Democracy Wins

Well, I'm going to bed, but Publius demanded a concession. Here it is. I was wrong. You were right. I'll pay up directly. You need it more than me anyway.

The Senate still hangs in the balance. I think Talent will still pull it out, which is good for judges. (Maybe not - it just tightened again, and now it looks bad for Talent. Looks like we won't know who controls the Senate for a few months - ugh!) Why judicial nominations weren't a bigger issue in this campaign I'll never know.

I'm disappointed, but only a little. I worry about national security, and don't trust the 109th Dems on the subject. But I have faith that the new Democrats that were elected, especially from the Midwest, will take their responsibility seriously. I think the center of balance has actually moved a little to the right. And I think the American people get the big things right. (And even if we don't, we correct ourselves quickly - we survived the Carter Years, after all.) The Republicans didn't deserve to win, and it may be that a banishment to the wilderness for awhile is exactly what they need to return to the values I'm certain they share with the American people - spending, immigration control, etc.

And I've learned that I have work to do as a prognosticator. I'll take solace only in that I had the guts to put it in writing under my own name for all to criticize... I'm generally comfortable in my arrogance, but a little humble pie is usually good for us all.

Here's what I will say. You'll never see me wear black on the day after an American election, or sit around and mope. To do so is un-American, and I use that word as strongly as I know how. Every election we have in accordance with our two-centuries-old founding document represents a transfer of power without violence, with extraordinarily minimal cheating, and with grace befitting a great nation. Candidates will call their lawyers, not their militias, and the decisions of judges will be obeyed willingly. I won't ever accuse people of "voting against their economic interests" - people know what they're voting for. No matter how much we dislike candidates or outcomes, it is shameful to react with anything but joy over that fact. Shameful.

So there it is. I'm glad it's over, and now we move forward. On this night I'm proud to be an American. God bless America, and may our children tell us we did the right things at this most dangerous time in our history.

Scrolling Election Coverage

Check the comments for my prognostiction goofs, triumphs, and other reaction.

Predictions - Like Hindquarters

So. I have a few ducats on the line with Publius over this election, having given him 5:1 odds last May that the GOP will retain the House of Representatives. Fortunately, I haven't run out of student loans this quarter. But while I'm no longer in the Land of Certainty, I'm still optimistic here less than six hours before the polls open on the East Coast, where this election will be decided. So here, just for fun, are my predictions for just who the winners and the losers tomorrow will be.

Senate

• RI: (R) Chafee, +2. It shouldn't. But I think he's just that entrenched. I'm not going to say that if he wins, some fraud will necessarily have been involved. But Rhode Island had to be bribed into ratifying the Constitution because the corrupt leaders didn't want their applecart looked at, and I don't think it's changed a whole lot since. It's like Chicago or New Jersey for Democrats, only quieter. I don't like Lincoln Chafee, and I don't trust him, and if he loses without losing the GOP their majority, I'll be just fine with it.
  
• TN: (R) Corker, +7. I've got nothing against the Playboy Mansion, but if you're going to campaign from the pulpit, maybe you ought to give Hef a raincheck. I think the nail in Ford's coffin was when he was seen as being oversensitive to the non-racist blonde chick ad.
  
• NJ: (D) Menendez, +3. I really thought this could go the other way, with the NJ Supremes typical judicial activism on display with gay marriage, and Menendez' many ethical issues. I think it's going to be much closer than the polls indicate. But NJ is just too blue, and with party machinery that makes RI look like Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm.
  
• MO: (R) Talent, +2. This is anyone's game, but the GOP get out the vote (GOTV) effort is stronger here. That, coupled with the power of incumbency, gives him the edge. Conservative leaning voters, smart enough to know the difference between embryonic stem cells and other, more effective and less morally questionable kinds which Talent does support, will be irritated enough by Marty McFly's disingenuous (about Talent's position, not his disease) meddling to bump the edge up another notch.
  
• VA: (R) Allen, +5. There's a LOT of military in VA. Kerry's comments will help Republicans here like nowhere else. The only reason I don't have Webb down more is that Allen's lame book character attack backfired, in my opinion.
  
