One of the best places for US politics (and world even) is www.realclearpolitics.com. It gives you that day's good editorials, including its own editorial group. If memory serves me right, it's one of the few truly bi-partisan websites out there. Here's one of today's editorials:

2006 Senate Leans Democratic
But Not Enough for the Big Win Yet
By Larry Sabato

If the Democrats want to win the Senate, they need a big wave--the kind of tsunami they got in 1974 and 1986, or that the Republicans received in 1980 and 1994. Rough surf won't do the trick, and at least at the start of 2006, November looks to be full of white caps but no Maui-style waves for the party out of power.

This sea forecast can change in either direction over the next ten months, obviously. Yet our first 2006 midterm election survey of the Senate contests suggests only a small craft advisory. In subsequent weeks, we'll look at the U.S. House and the 36 Governor's match-ups to create a benchmark for this year's Crystal Ball analysis. As we do so, the Crystal Ball urges our readers to keep in mind one of the most telling lessons of U.S. electoral history: When the American people decide to make a change, they do it. They don't care that the forecasters and the prognosticators say it isn't likely. They find a way to make the change happen, even if--on paper--there aren't enough competitive districts or states to produce a party turnover.

It will be a surprise if 2006 is not a Democratic year, with the only question being how Democratic. After all, this is the fabled sixth-year election of the Bush presidency (read more in the Crystal Ball's look at the Sixth Year Itch in the Senate), and President Bush has been in deep trouble on a host of subjects, from Iraq to Katrina to scandal. Presidential popularity is an overarching key to the 2006 results. The current betting is that Bush will be below 50 percent come November, but who knows? He could be at 35 percent or 55 percent by then, and it is easy to construct scenarios that would produce either result as events in the New Year unfold.

So for now, we'll stick to a race-by-race analysis of the "War for the Senate." This will give us a starting point for another unpredictable year in American politics.

As usual, many of the contests appear over before they begin. We stress the word appear. A few of the favored candidates might well lose in the end, but at the moment there's no reason to think any of them are in trouble. The list of Secure Senators follows:

"Secure" Republicans (8)

* Indiana - incumbent Richard Lugar (R)
* Maine - incumbent Olympia Snowe (R)
* Mississippi - incumbent Trent Lott (R)
* Nevada - incumbent John Ensign (R)
* Texas - incumbent Kay Bailey Hutchison (R)
* Utah - incumbent Orrin Hatch (R)
* Virginia - incumbent George Allen (R)
* Wyoming - incumbent Craig Thomas (R)

"Secure" Democrats (10)

* California - incumbent Dianne Feinstein (D)
* Delaware - incumbent Thomas Carper (D)
* Hawaii - incumbent Daniel Akaka (D) or Rep. Ed Case (D)
* Massachusetts - incumbent Ted Kennedy (D)
* Michigan - incumbent Debbie Stabenow (D)
* New Mexico - incumbent Jeff Bingaman (D)
* New York - incumbent Hillary Rodham Clinton (D)
* North Dakota - incumbent Kent Conrad (D)
* Vermont (I/D) - Rep. Bernie Sanders (I/D)
* Wisconsin - incumbent Herb Kohl (D)

Slightly more than half the Senate seats are--for now--off the table. Somehow, in the remaining 15 Senate contests, Democrats must find a way to net the six additional seats they will need to control the Senate. (Today's Senate is 55R, 45D with Jeffords, and Vice President Cheney would break a tied 50-50 Senate in the GOP's favor.) So the Democrats need six new seats. From where might these six seats come?

Vulnerable Republicans?

The only lean-Democratic switch at the moment is in Pennsylvania, where Senator Rick Santorum (R) is trailing Bob Casey, Jr. (D) by wide margins in most surveys. Santorum has better candidate skills than Casey, though, and incumbency has its privileges. Reports from reliable observers in the Keystone state also say that Santorum has finally tired of shooting himself in the foot, has holstered the gun, and has gotten engaged in the toughest challenge of his career. So this contest is not yet a write-off for the GOP, and Santorum has comeback potential.

Moderate-liberal Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island faces difficult primary and general election challenges. He's a slight favorite for reelection, but this is a heavily Democratic state, so the Democrats have a real chance here.

