WHAT IT ALL MEANS

All right, I am now finally over my snit, and I am ready to disclose to one and all the true meaning of the results of the mid-term elections. First, I suppose I should concede that essentially I called it wrong, as did the majority of other prognosticators. Moreover, just as President Bush conceded, the GOP took a “thumping”. Stop chortling, that’s as much as you’re going to get. Even though control of both Chambers was switched to the Democrat Party, the results were no Democrat tsunami, a la the Republican tsunami in 1994, as the MSM and the Conventional Wisdom were rooting for in the guise of predicting same.

Control of the Senate by Democrats ultimately came down to one word, “Macaca”, together with four of the six races that determined control being decided by margins that were so close the loser could legally have demanded a recount if he had chosen so to do.

While control of the House also switched to the Democrats, the actual number of seats gained by that party (29 certain, with 7 still pending) was still less than the average number of seats (37) lost, over the last 100 years, by the Party in control in a mid-term election at the six-year point of a Presidency.

What was most unusual about these mid-terms was that the candidate who had raised and spent the most money lost in seven Senate races (21.2%) and 33 House races (7.5%). This had been true in only 11% of Senate races and 02% of House races since and including 1994.

So, what does it all mean? To me, there are three screaming conclusions about just what the American electorate voted for. I shall state them first in the order of their importance and then analyze them in reverse order, saving the most important for last. Thus, you have to read all the way through to the end. The “good news” is that I shall be uncharacteristically brief. Here goes:

1. RUN RUDY RUN!

2. AMERICANS WANT CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT!

3. IRAQ WAS NOT THE WHOLE STORY!

3. IRAQ WAS NOT THE WHOLE STORY!

Certainly, the failed aftermath of the initial military victory in Iraq was a very important issue in the mid-term elections, but it was not even the overriding issue, let alone the whole story. Most of the exit polls tell us this, in their necessarily cryptic way, ranking “War in Iraq”, on average, as only the 4^th most important factor in determining the way voters cast their votes:

Extremely Important Issues:
(average of numerous polls)

Corruption 42%
Terrorism 40%
The Economy 39%
War in Iraq 37%

At the same time, these mid-terms were unusual in that 62% of voters said that “national issues” were more important to them than local issues in deciding how to vote, thus violating Tip O’Neil’s famous dictum that: “All politics is local.”

To the above list of issues, I would add three factors that I think were extremely important in the GOP’s “thumping”, though they didn’t “poll well”:

Do Nothing Congress: Essentially, the GOP-led 109^th Congress had no legislative results to ameliorate or offset the Party’s poor performance in the eyes of the electorate on the issues cited in the exit polls. To wit: The Congress didn’t reform Social Security, didn’t enact immigration reform, didn’t enact tax reform, failed on prescription drug reform, etc., etc., etc. In short, Congress essentially “did nothing”, and Americans are a very “results-oriented” people. Don’t forget, the last time we had a Congress that accomplished as little as this one was the 1946-1948 Republican Congress that Harry Truman famously labeled the “Do Nothing Congress”, and then ran on that slogan to achieve his stunning upset victory over the heavily favoured New York Governor Tom Dewey (my Lodge Brother) in the 1948 Presidential election.

Big Government Run Wild: Indeed, about the only thing the 109^th Congress did do was spend money like it was going out of style – all the while not even trying to compensate for their profligacy with corresponding sending cuts. Congressional apologists tried to put a pretty face on this by waxing philosophical about “Big Government Conservatism”. Well, hogwash! What the GOP Congress really accomplished, however, was to alienate the small-government, libertarian, “leave me alone”, segment of the Party. For all the “noise” made by the “values voters” of the Religious Right, the “leave me alone” crowd ranks no lower than the second largest segment of the GOP’s vaunted “Base”.

Immigration Pandering: In 2004, President Bush got a stunningly large 44% of the Hispanic vote. Hence, he proposed serious immigration reform to the Congress, in a bill including a “guest worker” program that could lead ultimately to full citizenship in the appropriate individual cases. In “disposing” of this proposal, however, the Congress pandered to the worst instincts of the GOP’s “paleo-Right” wing -- vilifying the “guest worker” program as “amnesty” -- and ended up passing a “bill” whose central feature was to build a fence along the Mexican border. Then, they didn’t even pass funding for the fence! As a result, the GOP’s Hispanic vote in 2006, shrank back to its historic 10-15% level. Indeed, this factor alone, given the closeness of the results, could conceivably have determined the switch in control of the Congress. Just ask Rep. J. D. Hayworth of border-state Arizona, who was one of the loudest “anti-immigration” demagogues and lost his supposedly “safe” Republican House seat. As Oliver Wendell Holmes famously said: “Even a dog knows whether he’s been kicked or accidentally stepped on.” Thus, did Hispanic voters perceive that they had been kicked in a hard-right campaign that tried to “arouse the Base” by casting Hispanics as the villains of the piece.

Now I know, that with all the hurrah over Iraq on the cable-news talk shows, it is difficult to see the results of the mid-terms in terms of anything other than Iraq. Of course, Iraq has been and remains an extremely important national issue, but the Donkey Party, with the possible exception of Joe Biden, did not, and has not still, offered its own coherent alternative or well-thought-out plan for Iraq. If for no other reason than this lack of an alternative proposal, Iraq by itself would not have thrown control of Congress to the Donkeys.

