NOTE: This is a lengthy 10-part series. Parts 1-5.

You Get What You Pay For
Let’s face the facts, this is a bad year for anyone who doesn’t ascribe to the typical left-right mindset. While midterm elections are typically for ideologues, the tension has further tightened since the ‘04 cycle to a level not seen since the 1850s.Based on all the vitriol, this nation is a few wedge issues away from people engaging in physical fistfights among politicians and non-politicians alike.

The American people aren’t much better either. Excluding the 2004 presidential election, turnout has failed to reach 40% every year following September 11, 2001--this ranges from mayoral races to the ‘02 midterms. So much for 9/11 “changing everything.” The only people who have changed have changed for the worse. People who were reasonably liberal have moved further to Howard Dean/Randi Rhodes territory and reasonable conservatives have moved to Ann Coulter/Michael Savage territory.

Instead of fulfilling their duty to vote for competent leadership in this country, the public thinks that it’s far more important to decide the next American Idol or whether Jennifer Anniston and Vince Vaughn will get married. The celebrity-driven culture (which is why I don’t give much credit to Katie Couric for her CBS job [how are those ratings? Oh, that’s right, from first to DFL.] since she helped promote most of the celeb-centered stuff as legit news at her previous job) has helped turn sports into another form of entertainment. Politics is in danger of the same thing. If apathetic folks have been behind the recent complaints over gas prices when they were at $3/gallon or the lack of high-paying jobs (and the creation of a lot of shitty-paying ones), do me a favor by shutting the fuck up and quitting while you’re way behind.

The System Is Broken But No One Wants to Fix It
It’s been nearly 12 years since the Republican Revolution and it turns out that they are governing like Democrats. The only thing that’s different is the ideology in charge. The elephants came to power promising ‘smaller government” and seemed to be living up to their word, but that was until their term limits bill for members of Congress was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. All the GOP had to do was to let the states decide and we would have a 28th Amendment that limits senators and representatives to 12 years each. For every Joe Scarborough who stepped down after pledging to serve only three terms, there are twice as many George Nethercutts who are much interested in holding onto power.

On the other end, the Democrats are still campaigning as the Anti-Republican Party even though things are aligned in their favor and they may actually show some signs of having a platform. The donkeys continue to lack a viable long-term agenda, which will be their undoing in the future. Until recently, the Dems were at least honest when it came to spending. Now, they are party of fiscal responsibility? Give me a break!

The two previous statements also go double for the GOP as their endless spending goes along with what I’ve said for the last nine-plus years: When the Republicans say “less government,” they really mean “less Democratic (liberal) government, more Republican (conservative) government.” The only party that truly advocates less government is the Libertarian Party, but there’s a problem…

Speaking of Libertarians…
It’s too bad the Libertarians weren’t more of a credible party. Ever since Reagan left that White House, America has pretty much been a libertarian society with the exception of the last few years. One would think that the Libertarians would capitalize on the American people’s moods, but this is not the case.

The first reason is the fact that the LP have let themselves be pigeonholed as a bunch of pot-smoking anarchists who want all taxes abolished. This minutiae and few inspirational speakers have prevented the party from dealing with real problems in this country.

The second reason deals with ballot access. In most cases, it’s staying on the ballot. Here in NC, getting on the ballot is a hassle.

The Culture of Fear
There is also the Culture of Fear being drummed up by moveon.org, some religious groups, and various other ideologically driven organizations. They have turned even the most trivial elections into a political version of the MLB All-Star Game (“This time, it counts”). Of course, the 2000 presidential election is largely responsible for the “every seat counts “ mentality, but the scare tactics are way beyond ridiculous. Who can forget such gems like “Candidate A wants to destroy the American family by supporting rampant public sex” and “Candidate B and his/her party will turn the clock back to the Dark Ages if elected?” Yeah, neither do I.

The Loyalty Factor
The disillusionment is everywhere. Voters are threatening to stay at home. Even politicians are getting into the fray by distancing themselves from either the president or DNC chairman Howard Dean.

The Democratic leadership has had squabbling between Dean and the fundraising duo of Senator Chuck Schumer and Representative Rahm Emanuel over the chairman’s 50-state strategy. The Schumer-Emanuel camp want a short-term strategy to win races and return to power now. If the Democrats don’t pick up seats on November 7, I can only imagine the bickering with donkeys caught in the middle being forced to chose sides. The turf wars among blacks, women, Hispanics, gays, and other minorities that have plagued the party in the pre- and post-Clinton years is being replaced by short-term (safe and tossup states only) vs. long-term (being competitive in all 50 states), which goes to show that Bill Clinton was the only person to hold the Democrats together in recent history. The last time I checked, he was busy.

