The Occasional Observer

Yes, that David Zucker, of Airplane! fame. I'm happy to report, he's still got the touch.

OK, so "will" win is a little too strong. But according to this analysis by RCP, you've got to figure she's at least even money to win the race, despite trailing in recent polls by anywhere from 2 to 9 points.

The bottom line? The pollsters are clearly overstating the percentage of the electorate that is likely to be Dem vs R or independent. Their likely voter screens are not capturing newly enthusiastic tea party voters and oversampling the '08 "obama wave voters" whom they assume may stay D this year.

In the polls, Boxer's lead over Fiorina has been the D - R spread, minus 5 points. When you apply the percentage of the early voters, and the -4 spread for the GOP, it leads to an implied lead of one for Fiorina. And when you consider that the early vote has tended to be more D than the total vote, it bodes well for Fiorina.

Check out this perky lass running for Congress in AZ-7, a heavily Dem district. She is currently running even with the Dem and has a good chance at being a GOP, (er) pickup next week.

T-Paw's got a shot in '12. Right now he's focused on '10. Give a listen:

And does it in print, to boot. Love this column.

He's not flashy, but hits the all the right notes. If candidates stick with the issues he lays out in the last three minutes, they'll be golden:

I'd like to thank everyone on the baseball club for grooming and looking dapper. It was a powerful hot day, but we persevered, even without the old orchard to pass around. I think we'll really jam the biddies in a cocked hat when they see how nice we cleaned up! And D.C., thanks for leaving your Arkansas toothpick at home.



Standing, L to R: Linderman, Protium, Worm, M.B., Beetz, Fredo, Caboose, D.C.

Seated, L to R: SingleWing, C.E., Professor, Grampy

is primarily derived from the Anglo and not continental tradition.

Here's (another) example of why.

Newsweek corroborates some of the Gallup POTUS JA increase.

Also, in the PA Senate and Gov. races, Sestak and Onorato have seen sharp increases in their polling numbers over the past week. This, despite the lack of any big-ticket story to point to as the catalyst for the increase.

The Dems are still going to lose a ton of seats, but may be starting to mitigate the damage.

On YNN tonight at 7PM.

It might be streamed. Here's my best guess for finding it.

Thought I'd share some thoughts on the potential crop of new GOP Senators. Picking up on the last blog entry, here's how I evaluate their political savvy, and there chances of getting "entrenched" in their job should they win this November:

1) Candidates who are cake-walking into office in GOP-friendly states, and should have long viable careers in the Senate or beyond: Hoeven, Boozman, Lee, Coats (longevity permitting), Moran.

2) Candidates who are running in purple states, and have run excellent campaigns, and shown the political acumen to enjoy long careers: Raese, Portman, Johnson, Ayotte, and Rubio.

3) Candidates running in purple states, but will probably be vulnerable down the line b/c they're somewhat ideologically out-of-step with their state: Toomey, Paul

4) Candidates running in purple states, but will probably be vulnerable down the line (should they win) b/c they're not grade-A politicians: Angle, Buck, O'Donnell (won't have to be worried about Esmerelda winning, I know).

5) Candidates running in lean-blue states, who have run good campaigns, but will always be vulnerable because of the (R) next to their name: McMahon, Kirk, Rossi, Fiorina, DioGuardi.

Current predicition line with the candidates in #s 2-5 above:

Raese (W)
Portman (W)
Johnson (W)
Rubio (W)
Ayotte (W)
Toomey (W)
Paul (W)
Angle (W)
Buck (W)
O'Donnell (L)
McMahon (W)
Kirk (W)
Rossi (W)
Fiorina (W)
DioGuardi (L)

This would leave the Senate 53-47 GOP; an overall gain of 12 seats for the GOP. This is currently a "best-case scenario", and far more optimistic than RCP poll averages. But I think tea-party and GOP support is being under-polled, across the board.

Tying into the last post on this blog, about the political risk involved in nominating political neophytes, is today's installment of foot-in-mouth disease.

Scott Conroy has an article up at RCP discussing how the Tea-party GOP candidates have a very divergent set of beliefs on GWOT. Angle and Rubio have been decidedly interventionist. Miller, Paul and Raese are overtly skeptical about the value of nation building.

Ken Buck is also sketpical. He points out, justifiably, that there are important cultural, social, and economic differences between post-War Germany (where nation building was a success) and present-day Afghanistan. He explained the difference thusly:

"It's a fundamental mistake to assume that a people as backward as the Afghans are going to be able to build...what we would consider a Western-style democracy." [my emphasis]

That slapping sound is my palm hitting my forehead.

