The Lesson of Big Ben

In college, a psyche-major friend experimented on lab rats. Nothing horrid, rather pedestrian, actually. He had a favorite, a huge mutha of a white rat named Big Ben. Ben was placed in a box with a little red light at the top, a lever on one wall and a dispenser next to it. If Ben pressed the lever, the light would burn and a tasty (to lab rats) pellet would plop into the dispenser.

Ben was a slow learner. He'd hit the lever every now and then. Then, he'll find the pellet and enjoy the treat. But he never really associated the pellet with the lever. Until, one day, when it hit him.

As my friend described it, Ben took an interest in the light, which was just out of his reach. Ben hauled his long, pudgy lab rat body up on his hinds, reaching for the light. Lunging and lurching in a doomed to fail attempt to make contact with the thing, Ben lost his balance. Tippling backwards, his head thumped down the lever and, in that position, he was facing the dispenser. He saw the pellet plop out and finally "got it".

Yes, from that eureka moment, Big Ben suddenly learned how to get all the pellets he could stand. Several times an hour, Big Ben would lift his frame up on his hind quarters and throw himself backwards, intentionally smashing his lab rat skull on the lever. He'd then stagger to his feet and wobble over to the dispenser for his reward.

Last evening, on the News Hour, Mark Shields designated Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid as big winners from the Tuesday results:

I guess, beyond that, I'd have to say that the unsung story of this campaign, Rahm Emanuel did a good, terrific job in the House for the Democrats in the campaign committee, but it was really Chuck Schumer, chairman of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, and Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate leader, who backed him up every step of the way.

They intruded in primaries, which has never been done before. That's considered bad form, but think about it.

RAY SUAREZ: Anointing preferred winners?

MARK SHIELDS: And backing people, and risking anger.

RAY SUAREZ: "This is the guy we'd rather see as our party's nominee"?

MARK SHIELDS: Best example, Ray, was Bob Casey in Pennsylvania, a pro-life Democrat. Chuck Schumer got 10,000 e-mails, messages and calls from the National Organization of Women and other abortion rights groups, who are just livid that he had anointed and backed Bob Casey. You got Ed Rendell, the Democratic governor, to do the same thing.

They did in Rhode Island with Sheldon Whitehouse. They did it in Ohio, with Sherrod Brown, same thing. Jim Webb in Virginia, they intervened before the primary, who ended up beating George Allen. Harold Ford in Tennessee, and Amy Klobuchar, we mentioned, in Minnesota, and went and chased Claire McCaskill down in London to persuade her. And Harry Reid talked to her husband to tell her that it would be OK.

So, I mean, that was really a first, and they did a terrific job. And they risked making lifetime enemies, and they made some, in the process.

Shields is right -- Schumer interfered in the primaries, that is considered bad form, and he made lifetime enemies in the process. And, of course, the Democrats won. But he is wrong to suggest that the notion of designating the primary winner from without, and running so-called moderate candidates, is what won the day for the Democrats.

Not only is Shields wrong in that conclusion -- believing it will be the beginning of the end of power for the Democrats. (Shields also got some of the facts wrong -- Schumer didn't convince Rendell to back Casey, Rendell convinced Schumer -- it conveniently got Casey off the radar for the Gubernatorial primary.)

Worse than Republicans believing that the 2006 midterms were the result of Democrats running to the center/right, is the Democrats believing it.

While Schumer did, purposefully, select candidates who, on many issues, rejected traditional Democratic positions, those candidates did not run on those issues. Bob Casey only mentioned abortion rights when he was forced to answer a reporter's question (which was rare enough -- Casey ran away from reporters and reporters who did corner him tossed their usual MSM softballs).

Democratic challengers who took back the Senate all ran and, based on the exit polls, won on the same issue -- Republican excesses. They ran against the absurdity of Iraq, they ran against the Imperial President, and against the Republican response to absolute and unchecked power -- corruption.

As quickly as the Republican talking machine had their excuses out, Glenn Greenwald laid out the reality for them:

Democratic candidates won -- in every part of the country and regardless of their ideology -- by committing themselves to one basic platform. They vigorously opposed what have become the defining attributes of the Republican Party and they pledged to put a stop to them: unchecked Presidential power, mindless warmongering, a refusal to accept or acknowledge realities (both in Iraq and generally), and the deep-seated, fundamental corruption fueling the Bush movement and sustaining their power.

Virtually every Democratic winner, from the most conservative to the most liberal, in the reddest and bluest states, have that in common. They all ran on a platform of putting a stop to the radicalism, deceit and corruption that drives the so-called "conservative" political movement.

For the Democrats to take any other lesson from these victories would be dangerous for them. Schumer is throwing his head back against the lever if he believes that interfering with the primary system to install moderate-to-right candidates is what won the day on Tuesday. What won the day was a united opposition to the incompetent and corrupt administration of mindless and shortsighted policy to which these Republicans had become increasingly addicted over the last six years.