Now, to evaluate finally the importance of Iraq in the mid-terms, pause for a moment and conduct the following exercise: Imagine that Iraq was the only thing that the electorate had against GOP candidates on 07 November. Imagine that the national consciousness had never heard of Jack Abramoff, Tom Delay, Bob Ney, Mark Foley, Ted Haggard, Conrad Burns, et al., et al., in any negative way. Imagine that the economy was widely perceived to be as good as it actually is. Imagine that the Congress had in fact passed social security reform, tax reform, and immigration reform with some sort of “guest worker” provision. Now, factor in both that there has been no terrorist attack on American soil since 11 September 2001, and the closeness of so many individual Senate and House races.

Well, as the English barrister says: I put it to you, sir: Under these circumstances, the GOP would have lost seats in the mid-term elections, but would still control both Houses of Congress! Now, the GOP may be trying to blame their losses on George Bush and the war in Iraq, but if the Party honestly wants to know who is responsible for losing control of Congress, all they have to do is look in the mirror.

Now, before moving on, you should all pause and thank me that I resisted the mischievous impulse to label this section “The Hand Of Mark Foley At Work”!

2. AMERICANS WANT CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT!

Everyone who cares about the future of this great nation should have burned onto his retina another set of exit poll numbers. Even as the voters were narrowly turning control of the Congress over to the Party of the Left, when asked to describe themselves in more general terms, they responded as follows:

Conservative: 37%
Moderate: 47%
Liberal: 21%

To me the message could not be clearer. To put it in terms more usually associated with a Parliamentary system: Americans want their government to form itself on the Center-Right, not the paleo-Right of Tom Coburn, Sam Brownback, and Tom Tancredo, not even the Center-Left of Joe Biden and Joe Lieberman, and certainly not the (semi) Looney-Left of Howard Dean, Chuck Schumer, and Nancy Pelosi.

Indeed, the efficacy of this conclusion can be seen also in the character of the newly elected candidates who chose to run under the Democrat banner, and to be fair, candidates whom the Party chose to recruit, endorse and support. Many of the new Democrat faces in the Congress will belong to people of a much more conservative bent than has heretofore been the norm. Indeed, many, if not most of these new Congressmen could have just as easily run as Republicans as they did as Democrats. Two examples, one from each Chamber, will serve to make this point.

Senate: Virtually everyone, from both Parties, concedes that Virginia Republican George Allen ran by far the worst Senate campaign of this election cycle, if indeed not the worst of all time. Still, he led for most of the night, and his final margin of defeat was less 0.5%, small enough that he could legally have demanded a recount had he chosen to do so. Even with all his gaffs, bobbles, mean-spirited bullying, and Larry Sabotage, had George’s opponent been from the Looney-Left of the Democrat Party, virtually everyone concedes also that George would be heading back to Washington. In fact, however, Senator-Elect Jim Webb had himself been a life-long Republican, switching parties only shortly before the 2006 campaign.

Perhaps more to the point, Web is a man of distinctly conservative bent, an Annapolis graduate and a decorated Viet Nam Marine veteran who served in the first Reagan administration as Secretary of the Navy at the young age of 37. Senator-Elect Webb has also authored many well-received books, most particularly Born Fighting, which extols the “Mountain Values” of his Scots-Irish forebears in the Appalachians, the Alleghenies, and the Blue Ridge. Finally, in a state heavy with military voters, Webb’s own son is currently serving in a combat unit in Iraq, and the senior Webb wore his son’s combat boots throughout the campaign. In short, Webb is not exactly the sort of politician one would expect to find in the same party as Carl Levin and David Dingle. The GOP should search its soul long and hard over the loss of a man like Jim Webb.

House: University of Tennessee All-American and Former Washington Redskins quarterback Heath Schuler was elected to the House as a Democrat from the 11^th District of his native North Carolina. The 11^th occupies the extreme southwest tip of the Tar Heel State and includes Asheville and Black Mountain. Essentially the entire District is in the Smokey Mountains, and Rep.-Elect Shuler affirmatively ran his campaign on the same sort of “Mountain Values” espoused by Jim Webb in Virginia. Indeed, the same Heath Shuler was vigorously recruited by the GOP as long ago as 2000, to run for office as a Republican.

Indeed, the most salient fact about the new Democrats like Webb, Shuler, and others is that the Donkey Party of Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer recruited them, endorsed them, and supported them. Thus, the central question, put squarely to that party, is this: Will the Hill Democrats bring the Webbs and the Shulers of the 110^th Congress into the Party Caucus, listen to them, and gradually move the Party to the Center, even if not all the way Center Right? Will they move the Party toward the Democrat Leadership Council, which was founded in 1985, by Bill Clinton, among others, expressly to re-make the Party in a centrist image after the 49-state electoral drubbing administered in 1984 by Ronald Reagan to a Party led by Water Mondale, Geraldine Ferraro, and Jesse Jackson?

Conversely, will the Democrat leaders of the 110^th Congress, now that they have the majority, essentially freeze out the Webbs and Shulers and carry on their merry Leftist way? In fact, that’s exactly what happened two decades ago. Bill Clinton helped found the DLC in 1985, and ran and won on a centrist platform in 1992. Then during his first two years in office he gave the Country a hefty tax increase, gays in the military, and Hillary Care. I really can’t predict which way the Democrat Party will go, but one can learn from history just how each option might turn out.

