HALF-FULL REPORT 10/29/10

We are less than 100 hours from the most important midterm election in our history.

The outlook for the House ranges from rosy to Biblical.  Nate Silver, a liberal stats geek who blogs for the New York Times, predicts a 52 seat GOP gain.

Charlie Cook, who is considered by most in Washington to be the best at predicting the outcome of congressional races, thinks the GOP will pick up between 48 and 60 seats.

Charlie said he would be “bagging groceries” if the Democrats keep the House.  “It would be a surprise if this wave doesn’t match the 52-seat gain on Election Night in 1994, and it could be substantially more,” he said.

Charlie Cook’s chief competitor in the prognostication business is Stu Rothenberg.  Stu forecasts a net gain of 55 to 65 seats for the Republicans, with gains above 70 possible.

"At this point, there are no signs of a Democratic ‘surge,’ and some Democrats think that the political environment is deteriorating for the party. Across the country, Republicans are ending their campaigns with calls to ‘check’ President Obama. Given the mood of the electorate, this is likely to be an effective closing argument."

With a week to go until Election Day, House Democrats face the potential of a political bloodbath the size of which we haven’t seen since the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Democratic district-level polling suggesting manageable losses is contradicted by GOP surveys, which show more than eight dozen Democrats under 50 percent in general election ballot tests, and dozens of Democratic nominees either trailing their Republican opponents or sitting in the mid-40s.

Larry Sabato puts the gain at 55 seats.

RealClear Politics estimates a GOP gain of 62 seats.

An Irish bookie is already paying off those who bet the Republicans will take the House.

In our opinion this race is well and truly over with nothing short of a miracle stopping the Republicans taking down the House," said Ken Robertson, communications manager for Paddy Power, the Irish bookmaker.

Mr. Robertson said the odds had tipped so much in Republicans’ favor it made no sense to continue taking bets. In July Democrats were favored 8-11 to keep control, but by Wednesday the GOP was favored 1-50, meaning it would take a bet of $50 would win just an addition $1.

To put this in historical perspective, in 1994 the GOP won 54 House seats; 55 in 1946, and 81 in 1938 (but this shouldn’t count for much, since it still left the Dems with a 262-169 majority, and back then incumbents had nowhere near the advantages they have today).

The best the Dems have done in the midterms in the last 100 years are 49 seats in 1974; 52 seats in 1930, and 58 seats in 1910.

What is perhaps a sign that he feels confident he’ll be the next Speaker, House Republican leader John Boehner will spend part of the final weekend before the election campaigning for Rich Iott, who is running against longtime incumbent Democrat Marcy Kaptur in a heavily Democrat district built around Toledo.

A small businessman and a colonel in the Ohio Military Reserve, a sorta kinda state National Guard, Iott is a historical reenactor.  Among the roles he’s played have been as a Union soldier in the American Civil War, a doughboy in WWI, and a GI in WWII.  He’s also played the role of an officer in the SS Panzer division Wiking in Russia in WWII.  For that, he’s been smeared by Democrats and by liberals in the news media as a Nazi sympathizer.

Richard Gabai, who is Jewish, is a former business associate.  He described Iott as “one of the most pro-Jewish, pro-Israel people that I know.”

That Boehner is spending this time campaigning for a candidate who is thought to have little chance, and risking in the process the likelihood he will be smeared by association with the guy the libs are smearing as a proto-Nazi suggests that Boehner thinks the wave may be a lot bigger than many think.  Drew M at Ace of Spades HQ put it this way:

Democrats are desperately trying to save guys like Barney Frank and Boehner is out campaigning with like the most controversial Republican he can find in a race Real Clear Politics doesn’t even have on their scoreboard.

While polling suggests the Republican wave is still building in the House, it seems to be receding in the Senate.  California and Washington state seem to have fallen out of reach.  Democrat Gov. Joe Manchin has regained the lead in West Virginia.  Nevada, Illinois and Colorado (where Ken Buck is doing his manful best to blow it) are tossups.  Republicans can reasonably count on gains only in Pennsylvania, Indiana, Arkansas, Wisconsin and North Dakota.

Why might this be happening?

First, Democrats have given up on the House, and are shifting their ample financial resources to Senate contests.  Democrats and their affiliated groups are heavily outspending Republicans.

Second, having irretrievably browned off independents for this cycle, Democrats are focused on a base mobilization strategy.  This works better in statewide races than in congressional races, because the Democrat base in concentrated in cities and university towns.

Third, some of the GOP senate candidates (are you listening, Ken Buck?) are weak.