Ohio is a Republican disaster area, thanks to the enormous unpopularity of Governor Bob Taft. While Taft may have the greatest negative effect on GOP chances to hold his statehouse seat, Senator Mike DeWine's race for reelection also has the potential to become competitive. DeWine begins as a shaky favorite, pending the outcome of a potentially divisive Democratic primary match-up to choose his opponent. Yet if there is any Democratic tsunami in 2006, the wave will break first over Ohio.

Montana's crusty GOP Senator Conrad Burns has substantial ties to the scandal-drenched lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Nearly defeated for reelection in 2000, Burns is a major Democratic target in a state that has seen a drift to the Democrats.

Senator Jim Talent (R) is completing his first, short term, having been elected in 2002--a strong year for the GOP. Missouri is a swing state, and while it has a conservative cast, a Democratic trend could be felt here. Talent is not that well known and he has not yet secured the seat, given his brief tenure.

Majority Leader Bill Frist's retirement in Tennessee gives Democrats a shot at an open seat. The evaluations on this contest vary wildly, depending on the identity of the eventual GOP nominee in a three-way primary contest. Congressman Harold Ford, an African-American, will be the Democratic candidate, and his chances depend in part on how divisive the Republican primary turns out to be, as well as how conservative the GOP nominee is.

Some Democrats insist that wealthy businessman Jim Pederson has a chance to upend incumbent Senator Jon Kyl (R) in Arizona. This is a long-shot for the Democrats, but one that they might well need.

Vulnerable Democrats?

We've just reviewed the Democratic Senate wish list. They'd have to capture six of these seven seats and hold every single one of their own. And there's the rub. It's possible, but Democrats have some shaky seats themselves.

One of the shakiest is in Minnesota, where one-term Democrat Mark Dayton is retiring. Congressman Mark Kennedy will be the GOP nominee, and he is well funded and organized. The Democratic field has now been winnowing down, and most Minnesota Democrats seem to be betting on Hennepin County Attorney Amy Klobuchar. Minnesota is far more competitive than it was in the era of Hubert Humphrey's DFL, but the Democrats still have the edge here except in strong GOP years. 2006 is not going to be a strong GOP year. Nonetheless, Kennedy has a fighting chance to steal this seat from the Democrats.

Newly appointed Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey has the "D" next to his name in running for a full term, and that may be all that he needs in this increasingly Blue state. However, he's not the cleanest candidate around--though that rarely seems to bother cynical Garden State voters--and he may have primary opposition, followed by a tough challenge from state Sen. Tom Kean, Jr., the son of the former, popular GOP governor. It will be difficult to oust Menendez, but Kean has upset potential.

Senator Maria Cantwell (D) of Washington has not achieved real popularity in her first term, won in a squeaker in 2000, and she faces a sharp, wealthy Republican: Mike McGavick, the former CEO of Safeco. Again, though, Cantwell benefits from the luck of the draw in election years. Even a mild national Democratic drift in this basically Democratic state may be enough to deliver a second term for her.

Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson is the rare successful Democrat in this heavily Republican farm state. Still, he barely won against weak opposition in 2000, and so this contest bears watching, especially if the GOP nominee is former Ameritrade COO Pete Ricketts.

Maryland is another very Blue state, but Republican Michael Steele is not a typical GOP candidate. He is the African-American lieutenant governor, elected in 2002 with Governor Bob Ehrlich (R). The Democrats have a potentially divisive, multi-candidate primary to choose a successor to retiring Senator Paul Sarbanes (D). It's easy to imagine both Ehrlich, who is running for reelection, and Steele ending up in the loser's circle in a Blue state during a Blue year. But there's just a chance that both could win, and open seats like this one have to be monitored closely. (Jordan's Note - this should be an interesting race.)

Republicans in Florida have had their eyes on the seat of one-term Democratic Senator Bill Nelson since Nelson won narrowly in 2000, and in this Red state, no Democrat will be safe. Still, the GOP has probably blown its opportunity, since its likely nominee, Congresswomen Katherine Harris of 2000 presidential recount fame, is too controversial and disliked to win. Nelson's real fear is that the Republicans will find a way to force Harris to withdraw, leaving him with a more threatening challenger.

Two other Democratic seats are on our "watch list," though both will very likely stay with the Democratic incumbents. In Connecticut, Senator Joe Lieberman has upset some Democrats with his support of the Bush Iraq policy, and former Republican senator and Independent governor Lowell Weicker is making noises about challenging Lieberman in a primary. A fratricidal battle between these two old adversaries--Lieberman took Weicker's Senate seat in 1988--creates a GOP opportunity, especially with GOP Governor Jodi Rell cruising to her first elected term. And in West Virginia, as long as his health holds up, Senator Robert Byrd (D) should win again handily. But he's 87, and sometimes the age shows.

