South Dakota Politics

American Politics and the Prevalence of Conservatism

Both myself and Prof. Blanchard have talked about the parties moving to the right after Tuesday's elections.  Today the New York Times also examines this shift in an article entitled "For Incoming Democrats, Populism Trumps Ideology."

I think this tells us a lot about the political climate of the United States today.  My colleague Prof. Blanchard has often discussed the demographic shift occurring in America via gaps in the electorate. Some of our left-of-center colleagues deride these reports, but I think there's something to be said about them and what it means for American politics.  But liberals have more than demographics challenging them: I see conservatism as having both demographics and history on its side, and Democrats need to realize this and react accordingly if they hope to win the competitive game of American politics.  We are, at root, a conservative nation.  Our Puritan roots gave us religiosity and a place for morality in public life.  The American Revolution gave us a constitutional system designed to limit the size of government and preserve the status quo.  We avoided the upheavals and revolutions of the Old World, and we often value individual freedom over social engineering.

Because of this, we stand apart from other first-world countries in that we provide fertile ground for a conservative movement.  In most other countries, the Right is a minority party or fringe group.  In America, conservatives march under similar banners - gun rights, land rights, tax reform, abortion, homosexuality, school prayer, law and order, family values.  The way of life is defined simply by traditionalism, suspicion of government, and support of individual choice - all grounded in history.

In the context of other conservative political groups around the world, conservatism in America is unique.  The NRA or Christian Coalition would not flourish in other countries as it has in the U.S.  Where else in the world do four in five people identify themselves as Christian? Where else do one in three households own guns?  Where else is home-schooling a legal right in every state?  Where else do 38 of 50 states approve of the death penalty?  America's historic unforgiving treatment of lawbreakers, its hostility to restrictions on laissez-faire, its confidence in the superiority of its social model, all set America apart from other nations. 

In a period of forty years, conservatism transformed from a minority fringe group to the dominant political philosophy in the country. Frankly, the future looks bleak for modern liberalism.  John Michelthwait and Adrian Wooldrige in their book The Right Nation wrote: "There are plenty of liberals in America, [but] liberalism as a governing philosophy is dead. . . . Any hope of liberal America breaking out of that stranglehold is limited by what might be called the rule of the two-thirds: only one-third of the population these days wears the Democratic label, and only one-third of those Democrats describe themselves as liberals." 

American conservatives have history and demographics on their side, with a growing population that leans politically Right.  Trends such as union decline to the War on Terror seem to indicate Republicans are America's natural party of government for the foreseeable future, or until the Democrats can halt their downward spiral into which their flawed leftward turn during the 1960s sent them.  A party unable to adopt conservative ideas cannot build an election-winning base in the United States.  We saw this last week with the elections; most Democratic candidates chosen to replace Republicans were center-right.  Republicans lost because they abandoned the principles that got them elected.  We can also look to the recent past: John Kerry lost in 2004 because he failed to court the old pillars of the Democratic coalition (ie, Ohioan blue-collar workers).  Stephanie Herseth maintains popularity in South Dakota because of her conservative beliefs.  Tom Daschle lost because he became a D.C. Democrat.  Modern liberalism has exhausted itself as an important political force.  Like it or not, conservatives have set the political agenda for the past four decades, churned out new ideas and tightened the hold on the legislature and judiciary.  It's a dismal outlook for anyone who believes George W. Bush is an anomaly, or that the Right's dominance in American is somehow artificial.

UPDATE:  Also consider not only the legislators who were elected, but legislation that was adopted by states: Michigan has decided to ban affirmative action, while seven of eight states banned gay marriage.  There's something to be said of these issues.  Think about this as you continue to ponder Tuesday's results.

Happy Veterans Day

This day signals the end of World War I, the anniversary of the signing of the armistic that ended the war on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month in 1918.  President Woodrow Wilson first commemorated Armistic Day in 1919, and many states made it a legal holiday.  Congress made it a legal holiday in 1938, "dedicated to the cause of world peace and to be hereafter celebrated and known as 'Armistice Day.'" 

"Remembering the elevens" would remain the custom until 1954.  On November 11, 1953, the citizens of Emporia, Kansas, staged a Veterans Day observance in lieu of an Armistic Day remembrance.  Subsequently, Congressman Ed Rees of Kansas introduced legislation to change the name of Armistic Day to Veterans Day.  A letter-writing campaign was launched to secure the support of all the state governors and the holiday was officially changed to Veterans Day on June 1, 1954.

In 1968, the Uniforms Holiday Bill guaranteed three-day weekends for Federal employees by celebrating four national holidays on Mondays: George Washington's birthday, Memorial Day, Veterans Day, and Columbus Day (Native American Day).  Under this bill, Veterans Day was shifted to the last Monday of October (though many states still continued to celebrate on its original date).  The first Veterans Day under the new law was observed on October 25, 1971.   After protests by veterans, President Gerald R. Ford returned the observance to November 11.

Today we take the time to honor and remember all of our veterans, past and present.  We're proud of your courage, proud of your sacrifice, and may God bless you and our country.

The Left Coast

Reuters:  "Student leaders at a California college have touched off a furor by banning the Pledge of Allegiance at their meetings, saying they see no reason to publicly swear loyalty to God and the U.S. government."

My Other Vehicle is a Tardis

For some Friday night frivolity, I urge anyone even slightly fond of science fiction to watch Sci Fi Channel's Doctor Who.  I blogged about season one over the summer, I think.  It is exactly what a series revival ought to be: faithful to the spirit of the original series, but refined and enlarged so that a fan can take the same pleasure in it as an adult that he once enjoyed as a child.  Or what is the same thing, as a graduate student, which was when I first got to watch Tom Baker flying about time and space in his Tardis, a space ship disguised as a police box.   Perhaps the shrewdest move was to keep the original score.  I have been humming it all night.   

Season Two opened with a new actor portraying The Doctor.  This was a device inherited from the BBC series, which explained each new actor by a process of transformation in the wandering Time Lord.  My wife noticed before I did that David Tennant played the Death Eater disciple of Lord Voldemort in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. 

The writing in season one was very good.  The writing in season two is much better than that.  The plots draw deeply from contemporary politics and European history.  In one episode, the Doctor saves Queen Victoria from a werewolf.  Not a real werewolf, of course.  That would be silly. It was actually an extraterrestrial invader.  In another, the Doctor pops into various moments in the life of Madame de Pompadour, Mistress of Louis XV.  For him, these visits were minutes apart, but for her they were separated by decades.   This temporal disjunction had tragic consequences that left me, quite literally, with tears tracing down my face. 

In the first encounter with Mme. Pompadour, when she is seven years old, the Doctor dispatches a demonic attacker in her bedroom. The Doctor tries to comfort her by telling a small lie, but this shrewd femme is not easily lied to.   Here is my rough memory of the dialog.

Go back to sleep, this is only a nightmare. 
But I'm wide awake, she insists. 
So you are, the Doctor replies.  Then perhaps it was the monster's nightmare. 
What do monsters dream about when they have nightmares?
Well, says the Doctor, I suppose that they dream about me. 

That is the Doctor.  Television drama is much better in recent years than it ever was when I was young.  Doctor Who fans have much to be thankful for. 