• MT: (R) Burns, +1. This is anyone's call, but again, this is a place where Kerry's comments really did some damage. Burns probably doesn't deserve to win, either, but I don't know that people dislike him more than they dislike John Kerry's ilk in charge of the Senate. This race will depend greatly on the East, though - if Dems do well early, Burns could lose his edge in the turnout.
  
• PA: (D) Casey, +6. I think Santorum's GOTV is better here than people give him credit for, but he's just too far to the right for this state. Casey is socially conservative to take that advantage away from Santorum, and to appeal to the Truman Democrats. But we haven't seen the last of Rick Santorum.
  
• WA: (D) Cantwell, +6. Here, too, I think the GOP GOTV is better than people give it credit for, but hell, I almost voted for Cantwell because I wanted to support Democrats who are grownups on national security, and I think she is. She's weak, but will prevail. Her victory will be diminished by the Libertarian and Green candidates, who will get a lot of anti-war votes by people who feel Cantwell is safe.
  
• OH: (D) Brown, +7. I think the polls are overstated here against DeWine. But state party politics are rife with corruption, and the Republican party there is incompetent, out of touch, and should be condemned like an old building. +7 is a generous nod to the GOTV.
  
• MD: (R) Steele, +3. Big upset here. Massive black, traditionally Democratic support usually taken for granted by Democrats will be key. Race can unfortunately play havoc with pollsters - people often give "PC" answers and then vote differently in the booth. In this case, that means blacks who will give the "right" answer as to which party they support. A lot hinges on this - if MD looks to go earlier, it will energize late voting Republicans and demoralize Democrats.
  
• AZ: (R) Kyle, +7. Being in a safe position, Republicans will feel more free to punish the wayward party with non-votes. This will trend left of the polls, while most states the GOTV effort will put the GOP ahead of predictions.
  
• CT: (I) Lieberman, +12. Republicans have adopted him, traditional Democrats have always loved him. Schlesinger is a joke. Lamont has thrown in his hat with the children of the nutty left. This was to be the victory of the Kossacks. But Americans of all political stripes (except, apparently, in Massachusetts) want grownups in charge. Lamont and his band of 60's retread neo-hippies are about to be told to go get their shineboxes, and I'm going to enjoy every second of it.

Unless I miss my math, that's only a net loss of one seat to the GOP. Maybe my partisan optimism is too much, but we'll see. If Steele pulls it off, the GOP keep Montana. If Steele loses, it could wind up being a net loss of 4 for the GOP. But I think Steele will win.

The House

I predict the GOP will lose 12 seats, and barely eek out control. This could easily go as many as 8 more seats the other way, but I am confident that the Democrats, if they gain control, will not do it by more than 5 seats.

Locally, McDermott will win with about 75% (sigh). Burner will lose by 8, and will re-join us here in law school unaware that her close run had everything to do with Bush discontent and nothing to do with her.

I base this on a couple of things:

1. The GOTV effort is just better for the Republicans. A friend who lives in Ballard yesterday told me that a McDermott worker knocked on his door. Anecdotal to be sure, but if this is any indication at all on how the Democrats are spending their resources, they're being wasteful. I think it's worth a 2-3 point bump in almost every district.
2. The Kerry comments. In one dumb move, he reminded them of why Democrats aren't better than the disappointing GOP, just because they're not Bush. Worth another point on average.
3. Polling Data. Polls usually err towards Democrats, although that effect is less so closer to the election. But I think that Democrat error is increasing. Younger voters tend to be more conservative (more on that in another post), and are less likely to have land lines. Pollsters don't call cell phones. This is worth another 2-3 point edge in even the more accurate polls.

Frankly, I even question if the numbers are going to be all that different from 2004. I think that at the end of the day, even though it's easy to tell a pollster you're irked at the President, it's another thing to be in the booth on election day and wonder if anti-Patriot Act Nancy Pelosi can keep your kids safe.

There are other reasons - resentment over MSM cheerleading, over-reliance on urban voters, etc.