The long and short of the "War for the Senate" in 2006 is this: Democrats are a good bet to pick up two or three seats net. But for Democrats to regain control of the Senate, almost everything has to fall just right for them. In politics, very occasionally those things happen--but only rarely do all the dominoes fall in one direction. And the Democrats will have to win the world championship of dominoes for the Senate to become theirs again this year.

Dr. Sabato, the Robert Kent Gooch Professor of Politics at the University of Virginia, founded the Center for Politics in 1998.

Jordan .

Funny how in the races with the two most vulnerable Republicans, political ideologies might not change that much even if Democrats capture the seats.  Santorum may be about as conservative as a Senator from the Northeast can be, but pro-life Bob Casey Jr., son of the former governor, is well to the right of most Democrats.  And Lincoln Chafee may be listed as a Republican, but I doubt that the Bush administration will lose much sleep if this seat changes hands.

More 2006 predictions. It's not so far off now! Something to get excited about; something to gloat about; something to whine about. Which will it be?

I'm feeling a little replay action here. I'm thinking we hang on to both the House and the Senate. And I'm thinking that Michael Moore may have been right after all. Dumb president; dumb citizens; more dumbness to come! Let's hope he comes out with a warning similar to the one he gave the Canadians just before their recent election.

Could it really be? First we take Ottawa then we take the world! Can the worldwide theocracy be far behind?

Susan

February 02, 2006
GOP 4 EVER

Tim Cavanaugh

Time for another Cavanaugh prediction:

The Republican Party will retain control of both houses of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections.

As always, I'm making the prediction at a time when I can't be said to be jumping on favorable polls—specifically, when the Republicans are bleeding like Chuck Wepner and Gallup shows them in an even worse spot than the Democrats were in prior to the 1994 Republican Revolution. As always, if I'm right I'll preen like John McLaughlin and if I'm wrong I'll just huff and clear my throat like Jack Germond.

Explanation: The Democrats need to pick up 16 seats in the House and six in the Senate. Conventional wisdom is that the former is likely and the latter is an outside shot. History is on their side: Since World War II, much larger turnovers have been common in the House and not unheard of in the Senate. That goes for midterm elections too, although in those cases large turnovers tend to happen with a president in an unusually vulnerable spot (Truman in 1946, Ford in 1974, and maybe Eisenhower—because of the health rumors—in 1958).

But if historical trends were a guide, Bush would already be facing a massively hostile Congress. He has beaten the odds laid down by almost every president, including Reagan, by consistently picking up seats in his mid-term and re-election cycles. And he's got a great advantage this time in that this will not be a passionately fought election. The Democrats had their chance to harness the anti-Bush groundswell in 2004, and instead they nominated John Kerry. That chance won't come again in a mid-term contest.

The problem for the dems is that they have nobody capable of doing what Gingrich did in 1994: defying Tip O'Neill's law and conceptualizing 435 separate contests as a single national referendum. The only Democratic legislator who gets anybody's body heat up to room temperature is Barack Obama, and he is

a) not yet old enough to see an R-rated film without accompaniment

and

b) in the Senate, where revolutions never occur, and where any attempts at energizing the troops will be blocked by DINOs Clinton and Lieberman.

That leaves the House. Fortunately for the Dems, they don't have as tall a task as Gingrich faced in '94. Unfortunately, they also don't have a Gingrich. They don't even have grich, or gin or even a ngr. They have Nancy Pelosi, the most incompetent politician in the western hemisphere. There are certainly more than 16 vulnerable House seats around this great land of ours, and to the extent those contests get decided locally, there's a chance the Democrats may get a turnover in spite of themselves. But to the extent that any change in the House majority depends on good organization, a strong message, or inspired leadership from above, the Democrats are sunk. Nancy Pelosi is good at one thing—nothing.

I would put even less money on this than on my other predictions. But there you have it. Discuss or ignore, as you see fit.

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

This editorial is not for the faint of heart, and requires a little mathemtical comprehension so have fun:

A Prediction for the 2006 House Contest - Part II
By Jay Cost

Two days ago, I began to discuss what I believe to be the best way to predict congressional elections. Developed first by Edward Tufte and later refined by Gary Jacobson, the “Tufte/Jacobson theory” is starting point I have chosen. It argues that we can predict the outcome of a congressional election based upon three factors: exposure, presidential job approval and changes in real disposable income per capita (RDI/cap). It is time to supply the details, supplement the theory with some extra concerns, and make a prediction for 2006.