Take heed of two object lessons, one in each direction: First, as noted, Bill Clinton “ran to the right” in 1992, and immediately came into office and “governed to the left”, in 1993, which lead directly to the Republican tsunami in the 1994 mid-term elections. If the Hill Democrats pull the same stunt in the 110^th Congress, the result could very well be the same kind of Republican wave election in 2008, which is also a Presidential year, as in 1994. The object lesson in the other direction actually comes from across the Pond.

In the mid-1980’s, the British Labour Party, having been flattened by Margaret Thatcher, was in very much the same position as the American Democrat Party. The difference proved to be an obscure back-bencher named Tony Blair. Under Blair’s leadership, the Labourites remade their Party in much the same way the DLC wanted to remake the Donkey Party. The object lesson is that, when the Labourites were voted in, in 1997, Blair, unlike Clinton, governed the same way he had campaigned. The immediate results were the Labourite landslide in 2001, and their semi-landslide in 2006 -- which would have been a second full landslide but for the Blair Government’s decision to support the war in Iraq.

The real difference is that Tony Blair, whatever his politics, is a man of real character, whereas Bill Clinton is . . . well, you finish the sentence. Thus the choice is put squarely to the Hill Democrats: Are they going to emulate Tony Blair and govern the way they campaigned? Are they going to emulate Bill Clinton and lurch even farther Left than they have done in the past?

1. Run Rudy Run!

Aren’t you surprised that I would end up here! Despite my famously announced leanings toward Rudy, however, it is clear to me that Rudy is, and always has been, exactly where the 2006 electorate has announced they want their Government to be: On the Center-Right. You can all leaf back through this Blog and read my extollings of the specific virtues that place Rudy on the Center Right, so I won’t belabour the point and recite them all here. Certainly, poll, after poll, after poll in 2006, has placed Rudy firmly on the Center Right, as well as given the lie to the Conventional Wisdom that the vaunted GOP Base won’t support him in the 2008 Republican Primaries because of his soi disant “liberal positions”. All that’s true, and fine, but it misses the Most Important Point: Leadership.

What this Country wants and needs in its 44^th President is Leadership, with a Capital “L”, and Rudy has demonstrated that in spades. When Rudy’s Leadership is linked with all his other political virtues, virtues that place him firmly on the Center Right in the current American political spectrum -- just exactly where the 2006 electorate has fairly screamed they want their Government to be -- then the conclusion is clear: The 2008 Presidential Election is, as of this moment, Rudy’s to lose. Despite the Webbs and the Shulers of the 110^th Congress, the Donkey Party simply has no potential Presidential candidate for 2008, who can take the Center-Right mantle away from Rudy. A word of caution, however, is in order: Watch the Hill leadership over the next two years. Whether they emulate Bill Clinton in 1993-1994, or Tony Blair in 1997-1999, will determine how long Rudy’s coattails will be, and whether or not he will bring in with him GOP majorities on the Hill.

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

ABSOLUTELY INFALLIBLE MID-TERM PREDICTIONS

Well, you’ve been waiting for them, et alors, les voici: My absolutely infallible predictions for the mid-term elections! But first, there are three absolutely inviolable rules that must be observed when reading these predictions:

Rule One: I have absolutely no bleedin’ idea what the bloody ’ell is going to happen in the mid-term election!

Rule Two: If I say something you agree with, pause immediately and salute my incandescent brilliance!

Rule Three: If I say something you disagree with, pause immediately and refer back to Rule One!

So, here we go: First the predictions and then the analysis:

Senate: The Republicans will maintain control of the Chamber with 52 or 53 Senators.

House: Refer back to Rile One! Do it again! Now, I am supremely confident that one of two possible results will obtain:

1. The Democrats will pick up the 15 additional seats they need for control of the Chamber, but will have a net gain of no more that 24 seats, thus entering the next Congress with a bare majority – anywhere from 217-217 (with one independent voting with the Democrats to organize the Chamber) to 227-208.

2. The Republicans will lose seats but retain control of the Chamber with their own bare majority, certainly no greater than 224-211

ANALYSIS:

The Liberal Media:

The potential importance of these elections, with control of both Chambers hanging in the balance, together with the super-heated “war sentiment” and the fact that the polls and the pundits have been almost literally “all-over-the-map”, has induced the Liberal Media to show its true colours, even more than usual, and deliver an absolutely disgusting performance of fellow-traveling, cheer-leading partisanship in favour of the Left-leaning Democrat Party. This performance has been far worse than the “Liberal-Media Multiplier-Effect” that I have previously identified in this space (23 October). With the “Multiplier-Effect” in the past, the Media have needed “something” in the first instance to “multiply”. This time round, they have made it up for themselves in the first instance. To wit, but three examples among many:

1. The NBC Network and the MSNBC Cable News Network: On Sunday morning, 29 October 2006, both candidates for the open, currently Democrat, Senate seat in Maryland appeared on NBC’s Meet The Press for a “Senatorial Debate”, which was then re-broadcast that evening on MSNBC. On the morning of the “Debate” NBC released its own “scientific poll” showing Republican Lt. Gov. Michael Steele trailing Democrat Congressman Ben Cardin by 11 percentage points. Over the next few days, the release of this “poll” caused something of a “firestorm” of comment on Fox News and in the blogosphere. No other poll, among at least a dozen, had shown more than a five-point difference, with several polls showing the race to be a “dead heat”. No matter, the damage was done, a pall had been cast over the M-T-P “debate” and had given it the pallor of Democrat Cardin being the almost prohibitive “frontrunner” and Republican Steele being the Quixotic “challenger”. Then, as if to rub salt in the wound, M-T-P Moderator Tim Russert appeared later in the week on MSNBC’s Hardball and absolutely chortled with host Chris Matthews that he (Russert) had thrown Steele a curve ball and really put him off his stride.