It is more than a little sad that all of us dedicated to traditional liberal principles have a tender spot on the back of their heads after the Tuesday elections. It was not necessary to run Bob Casey to defeat Rick Santorum. It was not necessary to run Tester or Webb to win those races.

The Republicans weakened themselves -- enabled the debacle which they have become -- not in small part because of successive, accumulating compromise of their traditional principles in favor of obtaining and maintaining power. They have spent six years thrusting themselves backwards onto the lever and paid the price earlier this week. If the Democrats begin to believe that it was necessary to run Casey or Tester or Webb, it is they who eventually will suffer from the same headaches to the same disastrous results.

Summary only...

Don't Look Now, Montana Recount Looming

I am not sure what percent of the vote has been counted in Montana, but know it is greater than 99%. Right now, Tester is 1,798 votes ahead of Conrad Burns (no word if anyone woke Burns with the news). Out of 361,135 votes cast (lol), the difference is 0.4%.

Under Montana law, the results of the election must be certified within 20 days. The putative loser can only seek a recount if the gap is 0.5% or less. Burns is 8 votes under the maximum for a recount. If he wants one, he must request a recount within five days of certification. But, unlike the Virginia situation, because the difference is not 0.25% or less, Burns has to pay the expenses of the recount.

Summary only...

In case you were wondering -- Virginia Recounts

Under Virginia law, only the apparent losing candidate can ask for a recount, and only if the difference between the apparent winning and losing candidate is 1% or less of the total votes cast for the two candidates.

There were more than 2.3 million votes cast in the Senatorial contest in Virginia yesterday. The one percent threshold would be 23,000. Currently, with 99.8% of precincts reporting (see note, below), the difference between the candidates is 7,146 votes -- well within the threshold.

The apparent loser cannot request a recount until after the election is certified. The State Board of Elections will not meet to certify the results of the November 7, 2006 election until Monday, November 27, 2006. George Allen will have has ten days from the certification date to request a recount, so the time frame for filing a request for a recount for this election is November 27, 2006, through December 7, 2006.

An apparent losing candidate requesting a recount of an election for a statewide office must file a petition requesting a recount with the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond. The Chief Judge and two other judges appointed by the Chief Justice of Supreme Court of Virginia make up the recount court.

The Chief Judge of the Richmond Court is Theodore J. Markow. Markow is somewhat infamous for his ruling that a plaintiff could not recover damages from a former lover who had infected the plaintiff with herpes. Markow threw out the case holding that the plaintiff was barred from recovery because fornication between unmarried persons was illegal. (You see why Santorum likes living in Virginia?) His ruling was later overruled by an unanimous Virginia Supreme Court.

The recount court sets all of the rules and procedures for conducting the recount and appoints the people to perform the recount. In setting the procedures for the recount, the court will also decide if the actual counting of votes cast will take place in the various localities or in a central location. After all of the votes cast are recounted, the court will certify the candidate with the most votes as the winner.

The counties and cities involved in a recount are responsible for paying the costs of the recount if the margin of difference between the apparent winning and losing candidates is a half of a percent or less or the candidate requesting the recount is declared the winner. Otherwise, the candidate who requested the recount must pay the costs of the proceedings.

NOTE: According to information obtained from the Virginia State Board of Elections, the uncounted votes are the absentee ballots in Fairfax City. Fairfax City cast 7,456 total votes, 56% of which were in favor of Webb. Even if there were 7,000 absentee ballots and they ALL went to Allen, Allen still loses.

Summary only...

Webb's Got it Done

SurveyUSA has a new poll out on the Virginia race and it puts Webb up by 8 points among likely voters. It is not so much the bottom line as the crosstabs which I find so helpful for Webb. Webb is virtually even among males (47% of the voters), with Allen's once 25-point lead now reduced to two points. Although the gender vote is not broken down into racial subcategories, it looks like Webb could be pulling 40-45% of the white male vote.

Webb's closing the gender gap on men in Virginia is huge. Especially because Webb is pulling in the women's vote 57%-39%.

The only age group in which Webb trails is in 65+ (16% of voters), but even there Webb is down only three points. Webb is walking away with the black vote, with 71% support. Six of ten independents prefer Webb, as do 7/10 moderates.

If the third-party candidate were not in the race, Webb would likely be picking up nearly all of the 2% going that way. Once inside the polling booth, I expect half of the thrid-party supporters to vote for Webb or Allen, with 3 of 4 breaking for Webb. Turning the numbers inside out, I do not see a way for Allen to survive.

Summary only...

New CNN Generic Poll -- Dems with 20-Point Lead

Today CNN released the results of a generic congressional poll taken over the weekend. The poll of over 1,000 voters, including over 600 likely voters (note the ratio, folks), gave the Democrats a 58-38 percent advantage over the republicans in House races among the likely voters.

That 20-point lead is huge. In 1994, when the Republicans took back control of both Houses, their generic lead was under 4%.

This is pointing towards a blow-back of tremendous proportions and, if it holds up nationwide, voters in close races could send 54 Democrats (including Leiberman) to the Senate and the Dems could end up with 45 new Democratic seats in the House.

