Senate & House Predictions

In a piece of overlooked news, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Vieth v. Jubelirer that political gerrymandering claims are not cognizable under the U.S. Constitution, effectively overruling Davis v. Bandemer. This means that the GOP will control the House of Representatives at least until the next census. With success in Georgia combating the Democrats gerrymandering and with politically motivated plans in Florida, Texas and Pennsylvania, it will be very difficult for the Democrats to make up ground in the House.

As for the Senate, here is how I see the race today. The GOP stands to lose two seats in Illinois and Alaska, while defending two tight races in Colorado and Oklahoma, with Pennsylvania a possible democratic upset. On the other side, the democrats will almost certainly lose Georgia and South Carolina, offsetting GOP loses in IL and OK. Republicans have a real shot of taking the seat in Florida, as well as the seats in North Carolina and Louisiana. Add to this the competitive race in South Dakota, and possibly competitive races in NV and California, and it looks like the GOP has a slight, but discernible early advantage in the Senate. Current prediction GOP +1 .

I've been away for a while, so I will devote a couple of posts to the state of the Presidential Race.

Questions That I Want Someone to Ask Senator Kerry

These are not all original, but I admit that I cannot refer to the specific origin of those which are derived from someone else's work:

1) Senator Kerry, you support the current Democratic filibuster in the U.S. Senate against a number of President Bush's judicial nominees. If you are elected President, Republicans in the Senate will almost certainly return the favor. What, if anything, are you prepared to do to break the log-jam in judicial nominees and, are you willing to give Republicans the same say in choosing Federal judges that you and your party have demanded from President Bush? By the same token, if Republicans filibuster your nominees because they consider them "out of the mainstream," "too liberal," or whatever, how are you going to justify your approach when you have already defended the Senate's right to filibuster judicial nominees.

2) Senator Kerry, Jimmy Hoffa, Jr., recently indicated that you had assured him that if you are elected President you will immediately begin drilling in ANWAR in Alaska and throughout the United States. This, despite repeated promises to filibuster any legislation that would authorize such drilling in the U.S. Senate. Is Hoffa lying? If so, what did you really promise the Teamsters? If Hoffa is telling the truth, how do intend to begin drilling in ANWAR without the consent of Congress and how do you reconcile that drilling with your long-term stated opposition to it?

3) Senator Kerry, you recently suggested that Americans should be cautious about Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion," in order to avoid anti-semitism. Do you think that any American who believes in the gospel account of the crucifixion of Jesus is an anti-semite?

4) Senator Kerry, you have indicated that you "support the second amendment" and that you are a gun owner and a hunter. What does the second amendment mean? What, if any, laws does it prohibit? What, if any, laws does it allow? Will you insist that your judicial nominees also support the second amendment?

5) By the same token, Senator Kerry, do you support the right of law-abiding gun owners to CARRY concealed firearms for self-defense if they pass a criminal background check and undergo some training in the proper use and carry of firearms? Same question, but suppose that citizens went through the same training and qualifications as required of the police.

6) Senator Kerry, do you still believe that certain U.S. military personnel who served in Vietnam should be tried as war criminals?

7) Senator Kerry, you have been critical of President Bush for causing the Haiti crisis. What, if anything, would you have done different?

8) And finally (for today), Senator Kerry, what, if anything would you do differently to catch Osama Bin Laden?

Has Kerry Peaked?

Kerry appears to be unable to really break the low 50%, while Bush appears to have hit his floor--44%. If that is true, than the President now has nowhere to go but up. Polls are, however, highly suspicious. The key polls are the Gallup Polls immediately after the major party conventions and the debates in the Fall. In my opinion, they show a decent (however imperfect) view of public movement to and away-from candidates.

Why Senators Are seldom Elected President

In considering a Kerry-Bush run, the media is comparing Kerry to John Fitzgerald Kennedy. They were both Senators from Massachusetts. They were both war heroes. They were both rich.

There are a lot of reasons that Senators or Congressman are rarely elected President. The voting record is the biggest thing. Years and years of contradictory positions and speeches just make these folks fodder for any opponent. Governors generally don't have the same kind of paper trail. The time that they spent in Washington is also sure to have made a Senator or Congressman many enemies, from both sides of the aisle and from all regions of the country. Not so with Governors.

Kerry is different from John Fitzgerald Kennedy for a variety of reasons. First, Kerry has been in the Senate for a long time. Kennedy (J) was in the Senate for less than ten years before he was elected President. Kennedy played both sides of the fence from the very beginning. He was friendly with Joe McCarthy, even voting against his censure. Not so with Kerry. He has been a far-left liberal since the beginning of his Senate career. Only in the last few years has he even suggested that he is trying to move to the middle, and that went out the window when he had to move to the left to win the Democratic primary.

