With only a few days to go before the election, some of the races are heating up. I would commend to you a link (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=29267) that offers a cautious, fair-minded analysis of the state of the race.

The dynamics for the presidential race are fascinating: The national polls show the race may be tightening to within 3-5%, Obama continues to move traditionally red states into battleground territory (most recently, MT, ND, GE and AZ), and McCain has an under-the-radar outside shot at capturing Pennsylvania and/or New Hampshire.

Basic summation: Obama will likely win Colorado and Virginia, giving him the necessary 270, +16. In order to offset those losses, McCain has to win Pennsylvania. The good news for McCain is that one poll in each of the past two days have shown that McCain is within 5 points in that state. There is also a good chance that Obama will win Nevada, in which case McCain would have to win New Hampshire to offset that loss. McCain may squeak out the remaining primary battleground states: OH, FL, NC, IN, and MO. If he loses any of them, he's done.

Senate: With Sen. Stevens (R-Alaska) being convicted of corruption, there are now 4 locks for Democratic pick-ups (VA, CO, NM, and AK). There are three more leaning toward Democratic, in order of likelihood of loss (OR, NH, and NC). That gives Democrats 7 of the 9 pick-ups needed to have a filibuster-proof majority. The good news for Republicans is that two of their previously-threatened incumbents have become safe (TX and MS). Two of the three remaining threatened seats still show slight leads for Republicans (KY and GE). There is one pure toss-up: In Minnesota, Republican Norm Coleman has expanded his lead to 5% in the polling, but the state has same-day registration, which typically favors Democrats. Likely Democratic gains 7-8 seats. The Republicans shouldn't breathe a sigh of relief if they keep that bare minority--they have about 5 members (including McCain) who could easily cross lines.

House: The Democrats could pick up anywhere from 15 to 30 seats. Both the Democratic and Republican parties could surprisingly lose party stars, Rep. Murtha and Rep. Bachmann, respectively.

I thought it useful to organize a few key points against the Obama presidency before he imposes an internet-based Fairness Doctrine:

1) Healthcare--economic entitlement programs are much harder to remove than increased tax rates. If Obama employs some of the government-imposed mandates he favors (let alone a possible universal system), a major portion of our economy will be socialized, probably for good. Look at the "band-aid" Social Security program that our country now wears like its favorite sweater. This could apply to the housing market as well.

2) Free Speech--Obama is notorious in certain circles for pursuing those who question his record through legal avenues (see Stanley Kurtz in Illinois). Two gems currently proposed by Democrats: the Fairness Doctrine and Card Check. The first would require equal time for conservative/liberal viewpoints on all radio stations, which would in effect shut down much of conservative talk radio (their primary medium). The second would submit workers to soft coercion to support labor unions and bypasses the privacy of a secret ballot. Oh, and there's the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which will make all organizations except churches hire people regardless of sexual orientation (think Christian counseling, schools, etc.). Conservative opposition could possibly be crushed.

3) Redistributing Wealth--The idea that Obama will cut taxes for 95% of people is a lie. Many of those people don't pay taxes, for one, and this money will not be given from the government, but from the rich. He will simultaneously allow the tax rates to go up on the "rich" (including many who own a small business and hire 4-5 workers) while "lowering taxes" for the poor. That money will go directly from the former to the latter. Little do the "poor" realize that many of them could get laid off by that extra $40,000 of taxes on their employer. It'll make our economy much worse.

4) Supreme Court--There could be as many of 4 retirements from the Supreme Court. While they likely won't come from the strict-constructionist wing, those appointments, without any resistance in the form of a filibuster, could enshrine extreme activists on the court for the next three decades.

5) Foreign Policy--Most every major politician in the twentieth century learned to follow Teddy Roosevelt's "big stick" policy with regard to foreign affairs. We should avoid military conflicts where possible, but every President had to be strong when it counted (i.e. JFK and the Bay of Pigs). Much of Europe won't stand up to Russian aggression right now. If Obama appears soft (which he does--see Biden's comment the other day about the looming time of trial), the Russian shadow may again descend over much of Europe. Will Iran fear military consequences for developing a bomb or Sudan for its continued genocide? Will American capitalism and democracy be subordinated to a corrupt UN?


Barack Obama esteems unity while eschewing dissent. How many people have been tarred with the "racist" label for question Obama's policies or connections? He could reign in his prominent surrogates in the media, but doesn't. The reverberating echoes of "unity," become eerily novelesque as those who oppose his brand of "unity" are stigmatized (and perhaps eventually crushed).