One thing is for certain. Whatever happens, our nation will continue to grow, to thrive, and to be the Shining City on the Hill. I believe in the profound wisdom of the American People when they come together to make the big decisions, and will accept their verdict, even if I don't agree with it. And that's why I'm optimistic no matter what tomorrow's impact on our government - or my bet with Publius - may be.

How Not To Apologize, Part II

I've written about lame political non-apologies before. But let's review what not to do:

1. Say something insulting (on purpose, misunderstood, or Freudian slipped - it doesn't matter) about the intelligence of active duty military personnel a week before a tight election.
2. Go on TV in liberal Seattle, waggle a rhetorical finger, and announce that you "apologize to no one."
3. Take a brow beating from your betters within the party who can recognize your stupidity better than you. Wait until any offered apology looks like what it is - insincere political pander.
4. Post on your website (as opposed to making any kind of speech or public appearance) that you're sincerely sorry if people were too stupid to understand the obvious meaning of your comments, which goes double for all the troops, vets, and their families that you support, and who you would never criticize, even if they ARE too stupid to understand said comments. (It helps if you've had a long history of lying about the alleged atrocities of our servicemen and women.)
   
5. Post an editorial on your website saying that while you simply botched a joke about Bush, as anyone who's not stupid clearly understands, even if you had said that people too stupid to get an education would suffer the pitfall of military service, you would have been right - all those service people you would never malign really are stuck in Iraq because they couldn't navigate the education system and didn't do their homework. (Make sure you spend some extra effort making fancy graphics so people know it wasn't just a randomly linked article, but something you stand behind for support.)
6. Rinse, lather, repeat. See the other party surge in the polls because you single handedly reminded their base why they voted for the other guys last time.
   
7. Blame it on Karl Rove when Republicans easily retain the Senate in a year they should lose it badly, and even if they lose the House, lose it by a much slimmer margin than history says they should lose it by.

How has this guy survived in politics this long? Even in Massachusetts?

Most people already know this, but here's the demographic breakdown of entering military recruits, showing just how much better/smarter-than-average the average recruit really is. What a shocker - John Kerry and the Seattle P-I have their facts wrong...

That Kerry is criminally stupid is no surprise. That anyone in his party come to his defense is. Such excuse making does not speak well of his defenders, or their true feelings about who it is standing on the front lines of the fight against fascism.

John Kerry Should Be Thanked For His Honesty

I was so happy to see John Kerry's remarks yesterday about how if you're stupid, you get "stuck in Iraq."

Not that I wasn't massively offended. Here, I play both my veteran card and my from-the-South-Dakota-trailer-park card. The Navy was a great opportunity for me, but it certainly wasn't my only one. And ultimately, I chose to serve even after a really negative ROTC experience because I decided I owed my country my service. And so my very first reaction to John Kerry's latest bits of wisdom includes words and phrases better suited to the ship than to public writings. He is truly beneath contempt.

But then I realized that this was preferable to the pander about how everyone "supports the troops" (a phrase almost without meaning). Because the bottom line is that Kerry doesn't, and neither do the liberals he was appealing to at the California rally or at his hole-digging press conference here in Seattle the next day. The far left Phil Angeledes supporters and Kerry himself hold military people in deep, deep contempt. It's not universal from liberals, but it's pretty darn close. I saw it all the time from people in college, and even back home - "Why would you join the military? You can do other things!"

This morning I was flipping around the radio on my way to school, and turned to Hippy Radio to see what they had to say about it. Predictably, Stephanie Miller said Bush was the one who should apologize to the troops. Yawn. But then she took a call from a listener that insisted Kerry was right, and that if they'd just poll the troops they'd see that they all were forced to join the military because they didn't have any other options. The host agreed, but then quickly pointed out that wasn't what Kerry REALLY meant. Right.

Even worse, the military are actually much better educated than their civilian peers. Not only was he a jerk, he's just factually wrong.

Last night on Hannity and Colmes, John McCain was visibly angry in denouncing Kerry's comments. And remember, this is from the guy who was mad about the Swift Boat Vets.

