Election 2010 Awards

Here are my Election 2010 awards:

1. Most Surprising House Result: A tie between Illinois District 8 and Texas District 27. In the Illinois race, Democrat Melissa Bean was no longer considered vulnerable after she drew an underfunded, unemployed Tea Party candidate named Joe Walsh as her Republican opponent. Walsh ran a strong grassroots campaign under the radar and stunned her on election night. In the Texas race, Democrat Solomon Ortiz was a 14-term incumbent in a 74% Hispanic district who was not on anyone's list as being even potentially vulnerable until the last few weeks of the campaign, when allegations about ethic violations began to surface. (It should be noted that both these races are very close and neither have been officially certified yet.)

2. Most Surprising Senate Result: Probably the Alaska Senate race. Again, the results are not finalized yet, but it appears very likely that Lisa Murkowski will win as a write-in candidate -- the first time a write-in candidate has won a Senate election since Strom Thurmond. As much as I dislike Murkowski, this is an impressive feat and one that I did not expect her to pull off.

3. Most Surprising Governor Result: The Illinois governor's race. Democratic incumbent Pat Quinn was extremely unpopular and suffering from an association with the corrupt former governor Rod Blagojevich. Despite trailing badly in polls virtually the entire year, Quinn managed to hold on and narrowly defeat Republican Bill Brady in an otherwise dismal year for Illinois Democrats.

4. Most Satisfying Election Result: The Florida District 8 House race. Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson said on the House floor last year that the Republicans' health care plan was for patients to "die quickly." He aired an especially vicious ad against his Republican opponent Daniel Webster, whom he dubbed "Taliban Dan." The ad took Webster's quotes out of context to make it appear he was saying the opposite of what he really said and to make it appear that he supported the subjugation of women, Taliban style. Apparently being an obnoxious loudmouth and partisan hack doesn't win you votes; Grayson was crushed on election night.

5. Most Disappointing Election Result: Harry Reid's re-election to the U.S. Senate. This one's not even close. For years, Harry Reid has been a thorn in the side of conservatives. His nasty rhetoric, extreme partisanship, and left-wing ideology have not earned him any friends across the aisle and have made him extremely unpopular both in Nevada and in the country at large. Reid has made too many outrageous comments to list here: everything from insensitive comments about blacks and Latinos to calling the President of the U.S. a "loser" to likening ObamaCare to the movement to give blacks the right to vote. Yet, Reid was re-elected by a wider margin than expected on Tuesday.

6. Most Embarrassing Incumbent Loss: Blanche Lincoln's Senate loss in Arkansas. It is rare for an incumbent -- especially a Senate incumbent -- to fall below 40% of the vote. Yet Lincoln managed to scrape together a mere 37% of the vote as she got crushed by Republican John Boozman, after polling as low as 29% earlier in the cycle. Lincoln achieved this feat by alienating the conservative Democrats who had fueled her previous victories by voting in favor of health care reform, while at the same time managing to anger her liberal base by refusing to support a public option.

7. Most Impressive New Member of Congress: Marco Rubio, newly elected Florida senator. Although only in his early 40's, Rubio already has an impressive resume, including a highly influential Speaker of the Florida House. No one gave him a chance when he launched a long-shot primary challenge to sitting Republican governor Charlie Crist last year; running a principled, issues-based campaign, he succeeded in driving Crist out of the party to avoid an embarrassing primary loss and then beating him and Democrat Kendrick Meek soundly in the general election, pulling nearly 50% of the vote in a three-way race! Rubio is one of the most articulate candidates I have ever heard, and he has achieved his success without watering down his conservative message or compromising his Christian faith. I wouldn't be surprised if a presidential bid is in his future.

8. Most Unprincipled Politician: Even in a category this crowded, Charlie Crist stands out. As recently as May of this year, Crist was the self-described conservative Republican governor of Florida running for the U.S. Senate. As the above-mentioned Rubio moved ahead in the polls and Crist realized he was likely to lose the primary, he left the Republican party and launched an independent bid for the Senate -- just a couple of weeks after solemnly promising on national TV that he would stay in the Republican party! As he realized he needed to pull a significant number of Democratic votes to win, he began dramatically shifting his positions on issue after issue. By the end of the campaign, Crist had become the de facto Democrat in the race and had flip-flopped on almost every major issue from abortion to government spending to education to the environment. Calling Crist "unprincipled" is actually putting it charitably.

9. State With the Most Favorable Election Results: This would be a tie between Pennsylvania and Ohio, both of which provided the GOP with significant victories on election night. In Pennsylvania, Republican captured the governor's seat by a comfortable margin and elected a conservative Republican to the Senate -- both were pickups of Democratic seats -- and picked up five Democratic House seats (falling just short in two others). In Ohio, Republicans succeeded in defeating an incumbent Democratic governor who Obama campaigned hard for, and also easily defended an open seat Senate race. In addition, they defeated five Democratic House incumbents, an impressive feat.

10. State With the Most Disappointing Election Results: This would also be a tie between California and Massachusetts. Although both of these states are heavily Democratic, the GOP had high hopes for both this year. In California, Republicans nominated two top-tier, self-funding candidates to run for Senate and governor. Although at times both candidates seemed to be well-positioned to win, both ended up falling well short in the final count. Republicans made a real effort against at least 4 House incumbents in the state as well, but they lost 2 and 2 are currently too close to call. Democrats retain their stranglehold on the U.S. House delegation from the state and on the state legislature. Republicans also had high expectations in Massachusetts, still feeling a bit euphoric from Scott Brown's shocking victory in January. This election brought them back to reality. Their gubernatorial candidate fell well short, foiled by a third-party candidate who split the anti-Democratic vote. They recruited strong candidates to run in several of the state's House districts, including against Barney Frank, but fell well short in all the races. Democrats continue to control all the state's 10 House districts and an overwhelming majority in the state legislature.

11. Most Important Win for Conservatives: This is certainly a matter of opinion, but I would argue that it was the Pennsylvania Senate race. In perhaps no major statewide race in the country was there a sharper ideological contrast between the two candidates. Republican Pat Toomey was a former congressman and president of the Club for Growth who has been a reliable economic and social conservative throughout his career. Democrat Joe Sestak, by contrast, had an extremely left-wing voting record in Congress, which included championing leftist causes like gays in the military, opposing Israel, and bragging about his pro-ObamaCare vote. Democrats knew the stakes of this race, as Obama came numerous times to campaign for Sestak. And the race was closer than expected, which means conservatives dodged a bullet in a Democratic-leaning state.

12. Most Embarrassing Statewide Candidate: Alvin Greene, Democratic candidate for Senate in South Carolina. This unemployed military veteran living in his parents' basement somehow managed to win the Democratic primary with 59% of the vote, despite never spending a dime or holding a single campaign event. Despite facing felony charges relating to pornography, Greene soldiered on during the campaign, proposing such "out of the box" job creation ideas as making action figures of himself to sell to the public. Listening to him speak and do interviews was almost painful to watch. In the end, however, he managed to get a whopping 28% of South Carolinians to vote for him.

13. Biggest Waste of Money by a Political Candidate: This award has to go to Meg Whitman, GOP candidate for governor in California. Whitman spent nearly $150 million of her own personal fortune -- a record -- on her gubernatorial bid, yet (with final results still pending) she appears to have barely gotten over 40% of the vote and lost by over 1 million votes. This is proof positive that you cannot buy an election, especially when you are running in a state that is not a good ideological fit for your candidacy.

14. Least Gracious Winning Candidate: This would have to be a tie between two delightful public servants -- Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Congressman Jim Moran of Virginia. Frank, upon winning a tough race against Republican Sean Bielat, gave an angry victory speech in which he lashed out against Fox News and other favorite liberal bogeymen and complained that his GOP challenger and other Republicans had run campaigns "beneath the dignity of democracy." Er, yeah. Thank goodness for congressmen like Frank, who has respected the dignity of democracy by allowing his previous gay partners to grow pot and run prostitution services out of his house. And then there's Congressman Moran, who refused to take an election night concession phone call from his opponent. How dare you challenge me? Don't you know I'm congressman for life?