Exposure is the extent to which the party of the President is above its historical average. For every 1% over its historical average, the party of the President tends to lose 0.76% of its congressional caucus in the next election, all else being equal. The Republican majority has averaged, since 1994, 227.33 seats. So, considering that today it enjoys 232, one might be inclined to assign a value of 2.01% to exposure. However, this would fail to account for the GOP mid-census Texas redistricting. Redistricting, from a national perspective, typically does not benefit one party more than another. However, the 1990 census resulted in a heavy and sustained Republican advantage – and Jacobson adjusted the exposure statistic to account for this Republican edge (by his estimate, 42 seats). We must do the same to account for the 2004 redistricting, which netted the Republicans four seats in the Texas delegation. This redistricting meant that the three net seats they gained in 2004 were not a consequence of a real expansion of their majority, but rather a slight shrinking of their majority counteracted by redistricting. If we control for this “inflation,” we would say that, in real terms, the GOP actually has one fewer seat in the 109th than it did in the 108th – 228 “real” seats. Accordingly, let us say that the GOP is overexposed by about 0.29%. Because every percentage over its historical average costs a party 0.76% of its delegation, we therefore expect this slight overexposure to cost the Republicans 0.22% of their delegation, all else being equal.

Next is presidential approval. History tells us that for every additional point of popularity a president enjoys in the final Gallup poll before the election, he increases the percentage size of his congressional party by 0.25%, all else being equal. The Gallup polls taken this year show Bush pulling an average of 42.0% approval. His approval rating obviously could trend in either direction in the next nine months. However, given the stability of his job approval since the beginning of 2006, I think it is fair to argue that he has largely stopped the hemorrhaging and that he will still be at about 42% approval on November 7. If this comes true, Bush’s popularity will yield an increase in the GOP’s congressional delegation of 10.50%, all else being equal.

The final important statistic is real disposable income per capita (RDI/cap). We are interested in its percentage change in the twelve months prior to the election. In the wake of Katrina, RDI/cap rose by a robust 3.7%. In the final quarter of 2005, it increased by a brisk 1.03%. Between 2001 and 2004, it increased by about 2% per year. It seems reasonable to conclude, given the pace of its growth in the fourth quarter of 2005 and recent history not affected by Katrina, that it will reach the 2% mark by election time. Though I am not an economist, this actually seems to me to be conservative. Indeed, for RDI/cap to reach a 12-month increase of 2% by October, it need only expand at 0.097% per month; this will not require much exertion for an economy whose GDP is expanding by more than 3% per year. In terms of congressional elections, every 1% increase in RDI/cap yields a 1.29% increase in the President’s party delegation. Thus, we can expect the state of the economy to boost the House GOP delegation by 2.58%, all else equal.

Finally, as I indicated yesterday, there is a baseline value. In other words, if you assume that the party of the President is neither over- nor under-exposed, that nobody likes the President, and that RDI/cap has neither grown nor shrunk in the last year, you can expect the party of the President to lose seats – specifically 17.7% of its delegation.

It is now a matter of simple arithmetic: 10.50% (presidential approval) + 2.58% (RDI/cap) - 0.22% (exposure) – 17.7% (baseline) = -4.84%. In other words, we can expect that the House Republican delegation will shrink by 4.84%. This means that, according to this theory, the Republicans will lose about 11 seats in November.

This is only the beginning of the story. It is not the end. Between 1946 and 2002, Tufte/Jacobson explains 70% of the variation in congressional elections – very good for political science work, but obviously far from perfect. So, the relevant question is: if we vary from this 11-seat mark, whom will the variation favor? The answer depends upon what kind of variation we are discussing – it can either be truly random variation or systematic variation. If it is truly random, then no theory can improve upon Tufte/Jacobson and we must leave things where they stand. If it is systematic variation, it means that the theory is currently missing an important causal process.

Truly random variation, e.g. the entire Texas Republican delegation catches encephalitis and cannot campaign, is impossible to predict and certainly extant to some degree in any process. If Tufte/Jacobson is a completely true theory of how congressional elections operate, and the only reason the real world varies from its predictions is because of random “noise”, a Democratic recapture of the House is improbable but not impossible.