Kerry has a LONG record, and a record that is in many ways inconsistent with the positions that he is taking now. Is he entitled to change his mind? Yes. But he is not entitled to change his position in the middle of a presidential campaign without being made to explain WHY he has changed his mind. His many years in the senate will require quite a bit of explaining. That explaining will be a continuing distraction to his campaign.

"MIRACLE" is an excellent movie

I am old enough to remember seeing that game on TV. In those days, the media embargoed the result so that we could all actually be surprised. That would never happen today.

Reliving that moment when Al Michaels makes the call "He shoots, he scores" when Mike Eruzione scored the go ahead goal at the half-way mark still sends chills down my spine. THAT moment is even more chilling than the now famous "Do you believe in miracles, YES!" which made Al Michaels into a sports superstar.

Although the "us versus them" and "commie bastards versus USA" themes were undercurrents in the movie, it was mostly about Herb Brooks and the kids who made up that remarkable team--Schneider, McLanahan, Craig, Eruzione, Johnson, O'Callahan, Silk, Ramsey, and all the others. The movie shows how Herb Brooks trained his team to skate with the Soviets and how that conditioning paid off.

I can't help but think, though, that there was one significant footnote to that game--Vadislav Tretiak. The legendary Soviet goal-tender was probably the greatest to ever play the game. Apparently he still insists that had he stayed in the game, his team would have won. Whether that is true or not is a matter for sheer speculation. However, taking him out of the game after the first period is comparable--in my mind--to taking Jordan or Montana out of a game after a bad half.

Kerry Wins Wisconsin....Edwards Second

So what! Is anything that happened yesterday a surprise? The fact that Edwards made such a strong second place is the story of the day. Edwards will not be the nominee. It makes for good theater and adds to the horserace, so look for the media to keep talking about that aspect of the story.

On a Different Note--PREDICTION

Friends Spinoff = JOEY

Wow...It's Been a long Nine Days

I've been busy with my work, so I haven't had time to do anything here. However, I have been in communication with a few of my fellow political observers and been able to formulate some thoughts on where we are.

First, a couple notes on where we have come. I do not think that Bush's performance on "Meet the Press" was very effective. But I don't think it was all that bad either. I haven't heard all that much long term-discussion about it. That shows me that it lasted one or two news cycles and that most of us moved on to something else.

Second, the national guard un-story. Give me break. Unless someone is sitting on the smoking gun document (and I doubt that), this story will be old news by March. Old news is fair game in politics, though, and the e-mails that I am getting from democrats suggest that we are in for a long summer and fall of re-hashing old stories, no matter how little (if any) evidence exists to support them.

Third, Kerry's "wins" in Virginia and Tennessee. It is a stretch to translate that into proof that Kerry can win those states in November. George McGovern also won Virginia during the democratic nomination fight in 1972. A primary victory is only that, a primary victory. If it meant more, Bush would have carried New York and California in 2000.

That brings us to the state of the race today.

We've all heard the big Kerry story. Let me just say this: I do not think that who Kerry sleeps with has any relevance to his capacity to be president. His left-wing voting record does. I'm going to save my thoughts on who is behind this story for another time after I've had a chance to reflect upon it some more.

The big questions is whether this will derail Kerry's candidacy. I don't think that it will. Apparently he is preparing a response. Kerry should say something like: " The story is true. The relationship is over, and the rest is nobody's business." If he does, story is over. I predict that he will blame Republicans and some-kind of right-wing conspiracy. This will fire up his base, but will escalate what is already becoming a very ugly and personal political season. I hope I'm wrong.

It's the Economy Stupid

The only thing that I read into recent poll numbers is that the economy is the dominant issue. The public appears to still support the war in Iraq. Bush needs to do a better job of getting his message across about improvements in the economy. So far, the media is giving play to the democrats continuing (and completely false) charges that the economy is bad. Perception means a great deal. Bush has a whole bunch of money to spend, what is he waiting for?

Where do we go from here?

Edwards appears poised to win Oklahoma and South Carolina and make decent showings in other states. I still don't think that he has enough to win it all, but he's sure to get some momentum out of this. My best guess is that tonight's results will ensure that the race drags on a little longer than it might otherwise have. That is both good and bad for Bush. Good in that Kerry will probably go negative, and might display a little of that famous temper. Bad in that the media will still give airtime to things like that stupid Alabama national guard service story.

Enough of the National Guard "AWOL" stuff...