2. The McLaughlin Group: This past weekend, the Group “predicted” that the Democrats would gain the six Senate seats they need to control the Chamber. This “prediction” was arrived at by a “vote” on nine Senate races – RI, NJ, PA, MD, VA, TN, OH, MO, and MT – by the Moderator John McLaughlin and his four regular panelists: Lawrence O’Donnell, Eleanor Cliff, Pat Buchanan, and Tony Blankley. This “vote” showed only TN going for the Republicans, thus netting the Democrats six seats. Well, things might indeed that way, but this “vote” is certainly no indication that they will. Cliff did her usual number of wrinkling her brow and pursing her lips so as to seem thoughtful, then as usual, opened her mouth and let spew forth the straight party line. At least O’Donnell appeared to be more honest. He simply chortled over the up-coming Democrat “landslide” and off-handedly “called” every race, save TN, for the Democrats. John McLaughlin took his usual establishmentarian tact and called every race for the Democrat with no analysis. Pat Buchanan pursed his lips once or twice so that he wouldn’t seem too gleeful, and “stuck it” to his former party. Only Tony Blankley, the only at least nominal Republican in the group, attempted to give some thoughtful analysis. After this, he made a very insightful comment, and said essentially that VA, MD, MO, and MT were “too close to call”. I shall come back to both the Blankley remark and the Blankley predictions.

3. The New York Times: I have read The Times essentially every day for almost 40 years. The paper has of course taken a “Liberal” stance throughout that period, but I have NEVER witnessed such shameless “news management”, partisan cheerleading form the news hole, and downright lying, as I have during the run-up to the 2006 mid-term elections. I used to think that I could at least rely on The Times’ recitation of hard facts, but I can’t even do that for this election cycle. One example is a little “off center”, but it will make the point: Linda Greenhouse has been The Times’ principal Supreme Court reported for more than two decades. During that time, she has won virtually every award there is to win in journalism, and has become generally highly respected. I have always had my suspicions that she was a “Lefty”, but I used to think I could rely on her professionalism to at least try to keep her personal sentiments out of her reporting. Well, here recently, she was honoured by, and gave a talk to, a group of fellow Radcliff Alumni. The contents of her speech were reported, and they consisted of extremely outré Left-wing sentiments – the modern American Liberal version of the Marxist party line. Well, all right, I thought, no real surprise there, but at least she knows that these are her personal views and makes the effort to keep them out of her reporting. Well! When it was pointed out to her that the rendering of such remarks was against The Times’ policy, and she was asked to defend her actions, she didn’t even bother to invoke any of the usual Lefty shibboleths. No, she said she hadn’t actually violated the times policy against reporters expressing their views in public. No, she hadn’t done that because she had only stated facts! Well, there’s not much else to say: What I describe as the “modern American Liberal version of the Marxist party line”, Linda Greenhouse of The New York Times describes as “fact”.

This all means, among other things, that I cannot rely on the Media as a basic source of facts, from which to draw my own conclusions and make predictions. Thus, this year far more than usual, I have absolutely no bleedin’ idea what the bloody ’ell is going to happen. That said, virtually everyone is agreed that this will be a “Democrat year”, and that they will gain seats in both Chambers. The only question is: Will the pick-up of seats be sufficient to gain voting control of either Chamber? That said, I think I have gleaned, from the MSM and elsewhere, certain “helpful hints”, Seven Pillars of Wisdom”, if you will, that will aid you all in following the election returns tomorrow night. Please allow me to share them with you now. Then I will disclose how I put these hints together to fashion the “predictions” I made above.

The Seven Pillars of Wisdom:

1. The Katrina Effect: This past week end, on the McLaughlin Group, Tony Blankley gave what I thought to be a very useful why of understanding all the predictions of a Democrat tsunami this year. I paraphrase: Right now the inchoate Democrat votes are like a Category 5 hurricane swirling around in the Gulf of Mexico. The actual damage done on land by this hurricane, however, will not be known until it actually makes landfall, and the many relatively small changes it makes in force and direction before it lands will ultimately determine the final extent of the damage.

2. No Poll is Worth a Dam: Including this one! That said, as I have said before in this space (04 October), one can make effective use of the polls if, and only if, one can look at least at 5-6 polls on the same subject, taken over roughly the same period of time. Fortunately, with respect to the mid-terms: “Real Clear Politics” has scrupulously provided us all the polling results in all the Senate and House races, and taken the further trouble to compute the average “polling spread” for each race. These computations show that this year, there is an unusually high number of races where the polling results are not only “within the margin of error”, but are actually down to a margin of less than two percentage points in either direction. This means two thing: If there is to be a Democrat Tsunami, it will have to be built on victories in a large number of very close races. That just is not bloody likely in any year under any circumstances. Moreover, this closeness in many individual races brings sharply into focus the immediately ensuing four of the “Seven Pillars of Wisdom”. To wit: There are so many close races in which any one or more of these four factors call spell the difference, which makes a Democrat Tsunami this year even less bloody likely.