15. Most Underreported Story of the Election: The increasing ethnic diversity of the Republican Party. Like Martin Luther King Jr., I am tired of liberals focusing more on the color of people's skin than the content of their character, and I think the media's obsession with racial diversity is harmful to our country. Still, it is important to point out the increasing diversity of elected Republicans, because it shows how ridiculous the charges of racism are against conservatives in general and the Tea Party movement in particular. For the first time since 2000, there is now a black Republican member of Congress -- in fact there are two. Allen West defeated a Democratic incumbent in a House race in South Florida, and Tim Scott won 72% of the vote in a primary runoff against Strom Thurmond's son and then easily won the general election in a heavily white and Republican district in South Carolina. Scott and West were both interviewed on Hannity last night, and I was impressed with how eloquently they articulated conservative principles. Numerous other black conservatives ran in House races around the country but came up short.

Many other conservative minorities were also elected on Tuesday. Indian-American Nikki Haley, another very articulate conservative, became the first woman and the first minority to be elected governor of South Carolina; she joins fellow Indian-American conservative Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. Despite Harry Reid's comment that he couldn't imagine how any Hispanics could be Republicans, many conservative Hispanics won on Tuesday. Marco Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants and an outspoken proponent of limited government, won a resounding victory in the Florida Senate race, while South Florida elected a new Cuban Republican congressman, David Rivera. Two other Hispanic conservatives won resounding victories in key governor's races -- Susana Martinez in New Mexico and Brian Sandoval in Nevada -- while Hispanic conservatives picked up Democratic House seats in Washington, Idaho, and Texas. And many conservative women were elected to the House, including in New York, Tennessee, North Carolina, Florida, Missouri, Alabama, Washington, and South Dakota. So much for the Republican party only electing white males.

Election 2010 -- Senate & Governor Focus

As I watched the election results, one of my first reactions was to wonder why the GOP wave was manifesting itself so much more strongly in the House results than in the Senate & governor's race results. In House race after House race, GOP candidates were generally outperforming expectations -- winning all the races they were expected to win and also picking up some unexpected seats along the way. By contrast, in many of the statewide races the GOP was performing no better than expected, and in some cases seemed to be underperforming. While they were sweeping into a sizable majority in the House, Republicans did not even come close to taking control of the Senate. They fell short in a number of statewide races which they were considered at least even money to win, including the Colorado and Nevada Senate races and the Illinois and Oregon governor's races. They also underperformed their expected percentage of the vote in several other key races, including the Pennsylvania, California, and West Virginia Senate races and the Ohio and Maine governor's races. I thought this was rather strange, since close statewide races usually all trend in the same direction in wave elections.

There are a few things to remember when comparing House results to Senate and other statewide results, however. First, every 2 years all 435 House seats are up for election, while only 1/3 of the total number of Senate seats are up for election. In the House, all the newly-elected congressmen swept in during the Democratic waves of 2006 and 2008 were now facing the voters in a very different political climate. By contrast, none of the newly-elected senators from 2006 and 2008 were facing the voters. Instead, the senators facing the voters were those last elected in 2004, a relatively good year for the GOP. The Republicans had a number of vulnerable seats of their own to defend (including five tough open seats), and a very limited number of pickup opportunities. Of the 19 seats that Democrats were defending this year, 13 of them were in states that have not supported a Republican presidential candidate in more than 20 years, and 14 were in states that Obama carried by more than 10 points. Thus, from the beginning the playing field was heavily stacked against the GOP in the Senate, which is why political analysts early in 2009 initially expected the Democrats to actually increase their Senate majority in the 2010 elections. Thus, the outcome of the House races gave us a much more accurate sense of the overall mood of the country than did the Senate races, and from this perspective it is impressive that the Republicans managed to pick up as many seats as they did in the Senate.

Second, heavy turnout in Democratic strongholds in the large cities enabled the Democratic candidates to stay close or even win in many statewide races, despite a strong trend toward Republicans in the suburban and rural areas of those states. This explains why, for example, Democrats were able to dominate the New York statewide races and stay so close in the Illinois Senate and governor races, the Ohio governor race, and the Pennsylvania Senate race, despite losing 4-6 House seats in EACH of those states. Obama worked hard to turn out the liberal urban vote in places like Philadelphia, Chicago, Cleveland, and New York City in the final weeks of the campaign, and while this had no impact on the House vote (since it was heavily concentrated in a few safe Democratic districts), it helped offset GOP enthusiasm on the statewide level.

Finally, the Republicans missed some golden pickup opportunities in the Senate due to the failures and gaffes of their candidates. There seems little doubt that campaign missteps and controversies from her past made Christine O'Donnell's big loss in Delaware seem almost a foregone conclusion. Republicans were unable to find top-tier candidates to run for the top offices in New York, enabling Democrats to get over 60% of the vote in both the Senate races and the governor's race. As strongly as I supported Ken Buck in Colorado, Sharron Angle in Nevada, and Joe Miller in Alaska, they all proved to be weak and gaffe-prone candidates who fumbled races that should have been clear GOP wins. This does not mean that Tea Party candidates can't win -- insurgent conservative candidates like Marco Rubio of Florida, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, and Rand Paul of Kentucky proved that. But what it does demonstrate is that candidate quality matters, even in a highly favorable political climate. While the Tea Party movement had a very positive impact on the election in favor of the Republicans, it needs to work harder to nominate conservatives who are articulate and capable of persuading independents and swing voters if it wants to maximize its effectiveness.

Still, despite the tough playing field and missteps by some of their candidates, conservatives have a lot of things to cheer about in the outcome of the Senate and governor races. In the Senate, Republicans succeeded in comfortably holding all of their own seats, despite having to defend five open seats in swing states (Kentucky, Missouri, Florida, New Hampshire, & Ohio) and two vulnerable incumbents of their own (in Louisiana and North Carolina). All of the new senators from the above mentioned swing states, as well as additional new ones from Utah and Kansas, should be strong conservative voices in Congress, and in several cases, the newly elected Republican senator is a significant improvement over the outgoing one. Rob Portman of Ohio and Marco Rubio of Florida will both be much more consistent conservative voices than were their predecessors, George Voinovich and Mel Martinez, respectively. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Roy Blunt of Missouri, and Mike Lee of Utah should also be at least marginally better than their predecessors.

In addition, all of the six new Republican senators elected in previously Democratic seats will be a marked improvement for the conservative cause. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania is a principled economic and social conservative who is light years better than both the previous occupant of the seat, Arlen Specter, and the far-left Democrat he defeated, Joe Sestak. Conservative businessman Ron Johnson defeated a deeply entrenched incumbent who is also a darling of the progressive movement, Russ Feingold. Dan Coats of Indiana, John Hoeven of North Dakota, and John Boozman of Arkansas are all genuine conservatives who replaced pseudo-conservative Democratic senators Evan Bayh, Byron Dorgan, and Blanche Lincoln, respectively. These senators talked a moderate game to their constituents back home, but were reliable votes for the Obama agenda when in Washington. The only new GOP senator who is likely to disappoint conservatives is Mark Kirk of Illinois, but even he will be a huge improvement over his predecessors Roland Burris and Barack Obama.