Note on Krauthamer and Abortion

Thoughtful reader Gene K. sent me this kind note:

Professor Blanchard,  Your recent post by Krauthamer is right on.  It is in the same vein as your comments on the abortion several weeks ago—I thought you rationally provided a straight forward pragmatic way ahead on that issue.  The results on the referendum did not surprise me—I had dinner with my Dad (92) and four of his widowed sisters when I last visited in September—they are thoughtful, well informed and from their comments it was clear they very much disliked the idea of abortion but it was not going to be easy to vote yes. The conversation was similar to what my wife and I would have with our children around the dinner table a few years ago on the topic of abortion—at a personal level it gets messy—few of us are equipped to live out the ideal.  As an aside, we would all put post dinner conversation topics in a sugar bowl every couple of weeks and 3 or 4 times a week we would pull a topic to discuss—we all enjoyed it so much that we still sometimes do it when they visit.  I was first exposed to this in the wardroom mess on one ship—when we were at sea after dinner in the evening a topic would be pulled from the sugar bowl and the Captain would call on us individually to comment or rebut what was said—it was always entertaining and productive but unlike in my home politics and religion were off limits.  

A little about the Virginia senate election. Many observers have said that George Allen’s campaign was one of the worst—could be—I’m not a campaign professional.  I think the success of the Webb campaign was due not only to the character of the candidate but also to, Steve Jarding, his campaign manager.  Webb had never run for elective office, did not declare as a primary candidate until Feb 06, beat the Democratic party candidate in a bitter primary—he won because in VA the primary’s are open elections, had only $300K in August to Allen’s $6Million, and didn’t start campaigning until after Labor Day.  Allen made mistakes but this really didn’t surprise the voters in VA since everyone has a few warts and he was very popular.  The other event that pushed Webb over the top were the NRC personal negative ads the last 7-10 days—they may bring out the base but there is no doubt that he lost the 7,000+ votes in the middle with those ads—which brings us back to your post on Krauthamer.

I noticed one other change this election and that is the emergence of ‘new media’—the netroots.  Webb’s only early support was from these folks.  I know it played a role in the Thune/Daschle race two years ago and it certainly contributed to Webb’s success.  

Still enjoy your blog—you do it well.  Thanks,  Gene

Thank you, Gene.  I am with you on all counts.  I would just add that Allen would certainly have won, and kept the Senate for the Republicans, if he had not made a number of disastrous unforced errors over the summer.  All of these were rookie mistakes, and the candidate has to take responsibility for them.  Toward the end of the campaign Allen was himself was quoting from Webb's novels, thus taking the role of attack dog.  Regardless of what you think about that issue, a candidate who does not know better than this deserves to be beaten. 

Note from a Libertarian Conservative

Rich W sends this kind note to us at SDP:

I really enjoy reading your blog. You express yourself clearly and without the meanness and name calling so prevalent in today's politics.

I don't consider myself a conservative in today's sense of the word. I'm a libertarian conservative who has long been banished by the "true" conservatives (ie social conservatives). Hence, I've become an independent voter.

I vote Democrat when I feel the social conservatives are becoming too intrusive. I vote Republican when I see the economic liberals try to advance a starry eyed socialist agenda that we can't possibly afford.

This election, for me, was about sending the social conservatives a message. The Shiavo affair, intelligent design in Kansas and gay marriage initiatives are a few examples of issues that made my choice to vote for the dems easy.

I think Republicans, especially social conservatives, have forgotten that there are people who agree whole heartedly with their economic and tax polices but are quite socially liberal. I don't ask that social conservatives ignore their deeply held religious beliefs. I just ask that they realize that some of these issues are best decided by individuals (end of life issues) and not by government. That is true conservatism in my book.

Anyways, I do enjoy your blog greatly. It's a refreshing change from the sites populating by people who would rather debate a straw man than a real person. Keep up the good work.

Thanks, Rich.  I like to think of SDP as a voice of reason on the moderate right.  Somehow our colleagues on the left do not always see it that way. 

The distinct you make between Libertarian Conservatives and Social Conservatives is an important one.  I first saw it appear quite visibly at a Philadelphia Society meeting many years ago.  As long as the room was focused on economic issues like taxes and regulation, it was one big, happy, family.  But as soon as abortion was mentioned it was like Moses parting the waters. 

I admire libertarians.  Some of my best friends are libertarians.  I confess myself inclined to libertarian sentiments on such matters as the right to end life.  I, too, think the Shiavo case was a debacle for conservatives.  I find libertarians hard to argue with because, unlike conservatives, they always know exactly what they think. 

But that is why I cannot call myself a libertarian.  I just think political and moral problems are often too messy to resolve with so simple a principle as let people do what they want.  More importantly, I think that libertarian principles work well only in a culture which enjoys a legacy of a strong collective morality.  Respect for the rights of others emerges out of centuries of Biblical discipline imposed by strong churches.  Only if human dignity is seen as in some sense sacred will libertarian principles have any purchase. 

I think many libertarians recognize this, but they have a hard time taking it seriously.  They are really sure that if everyone (or at least, everyone past a certain age) gets to make all his or her own decisions on stem cell research, or abortion, or euthanasia, unencumbered by community will, that we will all behave responsibly.  Maybe so.    But if unencumbered will is the only standard, sooner or later a few like-minded folk will decided that the sum of their wills can be imposed on anyone they like.  To resist that takes a stronger force from a collective morality that recognizes human freedom as a value.  Again, I don't think that libertarians would disagree.  But the difference for social conservatives is that they never take that collective morality for granted.

But libertarians are clearly an indispensable part of the conservative coalition, and SDP is glad to have such readers. 

Suffling the GOP Leadership II

W$J Opinion Journal:  "Bridge to Somewhere: The House GOP needs a new generation of leaders."

Iraqpundit

Iraqpundit:

Al Qaeda and Iran are both gloating over the U.S. election results. AQ's chief in Iraq, Abu Hamza Al-Muhajir, actually mocked Bush while praising the Democrats' victory in the congressional mid-term contests. According to an audio tape message attributed to Al-Mujahir, Americans had "voted for something reasonable in the last elections."

Meanwhile, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei stated that the Republican defeat at the polls "is actually an obvious victory for the Iranian nation."

The White House has declined to comment on these statements, but what about the Democrats? Doesn't it behoove the Democrats to correct the claim that their ascension to power is good news for the enemies of the U.S.? Don't they want to move quickly to disabuse Al Qaeda of the idea that Democrats represent something that these butchers deem "reasonable"?

...

Democrats don't have a party position on what to do in Iraq. But surely they have a party position on whether they want to be embraced by the likes of Al Qaeda and Iran. Don't they? Speak up, Democrats, or Al Qaeda and the Iranian mullahs will find your silence only too eloquent.

Antitrust

The Justice Department has extended its antitrust investigation of Smithfield Foods' plan to purchase Premium Standard Farms of Missouri, which would merge the nation's two largest hog producers.  Argus Leader excerpt:

The U.S. Justice Department this week extended its antitrust investigation of Smithfield Foods' $800 million plan to buy Premium Standard Farms of Missouri, a sale that would merge the nation's two biggest hog producers.