Fourth and most important, the Democrats have relatively few senate seats up this cycle, and the ones they do have up are located chiefly in blue states.  If the Democrats who are up for re-election in 2012 had to run this year, the Republicans likely would win a filibuster-proof majority.

The most important thing to remember about this and every other election is that elections are decided by the people who vote.  The polling cited above could be way off.  And if it is off, it is more likely to underestimate the size of the Republican wave than to overestimate it.

The hardest thing for a pollster to do is to estimate who will actually show up at the polls.  In typical elections, voter turnout is substantially lower in midterm elections than it is in presidential years.

The drop off in voter participation typically is somewhat greater for Democrats and independents than it is for Republicans.

Gallup has been using two turnout models for its polling on generic ballot preference.  Gallup’s high turnout model assumes people will turn out for this midterm in about the same proportion as they do for a presidential race.  Under this model, Republicans win a substantial, but not overwhelming, victory. 

The low turnout model assumes midterm turnout will be typical of the recent past, where the highest turnout since 18 year olds were given the right to vote has been a tad under 40 percent.  Under this model, Democrats get crushed.  The figures in the poll Gallup released Thursday are stunning. 

Tom Maguire (Just One Minute) said:

I am not a poll savant, but these Gallup numbers suggest that 2010 will make 1994 look like 2002. Put another way, folks who think they’ve seen a wave haven’t seen anything yet.

The low turnout model is the only model Gallup has used in midterm elections past, and, Jay Cost notes, it has been stunningly accurate. 

Only once in 60 years has the Gallup generic ballot underestimated Democratic strength by a significant amount – by 2% in 2006. On average, it slightly overestimates the Democrats, by 0.7%.

Right now, the Gallup traditional model is showing the Democrats at 41% of the vote, and gives the Republicans an advantage of 14 points. That would point to a final result along the lines of 57-43. It’s hard for Hulk to say how many seats that would yield, but it would be way more than 60.

Karl Rove thinks Gallup is right to assume turnout for this midterm will be much higher than normal, but wrong to assume it will be because Democrats turn out in something approaching their typical numbers in presidential years.  He thinks higher turnout will be driven by Republicans and independents who don’t normally vote in non presidential years, but will be energized and mobilized this year by the Tea Party.

If Rove is right (and I think he is) then the outcome for Republicans should be even better than forecast by Gallup’s traditional turnout model.

There is another factor that may not be factored into the polls, or the statistics on early voting (which have been favorable to Republicans).  Kevin Dujan, a gay Democrat former Hillary Clinton supporter explained it an open letter to Rush Limbaugh.

I don’t think even you understand just how much damage Obama has done to the Democrat Party — to the point where formerly lifelong Democrats like myself, and everyone here at HillBuzz.org, are actively working to expose the party and literally burn it to the ground for the good of the country.

I was a Democrat for 32 years before the heavy-handed push for Obama alienated me from the party…and I borrow what Hillary Clinton said about Republicans once, back when she was a Goldwater Girl, and will paraphrase by saying that I didn’t leave the Democrat Party, the Democrat Party left me.

After it beat me to a pulp, called me a racist, berated and insulted me, and used Alinsky Rules to hit me with everything it had. Not just me, but all Hillary supporters.

Here in Chicago, just about everyone who was part of Team Hillary efforts with me on the ground has completely divorced themselves from the Democrat Party. Being called a racist repeatedly and hearing from Donna Brazile that we are not needed will do that to a person.

But in a bigger sense, Democrats, by being so shameless and aggressive with the voter fraud in 2008 have opened too many eyes for us to ever go back to pretending that fraud and corrupt practices aren’t the hallmark of the Democrat Party.

Kevin Dujan isn’t the only disappointed Democrat.  Former Bush speechwriter Peter Wehner had lunch Wednesday with “a long-time friend who is intelligent, well informed, and a life-long Democrat.”

My friend’s disenchantment with the president is nearly off the charts. He told me he was as disappointed in Obama as he has ever been in a politician, to the point that on Tuesday he’s going to vote for almost a straight Republican ticket.

Elections also are decided by the people who count the votes. If Harry Reid wins Tuesday, this probably will be the reason why: click here to view 

LAS VEGAS — Some voters in Boulder City complained on Monday that their ballot had been cast before they went to the polls, raising questions about Clark County’s electronic voting machines.  Joyce Ferrara said when they went to vote for Republican Sharron Angle, her Democratic opponent, Sen. Harry Reid’s name was already checked.

