The Bosque Boys

One of these days the exit polls are going to be accurate.

Is that day today? We will see.

Here are some of the exit numbers floating around:

Casey 61 - Santorum 38
Cardin 51 - Steele 48
McCaskill 53 - Talent 46
Webb 55 - Allen 45

For a moment, let's be optimistic and assume they are skewed in favor of the Democrats (as they have been in the past), which would mean:

If the Talent-McCaskill race is dead-even (50-49), let's adjust the rest of the races by three points:

Casey 58- Santorum 41
Cardin 48- Steele 51
Webb 52- Allen 48

That is a bit better. On the other hand, the VA race seems the bell-weather. If the GOP is going to lose VA--it is going to be a long night, most likely.

More importantly, let's see what the big turnout numbers mean.

Gateway Pundit is on top of the Missouri races. Turnout today looks like it will be huge, perhaps 70% in some areas of the state. The thinking is that the larger the turnout the better for Talent.

Update at 4:51. From Gateway Pundit. Turnout in the City of St. Louis looks to be high, perhaps 60%. High turnout in the city is good for McCaskill since the vote usually goes Dem. (And this figure would not count the cemetary vote which also goes Dem in St. Louis.)

I have been too busy to think politics for several days. (Pastoral duties including a funeral yesterday and one tomorrow, plus preaching in two churches in Iowa over the weekend.) So I now offer some comments that are not completely thought out.

1. I was in the 1st Congressional District in Iowa Saturday evening and Sunday morning. Yard and roadside signs were about even between Braley (D) and Whalen (R). I was somewhat surprised to see a large number of Braley signs in farm yards. Over Sunday lunch in Waterloo with a group of people from the church I asked for predictions. One woman was active in Republican politics and answered that she thought the outcome would depend on voter turnout. I think this race is too close to call.

2. Sunday late afternoon I was in Pella at a family home when the phone rang. It was a prerecorded call from Rudy Guilliani on behalf of the Republican candidate for governor Nussle. While this race is close, I am going to predict Culver (D). The Pella area has been a Republican stronghold in Iowa for several years, and if the Repubs are still paying attention to their base areas on the Sunday before the election, then things are not good.

3. Missouri, my home state. I listened to some Missouri radio stations while driving the rental car from Des Moines to Waterloo Saturday evening. What I mostly heard were McCaskill ads and they seemed pretty strong. The race appears to be so close that I am going with McCaskill (D) over Talent (R). Democrats will win close statewide elections in Missouri until fraud and corruption in St. Louis, and some other places, are cleaned up.

4. My general sense is that the Republicans have the momentum going into today. I think they'll hold the Senate and keep the Democrats to a narrow control of the House.

Not much left to say. Today America speaks.

Having said that, I will have commentary throughout the day.

Some things to talk about:

1. George the lion-hearted. Although the conventional wisdom seemed to argue against it, President Bush personalized and nationalized the election over the last two weeks. Even more courageous, as every poll indicated that Iraq was a losing issue, the President took to the stump and preached Iraq. For all of us who believe that elections should be about major issues, we must give the President credit for that decision.

2. Anything less than a "wave election" will be a demoralizing failure for the Democratic Party in the light of the great expectations.

3. My prediction: the system will work, and democracy will prevail.

4. May God bless America.

On Fox News Sunday today, Mara Liasson noted that Harold Ford and Michael Steele have run the best campaigns for the Senate this cycle. She is absolutely right. Ironically, they are both likely to lose. Of course, they are both African American. Interestingly, one is a Democrat running in a center-right upper-South state (Ford in Tennessee). The other is a Republican running in a solidly Democratic mid-Atlantic state (Steele in Maryland).

Most likely, they will both run close races--but fall short. Ford has been tremendous, but Steele has been the biggest surprise. As the red-hot Democratic superstar, Barack Obama, stumped for Steele's white opponent in Maryland this week, I could not help but think that Steele had proved himself the most articulate and dynamic of the new generation of African-American politicians.

The Democrats need a fifteen seat gain (or sixteen--depending on Gene Taylor) to win control of the House, which they will achieve. The House will change hands as a result of what happens on Tuesday. The only real argument is about margin. I do not dismiss the predictions of a 30-seat swing (or more)--but a spread of that magnitude strikes me as improbable. The word on the lips of every pundit this last fortnight has been "wave election." A 30+ margin would mean a tremendous wave. I am not convinced that this midterm presents that sort of political storm. On the other hand, a message that strong is not impossible. We will see.

For the Democrats to win control of the Senate, they need to net six seats on Tuesday. Baring a political tsunami, however, the GOP should beat back the late Democratic charge:

Rhode Island: Lincoln Chafee, America's most liberal Republican senator, will lose RI, which has not generated more than 40 percent of the popular vote for a Republican presidential candidate since 1988. This very blue state will elect a blue senator (+1 for Democrats).