The governor's races are much the same story. Some races, such as those in Illinois, Oregon, Minnesota, and Connecticut (results not yet official on those last two), were agonizingly close but slipped through the fingers of Republicans. Colorado, Maryland, and California proved to be big busts, and the Republican candidate in New York lost by an embarrassing margin. Yet the Republicans did very well in most of the key swing states that will decide the 2012 presidential election. They made a huge resurgence in traditionally Democratic Michigan and Pennsylvania, winning both governor's races by sizable margins (granted, both GOP candidates are fairly moderate). More conservative GOP candidates eked out narrow wins in two other key states rich in electoral votes, Florida and Ohio, and the GOP also swept all other top offices in those two states. In Wisconsin, Scott Walker headed a strong swing to the GOP at all levels of government in the state. Republicans maintained their lock on Southern governorships, dominating races in South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Texas, and Tennessee. Of special note from this list is Nikki Haley of South Carolina, an exceptionally articulate Indian-American woman and a rising star in the conservative movement. Jan Brewer and Susana Martinez were propelled to big victories in Arizona and New Mexico partly on the strength of their commitment to get tough on illegal immigration; Martinez joins fellow Hispanic GOP governor Brian Sandoval who won big in Democratic-leaning Nevada. Only in New England did the GOP significantly underperform expectations, losing 5 of the 6 governorships in the region, all of them by close margins (with Vermont and Connecticut still not officially decided). Maine was the exception to the rule, electing Tea Party Republican Paul LePage by a narrow margin.

The Republicans' success in many of these key governor's races will stand them in good stead in the future. Successful governors have the opportunity to practically implement conservative ideas, and thus often become the leaders of the party's agenda. Successful presidents (Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush) are often former governors, and thus the current crop of Republican governors will likely provide the party with excellent presidential prospects in the future. Also, governors can provide help to their party's candidate in presidential elections and, along with state legislatures, have a great deal of influence over congressional redistricting in most states.

Election 2010 Links

Here are some interesting articles regarding the outcome of Election 2010:

Charles Krauthammer: "A Return to the Norm"

Peggy Noonan: "Americans Vote for Maturity"

Jonah Goldberg: "Defeat, Then Denial"

Sean Trende: "Biggest GOP Gain in Statehouses"

Election 2010 -- House Focus

So the results are largely in for Election 2010, although there are several House races and a couple of Senate and governor races that have yet to be officially called. Overall, it looks as though the GOP is going to end up with a net gain of about 64 seats in the U.S. House, for a 243 seat majority. This is a significantly larger swing than they enjoyed in the 1994 election, when the GOP only gained 52 seats, and gives them the largest majority they have had in the House since the 1940's. Their gain more than offsets the total gains Democrats made in the House in the past two elections in 2006 and 2008. In addition, the Republicans have apparently picked up 6 seats in the U.S. Senate, assuming that Washington ends up going for the Democrat and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska remains a Republican. This is a smaller haul than the 8-seat pickup the GOP enjoyed in 1994, and gives them 47 seats in the new Senate. Finally, the GOP has a net gain of at least 6 governorships, with several races that have still not been determined, which means they will hold at least 29 of the 50 governorships. Included in those governorships are some of the most important swing states in the country -- Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. And they have apparently gained more than 600 state legislative seats and taken new majorities in more than 19 legislatures, which has dramatic consequences for congressional redistricting.

The Republicans' most impressive performance on Tuesday was in the House. They took almost all of the "low-hanging fruit" -- the seats they were expected to win -- but also picked up a number of more difficult seats that they were not favored to win. They ousted a sizable number of long-time House incumbents, some of whom were powerful committee chairmen -- Rick Boucher (VA), Ike Skelton (MO), John Spratt (SC), James Oberstar (MN), Gene Taylor (MS), Chet Edwards (TX), Allen Boyd (FL), and possibly Solomon Ortiz (TX). In addition, they came up agonizingly short in a number of other races -- there were probably at least another 12-15 seats that they lost by just a couple thousand votes or less.

Looking more closely at the anatomy of the House gains, the GOP did especially well in open seate races. Of the 16 Democratic-held open seats considered competitive, the GOP won 14 of the 16. The only two they lost were Democratic-leaning seats in Rhode Island and Massachusetts. They also lost only one of their own open seats -- in heavily Democratic Delaware -- despite facing some tough challenges in several other Republican-held open seats in Illinois, Florida, Arizona, and Michigan. GOP incumbents also performed extremely well. Only 2 lost, and both of those were unusual cases. One, Anh Cao of Louisiana, won a 74% black district in a fluke runoff election in December 2008 with extremely low turnout, defeating a congressman under a huge ethical cloud. The other one was Charles Djou of Hawaii, who captured a heavily Democratic seat in a special election in May by winning 40% of the vote in a three-way race. All other GOP incumbents won by comfortable margins.

There was at least one Democratic House incumbent who lost in every region of the country, but by far the majority of those losing incumbents were in the South and the Great Lakes/Rust Belt regions. The biggest concentration of incumbent losses were in a belt stretching from Wisconsin across the Great Lakes states to Pennsylvania and New York. Four incumbents lost in New York, four in Pennsylvania, five in Ohio, one in Indiana, one in Michigan, four in Illinois, and one in Wisconsin, totaling 20 seats. The Democrats also lost four incumbents in Florida, three in Texas, and another three (possibly four, pending a recount) in Virginia, as well as a total 7 in a band of Deep South states stretching from North Carolina to Mississippi and Tennessee. In the Rocky Mountain region, they lost two incumbents each in Colorado and Arizona. On the other hand, New England was a bust, with only one incumbent losing in New Hampshire. And the Democrats may hold their incumbent losses on the West Coast to only one as well, with at least a couple of races undecided.

A large variety of Democratic incumbents lost. Voting against Obama's agenda did not protect many incumbents in heavily Republican districts -- Gene Taylor and Travis Childers of Mississippi, Jim Marshall of Georgia, Bobby Bright of Alabama, Lincoln Davis of Tennessee, and Walt Minnick of Idaho all lost, despite their conservative voting records. However, a large number of liberal Democratic incumbents lost as well -- among them Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania, Phil Hare of Illinois, Steve Kagen of Wisconsin, John Hall of New York, Mary Jo Kilroy of Ohio, Tom Perriello of Virginia, Alan Grayson and Ron Klein of Florida, and Mark Schauer of Michigan. The outcome of the House races proved that a financial advantage is not enough to guarantee a member's re-election if voters are unhappy with that member's performance. The five Democratic incumbents who were the biggest recipients of spending by outside liberal groups (mostly union groups) all lost -- Tom Perriello of Virginia, Mark Schauer of Michigan, Dina Titus of Nevada, John Boccieri of Ohio, and Harry Teague of New Mexico. One clear pattern that emerged from the election was the relationship between a district's presidential voting habits and their House vote this year. My rough estimate is that about half of the Republican pickups this year came in districts that supported McCain in 2008, and a large majority came in districts that supported Bush in 2004. Republicans did win in a few Democratic-leaning districts, such as James Oberstar's seat in Minnesota, Phil Hare's seat in Illinois, and open seats in New Hampshire and suburban Philadelphia, but for the most part their wins came on Republican-friendly turf. While this explains some of the GOP disappointments in New England and the West Coast, it also may bode well for an enduring majority in the House. With so many Republican seats held in Republican-friendly districts, it will be that much harder for those incumbents to be defeated in the future.

In this post that I wrote right after the Democrats pushed ObamaCare through the House in March, I listed 47 Democrats from districts that voted for Bush in 2004 who voted for ObamaCare and said that a large majority of them had to go. Well, looking back at that list, 33 of those 47 were defeated either in the primary or the general election -- around 70% (and that is not even counting two others whose races have not yet been decided). That's a pretty high casualty rate! Also, last week I listed 35 liberal Democrats in competitive races that I especially wanted to see defeated. Of those 35, at least 22 were defeated, with three others in close races that have not yet been called. That's a 63% casualty rate -- again very high and very satisfying. Overall, I think the American people sent a pretty loud message, and it remains to be seen whether the Democrats have heard and understood that message.

This post has focused primarily on the House results. I will make another post soon discussing the Senate and governor's race results, as well as analyzing how accurate my predictions were. Stay tuned!