The bottom line is that they believe that the military is the last refuge for the dumb who couldn't get into Community College, because the vast majority of liberals wouldn't even think about joining the military. I believe they're sincere when they say they "support the troops," but they say that like they say they support infants. There's no respect there, and there's an insulting ignorance about the men and women currently serving, why they're serving, and their education levels. And worse, they think "supporting the troops" means to keep them home at all costs. You can't tell me Eisenhower didn't support the troops, but they were less well equipped, trained, treated, educated, and led than our soldiers are now.

Kerry claims he meant to insult the President, not the soldiers. I believe that, too. But the Vietnam "Baby killer!" shouting anti-war protester he came of age as reflexively came out instead. It's hard to contain your true beliefs constantly. This was the ultimate Freudian slip.

Kerry said that you're "crazy" if you think that "a veteran would criticize the more than 140,000 heroes serving in Iraq and not the president who got us stuck there[.]" Well, call me crazy, but Kerry did just that, and has done it his entire adult life. (He actually did both in this case, so his statement isn't technically wrong.) But remember, this isn't the first time Kerry slagged active troops in combat zones as a veteran. Anyone remember his completely false allegations of war crimes and "in the manner of Jen-jis Kahn" Senate testimony? The MSM doesn't. How about his more recent comments that American troops were "terrorizing" Iraqi women and children? Kerry criticizes troops all the time. He's arrogant and elitist, and anyone that didn't go to Yale or marry a bajillionaire ketchup baron is naturally less smart than he is, which includes pretty much everyone in uniform.

But again, I'm happy. This election is about the base, and now the base is mad. POed, in fact. Michael Savage, who has spent the last few months explaining how no one should vote for Republicans, either, was on the war path yesterday, saying the Kerry comments were a "personal turning point" for him on for whom - or if - he should vote. Millions of others, unhappy with Republicans and with no particular reason to vote against Democrats, surely feel the same.

Dick Morris has more numbers:

Among independents, the percent that plan to vote Republican has risen from 15 percent on Sept. 22 to 23 percent on Oct. 11 to 26 percent on Oct. 24. While independents are still voting for more Democrats, it'’s only by 38-26 compared with 38-15 last month.

But as the Republican Party has gained among Independents, it is losing its base. Republicans who plan to vote Republican in 2006 have dropped from 75 percent on Sept. 22 to 72 percent on Oct. 11 to 68 percent on Oct. 24! Obviously the impact of the Foley scandal has yet to diminish among the morality-minded Republican base.

Foley who? Morris wrote this before Kerry's political suicide vest went off.

This may well have solidified the GOP get-out-the-vote advantage, and will serve to retain the Congress for the Republicans. I hope it does, and I hope further that this puts the exclamation point on the end of John Kerry's contemptible political career.

UPDATE: Here's the forced "apology." Too little. Too late.

Camera Shy?

So it looks like Darcy Burner isn’t so hot for free speech or transparency in government after all.

Contrast this with how Mike McGavick handled the camera stalker from the Democratic Party. I wonder where Darcy’s outrage was back then?

It has to be really irritating to be under that kind of constant scrutiny – I don’t blame her for not loving it. I think it’s a lame and rude tactic, frankly. But she chose to thrust herself in the public sphere for our consideration – no one twisted her arm. And voters have the right to access and parse her public statements, irrespective of her desire to tightly control the “message” and the means by which it's distributed.

And she should have stayed in law school a little longer. Her argument that RCW 9.73.030(1)(b) prevents a citizen from recording a public political event is absurd. But even if she had some remote legal standing, if her ideas are strong enough, she should welcome any forum that will give them time. McGavick’s not afraid. What is Darcy afraid of?

This is just one more indication that she’s not ready for prime time. This reeks of petulance and elitism, without even a whiff of commitment to open and transparent access to government officials. How sad to see two days after her strong words in the debate about needing a free and open marketplace of ideas.

Darcy Burner and Her Thugs "Debate"

Just a disclaimer - remember, the Federalist Society doesn't endorse candidates. These opinions are my own.