Pennsylvania: Two-term GOP incumbent Rick Santorum has run ten points behind Bob Casey for months. No reason to expect anything unexpected (+2 for Democrats).

Ohio: As much as I hate to see it, all the polling indicates that Republican incumbent Mike DeWine, an excellent senator, will fall to unabashedly ultra-liberal Sherrod Brown. Although I am still hoping for a miracle here, it looks like curtains for the center-right DeWine (+3 for Democrats).

Maryland: Although Steele has run a great race in Maryland (and I give him a slight chance for pulling off a huge upset), he is unlikely to win the seat vacated by Democrat Paul Sarbanes in the rock-sold blue state (no change, +3 for Democrats).

New Jersey: The other state in which a Republican candidate, Tom Kean, Jr, seemed in position to potentially pick up an opposition seat looks increasingly secure for the short-tenured Democratic incumbent, Bob Menendez (no change, +3 for Democrats).

Arizona: Republican incumbent Jon Kyl holds (no change, +3 for Democrats).

Montana: Scandal-plagued Republican incumbent, Conrad Burns, looked all but out of the race two weeks ago. He has come back. Montana is a strong red state. The President has campaigned for him. This is a true toss-up, but Burns has yet to hit 50 percent in any of the polls. Most likely, Burns falls just short. Tester wins by a nose (+4 for Democrats).

Which leaves the most important three races:

Virginia: I predicted a month ago that Allen would hold. Frankly, the contest appears much closer than I thought it would be at this point. No matter, I continue to pick VA for Republican incumbent George Allen (no change, +4 for Democrats).

Note: Many observers have called Missouri the bell-weather state--but Virginia is the state that Republicans really cannot afford to lose.

Tennessee: Although this race seemed extremely close even a week ago, the inherent Republican advantage seems to have caved in on the impressive Democratic candidate, Harold Ford. Bob Corker should hold the Republican seat vacated by retiring Majority Leader, Bill Frist (no change, +4 for Democrats).

Missouri: GOP Republican incumbent Jim Talent, who won election four years ago with a razor-thin margin, faces a dead-heat against an attractive Democratic challenger, Claire McCaskill. This contest may be the closest of the cycle. Both of these candidates have won and lost statewide elections by fractions of a percentage point. This race is impossible to call with any certainty, although there are some indications that the vote may be breaking against the stem-cell amendment and for McKaskill. On the other hand, if my calculations hold up to this point, this state will not determine control of the Senate. Having said all that, I pick Talent because he is an excellent senator, and I want him to win (no change, +4 for Democrats).

Republicans hold (51-49).

I do not think I ever have linked to an Ann Coulter essay. Usually I am in agreement with her, so its a matter of style rather than of substance. As I hope you've noticed, this blog aims for an even-handed, thoughtful tone.

But, her recent column in Jewish World Review is worth reading, if only for one question she poses: will any Democrat gains next week match historic patterns for 6th year presidential terms?

In other words, the proper context in which to understand any shifts in seats next week is not merely the change from one Congress to another, but how well the party out of power has done in off-year elections, especially 6th year elections.

And, it is beginning to look like even if Dems make gains, they will fall short of historic patterns. So, what's wrong with the Democrats? And if they pick up seats, is it really a mandate?

A wonkish debate is going on right now among campaign insiders: Will the GOP turn-out machine pull this rabbit out of the hat? Because Karl Rove insists that he is supremely confident that the GOP will hold the House, he has a lot of people in-the-know (who probably should know better) very nervous. Is this guy really going to beat us again?

An aside: on the lunatic-fringe side of the ledger, a debate is going on right now as to whether Karl Rove and Halliburton can steal the election through "rigged" voting machines. This debate among conspiracy theorists presents a very real problem, if, somehow, the Republicans were to hold the House. That is, we could very well see an irate splinter of the Democratic Party's most radical element take to the streets in mass protest.

Back to the more sane debate: the debate is really between the forces of "turn out" and the adherents of "persuasion." A few years ago, we heard non-stop chatter about "swing voters." Remember that? Those voters who could be persuaded regarding issues like the economy, health care, deficit spending, national defense, etc. The "independents."

However, for the last few election cycles, the buzz word has been turn out. The new conventional wisdom held that Americans had basically made up their minds about politics. They could not be persuaded; they could only be mobilized to vote or depressed into staying home. So we have heard statements like this: "Hillary energizes the Republican base;" and "the Gay Marriage issue is designed to mobilize evangelicals" (who, if they come out, will vote Republican).

Well, which is it: persuasion or turn out? The answer is "YES." It is both. This is why the GOP is in trouble. Americans are extremely unhappy with Iraq, the Bush administration and the Republican Congress. For all the talk about turn out and party infrastructure, policy and character still matter.