I'm not a big McCain fan at all, but I will vote for whoever (up/down ticket) stands in the way of the Obama machine.

Election thoughts:

First, most gains made my McCain prior to the economic crisis have been wiped out. Instead of padding a lead or counteracting Obama's "red state" gains by picking off "blue states," McCain is on his heels, trying to simply hold enough of those Bush red states to win. It's unlikely that he'll hold enough of them. He is certain to lose Iowa and near-certain to lose New Mexico. With the loss of Colorado or Virginia, he's done. The odds are that he'll lose both. He has to somehow steal away a blue state in order to compete, which now has become a monumental task in light of the present economy.

Second, the aforementioned reality and some internal polling shed light upon McCain's surprising strategy of fighting for Pennsylvania. Many pundits have been critical of this strategy (and argue that he should fight for VA and CO), noting that he runs behind Obama in PA by about 13 points in the RCP polling average (realclearpolitics.com). Yet McCain's strategy makes since. He runs behind Obama in VA by about 8 points in the RCP average and 5 in CO. I just read an article today that listed CO as one of the states where McCain has withdrawn advertising money. Thus I believe McCain has given up on CO, believe PA to be his best shot. There are three additional reasons why PA is likely a better shot than CO and VA: they reject Obama's perceived "elitism" (cf. Hillary's primary victory after the "guns and religion" comment); Congressman John Murtha (D) has labeled his Western PA constituents "racists" and "rednecks" on subsequent days recently, inciting a backlash; Obama's internal polling reported shows him leading by only 2 points in the state.

Third, McCain must not only come from behind to win PA from Obama, but he must also sweep the remaining six battleground states (not counting CO or VA): Florida, Ohio, Nevada, Missouri, Indiana, and North Carolina. McCain is slightly ahead in IN and is neck-and-neck in the other five. My own inclination at this point is to figure McCain will lose PA, CO and VA by about 5 points a piece and perhaps one other battleground state as well (and possibly several more if the McCain ship begins to sink in desperation). I think he'll probably lose by a similar margin to Bush's victory in 2004.

Fourth, if the election is decided by a razor-thin margin in 1-3 states, especially if they were ones saturated by ACORN-sponsored voter registration drives, a legal battle of disgusting proportions may ensue, with simultaneous claims of voter fraud by Republicans and voter suppression by Democrats.

Fifth, Republicans are poised to lose 12-15 seats in the House and 6-9 seats in the Senate. This will give Democrats a 60-65 seat majority in the House (a feat not seen in years) and a possible filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Republican seats are definitely going down in Virginia, Colorado, and New Mexico (after Rep. incumbents retired). They will likely lose three incumbents in New Hampshire, Oregon, and North Carolina (the latter being the well-known Elizabeth Dole, wife of Bob). Of the five current battleground states (see pollster.com), Democrats lead in Alaska and Minnesota. Figuring Republican lose those eight seats, Democrats would be one from their desired majority. There are three more highly-vulnerable Republican incumbents running neck-and-neck in Georgia, Mississippi, and Kentucky (the latter being minority-leader Mitch McConnell). I think they'll probably just lose the eight seats.

Hope you all find these ruminations interesting and helpful!

God bless,
Stephen

The Dems need 9 seats in the Senate to achieve a filibuster-proof majority.

Two seats are already in their pocket: Warner in Virginia and Udall in New Mexico.

They are running significant leads in two other races: Udall in Colorado and Shaheen in New Hampshire.

They are trending toward slight leads in three races: Merkley in Oregon, Hagan in North Carolina, and Begich in Alaska.

The race between Coleman (R) and Franken (D) in Minnesota is likely neck and neck (with very erratic polling).

Recent polls have them closing on some normally-safe Republicans in Red states like Mississippi, Texas, Kentucky, and Georgia.

Chuck Schumer, head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee believes that Collins' (R) seat in Maine is vulnerable too, though that is unlikely.  See pollster.com for an interactive map on these races.

With this breakdown in mind, Democrats will likely pick up at least 4 seats.  I would guess that it is more likely they'll take 6-8. I'll currently predict 6, giving them OR and NC while keeping AK (Stevens is coming back) and MN (Franken is repulsive).  If Obama has a very strong night, however, expect him to take those 8 and possibly assist in an upset of one or two others (perhaps Georgia and MS) for a total of 9-10.  That was be a sweeping victory for Dems to say the least.

Remember, the magic number is 9.  Even with such a victory, mustering an entire party's vote against a filibuster would be quite difficult since some Dems represent Red states, but not out of the question.

