 percent undecided;

• Republican U.S. Rep. Jeb Bradley leads Democrat Carol Shea-Porter, 49-37 percent, with 14 percent on the fence.

Shea-Porter has a firm hold on the voters who don’t like President Bush and disagree with Bradley about the need to stay the course in Iraq, the poll said.

It’s worth noting her popularity in the poll was greater than her recognition, as 61 percent said they did not know enough to form any opinion of her.

“Jeb Bradley could have his hands full holding onto this seat,’’ the summary concluded.

Bass is ahead in one poll of registered voters, behind in another. Perhaps this is an aberration, and Republican candidates really are improving their standing nationwide, as we speak. But if so, I don't see consistent signs of it.

Back to the top.

Liberal Judge to Hand Victory to Kean?

The Hotline notes that the New Jersey Supreme Court may be about to hand gay rights advocates a 'victory' on gay marriage. And judicial 'victories' for gay marriage go almost hand-in-hand with electoral victories for Republicans. Even in liberal New Jersey, a court decision to require gay marriage might energize Republicans to come to the polls to register their displeasure by voting against Menendez.

CROSSING OUR TRANSOM

On 10/26, the chief of justice of the New Jersey supreme court, Deborah T. Poritz, turns 70, and will retire.

Pending before her court at this writing is a potentially explosive same-sex marriage case. In '02, two gay couples sued New Jersey for denying them the right to marry. The Supreme Court finally heard oral arguments in Feb. It has yet to unveil its decision.

Consider the political repercussions if NJ becomes the second state in the country to legalize gay marriage.

Poritz's questions suggest she'll vote to expand the definition of marriage. If the court doesn't rule by next Thursday, they'll be forced to rehear the case with the new chief justice. Observers are fairly certain that the court, will, in fact, tender a decision by Oct. 26.

"The New Jersey Supreme Court is famously assertive and famously liberal," one court watcher e-mailed us. " On the other hand, they have also been accused of being attuned to political undercurrents -- think of the Torricelli decision."

Gay rights advocates are fairly optimistic about the case on its merits but worry about the backlash if the court rules before the election.

Be aware that there appears to be little difference between the Kean and Menendez positions on gay marriage. However, Kean reportedly support a state amendment to block gay marriage, while Menendez has no position on it, and has voted against the federal amendment.

Perhaps Menendez should use this time to figure out what his position on gay marriage is, so he doesn't accidentally tell different audiences different things.

With the Steele-Cardin race tied in the latest poll, Conrad Burns apparently closing the gap in Montana, and Harold Ford shooting himself in the foot, Democrats ought to be sweating a little bit about the improvmements that they've been counting on in the Senate this year.

Oh - but take this for what it's worth.

Update: A commenter clarifies that the Hotline has an important detail wrong: there is no requirement that the Supreme Court hand down its decision by October 26. Apparently, it is not unusual for decisions to be handed down after the session has closed. Thus it's unclear whether the decision will come before or after the election.

Back to the top.

I Think I Saw this on Northern Exposure

I missed the 22nd Annual Pumpkin Regatta!

Look what people do when they have too much time on their hands.

Or is it because they have too big pumpkins?

Back to the top.

Barron's: GOP Will Hold Both Houses

Courtesy of Powerline comes this prediction from Barron's, which suggest that the GOP will have their majority narrowed, but will retain both Houses on election day. I hope that's right, but I don't know that the Barron's piece adds much to the debate.

Barron's bases its projection on who's raised the most money in each individual race. They note that the candidate with the most cash wins 92% of the time. Based on that, and how much GOP candidates have raised, they project GOP majorities.

This has some value I suppose, but I think it puts the cart before the horse.

Very few races are seriously contested nowadays - only about 30 or so a year since the 2000 redistricting, it seems. In the other 400 House races, the person who is certain to win almost invariably raises more than the person who's certain to lose. 400 out of 435 equals a 92 percent success rate.

Barron's notes that their rule - he who has the most money, wins - operates for every election except 1958, 1974, and 1994 - which were all big wave years. (Democrats gained 49 seats in 1958 and 1974; the GOP gained 54 in 1994.)

To me, the Barron's piece leaves us with the same question we had before: is this a big wave election or not? If it is, then some better-funded candidates are going to lose. If it is not, those who have the most money will likely hold onto their seats.