Virginia-based Smithfield, the parent company of John Morrell & Co. in Sioux Falls, and Premium Standard said in a statement that they received requests for more information from federal regulators related to the acquisition. Neither the companies nor federal investigators provided further detail. The request extends the investigation by at least a month.

The request by Justice's antitrust division delays the waiting period imposed by federal law until 30 days after the two firms comply with the new request.

That's noteworthy, because Smithfield wants to close the deal by early next year, and it had planned to have the antitrust concerns addressed this year. It's not clear what the deadline is for the investigation, but the latest request pushes it into at least December.

Smithfield's move for Premium Standard Farms is among a string of acquisitions the company has made this year. It spent move than $1 billion on deals this year, and that had a major effect on Sioux Falls.

Yepsen on Vilsack

Des Moines Register political columnist David Yepsen  evaluates Gov. Tom Vilsack's odds at winning the presidency.  Excerpt:

The odds are Gov. Tom Vilsack fails in his bid to become the next president. But he still must scratch the itch. And the consolation prizes aren't shabby.

Polls show the governor runs badly in his own home state. They also show a majority of Iowans don't think he should get into this race, and they give him only modest job-approval ratings. Some liberals in the state don't like him, and he gets only 3 percent among likely Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire. He'll have to raise tens of millions of dollars to be a viable national candidate.

As governor of the leadoff state in the presidential-nominating process, Vilsack can't really win much in Iowa either. Other candidates won't give him a pass here, yet if he wins the 2008 Iowa caucuses, the political community will dismiss it as "expected." If he loses, it will be considered a huge rejection by the people who know him best - and not a great commendation to voters in New Hampshire.

Also, Vilsack has no particular expertise on the foreign-policy and defense questions of the day. While other governors from small states have run for and won the White House in recent times, (Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton), they did so on the strength of domestic issues Americans wanted resolved at the time (restoring integrity in government, improving the economy). Leading up to 2008, voters will want a war resolved and terrorists fought.

But let's not be too dismissive. Both Carter and Clinton have taught us not to pooh-pooh obscure governors early in a presidential campaign. And home-state audiences often have a hard time seeing a presidential frame around the local guy. Vilsack's early reviews in New Hampshire have been decent.

Troops Fear the Loss of Rumsfeld

Ed Morrissey:  Troops Fear The Loss Of Rumsfeld

Be sure to give it a read.  You get a clear contrast between the London Times' and the New York Times' reporting of the war and our military.

USMC

Today is the birthday of the United States Marine Corps.  The new Marine Corps Museum is set to open today at Quantico: "a monument to honor, courage and commitment." 

The USMC traces its institutional roots to the Continental Marines of the American Revolution, formed at the Tun Tavern in Philadelphia by a resolution of the Continental Congress on November 10, 1775.  At the end of the Revolution, the Continental Navy and the Marines were disbanded only to be resurrected in 1798.  In preparation for a Naval war with France, Congress created the United States Navy and Marine Corps.

"The brave have always defined what the rest of us wish to be. But bravery is misunderstood. It’s not the absence of fear, but the will to overcome it."
- U.S. Marines Corps

Semper fi.  More about the Marines from W. Thomas Smith Jr.

Affirmative Action Voted Down in Michigan

From Inside Higher Ed:

Michigan voters on Tuesday approved a ban on affirmative action at the state’s public colleges and in government contracting. The vote came despite opposition to the ban from most academic and business leaders in the state — and the history in which the University of Michigan played a key role in preserving the right of colleges to consider race as a factor in admissions.

McGovern

Associated Press:  "George McGovern, the former senator and Democratic presidential candidate, said Thursday that he will meet with more than 60 members of Congress next week to recommend a strategy to remove U.S. troops from Iraq by June."

Election Heat: Consolation Prize Edition

I have been enjoying Charles Krauthamer for many years.  Here is his consoling take on the 2006 debacle. 

[T]he great Democratic wave of 2006 is nothing remotely like the great structural change some are trumpeting. It was an event-driven election that produced the shift of power one would expect when a finely balanced electorate swings mildly one way or the other.

This is not realignment. As has been the case for decades, American politics continues to be fought between the 40-yard lines. The Europeans fight goal line to goal line, from socialist left to the ultranationalist right. On the American political spectrum, these extremes are negligible. American elections are fought on much narrower ideological grounds. In this election, the Democrats carried the ball from their own 45-yard line to the Republican 45-yard line.

The fact that the Democrats crossed midfield does not make this election a great anti-conservative swing. Republican losses included a massacre of moderate Republicans in the Northeast and Midwest. And Democratic gains included the addition of many conservative Democrats, brilliantly recruited by Rep. Rahm Emanuel with classic Clintonian triangulation. Hence Heath Shuler of North Carolina, anti-abortion, pro-gun, anti-tax -- and now a Democratic congressman.

     The result is that both parties have moved to the right. The Republicans have shed the last vestiges of their centrist past, the Rockefeller Republican. And the Democrats have widened their tent to bring in a new crop of blue-dog conservatives.

I like that bit about both parties moving to the right.  It reminds me of someone's witty comment that when Governor John Connally of Texas joined the Republicans he raised the average intelligence of both parties. 

POTUS Daschle Watch

Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack has declared his bid for the presidency.  This screws up Tom Daschle's only chance of becoming President.  If he can't carry Iowa, he's done:

Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, a centrist Democrat seeking an early edge in an all-but-certain crowded presidential field, launched a long-shot bid for the White House Thursday.

Fifteen months before his own state holds caucuses -- the first step in the nominating process -- Vilsack announced his candidacy, filed documents with the Federal Election Commission and heralded a multistate tour beginning Nov. 30.

The governor is the first Democrat to file for the presidency although a number of better known candidates are presumed to be running.

''Americans sent a clear message on Tuesday. They want leaders who will take this country in a new direction,'' he said in a statement. ''They want leaders who share their values, understand their needs, and respect their intelligence. That's what I've done as governor of Iowa, and that's what I intend to do as president.''

Iowa Voice comments:  "I'll be blunt.  This man has less of a chance at being elected President than I do.  He has virtually no support here in Iowa for a run at the Oval Office. And if you can't get solid backing from your own state, well...that kind of says a lot.  Of course, the Presidential election is two years away, and a lot could happen. But I don't think he can win the nomination, let alone the Presidency."  Decision '08 agrees.

Go Cavaliers!

Good luck to the Roncalli Cavaliers of Aberdeen who seek to complete a perfect season this weekend by winning the 11B football championship.  The team has yet to be scored on this year, outscoring their opponents 508-0.

Blue Dog Democrats

I mentioned yesterday that Congress now has an abundance of Blue Dog Democrats (remember, Republicans had lost but conservatism still won; many of the new Democrats were center-right candidates).  Today the Times Online has a story about the Blue Dogs:

They wear cowboy boots, chew tobacco, love hunting, hate abortion, want less government spending — and some voted for Ronald Reagan. Now they are headed to Congress as Democrats.

Although the Democrats’ victory was above all an overwhelming repudiation of the conflict in Iraq, it was also built on the back of moderate, often conservative candidates recruited to compete in traditionally Republican territory.

When Congress returns in January, both the House and Senate will see something of an ideological shift, with an influx of freshmen Democrats who, while unified in their opposition to the war, are well to the right of the party’s current caucus on cultural issues.