Last night's debate between grown-up Dave Reichert and our own 1L luminary Darcy Burner was shameful. Reichert was mediocre for the most part, but he was an adult, talking seriously and directly (without obvious prepared talking points) about the real world. Although the "balanced" news reports state that both sides were "bare knuckles," by the end of the first question on Iraq it was clear that Darcy brought her thugs along to intimidate her opponent as opposed to having a serious discussion of real issues. It made me angry, and embarrassed for even her temporary affiliation with our law school (and glad she doesn't mention it much). From the liberal P-I:

The Meydenbauer Center auditorium was filled to capacity with hundreds of people, many vocal and sometimes combative Burner supporters.

Burner never had Reichert, the former King County sheriff, on his heels, but he did get visibly angry as she and the crowd vented their frustration about issues ranging from the Iraq war to health care.

He countered with measured responses to her campaign's criticisms and consistently tried to redirect the debate away from the broader direction of the Bush administration and back to his own accomplishments and policy decisions.

"This is the United States of America, and at some point, Ms. Burner, you are going to have to come out from behind the bushes and recognize I am your opponent," Reichert said. He said his experience and 35 years of community service made him the best candidate for the job, drawing a stark contrast between his long public record and Burner's lack of one.

"I understand independence. I understand taking a stand. I understand firing people. I understand hiring people. I understand promoting people. I understand discipline. I understand terrorism. I understand the law. I understand your rights," Reichert said in an increasingly strident voice.

---

The audience jeered when Reichert said he "worked 19 years to catch a serial killer," a reference to his work apprehending Green River Killer Gary Ridgway, but he held his ground.

"It's not comic to the victims and their families," he said.

I counted at least 4 times that Reichert was heckled or jeered at during the debate. Her thugs try to drown out their opponent instead of hearing him out. They belittle the capture of a brutal serial killer. Anyone wanna take bets on how many of them actually even live in her district? These brownshirt tactics are unacceptable from any candidate. And who your supporters are matter.

And then was the bizarreness of her attack on Reichert for being "unprincipled" because he broke with Bush on several occasions. Either he's Bush's puppet (making him unprincipled) or he's not (making him unprincipled). You can't have it both ways, but then, when the veracity of your arguments rely on how loud your MoveOn.org supporters are, I suppose it just doesn't matter. Reichert's comeback about how many "Bush Democrats" there were based on her logic was priceless.

It should be troubling to any of her potential constituents that in Darcy Burner's world, you're either with her, or you'll be screamed at. You either swallow and regurgitate her talking points whole, or you're a liar. How does she expect to actually accomplish anything in Congress, when she has to work with 534 other Legislators, not to mention lobbyists, other people's staff, the media, the entirety of the executive branch she intends to "stand up to," or her constituents?

I was glad the Reichert came ready to blow her out of the water with the utterly false claims that he'd "cut funding for veterans." Being one such veteran, those ads of hers instantly infuriate me, both for the utter falseness of her claims, and for the fact that she uses her (Republican) family's service as if that made her a national defense expert. It's condescending, too - it's an important campaign issue, but when it comes off as "those poor victims of Bush need us to speak out for them because they clearly can't do it themselves" it really torques me off (doubly when it's not even true). As if vets weren't a powerful voting lobby who can take care of ourselves, thank you very much. As a veteran, I'm personally and deeply offended by her comments. And I wonder how her brother felt when he was standing ready to invade Iraq knowing that Darcy's good friend Baghdad Jim McDermott was in Iraq propagandizing for Saddam, and implying that Bush (and by extension, Darcy's brother who was there ready to kill the poor innocent Iraqi children) was a war criminal. This, I think, more than anything is what takes me from bemused annoyance with Darcy to full on rage, and why I spend the time typing.