However, I think there are regular processes out there that this theory does not capture, but that favor the Republicans. These should therefore cause this theory to overestimate Democratic gains. As I hinted yesterday, I think this theory serves as the necessary foundation for understanding what will happen in November, but it does not capture the entirety of the process. It excludes certain variables that will serve to mitigate Republican losses. This is a criticism of the theory, but it should not be taken to mean that we should dismiss what we have already developed. All good social science theories necessarily simplify the real world, boiling it down to the essentials so that we can understand the process that exists “out there”. Thus, we should understand the theory we have just reviewed as true but incomplete.

The first important variable that we have thus far excluded is the incumbency advantage. In the last fifty-five years, incumbents have increasingly shielded themselves from electoral mood swings. In other words, the incumbency advantage has expanded in the last half century such that most incumbent Republicans survive in anti-Republican years, and therefore seat changes in anti-Republican years are almost always via open seats. Scholars like Oklahoma University’s Ronald Keith Gaddie contend that exposure is less important than open-seat exposure – i.e. the number of net open seats that a party sports at election time. What matters is still the number of marginal seats a party has, but seats where incumbents are running tend not to be marginal. What of this year? Once again the number of open seats is minute – less than 5% of the House. David Wissing recently noted that there are 20 open seats (13 Republicans, 7 Democrats), only four of which (according to Stuart Rothenberg) are “strong takeover possibilities”. If Gaddie is correct and retirement is today the principal engine of partisan seat swings in Congress, we should not expect the Democrats to beat the 11-seat margin that we have outlined. They will likely net less than 10.

The second important variable that we have excluded has not yet been explored systematically by political scientists. Nevertheless, I think it is important. This is the tight alignment of the Republican electorate – the GOP’s set of voters is more aligned than it ever has been and it is more aligned than the Democrats’ set of voters. Until very recently, there were a large number of Republican-controlled congressional districts wherein voters chose Democratic presidential candidates. Today, there are a scant 17 congressional districts that voted for Kerry and a Republican member of Congress. Meanwhile, there are 41 congressional districts that voted for Bush and a Democratic member of Congress. While we cannot know for certain, this probably means that the distribution of his anemic popularity helps Bush. It is probable that anti-Bush voters are less likely to be located in Republican districts relative to other Republican presidents; pro-Bush voters are about as likely as ever to be located in Democratic districts relative to other Republican presidents. Thus, his job approval is probably more “efficient”, historically speaking, at protecting Republican incumbents, but still as efficient at damaging Democratic incumbents.

Are there other factors that are not captured by the model that favor the Democrats? None come to mind beside congressional job approval. The poor marks Congress currently receives are not captured by the Tufte/Jacobson model, but it is unclear that this will have a significant effect. As I mentioned previously, there has been initial work exploring whether people’s perceptions of Congress help or hurt the President’s party. However, it remains incomplete and there are important questions that linger. It also seems unlikely that the Abramoff scandal will harm Republicans in any significant way. Beyond Congress’s poor marks remain only Bush’s poor marks – which the Tufte/Jacobson theory captures and (probably) overestimates. There seem to be no strong causal processes that we have not yet discussed that would favor the Democrats. Indeed – we could probably tick off a few that additionally favor the Republicans: their strong money advantage, their strong mobilization advantage, the fact that they are not saddled with an ostensible incompetent like Howard Dean, etc.

Thus, we should consider an 11-seat swing in November as the maximum Democratic gain. Factoring in the incumbency pushes my estimate to less than 10. Factoring in the tight alignment of the electorate pushes my estimate to a Democratic gain of about 8 seats. Assuming that (a) Bush’s popularity does not drop off, (b) the economy does not stagnate and (c) Republicans do not have to defend more net open seats, I predict that the 110th Congress will have 224 Republicans and 211 Democrats.

Jordan .

How about that stock market and that below $60/barrel oil! Go S&P 500!

The Dow Jones industrial average pierced the 11,000 mark Tuesday and most other market indexes closed sharply higher, as oil dropped below $60 a barrel for the first time this year and the government reported strong retail sales for January.

The Dow surged 136.07 points to close at 11,028.39. It has risen in four of the last five trading sessions. The Standard & Poor's 500 gained 12.67, to 1275.53. The Nasdaq composite index added 22.36, to 2262.17.

Investors are hoping the second time's the charm for the Dow. On Jan. 9, it broke above 11,000 for the first time since June 2001, but three days later, it fell back below that level and stayed there until Tuesday.