3. Money Makes The World Go Round: Recently in this space (23 October), I reported on the mid-term predictions by Barron’s Magazine, i.e., that when the dust has settled, Republicans will find themselves with 52 seats in the Senate and 224 seats in the House -- just enough for a bare majority in each Chamber. These predictions were based on the sole criterion of which candidate had/has raised and spent the most money in each of the 33 Senate races and 435 House races. While using this “sole criterion”, may indeed sound a bit outré at first blush, Barron’s points out that this very method actually bucked the "Conventional Wisdom" and accurately predicted the election results in both of the last two elections, 2002 and 2004. Moreover, this single predictive factor has (would have) correctly forecast 93% of all House races, going back to 1972, and 98% in recent years. On the Senate side, this method has proven accurate 89% of the time since and including 1996.

4. The Base Comes Home: Just this past week, virtually all the commentators have been taking note of “slight up-ticks” in Republican support. They have all passed this off as merely the “Base coming home”. Perhaps so, but they miss the point. For months, we have been hearing that Republicans are in trouble because their vaunted “Base” was “dispirited” over Iraq, Mark Foley, etc., etc., etc. Thus, the reasoning went, if the Base simply “stayed home” on election day, Republicans would lose to Democrats in close race after close race. Well, now they report that the “Base is coming home”, but do not adjust their overall predictions of a “Democrat year” of tsunami proportions. Ho hum! Well, the way I see it, the fact of the “Base coming home” is another of those several seemingly inconsequential factors that could spell the difference in all those close races that all the pundits are saying the polls are showing. Here also, with respect to the House, we must factor in the fact of Republican Gerrymandering after the 2000 Census. House seats currently held by Republicans simply have a more solid Republican Base than they did before 2000.

5. The “Generic Ballot” Tightens: First of all, if a Democratic lead in the Generic Ballot were sufficient for control of the House, the Democrats would have won the House in 5 of the last 6 Congressional elections, including 1994! Moreover, the spread in favor of the Democrats has tightened considerably since it approached 15-20 percentage points in August-September. “Real Clear Politics” shows an average of six polls taken since 01 November with an average Democrat lead on 11.4%. In my judgment, however, even this average is skewed by “scientific” polls for CNN, Newsweek, and Time, showing a Democrat lead of 20%, 16%, and 15%, respectively (surprise, surprise). In this same average, a nationwide Pew Research Center survey, conducted between 01 and 04 November, finds that the Democrat lead in the Generic Ballot has shrunk to a scant 4 percentage points, i.e., 47%-43%, among likely voters. The MSM and their Fellow Travelers in the Punditocracy have flaunted the Generic Ballot numbers for months, principally because they showed a substantial Democrat lead. Well, it never was all that important in the first place, and now it appears to have shrunk to a manageable difference, if not to virtual insignificance.

6. The Republican Ground Game: Virtually everyone agrees that, at least since the rise of Karl Rove, the Republican get-out-the-vote capability, i.e., the vaunted “Ground Game”, has far surpassed that of the Democrats. And, there are a great many preliminary indications that this will be so again this year. First of all, the Republican efforts are organized and coordinated from a single national office, under the direct supervision of General Rove himself, whereas the Democrat efforts remain scattered among many local offices and under the direct supervision of many local chieftans. Moreover, in MO alone, repots are that, as of 01 November, Republicans had already made substantially more GOTV contacts that they did through election day in 2004, a Presidential year.

7. The Cokie Roberts Method: Usually, I want to tear my hair out every time this woman opens her mouth! That said, in her standard Monday Morning Commentary on NPR today, she gave what I find to be a very useful way of viewing the election returns early tomorrow evening: Most of the Republican losses will come, if they come at all, in the East and Northeast. In these areas, the polls close relatively early because of the difference in time zones, and in some of these areas the polls close even earlier still. So watch the early returns in the East, particularly with respect to the House races. If the Democrats seem to be winning only one out of three of the seats that are supposed to shift, such as the three Republican seats in CN, including that of Chris Shays (CT-4), that all the pundits think are in jeopardy, then the Republicans will almost certainly maintain their majority in the House. If, however, the early returns show the Democrats winning two out of three of these seats, then they will probably take the House with at least a workable majority. Finally, if the Democrats actually do begin to win three out of three of these Eastern seats, that will be a sign that the tsunami is coming after all. I think this will prove to be a very helpful guide to enhance your television viewing pleasure on Election Night. I would add one further specific. Watch Mark Foley’s former district (FL-16). If that seat goes Democrat, it won’t mean munch by itself. If, however, the “Punch Foley for Negron” slogan works, and the Republicans retain this seat, then I would say that the Republican majority in the House is reasonably safe.

Those Predictions Again:

1. How I did it:

First: I looked at the “average” of the polling numbers on “Real Clear Politics”, and I factored in the “Money Ball” analysis of Barron’s. This exercise told me that there are so many close races this year, particularly with respect to the House, that there will probably, almost certainly, not be a “Democrat tsunami”. Ergo, the voting control of each Chamber will most likely turn on a relatively small number of votes in each race, including fifty or more individual pivotal House races.

