Sure Am Glad There Was no Wave

That would have been really bad, huh?

Back to the top.

Losing the House...

Sure looks like the Democrats are headed for taking the seats they need to win the House. I don't know what the margin will be, but as I've noted before, I suspect the GOP will really come to rue the terrible mistakes they made in giving away some easy Republican seats. Tom DeLay and his team screwing up his replacement, Bob Ney staying in too long, Mark Foley, Don Sherwood choking his mistress, Curt Weldon's daughter taking money to lobby him..

That's 5 easy Republican wins that were given away to the Democrats. Am I missing any?

A disciplined majority would not have lost those.

Update: John Sweeney (if he does lose) having to deal with a 911 call for reported domestic violence...

Update II: Should I be glad that the House margin wound up being so great, that even if we had all 6 of these seats back, we probably still wouldn't be within 10?

Back to the top.

Why I Vote (bumped - new material below)

Why do I vote? Because when I think about who will be happy with a Democratic victory, I know I need to do all I can to prevent it. If you're not convinced of the need to go out and vote Republican on Tuesday, think of who will be smiling on Wednesday morning if the Democrats win:

Why I Vote (continued)

Dueling Independents

Just a thought. If Lieberman (I-CT) and Sanders (I-VT) both win their Senate races as expected, how will they figure out the agenda of the 'Independent Caucus' of the Senate? Will the caucus meet in a broom closet? Will they elect leadership? And what if they can't agree on who should be 'Independent Leader?'

Do you think if that happens, Sanders might defect to the Democrats?

Back to the top.

Office Space: Scarier than Pelosi's Agenda

Stephen Root is far, far scarier than Jack Nicholson. And doesn't Ron Livingston looks a lot like Rick Santorum?



Wow. I have been spending far too much time on the election.

Back to the top.

The Happy Couple

Seriously, when was the last time you saw Bill and Hillary in the same place, let alone smiling!?

Back to the top.

Free Trade Victory

Nice to see that Boeing has weathered the competition from government-funded Airbus, and is now kicking their butts.

Hhhmmm... now how can I translate this into votes for GOP candidates?

Back to the top.

House GOP Gets Ready for New Leaders

The Hill reports that Mike Pence is preparing to run for Minority Leader if the GOP loses the House. There's also discussion of the leadership aspirations of a number of other potential contenders.

Back to the top.

Today

What a long, strange trip it's been. But at last we're here.

First off, please get out and vote - regardless of how long you have to wait. And as you cast your vote for Congress and Senate (if applicable), remember that the most important vote your official will cast during his or her term will be for Speaker or Majority Leader. If you vote Republican, you will be voting for action rather than passivity in protecting us from terror, for lower taxes, personal responsibility, and respect for individual rights and religious practice.

Equally as important, if you vote Republican today - when Democrats think they have a great chance to retake the House and Senate - you will be sending the Democratic party a message. You will be telling the Democratic leadership that they will not win majority support until they change their agenda. You'll be telling them to give you a real choice on election day, instead of a false one. If Democrats realize that the American people want fiscal repsonsibility, personal responsibility, and aggressiveness in protecting us from the terrorist threat, they can compete for your vote. Tell them that with regard to Iraq, this and this are not good enough.

And if you don't believe that the Democratic party can change, just look at gun control. Or rather, the lack of it. The Democrats realized it was a loser issue, and finally have dropped it from their agenda. There's no reason that over time, they can't come to realize the other reasons that they are not trusted. After all, even if they only go so far as to return to being the party of Clinton, weren't we as a nation better off when we had a choice between Clinton and the GOP? If you think the answer is 'no,' just remember how much better the GOP was when it competed against Bill Clinton, than it is today.

Even a partisan like myself will admit that America is better off when it has a choice of leadership on election day. So today, vote the only real choice you have. And cast that vote because you WANT a choice in the future.

Now, the predictions.

I have a really hard time figuring what is going to happen with the House of Representatives. I look at the polls, and those who interpret them, and I have a hard time thinking that every poll we have seen for months now (with the exception of a few upticks in the last days) is wrong. Unless the polls have been far off from Day 1, the Democrats will win the House. As much as I want to do otherwise, I have to predict a Democratic takeover of the House - with a little breathing room. I predict a Democratic gain of 21 seats. That will bring the breakdown in the House to 224 Democrats, 211 Republicans.

In the Senate, I think the GOP will have a better day than has been expected for a while. I expect Mike DeWine, Rick Santorum, and Lincoln Chafee will lose. But I think that Conrad Burns, George Allen, and Jim Talent will win. I expect Michael Steele will pull off a miracle, and be elected to the Senate in Maryland. The net will be a Democratic gain of 2 seats. For a 53-47 partisan breakdown.

And if the Democrats do take the House, George Bush will get the immigration amnesty he has been pushing for. But apart from that, he's likely to become a lot more popular as he finally has the chance to contrast himself with Nancy Pelosi, every day for the next two years. When Democrats pass rules to require dramatic new tax increases, and fight for higher spending levels than Bush requests, and hold hearings to scrutinize everything the White House does, conservatives will like George Bush a whole lot better than they do today.

And I sure hope I'm wrong.

Back to the top.

Stuff to Chew On...

Hotline notes that the Democrats need 15 seats to retake the House, and that a 'wave' of that size has only come once since 1982: in the GOP victory of 1994.

Ken Mehlman notes another poll showing a dramatic closing in the generic ballot. The Democratic 'Democracy Corps' poll shows the Dem lead has closed from 11 to 4 in a week.

With regard to the apparent closing in some of the polls, Robert Wright of bloggingheads.tv points out that none of those polls is likely to have captured much of any post-Saddam sentencing surge. If they are surging, and if the Saddam death sentence is worth anything, then you can probably add a point or two to Republican performance on the generic poll. (He makes the point somewhere around the 34:30 mark). Wright also suggests (somewhere around the 38:00 minute mark) that support for the GOP in the polls may be understated because Bush supporters are so 'beaten down' by the anti-Bush sentiment that they are unwilling to tell anyone - even pollsters - that they intend to vote Republican. In this scenario, a whole bunch of 'undecideds' walk into the polling place and 'suddenly' vote Republican.

Also, Chuck Todd sees no reason to wait until after the election to offer bipartisan recriminations. He tells you what to expect and who will be blamed, no matter who wins. Not sure if it's free or not, so I'll simply post it:

The Blame Game Scenarios
By Chuck Todd, NationalJournal.com
© National Journal Group Inc.
Wednesday, Nov. 1, 2006

There are three potential outcomes when this year's midterm elections come to a close:

Scenario I: Democrats ride a wave of discontent over President Bush and Iraq, and they pick up at least 30 House seats and at least six Senate seats.

Scenario II: Democratic momentum stalls a bit, and the party narrowly picks up the House -- but only by a three- to five-seat margin. And the party's gains in the Senate are no more than a net of three seats, keeping the GOP in control.

Scenario III: The Republicans narrowly hold on to their majorities in both chambers.
The level of fallout or hubris for each party depends on which scenario comes true.


SCENARIO I: A Democratic Wave

This is the scenario that Democrats secretly believe and Republicans secretly fear to be most likely. Sure, the White House is optimistic these days and swears that the proverbial glass still has some condensation in it, but the fact remains there aren't any polls that indicate Republicans are headed in the right direction this campaign season.

So what happens if disaster strikes the GOP? Like any political party that loses an election, there will be major recriminations. But before they play out, there would be a heated debate about whether a depressed base or a defection of moderates caused the losses. Whoever wins that argument (probably those arguing depressed base) would determine who's in charge of the party.

In the House, that means gutting the leadership. Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., would likely resign rather than run for minority leader. In fact, he probably would do what former Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., did in '98 and resign his House seat after the first of the year, making Illinois' 14th District home to the first special election of 2007.