What to Watch For on Election Night

I was planning to put together a quick election night guide which shows you what races to keep an eye on in each state as the polls close and the night progresses. That way, when you watch the results come in, you can know what signs to look for in order to determine how well the Republicans are doing compared with expectations. However, I found two good election guides online, so there's no point in me taking the time to make my own.

Here is one, put together by Nate Silver. Silver is a liberal -- but a very smart and honest one. Check it out here.

And here is another good one from the conservative-leaning Washington Examiner.

I was originally thinking about live blogging the elections. I don't think I'll be doing that. However, I will be posting regular updates throughout the evening and commenting on some results -- so check in regularly if you're a political junkie!

Final House Predictions

Here are my final U.S. House predictions (drum roll please). Like pretty much everyone else, I'm seeing strong movement toward the Republicans in the final week or two. Race by race, the numbers are looking terrible for the Democrats, with literally dozens of seats in play that were thought to be safe for the Democrats just a few short weeks ago. Another sign that the wave is coming is in the final Gallup poll. Usually the generic ballot question tightens as we move toward election day, but Gallup is showing a huge margin of 15 points in favor of the Republicans! Obviously, if this number is even close to right, it portends huge gains for the GOP today. (And Gallup has an excellent track record of accurately predicting House results with their generic ballot numbers.) Here's more commentary from Gallup:

"Taking Gallup's final survey's margin of error into account, the historical model predicts that the Republicans could gain anywhere from 60 seats on up, with gains well beyond that possible. It should be noted, however, that this year's 15-point gap in favor of the Republican candidates among likely voters is unprecedented in Gallup polling and could result in the largest Republican margin in House voting in several generations."

Wow.

Other prognosticators have also commented on the very real possibility of stratospheric Republican gains. Nate Silver, a Democratic-leaning political and statistics guru, also provided a possible blowout scenario and 5 reasons why this is possible here.

I have made my best effort, given time constraints, to predict the outcome of all the House races. I am confident that at least some of these picks will be wrong, because there is limited or non-existent polling in many of these races. Also, in a wave election like this, there are always seats that stay beneath the radar and end up being huge surprises on election night. We saw it in 2006, and we will see it again this year. But I think (and hope) that my overall net gain prediction is close to accurate. I am predicting the Republicans will pick up 71 Democratic-held seats, but lose 3 of their own, for a net gain of 68 seats. This is a bold prediction, but not as much out of line as you might think from other prognosticators. For example, Stu Rothenberg is projecting 55-65 seat gains, and RealClearPolitics has a pick-up range from 45 to 89, with an average of 67.

Here are the likely or certain Republican pickups:

1. Open (Gordon) (TN)
2. Open (Melancon) (LA)
3. Open (Snyder) (AR)
4. Open (Massa) (NY)
5. Open (Ellsworth) (IN)
6. Open (Moore) (KS)
7. Debbie Halvorson (IL)
8. Mary Jo Kilroy (OH)


And the competitive seats that lean toward a Republican pickup:

1. Open (Tanner) (TN)
2. Betsy Markey (CO)
3. Suzanne Kosmas (FL)
4. Chet Edwards (TX)
5. Steve Driehaus (OH)
6. Kathy Dahlkemper (PA)
7. Alan Grayson (FL)
8. Allen Boyd (FL)
9. Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ)
10. Glenn Nye (VA)
11. Steve Kagen (WI)
12. Jim Marshall (GA)
13. Tom Perriello (VA)
14. Open (Stupak) (MI)
15. Carol Shea-Porter (NH)
16. Frank Kratovil (MD)
17. Harry Teague (NM)
18. John Boccieri (OH)
19. Open (Baird) (WA)
20. Travis Childers (MS)
21. Earl Pomeroy (ND)
22. Open (Obey) (WI)
23. Open (Berry) (AR)
24. Harry Mitchell (AZ)
25. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD)
26. John Spratt (SC)
27. Phil Hare (IL)
28. Paul Kanjorski (PA)
29. Dina Titus (NV)

And the seats that are tossups which I am predicting to go narrowly for the GOP:

1. Open (Sestak) (PA)
2. Baron Hill (IN)
3. Zack Space (OH)
4. John Hall (NY)
5. John Salazar (CO)
6. Bill Foster (IL)
7. John Adler (NJ)
8. Patrick Murphy (PA)
9. Bill Owens (NY)
10. Jerry McNerney (CA)
11. Ron Klein (FL)
12. Chris Carney (PA)
13. Lincoln Davis (TN)
14. Scott Murphy (NY)
15. Larry Kissell (NC)
16. Mark Schauer (MI)
17. Open (Mollohan) (WV)
18. Ciro Rodriguez (TX)
19. Open (Hodes) (NH)
20. Bobby Bright (AL)
21. Sanford Bishop (GA)
22. Michael Arcuri (NY)
23. Kurt Schrader (OR)
24. Ike Skelton (MO)
25. Charlie Wilson (OH)
26. Gene Taylor (MS)
27. Jim Costa (CA)
28. Ben Chandler (KY)
29. Joe Donnelly (IN)
30. Martin Heinrich (NM)
31. Mike McIntyre (NC)
32. Bob Etheridge (NC)
33. James Oberstar (MN)
34. Ed Perlmutter (CO)

And the tossup seats which I am predicting to go narrowly to the Democrats:

1. Gabrielle Giffords (AZ)
2. Walt Minnick (ID)
3. Open (Delahunt) (MA)
4. Raul Grijalva (AZ)
5. Gerry Connolly (VA)
6. Tim Bishop (NY)
7. Rick Boucher (VA)
8. Mark Critz (PA)
9. Christopher Murphy (CT)
10. Jim Himes (CT)
11. Gary Peters (MI)
12. Loretta Sanchez (CA)
13. Heath Shuler (NC)
14. Ron Kind (WI)
15. Chellie Pingree (ME)
16. Dennis Cardoza (CA)
17. Melissa Bean (IL)
18. Rick Larsen (WA)

And the competitive seats that lean toward a Democratic hold:

1. Dan Maffei (NY)
2. Mike McMahon (NY)
3. Leonard Boswell (IA)
4. Tim Walz (MN)
5. Jason Altmire (PA)
6. John Yarmuth (KY)
7. Maurice Hinchey (NY)
8. Adam Smith (WA)
9. Solomon Ortiz (TX)
10. Michael Michaud (ME)
11. Jim Matheson (UT)
12. Frank Pallone (NJ)
13. Open (Rhode Island) (RI)

And the likely Democratic holds (where an upset is at least possible):

1. Bruce Braley (IA)
2. Betty Sutton (OH)
3. Dave Loebsack (IA)
4. Nick Rahall (WV)
5. Tim Holden (PA)
6. Rush Holt (NJ)
7. Russ Carnahan (MO)
8. Barney Frank (MA)
9. John Barrow (GA)
10. Mike Ross (AR)
11. Carolyn McCarthy (NY)
12. Peter DeFazio (OR)
13. Brad Miller (NC)
14. Steve Israel (NY)
15. Anthony Weiner (NY)

All in all, this adds up to 117 Democratic-held seats that are competitive or potentially competitive. I'm predicting the GOP will pick up 71 of those seats.

On the Republican side, there are a LOT fewer seats in play. I am predicting the Democrats will easily pick up the seat of Joseph Cao (LA). Mike Castle's open seat in Delaware leans toward the Democrats. And Mark Kirk's open seat in Illinois is a tossup race that I think the Democrats will narrowly win. That adds up to 3 losses.

A few other Republican seats are vulnerable, but I think the GOP will hold on. In Hawaii, Charles Djou's race is a tossup that I think the GOP will narrowly hold. There are three competitive seats that lean toward the Republicans: Dan Lungren (CA), Open (Diaz-Balart) (FL), and Open (Shadegg) (AZ). And there are five additional seats that are likely GOP holds: Charlie Dent (PA), Open (Putnam) (FL), Dave Reichert (WA), Open (Griffith) (AL), and Michele Bachmann (MN).

