The Occasional Observer

Looking at some of the exit polls as well as how voting on ballot initiatives went, there may be some lessons for Republicans in '08. Here are some thoughts:

1. Scandals, and especially cover-ups, are hideously unacceptable to Americans. Americans increasingly trust politicians and CEOs less and less, and every time a new scandal breaks it just reinforces the belief that those in power are acting illegally or immorally. Moral convictions do matter, especially if you want to get out the conservative vote, but also to attract independent voters. The Republican party cannot tolerate any more Abramoff or Foley or DeLay type incidents. And before everyone starts pointing out that in many cases Democrats have done the same or worse, remember that Republicans must always hold themselves to a higher standard because of MSM bias.

2. Fiscal policy matters. If Republicans in '08 want to make sure that they get ALL of their voters out and don't leave anyone away from the polls, they must take steps to balance the budget, fix trade imbalance, and deal with looming entitlement spending disaster that is social security and medicare for baby boomers. Fiscal conservatives applaud Bush tax cuts, but without equal restraint on spending side they are barely better than tax and spend Dems.

3. The next Republican candidate for President must be far more capable of articulating and defending his policies than Bush. Bush absolutely got slaughtered in press by Dems/MSM on almost all of his policies, especially Iraq. I think that over the past year if he had better articulated why it was in the US's best long-term interests to stabilize Iraq, it would've been less of an issue. In order to also defend against attacks from those who conveniently forget that they voted for the war and now say that the only reason Iraq is in this situation is because of "Bush's" decision, I think he'd probably have to go one step further and explain why removing Saddam from power was the right decision. Since this should be a straightforward argument I'm not sure why they weren't able to do communicate this more effectively.

4. Country still seems to be leaning socially conservative, so this should play into Republican hands. Look at the results of ballot initiatives in many states.

Bottom line, I think Mitt is a homerun on all 4 of these issues. If McCain somehow gets through primary I'd guess he also wins general election b/c a lot of Dems and Indies like him. I do look forward to a very bloody Dem primary: hillary, obama, kerry, gore, etc. will be tearing each other apart.

Why is CNN.com the only d-bag site to officially call Lieberman and Sanders Democrats? Everyone else, including MSNBC.com, lists tally correctly at this point: 49 Repub, 47 Dem, 2 Ind, 2 undecided. But CNN is calling it 49 Repub, 49 Dem, 0 Ind, 2 undecided. They just want it so badly.

Democrat chicanery at the polls, that is. I'd love to say I'm clairvoyant just because I predicted this a few days ago, but I have to be honest: anyone with a pulse, who has been watching politics for more than a week, saw this one coming:

Lawyers with the Tennessee Democratic Party will file suit early this afternoon asking that voting hours be extended due to reports of infrastructure problems, a party spokesman said.

"Infrastructure problems", by the way, means that Dem precincts and GOP precincts have the same voting hours. Once Dem precincts are open longer than GOP precincts, the "infrastructure problems" will have been "corrected."

Lawyers had not yet decided whether they would ask that all polls remain open later or ask only that polls in certain regions of the state be open later.

Heh, heh. That's funny.

I can't imagine how someone as thoughtful and deliberate as Jim Pinkerton ended up at Newsday. I don't always agree with his opinions, but the guy is always reasoned, measured, and more often than not, correct (by correct I mean in agreement with OccObs).

But today, in a short election-day column, he really nails it. Here's his conclusion:

The Reagan Democrats are looking for a party that takes seriously their concerns about immigration, homeland security, multiculturalism, immorality and de-industrialization, combined with a prudently hawkish foreign policy. Whichever party gets there first in addressing those problems, and then stays there to solve them - that party will be in the majority for a long time.

To Pinkerton, Reagan Democrats = the swing vote. The party that captures their votes will control the levers of power. While I might quibble with him on his perception that they prioritize dumping more resources into our monopolisitic public education infrastructure, I think he's largely right on the priorities of this swing group. By going with amnesty on immigration, Dubai Ports on homeland security, and doing nothing to protect American manufacturing (and even insulting the auto industry when there were questions of a bailout), this administration has definitely aliented this bloc.

The only thing that should keep '06 from being a total washout is the fact that the Democrats offer little in the way of constructive solutions. They are also pro-amnesty, weak on homeland security, and have largely adopted the free-trade-at-all-cost mantra that is hammering the working class in the Rust Belt. The Dems hate the Iraq war (now and not when they voted for it, conveniently), and hate the President even more, and that might be enough in '06 to capture the House or Senate. But as Pinkerton states, neither party has won the hearts of the Reagan Democrats, with the GOP squandering the inroads they made over the past 20 years. But the door is still open: if one party figures out how to capture the Reagan Dems loyalty, there is the potential to forge a governing coalition that is broad and possibly veto-proof.