Their success reflects a resurgence of “Blue Dog” Democrats — socially conservative but generally economic populists — across the Midwest, and a bold new strategy to target the Republican-leaning West and South West — states such as Colorado, Wyoming and New Mexico — as a way of winning back the White House in 2008.

The Democrats now have their own chance at big-tent governing.  We'll see how they do.  According to the article, many of these new candidates they actively recruited oppose new taxes and the New Direction plan that calls for big increases in social spending.  With a razor-thin majority, maintaining good favor with these candidates will be very important.

East River-West River

The Rapid City Journal quotes my favorite political scientist (me) this morning. The article is about why West River, which is thought to be more conservative, did not give as much support of the marriage amendment or the abortion law as did East River. 

In other media news, it looks like I will discussing the novel 1984 with Todd Epp on Monday.  That should be a hoot.  Tune into South Dakota Public Radio at noon Central Time.  Todd and I are the 12:20 guests. 

McGovern

David Broder of the Washington Post writes about George McGovern's "council of elders" in an article entitled "Beyond Election Day."  Excerpt:

Let me now climb down from my soapbox and tell you about a letter I recently received from former senator George McGovern, telling me that he is forming a bipartisan "Council of Elders," wise men and women who will occasionally consult informally with each other and be available, individually, to counsel people making public policy.

The 1972 Democratic presidential nominee, still writing and speaking at age 84, points out that America has never developed a habit or mechanism for keeping its most experienced figures engaged even in advisory roles. His council is an informal stab in that direction.

Among others, McGovern has enlisted such liberals as historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr.; former interior secretary Stewart Udall; journalists Lewis Lapham and Gloria Steinem; Carrie Lee Nelson, the outspoken and humorous widow of former senator Gaylord Nelson; and former senators Tom Eagleton and John Culver. Balancing them are several notable Republicans, including former Senate majority leader Howard Baker, former majority whip Alan Simpson and Rep. Henry Hyde.

Soldiers on SDBP

A reader has informed us that tomorrow Staff Sergeant Brook Shield and Army Infantry Platoon Leader Joel Arends will be talking about their experiences in Iraq on South Dakota Public Radio's Noon Forum.  Be sure to tune in if you can.

Shuffling the GOP Leadership

The AP reported earlier today that Speaker Hastert has decided not to run for House Minority leader.  The National Journal reports that Congressman Mike Pence will seek that spot.  And, as I reported already, Rumsfeld is on the way out.

Donald Rumsfeld. . .

. . . has resigned.  There has been a lot of disillusionment with Rumsfeld lately.  Andrew Sullivan has been calling for his resignation for quite a while.  Jules Crittenden called for his resignation earlier, and four military papers called for him to be replaced.  Given the polarizing nature of Rumsfeld and, obviously, the war itself, much of the criticism of the SecDef was lost in the fog of politics, though some could point to specifics. 

It probably would've helped the Republicans in the election had Bush gotten rid of Rumsfeld--it would've signaled a new direction and help win over some doubters.  But that's all beside the point now.  I think Rummy has been good for the military and for the war effort, but perhaps it is time for some fresh ideas.  I wish Secretary Rumsfeld the best of luck in whatever he pursues now.  And I congratulate former CIA Director Robert Gates for his nomination as a replacement.  We'll see how the confirmation hearings go for him.  No doubt they'll be enjoyable.

State Legislative Squeaker

Take a look at this one.

SOUTH DAKOTA                SENATE DIST 03
100% Reporting
HOERTH		D	4,837	50%
LATTERELL		R	4,805	50%

Thirty-three more Republicans, and Latterell would'a been over the top.

Election 2006

As expected, the Democrats have taken the House, gaining about two dozen seats, and look poised to take the Senate as well.  I agree with Prof. Blanchard and Prof. Schaff, that the Republicans deserved to lose.  This loss was about GOP performance.  Had they not made a number of unneccessary errors and instead stuck to their principles.  It is time now for an overhaul in GOP leadership, and I hope we will see one.

Perhaps more importantly, the Democrats now have a chance to govern instead of just carp.  How they act over the next two years will determine their feasibility for the White House in 2008.  Hopefully the bitterness and lack of responsibility that has plagued the Democrats will recede a bit.  Republicans would be wise to ensure they don't descend into similar bitterness if they wish to convince voters why they should lead government again.  Be aware, also, that there are a lot of Blue Dog Democrats now in Congress after yesterday. 

Here's a big roundup from Pajama's Media.  NRO also has a symposium of post-mortems featuring input from several political writers.

In honor of (or because of) the House of Blues we now have, I'll be listening to Miles Davis's Kind of Blue today because, well, the blues have won.

UPDATE:  Joe Gandelman beat me to the punch and has produced a list of factors that lead to a GOP defeat, as well as a great roundup of media and blog reactions.  Be sure to give it a read.

UPDATE:  More thoughts from John Hinderacker.

UPDATE:  Austin Bay voices what I've been thinking all day:

The big race in 2006 was Lamont versus Lieberman. Joe Lieberman won. That’s a warning to Nancy Pelosi and Co. If they go “nutsroots-Lamont Left” they will squander their victory. Ed Driscoll suggests 2006 is a race-to-the center. Lieberman has carved out one the strongest personal political positions in America. For Joe, November lemonade from the lemons of August.

Joe Lieberman is this man. Nancy Pelosi had better pay attention.

Abortion Politics

George Will once had a funny line that every social program ever proposed by liberals has been a success because the purpose of the liberal programs are to make liberals feel better about themselves.  I think the same could be said for pro-lifers on HB 1225/Referred Law 6.  Sure, I get all the arguments for the pure pro-life position, but when even I am questioning how to vote then you've written a bill that goes beyond public opinion.  If they had passed a law with rape and incest provisions we'd be celebrating a pro-life victory this morning and we'd have banned 98% of the abortions in South Dakota.  Instead we are licking wounds.  But at least we can pat ourselves on the back for being consistent in our pro-life convictions.  That's a moral victory.  And moral victories are a kind of victory.  But, in another more important sense, they are losses.  What good does it do to pass a law that has only iffy support of the people and has no hope of surviving a legal challenge?  Legislators should go back and write a bill that includes exceptions for rape, incest, and serious physical health threats to the mother.  Define with exactness what "serious physical health threat" means.  You'll have a bill that 75% of South Dakotan's accept and also one that the Supreme Court might actually use to overturn Roe v. Wade.  That'd be a real victory. 

Look On The Sunny Side!

As predicted, the sun is coming up.  After last night, Ken Blanchard can no longer dump on my prognosticating abilities.  I pretty much called the election and I got that whole sun coming up thing correct, too. 

I find myself agreeing with John Podhoretz.  It is good for the country to give the Democrats the responsibility to govern rather than just being nay sayers.  If it were not for the courts, I'd say the same thing about the presidency in 2008.  Here's Podhoretz:

I feel strangely exhilarated by the results last night. I think we're seeing a major shift in the way things are going to work on Capitol Hill from here on out. Democrats ruled for 40 years in the House before the GOP came in. The GOP had 12 years. My guess is that Democrats may have two, or four, or six years at the most before power changes hands again — and the GOP will have the same before Dems get it. This is the healthiest possible development for our political system. Chairmen will not get too comfortable. Lobbyists won't quite know whom to suck up to. The treatment of the minority party as a political pariah with no power will begin to alter itself once House leaders in the majority begin to feel they will be back in the minority one day. It could be a new and more fluid era, and that's all to the good.