Second: I looked at the seats in the House that either The Sunday New York Times and/or “Real Clear Politics” think are still “toss-ups”, i.e., the polling numbers show a difference of less that two percentage points in either direction. In my judgment, with respect to these races, the Republican Ground Game, and/or any or all of the Seven Pillars numbered “3” through “6” above, could quite conceivably “make the difference” for the Republican candidate.

Third: Nothing in politics, nor in life for that matter is ever 100%. Thus, the factors listed above will certainly not bring home all the toss-up seats for the Republicans. So, I started playing around with possible allocations of the fifty-odd pivotal House races, including some sixteen listed in the toss-up category by both The Times and “Real Clear Politics”. That’s how I came up with the range that I set forth first above for how many House seats each party can expect to wind up with. Because there are only some 9-13 potentially pivotal Senate races, I was able to do more of a race-by-race analysis, as set forth below.

2. Senate:

Virtually every commentator (moi inclusive) agrees that there are nine Senate races that, taken together, will almost certainly control the fate of the Chamber: Seven of these seats are currently held by Republicans (including one open seat): MT, OH, PA, RI, MO, TN, and VA. The remaining two (including one open seat) are held by Democrats: NJ and MD. In addition, there are four seats, three held by Democrats in CT, WA, and MI, and one by a Republican, in AZ, any one or more of which could conceivably become a “wild-card” factor if control of the Chamber comes down to a seat or two.

OH and PA: Virtually everyone concedes that the Senate seats in OH and PA will be lost by the Republicans and picked up by the Democrats. There is nothing I can see that would contradict this more-or-less conventional wisdom. The most recent average polling numbers at “Real Clear Politics” show Brown (D) over DeWine (R) in OH by 7.4 percentage points and Casey (D) over Santorum (R) in PA by 11.5 percentage points. Moreover, those spreads have been more-or-less consistent for quite some time, and they are two wide for the Ground Game or anything else to save those seats for the GOP.

TN: As of Sunday evening, virtually every commentator had conceded that Corker (R) will defeat Ford (D). Indeed, as of this morning, Corker’s average polling margin was 8.5 percentage points, TN has deep Republican leanings, and Ford physically looks like a beaten man.

VA and MO: The average polling margin shows a gap of less than two percentage points in both of these races: Webb (D) leads Allen (R) in VA by 1.5 points and McCaskill (D) leads Talent (R) in MO by 1.4 points. Thus, I think that the factors listed above should be able to push both Allen and Talent over the top. Here too, we can also factor in the power of incumbency and the general Republican leanings in both states. Moreover, Talent in MO has done nothing himself to anger the voters and has given them no reason to “fire” him.

RI and MT: The “Real Clear Politics” average polling margin, as of this morning shows Democrat challengers leading Republican incumbents in both of these states: Tester (D) over Burns (R) by 3.0 points in MT and Whitehouse (D) over Chafee (R) by 5.4 points in RI. There are, however, other factors that militate against calling either of these states for the Democrats. In addition to all the factors listed above, there is the power of incumbency in both states, and the fact that both of these Republican senators have closed previously huge polling gaps in recent days. Thus that famously unquantifiable factor of “momentum” is on the side of both Burns and Chafee. Moreover, MT is among the “reddest” of Red States, and President Bush campaigned hugely there for Burns this past week end.

In RI, the Chafee family is a political dynasty, and the previous Senator Chafee, father of the present Senator, was probably the most popular man in RI for many years. Also, Chafee himself has done nothing to anger RI voters. The campaign against him as been run largely on the basis of the ultimate control of the Senate, and that sort of thing doesn’t play very well in the voting booth.

Actually, I’m going to split the difference here and call MT for the GOP, on the basis of momentum, a scant 3.0 point polling spread, the “Redness” of the state, and President Bush’s recent campaigning. Similarly, I’m going to call RI for the Democrats on the basis of the “Blue” leanings of the state, the 5.4 polling spread, and the fact that Chafee doesn’t really have any plus factor going for him other than his pedigree. Don’t be surprised, however, if Chafee pulls it out.

NJ: I have to call this one for the Democrats. The incumbent Menendez (D) leads the challenger Kean (R) by an average polling margin of 6.4 points in a very Democrat state. I know some people still hold out some hope for Kean, but even though he is the son of a still very popular former governor, his campaign has never really gotten off the ground. Without any of the “plus factors” that I see in MT, I just don’t think the Republican ground game can make up a 6.4 point average polling margin.

MD: As of this morning, Congressman Cardin (D) held a 3.5 point average polling margin over Lt. Gov. Steele (R), but this race could very well got to Steele. First, the margin is only slightly above my 2.0 point threshold for the ground game to work, and Steele has run a very smart, tight campaign. Cardin, on the other hand, despite ten terms in the House, has been a very lackluster campaigner. Now, MD is generally thought to be a Democrat state, but in this unusual circumstance that may actually work to Steele’s favour. MD has the largest Black population outside of the old Confederacy, and as we all know, Blacks typically vote 85-90% or better for the Democrats. Steele, however, in addition to being a very good campaigner, is himself Black. Moreover, just last week all the members of the Prince George County Commission, who are themselves both Black and Democrat, formally endorsed Steele. Prince George is MD’s largest county. So, you can see how this might play out. Indeed, if Steele gets as much as 25-30% of the Black vote, which he might very well do, Cardin simply cannot win. Moreover, don’t forget that, in the MD Governor’s race four years ago, Ehrlich (R) surprised everyone by defeating Kennedy Townsend (D). Steele was Ehrlich’s running mate for Lt. Gov. in that race. Now, I’m not making a formal prediction that Steele will win, but it could happen, and don’t be surprised if it does.