A big beneficiary of this sweep could be Harold Ford, who has inched back up in the polls recently. Given the MOE in the Tennessee polls, arguments can be made for a 51% Ford win. The problem is that Ford is black and, in particularly (but not exclusively) in states like Virginia Tennessee, a small percentage of white voters will tell a pollster they are voting for the black candidate when they have no intention of doing so. In a close race like this, that is enough to skew polls. BUT, if you see Harold Ford win in Virginia Tennessee, then look for surprises later in the evening. (Such as Arizona in the Senate, the Wyoming at-large House seat could then go blue, KT-5, WA-5, VA-10, OH-12, for example). Here in Pennsylvania, a sustained blow-back could send blow-hard Melissa Hart packing in PA-4. Wouldn't that be lovely?

Summary only...

Weekend Senate Polls in Key States

In New Jersey, the Strategic Vision poll released today put Democratic incumbent Bob Menendez 7 points ahead of Republican Tommy Kean Junior. The republican smear machine seems to have come up short here -- SV reports that Menendez's favorables are higher than Kean's. Gallup released a poll today showing the NJ race to be a ten-point win for Menendez (50% - 40%) among likely voters. Similarly, Quinnipiac's poll, also released today, puts Menendex ahead by five points, 48-43, among likely voters.

In Virginia, the latest Rasmussen survey is putting the race at 49%-49%. The incumbent Republican George "Macaca" Allen is viewed "very unfavorably" by 29%, Webb by 20%. Webb's favorables are also higher than Allen's -- 55% to 50%. Before it became clear to the world that Allen was a bullying bigot, he was viewed favorably by 64%, Webb by 46%. Now, thirty percent (30%) of Webb voters say they are voting against Allen rather than for Webb. On both Iraq and the economy, Webb has a narrow edge when voters say which candidate they trust more. Although Gallup's registered likely voter poll has him down four three points today, Webb will win this one. (Among registered voters, Gallup has it tied at 42%.)

In Missouri, Rasmussen released a poll over the weekend showing McCaskill up by one point (49%-48%) over Republican incumbent Jim Talent. Rasmussen found that 92% of Democrats are supporting McCaskill and 91% of Republicans are backing Talent. The candidates have the same favorables and McCaskill's unfavorable is one-point higher than Talent's (49-48). The race is tight and might come down to turnout. Crossing fingers, but still looking for voters to break for McCaskill tomorrow. Gallup's poll, out today, says McCaskill is up by four points, 49% to 45% among likely voters, 46%-39% overall.

In Montana, Democratic challenger Jon Tester maintains his lead against ethics-challenged incumbent Conrad Burns, according to the most recent Rasmussen poll. The survey gives Tester 50% to Burns's 46%. Gallup's most recent poll, released today, puts the race at 50% for Tester, 41% for Burns among likely voters.

Summary only...

Predictions

It is time to put up.

I privately set for myself this date to cast my lot for a couple of reasons, the main one being I leave town today for a business trip and will have uncertain access to The Internets over the next few days.

So here are my predictions for the 2006 midterms. Overall, the Dems end up with a 40+ seat majority in the House and a one seat majority in the Senate, including Lieberman.

I took a quick survey of the PA poliblogs today and didn't see any who had stepped up yet -- com'on folks, no fair holding back until November 6. Put it on the line today.

PA-SEN Casey by 11 +/-

I got lucky, the race that I have been following most, the PA Senate, is the easiest to call. In fact, I called it in August when I said Santorum will lose by double digits.

Note that I said "Santorum loses". Casey neither deserves nor earned the win and the Party will come to regret getting into bed with the likes of him. It was not necessary, except to the Governor who ensured that Casey kept his nose out of this year's Gubernatorial. A bucket of warm spit in business attire could have beaten Rick Santorum this year, and that's nearly what we got.

Santorum's approvals have barely reached above 40 all year. As a two-term incumbent, sustained approval ratings under 40 are a deadly harbinger -- it indicates an electorate primed for a change.

Santorum helped out the Democrats by making every step a miss. His first advertisement of the campaign tried to take Casey and the Democrats to task for the faux incident at his faux home. What he succeeded in doing was give the Democrats a chance to remind everyone that when Rick first ran for office, he attacked his opponent for living in Virginia and promised the he would never do such a thing, and then did; and that Rick demanded and got hundreds of thousands in tax payer money to home school his brood in Virginia. His claim of Casey complicity was seen through as political piffle by everyone with a second grade education, but even worse was his ridiculous claims of his children being threatened (600 miles away) and the stupid police complaint he filed -- in Virginia!!?? Now there's a campaign team that has earned the right to sit home in '08.

But, that was just for starters. Santorum & Co. then picked up two issues to hammer home -- one made-up, one make-weight. His made-up movement -- Islamic Fascism -- moved no one. The follow through was horrible -- Rick running about flapping his gums over Nazis and appeasement and telling voters if they vote for Casey, they die. It was, as the last popular President said, an old dog that wasn't going to work anymore. Moderates were laughing at him.