The question mark is current Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. Is he new enough in the leadership to avoid being booted (as he was in '98) from the leadership team? He would be a comfortable face for the House GOP, but is he the right face to lead the Republicans out of the minority? Will the House conservatives rally around someone like Mike Pence of Indiana or John Shadegg of Arizona instead, or will a compromise candidate like Eric Cantor of Virginia sneak through? Or maybe Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee is the answer? I shouldn't count out Missouri's Roy Blunt either, but something tells me he won't be interested in staying in the minority. Since the Democrats are likely to have a woman leading their House caucus, their Republican colleagues might feel pressured to have a woman in leadership up higher than they have now. So if Blackburn doesn't run for the top post, look for her to be a strong contender for the second slot.

The problem for House Republicans is that until the Mark Foley scandal broke, the de facto heir apparent to Hastert was National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Reynolds of New York. Even if Reynolds survives his re-election race (and there are signs he will), he might have suffered too much political damage to mount a leadership bid. As for his NRCC post, the race is already down to Phil English of Pennsylvania, Tom Cole of Oklahoma (a former pollster) and Pete Sessions of Texas. English and Sessions start with the bigger regional advantages, but Cole's got the political consultant card to play.

If Scenario I occurs, the Senate's leadership team will be decimated by the voters of Pennsylvania, as the Keystone State's junior senator, Rick Santorum (R), is likely to lose. That comes in addition to the retirement of Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. Plus, Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl's fate is uncertain. A player in the Senate's Republican leadership, he could be swept out of office by a big wave -- leaving yet another hole in the leadership team.

What we do know is that Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky will lead the GOP caucus, whether it's as majority leader or minority leader. Sens. Trent Lott of Mississippi and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee both seem poised to run for a top post as well. If Kyl wins, I'd expect him to move up the ladder from his current chairmanship of the Policy Committee. Another leadership wild card might be Sen. Jim Talent of Missouri, but he has to win re-election first and probably wouldn't under this first scenario. Compared with the holes the House Republicans will be attempting to fill, the leadership battles among Senate Republicans might be quite tame. McConnell runs a tight ship; he won't allow intraparty feuds to be leaked to the media the way House Republicans will.

As for the other arms of the GOP, the most interesting vacancy the party may have to fill is at the Republican National Committee. No matter the results this cycle, Chairman Ken Mehlman has made little secret of his desire to move on. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if all of the '08 prospective presidential candidates (and even the White House) pass on talking him into staying. He's as neutral a chair as the party could find, and mechanically, it's hard to pin any blame for '06 on Mehlman. Sure, he's had his disagreements with the NRCC, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the White House, but compared with relations among the three major Democratic committees, it's nothing.

If Mehlman leaves, the RNC chairmanship will take on the feel of a caretaker, and that's the last thing the party needs as it prepares for '08.

As for the Democrats in this scenario, the only thing they have to fear is hubris. Do the Democrats make the mistake of believing voters hired the Democrats to run the country, or do they go into 2007 realizing the country simply fired the Republicans?

Democrats in the House have an interesting decision to make regarding who will be No. 2 to the likely House speaker, Nancy Pelosi of California. Will it be Steny Hoyer of Maryland (her current No. 2 as minority whip) or John Murtha of Pennsylvania? While Murtha's military credentials are impressive, is he really the right face for the party? Frankly, neither Hoyer nor Murtha strike me as ideal majority leaders. Both are dealmakers, but they may be too close to the old way of doing things in Washington. And they both may have just too many ties to K Street -- and that could make the Democrats' new House majority look like ethical hypocrites. Whether legitimate or trumped up, I could see ethics complaints filed against either Hoyer or Murtha in a hurry by a vindictive Republican minority.

The wild card is Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel of Illinois. He's a fresher face, and the new class of House freshmen will have a greater sense of loyalty to him than to Pelosi. If the potential new speaker is as shrewd as some Democrats swear to me she is, then she's likely to quietly support a majority leader bid by Emanuel, or at the worst, the whip job. Emanuel's likely to be pressured to stay one more cycle at the DCCC, but with the Democrats stuck playing defense in '08, why would he want to do it?

The Senate Democratic leadership team is unlikely to undergo any major change in a possible wave. Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada will slide over to the majority leader post, and Minority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois will continue to be the No. 2. The only major unknown on the Senate side is who becomes chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. The 2008 cycle is actually a pretty good one for the Democrats, because more Republican seats will be up in '08 than Democratic ones. Chairman Charles Schumer of New York is not up in '08 -- so he would be eligible to stay another cycle -- but would he? If it's a way to stay in leadership, maybe he would. But if he leads Democrats to capture the majority in '06, why would he risk his political legacy in '08?

As for the Democratic National Committee, a gain of 30 or more House seats would mean Democrats would score victories in places that Chairman Howard Dean has invested in for his 50-state strategy. If Democrats win major races in Alaska, Idaho and Nebraska, look for some major gloating by the former presidential hopeful.


SCENARIO II: Democrats Win Small Majority In House, Not Senate

A better name for this result might be the "kissing your sister" scenario. There's something for both parties to gloat about, but neither will have had enough success in '06 to fully declare the night a "Democratic victory" or a "Republican victory."

I don't believe the recrimination issue facing the GOP in Scenario I would change much if a narrow Democratic majority is installed. Hastert would still probably go, and the GOP would still be likely to face some intraparty ideological squabbles, which would result in a new leadership team.

But the fascinating storyline in this scenario will be Pelosi's fate. Will, say, 220 House Democrats stay united and elect Pelosi speaker, or will enough conservative House Democrats break and elect a compromise Democrat as speaker? Even the threat of Democrats peeling off and working in collaboration with the Republicans to do so might be enough to encourage a serious challenge to Pelosi inside the Democratic caucus. For some reason Pelosi has a terrible relationship with the liberal blogs. There's a pretty decent chance liberal bloggers could start a grassroots effort to get behind Emanuel for speaker.

Another leader who would face problems under this outcome is Dean, because the result would largely be chalked up to the Republican Party's mechanical advantage on turnout. And there's a well-documented paper trail of folks like Emanuel and Schumer complaining about the lack of GOTV help they've received from the DNC. If Democrats come up thousands of votes short in a bunch of targeted races, particularly on the Senate side, watch for a lot of Beltway Democrats to point the finger at Dean.


SCENARIO III: Republicans Hold Their Majorities

This result is the least likely, because it appears that Republicans have too many vulnerable House seats to hold onto the lower chamber. That said, anything is possible, and conventional wisdom so regularly gets turned upside down that I would be an idiot not to entertain this scenario.

In short, if Democrats fail to win at least one of the chambers, the recriminations and finger-pointing will be epic. The failure to win in this environment will probably cost Dean and Pelosi their jobs and will put all of the Democratic leadership in Washington on notice. I wouldn't put it past some Democrats to begin pondering splintering off and forming third parties. That may sound irrational, but it's one thing not to win when the president's job approval rating is in the high 40s to low 50s -- it's another not to win when the opposition party's leader is as unpopular as Bush is. It would take a very inept political party to blow this opportunity facing them now.

Don't underestimate the demoralizing effect that losing in entirety could have on the Democratic Party. It could permeate for a very long time, and beyond 2008.

As for Republicans, they would take a result like this and treat it as a mandate, even though their majorities (under this outcome) would be less than they are today. But the expectations have shifted to a point that holding both houses of Congress is a gigantic victory for the GOP and Bush.

A piece of the fallout puzzle I left off of each scenario is the 2008 presidential race, but I have to save something for the December doldrums!

Back to the top.

Celebrating National Ammo Day

It's good that National Ammo Day comes in November, but shouldn't it come a few weeks sooner, so you're certain to be well-stocked before Election Day? I mean, that's about the worst time to run short:

Just like Daylight Savings Time has been associated with the time to check the batteries in your smoke alarms, National Ammo Day is the day you take inventory of your ammo stores, and replish and resupply as necessary.

We don’t want anyone to wait to purchase needed ammo on Ammo Day, but we want to make sure you set aside at least one day a year to look at what you have, what you need, and adjust accordingly.

It's coming up fast, and if you haven't prepared properly, maybe you can run to the store and get some gift certificates. I mean, what's worse than buying a gift for someone and getting the wrong size?

