My Predictions

As of right now, from what I'm seeing, it's looking like an incredibly divided government.

The President will, of course, remain a Democrat.

The House will go to the Republicans.

The Democrats will hold on to the Senate.

and Republicans will hold a greater number of Governor mansions.

I am predicting a GOP gain in the House of 53-63 seats, but most likely in the high 50s. (I reserve my right to change this prediction later this afternoon.)

Now, to the Senate...

Republicans will hold on to their current seats in Idaho, Utah, Arizona, South Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Missouri, Louisiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and New Hampshire.

That's 17 holds added to 23 currently held seats (not up for grabs in this election) for a total of 40.

Republicans will then win these seats currently held by Democrats: North Dakota, Arkansas, Wisconsin, Indiana

That brings their total seats to 44.

The Democrats will hold on to Oregon, California, Hawaii, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Connecticut, Vermont, and both seats in New York.

That's 10 seats added to 40 currently held seats (not up for grabs in this election) for a total of 50.

Democrats will pick up ZERO seats currently held by a Republican Senator.

The swing states are Washington, Alaska, Nevada, Colorado, Illinois, and Pennsylvania.

But, even if the GOP were to win all 6, the Democrats would maintain control of the Senate thanks to VP Biden's vote as a tie breaker. But, it is likely that the Democrats take ONE of those six seats.

I think we are looking at a 52-48 Democratic senate, though 51-49 is also very likely.

Let's look at the Governor's races!

The Republicans will hold on to their current power in Nevada, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Alaska, Texas, Nebraska, South Dakota, Alabama and South Carolina.

That's 10 states added to the 6 currently held (not up for grabs this election) for a total of 16.

Republicans will then win these states currently governed by Democrats: Wyoming, New Mexico, Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Tennessee, Michigan, Pennsylvania.

That brings their total to 24 states.

The Democrats will hold on to their current power in Colorado, Arkansas, New York, and New Hampshire.

That's 4 states added to the 7 currently held (not up for grabs this election) for a total of 11.

Democrats will then win these states currently governed by Republicans: California, Hawaii, and Connecticut.

That brings their total to 14 states.

The toss-ups are Oregon, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio, Georgia, Florida, Maryland, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Maine.

So, in the end I believe we are looking at Democrats with 19 states, Republicans with 30, and Independents with 1 state.

-- Joseph Banks

Let's not reward mediocrity

I read a great article in the newspaper this morning about how our present political environment is more about rewarding mediocrity than it is recognizing excellence. This is something that I have been saying for years now when I have private arguments with friends and family members, but this year we need to seriously take notice of the fact that we are no longer looking for candidates with a relevant resume and professional pedigrees. Instead, we are looking for a reality television star.

Every day the media relies more heavily on ginning up controversy than it does reporting the facts. They refuse to do their job.

For the new conservative movement it is more important that candidates fit into their well-defined boxes than instill a willingness to debate and cooperation. Sure, bipartisanship might have been hard to find over the past two years, but if the GOP takes control, you might as well get used to a state of gridlock unlike anything we've ever seen.

Over the past few years the GOP has been called "The Party of No" as if this was some new revelation. The Republican Party has always been "The Party of No." I challenge you to name one major piece of legislation that was passed by the GOP in the past 70 years. MAJOR LEGISLATION?

Social Security? Democrats
Medicare? Democrats
Medicaid? Democrats
Civil Rights Act? Democrats
Health Reform? Democrats
Fair Labor Standards? Democrats
Minimum Wage? Democrats
Equal Pay Act? Democrats
Food Stamps and Student Lunch Program? Democrats
Equal Employment Opportunity? Democrats

The GOP has always been about limiting government from doing ANYTHING to make peoples lives better. Why should we be surprised that their new electoral strategy is nominating extremely unqualified candidates to go to Congress and do nothing? You don't need to be qualified if you aren't going to pass any meaningful legislation. You just have to be there to vote "no."

Sharron Angle, Ken Buck, Rand Paul, Christine O'Donnell, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck... these are the country's new conservative voices? Seriously?

Think of it this way, the moment you hear a complaint that the President of the United States is, and I quote, "too intellectual," you know we have come to a dangerous national mindset.

-- Joseph Banks

The Chamber of Commerce "Dust Up"

While I'm aware that watching the results on Nov. 2 will be a struggle I have found quite a bit of joy this past week watching the Democrats accuse the Chamber of Commerce of taking foreign money, not disclosing their donors, and being an all around nefarious politically motivated group.

Why?

Well, finally the Democrats are taking a page from the Republican play book and it is pissing them off. Remember when the GOP spent the past few years demonizing ACORN and MoveOn, building up fear with the talk of death panels and czars, and creating doubts about the President's qualifications?