So there you have it: Senate seats in TN, MO, VA, and MT, stay in Republican hands, while the Democrats pick up seats in OH, PA, and RI, for a net Democrat gain of three seats, resulting in a GOP margin of 52-47, with one independent, in the next Congress. Moreover, if Steele pulls it out in MD, which he really could do, the margin could be 53-46-1. This brings us to the “wild cards”.

AZ, WA, and MI: Actually, I don’t see any of these three seats changing party hands. Kyle (R) has an 8.6 point average polling margin in AZ, and there is no real reason to believe he won’t win. I list AZ here only because some Democrats, apparently anticipating a tsunami, have held AZ out as a potential pick-up – not bloody likely in my view. Similarly, Stabenow (D) leads in MI by 14.5 points and Cantwell (D) leads in WA by 13.5 points. It’s simply not bloody likely that either incumbent will lose. I list them only because the RNC was still spending money in these two states fairly late in the game, and the “word” was that Karl Rove held out the hope of picking up either or both of these seats. Sorry Karl, not bloody likely in my view.

CN: This is the REAL wild card. The outcome is not really in doubt. The incumbent Lieberman (D) hold an 11.8 point average polling margin over his nearest challenger Lamont (D). Yes, that’s right, they’re both Democrats. As we all recall, CT Democrats bounced the Hawkish Lieberman in the primary in favor of the far-left Lamont. Lieberman is now running as an “Independent Democrat”, and is almost certain to win. This anomalous situation presents wild-card possibilities in two ways. First, Lieberman, as an Independent, has sough votes from both Democrats and Republicans on the basis of his hawkish views on Iraq. Thus, it is not inconceivable that Lieberman’s coattails could benefit the three CT Republican Representatives who appear to be in some jeopardy – Shays (CT-4), Johnson (CT-5), and Simmons (CT-2) – and help keep control of the House in Republican hands.

The other wild-card possibility is even more intriguing: Should a mini tsunami actually occur in favour of the Democrats, the breakdown in the Chamber COULD turn out to be 49 Democrats and 49 Republicans, with two Independents, Jeffords of VT who caucuses with the Democrats, and Lieberman. Thus, Lieberman COULD choose to caucus with the Republicans, and hand control of the Chamber to the GOP, with V.P. Cheney’s tie-breaker vote. Not, this is admittedly not bloody likely, but it COULD happen. Don’t forget the absolutely viscous way in which the Democrats dumped Lieberman in the primary, and all the Democrats who have actively campaigned against him. At the same time, Republicans have virtually fallen all over themselves not to offend the good Senator. It’s things like this that make politics REALLY interesting.

3. House:

First, refer back to Rule One. Now, with respect to the House, not being able to rely on the MSM as a dependable source of facts, and simply not having the time to suss out some fifty-odd potentially pivotal individual races, my analysis here will of necessity be more of a macro analysis that the relatively micro analysis I gave above with respect to the Senate. That said, I feel no less certain of my conclusions, but the margin of error is necessarily greater. So, here we go:

The Seven Pillars of Wisdom apply here as much as they do with respect to the Senate. Moreover, the power of incumbency and the Republican Gerrymandering after the 2000 Census, present the Democrats with real obstacles to gaining control of the Chamber. That said, “everyone” (“tout le monde”) agrees that this will be a Democrat year, though I believe that the all the factors set forth above militate strongly against there being any sort of tsunami in favour of the Democrats. That said, they only need a net gain of 15 seats to achieve the 218 seats necessary for bare control of the Chamber. The current breakdown in the House is 232 (R), 202 (D), and 1 (I), who caucuses with the Democrats, according to “Real Clear Politics”.

Now to try to begin to attack the analysis, The New York Times and “Real Clear Politics” set the table as follows:

The New York Times:

Safe Republican Seats: 180
Leaning (R) Seats: 25
Total (R) Seats : 205

Safe Democrat Seats: 198
Leaning (D) Seats: 16
Total (D) Sets: 214

Toss-up Seats: 16

Now, I start off with the proposition that The Times, whether consciously or subliminally, has skewed these numbers in favor of the Democrats. Still, even The Times’ tally has the theoretical likely spread, assuming all the “leaning” seats go the way they are leaning, at between 230-205 (D) and 221-214 (R). I am prepared to posit, however, that the vaunted Republican ground game, together with the others of the Seven Pillars, together with incumbency and Gerrymandering, should be able to bring home at least half the toss-ups, or eight seats, for the GOP. Thus the spread would be 222-213 (D). If, however, they are able to bring home three/fourths for the GOP, the resulting margin would be 218-217 (D), and if the GOP won all the tossups, the margin would be 221-214 (R). Here, I take note that this is three seats less for the GOP that the Barron’s “Money Ball” analysis, which forecast the margin at 224-211 (R). I am prepared to chalk off this discrepancy to The Times’ pro Democrat bias, and say that the maximum GOP margin following the mid-terms would be 224-211, and the maximum Democrat margin would be 227-208, a workable majority in either case.