Barron's argues that this year is not like 1994, because at that time the economy was bad, and now it's good. Of course, the economy was not all that bad at that time - and I don't recall people thinking it was. Now the economy is great, and people tend to be pessimistic about it. So even if the strength of the economy made this year different from 1994, the perception of the economy is probably no better today than it was then.

Back to the top.

Weller Clarifies

Jerry Weller has apparently decided to do what he can to shut down the rumor-mongering. He says that one of his interns (not a page), whose identity they did not know, was invited to the home of another congressman for some type of party when that intern was 21. Apparently nothing happened.

I have said that the GOP needs the whole page story to go away. I suspect that reporters will do some digging around this (those that have not done so already). This account of Weller's raises questions: did nothing really happen, why do they not know the intern's identity, and how did this transform into the other page rumor that went around a few days ago? However, if reporters find nothing more to it than this (and I am told the NYT found this to be a dry well), and if the person was indeed 21, hopefully the story will die without further attention.

Weller clarifies intern incident
DISSPELLING RUMORS
October 21, 2006
By Ken O'Brien STAFF WRITER
Intern invited to party by another lawmaker

JOLIET -- Acting on the advice of an election attorney, the staff for U.S. Rep. Jerry Weller is contacting the U.S. House Ethics Committee about an incident involving a male former intern and another congressman.

The staff took that action as rumors swirled Thursday about potential trouble for Weller, R-Morris, in the wake of the page scandal.

Weller is not being investigated, campaign spokesman Steve Shearer said Friday.

Shearer said "there is nothing" to the rumors, noting that those have been circulated on Democratic-leaning blogs. He said some blogs have since changed their postings about Weller.

Shearer said the incident occurred two to four years ago when an intern of Weller's intern, then 21, was invited to the home of another congressman for a social function. Weller's office does not know the identity of the intern, he said.

Back to the top.

Weller Rumor Set to Boomerang on Dems?

Illinois's Daily Journal reports that Representative Jerry Weller has informed the House Ethics Committee that a page - one evidently sponsored by him - was inappropriately invited to a social function by another Congressman.

Following on the heels of The Rumor, this represents an interesting twist. Where rumor had it that he had acted inappropriately with regard to a page, it seems that rather, he knew of another lawmaker who has done so. Is that individual a Democrat or Republican? Well, I hope it's a Democrat. And I also hope that nothing more is involved here than 'an invite to a social function.' That sounds far less serious than the Foley affair.

More directly on politics however, I hope that this story DIES. The GOP gains nothing at this point from a Democrat answering ethics charges. It just makes voters more anti-Congress, and convinces them that something needs to change. No matter how it appears on the surface, that can't be good for the GOP.

Republicans need an end to these ethics stories now, so they can return in the scarce days remaining to topics like economic growth, immigration, and national security.

Back to the top.

Mehlman: The Base is Motivated

Ken Mehlman has shared a summary of why the GOP believes their base is sufficiently motivated to do well in the midterms:

Friday, October 20, 2006
Memorandum From RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman To Republican Activists And Interested Parties On Republican Motivation

TO: REPUBLICAN ACTIVISTS AND INTERESTED PARTIES
FROM: KEN MEHLMAN
DATE: OCTOBER 20, 2006
RE: REPUBLICAN MOTIVATION

In recent days and weeks, the mainstream media have repeatedly claimed that the Republican base is suffering from “low voter enthusiasm.” It is easy to believe a story that is repeated so frequently, but in fact there is ample evidence to the contrary. By many measures, there are strong indications of a right-of-center base that is engaged and committed.

First, numerous polls clearly indicate near parity in intensity between Democrats and Republicans. Three recent national surveys—Gallup, Cook/RT Strategies, and our most recent RNC survey conducted by Voter/Consumer Research—all show partisan interest is approximately equal. The details of those polls are below:

Voter/Consumer Research (Oct. 8-10)

The RNC’s internal research shows election interest at 7.7 on a 10-point scale among Republicans and 7.6 among Democrats, unchanged from late September and in line with this year’s overall trend.

Gallup (Oct. 6-8)

To quote from Gallup’s voter turnout projection, “Gallup's latest analysis suggests Republicans and Democrats are now roughly even in terms of anticipated turnout in the midterm congressional elections. The voting intentions of the large pool of registered voters is now similar to the voting intentions of the smaller pool of likely voters, showing no disproportionate impact of turnout in either direction”

Gallup asked, “How motivated do you feel to get out and vote this year -- extremely motivated, very motivated, somewhat motivated, not too motivated or not at all motivated?(% “extremely” or “very” motivated)” The following table shows that the GOP in fact now holds a slight lead, up from just a few months ago:

[Graphic doesn't work on this page; please see link for this data - The Editor]

Cook/RT Strategies (Oct. 5-8)

On a scale of one to 10, Republicans and Democrats have almost equally high mean election interest scores (8.2 for Republicans, 8.1 for Democrats), but Democrats hold a slight edge in the percentage of their voters who are “highly interested”—47 to 51 percent.