The House, barring some macro-level last minute movement, appears lost. This will set back the nation for years, as the retention rate for Congressmen tends to be around 98% over time, and opportunities to swing the balance don't come along very often. Se la vie.

Of course, I'm more interested in the Senate, especially since it has a bearing on the judicial confirmation process. As the courts have done more damage to American democracy over the past 50 years than any other branch of government, my focus is here.

The Senate could still go either way. TN is leaning to the GOP right now. But that's the only good news. Allen has campaigned a sure win into a likely loss. All I can say is thank goodness it happened now. He would have had a real chance at seizing the Presidential nomination in '08 if not for being exposed this year, and that would have been a much bigger prize to fumble away.

In any case, here are the remaining "toss-up" races (assuming a Corker win in TN). We need one of them to maintain the majority. I'm listing them in order of favorability for the GOP, from most-likely GOP win to least-likely GOP win:

MO (Talent*)
MT (Burns*)
VA (Allen*)
MD (Steele)
RI (Chafee*)
NJ (Kean Jr.)
OH (DeWine*)
MI (Bouchard)
PA (Santorum*)

All we need is one of these seats to retain control in the Senate. RealClearPolitics.com shows the Republican trailing in every single one of these races, but the top three remain within a couple of points. Our best bet is Sen. Talent, but I'm still pessimistic.

Powerline posted this article with a simple conclusion about why polling often fails to predict the correct outcome: people lie. And not just a small number of people, but an incredibly significant percentage:

Take a look at question number three in the ABC/Post poll: no fewer than 70% of those who answered the telephone said they are "absolutely certain" to vote, while another 11% said they probably will vote. That's not all: when asked about their history, the 70% who said they were absolutely certain to vote were asked whether they always, usually or sometimes vote in off-year elections. The result? 87% said they either "always" (71%) or "nearly always" (17%) vote in midterm elections.

Pity the poor pollster. An overwhelming majority of his respondents tell him they surely will vote tomorrow, and, indeed, always do. But the pollster knows that over the past twenty years, the percentage of registered voters who actually voted in a midterm election has never topped forty percent.

Interesting article here. Apparently U.S. war games exercise in 1999 predicted that even with 400,000 troops, current situation in Iraq was to be expected.

Paul Bremer made a similar observation recently, suggesting that more troops wouldn't help. The most important thing he thought would be to have locked down Baghdad and implemented security and stability immediately after invasion. He felt that first month would've been key to demonstrate that we really had control, and establish order.

As much as I admire the job Rumsfeld et al. did during the actual invasion, I think this is yet another piece of evidence that flies in the face of his constant assertions that "no one" could've predicted what's happening on the ground in Iraq. I am hard pressed to think he is the best suited person for the job of rebuilding Iraq. Actually, in general, I'd be surprised if the same person could simultaneously have the skills to be a brilliant war/invasion strategist and tactician and also have the broad skills required to rebuild and establish the peace. For example, invasions do not (necessarily) require consideration of details such as local customs, history, etc., all of which can play a role in a prolonged rebuilding effort.

Unlike others, however, I disagree with the calls for his resignation. I think he is perfectly suited to be Secretary of Defense. I just think that once the invasion portion ended, ownership of rebuilding should have been transfered to the State Department. In fact, this effort seems to fall exactly in line with the State Department's one-line mission statement: "Create a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community."

Senate appears to be looking good for us.

"It" being the river of votes for Democrats that come from those who are dead, non-citizens, felons, imaginary, or not entitled to vote for some other reason. It's starting a few days ahead of the election this year.

Then there's the groundwork that the Dems' hacks have to do now so the troops are ready to cheat on Nov. 7.

And Harold Ford is preparing to follow his father to the dark side of the force in TN.

Remember this? How about this? Or maybe this?

After 6 years of W and moonbat hatemongering, there should be plenty of chicanery next week: a whole new generation of angry and impressionable 18 year olds willing to slash tires, forge registration cards, and plant votes early and often.

I'll give anyone out there 5:1 that when the polls close in VA, OH, TN and MO, at least one of those states will have a court-ordered voting extension to keep the machines open--and you can bet it will be a solid democrat district that will require the extra time.

1) George Will thinks things are breaking just right for Mitt Romney in '08. Here's his conclusion: "...the Republican field is already down to two. That is good for only one of them: Romney."

2) While Duncan Hunter's announcement that he'll seek the nomination has been basically dismissed by the MSM, I think he will be a player come primary time. Some other candidate will co-opt his border security and immigration position before all is said and done.