The GOP forgot that Ronald Reagan beat the media and the awesome Democratic infrastructure (without the help of a friendly conservative alternative media, conservative think-tanks or Karl Rove's ground forces). How did he do it? Ronald Reagan brought a cogent message to the American people with style, sincerity and wit.

The only saving grace for the GOP this time around is that the Democrats are just as lost as the Republicans. Neither John Kerry, Howard Dean or Nancy Pelosi approaches the sublime political artistry of Ronald Reagan.

The silver lining: we may be on the verge of a new cycle in which policy and results matter to politicians once again.

Incontrovertible evidence that we dodged a bullet in 2004:

"I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended."

--From the tortured soul of John F. Kerry (the brief statement in its entirety).


Caution: this story has run its course. Republicans should not hang their hats on this Kerry debacle, which will not turn the tide of this election.

From Charlie Cook (courtesy of National Journal):

"The bottom line is that at this stage, Republicans should consider themselves lucky if their net losses stay in the 20-25 range in the House, four or five seats in the Senate, and between five and eight governorships. It would be a tough election, losing their majorities in the House and governorships, but it would fall short of the devastating losses that are possible. But the chances of this thing going bigger -- far bigger -- still exist, and there are quite a few veteran Republican strategists, people who have done tons of races in all kinds of states and districts for many years, who are bracing themselves for that distinct possibility."

The analysis piece in its entirety.

Remember: Charlie Cook is the best (and he generally leans Republican).

Six days out.

The Kerry misstatement is a gift. I am convinced that Kerry did not mean what he said; just as I am convinced that George Allen had no idea what macaca meant. But there they are: on tape; both running off at the mouth. We are definitely living in the "You Tube" world. For Kerry, as it was for Allen as well, there is justice in this massive misunderstanding. The intended joke that misfired was a shot at President Bush's education, which, ironically, is very similar to Kerry's--only better. Kerry in his own inimitable and humor-challenged style blew the line. Once again, who's the dummy here? Who is the king of the malaprop?

An aside: part of the problem for Kerry on this PR disaster is that what he actually said (as opposed to what he really meant) resonates with a sub-set of commonly held beliefs among some of his adherents. The Kerry advocates on C-SPAN this morning were divided between callers explaining what he actually meant and those defending him on the merits of the assertion that the army was for the poor and uneducated.

But I am not sure how long this story can play. Without the Washington Post and/or NYT behind it, this moment will lose its momentum fairly quickly. This will not hang around in the MSM like the Allen story. Admittedly, I am surprised at the attention it has garnered already--due, in part, to the astuteness of the White House (and the helpful assist from John McCain) and, more importantly, to Kerry's clumsy and bombastic denials and non-apology.

Again, the irony is thick: "Bush is a dummy; I am smart." But here I go again falling into the pit I built for my idiotic opponent. "I can't believe I am losing to this guy."

For the record, an aggressive NJ state supreme court ruling in favor of same-sex coupling was also a gift. But if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, did it really make a sound? That story does not seem to have any traction.

Bottom line: Don't count on either of those missteps to save the GOP.

There was a story making the rounds yesterday that indicates that the election coverage this cycle favors the Democrats. And we are fairly sure that cigarettes are bad for your health. I understand the psychological need for stories that confirm what we already know (see: we're not crazy), but we need to get beyond that.

For a long time we have known that no GOP candidate can win nationally without finding a way around the mainstream media. Just do it!

Disturbing thought on early voting: All the good voters have voted. The voters, who are left, for the most part, are the ones who care the least and are the least informed. If they are "guilted" into voting, they will make their decisions based on which candidate moves them the most emotionally with the most effective television ad or some other campaign tool.

One last thing: Who's going to win? Still too tough to call. The Cook Political Report is suggesting a 30-vote swing in favor of the Democrats in the House and perhaps loss of control in the Senate as possible-to-likely. That is bad news for the GOP. Cook doesn't go off half-cocked.

The President is amazing. I love that he and Rove have defied the conventional wisdom and attacked. The Democratic Party dared him to make this about him, and he accepted the challenge (after this is all over, we may say he "took the bait"). You would think that a president with an approval rating in the high-30s would be foolish to nationalize a congressional election--but the truth is that he had little choice. If the option was talk about Foley, corruption and the abominable Republican Congress or talk about Bush, the President and Rove were right to pick Bush.

No one who understands what is happening right now on the ground in 435 congressional districts is talking about demoralized cultural conservatives. The GOP base in now on the march. Rove touts the structural advantage of the Republican campaign apparatus and incumbency, and he is right, but it remains to be seen if that is enough.

We will see. We do not have long to wait. This time next week.