Of course, if the Democrats win tomorrow, you might as well kiss National Ammo Day goodbye...

Back to the top.

GOP Analyst Says: Too Little, Too Late

The Hotline received an E-mail from 'Republican Pollster Steve Lombardo,' who says that the apparent GOP surge is probably too late to help House Republicans keep their majority.

I've reproduced the note below:

A Republican's Take
Republican pollster Steve Lombardo e-mails the Hotline his final overview.

The Republican "surge," he writes, may have come too late.

"Tomorrow’s election will take place in what may be the greatest time of voter discontent in the last 30 years. Six in ten voters believe the country is on the “wrong track”. They are angry and they know who is in charge. When you look at a Gallup poll question on satisfaction nearly two thirds of voters say they are dissatisfied with the way things are going in the U.S. This is very close to 1994 levels and just a bit better than 1982."

On the Congressional Generic Ballot (CGB):

"Republicans have not closed the GCB gap far enough. We believe that the narrowing of the GCB is in part a natural occurrence (Republicans and some swing voters coming home) and also some improvement in the environment for the GOP, but it remains a huge hurdle for the Party. In 1994, eve of the election polls showed Republicans with anywhere from a 4 to 7 point GCB lead. The two most recent polls in this election show Democrats with a similar 4-7 point lead."

Also:

"Democrats do better in polls than they do on Election Day. Simply put, Democrats under-perform because a large segment of their core vote is made up of Independents and young people -- both of whom are less likely to actually vote on election day."


This is the lay of the land with 24 hours to go.

An Abundance of Good News for Democrats:

· Tomorrow’s election will take place in what may be the greatest time of voter discontent in the last 30 years. Six in ten voters believe the country is on the “wrong track”. They are angry and they know who is in charge. When you look at a Gallup poll question on satisfaction nearly two thirds of voters say they are dissatisfied with the way things are going in the U.S. This is very close to 1994 levels and just a bit better than 1982.


· This election has become a referendum on the President and the war in Iraq. The election is undoubtedly nationalized.

· The war in Iraq is far and away the most important issue in this election. A majority of voters (53% in the latest Washington Post poll) say that the war was “not worth it”. More than 6 in 10 voters disapprove of the war and the President’s performance in the war. Iraq is the driving factor in this election. It literally will propel voters to the election booth on Tuesday to vote against the President and his party.

· National security has greatly diminished as a major issue. Yes, some voters cite it as an important concern but it is not nearly as strong as the Republicans need it to be. In the same Washington Post poll, only 11% of voters cite national security as the most important issue in their vote for Congress this year. The diminution of the national security issue in this election has really hurt Republicans. Democrats de-coupled Iraq from national security and it will benefit them tomorrow.

· The economic numbers are better (stock market doing well, unemployment showing improvement and gas prices are down substantially) but the GOP is getting little credit and in the parts of the country where it is bad (Ohio, Michigan) it will hurt the GOP.

· According to our analysis of all public polls, the President’s approval rating is at 39% -- well below the level needed to make him a neutral factor in this mid-term election. As we have said in the past, the disapproval of the President and his Iraq policy represent a 2-4 point drag on every Republican candidate for Congress.

· History is on the side of the Democrats. This is the 6th year election of a two-term President and it is almost always bad for the party of President. Throughout the 1900’s the party of the President in his second term lost dozens of seats. In fact, in Reagan's second mid-term election (1986) Republicans managed to lose six House seats as well as the Senate, even though his approval rating stood at 63%.

· Finally, Democrats have led in the generic congressional ballot by significant margins -- some polls showing a 10-15 point lead for the last 6 months (though there is some tightening -- see below).

A Little Good News for Republicans

· A new poll by the Pew Research Center released Sunday shows that the Democrats’ lead in the generic congressional ballot among likely voters has shrunk to 4 points (47% to 43%). While we knew the GCB gap would close, this is a substantial change from late October when Democrats held an 11-point lead among likely voters in the same poll.

· More importantly, the same poll shows that Republican engagement in the election has risen dramatically in the last 30 days.

· John Kerry is back. In the Pew poll, 84% of voters said they heard a lot or a little about Kerry’s remarks -- although a majority said it would be a non-factor in their vote.


We have some hypotheses that we think will be determinants in the election tomorrow:

1. Republicans have not closed the GCB gap far enough. We believe that the narrowing of the GCB is in part a natural occurrence (Republicans and some swing voters coming home) and also some improvement in the environment for the GOP, but it remains a huge hurdle for the Party. In 1994, eve of the election polls showed Republicans with anywhere from a 4 to 7 point GCB lead. The two most recent polls in this election show Democrats with a similar 4-7 point lead.
2. Democrats do better in polls than they do on Election Day. Simply put, Democrats under-perform because a large segment of their core vote is made up of Independents and young people -- both of whom are less likely to actually vote on election day.
3. The above means that Democrats will win on Tuesday but not by the margins that many people think.

Projections:

What most prognosticators do not want to tell you is that most of this is all about guessing. The polls are too close to tell us with any degree of certainty who is going to win. The national data gives us some insight on the mood and how it might push the vote in one direction or another. Ultimately we do not know who will show up to vote on election day and that will drive who wins and who loses.

We inventoried all of the pundit predictions we could get our hands and averaged those. The average Dem gain based on an analysis of 31 pundits was a 25.2 seat gain. When the pundit provided a spread (e.g. 20-30, we took the mid-point -- i.e., 25).

We are inclined to go a bit lower and are projecting that the Democrats take the House with a net gain of 21 seats…making the new makeup 223 Democrats and 212 Republicans).

We are projecting that the Republicans hold the Senate and actually perform better than expected.

Here is how we see the individual races:

Allen will beat Webb in Virginia. The data over the last 7 days has showed Allen’s vote start to solidify. He did everything possible to give this one away but it may not be enough. VA is a Republican hold.

Burns will come from behind and win in a very close race in Montana. MT is a GOP hold.

Corker wiill beat Ford in Tennessee. This has been trending the Republican’s way since early last week. TN is a GOP hold.
Democrats will hold Maryland and New Jersey.

Democrats will pick up Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Ohio.

In the closest election in the country…and one in which making a projection is really down to a hunch….we now believe that McCaskill will narrowly defeat Jim Talent. The result: Democrats pick up 4 and fall two short of winning the Senate. The new Senate makeup will be 51 Republicans and 49 Democrats.

I don't know anything about Steve Lombardo beyond what I get in a google search. What he says however, certainly seems reasonable. I just hope it's wrong.

Back to the top.

What to Watch For

CQ politics offers a good guide as to how to interpret the early indicators on election night. Stu Rothenberg offers a useful one here as well.

I myself will be watching the results from Kentucky and Indiana at 7:00 pm. I'll be watching 5 House seats - those of Mike Sodrel, Chris Chocola, John Hostettler, Geoff Davis and Anne Northup. If the GOP wins 3 of those 5, I will have a pretty good feeling for the GOP majority. And if they are going to lose control, I suspect they won't be able to hold on to a majority of those seats.

Be an informed viewer.

Courage.

Back to the top.

Mehlman Confident

RNC Chair Ken Mehlman writes here about why Republicans will do well tomorrow.

Back to the top.

The Pros Are Against Us...

If you make the rounds of predictions by the major election analysts and predictors, it's going to be a great day for the Democrats tomorrow. Charlie Cook's analysis offers little in the way of a specific prediction:

With just over 72 hours to go before the polls close, it's very hard to imagine how the House majority does not turn over, it's a question of how big this thing will be. As the magnitude of the House wave began growing a month or so ago, and the prospect of a 20 or more seat gain became increasingly probable, I decided that no matter how big it got, I was not going to say or write a number bigger than 35. After a certain point, you aren't really counting or even estimating, you're pulling numbers out of the air. I didn't and don't see any point in that. Let's just say it's 20-35, but that the possibility of this getting bigger, is very real. I'm just not going to throw any higher numbers out...