However, keeping in mind the local nature of midterm elections, it is more important to consider intensity by state or congressional district. RT Strategies/Constituent Dynamics (conducted Oct. 8-10) released district-by-district polling showing Republicans have a slight edge in partisan intensity. GOP “voter motivation” is higher than Democratic motivation in 19 of 32 competitive House races, in some cases by as much as a full point on a 1 to 9 scale. Democratic intensity is higher in the remaining 13, and in none of those races is the difference higher than 2/3 of a point.

Additional Data

A recent Pew study (9/21-10/4) found that while roughly similar numbers of Republicans (41%) and Democrats (39%) are “regular” voters, more Republicans (25%) than Democrats (20%) vote intermittently—meaning there are more of our voters for us to turn out in a midterm election. Furthermore, Democrats (20%) are substantially more likely than Republicans (14%) to not be registered to vote at all.

Other Measures of Intensity

There are ways besides polls to measure the intensity of the Republican base, and those also indicate that GOP voters are strongly engaged. Fundraising, for example, is often called the ‘first ballot’ for the simple reason that supporters only donate when they are involved and enthusiastic. That is why we are excited that the RNC received support from 362,000 new donors this cycle. We’ve averaged 8,256 contributions for each deposit day so far this year. We just announced that September has been our best financial month of the entire cycle. Our supporters know how important this election is, and their financial support shows it.

Volunteer enthusiasm is another key measure of intensity. Again, every indication here is that our base is working hard for victory in the 2006 election. Republican volunteers have contacted more than 14 million voters this year, and more than 7 million since Labor Day alone. We have made 1 million voter contacts every week for the past five weeks, and for six weeks we have surpassed the number of contacts we made at comparable times in 2004, a presidential election year.

The Bottom Line

Despite the media hype, an examination of all the facts makes it clear: the Republican base is active and engaged. No matter how you measure it—whether by record-breaking fundraising, unprecedented volunteerism, or scientific polling—the numbers show that Republicans understand the importance of the choice we all face on November 7.

I'm not sure how one can reconcile this data and this argument with the tendency of pollsters to sample more Democrats than Republicans this year, because (it is said) the electorate this year will be disproportionately Democrat. Is there a way they can both be right, or is one in for a surprise on election day?

Back to the top.

Weekend Fun

An oldie (1998), but a greatie: Kevin Rubio's Troops.



Back to the top.

Some Questions for CNN

Have you seen the ads around the web (and on the air) for CNN anchor Lou Dobbs (wish I could find some examples)? What office is he running for?

And is there any doubt who CNN wants to win the midterms? If so, it was answered when CNN decided to air a 6-part series entitled "Broken Government" in the last days before the election.

But does a network that defends its teaming up with snipers killing Americans have any credibility left?

If this is impartiality and responsible journalism, give me Fox any day.

Back to the top.

One Stop Shopping

There are a number of good sites to read the latest prognostications on what will happen on election day. For easy reference, I've created a short list of the ones I use most frequently at the top of the column to the left ("Election Forecasts"). From here you can quickly check on what some of the best election analysts are predicting.

I know I'm missing some sites; I'll add them as I can.

Back to the top.

Sabato's Latest

He predicts a 20-25 seat (or more) gain for the Democrats in the House. He rates the Senate as a 50-50 proposition.

Back to the top.

Lieberman Leads Lamont Big

Lieberman can start to focus on which party he wants to caucus with next year.

It's looking like the Senate will be awfully close next year. It's possible that Lieberman could be the one who decides whether the Democrats or the Republicans control the Senate.

Why would he choose to sit with the Democrats? He is young enough to run for re-election in six years, and unless he has already decided not to seek re-election, he ought to begin to plan as if he will run. So why would he choose to try to rebuild bridges with the MoveOn/DailyKos base in Connecticut, instead of sticking with the Republicans who will deliver him a victory? The DailyKos crowd will only hate him more after his independent candidacy, and the only way to win them over will be to move to the left of Teddy Kennedy.