Doom and Gloom

Hey, at least we had nice weather yesterday!  I am with Ken, the Republicans got creamed because they deserved to.  Some really incompetent Republicans lost and they took some of the good ones with them (like Santorum and my former representative, Gil Gutneckt of Minnesota).  In 2004 Kerry and the Dems tried to make the election a referendum on Bush by running what I call "the campaign about nothing."  They hoped that by saying nothing the electorate's displeasure with Bush and the Republicans would bring Kerry and the Dems to victory.  But Bush did a good enough job of sowing doubts about Kerry and giving some confidence in his own leadership.  But that didn't happen this time because a) Bush was not out in front making the case, and b) the voters are even more displeased with Bush and the Republicans. 

Sure, the media is biased on Iraq (do you really think 94% of what is happening there is bad), but Bush has made two fatal errors, in my opinion.  First, he has not been out front leading like a war leader.  He should be teaching the American people about Iraq, not deferring to the New York Times.  Second, the administration has a pathological fear of admitting mistakes.  Anyone with the slightest bit of historical knowledge understands that no war goes as planned and that, like in football, the ability to adjust to new circumstances is key.  But the administration has taken the virtue of "staying the course" and made it the sum of their policy, turning it into a vice.  Bush and the Republicans could have done much better by admitting some mistakes.  This would be good policy and carry the additional virtue of showing the public that you understand their uneasiness. 

South Dakota Politics

I swung by the Republican gathering at the Aberdeen Ramada Inn, and the Novstrups (A and D) were cautiously optimistic.  It was charming to hear David Novstrup say "Dad's ahead of me."  Here are the latest numbers from the Secretary of State's Office. 

DIST 03 STATE HOUSE
   (D) BLACK          THOMAS
          BROWN               2310       25            6            10
          MCPHERSON            144       15            3             3
       *******TOTAL:          2454       24            9            13


   (D) KNEEBONE       TED
          BROWN               1907       21            6            10
          MCPHERSON            154       16            3             3
       *******TOTAL:          2061       20            9            13


   (R) NOVSTRUP       DAVID
          BROWN               2380       26            6            10
          MCPHERSON            344       35            3             3
       *******TOTAL:          2724       27            9            13


   (R) NOVSTRUP,      AL
          BROWN               2579       28            6            10
          MCPHERSON            337       34            3             3
       *******TOTAL:          2916       29            9            13

That puts Al and David ahead, with 9 out of 13 districts counted.  I endorsed David on the grounds that he knew his way around Microsoft Excel.  I would note that Al gave me a very interesting tour of the numbers based on demographics, and where each candidate should expect to be polling well.  Politics is a gas.  Especially when you appear to be winning. 

Governor Rounds and Representative Stephanie Herseth have both won comfortably. 

SOUTH DAKOTA                U.S. REPRESENTATIVE
63% Reporting
HERSETH		D	137,376	70%
WHALEN		R	56,038	29%
RUDEBUSCH		L	2,959	2%

SOUTH DAKOTA                GOVERNOR
63% Reporting
ROUNDS		R	123,092	62%
BILLION		D	70,291	36%
WILLIS		C	2,236	1%
GERBER		L	1,862	1%

One of these days I will have to run for Governor.  I don't actually want to be Governor.  I would just like to tell how I got 1% of the vote, but lost my daughter. 

The abortion bill (Referred Law 6) appears headed for defeat, but Amendment C, writing gay marriage out of the state constitution, is winning.  The tobacco tax will pass, but medical marijuana . . . I think not, in inverse proportion to what South Dakotans are smoking. 

The best news is that Amendment E, on judicial liability, is being crushed.  Good thing. 

Lord, but I love democracy. 

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Federal Election Edition

I survived election night 1992 with a bottle of good scotch and a fistful of handrolled cigars.  By 10 pm I was looking into the open end of the Johnny Walker black like it was a telescope.  By 11 I was watching the weather channel.  It can be remarkably comfortable knowing the baremetric pressure in Sydney. 

Tonight will not be so bad for Republicans as that, but they are taking it on the chin.  I have been faithfully dishing out false hope to wishful thinkers over the last couple days, but I am all out of fairy dust.  The Republicans have lost the House.  They might hang onto the Senate by a seat or two.  Just at this moment (10:36 pm), George Allen, who deserves to lose if any Republican incumbent does, is hanging onto a very narrow lead with 98% of the precincts reporting.  I am guessing Webb will take the lead, based on Michael Barone's analysis of the remaining districts.  Republicans can hope that lady luck still smiles on fools. 

So much for the bad and the ugly.  On the good side, Joe Lieberman was reelected as an independent.  All the Kosacks accomplished in pushing the Lamont insurgency was a nominal loss of a safe Democratic Senate seat.

Allow me to make good on a promise I made in an earlier post.  The Republicans lost fair and square.  The Democrats didn't win because they cheated, or because of some oozing malignancy they represented, or because the press was biased.  They lost because they do not enjoy the confidence of the electorate.  That is what is supposed to happen. 

Oh, and Daniel Ortega, Sandinista superstar, won the Presidency in Nicaragua.  No analogy intended.  Really.*

*For the benefit of some of my fondest critics, that was a joke. 

That About Says It

I like this post by Steven Hayward.  Oh well, this is what happens when your are incompetent.  Cheer up Republicans.  The sun will come up tomorrow.

Update: Random thought: If you are Bruce Whalen, do you call Stephanie Herseth to concede?  I mean, won't she pick up the phone and say, "Bruce who?" 

General Election

For those looking for real-time results of the general election, check out the secretary of state's website that is covering statewide totals.

Fox News is reporting that Rounds has defeated Billion, and it's pretty clear that will be the case when you follow the link.  Herseth looks set to defeat Whalen as well, which is no real surprise.

Mailbag

An astute observer in Pierre emails:

Here’s the word from the highest levels in Pierre.  Governor Rounds will probably win re-election with about 60% of the vote, despite the unrelenting war waged against him by the Argus Leader.  That will be EIGHT TIMES IN A ROW that the Republicans have won the governorship in South Dakota.  Stop and think about that for a minute—8 in a row.  That streak shows the strength of the GOP in South Dakota.  Why the Democratic candidates for governor are always so lame is hard to explain.  As for the legislature this year, the needle will move but not by much.  The Democrats might win a few Senate seats, perhaps Heidepriem and maybe that Turbak lawyer in Watertown who is the big liberal activist.  But they won’t have Adelstein anymore, who was labeled a “Republican” but is really a Democrat, so this probably counts as a loss for the Dems.  Remember also that a number of pretend “Republicans” lost in the June primaries, so that hurts the Democrats.  The Democrats can celebrate a victory by Herseth, who could get as much as 80% since her opponent was so weak.  Everyone is already talking about 2010, especially the race for Governor.  Some think Brett Healy (if he wins tonight) will probably run for the nomination against Scott Heidepriem, but some insist that Herseth will run for Governor in 2010 and Heidepriem will run against Thune.  Others insist that Herseth will challenge Thune in 2010, while still others say she’ll wait until Tim Johnson retires in 2014 and run for his seat (and give her seat to Tim Johnson’s son Brendan).  The big question mark this year is Referred Law 6, which few people can really predict.  But if it loses, the legislature will probably just pass another ban with some exceptions which are more clear, so all this shouting will not have mattered much.  So, dear friends at SDP, basically this will be a status quo election in South Dakota.