The rest was the usual vapid, empty, and fact-free talking points from the left. "We need a plan." (Still don't have one of your own?) "We need answers to our questions." (Even after all those Woodward books?) "We need leadership that will hold themselves to the highest standards of ethics and accountability." (Like Clinton or Kennedy or Studds or McDermott or yourself?) "As a business woman..." (As if she and Bill G. sat and discussed the direction of Microsoft together - I know a ton about her family from her ads, but I have no idea what she actually DID at Microsoft. I understand she wrote a blog, started chaired (correction -OJ) a women's group named after Admiral Hopper (another claim to military fame, I guess), and that's about it. At least she can't be held responsible for Windows ME.) "I don't support guest workers because I don't believe in a two-tiered society." (Yeah - those open borders will keep us safe, Darcy.) "We need the rich to pay their fair share of taxes." (Does she not understand they're shouldering the heaviest percentage of the tax burden, and that because of the tax cuts she would repeal, the bottom 50% of tax payers only pay 3.3% of the taxes, the lowest in decades? Is this ignorance because she's ignoring the facts, or because she can't be bothered to research them in the first place?)

And then, of course, after providing nothing more than the most obviously canned of answers (and frankly, since her well rehearsed and memorized lines didn't always neatly comport with the questions asked, non-answers), liberally sprinkled with manufactured outrage, she called Reichert a liar. Which is interesting coming from Darcy Burner.

This is typical of how Darcy "debates." It's worse when there's no cameras or handlers around. We got into a discussion once during her brief and unheralded foray here in law school. She was explaining to me how AWFUL the economy was, and how no one could get housing, blah, blah, blah. She explained that her college educated (nurse) sister and brother-in-law couldn't find a single place to live anywhere within commuting distance of Olympia, whereupon I offered to find one that day. She started getting mad, and told me I didn't know what I was talking about, although she didn't bother to explain how I was wrong.

That led to a larger discussion on poverty, with Darcy trotting out the tired, tired talking points about how many Americans lived in poverty, they can't get ahead, etc. When I told her that I was one of those Americans who had come from poverty and that I had grown up in a trailer park, and was glad she wasn't around to tell me what a victim I was, she impatiently and condescendingly explained that my success was essentially an accident because I just happened to be smarter than most of the poor people. The implication, of course, is that those poor, dumb Proles need us smart, enlightened people to take care of them. How condescending. How wrong-headed. How socialist. How Big Brother. And how typical of liberals who don't understand that freedom means freedom from government bureaucrats who think they know better than you how to live your life.

But when I pointed out that being in "poverty" in America was a misleading term at best, and that half of Americans below the poverty like actually owned their own homes, she screamed (literally) at me that I was a liar. No support. No rebuttal evidence. Just that I HAD to be a liar, because it didn't comport with the liberal talking points about how terrible life was in the US for all but "The Rich." (To be fair, it turned out I was slightly wrong - it was only 46% who own their homes.)

It's also a pretty ironic charge coming from a Microsoft executive manager.

Frankly, I found the whole thing that day really amusing. She wouldn't even look at me after I dared her to prove me wrong about my poverty stats - she's a grudge holder, that one. But it's less amusing that she might actually face real responsibility some day, carried to power by a bunch of jeering college know-it-all hippies who can't sit through a public event without hooting and hollering like soccer hooligans.

Darcy Burner just isn't qualified for a Congressional seat - she was a low level manager at Microsoft, where virtually everyone but the janitors are "managers" of some kind. Her Ames Lake "community leadership" apparently consisted of her leading one meeting (coincidently in conjunction with a campaign photo op), if "leading" can be used to describe shouting down her neighbors who disagreed with her. Her interest in her community and "community activism" is so deep that she can't be bothered to vote on local issues that affect her potential constituents far more often and directly than the US Congress. She promised to raise taxes and complained about people not being able to find jobs, completely (willfully?) oblivious to the fact that our unemployment rates are at record lows, or that the tax cuts continue to drive growth, and hence, tax revenue. She's flatly unhinged (although her script from the debate is nearly identical) when before a friendly audience, in all seriousness equating the Republican "threat" with the real one coming from the terrorists.

I know Darcy has a lot of friends and supporters in our law school class - many of them are my friends, too, and I hope they don't take offense. But her rudeness, lack of a grasp of the facts beyond what she's been given to memorize, and the thuggery of her supporters was too much for me to handle today. Whatever the merits might be to punishing the Republicans for their lackluster record, this woman has no business anywhere near any kind of real power. It's a shame that a good and successful public servant like Dave Reichert had to suffer the indignity of sharing a stage with this poster child of the New Unserious Daily Kos Democrats. And heaven help us if she's representative of a new majority in Congress.