Plus, even if the Democrats gain 5 seats in the Senate, then he would still be in the Majority if he switched sides. In fact, in such a circumstance, he could probably write his own ticket.

Update: This is the sort of thing that ought to help Lieberman decide to conference with the Republicans. His home-state colleague and old friend Chris Dodd has taped a commercial with Lamont, even when it seems clear that Lamont is headed for defeat. What would motivate Dodd to do that?

He's thinking about running for President in 2008, and he knows he'll need the DailyKos crowd to win the primary. So if it comes to making Joe Lieberman happy or making the Fever Swamp happy, it's no contest.


Back to the top.

Speaker... Hoyer?

No, won't be Speaker Hoyer. Frankly, if the Democrats win the House, it's almost impossible it would be anyone but Nancy Pelosi. However, the Washington Times (registration required) hits the topic only a few days after the Influence Peddler.

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's prospects for becoming the nation's first female House speaker depend not only on a Democratic victory in November but also on her ability to prevent any Democrats from voting against her -- primarily centrists opposed to her liberal stances.

At least one Democratic House candidate has pledged not to support Mrs. Pelosi, and others in conservative districts have refused to commit their support -- potentially leaving Mrs. Pelosi shy of the 218 votes required for the chamber's top post.

Democrat Charlie Stuart, who hopes to unseat Republican Rep. Ric Keller in Florida, already has said he opposes Mrs. Pelosi and would prefer Rep. Steny H. Hoyer, the more conservative No. 2 Democrat in the House whose strained relations with Mrs. Pelosi have been well-chronicled on Capitol Hill.

"He's a centrist," Stuart spokeswoman Sultana Ali said of the Florida Democrat. "His values really are more in line with Steny Hoyer than Nancy Pelosi."

At least three other Democrats contacted by The Washington Times refused to commit their support to Mrs. Pelosi, whose San Francisco district is far more liberal than the districts that are up for grabs in this election.

Back to the top.

Some Nice GOP Polls...

Courtesy of Taegan Goddard's Political Wire.

Survey USA finds Tom Reynolds back in the lead. By the way, this is a longtime Republican district. Since the Foley scandal broke, I've felt that it should at least be competitive for Reynolds. Hopefully this is a sign he's through the worst.

Siena College shows Sweeney back in control.

Lamborn doing well in GOP stronghold.

And in a surprising poll, Eric Dickerson (no, not that one) leads Julia Carson. Count on the NRCC quickly doing another poll in this district to see if it produces the same results. If so, Eric Dickerson is about to get a million or two.

By the way, is Taegan the name of a man or a woman?

Back to the top.

Where the NRCC is Putting Its Money

AKA: Putting Away Occam's Razor

According to CQ, lots of the NRCC's late spending is going into defending GOP held seats. In a year like this, that makes a great deal of sense.

It's disturbing that so far, the polls don't seem to show consistent improvement for the candidates who are benefiting from the spending. But there could be several reasons for that - district-by-district polls are spotty, not all the money has been spent, etc.

I have decided that this is the appropriate time to let readers know that in explaining why so many GOP candidates are doing poorly in polls, I have officially decided to set aside Occam's Razor. Between now and election day, my theories will be based on what I will call Bonhoeffer's Razor. It will be guided by this Bonhoeffer quote:

The essence of optimism is that it takes no account of the present, but it is a source of inspiration, of vitality and hope where others have resigned; it enables a man to hold his head high, to claim the future for himself and not to abandon it to his enemy

Sekptics should be aware that Bonhoeffer's Razor is already in use elsewhere in the blogosphere.

Anyway, for those keeping score at home, here are the 10 districts where the GOP is spending the most money:

Since Sept. 1, the single district receiving the most such attention from the NRCC, with $2.4 million in expenditures, is Ohio’s 18th District — the seat where the Republicans’ hold has been put at dire risk by the conviction on corruption charges of retiring six-term Republican Rep. Bob Ney. The NRCC is extending itself to help Republican state Sen. Joy Padgett, who became the party’s nominee last month after Ney acknowledged guilt in a case involving convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and renounced the nomination for re-election that he won in May.

The $2.4 million exceeds the total amounts raised by either major party candidate — Padgett or Democratic nominee Zack Space, an elected municipal attorney — as October began (key House race fundraising).