The bottom line is that it is more possible today than a couple weeks ago that Republicans could hold their losses to just four, or it could end up being the six that seemed more likely to many then. Seven seat gain seems pretty much out, but then again three isn't very likely either. Republicans would need a lot of breaks to keep losses to four, a 51-49 majority, but it is quite plausible. Some may be very close, but all but Missouri and Montana are east of the Mississippi River, which doesn't necesarily mean an early evening, but that the story lines of the evening will develop early.

It's not quite like nailing jello to the wall, but it's not far off.

Larry Sabato says the Democrats will net six Senate seats, and take 29 seats in the House.

Stu Rothenberg predicts Democratic gains of 34-40 in the House and 5-7 in the Senate.

The Washington Post yesterday reported the forecasts of the last 13 winners of the 'Crystal Ball' competition that they run prior to each election. Only Mary Matalin predicted that the Republicans would keep the House.

The top election prognosticators in Washington are giving the GOP no shot to retain the House, and put the Senate at more or less even money. Anything less than a complete Republican meltdown tomorrow will qualify as a major shock to the DC punditocracy.

Back to the top.

Why the Surge?

I suspect that a major reason for the apparent GOP 'surge' is that there are lots of disgruntled GOP voters who were unwilling to admit to themselves that they could not vote for the Democrats. They were dissatisfied with spending, immigration, ethics, and other issues, so they could not admit that at the end of the day, they were still going to vote Republican. But as the election approached and the coming vote became more 'real,' they acknowledged that there was no way they could vote for the Democrats - who they know will not make any of these things better.

And note that as Mickey points out, the surge started before Kerry spouted his insulting comments. According to Charles Franklin, the Democrats peaked right about Thursday, October 26. Hhmmm... did anything happen on or about October 26? Oh wait! I know!

I wonder if that decision, which attracted a lot of attention and then went 'under the radar,' was really taken to heart by the social conservative community. Perhaps that was the trigger that led the GOP base to realize the importance of a Republican victory. Perhaps those who were thinking about staying home or voting Democratic, to send a message about their displeasure over a range of issues, decided both to come to the polls and to vote on the issues that have been most important to them.

Just a thought.

Back to the top.

Something's Happening Here (II)

And what it is, definitely looks like a GOP surge. Check out RCP.

I'll play the skeptic again: I find it hard to believe that the race would change this dramatically, this late. And what would explain it? The GOP vote 'coming home?' John 'Gift Horse Face' Kerry?

Still, if it's showing in two major polls, it's likely not a mirage. Hopefully the surge is as big as it appears...

Pollster.Com's Charles Franklin pinpoints the Democratic peak as 10 days ago. Heh.

He still projects a Democratic House, but says that now the 'big wave gains' - in the 30s and 40s - seem out of reach. Now he pegs it as in the 20s. Note too, that Franklin wrote this before the Washington Post and Pew Research generic polls were released.

Update: Jim Geraghty notes that Gallup has reported a narrowing of the Dem advantage as well. It went from 13 to 7 points in the last two weeks. Three national polls seems to confirm the surge. Now will it peter our before Tuesday, or keep narrowing?

Update II: Newsweek is not buying the GOP Kool Aid - if that is in fact, what it is.

Update III: If there is a surge, I have a thought as to where it might be coming from - here.

Back to the top.

Shaw Trails Badly - Or Does He?

I'm taking all the polls I see nowadays with a grain of salt - especially this latest poll for the Miami Herald which shows Clay Shaw suddenly trailing by 10 points. Not only is that somewhat out-of-line with other recent polls, but it's by Zogby. And Zogby, well...

In other news, has John Sweeney suddenly had a 17 point swing against him in the last two weeks? Well, on this one I suppose it's possible.

Back to the top.

Steele vs. Cardin

Michael Steele has run an amazing campaign, and he's benefitted from some amazing Cardin miscues. If Cardin manages to win this race in Midnight Blue Maryland, it will only be due to tremendous luck. If Steele and Cardin were fighting 'on a neutral field" Steele would beat him by 20 points.

Check out Cardin's latest claim: that the Patriot Act 'predates his election to the United States Congress.'

Michael Steele gives every GOPer in Maryland a great reason to come out on Tuesday. The guy has earned a win.

Back to the top.

Time: Democrats More Motivated

Their latest poll is nothing but bad news for the GOP - at least based on the data they present.

Back to the top.

Something's Happening Here

What it is ain't exactly clear...

Be aware that there are a number of polls showing things improving for the GOP here in the final days. I'm not sure what to make of them, but you should be aware of it.

For example, Jim Geraghty looks at the narrowing of the Dem advantage in the Washington Post poll. He also sees signs of progress in Pennsylvania and Ohio. Further, some key Republicans have seen their numbers improve in the last few days, including Charlie Bass and Jeb Bradley in NH, and Mike DeWine in the latest Ohio Senate poll. (Check out RCP's poll page for the data).

Obviously, Conrad Burns has closed dramatically in the last few weeks, and is tied in the latest poll. Given that this is something that's been going on for a while, I suspect it is real, and I think at this point, you have to favor him for re-election given the Republican tilt of the state.

Keep in mind that notwithstanding these improvements, the numbers are still pretty bad overall. Also, they may just be a sign of Republican voters coming home. There is probably a fair-sized segment that was never going to vote Democratic, but was always too disgruntled to admit that they would eventually vote GOP. Now that the election is here, they are swallowing their anger and frustration, and indicating that they're going to 'suck it up' and vote for the Republicans. If just 3 or 4 percent of likely voters fit that description, then the movement in the polls could reflect that.

Update: NR's Sixers notes a GOP surge in Iowa, and in an article that's worth reading if only for the headline ("GOP on the rebound"), it's noted that Lincoln Chafee is within one. And over here at NR's the Corner, note a 'beltway watcher' who seems aqfully excited about one poll.

I hope that these are all indicative of a real surge - of undecideds considering what it would mean to put Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in charge of the War on Terror. We'll know soon enough if that's what this is about.

Update II: For the best spin on the good news, check out Lorie Byrd over at Wizbang. Count me skeptical, but I'd be thrilled to be wrong.

Update III: By the way, one of the more dependable predictors of election results is Tradesports. As of this writing, I don't see any uptick in the betting on the GOP retaining the House.

Back to the top.

Jim Talent Decides Who Lives and Dies

So says a despicable 527 ad in Missouri. But wait, wasn't it John Kerry who had all power over death and life? At least that's what John Edwards seemed to say.

This ad is so extreme; I suspect it will provoke the same sort of backlash.

Absolutely disgusting.

Back to the top.

Who's Got a Rope?

Saddam gets the death sentence, death by hanging to be exact. Fox News is reporting that under Iraqi law there's an automatic appeal of any death sentence, so we probably won't see his legs twitching for quite a while.

Friday Night Videos

(With apologies to Ace)

Don't let anything happen to the House:



Because it's our house and we like it:



Some think I focus on this too much:



But my critics are into groupthink:



Cause...

I got nothing, I just like this one:



And anyway, we have lots of people in our House - so it's not over yet:



Back to the top.

Samsung=OCP

This heavily-armed robot is exactly the sort of thing that will make the people of Detroit much safer.

Samsung has partnered with Korea University to develop a machine-gun equipped sentry robot, which consists of “two cameras: one for day-time and one for infrared night vision, zooming capabilities, a speaker for notifying the intruder, sophisticated pattern recognition to detect the difference between humans/trees, and a 5.5mm machine-gun.”

My personal guarantee: guys aged 35-45 won't even need to look up the reference.

Back to the top.

Maybe GOTV Should Start In the Neo-Natal Unit

Scientists study political-genetic link

Although it's probably too late to make effective use of these insights this time around.

NYT: Saddam One Year from Nuclear Weapon

The New York Times is concerned that the administration published on the web many documents that it regards as sensitive and dangerous, from Saddam's program of WMD. Of course, the Times neglected the interim article; the one that acknowledges that Saddam did in fact, have a WMD program.