Yeah, me too. Remember how they had ZERO factual evidence to make those claims? Here's how those conversations went...

GOP: ACORN is stealing elections from the American people!

REPORTER: Really? How?

GOP: By doing it.

REPORTER: Oh... do you have proof?

GOP: None at all.

REPORTER: Okay. I'm going to report this on the evening news as fact.

GOP: Sounds good.


Well, finally, FINALLY, the Dems are fighting a little bit dirty, and while I don't condone it, that won't stop me from enjoying the spectacle.

Karl Rove spent the past four days offended, OFFENDED, that the President would even dare to make such an accusation! Such crocodile tears!

Is there any evidence that the Chamber uses foreign money to fund GOP candidates? Nothing yet. But, because they don't disclose their donor base than the Democrats can create this boogeyman. And for all of the political "experts" out there who claim it won't have any effect, clearly they haven't been AWAKE the past few years as every internet conspiracy has shown up to some degree in our political institution. News outlets have been spending HOURS talking about this over the past week so it has clearly resonated as a story.

So, for the first time in a long time, Democrats are the ones just making shit up. It's about time.

-- Joseph Banks

Joe Miller sees the world in black and white

It must be nice not to see a gray area. Issues that Senators are supposed to take a stand on are now much easier to understand! Right? For instance, it's easier to say abortion is wrong. Period. End of story.

But what about-

Nope, it's wrong. Next question.

Do you think gays should have the right-

Gay marriage is wrong. End of story.

But what about-

Bup bup bup, wrong. Moving on-

Do you think semi-automatic weapons is-

We all have the right to bear arms.

Well, sure, but I'm talking about-

Next question!


See how easy it is to appear as a leader with confidence when you don't have to analyze the pros and cons to an argument? In some ways, I envy Joe Miller. It must be so much easier going through life KNOWING that he is right and no argument can persuade him otherwise. For instance, in a report today he was asked if there should be a minimum wage...

"There should not be. That is not within the scope of the powers that are given to the federal government."

Uhh, well, yeah. That's kind of correct.

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 created a federal minimum wage as well as set child labor laws. So, since the New Deal we've had a minimum wage which means your employer is legally obligated to pay you a certain wage.

So, here's my beef with Joe Miller and every other "constitutional conservative" who claim that the Constitution is a flawless document and if we just follow it to the letter everything will work out fine...

It's NOT! Look, I love the Constitution as much as the next guy, but it's a living document. It must evolve as our country evolves. That's why our legal system was created in such a way that the Constitution could be altered and to claim that as Senator his legislative strategy would be to rely on whatever the Constitution says is a terrifying simple outlook of what a Senator's job entails.

Since 1776 we have made some of the following changes to the Constitution:

The 15th Amendment gave blacks the right to vote. (1870)

The 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote. (1920)

The 22nd Amendment set term limits to the Presidency. (1951)

The 26th Amendment lowered the voting age. (1971)

We've amended the Constitution over and over again over the course of our history. The Fair Labor Standards of Act is NOT an amendment, so Mr. Miller has a point. It's not a constitutional right, but that doesn't mean it's not a law. It also doesn't mean it shouldn't even be debated. How many politicians in 1870 tried to say that giving blacks the right to vote was unconstitutional? Plenty. It doesn't mean it wasn't debated. So, to see the world in such black and white terms is true folly.

Our founders wrote the document in the late 1700s. It's currently 2010. The world isn't the same anymore and to use the phrase "it's unconstitutional" is practically akin to saying "I have no argument."

OR - SENATE: Ron Wyden: 54.3% ---- Jim Huffman: 36.3%

Well, the West is starting to look like the Democratic Party's firewall against the Republican's hope of taking over both the House AND the Senate. First, we discussed Washington last week and today we are discussing the Oregon senate race that shows incumbent Senator Ron Wyden pulling far ahead of his challenger, Jim Huffman.

This should be a quick post because the numbers are pretty clear in this one... Polls over the past month have shown Wyden averaging an 18 point lead over Huffman and that hasn't faltered yet. It's possible that Huffman, in the current political climate, is seen as being way too moderate a candidate for the new Republican party and the Tea Party movement. In fact, it's not really true, Huffman isn't that moderate at all, but he certainly doesn't have the type of natural drama and spectacle that comes hand in hand with candidates like Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle, and Rand Paul.

So, as of now, this is my prediction of where this race stands...

Ron Wyden (D) ---- 54.3%

Jim Huffman (R) ---- 36.3%

Undecided/Other ---- 9.4%

-- Joseph Banks

Holy $#!%

So, here's a wonderful video clip of Delaware Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell declaring evolution a myth. Her evidence? We haven't seen any monkeys transform into humans recently.