That adds up to 12 competitive or potentially competitive GOP-held seats, 3 of which I think they will lose.

In less than 24 hours, we will know the outcome of most of these races....

Final Senate and Governor Predictions

I have made my final Senate and governor predictions. You can access the Senate predictions here and the governor predictions here. (The links on the left side of the page are also current.)

To summarize: I am predicting a 9-seat pickup for the GOP, bringing them to 50 seats in the Senate. The Democrats will still retain the majority (assuming Independent Joe Lieberman continues to caucus with the Democrats) because Vice-President Joe Biden will be the deciding vote for organizing the Senate. I predict the GOP will pick up seats in North Dakota, Indiana, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Illinois, Nevada, Colorado, and Washington. However, they will lose close races in California and West Virginia, as well as not-so-close races in Connecticut and Delaware. Also, the GOP will hold all their previously held seats, including Kentucky and Missouri.

In the governor's races, the GOP will pick up a net of 9 seats, bringing them to a total of 33 out of 50 governorships. The Democrats will lose a net of 10 and end up with 16 governorships, with the remaining one held by Independent Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island. The GOP will win competitive races in Minnesota, Florida, Oregon, Massachusetts, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Maine, Illinois, Georgia, and Texas, as well as less competitive races in Michigan, Iowa, and Nevada. However, they will come up short in Connecticut, Colorado, Vermont, California, Hawaii, New Hampshire, and Maryland.

If my predictions are correct, it will be a very good night for the GOP!

Stay tuned for my final House predictions and some other thoughts on the election tomorrow....

UPDATE: I have made one additional update to my governor's predictions -- have now moved Connecticut into the GOP column. This results in a net GOP pickup of 10 seats and a net loss of 11 for the Democrats.

Not All Democrats Are Created Equal

As we approach Election Day, there has been a lot of speculation about how many House (and Senate) seats the Democrats are going to lose. However, I think it's important to point out that not all Democrats are created equal. While pretty much all the Democrats in the Senate are liberal (every single one voted for ObamaCare), there is a small cadre of genuinely moderate-to-conservative Democrats in the House. As Obama and Pelosi have lurched the Democratic agenda farther and farther to the left, these conservative Democrats -- almost all from the South -- are finding themselves in greater and greater jeopardy merely as a result of the "D" after their name on the ballot.

Now, I won't be shedding tears over any Democrat who loses his seat next week, no matter how conservative. After all, even the most conservative Democrats did choose to enable a Democratic majority which has advanced a radically progressive agenda and to vote for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. However, as I have said before, when it comes to politics I am a conservative first and a Republican second. I want to see conservative gains in Congress, not merely Republican gains. I don't want to see all Democrats lose indiscriminately -- I want to see those specific Democrats lose who have carried water for the Obama/Pelosi agenda and advanced policies like ObamaCare and cap-and-trade in defiance of the will of their constituents. As the results roll in on election night and the House losses begin to add up for the Democrats, I will be looking beyond the raw numbers to see which types of Democrats are being defeated. If many conservative southern Democrats lose while many liberal Democrats from swing districts survive, I will be disappointed -- even if the Republicans take the House comfortably.

This is why it is a little disappointing to me that the national Republican party is spending heavily to defeat conservative Democrats like Gene Taylor and Travis Childers of Mississippi, Mike McIntyre of North Carolina, Lincoln Davis of Tennessee, Bobby Bright of Alabama, and Jim Marshall of Georgia. In one sense, I can understand it. After all, the entire point of the NRCC's existence is to succeed in electing as many Republicans as possible, and these congressmen are not Republicans. However, there are so many competitive House districts this year that the Republican party cannot come close to funding all of them. I would much prefer to see them directing their scarce resources to defeating the Democrats that are responsible for supporting Obama's agenda. After all, Big Labor is focusing its resources on re-electing those specific Democrats who have voted for that agenda -- why aren't Republicans and Republican-leaning groups keeping a similar focus?

I don't see that defeating Democrats like Gene Taylor and Bobby Bright is going to make much difference for conservative principles. Taylor is a long-time conservative who voted to impeach President Clinton way back in the 1990's. Bright scored an astonishing 79% on my congressional scorecard -- higher than many Republicans. All of the Democrats listed above scored well over 50%. Instead, I would like to see the following Democrats defeated on election night (their percentage of conservative votes on my scorecard are in parentheses). They are listed in approximate order of their vulnerability.

Debbie Halvorson (IL) - 25%
Mary Jo Kilroy (OH) - 7%
Betsy Markey (CO) - 29%
Steve Driehaus (OH) - 21%
Kathy Dahlkemper (PA) - 25%
Tom Perriello (VA) - 21%
Paul Kanjorski (PA) - 18%
Earl Pomeroy (ND) - 29%
Alan Grayson (FL) - 11%
Steve Kagen (WI) - 7%
Patrick Murphy (PA) - 11%
John Boccieri (OH) - 29%
Dina Titus (NV) - 21%
Baron Hill (IN) - 29%
John Hall (NY) - 14%
John Salazar (CO) - 21%
Mark Schauer (MI) - 21%
John Spratt (SC) - 21%
Bill Owens (NY)
Gabrielle Giffords (AZ) - 21%
Phil Hare (IL) - 4%
Jerry McNerney (CA) - 18%
Ron Klein (FL) - 18%
Leonard Boswell (IA) - 14%
Ciro Rodriguez (TX) - 25%
Kurt Schrader (OR) - 18%
Sanford Bishop (GA) - 21%
Charlie Wilson (OH) - 29%
Martin Heinrich (NM) - 11%
Tim Bishop (NY) - 11%
Raul Grijalva (AZ) - 0%
Gerry Connolly (VA) - 14%
Gary Peters (MI) - 18%
Loretta Sanchez (CA) - 14%
Tim Walz (MN) - 14%

All of these 35 Democrats voted for ObamaCare (most also voted for cap-and-trade). All of them are being challenged by at least reasonably conservative Republicans. Most of them are well to the left of the conservative or swing districts they represent. All of them are considered vulnerable. If a large percentage of these congressmen do not lose, it will be a disappointing night for me, regardless of what the total number of pickups is for the GOP.

So as you follow the election results next week, keep an eye out for which types of Democrats are losing. That will tell you a lot about the prospects for conservative principles in the next Congress.

Updated Predictions for Senate and Governor Races

I've just updated my Senate and governor's race predictions, for any political junkies who are interested.... You can get to them by clicking on the links on the left side of the page.

My Favorite Election Experts

For you political junkies out there...

There are three political experts out there that I really like. I think these three individuals are unmatched when it comes to knowledge of American politics and the ability to effectively analyze polls and election data. They are:

1. Michael Barone of The Washington Examiner.

2. Jay Cost of The Weekly Standard.

3. Sean Trende of realclearpolitics.com.

I will be relying on the insight of these brilliant analysts on election night and in the days leading up to the election. I think they are the best conservative-oriented number crunchers out there. There are some good liberal-oriented number-crunchers too, like Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com.

In Case You Hadn't Noticed, There's An Election Coming Up....

Over the past few weeks, I've been spending a lot of time that I usually spend blogging reading about the 2010 elections, which explains why the posting has been light lately. I think Sean Hannity is not too far off the mark when he says that this is the most important election in our lifetimes. It is incredibly vital that we the people send as strong a message as possible to our government that we will not tolerate the Obama/Reid/Pelosi agenda of reckless spending, higher taxes, ballooning deficits, and socialized health care. In order to send that message, Republicans must perform well on Election Day. They must at least meet, if not exceed, expectations. Anything less than taking over the House represents failure, and I think they also need to at least make it to 49 or 50 seats in the Senate. I would strongly urge my readers not to sit this election out. Vote -- and encourage your family, friends, and co-workers to vote as well. If you have the ability and inclination, donate to or volunteer for competitive races in your state or district. And, most importantly, pray for God to give us wise and honest leaders that will take our country in the right direction.