If you recognize the Modus Operandi here, it's similar to the one used by the New York Times and others to report on the economy: report repeatedly that the economy is terrible, and then finally report that Bush is being damaged by the sudden and dramatic economic slowdown.

The salient point you should take from the NYT article is here:

Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.

It's unclear whether the NYT means to say that Saddam was a year away in 1990, or in 2002. In either case, the NYT and the Democrats will argue that the 'real point' is that Saddam did not have an 'active, ongoing' program to create & use WMD.

But the Times has refused to acknowledge that there is every indication that Saddam intended to restart his program of WMD when he had the opportnity. These documents clearly support that conclusion. Or would the NYT argue that the only reasons these documents exist is because hadn't gotten around to shredding them yet?

Make sure to read more at TKS as well as Captain's Quarters, where Ed Morrissey has done tons of work on the documents in question.

Ed notes a critical mistake by the NYT: by saying that the documents are dangerous, the NYT confirms that they are legitimate. If that's true, they confirm Saddam's ties to terrorists (including Al Qaeda), his plans to improve delivery systems for WMD, and a whole host of other things.

Back to the top.

Moving Into the Last Days

As the campaign closes, if you're one of those obsessive lunatics who needs to know everything that's going on, make sure you're reading Geraghty and the Corner over at NRO.

More generally, I'm seeing as much good news as bad news. As I noted earlier, Conrad Burns seems about even money for re-election. Michael Steele has good reason to be optimistic. On the other hand, Anne Northup is reportedly trailing, and so is JD Hayworth. There is definitely reason to doubt the accuracy of the Hayworth poll; it has 16% of self-identified conservatives voting against Hayworth. That defies belief.

And I would be remiss if I did not tell you that Stu Rothenberg, who is usually the last to jump on the Democratic bandwagon, now predicts a Democratic takeover of the Senate, and a Democratic gain of 34-40 seats in the House. Does Stu lack appropriate faith in Rove, or is he on the money?

Expect all sorts of crazy polls in these last few days. We're reaching the point where you're better off turning off the computer and enjoying some football, or the changing of the leaves. Turn the news back on around 7:00 pm Eastern time Tuesday.

Back to the top.

Last Gasp of a Loser

What do the voters want from a potential Senator? They want to know he has a really inflated sense of self-importance, right? Well, that's what Ned Lamont seems to think. He's clearly been taking lessons from John Kerry.



It reminds me of a quote Joe Lieberman might have used a few months ago:

You think I'm licked. You all think I'm licked. Well, I'm not licked. And I'm going to stay right here and fight for this lost cause. Even if the room gets filled with lies like these, and the Taylors and all their armies come marching into this place.

Seems like it'll work out OK for Lieberman...

Hat Tip: Allah

Back to the top.

The Times, They Are a Changin...

Roll Call offers two articles today that preview likely changes in the House Republican leadership, whatever happanes on election day. Both require subscriptions, but I'll print excerpts:

Republicans Jockey For Leadership Posts
November 2, 2006
By Susan Davis and Ben Pershing,
Roll Call Staff

While House Republican leaders remain publicly optimistic in their Election Day forecasts, increasing chatter among the GOP rank and file indicates a significant number of Members are prepping for losses and wide-open leadership races in the aftermath of Nov. 7.

Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.), who launched an unsuccessful bid for Majority Leader earlier this year, has taken to holding near-daily conference calls for at least the past two weeks with selected Republican Members, according to multiple House sources.

The calls have been characterized as “strategy sessions” among conservative Members on how to maintain the majority, as well as discussions on the future conservative agenda. GOP Reps. Mike Pence (Ind.), Jeb Hensarling (Texas) and Pete Hoekstra (Mich.), among others, have taken part...

Similarly, sources said moderate members of the Conference have been holding informal discussions over the make-up of the leadership slate if Conference Chairwoman Deborah Pryce (Ohio), the lone moderate in leadership, loses her re-election bid Tuesday.

If she successfully retains her House seat and chooses to seek another term leading the Conference, Pryce is expected to face a challenge from at least two colleagues: Reps. Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.) and Jack Kingston (Ga.), who are known to have ambitions for the post. But multiple House GOP aides said Wednesday that speculation has grown in recent days that Republican Policy Committee Chairman Adam Putnam (Fla.) could attempt a step up the leadership ladder and join that contest...

The race for the Conference vice chairmanship also is gaining clarity as Republican sources said Wednesday that rumored candidate Rep. Kay Granger’s office has made some initial contacts with her fellow Texas Republicans to let them know she may decide to throw her hat in that ring...

GOP aides also have said that in recent days Rep. Mark Kirk (Ill.) has been increasingly seen as a strong potential contender for the Conference vice chairmanship. Along with Rep. Charles Bass (R-N.H.), Kirk runs the centrist Tuesday Group, and he has taken the lead in recent weeks in reaching out to his fellow moderates to discuss how the party can do a better job of reflecting centrist ideas.

Kirk’s candidacy could gain momentum if Pryce loses, as moderates will be looking to keep a seat at the leadership table.

Additionally, those same sources believe that Rep. John Carter (Texas) has made great gains in his bid for Conference secretary, and one House GOP aide said Carter is seen as having the votes “locked up.” A spokeswoman for Carter did not return a call by press time.

Reps. Todd Tiahrt (Kan.), Mike Rogers (Mich.) and Thaddeus McCotter (Mich.) remain in the mix as Members regularly mentioned as potential contenders, though none of the three have indicated whether or not they will run for a leadership post...

Cantor Pushes for Reforms
November 2, 2006
By Susan Davis,
Roll Call Staff

House Chief Deputy Majority Whip Eric Cantor (Va.) has no interest in discussing his own future ambitions, but he has begun outlining a framework for what he says is much-needed soul-searching on the future of the House Republican Conference and the party’s agenda...

Cantor maintains that Republicans will retain the House majority next Tuesday and that the current leadership slate will stay largely intact — although as a member of leadership he has little leeway to say otherwise — but he freely offers that Republicans need to start changing the way they do business.

“We will hold the House, I think obviously it’s going to be by a reduced margin,” Cantor said. “At that point what I would like to see is for us to take a breather.”

Cantor advocates postponing the scheduled Nov. 15 leadership elections for two reasons. First, he said Members need to know the outcome of the ongoing Committee on Standards of Official Conduct investigation into the activities of former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) because current leaders — including Speaker Dennis Hastert (Ill.), Majority Leader John Boehner (Ohio) and National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Reynolds (N.Y.) — as well as several senior leadership aides have been involved in the investigation...

But more broadly, Cantor said House Republicans need to meet and discuss the game plan for the 110th Congress.

“We really need to try and address things in a little different way. My desire would be for us to take a few days and meet as a Conference ... to take stock of where we are,” he said. “I think at the end of the day the fact that we have not delivered on some of the things we set out to do [means] we need to come out of the gate in the next Congress with a recipe for success. There are plenty of times you can give excuses as to why we don’t produce, but the electorate doesn’t stand for it.”

Cantor said the rash of ethical scandals that dogged Republicans in the 109th Congress is unacceptable and the House needs to take serious action to put mechanisms in place to try to prevent future scenarios...

Cantor cited as an example the use of information technology audits in the private sector and some local governments, in which employees are aware of periodic audits of communications sent from their offices. He said that kind of mechanism may have prevented Foley from using e-mail and Instant Messenger to inappropriately contact pages.

Cantor is mulling introducing his own legislative proposal, which has not been hashed out, that would include what he calls “internal control mechanisms.” He said Republicans need to take serious reform actions to address how some Members abused the system for their own gain.

Citing the actions of incarcerated former Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-Calif.) and Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio), Cantor said more needs to be done to address earmark reform and oversight of federal dollars.

“We have some divide in our Conference over what the Appropriations Committee ought to be doing and ought to be transparent about,” he said. “I fully support transparency on that, to me, that’s a little step.”

Cantor noted that the increased spotlight on the earmark process caused a 37 percent drop in earmark requests this fiscal year...