Shocking, shocking, shocking stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB0TLgcNesU&feature=player_embedded

-- Joseph Banks

Fmr. Governor Mitt Romney says something intelligent

Mitt Romney has plenty of faults. But, his keen insight on how elections are framed and how economic cycles work are still one of his greatest strengths. I have said for some time now, and will continue to say, that the economy IS recovering. There is almost a measurable cycle to when a country experiences a recession and to when it recovers to its' full strength.

The point? In 2012, running against President Obama and the economy would potentially be a disaster because, more likely than not, the economy will be significantly better in 2012 than it is in 2010 and the President and Vice-President will be running on the economy's rebound. Mitt Romney, businessman "extraordinaire," knows this very well.

So, in an interview this week he stated:

But he will do everything he can to get the economy going back again, and most likely -- at least in my view -- the economy will be coming back.

He will, you know, you can expect Vice President Biden to come out and say it was the President's great economic accomplishment that the economy has turned around, and of course, most of the people in this room will recognize it was in spite of much that was done in Washington that the economy has turned around. Recessions do end. The economy recovers. It always has. It always will.

That being said, however, they will take credit for the fact that things are getting better. That will help the President's reelection effort.

Yes. It will certainly help the President's reelection effort. So, how do you run against the President in 2012? Mitt Romney believes you do so by attacking the President's identity in order to cast him as "the other." So, you know, pretty much the exact same strategy from 2008, but without the inexperience meme, because it's hard to cast a sitting President as "inexperienced." So, what's the problem with this strategy?

Well, something tells me that if the American people didn't buy the argument in 2008 that Obama was this sinister "other" figure when he was practically unknown and had the middle name "Hussein" than they certainly won't buy the argument in 2012 after he's been President for FOUR YEARS and hasn't done one sinister thing to everyday Americans during his term of office.

So, while Fmr. Governor Mitt Romney is completely right about fleeing from the economic strategy during the election, it would also be a hazard to run with the fringe element and attack the President personally for four straight months.

-- Joseph Banks

WA - SENATE: Patti Murray: 51.3% ---- Dino Rossi: 43.6%

So, I thought I'd spend some time discussing the upcoming races that are going to be major indicators of just how "good" the Republicans can expect their midterms results to be...

It's common wisdom that the party in power will lose seats in the midterm elections, and this year will be no different as the GOP is poised to gain a substantial number of seats in the House and Senate. Now, I'm not ready to jump on the bandwagon quite yet and say "The Republican Party will take the House."  Of course, if you were to believe cable news outlets this is a foregone conclusion and anyone arguing it would be delusional. Well, unfortunately the facts don't always coincide with the cable meme.

Let's talk a little bit about the Senate race in Washington as incumbent Senator Patti Murray attempts to hold off a challenge from former State Senator and oh-so-close gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi. The polls have been in flux with this race, going back and forth, but are now starting to see Murray put a little distance between herself and the challenger.

In comparison with other high profile political races this one has been fairly tame. Their arguments are generic and both seem to argue the issues down the party line. Rossi is still very much in the game and his ability to close during the last few weeks of an election (as seen with his almost victory against Gregoire) is not to be ignored or underestimated, but as of this moment Patti Murray is in a good position to be re-elected to the United States Senate.

Prediction of where the race stands...

Patti Murray (D) ---- 51.3%

Dino Rossi (R) ---- 43.6

Undecided/Other ---- 5.1%

-- Joseph Banks

Democrats... this isn't hard.

So, last week Rep. Boehner delivered the Dems quite a gift when he signaled his willingness to compromise on the Bush tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year. It would allow Democrats to finally claim an economic message, seize the news cycle, and show the public how they are for the middle class while the Republicans are for the wealthy.

So, you're asking, when does the 'but' come? Why haven't I seen them jump on this strategy in order to weaken the GOPs electoral chances?

Well, frankly, I DON'T KNOW.

This isn't hard, guys. Here you go...

1. The House needs to hold a vote to EXTEND the Bush tax cuts for everyone making 250,000 or less a year.
2. When Republicans guffaw and protest turn a camera on them and tell them to either vote "with the middle class" or vote against them. If they vote "NAY," take the footage, turn it into a campaign commercial and run it in their district. If they vote "YAY", tell the public that you've achieved a bipartisan agreement because the GOP member of Congress has decided that the Democrats were right.
3. The Senate should do the same damn thing, and if the GOP chooses to filibuster the vote, LET THEM. Allow them to stand on the Senate floor for hours holding up a vote to give tax cuts to everyone in the middle class. Make them explain to average Americans why they won't vote for tax cuts when that's one of their biggest platforms. If they want to threaten to filibuster than you need to call their bluff.