His second issue, immigration, was a different kind of scare out the vote tactic, and it also failed, miserably. Outside Lou Barletta's bigoted mind and town, Santorum's "brown scare" took root nowhere. It consistently scored below "other" in polls asking voters what issues moved them this year.

Oh, but then there were the attack ads. Santorum's first big attack advertisement of the campaign -- the guys in the jail cell -- had great production value. It also had so many lies and distortions that every media outlet in the State was yapping about it the next day. Coming on the heels of the Penn Hills faux home fiasco, which Santorum was made to look eight yards short of credible, the jail cell advertisement sealed the deal in the minds of the voters -- nothing Santorum would thenceforth say about Bob Casey was going to stick, they had already decided that Santorum was a liar, and a loser.

That's why the debates didn't matter -- no one watched them and those that did, if their minds were not already completely made up on Santorum's credibility, they received his words with caution, and a ton of salt. Casey got at least one thing right -- Santorum was desperate, and he looked and sounded the part.

Casey deserves almost no credit for winning this one. He thumbed his nose at democracy by refusing to get out and talk to people, to attend public campaign events, to debate early and often (most of those joint appearances were not debates), by refusing to answer direct questions on where he stands on issues, and by making sure that a third choice was not going to be available to the voters. He is not an original thinker, he has no leadership capability, and he has no personal charm. He is not going to be a Senator of which Pennsylvania will be proud. But, at least he is not Rick Santorum.

What a choice we had.

Rick Santorum -- just like George Bush, but without the intellect; or,
Bob Casey -- just like, well, Rick Santorum, but without the balls.

PA-GOV Rendell by 18+/-

I didn't give much coverage to this race. Mainly because it never was a race. A political novice, an ex-jock at that, going up against likely the best Pennsylvania pol of this generation. It was a done deal in May. Fast Eddy has been unnecessarily piling on, with advertisements, big regional money grants, and fundraising like you've never imagined. Not because he was ever in a race. He wants the big numbers behind him next week to show he's the player who can deliver Pennsylvania to the Dems in '08. Dick Cheney may be a shooting veep, Ed Rendell is shooting for veep.

US-HOUSE Key PA Races Dems +4

I only have a handle on a handful. These are the races I have been glancing at now and again:

PA-4, Melissa Hart (R)(I) over Jason Altimire (D)
PA-6, Lois Murphy (D) defeats Jim Gerlach (R)(I)
PA-7, Admiral Joe Sestak (D) torpedoes crazy Curt Weldon (R)(I)
PA-8, Pat Murphy (D), beats Mike Fitzpatrick (R)(I)
PA-10, Chris Carney (D), chokes off Don Sherwood (R)(I)

US SENATE

I don't want to call this one today -- but I scheduled today to make my picks so I shall.

Not so very long ago, I was preparing a piece taking certain so-called liberal bloggers to task for going with Casey as part of a take-back-the-Senate strategy. My argument was two-fold, (1) anyone could beat Santorum, especially a really, really, REALLY smart college professor who happened top be a REAL main-street Democrat, and (2) there was no chance to take back the Senate.

I was and am still correct on the first point, but reality has interfered with the second. The Senate is in play.

The close races are Montana, New Jersey, Missouri, Virginia, and Tennessee. The Dems need four of those five to take back the Senate.

In Montana, Democrat Jon Tester is taking on Republican incumbent Conrad Burns. Burns closed a double-digit gap, and the race remains in the margin of error. However, after the first poll in April, Burns never won another poll in this race. Big Sky country is ready for a change from the go along, get along, gimme money and power, politics of Conrad Burns. Jon Tester picks up a seat in the Senate for the Dems on November 7.

In New Jersey, "incumbent" Democrat Bob Menendez gave us a scare -- with the electorate partially and temporarily succumbing to Tommy Kean Junior's attack ads. Menendez has recovered nicely and is headed to a win there, preserving a seat for the Democrats.

In Missouri, Democratic challenger Claire McCaskill is giving Republican incumbent Jim Talent whatfor. She has led through much of the race, but the recent uproar over the Michael Fox advertisement and negative ads (which the local newspapers say make false charges) by Jim Talent have put this race in the dead heat category. There is also a pro-stem-cell research amendment on the ballot. Talent opposes stem-cell research, McCaskill and 53% of her fellow-voters, favor it. McCaskill wins this squeaker because on election day, the voters here will break for change. McCaskill turns a red Senate seat blue.

Virginia. Old Dominion was certain to send bigoted bully George Allen back to the Senate where he could do the most harm. But his true colors shined through one fine day when he decided to bully a young man of color, who happened to be toting a full-color video camera. Thank goodness for YouTube. It has been neck and neck since then. It is easy to understand the Virginia voters' dilemma -- do they send a bigoted bully back to Congress or elect a sexist pig to replace him? I think the good people of Virginia will decide that they'd rather support a sexist pig than a bigoted bully.