It's virtually a certainty that any reformist surges we see now will be lessened by the time the conference meets to elect leaders. That seems to be the way of movements for change in Congress - at least in the 15 years or so I've been watching. That's why it's encouraging to see such an appetite for change among some of the 'backbenchers.'

And there definitely is a realization that the conservative base feels that the Congressional GOP has 'lost its way,' at least on some issues. I think there's a chance for significant reforms, at least if the Republicans retain control of the House.

Of course, Democratic control would bring a whole different set of changes.

Back to the top.

Lobbying is an Honorable Profession

And we do our best not to pay for access, but to find a way to get it for free.



Make sure to get out and vote for Heather Wilson over this numbskull.

Back to the top.

How Burns Made it a Race

Bob Novak writes on the issue that has brought Conrad Burns back into the thick of the race with Jon Tester: taxes.

Just two weeks ago, Republican Sen. Conrad Burns appeared dead in trying for a fourth term. Polls gave his Democratic opponent, State Sen. Jon Tester, a double-digit lead, and that caused party leaders in Washington to write off Burns. But less than a week before the election, Burns has closed to within a few percentage points of Tester.

The reason can be found in this Burns television ad: "Jon Tester isn't being honest when he claims he cut taxes [as president of the state senate]. In fact, Tester raised taxes on more than 16,000 small businesses. . . . Tester supports a $2,000 tax increase on families. Tester's a politician and a taxer who'll say anything to get elected."

Result? The latest Reuters/Zogby poll shows Burns within a point of Tester.

Back to the top.

Chocola With a Chance in Indiana

I have to agree with the comments of John Miller, regarding the importance of returning Chris Chocola to the House.

The good news? Research 2000 shows Chocola making it a close race again.

Back to the top.

What Happened in Charlottesville

Check out the series of photos Captain Ed posts of a lunatic lefty muscling his way past George Allen's staffers to try to get to Allen himself.

It's stunning the hack job that has been pulled against Allen this year. If you live in Virginia, make sure to get out and vote for Allen next week.

Back to the top.

I Always Assume Everyone Knows Something I Don't

So Bechtel washing its hands of Iraq makes me think that the post-election scenario contemplated by Administration insiders is at best one of U.S. troops withdrawing into their cantonments and letting the Iraqis sort out their blood feuds on their own:

Bechtel Leaves Iraq After Losing 52 Workers in 3 Years

Since the Left seems to view all exercises of U.S. military instruments of foreign policy through the lens of Vietnam; it's worthwhile to consider whether such a cantonment scenario is sustainable. Would Speaker Pelosi not be likely to play to her base by routinely confronting the Administration on supplementals and authorisations so long as U.S. troops remain within mortar range of the Mahdi Army? Wouldn't this in turn lead to the effective withdrawal of U.S. troops from any role in the political violence in Iraq? And wouldn't this in turn lead to the very realisation of the self-fulfilling prophecy of U.S. involvement in the area ending in chaotic evacuation by helicopter from rooftops while the Iranian backed militia indulge in orgies of reprisals against anyone who ever had a good word to say about the U.S. in Iraq?

John Kerry Take Note

This is how to apologize:

"I have no one to blame but myself," Mota said in a statement that did not explain how he ran afoul of baseball's drug rules. "I take full responsibility for my actions and accept MLB's suspension. I used extremely poor judgment and deserve to be held accountable.

"To my teammates and the entire Mets organization, I am sorry. I truly regret what I did and hope that you can forgive me. To baseball fans everywhere, I understand that you are disappointed in me, and I don't blame you. I feel terrible and I promise this is the first and last time that this will happen. I am determined to prove to you that this was one mistake."

Back to the top.

Lieberman to GOP

I've invested a lot in predicting that Lieberman will wind up caucusing with Republicans, but only because it makes no sense at all for him to remain a Democrat. Want another demonstration? The GOP in Connecticut is crediting him with breathing life into their congressional campaigns:

Lieberman push for GOP votes may aid GOP
By ANDREW MIGA, Associated Press Writer
Wed Nov 1, 10:58 AM ET

Sen. Joe Lieberman alienated plenty of Democrats with his independent bid. Just imagine their anger if he costs them control of the House.

The three-term Connecticut senator is aggressively pursuing Republican and independent voters in his race against Democratic nominee Ned Lamont and little-known Republican Alan Schlesinger. That targeted appeal — and the potential for a strong GOP turnout — could save three GOP House incumbents struggling to return to Washington...

Lieberman has the support of 73 percent of Republicans and 51 percent of independents, according to a Quinnipiac University survey released Wednesday. Schlesinger trailed far behind in single digits in the head-to-head matchup.

Lieberman's coattails could carry the GOP incumbents to re-election and undercut Democratic hopes of majority control of the House.

"It does help me," Shays said in a recent interview. "I know there will be a lot of Republicans who will vote for him, as well as a lot of independents and Democrats. ... Joe is the kind of person who reaches across the political divide, and I am like that as well..."

Johnson, 71, is a 12-term incumbent locked in a nasty race against Chris Murphy, a 33-year-old Democratic state senator. One of her TV ads features an actor portraying Murphy being welcomed by drug dealers as he campaigns door-to-door.

In a sprawling working-class district in Eastern Connecticut, Simmons' support of the Iraq war has come under heavy fire from Democratic challenger Joe Courtney. It's the most Democratic, and poorest, of the three in play...

So for all the stuff that MoveOn and DailyKos hate him for, add the fact that he will be credited with helping to pull through however many of Connecticut's 3 incumbent House Republicans get re-elected.

Back to the top.

Great Picture

I think this picture may hurt the GOP, in that we are helped when people realize that John Kerry is a leader in the Democratic party, and he holds offensive views. This picture however, tends to make it plainer that John Kerry is a joke, who almost never ought to be taken seriously. And if enough voters think that Kerry shouldn't be taken seriously, they are less likely to regard it as important to come out and vote for his oppposition.

As an analogy, few realize that Jerry Springer was once the Democratic mayor of Cincinnati. If you thought about Springer as a leader in the Democratic party, you would probably race to the polls to vote GOP. But since most regard him as a joke, it loses the 'punch.' Well, do we really want the voters to realize that Kerry is as unserious as Jerry Springer?

Back to the top.

House GOP Shakeup

Tim Chapman picks up on an interesting story in The Hill about GOP 'backbenchers' pushing for leadership changes after the elections.

The House GOP has currently scheduled its leadership elections for the week of November 13, when Members will have returned to Washington for the 'Lame Duck' session of this 109th Congress. Such early scheduling is traditional, not least because it gives challengers little time to organize opposition to the incumbents.

There has been talk in the GOP of pushing back leadership elections. If things go badly on election day, expect that talk to increase. The goal for insurgents would probably be to have the next round of elections in December, when it is possible that Congress will have to come back for a second lame duck session.

If there are enough challengers to force a delay in the leadership elections, expect there to be new blood.

And frankly, if election day goes badly, several of the posts will have been vacated anyway.

Back to the top.

If Kerry Didn't Exist, Rove Would Invent Him

John Kerry remains the gift that keeps on giving. He drove Imus crazy this morning, because he would not give a simple apology for what he said. He kept saying that he botched a joke, and then he tried to turn back to an attack on Bush. Finally Imus hung up on him, but not before Kerry mentioned that he was returning to DC and had cancelled his remaining campaign appearances.

By the way, have you noticed how John Kerry's favorite phrase seems to be 'I won't let them?' He said he wouldn't let the Swift Boat attacks damage his campaign. He wouldn't let the Bush campaign portray him as weak on terrorism. Now he's saying that he won't let the GOP make him an issue in this campaign.

When Kerry starts a sentence with "I won't let..." pull out your wallet and bet on it to happen.

(By the way, can we get a John Kerry drinking game going? Every time he says 'I won't let,' take a drink. The good news is, you wouldn't be sober for more than the first three minutes or so of his speech.)