This is an issue that the Dems can win with. The public is NOT in support of giving more tax cuts to the rich. So, force this issue, and you can at least stem your losses.

Buck up and do the smart thing. This is a fight you can win.

-- Joseph Banks

This has to be a little awkward...

Washington Republican Senate Candidate Dino Rossi (that's a long title) toured a Whidbey Island shipyard today on a campaign stop. Rossi has been a fierce opponent of President Obama's stimulus bill which he claimed was an absolute failure that inflated the national debt and did little, if anything, to improve the economy. Rossi has been spewing out talking points about how Obama's bill did nothing to add jobs and stem job losses.

Well, unfortunately for Dino Rossi, his campaign made a bit of a goof today. It turns out that the shipyard at Whidbey was a recipient of about 841,000 dollars of stimulus money and the shipyards owners are on the record as being pro-stimulus considering that they were able to increase its' hiring this year to 210 workers (up from 130) and stopped them from having to lay off workers. To the stimulus' credit, they said, they are now able to do their work quicker and more profitably.

Kind of kills your candidates message, doesn't it, Rossi Campaign?

Whoops!

-- Joseph Banks

Mark Halperin: The Danger of Elevating and Equating National Candidates

Mark Halperin, political reporter and TIME magazine blogger, has a problem with the gray area of political life. This morning I came across an article he wrote entitled "Why Sarah Palin Is Stronger Than You Think" that represents a perfect example of irresponsibly equating popularity with infamy.

Halperin recommends us not to "underestimate Sarah Palin." Fine. Anybody who follows politics closely, especially over the past two years, knows how easily Sarah Palin can control a news cycle. CNN could spend all day covering a massive hurricane wreaking havoc across the gulf coast, but the moment Fmr. Governor Palin tweets or sends out a provocative Facebook status update all other news has to go on the back burner. It's a testament to how far gone our national media has fallen to think that 140 characters or less can change the conversation and coverage of the country.

But, it's one thing to warn political bloggers and reporters about the attention grabbing power of Sarah Palin and it's another thing entirely to equate the fascination with her as real strength. It's pretty much a foregone conclusion that Palin will run for President in 2012 with a message that will be light on debate and heavy on talking points and invitations to a new culture war, but when Mark Halperin writes an article explaining why her natural abilities as a candidate put her in a good position to be taken seriously, I have to speak to my peace.

Halperin states that "the mistake you are making is to assume that Palin needs or wants to play by the standard rules of American politics. Or that it even occurs to her to do so. Trash her all you want (even you Republicans who are doing it all the time behind her back) for being uninformed, demagogic and incoherent, and brandish the poll numbers that show fewer and fewer Americans think she is qualified to be President. Strain to apply political and practical norms to Alaska's former governor. You are missing the point."

Am I, Mark? Am I missing the point? I've never once believed that Sarah Palin had any interest whatsoever in needing or wanting to "play by the standard rules of American politics" because I don't believe she has any clue what the "standard rules" even are; after all, who needs them when you can rely on fiery rhetoric and faux-folk-populism-cheekiness? It's sad that a leading contributor to TIME magazine and a frequent guest of political talk shows can even say "trash her all you want (even you Republicans who are doing it all the time behind her back) for being uninformed, demagogic and incoherent, and brandish the poll numbers that show fewer and fewer Americans think she is qualified to be President. Strain to apply political and practical norms to Alaska's former governor. You are missing the point" and then go on to tell me why she'll be a strong candidate in 2012.

Maybe you're missing the point, Mark. We shouldn't be elevating politicians to a national status and theorizing about when and how they'll become President unless they are worthy of that plateau. This is a woman with an approval rating of 38/58, who is detested by independent voters, and whose idea of a political platform involve catchy slogans and fear-baiting.

We are about three or four months away from when candidates begin declaring the intent to run for President and I've yet to hear one policy detail from the Palin "campaign." Let's spend less time discussing how incredibly potent she is as a candidate when we don't have any idea what she stands for other than "less government, except when we're talking about gays, abortion, and immigrants" and more time talking about how anyone can run for President with an incredibly high negative approval number.

I'm a numbers guy. Sorry, Mark, as much as I appreciate your warning about Sarah Palin's "power and strength" the numbers make your point a little ridiculous and incredibly irresponsible.

Don't believe me? Look for yourself:

9/13 --- Favorable:  38%  Unfavorable:  58%
9/7   --- Favorable:  31%  Unfavorable:  50%
8/24 --- Favorable:  23%  Unfavorable:  40%

Here's a great one from April, the question posed was: Do you think Sarah Palin would have the ability to be an effective President, or not?"

Would:  26%      Would not: 63%      Unsure: 11%

I don't care how infamous you are... with numbers like these... you are anything but a strong candidate.

-- Joseph Banks