If this is the best that the Dems can do, they are in for a real rude awakening come fall. And I mean a real rude awakening. This is a very dangerous game that the dems are playing. It didn't work for the Republicans and Bob Dole back in 1996, so I'm certain that it won't work for Kerry or the Democrats this year. The American people didn't seem to care much about Clinton's war record, so I doubt that they will care much about Bush's. I've been wrong before, but I just don't see this issue going anywhere, and it opens the door for some things that some in the democratic party might just assume weren't discussed.

My numbers might be close...

How big will the victory be? How much money is Kerry going to have to spend to keep this thing? Interesting analogy on Fox News: comparing Dean's strategy going forward to Ronald Reagan's 1976 campaign.

According to the Library & Archives of New Hampshire's Political Tradition

"No incumbent president running for re-election and who had no significant opposition on the party's New Hampshire primary ballot has ever been defeated for a second term as president: Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956, Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1964, Richard M. Nixon in 1972, Ronald Reagan in 1984, Bill Clinton in 1996."....George W. Bush in 2004?

NH Primary Eve Prediction

I stick with my prediction from this morning. I've seen nothing to change that. The fact that Dean has a steller organization in place might make a difference if it snows, but his strength and organization did nothing to help him in Iowa.

Well put...

and I agree, nobody cares much what Hollywood has to say about anything. Or do they? Actors and Actresses do have a certain popular appeal, although I will note that the ones who have achieved the most political success in my lifetime have been Republicans--Reagan, Bono, Schwartzanegger, Eastwood, Grandy. Thankfully for America, however, those award shows only happen a couple of times a year. Welcome to the "word war" Dave!

Zogby Reports movement toward Dean...

but I doubt it will be enough. Morning prediction, Kerry 33, Dean 25, Edwards 19, Clark 10, others 13

Initial New Hampshire Prediction

It appears that Kerry has a significant lead in the polls. Unless there is some indication of movement tonight or tomorrow night, I think that it is very likely that Kerry will win. Historically, that means that Kerry will likely get the nomination. In 1972, Muskie won Iowa and New Hampshire only to self-destruct, but the nomination process is different now. The primaries are so front-loaded that the powerful momentum of dual wins in Iowa and NH is going to be difficult to break.

That DOES NOT mean that it is over. This year has already seen surprises, so we may yet be in for a few. Additionally, several of the candidates have an awful lot of money, and will certainly not go away without putting up some kind of fight post-New Hampshire.

Everyone knows the story of how Bill Clinton somehow converted a second-place showing in NH to a victory. In 1992, however, different individuals won in Iowa and NH. In 1984, Mondale won in Iowa, while Gary "Monkey Business" Hart took the NH primary. Similarly, in 1988, Gephardt won in Iowa, but Michael "tank" Dukakis won NH. All eyes, therefore, appear to be on second place. While a strong second for Dean might give him a new boost, it probably won't be enough for him to get the nomination. If Edwards pulls off a last-minute surge and gets second, he could be well positioned to take some Southern and Western primaries in the coming weeks, although it will also probably not be enough for him to win the whole thing. The wildcard down the stretch is "Superdelegates," who are likely to back an establishment candidate, giving an edge to Kerry.

I predict that the Dems will have a nominee-in-waiting after March 2. It is impossible to understate the impact of the "band-wagon" and "electability" factors. Individuals, naturally, want to vote for a winner. At the same time, it is clear--as of today--that the dems want to nominate the candidate with the best chance to beat Bush. The new polls that show Kerry with a commanding lead in NH AND beating Bush are probably too much psychological momentum to overcome.

Last on New Hampshire Debate-- It is a shame that

Joe Lieberman's a Democrat. I think he would do well as a New England Republican. Alas, he's forever identified with Al Gore's failure in 2000 and probably permanent damaged goods as a result. Has anyone ever LOST as a major party nominee for Vice President (without ever having won at some point) and later been elected president?

New Hampshire Debate Observation #3 -- John Edwards Doesn't Know

Very much about the law. The Brady Bill has already sunsetted. I assume that he meant that he would renew the Assault Weapons Ban. Similarly, he clearly (or through willful blindness) does not understand the purpose behind the proposals to prohibit states from recognizing (or being required to recognize) gay marriage. Arguably, the "full faith and credit" provision in the US Constitution requires states to recognize "marriages" from other states. With the current trend on the US Supreme Court, something clearly needs to be done to allow states the freedom to define marriage as they wish, without running afoul of the U.S. Constitution.

New Hampshire Debate Observation #2 -- At Least Al Sharpton is Honest

"Would I replace Alan Greenspan, probably. Do I have a name, no?"