I'm just praying we can get through these next two weeks and drag Buck, Angle, and Miller (BAM!), over the finish line. Miller seems like the only one with a chance to actually get reelected, but I'll take what I can get while I can.

It still seems likely, by a wide margin, that the GOP will recapture the house.

But instead of an 8-10 seat gain in the Senate, which looked to be the case 3 weeks ago, we're now looking at a 5-7 seat gain. And the trends are getting worse.

Johnson, Toomey, Raese, Paul, and Rossi have all the seen their polling numbers deteriorate. RCP has Rossi trailing. The other 4 went from mid or high single digit leads to leads that are within MOE or just outside of them.

Obama's JA #s crossed into net positive territory with Gallup today for the first time in months. He was -10 JA a few polls ago, and is now +4.

How is this happening?

First and foremost, four tea-party packed GOP candidates have followed the Dem script, and gotten involved in major campaign SNAFUs that make them look extreme, and/or ignorant, and not-ready-for-prime time.

For Sharron Angle, it was the accusation of american towns operating under Sharia Law. Dearborn, MI, does not. And the Texas town she mentioned does not exist.

Joe Miller was caught waffling about the fact that he was disciplined by the municipality he worked for in AK on the public payroll for using public property (computers) for private ends. And when questioned about it (by a liberal blogger whose behavior was, I'm sure, out of bounds), his security guards detained the man, which ended up drawing attention to his original transgression.

Christine (Esmerelda) O'Donnell, who has had one train wreck after another (and is really the poster girl for the anti-tea party movement), admitted with surprise that she had no idea that 1st amendment of the constitution involved religious freedom.

But the winner, the ring leader of failed campaigners, is NYS gubenatorial candidate Carl Paladino. After months of bellowing about wanting to take a baseball bat to Albany, and his empty boasts about giving Cuomo "the vetting he's never had," he backtracks in last night's debate to say that "he's not angry...just passionate." After the gay baiting, physical threats to reporters, swipes at Cuomo's personal behavior (and bizzare insinuation about Cuomo's "prowess"), and questioning of Rick Lazio's manhood, can he seriously he say he's not angry? I really think in lieu of a campaign, he just needs the Al Pacino snippet from Scent of a Woman, where Col. Slade stands up in uniform, and slapping the table in front of him screams "I'd take a flame-thrower to this place!!!!" That should just be Paladino's one and only ad.

In the end, I think these tea partiers have good ideology. I'm with them way more than I'm against them. But they are political neophytes, and as a result, have been unable to stay on message. They've become political voo-doo dolls that the Dems (and the MSM) have been able to use ad-nauseum as a warning. This is what you're getting if you vote GOP. And with some of the weak-kneed moderates who don't like the direction the country is going in, and don't like Obama's policies--but see Paladino/O'Donnell as too extreme--the Dems are getting some traction.

If we were talking about Tarkanian, Murkowski, Castle and Lazio in place of these 4, as the GOP establishment wanted, my guess is the GOP would be on pace to capturing the Senate right now. The first 3 would have one their races, and Lazio would not have. But the real beneficiaries of not having O'Donnell & friends to kick around would have been Kirk, Buck, Fiorina, Rossi, Raese, DioGuardi, McMahon and Toomey.

David Brooks takes a close look at the Illinois Senate race, and concludes that Kirk is one of the really good guys in American politics. And that his reward for it is having his name dragged through gutter, and to have to lower himself to doing the same to his opponent. I really liked this particular quote, especially the Frum observation:

The [American political] system will inflame your weaknesses... Then the bad will come to define you, and the good you’ve achieved will be forgotten.

Few people try to weigh the good against the bad and reach some measured judgment. Instead, as David Frum once observed, they regard candidates the way adolescents regard parents: if they are not perfect then they must be irredeemable. [my emphasis]

If you're interested in unseating Gillibrand, take a look at this.

I've put in my C-note, but if you believe in limited government, spending restraint, and lower taxes, give what you can ($10, $51, $100, whatever) to help Joe unseat our unelected junior Senator. Here's Dick Morris, who's been active in supporting DioGuardi:

I just rediscovered a site I used to love and found a befitting, although NSFW, welcome to the fall season. Enjoy.

Interesting item with Gilly's HUD connection at the end. Wasn't aware of that.