The electoral prospects of the Republican Party are looking increasingly bleak...

*In the current RealClearPolitics electoral map, Barack Obama has fairly solid leads in enough states to give him 264 electoral votes.  If the election was tonight and each candidate won the states where they lead in the poll average, Barack Obama would defeat John McCain in a landslide--364-174.

*All of the "blue states" that McCain made competitive with the Palin pick are now out of play.  Since the financial crisis started, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and New Hampshire have all slipped out of play.  Several are now very solidly in Obama's camp.  Obama has also consolidated his gains in Iowa and New Mexico--two former Bush states.  He only needs one more to win the election.  The most likely candidates to switch are typical battlegrounds Florida and Ohio, though Obama holds decent leads in Colorado, Virginia, and Nevada as well.  He also is virtually tied in typically solid "red states" Missouri (more purple), Indiana, and North Carolina.  Remember, if Obama takes any of the 8 states just listed--which are all currently either tied or favoring Obama--he wins.  McCain would have to sweep those 8 in order to win.  In other words, you may be able to go to sleep early on election night if you're a Republican.

*In addition, Democrats are likely to expand their majority in the House by 10-15 seats.  That majority would be quite dominant.  Even more startling is the possibility of Democrats picking up around 10 seats in the Senate. Pollster has helpful maps, especially for the Senate and House.

Election results could very well be the nightmare scenario for Republicans: a very liberal Democrat in the White House and substantial majorities in both Houses--perhaps even enough to defeat filibusters.  From a conservative standpoint, the ramifications for foreign policy (e.g. rapid withdraw from Iraq, appeasement of Iran and Russia, etc.) and economic policy (universal health care, widespread tax hikes to pay for new spending) are near-disastrous.  There is even a possibility of three Supreme Court retirements and an inability of Republicans to prevent or even slow any candidate of Senator Obama's choosing.

The silver lining for Republicans: This could prove to a "rebuilding season," where such a pervasive electoral defeat will cause a purging within a rank of those who fed from the government trough rather than staying true to conservative principles.  With a more solid foundation, the future could be bright.

America has the greatest, most impressive economy in the history of man.  One hundred and sixty-six economists from America's top universities noted this fact in a recent letter to Congress.  Our free-market economy has brought our country "unprecedented prosperity."  To tamper with that market could be disastrous.

We need to view these issues in the abstract in order to view them properly.  Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) told Fox News this morning that the American people are demanding strict limits upon corporate executive pay.  While great in sentiment, those limits would not help our economy in any way and would potentially open the market to excessive government intervention.  Our immediate goal here is not to "make people pay," though I think we all hope that heads do roll down the line.  Our goal is to make our sick economy better.

Our economy is like a human being in that it isn't simply a collection of rules and principles, but an organism that can grow healthy or sick.  The government is never to fetter this organism, just as it shouldn't shackle or restrain free individuals.  Instead, it should serve as a sort of nurse, caring for the American economic organism whenever it grows excessively sick.

I remember being told about giardia while backpacking in Colorado many years ago.  While the information may have been incorrect, I was told that if one contracted this parasite (which causes diarrhea, including "greasy stools that tend to float"), he or she had the option of  either taking medications and risk a recurrence of the disease later in life, or let the disease take its toll for a number of months and be done with it forever.

This seems to be the option in our care for the economy: let the parasite work through or potentially put off the consequences to later days.  The best option may be to just administer palliative care--the medicines that would simply alleviate the pain and effects of the sickness, rather than attack the sickness itself.  Offer a minimum bailout package with maximum oversight, sell off Fannie and Freddie to the private sector, and cut the capital gains tax.  Those things will all help without selling our nation's soul.  Individual bailouts for businesses and individuals should be avoided, but as fellow Americans, those who survive the looming bouts of violent sickness should be ready to hold back the hair of those who share in the economy's sickness.

President Bush gave an urgent and powerful speech last night, demonstrating courage in the face of adversity, right?  Nope.  Courage is not best defined by simple action in this case, as everybody know that some sort of action must be taken.  Rather, it must be the right type of action.

First, President Bush needed to turn the finger of condemnation around on the federal government.  It is largely the government's fault that this whole subprime mess became popular.  In 1977, the Community Reinvestment Act became law, mandating that corporations engage in unsound business practices and offer risky mortgage loans to people from poor communities.  This Act was strengthened during the Savings and Loan fiscal scandals in 1989 and through stricter regulations in the mid-90's.  If companies didn't abide by the unsound practices, they would be penalized under the CRA--including, among other things, the prevention of mergers.