Webb, a former Republican who served as Secretary of the Navy in Reagan's White House, will take this one away from his former colleagues. George Allen, like Rick Santorum will have to give up his '08 Presidential fantasy, too. Thank GOODNESS for YouTube!

That is enough to give the Democrats 51 seats, which is good since it looks like Harold Ford will not pick up Bill Frist's abandoned seat in Tennessee.

US HOUSE

If you have to ask, you haven't been paying attention. Dems take control, going away.



Okay, you're turn, dear readers and fellow bloggers.

Summary only...

One More Reason to Vote Democratic Nov. 7

From the AP today:

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush said Wednesday he wants Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney to remain in his administration until the end of his presidency, extending a job guarantee to two of the most criticized members of his team. . . .

He refused to even say whether he could work effectively with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi or Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid if Democrats won either the House or Senate, or both. . . .

Democrats and Republicans alike have called for Rumsfeld's resignation, arguing he has mishandled the war in Iraq where more than 2,800 members of the U.S. military have died since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. Cheney has faced sharp criticism for his hardline views and is viewed favorably by only about a third of Americans in polls. Bush said that "both those men are doing fantastic jobs and I strongly support them."

You have to wonder, does Bush think he has a choice about the Vice-President? (Remeber, this is a guy who refers to Canada as "overseas".) Someone would tell him that the V-P serves at the pleasure of the Constitution, not the President.

(Photo By Ron Edmonds, AP)

Summary only...

Rasmussen PA SEN Poll & More

The Rasmussen poll we told you about yesterday in Classless Santorum Claims Treason, was released today and you can spy it here. Our call, of 55% for Casey, 42% for Santorum, was correct (we have one fine birdie, there). Here's how the pollster sees it:

It doesn't look like Republican Senator Rick Santorum will be able to pull a rabbit out of the hat. This race remains in the Democrat's column for our Senate Balance of Power summary.

The incumbent gained five percentage points of voter support since our October 5 survey of the race, and a further point since October 16. But as undecided and other voters break for one of the major-party candidates, Democrat Bob Casey, Jr. has been gaining as well. Thus Casey still leads Santorum by the same thirteen-point margin, now 55% to 42%.

Santorum loses almost a fourth of the GOP base and a full 25% of conservatives to Casey, who shares the conservative opposition to abortion and gun control. If newly revived concerns about judicial activism and gay unions are helping struggling Republicans elsewhere, that's not the case in Pennsylvania.

Elsewhere, Rasmussen sees Lamont gaining on Lieberman and, a week shy of election day, sees it as Leiberman 48%, Lamont 40%, Sumrepub Guy 9%. Good run up for Lamont, but too little, too late.

Yesterday we mentioned the (as yet) unreleased Rasmussen on New Jersey, showing Democratic incumbent Menendez opening up a two-point lead over State Sen. Tom Kean, Jr. Today, Quinnipiac released it's THIRD New Jersey poll since September 20 (only ONE PA poll in that span), confirming the trend to the Dems in the Garden State. Quinnipiac puts it at 48% for Menendez and 44 points for the NJ favorite son's favorite son. Strategic Vision goes along, with the poll released today showing Menendez squeaking by with a one-point lead and a hearty 15% undecided. The New Jersey race has been even nastier than Santorum's swipes at Casey. The undecideds are not happy with that, but, I promise you, they will break for the Democrat on November 7. The CNN Poll is making it 51%-44% for Menendez among likelies and 50%-38% overall.

In Rick Santorum's home state, Rasmussen has released a second poll right on the heals of last week's survey,which had put Allen up a point. Rasmussen's latest poll in Virginia has the Democrat Webb leading Allen by 5 points when "leaners" are included. CNN has the Democrat ahead by 4 points among likely voters.

In Tennessee, CNN has the Republican Corker ahead of Ford, 52%-44% among likelies. Rasmussen will be releasing a poll there that puts Ford back two points.

In Missouri, CNN has Republican incumbent Jim Talent trailing Clair McCaskill 51%-43% overall, but dead even at 49% among likely voters. A Rasmussen poll due out soon will show the Democrat ahead one point, 48%-47%. This is a down trend for Talent.

Summary only...

NJ Breaking Dem

According to today's Rasmussen poll (unreleased to public as of right now), Democratic incumbent Robert Menendez has opened a five-point lead over Republican challenger, state Sen. Thomas Kean Jr. According to my little bird, the Rasmussen survey gives Menezdez a 49%-44% lead over Kean. Rasmussen's last poll, a week ago, had the race even at 45%. This is significant be cause New Jersey recently became the Republican's only hope of wresting a Democratic Senate seat. It is looking more like NJ is returning to the anti-Republican fold this mid-term.

Summary only...

Santorum and the Four Horsemen of Calumny

Times are tough for Senator Santorum. His losing campaign, watched by the entire nation, must naturally be a source of great strain. And, under that strain, he has cracked.

Over the last couple of weeks, he has told the handfuls of audiences which he now attracts, that his opponent is unworthy to serve, that a vote for his opponent is equal to supporting Hitler in the late 1930s, that a Democratic victory would be a disaster for the Nation and for the World.