I couldn't do all the math involved in Tufte/Jacobson cum Jay Cost theory, but I'm satisfied with the bottom line. It will be fun to look back on this prediction in 9 months and see how accurate he was.

Oh boy, oh boy! It's almost campaign season!

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Here's an interesting article on RealClearPolitics.

Let me preface - some of you are going to disagree with some little details he presents as "evidence" (maybe you think all controversies over the past 6 years deserve 10s), but if you look beyond the detailed disagreements, and instead look at the bigger concept he is presenting, I'm curious to know what you think about this "theory."  I'm not sure if I agree with him completely but it is intringing.

Cheney as Toast: Democrats Burning Down the House
By Daniel Henninger

Some say Dick Cheney is toast. He's too hot to handle, throw him over the side if he won't drop himself into the waves. Don't look now, but that isn't water surrounding the Bush ship of state. It's gasoline. The issue titled "Dick Cheney" is just one of many embers.

Have you ever noticed how on a scale of one to 10, every untoward event in the life of the Bush presidency goes straight to a 10? (Jordan's note - again, you may think all of these controversies deserve a 10 but I think if you are honest and object you will not.)

The Abu Ghraib photos? A 10 forever. (Jordan's Note - again, they may deserve a 10.) Dick Cheney catching a hunting buddy with some birdshot? An instant 10.(Jordan's Note - seriously not a 10.) The Bush National Guard story? Total 10.(Jordan's Note - never deserved a 10 because some of it was a lie.) How can it be that each downside event in this presidency greets the public at this one, screeching level of outrage and denunciation by the out-of-power party and a perpetually outraged media? (Jordan's Note - good question.)

There was a time when what's been called news judgment would deem some stories a five or six and run them on page 14, or deeper in the newscast. (Jordan's Note - like Rather's decision to not cover the Monica story because it was "rumor?")Back then the Senate minority leader wouldn't bother to look up from his desk. Not with this presidency. Every downside event--large, small, in between--plays above the fold on the front page now. And when Dick Cheney accidentally pops Harry Whittington, old Harry Reid jumps up from his Senate leader's desk faster than a Nevada jack rabbit to announce, one more time, that this "is part of the secretive nature of this administration."

Here are some of the political and media bonfires that have been lit on the White House lawn, stoked and reignited the past five years: the "stolen" 2000 election, Halliburton, "Fahrenheit 9/11," Cheney lives in an "undisclosed location," Abu Ghraib, torture at Guantanamo, Bush lied about WMD, secret CIA prison sites, Valerie Plame, the neocons, Rumsfeld, Cheney's "secret" energy task force, Cindy Sheehan, Bush is destroying Social Security, Hurricane Katrina, Jack Abramoff, illegal wiretaps, Bill Frist's stock sales, what else? (Jordan's Note - again, some may deserve a 10 but all of them?)

Admittedly it's a partial list. This week alone wasn't half over before it had already dumped onto the public first the Cheney shooting scandal and then that George Bush made Katrina worse. This morning's papers may have more bad news.

If it all seems more than a little tiresome, if you wish it would all just go away, well, maybe that's the point--their point. Induce swing voters to seek respite from the Bush experience.

As the chart nearby indicates, the public's allegiance to the two parties is remarkably tight. (Jordan's Note - aI didn't bring it over.)Thus, anything the Democrats can do to push up their number or push down the Republicans' materially enhances their chances in this November's elections and in 2008--and prevents the onset of a long majority for the GOP of the sort McKinley triggered in 1896. Yes, there will be no Bush-Cheney in 2008, but they're useful as a wedge to redirect voter preferences.

Absent any fresh or positive message for voters, why not try winning by turning politics under the Republicans into an experience of unrelenting discomfort? (Jordan's Note - changes the meaning of politics of fear that the DNC keep saying about the GOP.) The substance of any given issue falls in importance. Connecting Jack Abramoff to George Bush personally was always a stretch. (Jordan's Note - again, you mgiht disagree with this - there's more of a connection than the WH wants but how big of one - well who knows...)So what?

The most telling evidence of a strategy of discomfiting the body politic was the January bonfire over terrorist wiretaps. Here the opposition shrieked for days about a "constitutional crisis" even as polls were indicating public support for the Bush program, including 28% who would OK tapping anyone's phone "on a regular basis" to catch terrorists.