To me, this election is less about rewarding Republicans and more about punishing Democrats for their massive overreach. The Democrats in Congress, led by President Obama and Speaker Pelosi, have deliberately moved forward on a radical big government agenda, despite a staggering national debt and the strong opposition of a clear majority of the American people. They were warned over and over again, through townhall meetings, polls, rallies, and an overwhelming wave of letters and phone calls from constituents -- yet even many supposedly moderate Blue Dog Democrats ignored the voice of the people. And Obama's deliberate strategy has been to demonize that voice, accusing Tea Partiers and townhall activists of being racists and extremists (not to mention ignorant and stupid). I have not been around the block that many times, but I have never seen such blatant disregard for the will of American voters. Members of Congress need to know that there are consequences for this arrogance. If voters do not send a stinging rebuke on November 2, this disregard for the will of the American people will only get worse in the future. For the sake of our future, we must prove that we are not as stupid and uninformed as they think and that we are prepared to hold them accountable for their actions. Certainly Republicans will disappoint us from time to time if they regain the majority, but we can at least be sure they will stand against the excesses of the Obama Administration and bring back a desperately needed balance to our government.

It is interesting to note how this election is shaping up. By and large, Republicans are the only ones running on issues. They are talking about reducing the deficit, repealing ObamaCare and replacing it with free market solutions, opposing cap-and-trade, reducing taxes and regulations to stimulate the economy, controlling our borders, finding solutions to Social Security, and many other substantive solutions. What are the Democrats running on? Well, individual candidates are not running on their support for ObamaCare, or their support for cap-and-trade, or their support for more spending and higher deficits. Most of them are running away from their records as fast as possible. The only House Democrats talking about ObamaCare and cap-and-trade are the ones who voted against those bills. And of course, they can't run on how they've improved the economy, or created jobs, or fixed the illegal immigration problem, or drained the ethical "swamp" in Washington, or improved partisan gridlock. Instead, by their own admission, the Democrats' almost exclusive strategy is to try to tear down and destroy their GOP opponents in any way possible. They are digging up all sorts of dirt from the past, in some cases turning to stories decades old, and saturating the airwaves with personal attacks. Some of them have been blatantly false, such as Alan Grayson's infamous "Taliban Dan" ad. They can't run on their record, so they are opting for the scorched earth strategy.

Of course, the Obama Administration has not been idle either. Their "strategy" is also to demonize the opposition, and their attacks have become increasingly shrill and partisan as well. The only problem is that they can't seem to decide who the target of this opposition is. It changes on a weekly basis. Over the month or two, they have focused their firepower, in rapid succession, on...John Boehner, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, the Tea Party movement, and, most bizarrely, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (an organization that supports Democrats as well as Republicans). Their claim that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is "threatening democracy" by funding election campaigns with foreign money is so completely devoid of proof that even liberal Bob Schieffer of Face the Nation asked in astonishment, "Three weeks from election day, is this the best you have?" Of course, these attacks are only resulting in increased publicity and fundraising for Obama's targets -- Karl Rove's organization raised more than $14 million in the week following the President's attack. These attacks are doing nothing to help their precarious situation, because they are not talking about what the American people are concerned about. Voters don't care about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, or Karl Rove, or Fox News. They care about jobs and the economy and the deficit and taxes and spending and health care. Obama just looks increasingly partisan and even irrelevant, and is making it next to impossible for Democrats to win over the very independents and moderates they need to be successful in swing districts across the country.

Even Obama and Biden's appeals to their base seem to fall flat. Obama comes across as a lecturer, telling Democrats that "they'd better be motivated" and that he "needs them to be fired up" and saying that if "folks want to take their ball and go home, that just tells me they weren't serious in the first place." Meanwhile, Biden calls out partisan crowds for not showing enough enthusiasm (while also saying he wants to "strangle" Republicans for talking about balancing the budget). Uh, I have news for the White House crowd. You don't get your base excited by telling them to be excited. Passion isn't a switch to be turned off and on at will. Voters are passionate when you give them a reason to be passionate about. They get excited when they see results. And frankly, it's pretty hard to get excited about a 9.6% unemployment rate.

So, yes, the Republicans are going to win big this year. I will be updating my detailed Senate and governor's predictions soon, but suffice it to say that the Republicans will probably at least come close to taking the Senate, and will probably gain around 10 governor's seats as well. Almost all of the nonpartisan forecasters agree that the Democrats will lose the House, and the only question is the margin. I think the margin could be sizable. It's going to get nasty at the end, and Obama and his party are going to do everything possible to destroy GOP candidates, but in the end the "cake is baked." I can't wait for November 2!

2010 Election: House Races

This is probably something that only political junkies will find interesting, but here are my rankings for the 2010 competitive U.S. House races. Please note that due to the large number of seats in play and the very limited amount of public polling available, it is virtually impossible to predict all of these races accurately. Still, here is my perspective on the current state of the battle for the House, starting with Democratic-held seats.

Likely or Certain GOP Pickups:
1. Open (Bart Gordon) (TN-6)
2. Open (Charlie Melancon) (LA-2)
3. Open (Vic Snyder) (AR-2)
4. Open (Eric Massa) (NY-29)

Vulnerable Seats Leaning Toward the GOP:
1. Open (Dennis Moore) (KS-3)
2. Open (Brad Ellsworth) (IN-8)
3. Frank Kratovil (MD-1)
4. Harry Teague (NM-2)
5. Steve Driehaus (OH-1)
6. Mary Jo Kilroy (OH-15)
7. Betsy Markey (CO-4)
8. Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24)
9. Travis Childers (MS-1)
10. Open (Paul Hodes) (NH-2)
11. Carol Shea-Porter (NH-1)
12. Earl Pomeroy (ND-AL)
13. Open (Brian Baird) (WA-3)
14. Open (John Tanner) (TN-8)
15. Chet Edwards (TX-17)
16. Open (Marion Berry) (AR-1)
17. Debbie Halvorson (IL-11)
18. Tom Perriello (VA-5)
19. Dina Titus (NV-3)
20. Paul Kanjorski (PA-11)
21. Open (Joe Sestak) (PA-7)
22. Mark Schauer (MI-7)
23. John Boccieri (OH-16)
24. Glenn Nye (VA-2)
25. Open (Bart Stupak) (MI-1)
26. Michael Arcuri (NY-24)
27. Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-3)

Tossup Races - Slight GOP Edge:
1. Alan Grayson (FL-8)
2. Allen Boyd (FL-2)
3. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD-AL)
4. John Spratt (SC-5)
5. Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-1)
6. Harry Mitchell (AZ-5)
7. Patrick Murphy (PA-8)
8. John Hall (NY-19)
9. Open (David Obey) (WI-7)

Tossup Races - Slight Democrat Edge:
1. Open (Alan Mollohan) (WV-1)
2. Baron Hill (IN-9)
3. Larry Kissell (NC-8)
4. Bill Foster (IL-14)
5. Bobby Bright (AL-2)
6. Jim Marshall (GA-8)
7. Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-8)
8. Leonard Boswell (IA-3)
9. Ciro Rodriguez (TX-23)
10. Steve Kagen (WI-8)
11. Jerry McNerney (CA-11)
12. Chris Carney (PA-10)
13. John Salazar (CO-3)
14. Zack Space (OH-18)
15. Ike Skelton (MO-4)
16. Tim Bishop (NY-1)
17. Ron Klein (FL-22)
18. Scott Murphy (NY-20)
19. John Adler (NJ-3)
20. Phil Hare (IL-17)
21. Joe Donnelly (IN-2)