The NRCC has also divided $6.2 million almost evenly among three districts in the suburbs of Philadelphia where GOP incumbents face difficult races: the 6th, where two-term Rep. Jim Gerlach is opposed by Democratic lawyer Lois Murphy in a tossup race; the 7th, where 10-term Rep. Curt Weldon is an underdog against Democrat Joe Sestak, a retired Navy vice admiral; and the 8th, where freshman Rep. Michael G. Fitzpatrick is opposed by Democratic lawyer Patrick Murphy, an Iraq war veteran.

The House GOP campaign unit also has independently spent $1.8 million since Sept. 1 in Florida’s 22nd District, where 13-term Rep. E. Clay Shaw Jr. and Democratic state Sen. Ron Klein have been raising substantial sums on their own in a contest that is too close to call.

The top 10 districts in which the NRCC reported the most independent expenditures since Sept. 1 are rounded out by:

• Iowa’s 1st ($1.57 million): Republican businessman Mike Whalen faces Democratic lawyer Bruce Braley for the seat of eight-term Rep. Jim Nussle, the Republican nominee for governor, in a district that leans Democratic in presidential races.

• Minnesota’s 6th ($1.50 million): Republican state Sen. Michele Bachmann faces Democrat Patty Wetterling, a child safety advocate. Though the district typically leans Republican, Wetterling had a strong candidate debut in 2004 as the challenger to Republican Rep. Mark Kennedy, who left the seat open this year to run for the Senate.

• Connecticut’s 2nd ($1.47 million): Republican Rep. Rob Simmons faces Democrat Joe Courtney, a former state House member, in an eastern Connecticut district that normally has a decided Democratic lean. Courtney is viewed as running a stronger campaign than he did in 2002, when he lost to Simmons by 8 points.

• Indiana’s 9th ($1.42 million): Freshman Republican Rep. Mike Sodrel is opposed by Democratic former Rep. Baron P. Hill, who beat Sodrel as the incumbent in 2002 but was then unseated by him in 2004 by a razor-thin margin.

• New York’s 24th ($1.40 million): GOP Rep. Sherwood Boehlert’s moderate views easily kept this competitive upstate district in his party’s hands over 12 terms, but the seat is up for grabs with Boehlert’s retirement. Republican state Sen. Ray Meier, who is more conservative on some issues than Boehlert, is defending the seat against a vigorous challenge by Democrat Michael Arcuri, a county district attorney.

Back to the top.

What do Bored Reporters Do?

They tell you what the House Ethics Committee has for lunch.

...Trandahl’s testimony went on for so long that an ethics committee employee bought lunch for lawmakers in the cafeteria in the Capitol’s basement. She ordered four hotdogs, two tuna sandwiches on rye bread, and a turkey sandwich on wheat bread.

I regard this is another example of how the Republican majority has lost its way. If the Spirit of 1994 still prevailed, the GOP would have shut down the Capitol cafeteria and eaten the egg salad sandwiches and string cheese that they brought from home.

Back to the top.

Biggest 'Sorry' in History

I've said sorry for lots of things: sorry I stayed out so late, sorry I forgot to put dinner on, sorry I didn't get the car serviced... People say it takes a big man to say I'm sorry, so good for me.

But if I am a big man, Kim Jong Il is Goliath and Paul Bunyan rolled into one. He's issued the biggest 'sorry' the world has ever seen: 'sorry I detonated that nuclear weapon.'

Can you imagine what a paragon of virtue he'll be if he says sorry for the missile tests, the hair cut, and starving his people?

On the subject of big apologies, it reminds me of the Kids in the Hall clip below. It's great if you like Kids in the Hall, but don't watch if you won't laugh at a joke about cancer.



Back to the top.

A Close Run Thing

Bob Novak says that if the election were held today, Democrats would gain 20 House seats and 4 Senate seats. He says however, that there's a chance for a runaway Democratic victory if the Republican base becomes dispirited.

Of course, projecting a 20 seat House gain implies that the House is still in reach for the GOP.

I think that sounds about right. Let's see what the next few weeks hold.

Back to the top.

Good GOP Senate News

The latest poll numbers at The Corner show improvements for Republican Senate candidates across the board. Yesterday's Survey USA poll shows Cardin and Steele tied (although the WSJ/Zogby result today shows a Cardin lead).

WSJ/Zogby also shows Talent and Allen at 50%, Kean leading Menendez, and Corker leading Ford. And if you're a 'glass-half-full' type, then DeWine and Santorum trail their Democratic challengers by somewhat less dauting numbers...

Back to the top.