The wonderful thing about Kerry injecting himself into the race at this point is that it gives the GOP something to run against. This election has been a referendum on GOP leadership, without much consideration about what the Democrats offer instead. It's been hard for Republicans to force voters to actually choose whose agenda they prefer, because neither Pelosi nor Reid is very well-known nationally. John Kerry is however. And the good thing for the GOP is, America has already rejected him once.

The further good news is that Kerry is choosing to keep himself in the spotlight. After all, it would be easy to say 'I'm sorry I misspoke. I never intended to criticize our troops, for whom I have the highest regard.' But Kerry refuses to do that. He would rather stay front-and-center, to the detriment of his Democratic colleagues. Is he doing it because he's stupid, or because he thinks it endears him to the Nutroots? After all, they seem to love left-wing 'martyrs' much more than they like to win. Perhaps Kerry wants to portray himself as nailed to the cross of right-wing smear attacks. It is a surefire political loser nationally, but maybe he thinks it'll get him some love from the Fever Swamp.

Back to the top.

Good News for Hayworth

Heh.

It's not really that bad, of course.

Back to the top.

Why the GOP is Optimistic

Time's Mike Allen explains 5 factors that make Rove and Mehlman optimistic about retaining the GOP majorities in the face of the Democratic surge:

1) No Republican is being taken by surprise, unlike many Democrats in 1994. Shortly after Bush's reelection, White House and Republican National Committee officials began working to convince House members that the formidable reelection record for incumbents (since 1996, 97.5 percent) was not something they could take for granted. "What we attempted to do last year," said one of these officials, "was to go out of our way to say to people: 'You face a potential of a race. In order to win as an incumbent, you better have a plan,' " including an intensive focus on voter registration, a message plan that would unfold in phases, and a ground organization that was operating in a measurable, quantifiable way. When candidates were willing to do that, the party offered to work with them to offload some costs. The candidates were also encouraged to help raise money for the party, to complete the circle. One official involved in the process said Republican officials deliberately "scared" lawmakers, telling them: "You face a very tough road. You better be ready."

2) Absentee ballot requests and returns, closely tracked by the party, are meeting or exceeding past levels for Republicans in key states and districts. Republican officials say White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove and party operatives are scrutinizing this data with the same intensity that they followed metrics like voter registration earlier in the cycle. For at least 68 races, they have been getting reports once a week on the number of voters registered, phone calls completed and doors knocked on. Now, they're getting a second report on the number of absentee ballots requested, absentee ballots returned and early votes cast. "We can look at that data flow and make an assumption about what's going on and plotting it out," a Republican official said.

3) When the national parties, national campaign committees, state "victory" committee accounts and competitive campaigns are added up, Republicans maintained a substantial financial advantage over Democrats at the last filing period. "We didn't look on it as one pot," said one official involved in the process. "We looked upon it as four pots, with synergy available through all four."

4) Republicans say the district-by-district playing field favors them in several structural ways not reflected in national polls. Here is their thinking, starting with statistics from the President's 2004 race against John F. Kerry: "There are 41 districts held by a Democrat that Bush carried, and 14 seats held by Republican that Kerry carried, so we're fighting on better turf. You see it in the open seats, where Bush carried 18 of the Republican open seats and Kerry carried two. So we're fighting on better turf."

5) The get-out-the-vote machine designed by Rove and now-Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman in 2001 was dubbed the "72-hour" program, but officials say that's quite a misnomer and that it's really a 17-week or even two-year program. "In Ohio, we are making more phone calls this year than we made two years ago," said an official involved in the process. "Now, that's not the case necessarily in Virginia, which was not a battleground state. You have to build that. In other places, we built that and built it early."

Back to the top.

Round-Headed Kid All Grown Up

Who woulda seen Charlie Brown running for Congress? And more importantly, how is it that I missed that fact until now?

I bet he's just doing it to impress that little red-headed girl.

Back to the top.

John Kerry: Offensive Clown

I have a dear family member who is an attorney. He became a police office because he wanted to give back to the community and protect the innocent. He joined the military and served proudly in Iraq. Upon his return, he returned to public service, and now puts his life on the line to protect his fellow Americans every day. I find it deeply and profoundly offensive that John Kerry seems to think he is an idiot.

I know by now that John Kerry is a classless, privileged ass. So perhaps I shouldn't expect any better. I know that he's demonstrated his contempt even for the Secret Service agents who had the thankless task of protecting him in 2004, and who may be called to protect him again in his effort to become a two-time loser in 2008. Does Kerry know how many of those agents have a background in the military? Does he think they're stupid as well?

It's a shame that John Kerry doesn't have the good sense to just shut up.

Video Here:



Update: Kerry demonstrates that he can't take a lesson and doesn't know when to quit. In his statement and in his press conference, he refuses to apologize, and rests on his record of 'support for our troops.' What a joke.

So basically, if you believed and liked Kerry after the 2004 campaign, you might still like him. But if you know that Kerry has a record of disdain and even contempt for our troops, this will stick in your craw.

It's just a little more fuel to help Karl Rove ramp up the turnout.

Update II: Here's Kerry's refusal to apologize.

Back to the top.

Barone: Good News & Bad News

Michael Barone is always worth a read. Today he covers apparent shifts in some key races. The quick-and-dirty: improved situation for Democrats in Connecticut, and for the Republicans in Texas and Florida.

He makes a key point with regard to the race in Tom DeLay's old seat:

I am told that Texas has a rather liberal law governing the counting of write-ins that allows for different spellings, initials, etc., to be counted for a registered write-in candidate. The poll showed that 35 percent would vote for Sekula-Gibbs as a write-in and 36 percent for Democrat Nick Lampson, who used to represent Texas's Ninth and was defeated in 2004 as a result of the redistricting plan DeLay pushed through the Texas Legislature in 2003. When people were asked preferences without a mention of the write-in, the result was Sekula-Gibbs over Lampson 52 to 35 percent. It is interesting that the poll also had a DeLay-Lampson pairing, with DeLay ahead by 48 to 40 percent–an underwhelming score in a district that voted 64 percent for George W. Bush in 2004.

Read the whole thing.

Back to the top.

Charlie Cook: Now With Free Hemlock!

Election expert Charlie Cook sees no reason for Republican optimism. He shifts a whole bunch of races further toward the Democrats. And districts that seemed safe just 2-3 weeks ago, he now rates as tossups:

With the election just eight days away, there are no signs that this wave is abating. Barring a dramatic event, we are looking at the prospect of GOP losses in the House of at least 20 to 35 seats, possibly more, and at least four in the Senate, with five or six most likely.

New tossups in the House include Hayworth, Pombo, Musgrave, Ryun, Gutknecht, Bass, Schmidt, and Cubin.

His latest poll has the generic Congressional ballot showing a gobsmacking 26 percent Democratic edge among likely voters.

If Cook turns out to be right, Democrats will clearly establish a working majority in the House, and will generally be able to avoid being held hostage by any particular constituency or caucus (Black Caucus, Blue Dogs, New Democrats, Hispanic Caucus, etc).

Back to the top.

Expect Amnesty from a Democratic House

Mickey leads off with an interesting debate question: would a Democratic House of Representatives pass some version of the Bush-McCain semi-amnesty immigration bill. Mickey says that all the folks he talks to in Washington say no. I've been wrong before, but to me it seems a no-brainer that they will.

A Democratic House of Representatives is going to have a tough row to hoe. With a Republican Senate (presumably) and White House, they will have no trouble finding issues on which to draw distinctions with the GOP (expanded access to health care, minimum wage increases, ramped-down commitment in Iraq, and deficit reduction). But they will also have to protect themselves against the charge that they stand for nothing but obstruction, and there are few issues where they agree with the Senate and the White House.

Wait a minute. Did I say 'few issues?' I meant 'no issues' - apart from immigration.

Further, there is the latino constituency to think about. After the signing of the Secure Fence Act, and after whatever happens on election day, do you think the President will sit back and forget about his efforts to woo latino voters to the GOP? What could be a better pitch than to say 'The Senate has passed earned legalization; I will sign earned legalization, but Nancy Pelosi opposes earned legalization.' Knowing that he doesn't need to appease the GOP base anymore, Bush can sing that song far and wide. And guess what? If Nancy Pelosi stubbornly refuses to cooperate, it will rankle the GOP base even less.