Ferrara said she wasn’t alone in her voting experience. She said her husband and several others voting at the same time all had the same thing happen.

"Something’s not right," Ferrara said. "One person that’s a fluke. Two, that’s strange. But several within a five minute period of time — that’s wrong."

Funny business in North Carolina, too.

And in Philadelphia.

A trio of Bucks County residents backed by the county Republican committee say they have evidence linking Democratic Congressman Patrick Murphy’s campaign to a scheme to flood the county voter registration office with fraudulent applications for absentee ballots.

And in Virginia.

I am a former election official, so I know all about the electronic machines. (I voted on October 11 as I am presently in Texas.) I voted for Pat Murray, the Republican, and moved on to the constitutional amendments. The screen then shows the completed ballot for the voter to check before casting the ballot. That’s when I noticed that Murray’s name had been deleted and replaced with “no selection.” So I returned to the beginning and selected Murray again. The second time it held and when I cast the ballot it remained. It was the first time I had ever had that experience as a voter, but more importantly it never came up while I was a part of the election board.

And in Texas.

J. Christian Adams, the Justice Department whistleblower on the New Black Panthers case, offers a primer on how to detect voter fraud: click here to view

He concludes:

Law abiding citizens with pen and pad can do more to stop election fraud than anything else. It is no wonder incident after incident of intimidation was directed to the poll watchers.

Jim Geraghty offers this advice:

The best thing worried voters can do is A) bring a camera to the polls and B) double or triple-check their ballot before hitting “submit.” If anything seems odd, report it to the poll watchers and local party immediately; depending on the seriousness, contact the Secretary of State and local media.

I agree wholeheartedly with Jim that:

In some cases, this may be legitimate technical snafus and innocent mistakes. But right now, those running the polls have nuked the benefit of the doubt. People have seen authorities yawn at fraudulent registration perpetuated by ACORN and shrug their shoulders at outlandish behavior like the Black Panthers strutting outside the polling place. It’s going to take a lot more than “trust us” on these issues.

Cheating doesn’t always work for Democrats.  Alex Sink may have sunk her gubernatorial campaign by cheating during her debate on CNN with Republican Rick Scott:

In the 1990s, when voters in Ontario uncharacteristically elected a Conservative as premier, Mike Harris was called “the Newt of the North.”  Now the city of Toronto, the heart of liberalism in Ontario, has a new mayor who resembles another famous American politician.

On Tuesday, Rob Ford was elected mayor of Toronto.  He is chubby, like Chris Christie, and also, Joel Wade notes, resembles the New Jersey governor in more significant ways.  Mr. Ford was elected on a platform of cutting waste in city hall.

The National Post notes Mr. Ford won with the support of those minorities liberals say their pork barrel spending benefits.

Notwithstanding what Mr. Ford’s opponents and their Toronto Star echo chamber wanted voters to believe, white men aren’t the only Torontonians who went to the polls in an angry mood: Almost half of voters marked the ballot for a candidate who promised to “stop the gravy train” that has been running far too long.

You only had to walk through Mr. Ford’s victory party— as one editorial board member did on Monday night — to see how the city’s electoral allegiances are changing. The crowd was a representative mix, ethnically speaking, of the city the new mayor is now to govern. Turbaned Sikhs partied with Chinese families. Black and white children chased each other around the tables. Jews, Muslims and Christians cheered and applauded Mr. Ford’s speech. The whole diorama seemed like something out of a public-service advertisement for diversity—except it was all real.

This should not come as a surprise: An EKOS poll published two days before the vote gave Mr. Ford 51.7% of the vote of respondents born outside of Canada, compared to only 30.1% for Mr. Smitherman — despite statements made by Mr. Ford about Toronto’s difficulty in absorbing more newcomers, which were seized on as anti-immigrant by his rivals.

Indeed, throughout this campaign, Mr. Ford’s chief opponent, former provincial Liberal Cabinet minister George Smitherman, repeatedly claimed that he was the candidate who embraced diversity. But diversity didn’t return the favour.

Speaking of the fat Reagan, Chris Christie won another big victory in the Democrat-controlled legislature Monday.

New Jersey’s Democratic leaders were in crisis today after the Republican governor pummeled them again in the Legislature, where they have a decided advantage.
 
Party officials and operatives spent the day burning up phone lines trying to determine what can be done following an embarrassing defeat Monday on the floor of the Assembly, where some Democrats refused to support a binding arbitration bill the Democratic leaders of both houses publicly touted.

The defeat was so bitter that some Democrats even talked about whether and how they could attempt to remove Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver from her post, according to three party leaders.