For a Laugh

What if Al Qaeda recruited like the Mormons (although I've only ever seen Jehovah's Witnesses recruit like this; do Mormons do it too?):



Back to the top.

Ugh...

Is this what waterboarding is like? The constant drip, drip, drip, that leaves you feeling like you're being drowned? I thought Democrats all agreed that it was inappropriate and unacceptable.

It will be extremely hard for the GOP to pull out a win if the Foley story stays on the front pages through election day.

Back to the top.

Stingrays Continue Their Assault

Clearly some sort of coordinated attack has begun. First they took out the guy that they thought was our leader, then they take out a Massachusetts man, and now they're coming for the rest of us.

Back to the top.

Dean's Wasteful Spending

I'm one of many who's criticized Howard Dean's '50 State Strategy,' which holds that Democrats can't win nationally if they can't compete in Red States. It led Dean spent millions in states like Utah, Wyoming, Idaho and Mississippi. I've said it was silly to spend scarce dollars on an effort likely to prove futile, and the DNC is now borrowing money to spend on competitive races.

So how does Dean's investment look so far? There are clearly a number of competitive races in previously safe GOP states and districts. Did Dean's money help create today's environment?

Let's look at the competitive races:

SENATE
Montana
Tennessee
Virginia
Ohio (Arguably 'purple,' but red at a statewide level)

Tennessee is probably the only Senate race that 'shouldn't' be competitive. Conrad Burns has shot himself in the foot, George Allen is still answering 'macaca' questions, and the Ohio GOP is in meltdown. And the only reason Tennessee is competitive is that Harold Ford is a great candidate.

For the House , I will look at Charlie Cook's latest rating of competitive races. Cook provides the Presidential Vote Index (PVI) for each House district. The PVI indicates how much redder or bluer the district is than the nation as a whole, in the 2000 and 2004 Presidential races. I'll list the competitive House districts which are more than 5 points redder than the entire country:

Likely Dem Seats
John Salazar (CO-3) Bush +6
Stephanie Herseth (SD-AL) Bush +10
Jim Matheson (UT-2) Bush +17

Lean Dem Seats
Jim Marshall (GA-8) Bush +8
John Spratt (SC-5) Bush +6
Chet Edwards (TX-17) Bush +18
Open (TX-22 DeLay) Bush +15
Alan Mollohan (WV-1) Bush +6

Toss Up Seats
John Hostettler (IN-8) Bush +9
Mike Sodrel (IN-9) Bush +7
Geoff Davis (KY-4) Bush +12
Charles Taylor (NC-11) Bush +7
Open (OH-18 Ney) Bush +6
Don Sherwood (PA-10) Bush +8
Thelma Drake (VA-2) Bush +6

Lean Republican Seats
John Doolittle (CA-4) Bush +11
Marilyn Musgrave (CO-4) Bush +9
Open (ID-1 Otter) Bush +19
Ron Lewis (KY-2) Bush +13
Open (NV-2 Gibbons) Bush +8

Likely Republican Seats
Open (CO-5 Hefley) Bush +16
Jim Ryun (KS-2) Bush +7
Jeff Fortenberry (NE-1) Bush +12
Jean Schmidt (OH-2) Bush +13
Barbara Cubin (WY-AL) Bush +19

We won't really know anything concrete until after November 7, but so far it doesn't look like Dean's gamble is paying off. I count only 8 competitive districts that probably 'shouldn't' be: Schmidt, Doolittle, Musgrave, Lewis, Sodrel, Davis, Taylor, and Drake. To me, that looks like 'the wave,' and not Dean's money.

The GOP is weak in three districts for obvious reasons (DeLay, Ney, & Sherwood). Seven seats are held by Democratic incumbents who've already won in hostile territory (Marshall, Edwards, Salazar, Herseth, Matheson, Spratt, Mollohan). At least one seat is held by someone who is a weak campaigner, and who always has close races (Hostettler). The rest are open seats (which are always more competitive), and seats that probably aren't actually competitive (Ryun, Fortenberry, Cubin).

Howard Dean says that his spending was a long-term investment - one that won't necessarily pay off in one cycle. That's good, because I don't see any payoff yet. And of course, if Democrats win the House, all sins are likely to be forgiven - at least for a little while.

Back to the top.