Real Clear Politics:

Unlike The Times, Real Clear Politics specifically identifies 54 pivotal House seats, 48 currently held by Republicans and 6 currently held by Democrats, and breaks them down this way:

Current Republican Seats:

Leaning (R): 22
Leaning (D): 12
Toss-ups: 14

Current Democrat Seats:

Leaning (R): -0-
Leaning (D): 4
Toss-ups: 2

First, I note that the theoretically potential margins here, are only slightly different from those set out by The Times, i.e., assuming all the “leaning” seats go the way they are leaning, then, depending on how the 16 toss-ups break, the margin would be between 229-206 (D) and 222-213 (R).

I also note that RCP has the same number of toss-ups, 16, as The Times, but breaks them down into 14 currently in Republican hands and 2 currently in Democrat hands. Here then, my analysis is different from what it was with respect to The Times’ more opaque tabulation. If 14 toss-up seats are currently in Republican hands, then I am prepared to say that the Republican ground game, the Seven Pillars, the power of incumbency and Republican Gerrymandering, could – emphasizes the word “could” – tot up to bring all of these 14 toss-ups home to the GOP. Thus, the resulting margin would be 222-213 (R).

Finally, I used the Barron’s “Money Ball” analysis and frankly my own “nose” and/or “gut”, to arrive, somewhat arbitrarily, at the spread of resulting margins that I “predicted” first above, i.e., between 227-208 (D) to 224-211 (R). Actually, it could very well be even closer to dead even. Now, refer back to Rule One!

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

READ THE WHOLE STATEMENT NOW, THEN SEE MY COMMENT AT THE END:

"IMMEDIATE RELEASE

PRESS RELEASE

SayNoToRudy.org Ceases Operations, Endorses Giuliani for President

Sunday November 05, 2006

Today, SayNoToRudy.org will officially cease its operations and will no longer seek to actively discourage former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani from seeking the Republican Presidential nomination in 2008. In what has been a complicated, and outright ironic, transition for the entire organization, we now officially endorse Mayor Giuliani for President in 2008, should he choose to run. It has been a long journey for each of us involved on this team that has made us truly look inside ourselves and ask hard questions, but as of today, the consensus is that we as social conservatives have no reason to so forcefully oppose a Giuliani candidacy in 2008. We want Mr. Giuliani to have a fair chance to explain himself on the positions to other voters without negative preconceptions coloring their judgments. We will no longer write pieces discouraging Mr. Giuliani from seeking the presidency, nor will our writings discourage other voters from considering Mr. Giuliani as a presidential candidate, nor will we actively petition to prevent Mr. Giuliani from being a candidate, nor will we sell anti-Giuliani paraphernalia or engage in any sort of campaign to thwart his aspirations.

The creators of this organization now have a complex, but interesting story to tell. When we began this organization, we had skeletal knowledge of Mayor Giuliani's views on social issues and some of the issues surrounding his tenure as Mayor of New York City. Uncomfortable with what we knew, we sought to do everything legally possible to prevent such a candidate from becoming the Republican presidential nominee. In our efforts to stop his potential candidacy, we delved deep into his record, poured over his speeches and writings, and spoke personally to those who were most familiar with him as a friend and leader. Unexpectedly, as we began to see more and more of who Mr. Giuliani really is, we found our disdain for his candidacy becoming continually undermined as we found that Mr. Giuliani is truly a committed Republican and an accomplished conservative on many issues. When we felt we had a sufficient picture of Mr. Giuliani, we found that his positives now outweighed his negatives. Furthermore, many of us have, in the past month, come to the conclusion that not only is Mayor Giuliani a leader to be admired and respected, he may also be the Republican Party's best chance in 2008. Therefore, the creators of this organization, with much humility and apology, beyond all probability, hereby announce that we are willing to endorse Mr. Giuliani for the Presidency in 2008 both now, and if and when he decides to run. We have truly been humbled by this experience and we hope this will be a lesson to all of us in America that we must not be too quick to rush to judgment and that all of us can work together for the greater good, even if we disagree on some issues.

We hope that you will join us in this endeavor to promote a leader who we feel embodies all of the overlying principles that we think makes the Republican Party great: Hard work, preparedness, optimism, responsibility, integrity through accountability, smaller government, and a bold vision for the future. We feel that Mr. Giuliani, America's Mayor, embodies these values more than any other candidate on the political playing field today. As a result, Say No To Rudy is officially and forever shut down and will, in the coming weeks, be replaced by a website that will seek to provide convincing evidence to other social conservatives that it is not only O.K., but also preferable, to support Mr. Giuliani for President."

This is a truly moving tale of self-introspection, reflection, and a resulting change of mind, demonstrating an honesty and a candor that is today all too lacking in American politics (moi inclusif!)! This statement moves me to make two comments, both of which are deadly serious, though the second is expressed with the inimitable humourous touch of Hizzoner Ed Koch.

First: This statement gives the lie exquisitely well to all the opinions by all the commentators, both in the MSM, such as Frank Rich, and out, who grossly underestimated the intelligence of the Republican Base, including Social and Religious Conservatives, by saying that these people would not vote for Rudy once they learned of his past "liberal positions", thus at least intimating, if not actually saying, that such people were so consumed within themselves that they could not look at the facts and make the conscious choice to opt for Rudy's Leadership, even though they disagreed with some of his positions.

Second: In my judgment, Mayor Koch summed it up best and most pithily, during one of his many mostly successful runs for office, when he said: "If you agree with me on 9 out of 12 issues, vote for me. If you agree with me on 12 out of 12, see a psychiatrist!"

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!