Parties don't sail against the polling winds. Why this time? Because come November, the "wiretaps" will sit in many voters' minds not as a debate over Article II but as part of what feels to them like endless "bad news." The press's supersizing of the Cheney shooting may look like excess. So what? No matter how voters feel on any one issue--terror, the courts, values--the Democrats, event after event, are building the feeling that the Bush-Cheney presidency and GOP Congress have somehow been 40 miles of bad road.

Can it work? Absent a 21st-century political vision, I think Democratic candidates will always be drawing to an inside straight. Creating a negative aura is easier than contending on discrete issues such as taxes. (Jordan's Note - and for sake of arguemnt, GOP has done the same thing.) Yes, substance and ideas count in politics, but in many parts of American culture these days feelings and stereotypes are money. Why not make the public just want to throw in the towel on the Republican "experience"?

Until the recent strong speeches by the president and other officials, the White House had no apparent strategy for offsetting this almost daily downdraft of ill political winds. Not that the antidote is obvious. The talk shows and blogs? Arguably, they fan the flames higher; most of their energies are spent pouring gasoline on the other guys' bonfires. Sure, some people like the new high heat of our politics. But you know what? Some--many--don't.

Those interested in a more complete analysis of political polarization in the U.S. today should read "How Divided Are We?" by James Q. Wilson in the February issue of Commentary, reprinted in this Wednesday's OpinionJournal.com. But collaborating with a willing media to market the opposition party as a haunted house is a cynical, wholly reductionist strategy, with nothing in it for the public good. It dumbs down our politics. As shown with Social Security reform, the system ceases to function. A major U.S. foreign-policy initiative like the Bush Doctrine has to be delegitimized with no serious opposition support at any level. This is the strategy of the phalanx, not politics. If it works, the other side will surely run the same tar-and-pitch strategy against a new Clinton presidency. It deserves to fail.

Jordan .

Funny but I was thinking the same thing yesterday, Jordan. But along with that, I was thinking that, as always, in my sincere desire to save the left from itself, how much I would like to warn them about this tendency of theirs to fall into spasms of unhinged rages over each successive Bush administration "outrage." This has the tendency to render them as nothing so much as cackling crows in the distance. White noise. Little boy who cried wolf syndrome. Dismissing the lot of what is said because of the daily knowledge that everything will be blown out of all reasonable proportion.

I still read the LA and NY Times. Heck, I read the BBC news and Al Jazeera and Islam Online everyday. Part of me is looking for the old journalistic objectivity. Another part of me is looking to say, "SEE! There's another example of their bias!" But mostly I crave those writers who put together an honest assessment with a minimal personal slant unless it is from a commentator.
Seriously, once in a while the left needs to take a deep breath -- at least from the left lung -- and try to scale

what is BIG

as opposed to what is NOT SO BIG

or even small.

The anger from the left is manna to their damaged impotent souls at this time. I understand it. I swear I do. There's this sense that anyone who supports Bush and backs the Iraq war is a BLIND SHEEPLE unable to see that light which shines so vividly for the left. But that constant sputtering rage can't be productive and I think this article demonstrates that deficit brilliantly!

A gradating list from 1 to 10 might help. I've got mine from the right pov. It helps to recognize what is a threat to the country and/or the world and what is just an over-hyped partisan temporary brouhaha that will pass and be forgotten.

Good article, Jordan!  Anyway, I have great hope for these changes to occur with the leadership of the Democratic candidate for the 2008 presidency, Governor Mark Warner.  It will strengthen the Democratic party, which will, in turn, strengthen the Republican party and quite obviously, strengthen the country.  Something we can all live with. 

For our friends on the left who post here, I do want to add a sincere word of praise. This is not sarcastic either. I'm as serious as Lou Gehrig's disease. I know that I, for one, can be rough on you at times. I also realize how insufferable I would have found an encounter with myself back had I run into today's me during my leftist years. BUT, I promise you I admire you immensely for engaging in the War of Words here. Too many of us on both sides are content with the echo chamber. It takes balls to face a relentless volley of opposing views and to keep plugging away. Maybe those of us who post here are more argumentative by nature than the average bear but I really want you to know how much I appreciate your challenges even if it does make for a lot of extra work Googling to find the best counter argument to yours. And even if it does mean I am going to have to occasionally do those things that rankle my short hairs -- such as watching F-9/11 or listening to Air America or reading 54 page reports from the UN.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin