Every single Democratic consultant is now predicting that Republicans will regain control of the House.  The low estimate is that Republicans will gain a minimum of 50 seats and even some Democrats are expecting up to 70 seats.

That is the bad news.  The good news is that these outcomes assume high Democratic turnout.  If Democrats have a bad evening, say a repeat of the Scott Brown election, then it could be much worse.  Almost every consultant admits that if they are wrong, it is because Republican gains will be even larger. 

If the Republicans have a very good night, but not a GREAT night, they could end up with 268 seats.  That would be a 90 seat swing.  But, if they have a great night, it could be even worse.  Here are the numbers that really count.

Safe Democratic seats:   121                 Safe Republican seats:  163

Everything else could possibly change, but right now Republicans are ahead in 51 other races.  That would result in the Republicans having 224 seats, or a majority, without winning ANY tossup seats.

There are currently 44 tossup seats and with the obvious Republican surge, the Republicans could pick up a high percentage of them.  Obviously if they got all the tossups, that would be a gain of 95 seats.  In addition, there are another 22 Democrat seats where the Democrat is only slightly ahead and another 24 where the Democrat is ahead by a slightly higher margin, but not enough to make the seat safe.  That means another 46 Democratic seats have at least some risk.  Incredibly while the Republicans are already expected to easily pick up 46 seats, another 90 Democratic seats are at least somewhat competitive and 44 of them are extremely competitive.   Wow!

In the last two weeks, virtually every close race has swung to the Republicans.  There are only two congressional seats where Democrats have improved.   There are 40 where Republicans have improved. 

If you combine this with the 15 point Gallup lead by Republicans on the generic ballot, this may soon be called Ruby Tuesday.

The Senate is far from a sure thing, but as of now if the Republicans win West Virginia, Washington or California, they probably win the Senate. 

The only real question is not whether the political storm will hit, but rather the extent of the Damage to the Democratic Party.

Here are safe predictions:

1.  Nancy Pelosi is finished as Speaker of the House and she will probably resign from congress before the start of the next congress rather than continue in the minority.
2. Republicans will definitely win enough seats in the Senate to effectively block any legislation that does not receive broad Republican support.  Republicans will control all legislation in the House.
3. There will be investigations of key Democrats that have been ignored for over 4 years.  Some of those investigations will be devastating.
4. There will be significant investigations regarding Obama.  If early investigations turn up any smoking guns, these could escalate rapidly.  Never under estimate the power of the subpoena.

There will be an immediate fight regarding the extension of the Bush Tax cuts.  Obama will try to force Republicans to pass legislation excluding the top brackets and only for a limited period of time.  He is likely to veto any attempt to extend tax credits for the top tax brackets.

Republicans will push to pass tax cuts for everyone and for a longer period of time.  Whoever is viewed as obstructionist will pay a huge political price.  If Obama can convince people that he is willing to compromise, but Republicans insist on giving tax cuts to the rich, he may literally save his Presidency.  On the other hand it is precisely those tax brackets that are likely to drive any recovery.   In addition, there are more and more Democrats who honestly believe that extending the tax cuts for everyone is necessary.  Even the biased main stream media is moving in that direction.

This will be an immediate battle shortly after the election.  That is the dilemma for Obama and Democrats.   If they don’t extend the tax cuts during a lame duck session, every American is going to get hit with a huge tax increase on January 1.  That is going to make just about everyone angry.   Republicans will probably be able to prevent Democrats from even voting on legislation that extends the tax cuts without including the top brackets.  Democrats couldn’t get that done before the election, which is why Pelosi didn’t allow a vote.   My guess is that one of two things will happen.  Either the lame duck congress will adjourn without extending the Bush tax cuts, which will create even more problems for Democrats, or they will vote to extend all the Bush tax cuts.  If Obama vetoes that, and he is unsuccessful in blaming it on Republicans, he will be making a major mistake. 

Remember that Pelosi will have been humiliated by a crushing defeat and Harry Reid is likely to have been voted out of office.  I doubt that the Democrats who just got voted out of office because of the Obama, Pelosi, Reid incompetence will be very enthusiastic about following them further over the cliff.  Regardless of final outcome on Tuesday, the American people have already sent a loud and clear message. 

If Obama is smart, he will “reluctantly” sign the extension of the Bush Tax Cuts and then tries to claim credit for the recovery.  However, at this point, he shows no signs of doing the smart thing.  Instead he is promising to fight harder.  It is going to be a very interesting November and December.    

TDM

 Barack Obama made a major stop in Delaware yesterday. So did Joe Biden.  According to the main stream media Coons has an insurmountable lead over O’Donnell.  The polls are so bad that Karl Rove couldn’t even bring himself to say he thought she had a chance to win when pressed by O’Reilly.  Yet, Democrats are obviously worried.  There may be good reason for them to be concerned.  I looked at the internals of the latest poll showing that Coons up by 10 points.  That result, like most other polls, depends on voter turnout being similar to 2008.  That assumes that 43% of voters will be Democrats, 31% will be Republicans and 26% will be Independents.  If you use that turnout model then the poll which has 85% of Democrats voting for Coons and 79% of Republicans voting for O’Donnell produces a 10% win.  But, that turnout is very unlikely in this election cycle.  At a minimum, Republican turnout is probably going to be much higher than it was in 2008 and Democratic turnout much lower.  In addition this poll showed Independents supporting O’Donnell by a significant margin.  If more  Republicans and Independents vote than Democrats, this could be a very close race.     

It is hard for anyone, including me, to predict O’Donnell winning in a red state like Delaware.  That is doubly true because she has been crucified in the main stream media and has become a nationwide laughingstock.  But a couple of recent developments give me pause.  It is clear from all the polls that O’Donnell is surging.  It also seems like Coons made a huge mistake.  His campaign paid to have someone make up a clearly false sex scandal about O’Donnell.  That made a lot of women, including liberal women, absolutely furious.  It was beyond despicable.  It was also really stupid.  Democrats have always enjoyed a huge advantage with Women voters.  Coon’s has risked losing that advantage with this bizarre stunt.  I still wouldn’t bet on O’Donnell pulling this off, but I also wouldn’t be shocked if she won. 

The latest news is that even Nat Silver from the NYT is admitting that Republicans are going to do a lot better than he expected.  He not only expects people like Harry Reid to lose, he wouldn’t be surprised to seem them lose by big margins.  His article appears to be more of a post mortem than a prediction.  This is astonishing, because Silver has historically over estimated Democratic results, particularly during this election cycle:

 http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/31/5-reasons-republicans-could-do-even-better-than-expected/

What’s interesting is that Silver, like all liberals, is incapable of understanding that this election is a rejection of liberal policies.  He has five reasons why Democrats are “likely to lose.”

 1.   Downballot races.  Republican candidates at the local level are doing very well and that will impact the top of the ticket races.  This is sort of the reverse shirt tails argument.

2.   Unlikely Voters.  People voted who weren’t expected to vote turned out for this election. 

3.  The Incumbent Rule.  When things are going badly, incumbents lose.

4.   The Scott Brown effect.   Republicans are energized because for the first time in a long time they think their vote may actually count.

5.   Bad Voter Turnout Models.  The Democratic turnouts in 2006 and 2008 were unusually high and are unlikely to be repeated.

Some of these arguments have merit, but like most liberals, Silver just doesn’t get it.  This election is mostly about people who are furious at both parties for their tax, tax, tax and spend, spend, and spend agendas.  Democrats are in trouble because they are in control and they are getting the lion’s share of the blame.  But, Republicans have also been much quicker to adopt to the tea party movement.  They are far more likely to understand why people are peeved and they are at least pretending to listen.  In addition, thanks to the tea party, there are some very conservative candidates running as Republicans who appear ready, willing and able to stand up to the Republican establishment.  These are not your grandfather’s Republicans. 

There is one other factor that may prove to be very significant.  In previous elections Democrats won because of overwhelming union support.  That is not working as well this year.  The Supreme Court rejected parts of McCain Feingold and business organizations, like the Chamber of Commerce, have taken advantage of this.  This has leveled the playing field significantly compared to previous elections where unions often spent millions buying elections.  

In addition, in this economy, public sector employees are no longer viewed as favorably.   It has become more and more obvious that a lot of public sector employee are enjoying a much better lifestyle than the rest of us and they are doing it with our tax dollars.  In other words there is a significant public sector union backlash building.  

So what did Dela Wear Boys.  She wore a New Jersey and with a little luck it could even turn out to be red. 

TDM

For years I listened to Michael Savage every evening while driving home from San Francisco to Novato.  It wasn’t that I am a big fan of his, but rather that he was basically the only option.  Mr. Savage is an interesting character and sometimes he is very good at making his point.  One of his favorite lines was that he believed Liberalism was a mental disorder.  His theory was based on the incredible ability of liberals to completely ignore facts and common sense to arrive at their conclusions.   Ronald Reagan said that liberals are not bad people; they just believe a lot of things that are not true.  Now we learn that Harvard has discovered a gene that explains liberalism.  Ironically they describe it as follows:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8093089/Liberal-gene-discovered-by-scientists.html

dopamine receptor gene called DRD4

Dopamine seems like a really good description of the liberal thought process.

But there is good news in the study.  It turns out that even people with this defect don’t necessarily turn out to be liberal, unless they hang out with the wrong friends.  In other words liberalism can be cured, either by early association with non-liberals or by the simple aging process, although some liberals obviously never figure it out. 

A reforming liberal friend of mine said he used to think a conservative was a liberal who had been mugged.  He now says that a conservative is a liberal who got a 25% increase in his health care premium because of Obamacare.

I have to admit I am frequently astonished at the thought process of liberals.  If I am having a discussion with someone and they say I have my facts wrong, I always pay attention.  I might not admit it to them, but I will usually do some research and at least evaluate their facts.  To me the truth is very important.  What sense does it make to believe in something that is based on things that are not true?  But often I have discovered that liberals are not interested in facts.  They “feel” they are right, so to them facts are irrelevant.

Perhaps the best example of this is the liberal view of Dick Cheney.  The facts are that Dick Cheney was well liked and respected by people in both parties before he became Vice President.  He didn’t become “Darth Vader” until after the 2000 election.  With help from the mass media, Dick Cheney is widely considered to be a mean and vicious person with little regard to anyone else.  Yet the records show that Dick Cheney is one of the most giving politicians ever.  In 2005 he made $8,819,006.  He and his wife donated 75% of that, or $6,869,655 to charity.  In the same year, Joe Biden donated $395.  In 1997 when Al Gore was Vice President he reported income of $197,729 and paid a whopping $353 to charity.  Yet if you ask a liberal today who is more generous, Al Gore, Joe Biden or Dick Cheney, they will laugh derisively that the evil Dick Cheney would even be mentioned in the same breath as these two saintly individuals. 

Ultimately, this is why liberalism is destined to failure.  When you are making decisions based on assumptions that are not true, your chances of making the correct decision is very low. 

But, now I am more understanding of liberals.  Harvard has shown that these people are not deliberately wrong, they are just mentally ill as the result of a defective gene.   I will try to be more understanding by recognizing they probably can’t help themselves.  Of course, as with any other mental illness, we should avoid putting such people into positions which require decision making.  That would be cruel.

TDM

The last Gallup survey is in and it is devastating for Democrats.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/144053/2010-Electorate-Looking-Republican-Past.aspx

  The following chart says it all:

If this is even close to accurate, Democrats are in world class thumping.  Keep in mind that in 1994 Republicans took back the House and the Senate, something that no one predicted prior to the election.  Republicans were expected to do well, but most people expected Democrats to retain control of both the House and the Senate.  They were wrong.  The margin in this poll is three times what it was in 1994 and conservatives drastically out number moderates. 

Today Rasmussen reports that 65% of voters would like to completely replace congress.  We really don’t know what will happen Tuesday, but the following is certainly true:

No incumbent is truly safe.  Republican incumbents are in much less trouble Democrats but an anti-incumbent surge may affect both parties.  In the House, that will be devastating to Democrats.   In the Senate any incumbent without a very solid lead should be worried.  The only Democrats with that kind of lead are Schumer, Leahy and Mikulski.  All other Democratic Senators have at least a chance of losing.  So far no Republican Senator appears to be at risk, but in this climate they should be nervous as well.

We are certain to see the following on Tuesday night.   It will become quickly clear that Republicans have retaken the House.  The real question will be by what margin.  Political pundits will be shocked at some of the people removed from office.   There will be surprises with regard to the Senate, in some cases shocking results.

We get an early indication of how things are going by watching the returns on Chuck Schumers race in New York.   He appears to be up by 30 points.  If he wins by say 15 points then the fight is on.

We are in the back stretch.

TDM

According to the LA Times, Jerry Brown is now up by 13 points.  Yet Republicans are at least pretending that this race is competitive.  So the question is, 1:  how accurate is that poll and 2:  how competitive is this race?

I went through and looked at the assumptions and the questions in this poll.  This quickly showed that the poll is deeply flawed for several reasons.  The most important is that this is based on an assumption that turnout by party will be the same as it was in 2008, except they are expecting a 5% larger Democratic turnout.  The entire poll is nonsense because of this assumption.  Most people believe that right now about voter registration in California is about 44% Democrat and 36% Republican.  Yet the people is this poll self identified themselves as  43% Democrat and 28% Republican with 28% independent.   Again, nonsense.  Obviously if you ask more Democrats than Republicans who is going to vote for the Democrat in any election, the Democrat will almost always win.  The poll was also very lengthy and it over sampled latinos, which is standard fare for the LA Times.    In other words, the poll results are virtually meaningless, other than to pump up Democratic enthusiasm. 

You might recall that these were the same clowns who thought Gray Davis would defeat the recall and if he did lose it would be a cliff hanger between Cruz Bustamonte and Arnold Schwartzenegger.  Nailed that one!

So what is the truth?  The Brown  vs Whitman race is too close to call, but Brown is slightly ahead and this is a Democratic state.  She could win this, but she needs a big Republican turnout.  With regard to Boxer vs Fiorina, the margin is only about 3 points and Boxer is less than 50.  Odds are that Boxer loses.

Sadly we could see another 4 year term for Governor Moonbeam, but it is a bit early to Jerry to start measuring drapes.  Whitman is going to hammer him hard over the next five days and she has a lot of ammunition.  In addition the Republican wave is proving to be enormous and it may carry a lot of people over the top.

TDM

The biggest loser in this election is likely to be the the unions, particularly the public sector unions.   

There have definitely been times in our nation’s history when Unions helped bring attention to serious problems.  Perhaps the best example is the United Mine Workers and their efforts to require mine owners to pay more attention to workplace safety.  In other cases the unions were effective in requiring business owners to increase wages for blue collar employees.  There were certainly employers, like George Pullman, who were unwilling to treat their employees fairly. 

 But unions, by their very nature, also have the potential to abuse their power.  The close relationship between unions and organized crime is well documented.  Unions were used to extort business owners into cooperating with or at least tolerating organized crime. 

Politicians in both parties realized that there was a potential for enormous problems if unions were allowed to organize public workers, particularly public safety workers.  The following article, by Daniel DeSalvo published in National Affairs does an excellent job in providing a historical perspective on public sector unions:

http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-trouble-with-public-sector-unions

Democrats originally were just as opposed to public sector unions as Republicans.  For example this article includes the following quote from Franklin Roosevelt, who was definitely a pro-union guy:

Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relations and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government….The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.”   He went on to say that “[a] strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to obstruct the operations of government until their demands are satisfied. Such action looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it is unthinkable and intolerable.”

The New York Supreme Court issued an opinion in 1943 warning about the danger from public service unions:

To tolerate or recognize any combination of civil service employees of the government as a labor organization or union is not only incompatible with the spirit of democracy, but inconsistent with every principle upon which our government is founded. Nothing is more dangerous to public welfare than to admit that hired servants of the State can dictate to the government the hours, the wages and conditions under which they will carry on essential services vital to the welfare, safety, and security of the citizen. To admit as true that government employees have power to halt or check the functions of government unless their demands are satisfied, is to transfer to them all legislative, executive and judicial power. Nothing would be more ridiculous.

The Democratic Party has been closely allied with unions from the start, beginning with the Wagner Act in 1935.  Republicans, on the other hand, were opposed to unions, as represented by Taft-Hartly in 1947.  The result is that unions are closely connected with the Democratic Party, particularly in big cities.  This is why nearly every major city in the United States is dominated by Democrats.  Unions have incredible power and they almost always support Democratic candidates.   It is nearly impossible to get elected to public office in a major city without union support.  The end result is a country where big cities are dominated by liberal democrats while the rest of the country is largely republican.

The following red-state/blue-state maps tell the story.  The first is from 2004, when Bush defeated John Kerry.  This shows results by county.  It is a stark reminder of how the lethal combination of the Democratic party and public sector unions in high density population centers can dominate national politics even when most of the country disagrees.

The second map is from 2008.  The pattern is the same, but Obama obviously attracted a much broader base than John Kerry:

But I have learned that there is a quick way to find out who or what to support.  I just look for the Union Label.  If the add is being funded by a public sector union, I vote no.  It’s a beautiful thing.

TDM

This is going to be a very interesting week.  I have been viewing several recent polls and a couple of patterns are clear.  No legitimate pollster, Republican or Democrat, is now predicting that Democrats keep control of the House.  Even the most die hard Democratic pundits are admitting that Republicans are going to win a lot of seats currently held by Democrats.  Some estimates are north of 90 seats changing hands.   In addition, those Democrats from Republican districts who do survive will have done so by running against Obama and against Pelosi.  Here is California virtually no one is running as a Democrat.  Even Barbara Boxer has avoided mentioning the stimulus, Obamacare or any other of his other great accomplishments.  Instead she is pretending to be a friend of veterans and she is slamming Carly Fiorina.

The real question is how bad will it be?  No one knows for sure, because recent polls have shown Republicans to be competitive in districts where no one thought that was remotely possible.  For example, even Dennis Kucinich is in trouble, with his Republican opponent now within 4 percentage points.  Unbelievable!

We already know some things because of reports from states that allow early voting.  No one is measuring actual votes, but they are measuring whether it is a registered Republican or a registered Democrat who is voting.  The following shows some of the results.   I have verified these results from several sources:

Following are the states where Republicans are doing very well. 

Arizona           Republicans 44%  Democrats 34%

Colorado         Republicans 42%  Democrats 37%

Florida             Republicans 53%  Democrats 34%

Georgia           Republicans 58%  Democrats 26%

Nevada            Republicans 42%  Democrats 42%

New Mexico   Republicans 47%  Democrats 44%

Pennsylvania   Republicans 56%  Democrats 37%

Democrats appear to be doing well in West Virginia, Maryland, Wisconsin and Iowa, but even Democratic pollsters expect the Republican candidate to win in all of those states, with the exception of Maryland.  It appears that this year Democratic registered voters, particularly in blue collar states, are not necessarily voting for the Democrat.

 West Virginia is very interesting, because the Democrat is the current Governor, Manchin, who is very popular.  He was way behind until he ran an ad where he came out carrying a rife, promised to repeal “the bad parts” of Obamacare and then literally shot at the proposed Cap & Trade legislation.  This is not exactly an endorsement of Democratic Party accomplishments.  If he wins, it will only because of his promise to break with the Democratic Party. 

 No current Republican Senator is considered to be at risk, and even Democratic strategists are predicting they will all be easily re-elected.  Remarkably only 4 Democratic Senate seats are considered solid Democrat as of right now.

 Here is what to expect and what to watch.  Barbara Mikulski in Maryland and Patrick Leahy in Vermont will probably coast to re-election.  Unless something changes, we should expect Schumer and Gillebrand in New York.  If either New York race is even close that would be significant.  For example Schumer is up by about 30 points and Gillebrand is up by about 19 points.  If either race is close, that is very bad news for Democrats. 

The early races to watch are the Senate races in Connecticut and Delaware.  The conventional wisdom is that Democrats are ahead in both states, but Obama recently campaigned in both states.  There must be some concern by the Democratic Party.  Even if the Democrat wins, but the margin is in the low single digits, the Senate is definitely in play.  If the Republican pulls off a win in either state, it is going to be a bloodbath for Democrats in the Senate.  Republicans have a better chance in Connecticut than in Delaware, but this year anything could happen.  In both states the Democrat is up by about 15% at the moment.  Normally that would be considered a safe margin, but a lot of tea party candidates surged more than just before the election.

I know a lot of people are really wondering about California.  It is too close to call.  The key factor is that in no poll has Barbara Boxer got more than 48% of the vote.  Usually, if an incumbent is not over 50% the week before the election, they lose.  If someone has not decided to vote for Barbara Boxer by now they are unlikely to change their mind.  There are a lot more Democrats than Republicans in California, and Boxer is up by about 3 points, but she has not put this away. As of 2008, 44% of voters were Democrats and 31% were Republicans with 25% independents.  So far, in early voting, 43% of voters have been Democrats and 39% have been Republicans.  That is a significant Republican trend.  If Independents move away from Barbara Boxer she will probably lose.

Bad news for Republicans would be a Feingold victory in Wisconsin.  If that happens, Democrats probably keep the Senate.  A Manchin victory in West Virginia would not necessarily mean much with regard to other Senate races because of his personal popularity and his strategy to run against the Democratic agenda.   Obviously if Rubio loses in Florida, that would also be bad, as would be a win by Sestak in Pennsylvania.

Final note:  There are a ton of Republican/Conservative groups out there that are determined to seize this opportunity.  The Chamber of Commerce has been very active and has been effective.  Other groups are targeting high profile states.  That has already been effective in Alaska and Nevada.  They are pouring money into Connecticut, Delaware, Nevada and Washington.  Right now it appears that the RNC thinks they have a chance at 82 seats and they are spending a lot of money there.  Previously they were focused on about 50 seats, so this is an indication they are going for the kill.

Democrats are screaming bloody murder and Rep Fazio has called for the impeachment of John Roberts for the Supreme Court decision to overturn McCain-Feingold.  That decision had a major impact on leveling the field, because in prior elections unions would always pour in tons of last minute cash and push Democrats over the top.  At the same time the business community was restricted from spending money during the last 30 days.  A lot of our problems are directly related to the takeover of local, state and federal governments by public sector unions.  I did another post over the weekend titled:  LOOK FOR THE UNION LABEL. 

TDM

We obviously won’t know the final results of this election until after November 2.  However, in evaluating this race and all the recent polls, it would be well to keep the following in mind.

1.  Most voters have already made up their mind.  Those who have not yet decided to vote for an incumbent almost always vote for the challenger.  This is a well documented fact.  For this reason any incumbent failing to poll above 50% this late in the race is in jeopardy.  Think Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid
2. All of the polls are based on “expected voters.”  All that a pollster needs to do to make it look like Democrats are catching up is assume that Democratic participation will be the same as in previous elections.  However, that has not been true for a long time, at least as far back as the Scott Brown election in Massachusetts.
3. In recent elections all of the polls have grossly underestimated the Republican vote and also grossly underestimated the tea part influence.   That is why no one was predicting Joe Miller beating Lisa Murkowski in Alaska.  No one was predicting Christine O’Donnell beating Mike Castle in Delaware.  The list goes on and on.  Not only did these candidates win, they won by large margins.  For example:  the polls showed Joe Miller down by double digits less than a week before the election.  Some of this can be explained by brilliant last minute media buys by the Tea Party Express, but at least some of it is the result of the polls being really wrong.
4. Nothing has happened to change this election.  There has been no October surprise and Obama’s campaigning has done more harm than good.  The more campaigning by Obama, the more this becomes a nationalized election and the more Democrats lose. 
5. Democrats have only made gains in a couple of states where the Republican candidate has screwed up.  Classic examples are New York Governor and Delaware Senate.  Democrats may pick off one or two candidates, but they cannot stop a rising tide.
6. The numbers to really watch are Gallup.  They are predicting a 17 point Republican advantage based on normal turnout.  They consider an average turnout to be about 40%.  But, they are still predicting a 12 point Republican advantage if there is a high turnout of about 55%.  But, in my personal opinion, that this year is different and if there is a high turnout it is likely to be even more Republican.  If that is true, then anything could happen.
7. None of the polls are really taking the Gallup results into consideration.  Even Rasmussen does not do that.  The reason is that the pollsters are terrified of being wrong.  If they are wrong they don’t want someone accusing them of having made a material difference in technique. 

The bottom line is that this election will probably be unlike any other.  Just think of all that has happened this year.  Scott Brown, a Republican, won Ted Kennedy’s old Senate Seat.  Several incumbent senators have been picked off in primaries by underfinanced unknowns.  Others, like Evan Bayh and Christopher Dodd, didn’t even bother to run for re-election because they knew they were going to lose.  There is a high tide and a storm surge coming that will lift all ships.  The only question remaining is the ultimate size of the tsunami.

TDM

I recently read Bob Woodward’s new book: “Obama’s Wars.”   It provides valuable insight into President Obama and his administration.  The good news is that, at least with regard to national security, Obama does want to do what’s best for the country.  There is no evidence of the “I hate America” viewpoint of a William Ayers or a Reverend Wright.  If he holds that opinion, he is hiding it from everyone, including his own staff.  But upon reading this book, which is primarily based on first hand interviews, it is obvious that Obama has an incredible combination of naivety, arrogance and incompetence.  In every instance, he views all subjects in terms of himself.  For example the military, lead by Admiral Mullens, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and General Petraeus was lobbying for more troops in Afghanistan.  Woodward shows that the military was primarily motivated by fear of failure if they didn’t get the troops they needed.  But, Obama viewed this primarily as a personal attack on him and was angry.  Regardless of whom you think is right on the subject; the problem is that Obama could not view their actions objectively.

 With regard to Afghanistan, it is clear that Obama inherited a really tough situation.  I am not sure there is a good solution.  The military wanted to send in all those additional troops, but they weren’t exactly promising success.  Instead McChrystal was talking about taking 8 or 10 years to get things under control to the extent that the Afghan government could take over their own security.  No one was even hinting that a surge in Afghanistan would have results similar to those in Iraq. 

 On the other hand Obama was primarily focused on the political fallout rather than the potential risk to national security.  The entire basis for his strategy was based on two requirements.  First, we would not consider just leaving.  Second, we would not consider no leaving.  The only question was with regard to the timing.  He seemed to be primarily concerned that when things went wrong that he would not get the blame.  In other words his primary motivation for approving the additional troop levels was to avoid being criticized from not doing that. 

 Many people have criticized Bush for ignoring Afghanistan, but Woodward’s book hints that the opposite was true.  Bush had a bi-weekly video conference with the onsite commanders.  He clearly knew what was going on.  But Bush was not interested in escalating the war and he ignored the military requests for more and more troops.  I suspect that Bush felt the status quo was probably the best result we could expect in Afghanistan.  He was quite content to keep the Taliban under control and to make sure al Qaeda did not return.   That may not be very inspiring, but it just may be reality.

 If there is one person in the Obama administration that had the same view as Bush, it was VP Biden.  It surprised me that Biden seemed to be the only one who knew what he wanted to accomplish.  Biden strongly opposed sending in more troops, with no expectation of actually winning anything.  He felt that was the worst possible decision.  He suggested that the U.S. should back off from a counter insurgency approach and  revert to a counter terrorism approach.  That would involve leaving enough troops to keep the Taliban under control and to discourage al Qaeda from coming back, but to stop trying to do nation building when no one was even pretending that this was possible.  In other words, Biden wanted to continue doing exactly the same thing Bush was doing.

 Hillary Clinton supported sending in more troops, but she really didn’t think it would work, she just thought we should at least pretend we were really committed.  She had strong support from Senators Graham and McCain.  But frankly, I was unimpressed with any of them, because no one seemed to think this would really work.  I have a hard time understanding why we would escalate a war if we had no intention or even hope of actually winning.

 Ultimately Obama made the worst possible decision.  He sent in more troops, but not as many as the military said was the minimum necessary.  Then he required rules of engagement that concentrated on reducing civilian casualties by increasing the risk to our own troops.  Finally he guaranteed failure by publically declaring that we were leaving in 2011 regardless of circumstances. 

 The interview of Obama, printed in the New York Times recently, combined with Woodward’s book, offers a lot of insight into Obama.  If you want to read the actual article, following is the link:

 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/magazine/17obama-t.html?_r=3&ref=magazine&pagewanted=all

 Obama really believes that he is brilliant. Several people commented that Obama always thinks he is the smartest person in the room.  He has convinced himself that he is uniquely gifted and entitled to power.  A few weeks ago I wrote that the number one characteristic of an incompetent person is that they do not know they are incompetent.  Obama has absolutely no accomplishments that justify his arrogant opinion of himself.  His academic record is mediocre.  From all accounts he couldn’t even write his own memoirs and had to dump the assignment on William Ayers.  He has no significant political accomplishments and has never demonstrated real leadership on any issue.  It is basically the equivalent of someone who never played organized football, at any level, deciding he is a better quarterback than Bret Favre.  If you read the characteristics of an extreme narcissist, this appears to be a common trait.   When one considers how Obama was abandoned by father, his step father and his mother, it is easy to understand why he might develop these traits.

 Regardless of why, Obama is in a state of denial regarding his own ability.  The following quote from the above article is very revealing:

  Given how much stuff was coming at us,” Obama told me, “we probably spent much more time trying to get the policy right than trying to get the politics right. There is probably a perverse pride in my administration — and I take responsibility for this; this was blowing from the top — that we were going to do the right thing, even if short-term it was unpopular. And I think anybody who’s occupied this office has to remember that success is determined by an intersection in policy and politics and that you can’t be neglecting of marketing and P.R. and public opinion.”

 No President has been more involved in marketing and PR than Obama and no President has been give more favorable treatment by the main stream media, but Obama fails to understand that.  Instead, he thinks that every decision he made has been right, except that he has not done a good enough job of explaining to people why he is right. 

 The reporter reminded Obama about his speech after receiving the Democratic nomination, when he said the following:

 “we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth.”

When the reporter pointed out that so far Obama hasn’t exactly done any of this, Obama responded with the following:

 I make no apologies for having set high expectations for myself and for the country, because I think we can meet those expectations,” he said. “Now, the one thing that I will say — which I anticipated and can be tough — is the fact that in a big, messy democracy like this, everything takes time. And we’re not a culture that’s built on patience.”

 In other words, Obama still thinks he made all the right policy decisions and he actually believes that he alone is capable of saving the planet.  It is one thing for a political candidate to say that, but for a President to naively think he is actually capable of that, when so far his policies have been a total disaster,  is beyond arrogance, it is delusional.

 A comment by Ken Duberstein, a former Chief of Staff for Ronald Reagan who incredibly admits to voting for Obama in 2008, is very revealing:

 “When he talked about being a transformational president, it was about restoring the faith of the American people in our governing institutions,”

 An even more revealing remark was made by Peter Ozburg, White House Budget Director who recently left the administration.  He was apparently shocked to find out that the business community had a totally different view of things than the Obama administration.    When describing the obvious disconnect between the business community and the Obama administration he said the following:

 “I’d thought it was an 8, but it’s more like a 10,” he told me. “And rather than wasting time debating whether it’s legitimate,” he added, referring to his former colleagues, “the key is to recognize that it’s affecting what they do.”

 Ultimately, we are dealing with a President and an administration that is incapable of recognizing reality.  It is hard to imagine anyone making good decisions in that environment.  When you combine this with the unprecedented level of personal arrogance, it provides a pretty good explanation for what has happened and what is likely to happen in the future.  Obama is traveling all over the country trying to save Democrats from disaster.  Yet in most cases he is making things worse.  Today he said that the reason people are voting for Republicans is that they are too scared to think straight.  Perhaps I am wrong on this, but I never felt that insulting voters was a good strategy for winning an election.  I expect Republicans to score a historic victory in just over two weeks.  I also expect that Obama to continue believing that he is right and that everyone else is wrong.  He will blame Bush, he will blame Republicans, he will blame the media, he will blame Democrats and he will blame the American voters, and ultimately he will even blame our democratic system of government.  But he won’t even consider the possibility that he might be wrong.  After all, he is always the smartest person in the room.

 TDM

I got a chance to watch the televised debate between Christine O’Donnell and Chris Coons.  Based on the media records one would think that Ms. O’Donnell tanked.  But after watching the actual debate, I am no so sure that is the case.  The truth is that she did not need to win the debate; she just needed to show that she is capable of handling herself.  That, she did very well.  In fact the pressure was on Coons, who was widely expected to wipe the floor with this dimwitted lightweight.  That is far from what happened.  She more than held her own and actually scored some serious blows.

 Obviously the Lying was Chris Coons.  He tried to pass himself off as a mainstream conservative, which is ridiculous.  The Witch, of course was the infamous Ms. O’Donnell.  The Warthog was the ubiquitous Wolf Blitzer.  For example, Mr. Blitzer asked her if she believed in evolution, with is effete sneer as if anyone who didn’t believe in evolution was intellectually incapable of running for public office.  I wish she had responded with a very sharp retort:  Why are you asking me that question.  Do you feel that believing in evolution is a requirement for political office?  But she still gave a good answer.  She said that her personal views on that subject were irrelevant, what was relevant is that she thought local schools should have the right to decide what is taught in their schools.  If they want to teach intelligent design as well as evolution they should have the right to decide that for themselves.  Then she turned around and said that her catholic views were more in line with the majority of the American people than Coons Marxists views.  She then asked why the media asked her about the “witch” comments when they ignored his essay on why he was a bearded Marxist.  He tried to deflect that by saying it was written as a joke he wrote about while in college.  She then pointed out that regardless of whether or not that was really written as a joke, his political philosophy was consistent with Marxism and gave several good examples.

 She also hammered him on Afghanistan.  She pointed out that he can’t say he supports the troops and then want a specific withdraw date that hurts the mission.  She also scored good points on the teacher payment issue.  She said:  of course he supports the teacher’s union’s position, since they are paying for his campaign.  She was surprised when they asked her which Supreme Court justice she would not have supported and she didn’t have a quick answer.  But she did respond that the real issue with Roe vs Wade was that she felt it took away the right of States to decide on that issue for themselves.

She was poised and appeared competent.  That alone may have a major impact on this race, because the media wanted to expose her as incompetent.  She at least held her own, if not better.  The bias in the questions by the moderators was disgusting.  One question was whether she supported the constitution as it was originally written or as it is being interpreted now.  Clearly this was asked to allow Coons to give his standard pro-choice speech.  All in all it was entertaining and she did much better than I expected.

 The polls show her down by 19 points and a lot of people have written her off as a lost cause.  But, President Obama scheduled a trip to Delaware to campaign for Coons.  First, any candidate who campaigns with Obama tends to lose.  Second, it is hard to imagine Obama making this trip if they thought this race was over.  I suspect it is much closer than the main stream media is admitting.  Third, she has a ton of money and she obviously has some brilliant people running her campaign.  Her latest ad referring to Coons as the tax man is very effective. 

 No predictions on this one, but I wouldn’t be shocked if she came back to make this competitive and possible pull off a dark horse win.  She was way behind Mike Castle until the tea party express stepped in at the last minute with some hard hitting ads.  They have now done this on several occasions with spectacular results.  Joe Miller was down by double digits the week before the Alaska primary.  The tea party express moved in with some heavy media buys and some great ads and Miller won easily.  Delaware is a lot like Alaska in that it is a small state and it is easier to buy a lot of effective local media.  This is a weird election cycle and all the momentum nationwide is at the Republicans backs.  I think O’Donnell proved she is far from the dingbat portrayed in the media and when you combine that with a lot of money and some really good ads, anything could happen.

 One thing is certain, if she does pull it off, Democrats hope for control the Senate are probably close to zero.

 TDM