In related Pierre news, KELOLand is reporting that election turnout has been heavy in Pierre.

Dems Watching Key Senate Race

Argus Leader:

Political observers don’t expect the anticipated national Democratic Party movement – which some say could give the left control of the U.S. House – to play out similarly in South Dakota.

But key Senate races in the Sioux Falls area will be important this election in a push by South Dakota Democrats to get a little closer to equality in the state Legislature.

Democrats held just 10 of 35 Senate seats and 19 of 70 House seats during the last two sessions.

It’s been a dozen years since they controlled either house – the Senate in 1993 and 1994 with a 20-15 edge.

To make gains this year, the Democrats are pushing hard in Sioux Falls.

Some of the Senate races that are thought to be close are:

— District 11 – Republican Sen. Jason Gant faces Rebekah Cradduck. She’s a former GOP lawmaker who lost in the 2004 primary and who changed her registration last spring to challenge the incumbent. Constitution Party candidate Scott Bartlett is running as well.

— District 12 – Republican Sen. Bill Earley, who has a leadership seat on the Appropriations Committee, faces Democrat Sandy Jerstad, well known in the city in part for having coached Augustana College women’s softball for years.

— District 13 – Republican Sen. Dick Kelly faces Democrat Scott Heidepriem, who once was a Republican legislator from Miller.

Just When You Thought We Couldn't Sink Any Lower

Political ads reach a new low.  Oh, the humanity. 

Vote Yes Signs Stolen

From KELO:

11/07/2006

Young Sign Thieves Caught

Three Pierre teenagers picked the wrong house to swipe political yard signs. The state trooper who lives in the home caught them red-handed. The teens had stolen 23 campaign signs throughout the capital city.

All of the signs were posted on behalf of those who are pressing for enactment of a proposed law that would ban most abortions in South Dakota.

The trooper made the teenagers return all of the signs and apologize to the home owners.

POTUS Daschle?

Mount Blogmore reports that while on News Hour, Tom Daschle announced he would decide next year if he's running for president.  I don't have time to expand on these thoughts, but here are a few preliminary ones: I don't like Daschle's chances if he did decide to run.  He may have name recognition, but I don't think he carries the same amount of swagger that we expect from, say, Hillary Clinton.  Plus, with the popularity if young guns like Barack Obama, it might just be too difficult for him to gain serious traction as a Democratic presidential hopeful.  Perhaps this begs the question: what should we look for in a successful presidential candidate?  And, given that criteria, does Daschle fit the mold?

Lalley and the "New" Argus

From the Argus Leader blog:

There’s been a lot of conversation about the changes we’ve made at the Argus Leader. Many of you like the increased connectivity with the community through the Voices section and online. Others are disappointed with the reduction in the amount of national and international news.

It’s a good discussion and it’s been interesting to hear your comments over the last several weeks. The Argus Leader is a community newspaper and many of the changes made are an effort to more effectively connect with the people who read it. I think we’ve done that but we will continue to try and give you the kind of news and information you’re looking for.

Here’s an interesting article from Wired magazine about the changes under way across Gannett, which owns the Argus Leader. As you will read in this article, your Argus Leader is at the forefront of the changes happening across the newspaper industry. It’s not always easy, but it is exciting. I welcome your input.

Sutton Investigation May Be Public

Excerpt from the Aberdeen American News:

The South Dakota Senate likely will hold all proceedings in public when it convenes a special session later this month to investigate allegations of sexual misconduct against Sen. Dan Sutton, D-Flandreau, a legislative leader said Monday.

"I think it will be open," said Sen. Ed Olson, R-Mitchell, who has been helping organize the session as chairman of the Legislature's Executive Board, a panel that handles administrative matters for the Legislature.

The Senate is scheduled to convene Nov. 27 to look into allegations that Sutton "sexually groped" an 18-year-old high school student who worked as a page during this year's legislative session.

"A View of Abortion with Something to Offend Everybody"

Tomorrow,  I predict, South Dakotans will vote to keep abortion legal with virtually no restrictions (the national status quo, thanks to the Supreme Court).  That is democracy, one supposes, but those who advocate abortion rights should be told what they are doing, thus I post something I have posted before from one of my favorite authors, Walker Percy.  This appeared in the New York Times in 1981.

June 8, 1981

By Walker Percy

A View of Abortion with Something to Offend Everybody

ovington, La. -- I feel like saying something about this abortion issue.  My credentials as an expert on the subject:  none.  I am an M.D. and a novelist.  I will speak only as a novelist.  If I give an opinion as an M.D., it wouldn't interest anybody since, for one thing, any number of doctors have given opinions and who cares about another.

The only obvious credential of a novelist has to do with his trade.  He trafficks in words and meanings.  So the chronic misuse of words, especially the fobbing off of rhetoric for information, gets on his nerves.  Another possible credential of a novelist peculiar to these times is that he is perhaps more sensitive to the atrocities of the age than most.  People get desensitized.  Who wants to go about his business being reminded of the six million dead in the holocaust, the 15 million in the Ukraine?  Atrocities become banal.  But a 20th century novelist should be a nag, an advertiser, a collector, a proclaimer of banal atrocities.

True legalized abortion--a million and a half fetuses flushed down the Disposall every year in this country--is yet another banal atrocity in a century where atrocities have become commonplace.  This statement will probably offend one side in this already superheated debate, so I hasten in the interests of fairness and truth to offend the other side.  What else can you do when some of your allies give you as big a pain as your opponents?  I notice this about many so-called pro-lifers.  They seem pro-life only on this one perfervid and politicized issue.  The Reagan Administration, for example, professes to be anti-abortion but has just recently decided in the interests of business that it is proper for infant-formula manufacturers to continue their hard sell in the third world despite thousands of deaths from bottle feeding.  And Senator Jesse Helms and the Moral Majority, who profess a reverence for unborn life, don't seen to care much about born life:  poor women who don't get abortions, have their babies, and can't feed them.

Nothing new here of course.  What I am writing this for is to call attention to a particularly egregious example of doublespeak that the abortionists--"pro-choicers," that is--seem to have hit on in the current rhetorical war.

Now I don't know whether the human-life bill is good legislation or not.  But as a novelist I can recognize meretricious use of language, disingenuousness, and a con job when I hear it.

The current con, perpetrated by some jurists, some editorial writers, and some doctors is that since there is no agreement about the beginning of human life, it is therefore a private religious or philosophical decision and therefore the state and the courts can do nothing about it.  This is a con.  I will not presume to speculate who is conning whom and for what purpose.  But I do submit that religion, philosophy, and private opinion have nothing to do with this issue.  I further submit that it is a commonplace of modern biology, known to every high school student and no doubt to you the reader as well, that the life of every individual organism, human or not, begins when the chromosomes of the sperm fuse with the chromosomes of the ovum to form a new DNA complex that thenceforth directs the ontogenesis of the organism.

Such vexed subjects as the soul, God, and the nature of man are not at issue.  What we are talking about and what nobody I know would deny is the clear continuum that exists in the life of every individual from the moment of fertilization of a single cell.

There is a wonderful irony here.  It is this:  The onset of individual life is not a dogma of the church but a fact of science.  How much more convenient if we lived in the 13th century, when no one knew anything about microbiology and arguments about the onset of life were legitimate.  Compared to a modern textbook of embryology, Thomas Aquinas sounds like an American Civil Liberties Union member.  Nowadays it is not some misguided ecclesiastics who are trying to suppress an embarrassing scientific fact.  It is the secular juridical-journalistic establishment.

Please indulge the novelist if he thinks in novelistic terms.  Picture the scene.  A Galileo trial in reverse.  The Supreme Court is cross-examining a high school biology teacher and admonishing him that of course it is only his personal opinion that the fertilized human ovum is an individual human life.  He is enjoined not to teach his private beliefs at a public school.  Like Galileo he caves in, submits, but in turning away is heard to murmur, "But it's still alive!"

To pro-abortionists:  According to the opinion polls, it looks as if you may get your way.  But you're not going to have it both ways.  You're going to be told what you're doing.

Walker Percy's latest novel is "The Second Coming."

Soak The Poor!

I got a mailer last week (and so did you, I expect) from the Yes on 8 (cell phone tax) people.  This initiative would eliminate the tax on cell phones.  The mailer points out that the tax on cell phones in South Dakota is higher than in Montana, Minnesota, and Iowa.  What it doesn't point out is that those three states have income taxes.  Thus the mailer intends to fool South Dakotans into thinking they are over taxed, something that is demonstrably false.  The same goes with Amendment D on property taxes, which also is based on they myth that South Dakotans are over taxed. 

This site here tells us the income tax rate of every state in the union.  We, of course, have no income tax.  Would the Yes on 8 people prefer we pay the 8.98% income tax of the Iowa top bracket, or the 7.85% of Minnesota or the 6.9% of Montana?  I think not.  This site notes that South Dakota is 45th in the nation in per capita tax burden of state and local taxes.  The idea that our state government taxes too much and spends too much is absurd.  Yet tomorrow we just might vote to cut taxes on middle and upper class cell phone users and property owners while we raise taxes on tobacco and to keep the video lottery, which are taxes paid disproportionately by the poor. 

As I have stated, I plan to vote to keep video lottery, but not because I like it.  There is a sign at a business in Aberdeen that says something like "Vote to keep taxes low; keep video lottery."  What do we think video lottery is?  I realize some of that revenue goes to the business owner, but does it not exist to raise revenue for the state?  What do you call an apparatus that takes money from citizens in order to fund government services?  I call it a tax, even if it is in the form of a game.  The question is not one of "keeping taxes low"; it is a question of whom we will tax.  I guess we are content with taxing South Dakota's poor by taxing food, clothing, and tobacco and with video lottery.  Those damn poor people aren't paying their fair share.

The Election Is Upon Us

The big day is here.  In just over 24 hours, we'll know who controls Congress.  As the mood has not been good for Republicans, I have always been a bit more optimistic than most of my friends.  I must admit that the entire scene does not look good, but as some late polls have shown us, I believe that when voters get ready to head in to the booth, they'll think about what the Republicans stand for, and vote their conscience.  The GOP has tripped, there's no doubt about that, but many races have tightened up in recent days.  Further, having spoken to several people who have been mobilized to some of the most competitive areas of the country, I think the GOP get out the vote campaign will make a big difference and possibly be the reason the Republicans keep the Senate.

Here is a great article that is pretty close to what I think has and will happen:

Democrats are set to gain 19 House seats, two Senate seats, and five governorships in tomorrow's elections. It is a sign of Republicans' sorry state that, at this point, this is actually a very favorable outlook for them.

In the last day of the midterm election campaign, we offer a final run-down of how candidates are doing in each contested district or state. We aim to give a complete forecast on tomorrow's competitive election contests in this final-hour newsletter, which will be followed up by a post-election analysis on Wednesday.

Expectations Game: At this point, there will be no new polls, no major news events capable of significantly disrupting the election cycle.

We know one thing for sure: Republicans are going to lose ground in both houses of Congress. The White House presents, as its rosiest scenario, a loss of 12 House seats. This is not entirely impossible, but it is too optimistic for the realistic observer.

If Democrats fail, it will set off an even worse intra-party bloodbath than came after the 2000 and 2004 elections.

If Democrats succeed, it will be for two reasons:

1. The first is an arrogant and politically tin-eared Republican establishment in Washington. In the handling of key issues such as the occupation of Iraq, the response to Hurricane Katrina, and a meaningful follow-through on Social Security reform, the White House displayed incompetence.
   
   Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, Republicans encouraged practices (such as earmarking in the appropriations process) that let corruption run free. When scandal hit, they handled it badly, particularly in the most recent case of disgraced former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.). They also went to great lengths to alienate their base on the issue of immigration reform, and they created an issue for Democrats in the form of embryonic stem-cell research. Recall that federal funding for embryonic research received a vote on the House floor only when the House Republican leadership made a deal with moderates in order to pass their budget in 2005.
   
2. Last, but not least, comes the brilliant candidate recruiting and fundraising on the part of two men – Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) Chairman Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). And should it occur, Democratic victory will come in spite of the total incompetence of Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairman Howard Dean.

But what about the unlikely event that Republicans succeed in keeping both the House and the Senate? Republican pundits deceive when they lower the bar, writing now of a Democratic sweep of the House as something that had always been inevitable. In fact, no one but the biggest Democratic dreamer could have expected a 15-seat gain in the House in 2006 after the historic 2004 election solidified GOP power around the country at the federal and, in most places, the state level. The thought that Democrats might actually take the Senate was not even in the minds of the most partisan Democratic dreamers.

But the reality of expectations has now changed. Republicans would be euphoric to cling to a one-seat advantage in the House and a 50-50 Senate. In fact, it would probably be demonstrative proof that, in the long haul, their grip on the nation is bulletproof. If you can't lose an election after all that has happened in the last two years, it may not be possible to lose.

If Republicans win, it will be for one reason: a superior turnout operation.

Here is a link to that Novak article.

With that, I think the Republicans will hold the Senate, atleast 49-51.  They may lose the House of Representatives, but by fewer seats than most political pundits are speculating.

Finally, don't forget to go vote tomorrow.  Its a great opportunity, and with so many issues on the South Dakota ballot, you really have a chance to make an impact.

Pepe Le Pew Poll

Serving the cause of wishful thinking among Republicans everywhere, I have these quotes from the latest Pew Poll. 