---

UPDATE: The video is here.

Also, Stefan Sharkansky at Sound Politics graciously linked to this post.

CORRECTION: I don't know that Darcy ever actually claimed to have "started" Hoppers - this was an impression I was left with last year from her website. There's no mention of it whatsoever on there now. Current bios state that she was elected to chair the organization. I corrected it above, and am going on the assumption that the mistake was mine.

A Little Political Science: Polls

Today, USA Today displayed a poll proclaiming "Dems Gain Big Lead." Now I'm not saying I'm quite as confident now as I was before that I would win my bet with Publius, but it is interesting how un-useful generic "party control preference" polls really are. Take a look.

The pollers only actually polled 622 people who were self-proclaimed "likely voters" nation wide over the weekend. I'm assuming they cold called people, which is the standard method. There are 435 House races this poll purports to encompass. That means that they only polled an average of 1.43 people per Congressional district. It is likely many districts aren't represented at all. And there is no mention of how people see their OWN Representatives, who even now have approval ratings which average over 60%.

Also, publishing this poll during a major national crisis is just bad journalism. The North Korean situation is sure to re-focus voters away from the Foley situation, and as such, the data was already obsolete by the time they went to press.

I still think the GOP will retain the House, although it will be a much closer call. The Democrats overreached on Foley, and cannot answer the question, "What will YOU do about North Korea - try to bribe them again and just trust that they'll finally act in good faith?"

GOP loss in 2006 -- a victory for conservatives?

The Washington Monthly has an interesting feature this month, in which six prominent conservatives make the case -- compellingly, cogently, and passionately -- that a GOP defeat this November is the outcome that would most favor conservative government. The National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru made a similar argument in the New York Times earlier this week. I do think that conservative government would be better served by divided government -- a divided government can accomplish less, and the less government does, the better ...

McGavick Knows How To Handle Dem Stooges

Believe it or not, I'm still undecided on my vote on this Senate race. More on that later. But this video of Mr. McGavick dealing with Democratic kids following him everywhere and trying to needle him into doing something stupid impressed the hell out of me.

It demonstrates clearly who the grownups are. And when it comes to running the country, voters want grownups in charge. Sen. Cantwell would do well to back these guys off a bit.

The House Is Safe for the GOP in 2006

I am boldly making a prediction here, at risk of future ridicule and several dollars (the actual amount will remain secret as my wife occasionally reads this blog) to Publius Rex.

The Republicans will retain the House of Representatives this November.

(Along with this comes the related but less bold prediction that liberal Democrats will react with disbelief, shock, awe, etc., closely followed by conspiracy theories/excuses like the "Diebold Effect", that their candidates weren't liberal enough, or that Chimpy McBushitler prevents the unwashed masses from voting in their economic interests and hearing the truth because of all the right wing corporate media bias. There, I said it.)

Pundits everywhere (even conservative ones) are saying different, of course. Even Ken Mehlmen has raised the panic alarm. But pundits are pundits, and so far every single one of them has relied exclusively on "generic ballot" polls, which say that people are dissatisfied with Republicans and want a change. What they don't do is actually look at the individual races and add up the numbers. They've done it for the Senate, and have rightly concluded the Democrats cannot take it. But 33 races = easier math and more digestible 10 minute TV news segments than 435. And they don't take into account people like me who are "dissatisfied with the Republicans and want a change" but would rather grouse about the status quo than see Nancy Pelosi with any real power.

A few weeks ago, Jay Cost at RealClearPolitics engaged in some actual political science (a rarity I've hardly ever seen, even while I was getting my degree in that discipline), and determined that it was highly unlikely for the House to flip. His main reasons:

• The incumbency advantage is a powerful one, and less than 5% of House members are not seeking reelection in 2006. Even people who don't like generic Democrats like their Democrat, and vice versa. Look at how long Tom Daschle was able to hold on in conservative South Dakota, and how tenuous his ouster really was.
  