He needs do this, one supposes from the evidence, because he lacks any acceptable substantive record. He charges that his opponent is hiding from the issues. In truth, it is the Senator who will not talk of the real issues. He instead relies on a worn old tactic -- scaring out the vote.

Whether it is the scare of brown people risking their life and limb for a few extra dollars to send home or the scare of an imagined gathering storm of riders on horseback bearing curved swords looking queerly at us, he is relying on a scared electorate to rally and send him back to the Senate.

He has served for two terms. In this campaign he does not defend his service, point to his accomplishments, sell his proved worth to his electorate. Instead, he requests -- no he DEMANDS -- another six years based on the most dangerous-sounding future his mind can invent.

Even so, Rick Santorum does not content himself with presenting a world view and debating it, like good citizens in a freedom-loving, democratic America. He invites no debate, allows for no disagreement, recognizes no question. No, he will tell you, disagree with me -- worse yet, elect someone who disagrees with me -- and you invite another Nazi disaster, you threaten your very lives and the safety of your children. In this way, Santorum not only stifles dissent, he makes it unpatriotic to disagree with him, he says it is dangerous to disagree. He says that those who disagree are unworthy to serve, are the bedfellows of terrorists, are the moral equivalent of Nazi appeasers.

We've seen this kind of tactic before, and not only in the last two elections.

June 1, 1950. Margaret Chase Smith, Republican Senator of Maine, speaking on the Senate floor about the then-popular foreign enemy compelling a return of Republicans to power. Re-reading her complete speech this morning made me sad to realize that it was not so very long ago we did, in fact, have true statesmen on the floor of Congress. Here is a portion of what she had to say:

I would like to speak briefly and simply about a serious national condition. It is a national feeling of fear and frustration that could result in national suicide and the end of everything that we Americans hold dear. It is a condition that comes from the lack of effective leadership in either the Legislative Branch or the Executive Branch of our Government.

That leadership is so lacking that serious and responsible proposals are being made that national advisory commissions be appointed to provide such critically needed leadership.

I speak as briefly as possible because too much harm has already been done with irresponsible words of bitterness and selfish political opportunism. I speak as simply as possible because the issue is too great to be obscured by eloquence. I speak simply and briefly in the hope that my words will be taken to heart. I speak as a Republican. I speak as a woman. I speak as a United States Senator. I speak as an American. . . .

I think that it is high time that we remembered that we have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution. I think that it is high time that we remembered that the Constitution, as amended, speaks not only of the freedom of speech but also of trial by jury instead of trial by accusation. . . .

Those of us who shout the loudest . . . are all too frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism:

The right to criticize;

The right to hold unpopular beliefs;

The right to protest;

The right of independent thought.

The exercise of these rights should not cost one single American citizen his reputation or his right to a livelihood nor should he be in danger of losing his reputation or livelihood merely because he happens to know someone who holds unpopular beliefs. Who of us doesn't? Otherwise none of us could call our souls our own. Otherwise thought control would have set in.

The American people are sick and tired of being afraid to speak their minds lest they be politically smeared . . . . Freedom of speech is not what it used to be in America. It has been so abused by some that it is not exercised by others. . . .

Surely [there] are sufficient reasons to make it clear to the American people that . . . a Republican victory is necessary . . . .Yet to displace [Democrats] with a Republican regime embracing a philosophy that lacks political integrity or intellectual honesty would prove equally disastrous to this nation.

The nation sorely needs a Republican victory. But I don't want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the Four Horsemen of Calumny---Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear.

I doubt if the Republican Party could---simply because I don't believe the American people will uphold any political party that puts political exploitation above national interest. Surely we Republicans aren't that desperate for victory.

I don't want to see the Republican party win that way. While it might be a fleeting victory for the Republican Party, it would be a more lasting defeat for the American people. Surely it would ultimately be suicide for the Republican Party and the two-party system that has protected our American liberties from the dictatorship of a one-party system.

(The cartoon is by the great Herb Block.)

Summary only...

Senate Races Outside Pennsylvania

{UPDATED 10/27/06}This began life as an update to this morning's bit on the Senate in Play, but I decided it deserved to run loose on it's own:

Rasmussen's latest on the NJ race (not released except to Premium Members yet) has the race dead even at 45-45. Pollster.com has now moved the NJ race into the toss-up category. Menendez has been a disappointment. NJ should not have been in play. {UPDATE 10/27/06} Unreleased Dem internal, puts Menendez up 9 -- 45%-36%.

In Missouri, Rasmussen's (again, not public yet) latest poll gives Talent a 2-point advantage, 50-48%.

Virginia incumbent George Allen is a toenail ahead of Webb in Virginia, 49%-48% (again, an unreleased Rasmussen survey). {UPDATE 10/27/06} Rasmussen Virginia survey released.

In Ohio, SurveyUSA today released a death-blow poll for Mike DeWine (who is all in all not horrible as Rs go), giving Brown a 20-point lead, 57-37. {UPDATE 20/27/06} Unreleased Rasmussen poll has it 54%-43% for Brown (D).

Harold Ford is 2-points ahead of Republican Corker, 47-45, according to an unreleased internal DSCC poll.

{UPDATE 10/27/06} Latest Rasmussen has the Tennessee race a nail biter -- Corker 47%; Ford 46%.

Summary only...

The Senate in Play

In June, I began preparing a piece about how there were 8 Democratic and 6 Republican seats "in play", with the Democrats having to run the table on all 14 contests to retake the Senate.

My working theses were the futility of any Democratic hope to retake control of the Senate and the foolishness of the (so-called) liberal netroots leaders in messing with a safe D seat in Connecticut. Here was the draft lead:

The Democrats say that they believe that this year represents their best chance in many election cycles to take back control of Congress. In the Senate, the Democrats need a net gain of 6 seats to wrest control of the upper Chamber. Casey defeating Santorum is key to that hope. Taking a look at the other contests, it may be close but the likelihood of the Democrats to taking over leadership in the Senate seems a little remote right now

There are 33 Senate seats up for grabs on November 7, 2006. The Republicans have been in the majority since 2003 (I know, it DOES seem longer than that.) Right now, the Senate has 55 Rs, 44 Dems and Jim Jeffords (VT), who is retiring. Seventeen Democratic seats are up in 2006, fifteen Republican, and Jeffords' seat in Vermont is also up this year.

Of the 33 seats up for grabs, there are nine which I see as completely safe Democrats running for reelection -- Byrd (WVa), Bingaman (NMex), Lieberman (CT), Akaka (HI), Conrad (NDak), Feinstein (CA), Clinton (NY), Carper (DE), and Kennedy (MA). I am going to give the Republicans nine successful contests -- Snow (ME), Hatch (Utah), Hutchinson (TX), Lott (Miss), Lugar (IN), Thomas (WY), WebbAllen (VA), Ensign (NV), and Kyl (AZ).

If you're playing along, you already know that leaves eight contested Democratic seats and six Republican seats "in play".

In order to regain the Senate, the Dems need to run the table on all fourteen contests.

The draft was never completed, not proofed, and never ran, in part because I just didn't get the time needed to complete the research I wanted on local issues and polling in each state. Lucky me. Since June, some of you may have noticed, "stuff happened". (In Virginia, for example, back in June, a SurveyUSA poll put Republican Incumbent Allen up 19 points. In Connecticut, Lieberman will win. Thanks to the netroots-endorsed Lamont challenge, he will re-enter the Senate with lessened enthusiasm and obligation to vote for Democratic causes for which he might lack personal conviction. Curiously, the same netroots enthusiastically supported Democratic primary candidates to the right of Lieberman (e.g., Casey in Pennsylvania). )

This year the mid-terms are not about the "traditional" battleground states, like Ohio and Pennsylvania. Contrary to my pre-empted June review, Casey winning in Pennsylvania is no longer the "key" to the Democratic chances in the Senate -- the Republicans have given up hope there.

Instead, we are looking at contests in the border states as the new "keys". In Virginia, where no sane person thought there was a chance of upsetting Allen; In Missouri, where sane Democrats didn't see themselves as welcome; and in Tennessee, where Bill Frist's seat was widely seen as a safe "R" not too long ago. Howard Dean isn't getting the credit he deserves, yet. Remember when he was laughed at for the 50-state strategy? Not so funny, now, is it? At least not if you are a Republican.

Today, the Wall Street Journal sees the Senate race coming down to the results in Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia. Rasmussen's most recent (October 20) "Balance of Power" report sees the toss-up states as Missouri, New Jersey, Tennessee, and Virginia. Pollster.com and The Washington Post agree that it is all riding on three states: Missouri, Tennessee, and Virginia. (I am currently inclined to believe that Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, Ohio, and Rhode Island will end up in the Dem column, along with Pennsylvania, which I called a long time ago.)

Eight, four, or three -- it doesn't matter. Simply talking about the Democratic chances of retaking the Senate in realistic terms seemed fantasy just a few months ago.

The WSJ list has some good summaries of the races in those key states, with links to solid sources of information and Pollster.com has all the polling data you could ever want.

While anything can happen in a close election, over the three weeks just past, it seems that everything has been breaking the Democrat's way. It is a well-polished axiom that incumbents faced with a close race often lose ground in the last three to five days of the contest, as unenthusiastic registered voters, independents, and undecideds (the great "tepid class") tend to break towards change.

This year that will hold again, with a slight but very significant difference -- ALL Republicans are "conceptual incumbents". For the "tepid class", this time around change will mean a vote for the Democrat, regardless which party holds the seat.

Tip O'Neill's observation about all politics being local isn't holding the day, at least in many of the Senate races we are watching. The Republicans may not like it -- and for certain there are local issues and concerns impacting some races -- but this midterm, more than any other in recent memory, is a direct referendum on President Bush and the Republican control of Washington. Neither are doing too well and there is scant time left to turn that around.

The Democrats might be down two, one out, in the bottom of the ninth, with Aaron Boone on deck. But, I like their chances right now.

{UPDATE} Rasmussen's latest on the NJ race (not released except to Premium Members yet) has the race dead even at 45-45. Pollster.com has now moved the NJ race into the toss-up category. Menendez has been a disappointment. NJ should not have been in play.

In Missouri, Rasmussen's (again, not public yet) latest poll gives Talent a 2-point advantage, 50-48%.

Virginia incumbent George Allen is a toenail ahead of Webb in Tennessee, 49%-48% (again, an unreleased Rasmussen survey).

In Ohio, SurveyUSA today released a death-blow poll for Mike DeWine (who is all in all not horrible as Rs go), giving Brown a 20-point lead, 57-37.

Harold Ford is 2-points ahead of Republican Corker, 47-45, according to an unreleased internal DSCC poll.

Summary only...

Slate Senate Scorecard Shifts Slightly to Republicans

Slate's latest analysis of the Senate races sees 46 going or leaning Democratic, 50 Republican, and four tossups. Yesterday, Rasmussen identified six tossups, including Tennessee and Ohio. In Tennessee, Slate has it leaning Republican, but with momentum to Democrat Harold Ford. Slate puts Ohio in the Leaning Dem category. They see Pennsylvania as solid Dem, giving Casey a double-digit advantage (50% - 38%) based on their 5-poll average.

Slate excludes internet polls from its polling analysis. This means that two most recent Zogby Polls are not included in their 5-poll average. Regardless, the results would be the same. As the Pollster polling data indicates, including the internet polls, the 5-poll average still results in a double-digit lead for Casey, 41%-40%.

Summary only...

Rasmussen Balance of Power -- Tossup

Rasmussen's latest Senate Balance of Power Report was released today. With Maria Cantwell (D) now polling with a double-digit lead, Rasmussen has moved Washington from the Leans Democratic to Democratic column. By Rasmussen's count, 49 States are in their Republican/Leans Republican tally, 45 are listed as Democratic/Leans Democratic, and six are tossups ---Tennessee, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Ohio, Missouri, and Montana. Rasmussen places Pennsylvania in the Leans Democratic category. (Rhode Island's primary is today (get the results here).) For a change in control of the Senate, the Democrats would have to win Pennsylvania (the only "Leans Dem" Republican seat), and each of the tossups.

Summary only...

It Takes (several) Million

Ned Lamont's win in Connecticut is widely credited in these parts (that is to say, the blogosphere) to the "netroots". So-called liberal bloggers who jumped on the anti-Lieberman bandwagon to support a somewhat awkward novice campaigner who, oh, by the way, had four million of his own to dump into his campaign. Among those taking bows after Lamont's 4-point win over Lieberman were Markos Moulitsis of Daily Kos, Duncan Black (a/k/a Atrios) of Eschaton, and Matt Stoller, Chris Bowers, and Jerome Armstrong, all of My DD. Together, these leaders in the self-labeled "liberal" blogosphere personally donated the aggregate sum of $750.00 to Lamont (and all of that came from Bowers and Stoller). But they leant him the more valuable support of their blogs.

These same liberal bloggers also supported Democratic candidates who supported the Bush Administration policies much more consistently than did Joe Lieberman who, regardless what you think of his position on the war, was a much more reliable Democratic vote than most other Democrats in Congress. Here in Pennsylvania, supporters of Chuck Pennacchio (your correspondent included) were astounded that they were unable to raise the kind of blog support for their man that Ned Lamont could raise. Particularly since his opponent in the primary, Bob Casey, held positions further to the right than Joe Lieberman.

The main talking points of these self-described liberals were that Pennacchio had never been elected to any office before and lacked financial support of the public. They apparently considered Lamont's township supervisor position superior training for the US Senate over Pennacchio's decades of expertise in foreign affairs and political science as a college professor.

The major difference between Pennacchio and Lamont was that Pennacchio had a few thousand bucks to throw into his campaign, while Lamont had a few million. That was Pennacchio's mistake -- before running for the Senate, he should have become a millionaire. Then he'd get the liberal blogger support.

Am I wrong? Ask Hong Tran. She's a smart, anti-war Democrat opposing war-supporter Maria Cantwell in Washington's Senatorial Primary. Like Pennacchio, she has very little personal wealth to throw into her candidacy, but a legitimate liberal record. Like Lamont, she's opposing a party-preferred candidate with a record of supporting the Bush administration's failed policies. But she has received little traction among the liberal bloggers. If only she had four million of her own money laying about . . . .

I love it that Lamont won and I hope he goes on to defeat Lieberman in the general election. I was anti-Lieberman long before it was popular. Lieberman's attempts to impose censorship on entertainment he found personally embarrassing long-ago painted him in my little mind.

But trading Joe Lieberman for Bob Casey in the Senate is a bad move. And that's the choice that the so-called liberal bloggers made when they decided to throw their weight behind Casey. Casey will get my vote, but not my support.

Summary only...