Campaigns Borrowing Money

I've alluded to the point that Democrats have taken out a loan to help fund Senate races. The Hotline's Chuck Todd reports that those funds are intended primarily to help Jim Webb and Robert Menendez:

DNC Takes Out Loan For DSCC

The DSCC's optimism about winning the Senate is apparently contagious as the DNC is going to pony up an extra $5-10M for the Senate committee, according to sources familiar with the previously reported arrangement between the two campaign orgs.

While the DNC doesn't have $10M to just toss around to another campaign committee, the DNC apparently has decided to go into debt to come up with the extra cash DSCC Chair Chuck Schumer has been pleading for from DNC Chair Howard Dean. The actual amount of the loan the DNC is taking out is not known as the committee holds out hope they can raise nearly everything they need before the election. But a line of credit has been opened.

The money is not designated for specific Senate races, however, sources tell us that two races in particular were used as leverage in negotiations between the DSCC and the DNC. Those two races: New Jersey and Virginia. Apparently the extra DNC money will help soften the financial blow the DSCC was taking by incurring the extra cost of saving Sen. Bob Menendez from the challenge of Republican Tom Kean Jr. as well also trying to target Virginia. New Jersey and Virginia sport three of the most expensive media markets in the country (NYC, Philly and DC). In addition, TN was also a factor in the DNC-DSCC discussions as the investment the DSCC is making is possibly more than they expected.

A national party committee taking out a loan toward the end of an election cycle is not unusual, particularly on the Democratic side of the aisle. In '04, the DCCC took out a loan in an attempt to save the Texas Democratic House incumbents. In the end, four of those five Texas Democratic incumbents lost.

There has been some speculation (driven a bit by Democratic pundits like James Carville) that the DCCC might take out another loan this cycle in order to spend money on some of these new House seats that have come into play over the last few weeks.

The RNC is proving to be an important cog to the Republicans' efforts to hold the House and Senate, particularly the Senate. It's been something that's gotten under the skin of Schumer and DCCC Chair Rahm Emanuel. It'll be interesting to see if Dean's decision to go into debt will finally get Schumer and Emanuel off his back. [CHUCK TODD]

As a Virginian, I suspect that the money on Webb will wind up being poorly spent. No matter how well the Democrats may do this year, I don't think they'll be able to beat George Allen - unless something new pops up. I'm hopeful that New Jersey voters will finally reject a criminal running for office, and vote Kean.

Of course, if the Democrats win one chamber of Congress, they'll be able to raise the money to repay this loan. So it might be a good bet.

Back to the top.

Dash of Cold Water

Because I've posted too much optimistic stuff recently, today I have the requisite dash of cold water. Mickey notes that the latest Majority Watch Robopoll shows Democrats leading outside the margin of error in 222 House races. And Today's piece by Mort Kondracke in Roll Call (subscription required) has a simple and straightforward title:

Practically No One Thinks Republicans Can Hold the House
October 19, 2006
By Morton M. Kondracke,
Roll Call Executive Editor

Except at the White House and the top reaches of the Republican National Committee, I can hardly find a single politician, consultant or pollster, Democratic or Republican, who thinks the GOP can retain control of the House.

And even at the White House, the messages are mixed. Strategist-in-chief Karl Rove is proclaiming that Republicans will pull out a victory. On the other hand, one aide also told me that the chances of Republicans retaining narrow control is in the 40 percent to 45 percent range — that is, less than a 50-50 shot — while Democrats’ chances of winning either narrowly or with a bigger margin are greater.

Republicans are more optimistic about the Senate, where they think retaining contested seats in Arizona, Missouri, Tennessee and Virginia will leave them with a 51-seat majority, assuming they lose in Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, and fail to pick up New Jersey...

Republican consultants I’ve talked to say they expect House losses to range anywhere from 20 seats — five more than Democrats need to take over — up to 30 or more.

Democrats say they frantically are trying to keep up with new House opportunities that previously were deemed second- or third-tier contests — as many as 60 seats potentially in play, up from 50 a few weeks ago. “The field is vast,” one consultant told me...

Among the seats Democrats now consider in play are Colorado’s 5th district, which came open with the retirement of GOP Rep. Joel Hefley. President Bush carried the district with 66 percent of the vote in 2004. Also considered in play is Michigan’s 7th, where Bush won 54 percent and moderate Rep. Joe Schwarz lost the GOP primary to conservative Tim Walberg.