I realize I’ve been remiss in my pimping for the fat Reagan.  So here he is dissing the legislature:

I am not normally a fan of David Brooks, the Obama-loving “conservative” columnist for the New York Times.  But this is column for the ages: click here to view

Over the past year, many Democrats have resolutely paid attention to those things that make them feel good, and they have carefully filtered out those negative things that make them feel sad.

For example, Democrats and their media enablers have paid lavish attention to Christine O’Donnell and Carl Paladino, even though these two Republican candidates have almost no chance of winning. That’s because it feels so delicious to feel superior to opponents you consider to be feeble-minded wackos.

On the other hand, Democrats and their enablers have paid no attention to Republicans like Rob Portman, Dan Coats, John Boozman and Roy Blunt, who are likely to actually get elected. It doesn’t feel good when your opponents are experienced people who simply have different points of view. The existence of these impressive opponents introduces tension into the chi of your self-esteem.

And

Democrats are lagging this year because the country appears incapable of appreciating the grandeur of their accomplishments. That’s because, as several commentators have argued over the past few weeks, many Americans are nearsighted and ill-informed. Or, as President Obama himself noted last week, they get scared, and when Americans get scared they stop listening to facts and reason. They get all these crazy ideas in their heads, like not wanting to re-elect Blanche Lincoln.

The Democrats’ problem, as some senior officials have mentioned, is that they are so darn captivated by substance, it never occurs to them to look out for their own political self-interest. By the way, here’s a fun party game: Get a bottle of vodka and read Peter Baker’s article “The Education of President Obama” from The New York Times Magazine a few weeks ago. Take a shot every time a White House official is quoted blaming Republicans for the Democrats’ political plight. You’ll be unconscious by page three.

Need some inspiration for Tuesday?  Marco Rubio provides it: click here to view

Speaking of Rubio, national Democrats must really be scared of him to try this desperate ploy. 

Bill Clinton evidently tried to talk Kendrick Meek into dropping out of the Florida senate race and endorsing Charlie Crist.  He thought he had a deal, but Meek reneged.  Meek said he never agreed.  It isn’t clear whether Clinton was acting on his own, or on behalf of the White House.  Everybody but Rubio comes out of this looking bad.

The politician hurt the most by this ploy is Alex Sink, who can win the governor’s race in Florida, but needs a strong turnout from blacks to do so.  Now that Clinton and maybe Obama have tried to throw the black guy under the bus, their enthusiasm, such as it was, is likely to diminish.

The Florida governor’s race is the most important race for Democrats this election, because it’s a big state that will gain two more House seats.  Republicans control both houses of the legislature, but if Alex Sink wins, she’d have a big say in reapportionment.  To jeopardize that to keep Marco Rubio out of the senate suggests either that they are really, really afraid of Rubio’s national potential, or they are really, really stupid.

Will this affect the Senate race in West Virginia?

What else should we expect from the chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee?

The Foundation for Ethics in Public Service sent a letter to Eric Holder last Thursday requesting the attorney general “begin an investigation to determine whether United States Senator Barbara Boxer violated any criminal laws or should be liable for any civil penalty for failure to disclose real property on her Personal Financial Disclosure Reports between 2002 and 2010.”

The specific property FEPS is referring to is an Oakland, California, home valued at over a million dollars and co-owned by Boxer, her husband Stewart, their son Douglas, and his wife Amy.

Despite the fact that Senator Boxer had an ownership in 854 Longridge Road [in Oakland], she failed to report this substantial real property asset on any of her personal financial disclosures between 2002 and 2010. She had also failed to report the mortgage on the property. Further, she failed to report the purchase of 854 Longridge Road in 2002. Each year Boxer was required to have filed a “full and complete report.”

Babs also faces an ethics complaint for asking teachers to send their students to work on her campaign.

As long as Barbara Boxer remains in the Senate, it is impossible for anyone else to be the most stupid Member of Congress.  Here’s “Senator Ma’am telling CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that the stimulus bill was one of the largest tax cuts in history:
click here to view

But Rep. Betty McCollum, D-Minn, seems determined to give Babs a run for her money.  Here’s McCollum explaining why al Qaida is no longer a threat to the United States. 

Meanwhile, the FBI is investigating a plot to blow up the DC Metro by those fellas Ms. McCollum assures us are no longer a threat.

We’ll close this HFR with a link to the speech that sent our greatest president in the 20th Century on his long march to the White House:

As Ronald Reagan said then, this is a “Time for Choosing.”  Let us choose wisely on Tuesday.