On the other side, some fiscal conservatives haven’t been exactly happy with the GOP spending money on what they consider “pork” or Hurricane Katrina spending. The hardliners on the immigration issue have felt slighted by any proposal that doesn‘t throw the book at illegal immigrants. The response from the leadership was basically “Shut up and suck it up unless you want Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi running Congress.” I have noticed that the diehard Bush supporters have taken a page out of the Clinton playbook and want to out loyal the Clinton supporters--that is, they’re saying “we are much more loyal to W you eve were to Bill.”

It could also be argued that either Bush’s election victory in 2000 or the Republicans regaining full control of the Senate (without Cheney being the tiebreaker, that is) in 2002 was the worst thing that could have happened to the party because with the party controlling all three branches, it makes their argument of being the party of change all the less plausible once voters get fed up with the goings on in Washington.

11/4/2006 3:20:21 PM

Here are Parts 6-10

NC General Assembly
Since the districts are set until 2012, expect very little change in seats. Now that the lottery is law, it is no longer an issue on the campaign trail. The General Assembly doesn’t care about a death penalty moratorium and neither do most people. So, that leaves our good buddy, House Speaker Jim Black. Exactly what has to be done to oust that man from power? An initial victory by the GOP in ‘02 didn’t do. Nor have a perfect 4-0 record (so far) by prosecutors against people who were bought by Black or http://www.jimblackmustgo.com. If any member loyal to the speaker is upset in any contest, I won’t be shedding any tears. Assuming that the Democrats hold on to their majority, they would be idiots to reelect Back to a fifth term.

Governor Races
Too bad that the two-party sweep will continue in Governor Mansion after Governor Mansion this year. If things were a bit different, maybe a person like Kinky Friedman would get elected and make a real difference

PA: Lynn Swann was attempting to make history by becoming that state‘s first black governor but it looks like it just won‘t work out.

NY: AG Eliot Spitzer, a slam dunk for the open seat, could be the donkeys’ next big star.

CA: Talk about your comeback story. A year after the voters turned on him by stopping all eight of his referenda, The Governator is all but a shoo-in for a second term.

U.S. House
Possible Issues: CAFTA, stem-cell research.

Likely Issues: Corruption scandals, Foley, typical wedge issues.

Races to Watch: NC-8, NC-11, NC-13, FL-16, OH-18, TX-22.

Outlook: Very little or no change in seats. See the first paragraph of Part 10 for explanation.

U.S. Senate
Key Issues: Stem-cell research, typical wedge issues.

Races to Watch: PA, OH, TN, FL, MO, MN, WA.

Outlook: Little or no change. See the first paragraph of Part 10 for explanation.

Apathy Rules the Day
The Center for the Study of the American Electorate points out that only 15.2% turned out to vote in this year’s primaries. Honestly if Tar Heel State turnout gets up to 20%, then it’s high. Nationally, turnout in the last three midterm elections was in the high 30s. This is how the elephants got to power in the first place (that is Ugly Secret #1). With a disillusioned public demanding answers now on a huge number of issues and the lack of reasonable alternatives, it wouldn’t surprise me if turnout is less than 30% nationally even though I think that it’ll be between 30 and 35 percent.

Ugly Secret #2 applies to the Democrats: If you get a House of Congress or both, it will be because the voters either disapprove of what the Bush Administration is doing, have gotten tired of the GOP, or want change but didn’t have a third alternative. Once again, Democrats, if you get into power, it’s because the voters are fed up with the Republicans, not because they like your message.

Finally, the American public must take a look at themselves in the mirror and take full responsibility for the bullshit today. Most people gripe about politicians screwing them over but would rather sit at home watching whatever’s on E! tonight. For the nonvoting folks who are active, I can only say this--going out in the streets to protest CAFTA, sweatshops, etc is not enough. Most politicians will ignore you anyway. The only way is to vote ‘em out of office, plain and simple.

[Edited on November 4, 2006 at 3:21 PM. Reason : sp.]

11/4/2006 3:20:58 PM

you have to be fucking kidding

11/4/2006 3:24:45 PM

^ indeed, indeed.

11/4/2006 4:19:11 PM

I'll take "Lots of Words" for 100, Alex

11/4/2006 4:34:21 PM

way off

way way off


just for kicks

here's cook's last column before the election...

Quote :

"As Election Day nears, the fundamental dynamics of this cycle have not changed on either the national "macro" level or the "micro" level. Looking at the individual 435 House, 33 Senate and 36 gubernatorial races, this still looks to be a very ugly midterm election for the GOP. Perhaps the most remarkable thing about this election is that Republicans are having to fight and spend money in states and districts where few Democrats have dared tread in recent years. Although this election is now down to the individual race level, it's still useful to look at the national poll data to make sure that the fundamental dynamics haven't changed. In the latest Cook Political Report/RT Strategies poll [PDF], taken Oct. 26 to 29 among 1,764 registered voters (MoE +/-2.3%), Democrats led Republicans in a generic ballot test by 13 points, 52 percent to 39 percent. This is not fundamentally different from the three weeks of combined polling since Oct. 5 to 8 among 4,291 registered voters (MoE +/- 1.5%) that shows the Democratic margin at 12 points, 50 percent to 38 percent. When you narrow it down to the most likely voters -- based on who said they voted in 2004 and their interest in this election -- the Democratic margin balloons to 26 points, 61 percent to 35 percent. That's even wider than the 21-point margin, 57 percent to 36 percent, in the three combined weeks of polling. While no one expects Democrats to win the popular vote for the House by 21 or 26 percent, and even after knocking five points off of the Democratic percentage for their natural skew on these numbers, this still shows a very strong Democratic wave. The fascinating thing in this newest poll, though, is only 32 percent of registered voters called themselves Democratic and 30 percent called themselves Republican. When respondents are pushed to say which party they lean to, the Democratic lead moves to 43 percent to 37 percent. But when you factored in who voted in 2004 and those who said they were most interested in this election, 51 percent said they were Democrats, or at least lean Democratic, and only 34 percent said they were lean Republicans, or leaned that way. This is a sign that Republicans are being interviewed in the polls but are falling out of the screens for likely voters. The fortunes of individual Republican and Democratic nominees tick up and down a few points from day to day, but overall it seems more of a "one step forward-one step backward" process for the GOP. For the last week, while the Republican environment has not gotten appreciably worse, it remains very poor. As one GOP consultant put it recently, "there isn't a lot of good news out there, but the bad news is coming at a slower velocity." The only thing getting worse is the situation in Iraq, the source of perhaps 70 percent of President Bush's -- and his party's -- problems. Complicating matters more is that in many Senate and some gubernatorial races, there are as many as three or four sets of tracking polls. For example, each of the two campaigns have a poll, and there's one for their national party committee or the independent expenditure effort for the party, meaning that there is a constant swirl of often conflicting numbers. It is not at all unusual to hear of two brand new polls, both by competent pollsters, sometimes of the same party, with one showing a lead of a point or two or three, the other showing a comparable deficit. Some are released publicly (if they say what the candidate or party wants people to hear), but most are not. It often is contradictory data and shows no clear direction as to which direction a race is going other than likely to be very close. In the Senate, this is particularly true. Go figure."

11/4/2006 5:41:06 PM

Quote :

" The Senate still looks likely to see a net loss for Republicans of at least four seats, putting the best case scenario for the GOP at a 51-49 seat majority, but a five-seat gain that would result in a 50-50 Senate with Vice President Dick Cheney breaking the tie, or a six-seat gain that would give Democrats a 51-49 seat majority is most likely. There remains an outside chance of a seven-seat, 52-48 Democratic majority. Incumbents Mike DeWine in Ohio and Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania still are facing seemingly insurmountable deficits. There is contradictory data on just how far behind Conrad Burns in Montana and Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island are, and whether they are in or out of striking distance of pulling off an upset re-election victory, but the odds still run against both. On the Democratic side, there are some polls, including independent polling, showing challenger Jim Pederson pulling within striking distance of incumbent Jon Kyl in Arizona, though GOP polling shows their candidate with a very stable lead that looks likely to hold. If the night is truly horrendous for the GOP, Kyl could lose, but it probably won't be that bad for them. Then come the fun races, the really close ones, the ones that political aficionados over-analyze but at the end of the day are truly are too close to call. Republican incumbent Jim Talent in Missouri leads the list, and while I have long given his Virginia colleague George Allen the edge over Jim Webb, there is enough contradictory polling data in that race to convince me that the outcome is up in the air. The same applies to the Tennessee open-seat fight between Republican Bob Corker and Democratic Rep. Harold Ford. There are polls, all taken in the last five days, that show each ahead. What's the point of picking a winner in a race this close? Does an African-American candidate, like Ford, face a hidden anti-black vote and have to be a certain number of points ahead going into Election Day in order to win? Maybe, it certainly was true in the 1980s and early 1990s in statewide contests in California, North Carolina and Virginia. Is it still true and if so, what is that number? At the same time, if GOP voters really are disillusioned, how far ahead in the polls does a Republican candidate need to be in order to be victorious on Election Day? Nobody knows the answers to this. Someone can hope or hypothesize, but nobody really knows. In the House, it would take a miracle for the GOP to hold onto their majority. The losses look very likely to exceed 20 seats, and a 20- to 35-seat loss is most likely, but we would not be surprised for it to exceed 35 seats. The vulnerable GOP seats are there, the wave is there, maybe it happens, maybe it doesn't. Republicans also face a tough road in governors' races. The GOP must defend 22 of the 36 seats up this year. It does not help that nine of those seats are open. At this point it would seem that Democrats will pick up the open seats in Colorado, Massachusetts, New York and Ohio. The contest for the open seat in Arkansas has gotten closer, but Democrats retain an advantage. The open seats in Nevada and Idaho are up for grabs. There are two GOP incumbent governors in trouble; Tim Pawlenty in Minnesota and Bob Ehrlich in Maryland. While Democrats have four seats that are too close to call, the political climate would seem to put a thumb on the scale for them in most of these races: Govs. Jennifer Granholm in Michigan, Ted Kulongoski in Oregon and Jim Doyle in Wisconsin, as well as the open seat in Iowa. Many have commented, quite correctly, that the biggest variables are turnout levels among independents and Republicans. If independents show up in their normal, relatively low midterm election levels, GOP losses will tend to run on the lower end of those ranges. But if there is a significant uptick in independent turnout, the losses could go much higher, as Democrats show huge leads among independents (20 points in some cases) in many races. It is impossible to determine before an election what the turnout levels will be among the various groups. Polling has suggested that Democratic voters are extremely motivated while Republicans are more disillusioned than they were in 2002 and 2004, and anecdotally there certainly are reasons for Republican voters to be despondent, no matter what faction of the party they belong to. Some more conservative Republicans are upset about the president and Sen. John McCain's positions on immigration, others about Federal government spending and deficits, still others about the Mark Foley scandal. Others in the party focus more on stem cell research, Terri Schiavo and other issues. The broader issues of scandals and the Congress having not accomplished much in recent years cuts a broader swath. While the president is different, the party is different and the issues are different, this is not too dissimilar to 1994 when voters were upset about tax increases, the Clinton health plan and the crime bill (read guns), others were upset about several years of congressional scandals, the House Bank and Post Office, Jim Wright, David Durenberger, the Keating Five and Tony Coelho, to name a few. Republican turnout soared, Democratic vote plummeted, and while some credit the GOP "Contract with America," that is largely revisionist thinking. At the time voters were angry with President Clinton, Democrats and Congress, and they wanted to send a message. They wanted to throw some people out of office. National polling continues to show a wave of at least the same magnitude of 1994, looking at right direction/wrong track, Congress and presidential job approval and the generic congressional ballot test and maybe even worse. At the same time, it is certainly true that the playing field of competitive districts is smaller, though significantly bigger than 30, 60 or 90 days ago, the number of Republican retirements is lower than average and Democrats are running, though not by design, fewer battle-tested candidates with records of winning tough races. And it is also true that the GOP field organization, the "72-Hour Project," field tested in 2002 and put fully into place in 2004, is a phenomenal operation, but it will be severely tested with a party that, this year, seem considerably less enthusiastic than two and four years ago. And it is also true that the GOP national party has had more money than their Democratic counterparts, not necessarily each committee, but overall, though that gap is the narrowest in 20 years, undermining yet another traditional GOP advantage. Perhaps the most remarkable thing about this election is that Republicans are having to fight and spend money in states and districts where few Democrats have dared tread in recent years, like in Idaho-01 (Butch Otter), Nebraska-03 (Tom Osborne) and Nevada-02 (Jim Gibbons). While this election started out as largely a fight in Northeastern and Midwestern suburban districts, the more recent additions to the competitive race lists have been disproportionately small town, rural and small cities, though not as many in the South but many in the West. These are districts that may have sent large numbers of their sons and daughters into Iraq, take a dimmer view of immigration, don't believe in deficits and are most disheartened by scandals. Out west, some Republican-voting conservatives who have a strong libertarian streak have grown uncomfortable with the direction of their party of late, with their "government should stay out of our lives" philosophy applying to social and cultural issues as well. North, south, east or west, suburban, small town or rural, different voters are responding to different stimuli. And none of them good for the party in power. For those who were not paying close attention to politics in 1994 or whose focus was on a single state or district, the concept of a 'wave election' is foreign and is radically different from the "all politics is local" elections of 1996-2004. For others whose sympathies lie with Republicans, it is difficult to deal with the possibility, or growing probability, of a profound rejection of their party -- that Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman could actually lose an election. For diehard Democrats, who are s so used to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, they are having a hard time seeing their party actually win a majority in the House for the first time in five elections. The bottom line is that at this stage, Republicans should consider themselves lucky if their net losses stay in the 20-25 range in the House, four or five seats in the Senate, and between five and eight governorships. It would be a tough election, losing their majorities in the House and governorships, but it would fall short of the devastating losses that are possible. But the chances of this thing going bigger -- far bigger -- still exist, and there are quite a few veteran Republican strategists, people who have done tons of races in all kinds of states and districts for many years, who are bracing themselves for that distinct possibility."

11/4/2006 5:41:34 PM

Quote :

"Apathy Rules the Day The Center for the Study of the American Electorate points out that only 15.2% turned out to vote in this year’s primaries. Honestly if Tar Heel State turnout gets up to 20%, then it’s high. Nationally, turnout in the last three midterm elections was in the high 30s. This is how the elephants got to power in the first place (that is Ugly Secret #1). With a disillusioned public demanding answers now on a huge number of issues and the lack of reasonable alternatives, it wouldn’t surprise me if turnout is less than 30% nationally even though I think that it’ll be between 30 and 35 percent. Ugly Secret #2 applies to the Democrats: If you get a House of Congress or both, it will be because the voters either disapprove of what the Bush Administration is doing, have gotten tired of the GOP, or want change but didn’t have a third alternative. Once again, Democrats, if you get into power, it’s because the voters are fed up with the Republicans, not because they like your message. Finally, the American public must take a look at themselves in the mirror and take full responsibility for the bullshit today. Most people gripe about politicians screwing them over but would rather sit at home watching whatever’s on E! tonight. For the nonvoting folks who are active, I can only say this--going out in the streets to protest CAFTA, sweatshops, etc is not enough. Most politicians will ignore you anyway. The only way is to vote ‘em out of office, plain and simple."

The problem with politics today are that Republicans and Democrats are just stale. Perfect example of this is the governor's race in Illinois. The incumbent Democratric governor is scandal-ridden and has charges of giving plum government jobs to relatives and friends and has done nothing to improve the state. Yet, the Republican challenger also has her own scandals in the past and people think little of her. So voters want a change from corruption but can't vote for the challenger cause corruption will continue. This has driven a no-name Green Party candidate with no money to getting 14% of likely voters in recent polls, and among registered independents he is effectively tied with the two major parties. Cut that down a bit and say he gets 10% Tuesday, and say that the number of real Greens in Illinois is 1%. So you still have 9% of the state electorate choosing to cast a protest vote. And the important thing about that is most people that don't care for either a Republican or Democrat candidates usually just don't bother to vote at all.

I'm not saying Illinois is going Green, it's most likely not, it's just people are fed up by a lack of choices and don't know what to do. Maybe our politics are going French. One of the most popular protest votes in recent history was that French voters would be so disgusted with the two ruling parties that they would vote for the Communist candidate cause they knew the Communists had no chance of winning.

The recent poll I refer to is a SurveyUSA poll from the end of October (although there are others showing a high percentage of vote so it's not an outlier):

Blagojevich (Dem) - 45%
Topinka (Rep) - 37%
Whitney (Gre) - 14%

[Edited on November 5, 2006 at 9:05 PM. Reason : .]

11/5/2006 8:57:14 PM

I agree with the House analysis, but I think the Democrats will pick up maybe 1 or 2 Senate seats. Pennsylvania and Rhode Island will switch I think. I'm sure that TN, VA, and MO will stay the same. I would not count Steele out in Maryland just quite yet.

11/6/2006 2:23:03 AM

Quote :

"4howl1: U.S. House Outlook: Very little or no change in seats. See the first paragraph of Part 10 for explanation."

Thanks.

11/8/2006 1:41:23 AM