Other potential new targets are Reps. Jim Leach in Iowa’s 2nd district; Jean Schmidt in Ohio’s 2nd; Gil Gutknecht in Minnesota’s 1st; Mike Ferguson in New Jersey’s 7th; Charles Bass in New Hampshire’s 2nd; Robin Hayes in North Carolina’s 8th; and Cathy McMorris in Washington’s 5th, plus Nevada’s 2nd, an open seat being vacated by GOP Rep. Jim Gibbons.

Bush carried those 10 districts by an average of 54.7 percent...

Bush’s overall approval rating in the latest Gallup Poll was 37 percent, 4 points below what former President Bill Clinton’s was in 1994. Dealing with North Korea’s nuclear threat may help him marginally, but it hurts that the threat is worsening on his watch.

The latest RealClearPolitics.com generic ballot gives Democrats a 14-point edge in House races. In 1994, Republicans outpolled Democrats by just 7 points, and Democratic experts calculate that, factoring in gerrymandering of House districts, they need a national vote margin of just 7 points to 8 points to capture 15 seats.

In a joint survey for National Public Radio, the first-rate GOP and Democratic polling firms Public Opinion Strategies and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner reported this week that in the 48 most-contested House districts, when voters were asked, by name, which candidate they favored, 50 percent chose the Democrat to 43 percent for the Republican. Six percent were undecided...

One GOP pollster told me that the Democratic tilt of swing voters — especially independents and white women — is the main factor operating against his party this year. “They are frustrated with the lack of success in Iraq. They are scared about the future of the economy. They doubt us on social issues. And, they say, ‘We let you run things for 12 years. We want something different...’”

The result, he said, is that “Democrats are sitting on our three-yard line. It’s first and goal. Maybe we can hold them, but they’ve got four plays to score. If they don’t, it’s their fault.” The bottom line is that Republicans need to be better at defense than the Chicago Bears.

Back to the top.

More GOP Incumbents in Trouble?

Amidst reports that the DCCC is considering taking out a big loan to fund the expanding field of competitive races they see, is this report that Melissa Hart is one Republican whose race has suddenly turned into a good opportunity for Democrats:

NRCC nervous about Rep. Hart's race
By Jonathan E. Kaplan

The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) bought nearly $200,000 in television airtime on Tuesday to defend Rep. Melissa Hart’s (R-Pa.) seat while the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has reserved airtime in the race that had previously been considered a safe seat for Republicans.

The sizable television buys indicate that the field of competitive House races is expanding; Democrats are finding opportunities in places where they had not expected to be competitive. In Hart’s district, there are 55,000 more registered Democrats than Republicans, "We seek to solve potential problems before they become problems," said Carl Forti, the NRCC’s spokesman...

This story probably doesn't really indicate any trouble for Hart. Note that the DCCC 'reserved' airtime. They have not bought it, and might well never air any ads.

Rather, this story illustrates where the race for the House is today: Democrats are talking about a wealth of potential new opportunities. Melissa Hart, Gil Gutknecht, Bill Sali (the GOP candidate in Idaho's open seat) have all been heavy favorites, but Democrats suddenly sense opportunity.

The race for Congress may soon look like a high-stakes poker game. Don't be surprised to hear soon that the DCCC is borrowing money to fund newly-competitive House races. And expect one of the GOP campaign committees to borrow money as well, if only to demonstrate its confidence.

Which side is bluffing?

Back to the top.

GOP Win in Foley Seat Gets Harder

For every piece of good news for the GOP, there's a piece (or two) of bad news:

'Vote for Foley is vote for Negron' signs may not be displayed, judge rules
By Vanessa Blum
Sun-Sentinel.com
October 18, 2006, 6:25 PM EDT

Election supervisors in Mark Foley's old district may not display notices informing voters the disgraced Republican congressman has been replaced by another candidate, a Tallahassee judge ruled Wednesday.

Information sheets stating a vote for Foley would go to Republican state Rep. Joe Negron might ease voters' confusion, said Leon County Circuit Judge Janet Ferris. However, they would violate Florida laws limiting what information can be provided to prospective voters at polling places, she ruled after hearing from lawyers Wednesday morning.

Supervisors in most of the affected counties had planned to display notices in their precincts stating: "A vote for Mark Foley [Rep.] will be counted for Joe Negron [Rep.], the Republican candidate."

The sheets would also say a vote for Democratic candidate Tim Mahoney counts for Mahoney and a vote for unaffiliated candidate Emmie Ross counts for Ross.

The Florida Democratic Party filed suit Friday claiming the proposed notice violated Florida law by referencing specific candidates and constituted favoritism toward the Republican Party.

Back to the top.