• House members have the advantage of controlling their districts to a degree. The Senate is actually more receptive to national moods than the house, because they don't have the advantage of gerrymandering their legislative districts. Thus, House seats tend to be safer for incumbents than Senate seats. And if the Senate isn't at risk...
• The first two points are backed up by the historical fact that ever since Senators started being popularly elected in 1914, control of the House has never changed parties without a corresponding switch in the Senate.
  
• In looking at several different regions of the country and their actual races with the actual candidates, things just don't look that gloomy for Republicans.
  

His logic is hard to refute. And I think that there's yet another issue he's missing. The issues still favor Republicans, especially if they do ANYTHING but squabble through to November. Consider:

• Immigration: It's not right wingers who were out in the streets last week demanding amnesty of illegals. And if Republicans wake up and finally exert some leadership on this issue, this issue alone will secure their victory. It's the Democrat's only chance, but I just don't see their current leadership taking advantage of it in the right direction.
  
• Iraq and the GWOT: Democrats have dreams and platitudes, but no plans. They speak of "re-engaging our international allies" (unless it's "outsourcing diplomacy" with Iran), "catching bin Laden", and somehow forcing North Korea to give up its nukes (like Bill Clinton did, I guess), but have yet to explain how. Whatever dissatisfactions people have with the status quo, people are concerned about national security and don't want to replace something with nothing.
• The economy: The economy is blazing away, and unemployment is still incredibly low. Personal income and consumer spending is up, despite gas prices. People are doing well economically, and people vote their pocketbooks.
  
• Gas prices: The party blocking drilling in ANWR, championing high gas taxes, and containing rabid environmentalists has very little credibility on this issue. And because the economy is otherwise on fire, and real incomes are up, the impact is just not substantial enough.
  
• Taxes: Democrats have repeatedly said they want to axe the tax cuts "for the rich". The problem is that a lot of people who don't consider themselves "rich" would see their taxes shoot back up if the tax cuts are not made permanent. It's hard to not call this a tax hike and still keep a straight face, and harder still to justify to people when they're already paying a lot for gas.
• The "Culture of Corruption": The legal attacks on prominent Republicans have been transparently political (with a few exceptions). But the Abramoff scandal was an equal opportunity, bi-partisan affair. And the Democrats have had their own high profile power-hubris issues of late that in very large part nullify this clumsily offered non-issue.
  
• Spending: The Republicans have been atrocious on this issue, but does anyone really believe the Democrats will spend less? Each Republican running for Congress will pledge to cut spending, and/or will highlight his/her own record on "limiting Congressional spending." This line of attack favors Republicans attacking Democratic incumbents more than Democrats attacking Republican ones, and let's not forget that Dems have seats to defend, too. Once again, a side by side comparison will not favor Democrats.
  

If the Democrats had real plans to address these issues, they could re-take both houses of Congress. But they don't. (In fact, they're actively trying to prevent progress on any of these issues so the GOP won't get credit - a transparent and short-sighted calculus that will burn them.) "Goals" and "platitudes" don't count - the success of the 1994 Contract with America was its specificity and smaller, realistically achievable legislative agendas. When actual candidates are held up side-by-side, the Democrats will look weaker on each one of these issues that are weighing on voters' minds. And their continued flirtations with the far, far, far lefties like the Daily Kos have been and will continue to be self-sabotaging acts.

And there are issues to motivate the Republican base. Nancy Pelosi is already hinting at what their real focus will be if they regain power - politically motivated attacks on President Bush and Republicans. It's a true testimonial to the stunning political flat-footedness of the Democrats that their leadership says things like this out loud. Americans want serious people addressing their problems, not slap-fighting over their own self-importance, even if they disagree with the proffered solutions. (Look how Clinton's impeachment helped him and hurt Congress in the polls.) And right now, the Democratic leadership simply aren't serious people.

The Republicans will lose some seats, there is no question. People are frustrated with their lackluster leadership, and rightfully so. And Republicans can lose if they try, and don't take Mr. Mehlman's warnings seriously. But absent some huge, unexpected happening, the stars are simply not aligned for them to lose enough seats to actually lose control. And dissatisfaction with the current Republicans does not, fortunately, signal a yearning by Americans for a leftward shift.