Vulnerable Seats Leaning Toward the Democrats:
1. Walt Minnick (ID-1)
2. Rick Boucher (VA-9)
3. Martin Heinrich (NM-1)
4. Betty Sutton (OH-13)
5. Bill Owens (NY-23)
6. Open (Bill Delahunt) (MA-10)
7. Mark Critz (PA-12)
8. Gerry Connolly (VA-11)
9. Ben Chandler (KY-6)
10. Kurt Schrader (OR-5)
11. Lincoln Davis (TN-4)
12. Heath Shuler (NC-11)
13. Gary Peters (MI-9)
14. Loretta Sanchez (CA-47)
15. Jim Himes (CT-4)
16. Rick Larsen (WA-2)
17. Ed Perlmutter (CO-7)
18. Tim Walz (MN-1)
19. Sanford Bishop (GA-2)
20. Charlie Wilson (OH-6)

Long-Shot Opportunities for the GOP:
1. Mike McMahon (NY-13)
2. Jason Altmire (PA-4)
3. Tim Holden (PA-17)
4. Christopher Murphy (CT-5)
5. Dan Maffei (NY-25)
6. Ron Kind (WI-3)
7. Melissa Bean (IL-8)
8. Dennis Cardoza (CA-18)
9. Nick Rahall (WV-3)
10. Bob Etheridge (NC-2)
11. Open (Patrick Kennedy) (RI-1)
12. Rush Holt (NJ-12)
13. John Yarmuth (KY-3)
14. John Barrow (GA-12)
15. Jim Matheson (UT-2)
16. Mike McIntyre (NC-7)
17. Jim Costa (CA-20)
18. Bruce Braley (IA-1)
19. Dave Loebsack (IA-2)
20. Michael Michaud (ME-2)
21. Carolyn McCarthy (NY-4)
22. Anthony Weiner (NY-9)
23. Raul Grijalva (AZ-7)
24. Steve Israel (NY-2)
25. Chellie Pingree (ME-1)

Now for the very few competitive Republican-held seats:

Likely Democratic Pickups:
1. Anh Cao (LA-3)
2. Open (Mike Castle) (DE-AL)

Tossup Races - Slight Democrat Edge:
1. Open (Mark Kirk) (IL-10)
2. Charles Djou (HI-1)

Vulnerable Seats Leaning Toward the GOP:
1. Open (Mario Diaz-Balart) (FL-25)
2. Dan Lungren (CA-3)

Long-Shot Opportunities for the Democrats:
1. Open (Parker Griffith) (AL-5)
2. Charlie Dent (PA-15)

All in all, that leaves us with a total of 8 competitive GOP seats, and a whopping 106 competitive Democratic seats. Right now, I have exactly 40 Democrat-held seats in the GOP column, while 4 Republican-held seats are in the Democratic column. That would be a net 36-seat gain for the GOP, three short of the number needed to take control of the House. However, I have an additional 21 Democratic-held tossup seats, many of which will likely end up going to the GOP on election night. I just don't know which ones yet! It seems quite likely the Republicans will end up with a net gain of at least 40-50 seats, given the large number of vulnerable Democratic incumbents whose challengers are still little-known.

Some Thoughts on That Controversial Senate Race in Delaware....

One of the more controversial primary races of this election season occurred on Tuesday in Delaware, where Tea Party candidate Christine O'Donnell shocked long-time U.S. Congressman Mike Castle in the GOP Senate primary. For most of this year, Castle was considered a shoo-in both to win the primary and the general election. However, in the last few weeks of the campaign, O'Donnell received key endorsements from Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity and other conservative stalwarts, and ended up surging to victory by six points. The infighting and finger-pointing got even worse after the election. Some Republicans and conservatives, including Charles Krauthammer and Karl Rove, lashed out at the Tea Party movement for giving away a safe GOP seat, while other conservatives, including Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh, attacked the "GOP establishment" for disrespecting the will of the voters and smearing a fellow-conservative (O'Donnell). Here are my thoughts on the Delaware election and the subsequent controversy:

1. Christine O'Donnell is a deeply flawed candidate. Her personal life indicates a serious lack of personal responsibility and financial discipline. Her house was foreclosed on in 2008. As of this year, she had still not paid off campaign debts from her previous Senate runs. She reported less than $6,000 of earned income on her tax return last year, raising the question whether she is using her perennial runs for political office as a way to earn a personal living. Although representing herself as a college graduate, she did not receive her official degree from the college until well over a decade after graduation due to thousands of dollars in unpaid bills to the college. She claimed in a campaign interview this year that she carried two out of the state's three counties during her 2008 run for the Senate; in fact, she carried none of the state's counties. People associated with her campaign were responsible for spreading rumors that Congressman Castle was gay -- rumors that appear to be completely unfounded and untrue. She suggested that independent pollster Scott Rasmussen was in the pay of the RNC when he released a poll that showed her trailing.

Another thing to note about O'Donnell is that she has virtually no accomplishments to point to that would indicate she is qualified to be in the Senate. This sets her apart from other Tea Party "outsider" candidates. Joe Miller of Alaska is a former Marine and a successful attorney and judge. Rand Paul of Kentucky is a doctor with a successful medical practice. Rick Scott of Florida is a successful businessman. Sharron Angle served in the Nevada legislature. Marco Rubio has a long history of achievement, including Speaker of the Florida House. What exactly has Christine O'Donnell accomplished, other than running unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate twice (with a high water mark of 35% of the vote in 2008)?

2. A candidate's stated positions on the issues are not the only consideration when determining who to vote for. A candidate's character and background matter too. When listening to the Mark Levin Radio Show a few days before the Delaware primary, Levin dismissed all the questions surrounding O'Donnell's personal life and financial history as completely irrelevant and unimportant. In essence, he claimed that she would vote the right way in the Senate, so who cares about her character or personal life? I was very surprised by this claim, and found it to be both untrue and hypocritical. I didn't hear Levin dismissing these character issues as unimportant when three of Obama's cabinet nominees were under fire for failing to pay their personal income taxes. I didn't hear Levin dismissing character issues as unimportant when discussing Bill Clinton's serial adultery and repeated lying. But more importantly, personal character does matter. If someone breaks his promise to his wife and cheats on her, how can we expect that politician to be honest with the American public? If someone doesn't pay their own taxes, why should they be entrusted with the responsibility of enforcing the nation's tax laws? If someone is incapable of personal responsibility in handling their own money and keeping within their own budget, can we trust them to be responsible in handling our tax dollars and balancing our country's budget?

After the Delaware election, Levin accused Rove of "smearing" O'Donnell because he brought up the points I listed above regarding O'Donnell's personal life. I don't see how this is a smear if it is true. Smearing means attacking someone unfairly or telling lies or distortions about them. To bring up legitimate facts about someone's behavior is not a smear.

3. Adherence to conservative principles should not be an excuse for lying about an opponent -- even one you consider to be too liberal. Mike Castle is a moderate-to-liberal Republican who disappointed conservatives many times. Nevertheless, there is no justification for Hannity claiming more than once on his news program that Castle voted in favor of ObamaCare. This is a flat-out lie. Castle voted against ObamaCare both times it came up for a vote in the House, and also voted in favor of the Stupak amendment to ban funding for abortion in the bill. Hannity never corrected the record or apologized for lying about Castle -- at least not to my knowledge. I understand Hannity dislikes Castle, but the end does not justify the means.

3. Mike Castle has no one to blame but himself for losing. He never gave Republicans a compelling reason to vote for him. He never took O'Donnell seriously. He refused to debate with her, refused to appeal to conservatives, and did nothing in the final weeks except attack O'Donnell. He seemed to feel he should be coronated without having to campaign for the job. For conservative voters angry about Washington's big spending ways, the argument that he was "more electable" was not sufficient reason to vote for him. And let's not overlook the fact that Castle is far from a conservative.

4. Republican voters and the Republican party should throw their full support behind the winner of the primary, regardless of their personal preference. Christine O'Donnell is the Republican nominee. She was not my first choice; nevertheless she is far better than the very left-wing Democrat in the race, and she won her primary race fair and square. Delaware Republicans knew about O'Donnell's checkered history, yet still determined she was better than Mike Castle. The party should respect the will of the voters. Instead of continuing to attack O'Donnell, we should work hard from here on out to elect her.