1. The new survey finds a growing percentage of likely voters saying they will vote for GOP candidates. However, the Democrats still hold a 48% to 40% lead among registered voters, and a modest lead of 47%-43% among likely voters.
2. Republican gains in the new poll reflect a number of late-breaking trends. First, Republicans have become more engaged and enthused in the election than they had been in September and October. While Democrats continue to express greater enthusiasm about voting than do Republicans, as many Republican voters (64%) as Democratic voters (62%) now say they are giving quite a lot of thought to the election. About a month ago, Democratic voters were considerably more likely than GOP voters to say they were giving a lot of thought to the election (by 59%-50%). As a result, Republicans now register a greater likelihood of voting than do Democrats, as is typical in mid-term elections.
3. The Republicans also have made major gains, in a relatively short time period, among independent voters. Since early this year, the Democratic advantage in the generic House ballot has been built largely on a solid lead among independents. As recently as mid-October, 47% of independent voters said they were voting for the Democratic candidate in their district, compared with 29% who favored the Republican. Currently, Democrats lead by 44%-33% among independent voters.
4. The final pre-election survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted among 2,369 registered voters from Nov. 1-4, finds that voter appraisals of the national economy also have improved.
5. In addition, Sen. John Kerry's "botched joke" about the war in Iraq attracted enormous attention. . . . Most voters say Kerry's statement is not a serious consideration in their vote, but 18% of independent voters say it did raise serious doubts about voting for a Democratic candidate.

If the Pew Poll is right, it will still be a losing day for Republicans, as there is every reason to expect.  But it will be better than anyone has been predicting, and far better than historical trends would lead one to expect. 

Always Look On the Bright Side of Life

With a little over twenty four hours of wishful thinking left before the polls start to close and real returns pour in, I offer the following as the most optimistic Republican prediction so far.  From Quin Hillyer at the American Spectator:

When Congress convenes in January of 2007, Republicans will be elected both as Speaker of the House and as Senate Majority Leader.

The new Republican speaker, who will not be Dennis Hastert, will enjoy a margin of only one vote. But in the Senate, where Republicans currently control 55 of the 100 seats and where many pundits are now saying they teeter on the brink of losing their majority, the GOP instead will lose no more than two seats.

And Mr. Conventional Wisdom, who is the lackey of the mainstream media and the supposedly nonpartisan election "experts," again will have enough egg on his face to make omelets that feed multitudes.

That looks to me like a pundit's Hail Mary pass: predict something that no one else is predicting on the off chance that it will happen and you'll look like a genius.  For something more convincingly cheery, consider Professor Schaff's post below.  Professor Schaff has predicted at least 5 out of every 3 Republican defeats, and he sees bad news for the GOP tomorrow.  Still, I am not altogether hopeful. 

Novstrup Update

The "v" in Novstrup is prounced as an "r', I have been informed by "A".  It's the Danish pronunciation.  Thanks, Al. 

I now unhestiatingly endorse both Ns. 

The Nature of Our Enemy

Patrick Ishmael over at News Buckit has posted an abridged version of the movie "Obsession," which is  "a documentary about radical Islam and the West's hesitancy to confront it."  I recently acquired a copy of the full-length documentary and will be watching it sometime today.  Watch this before you go to the polls tomorrow.  This is what we're fighting.

Predictions

All this talk of a Republican surge in the last days of the election is all "a little too late."
1. Democrats will win just north or south of 30 House seats, more than enough to gain control.
2. Democrats will gain six seats in the Senate, giving them control.  I predict a clean Democratic sweep of Montana, Maryland, Missouri and Virginia to go along with Ohio and Pennsylvania.  Republicans will fail to win a single seat away from Democrats. 
3. If one or both of these predictions fail to come true, Democrats will claim election fraud. 
4. The Minnesota Vikings will not score a touchdown on Tuesday. 

Election Heat Headlines

Well, duh. We win that one by a mile.

Republicans want election to be about Kerry.

You mean apart from the fact that you run a partisan rag?

Why We Are Not Endorsing Any Republicans- New York Times

It wouldn't really be "scheming" if they admited doing it, would it?

White House Denies "Scheming"

Lookout.

Cheney going hunting in SD on Election Day.

Pass the syrup, and forget the sausage jokes. 

Nude Couple's Feud Ends at Waffle House

Shouldn't he be confessing to, say, someone of higher authority?

Ousted Evangelist Confesses to Followers.

The French should be used to it by now. 

Europe Black Out Leaves Millions in the Dark.

 

Pro-Novstrop

My colleague Professor Schaff blogs below on why District 3 voters should elect David Novstrop to the state legislature.  Big surprise: I concur.  I urge readers to examine the tax proposal that David gave to Professor Schaff.  Other things being equal, I am inclined to vote for someone who knows his way around Microsoft Excel.  I would also like dearly to believe that the legislature can wean itself from the teat of organized gambling.  Unfortunately, I don't believe it.  But David is trying, and that's something to be said. 

I would also say that I know both Novstrups, as we attend the same Church: First Methodist in Aberdeen.  Al Novstrop is a stand up fellow, and I have always found him to be candid and thoughtful in conversations about politics.  I just have one question: how do you pronounce his last name?  I heard David on a radio campaign add and he seemed to be saying "Norstrop."  If I can resolve that matter, I will be voting for the both of them. 

Election Heat: E-Day Minus Two

In the last hours several newspapers are leading with stories about a small, late shift in favor of Republicans.  From the Washington Post:

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows some narrowing in the Democratic advantage in House races. The survey gives the Democrats a six-percentage-point lead nationally among likely voters asked which party they prefer for Congress. It was 14 points two weeks ago, but this remains a larger advantage than they have had in recent midterm elections.

There is a lot of spin going on in that paragraph, but it is basically right.  Broder and Balz think the Democrats have a lock on House control now, and that also seems right.  But of course we can't tell whether the shift toward the Republicans is genuine or how strong it is.  Polls are lagging indicators that, when most effective, really tell us where things were about a week ago. 

The American News has good news for the GOP in the race to keep the Senate. 

Republican Senate candidates have bounced back in two largely overlooked states, strengthening their party's chance to retain control of the U.S. Senate in Tuesday's elections, according to an exclusive series of McClatchy Newspapers-MSNBC polls.

Twelve new state-by-state polls show a surprise shift in the political battleground to the north as Republican incumbents clawed their way back in two states frequently written off as lost to them - Montana and Rhode Island.

John McIntyre at RealClearPolitics has this:

Here is the movement in the Mason-Dixon polls from their previous round of polling in October.

Montana: GOP +3
Missouri: GOP +2
Tennessee: GOP +10
Virginia: Dem +5
Rhode Island: GOP +6
New Jersey: Dem +4
Pennsylvania: Dem +1
Ohio: GOP +2
Washington: Dem +1

So in the nine states Mason-Dixon polled both times in the last couple of weeks -- five moved toward the Republicans and four moved toward the Democrats. However the average movement towards the GOP was 4.6%, as opposed to only 2.8% towards the Democrats. More importantly for Republicans, three of the five states where there was movement toward the GOP are very much in play, with Rhode Island making it four out of five. Whereas for Democrats, Virginia was the only real toss up race to move their way.

This disappointing news there, of course, is in Virginia.  But George Allen has run possibly the worst campaign I have ever seen.  I still wouldn't bet too much cash on Webb, it being Virginia and all.  If the Republicans really do hold onto Montana, Rhode Island, and Ohio, it will be a very disappointing Tuesday for the Senate Minority Caucus.