In addition, as businesses were prodded toward ridiculous loans, they were implicitly assured that they would be rescued by the government if the "chickens ever came home to roost" during turbulent economic times.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both Government-Sponsored Entities (GSE's), could gather profits while the government assumed their risks.  When smaller companies got into financial trouble for the subprime loans, they would sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie.  Thus, businesses were not only encouraged to offer risky loans, but rewarded for them by the implicit promise of a bailout of Fannie and Freddie.

Second, President Bush needed to defend the free-market.  As noted in a previous entry, Barack Obama is traveling the country, spouting the nonsense that "trickle-down economics has failed."  Supply-side economics under Reagan produced the unprecedented wealth of our country extending for the better part of two decades.  The present crisis was created by the adversary of free-markets, the iron fist of government interference.  To impugn supply-side economics is to impugn the free-market, capitalism, and economic freedom.  Obama's rhetoric and many of the current proposals to socialize part of the economy is offering for a solution what made this mess in the first place.  They would replace capitalism's cycle of innovation-->reward; failure-->correction to the socialist scheme that inevitable results in economic stagnancy (see: France).

Third, President Bush needed to be creative in his proactive proposals.  I've heard some wonderful ideas.  As noted in a previous entry, the Republican Study Committee put forward the temporary elimination of the capital-gains tax to allow currency to flow back to the market.  Others have suggested appointing a bi-partisan committee over how any bailout money might be used.  There has also been talk of specifically limiting this bailout to a one-time-event, available only to those entities that are integral to the overall economy.  No bailouts for auto manufacturers or student loans.  Nor should there be bailouts for homeowners facing foreclosure--that harkens back to the policies that created this mess in the first place.  People must get smaller homes and apartments, according to their means.

Personally, I would ask the government to treat their budget as would the average American taxpayer.  In times of economic duress, a person has to make choices regarding his or her finite finances.  It's often not a "both...and," but an "either...or."  Thus, whatever money gets spent on bailouts must be replaced without taxes (which would crush our struggling economy) or the mass-printing of more money (which would cause incredible inflation).  If $65 billion is spent to bail out AIG, then something like the National Endowment of the Arts (NEA) would have to be eliminated.

President Bush, Senator McCain, and Senator Obama have all spoken of strategies that would potentially kill the American economy as we know it.

It's time to tell our government to grow up and not grow out, or else be kicked out!

The Republican Study Committee--that brave caucus of 100 House conservatives--today came out with a proposal of their own in response to the present economic crisis.  The RSC should now reach out to the many other disgruntled Republicans and Democrats behind their free-market proposals and consolidate their support for three moves this week:

First, At a press gathering involving both Republican and Democratic supporters of the free-market initiative, they should announce their plan in simple terms.  They should present their plan as one which not only supports the present economy but also maintains the economic structure that has defined and benefited our country for much of our history.

Second, These members of the House should then categorically reject the Paulson plan on both philosophical and populist grounds.  Philosophically, the plan is a socialist maneuver and blatantly opposed to American freedom and economic values (as Sen. Bunning rightly pointed out).  Pragmatically, it puts taxpayers (the "little guy") on the hook for monstrous debt.  For the sake of America and Americans, the plan should be rejected.

Third, If the free-market initiative lacks the requisite support in Congress, certain concessions should be made.  For example, allowing a partial, temporary bailout with clear boundaries and a fixed ending point could be allowed in order to advance these free-market reforms.  In this way, these politicians will appear to be both people of conviction and flexibility.

Economist F.A. Hayek reminded his readers that trying circumstances are always used to justify blatantly socialist measures.  Principled conservatives reject such petty justifications, preserving the free-market while bringing its resources to bear for the good of the American people.

Republicans must keep hammering Barack Obama for his adamant opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) in the Illinois legislature.  His position is radical and far outside of the American mainstream, as is his desire to legalize recently-banned partial-birth abortion.  Close to 60% of Americans want stricter limits placed on abortion. What they do not want are subjective standards on abortion that adjust with various circumstances, like a perceived threat to a woman's "right to choose."  Blue-collar Reagan Democrats in the Rust Belt in particular will take exception to such extreme positions.  It is easy to ignore the moral implications of abortion when the object of the debate (the baby) is stripped of its humanity.  When nurses testify to the gruesome reality that some babies survive abortion and then are left to die (!!), a human face is placed on the issue and "choice" fanatics like Obama look appalling in their indifference.

This is a winning issue for Republicans as few Americans are able to stomach infanticide (nor its radical adherents).