And lastly, Pelosi will need to demonstrate that they can deliver for business on something. If the Democrats win the House, and their agenda with regard to business includes tax increases, increased regulation, a grinding halt to trade expansion, beating up on China, and investigating federal contracts, how much more likely will business be to redouble the effort to make Pelosi a one-term Speaker? There will be relatively few issues where House Democrats could do something to buy off the animosity of Big Business. Immigration will be a big one.

So will the Democratic House cooperate on amnesty? Clearly the Democratic conference will be divided. There is a significant constituency for low levels of immigration. But latinos will favor it, unions will favor it, folks interested in a new class of Democratic-leaning voters will favor it, and so will business. I have to admit that Democrats are really good at shooting themselves in the foot, but to me, this looks like a no-brainer.

Back to the top.

What's With the Polls?

That's Michael Barone's question, courtesy of Instapundit.

One facet of the polls this year has interested me. As a rule of thumb, Republican candidates do better among 'Likely Voters' than among 'Registered Voters.' That's because GOP voters generally go to the polls more dependably than Democrats. Another way to put that is that intermittent voters tend to be more Democratic than the base vote.

But if the Democratic base is more motivated this year than the GOP base - if they are expected to come out and vote more reliably than the Republicans, shouldn't the 'Likely Vote' be more Democratic than the 'Registered Vote?' From what I have seen, very few polls have shown that. (A recent exception is the Newsweek poll I posted below).

If 'Likely Voters' this year are consistently more Republican than the Registered Voters, can this be explained by anything other than a motivated Republican base?

Back to the top.

Newsweek: Late Momentum for GOP

I am always ready to make a mountain out of a molehill. And why not? Only 8 days left; there are few remaining opportunities to get overly-optimistic:

October 29, 2006
Special Sunday Brunch -- 9 Days To Go
A quick rundown of can't miss Sunday developments

This week's Newsweek poll continues to show Dems in a strong position but the poll also found some small movements toward the GOP. Dems led the generic ballot among LVs 53-39% and among RVs, the Dems led 49-38%. Last week, the Dems' generic ballot lead in this poll was 18 points. And for the third poll in a row, Pres. Bush's job rating inched up two points to 37%...

And check out the Newsweek article itself. The numbers are definitely bad for the GOP, but in every way they are better than they were in Newsweek's last poll:

Too Little, Too Late?
President Bush made a big show this week of reevaluating his Iraq policy. It made a difference—but only with his base and only at the margins. The new NEWSWEEK poll finds likely voters still favoring the Democrats.
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Marcus Mabry
Newsweek

Updated: 1:38 a.m. ET Oct 29, 2006

Oct. 28, 2006 - As the race for Congress enters the homestretch, the Republicans find themselves limping to the finish line, according to the new NEWSWEEK Poll. President Bush’s approval rating continues a slow but steady climb—from an all-time NEWSWEEK-poll low of 33 percent three weeks ago to 37 percent today. But it may be too little, too late: if the midterm elections were held today, 53 percent of those likely to go to the polls would vote for the Democratic candidate in their Congressional district versus just 39 percent who would vote for the Republican...

Almost half of all Americans still believe taking military action in Iraq was a mistake, but the gap between those who say it was and those who say it was the right decision has narrowed: from 54 to 39 last week to 49 to 43 this week—from a 15-point margin to just six points.

Faith that the United States is making progress in Iraq is up slightly, too: from 25 percent of Americans last week to 29 percent this week. A solid majority still believes the United States is losing ground, but their ranks have decreased from 65 percent to 60 percent. The biggest change is among Republicans. Last week, 50 percent of Republicans said America was making progress in Iraq (35 percent said we were losing ground). This week 65 percent of Republicans say we’re making progress and only 22 percent say we’re losing ground...

And while 61 percent of Americans are still dissatisfied with the direction of the country, that compares to 67 percent who were dissatisfied in two NEWSWEEK polls earlier this month. The ranks of the satisfied have grown, if not swelled, from 25 percent to 31 percent...

Back to the top.

The Bulwark & the Battering Ram

That's how CQ sees it in their last big assessment prior to the election. Give it a read. For all the talk about the wave, and the fact that all the experts give Dems the edge to take the House, CQ makes clear that it's still a very close thing:

As of Oct. 27, CQ’s individual assessments of all 435 House races showed Democrats seriously contesting Republican holds on 72 seats (31 percent of the party’s current total) with seven of those races already leaning toward a Democratic takeover and 18 more considered genuine tossups — the result of a combination of Republican political weaknesses and the Emanuel team’s success at growing the roster of competitive Democratic challengers, many in districts that the party had not contested in years. By contrast, only 21 Democratic seats were in play, and only a handful appeared seriously at risk. The bottom line is that the Republicans are now ahead at least marginally in only 207 races, meaning that even if they hold on to all of those (which won’t happen) they must win 11 of the 18 tossups to retain power. The Democrats are now ahead in 210 races — nine more than the number of seats they have now — so if they hold all those leads they will need to win just eight of the tossups to gain control.

So will the GOP get 11 of the 18, or will Democrats get 8?

It's funny that it's this close, after all this.

Back to the top.

Hopeful Energy News

China is building an $8 billion nuclear power plant. Forget the US and France; China is now the world leader in nuclear power technology.

China's government plans to build dozens of nuclear power plants in coming years as it tries to ease mounting power shortages cause by its economic boom. Beijing looks on nuclear power as a clean alternative to China's abundant but dirty coal resources.

The Yueyang plant would be the second in Hunan, away from the booming eastern coast, where China's existing nuclear plants are located near Shanghai and in the southeastern province Guangdong.

And why such an investment in power production? Because China is sucking up energy like it's going out of style:

China's total power consumption in the first quarter of this year rose by nearly 12 per cent to 625 billion kilowatt-hours, Xinhua said.

For those concerned about China as a threat, let's note that it yields benefits as well. China is doing the sort of research and development into nuclear power that is politically impossible in the US (at least so far). If it pays off, we will at least be able to buy it from them - rather than missing the boat entirely.

How is the West repsonding? Well, fortunately, folks like Shell are developing advanced technologies that let them do things like drill in 8,000 feet of water:

But the Perdido project is notable because it marks one of the first times an oil company has moved beyond the discovery and planning stages to commit to actual production in super deep water. "This is a major development even by Shell's historical standards," Russ Ford, a Shell vice president with the company's exploration and production division, said in a conference call Thursday with the news media.

The Perdido hub design is known as a "spar," — the platform will float on a huge sunken cylinder that is moored to the sea floor. It will sit in 8,000 feet of water, making it the deepest spar production facility in the world, Shell said.

Both these stories are from the very intersting NAMblog, which points out that those record oil company profits make things like deep-water production possible.

Update: Glenn picks up on Bill Clinton drawing the wrong lesson about Brazil's success in achieving energy independence.

Back to the top.

AQ's October Surprise

According to Newsweek, experts are speculating that bin Laden will release a tape before the election. Let's toss into the mix that the Saddam verdict is due next Sunday - just two days before the midterm.

What will be the effect of either or both of these? Kerry groused that bin Laden's appearance right before the 2004 election might have cost him the Presidency. The Democrats have made much of the fact that they are supposedly more trusted on the issue of stopping terrorism now; do they hope for an OBL appearance, or fear it?

And what of the expected Saddam verdict? Will it be accompanied by increased violence? Will voters reconsider, and decide that maybe Iraq was not a total failure, or will they simply have the whole negative thing right at the top of their minds when they head to the polls?

It's intersting that 9 days out, there are still things that could bring important changes to the race.

Update: RedState picks up on wild lefty speculation that the scheduling of the Saddam verdict is a Rove-ian plot. I'm not all that sure that it helps the GOP, however.

Back to the top.