5. Mike Castle is under no obligation to endorse Christine O'Donnell. Normally, I think the loser of a Republican primary should show grace and class by quickly endorsing the primary winner. However, this case is different, and the reason for that is O'Donnell herself. During the primary, she indicated that if Castle won she would not endorse him and would consider running as a write-in candidate. And in fact, she did just that the last time she lost a Republican primary, back in 2006. She refused to endorse the Republican nominee and ran as a third-party write-in candidate. So, I ask, why is Castle obligated to endorse O'Donnell when she already made clear she would not support him if the tables were turned? As long as Castle doesn't run as a third-party candidate or endorse the Democrat, I don't see why he should feel obligated to endorse her.

The bottom line is, the Delaware race split conservatives. Some conservatives were angry enough about Mike Castle's non-conservative voting record they chose to overlook O'Donnell's flaws. Other conservatives felt that those flaws were important enough to make her unelectable and unworthy of their support, reasoning that a 50% conservative would be better than a 0% conservative. I can understand both points of view, and neither side should try to demonize the other or make the other side out to be traitors or enemies. I supported Mike Castle, but Delaware voters disagreed and I accept their decision. Now conservatives should stop bickering and unite to defeat the Democrats in November.

Updated Senate Predictions

I recently updated my U.S. Senate predictions. Check them out by clicking on the link on the left side of the page. At the bottom of the predictions page there are some interesting discussions back and forth with other members of the U.S. Election Atlas site. I will be updating my predictions for the governors' races in the next couple of days.

Some may think my comments and prediction regarding O'Donnell in Delaware are too harsh. I posted my predictions the day after the primary and was feeling pretty depressed about our chances there. I'm a little more optimistic after seeing Rasmussen's poll showing O'Donnell only down by 11 points. I still don't think we can win this race, but I hope I'm wrong! I hope to post more comments on the Delaware race later.

UPDATE: I just updated my governor's predictions as well. Check them out also on the link on the left side of the page.

"Seventy Percent of Americans Know They've Been Conned"

My regular readers are probably noticing a theme of late in my posts. The Washington political & media elites are badly out of touch with the majority of the American people. Americans are sick of being lectured about everything from the Ground Zero mosque to gay marriage to the Arizona immigration law to health care reform, and they are going to show up in November and let their voice be heard. We saw a foretaste of this in the huge crowd that showed up over the weekend on the National Mall to hear Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, among others, speak. Hugh Hewitt expresses this frustration of ordinary Americans very well in his column today in the Washington Examiner on this topic. Check it out here.

Over the past week or two, I have become increasingly optimistic about Republicans' prospects in the upcoming midterm elections. The Ground Zero mosque has provided yet another indication of how out-of-touch Obama & Pelosi are with the public. The economy is not getting better -- if anything it's getting worse. The health care bill is as unpopular as ever. Polling for the Democrats is simply awful. Even many Democratic strategists privately concede the House is lost, and the Senate majority could also be in jeopardy. I increasingly think the Democrats are headed for a virtually unprecedented shellacking at the polls. Increasingly, 35-40 House seats seems to be the floor, and the ceiling may be 60 or 70 seats or even more. And it is becoming easier and easier to see a clear path to 10 Senate seats.

Elitism and the Democratic Party, Part II

Last week, I explained how the policy positions of the Democratic party are largely elitist. I also want to point out the incredible arrogance and elitism that many elected Democrats exhibit in their words and behavior. Here are a few examples:

1. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House. She referred to townhall participants protesting the health care bill as "people carrying swastikas." In a speech early in the year, she told her audience that "we have to pass the health care bill so you can find out what's in it." And of course, most recently, she called for an investigation into the source of funds for those opposing the Ground Zero mosque. This San Francisco radical is the person chosen by Democrats in the House of Representatives to be their leader.

2. Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader. He has a long history of making outrageous statements (when Bush was president he called him a "loser" in front of schoolchildren and said that the War in Iraq was "lost" while our troops were still in harm's way fighting). Most recently, Reid called townhall participants protesting the health care bill "evilmongers." In a speech on the Senate floor, he compared opponents of the Democrats' unpopular health care bill to racists who opposed desegregation and civil rights for blacks in the 1960's. He demonstrated racial insensitivity himself as well as tacitly accusing the American people of racism when he said that Obama would be acceptable to voters because he was a "light-skinned Negro" without an accent. Just last week, he said in a speech that he couldn't believe that any Hispanics could be Republicans. This hateful man, deeply disliked by voters in his own state, is the person chosen by Democrats in the Senate to be their leader.

3. Baron Hill, Indiana Congressman. The esteemed congressman held a town hall meeting in his district last year regarding the health care debate, and a college student respectfully asked why she couldn't videotape the proceedings for her school project. The congressman's reply? "This is my town hall meeting. I set the rules. [waits for boos from crowd to die down.] Let me say that again. This is my town hall meeting for you. You're not going to tell me how to run my congressional office." (What a tremendous favor the congressman did to condescend to spend a couple of hours of his valuable time with the little people! How dare they be so ungrateful?) He goes onto to add that he doesn't want a video to end up on YouTube in a "compromising position." Check out the video here!

4. Phil Hare, Illinois Congressman. This venerable congressman was asked by some of his constituents where in the Constitution the federal government has the authority to require people to purchase private health insurance under ObamaCare. The congressman's incredible reply? "I don't worry about the Constitution on this, to be honest. I care more about the people who are dying every day because they don't have health insurance." He then goes on to say that the Constitution affirms our "right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." After his astute constituents remind him that he is actually quoting the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, he looks annoyed and says, "It doesn't matter to me." (The Constitution? What's that?) When he is once again asked about the constitutionality of ObamaCare, he replies "I don't know." Check out the video here.

5. Bob Etheridge, North Carolina Congressman. This fine, upstanding congressman was accosted by two college students and asked whether he supported the Obama agenda. Etheridge went nuts, as anyone with his sense of entitlement doubtless would. He asked "Who are you" about 12 times, tried to knock the camera out of the one of the student's hands, grabbed the other student's wrist and wouldn't let go, then grabbed the student around the back of the neck. (How dare you question me! I've been in Congress 14 years and I'm not accountable to anyone!) The entire assault was captured on video here.

6. Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas Congresswoman. This caring congresswoman had to take a couple hours out of her busy schedule to talk to the little people at a town hall meeting, so you can't really blame her for being on her cell phone in the middle of the meeting while a constituent is asking her a question. This unbelievably disrespectful behavior was captured on video here.

7. Alcee Hastings, Florida Congressman. Back in March, the Democratic Congress was trying everything in its power to muscle ObamaCare through against the wishes of the American people, and one of the clever ideas they came up with was the "deem-and-pass" rule. This rule would have allowed the House to vote on a parliamentary procedure to "deem" ObamaCare passed without ever actually voting to pass ObamaCare directly. (The American people are way too stupid to figure out what we're doing!) Of course, some of the usual suspects had to bring up concerns about "transparency" and "rules" and all that rot, but a Florida congressman and impeached federal judge Alcee Hastings had a response for that! Quoting in part from Thomas Edison, he says, "There ain't no rules around here. We're trying to accomplish something. And therefore, when the deal goes down, all this talk about rules, we make 'em up as we go along." See the video here.

8. Pete Stark, California Congressman. Congressman Stark has been one of the most outrageous members of Congress for a long time (38 years to be precise). A few years ago, he said that U.S. soldiers in Iraq were blowing up innocent people for the President's amusement. Last year, at a town hall meeting, a senior citizen spoke and lit into ObamaCare, concluding with the statement "Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining." Stark's reply: "I wouldn’t dignify you by peeing on your leg. It wouldn’t be worth wasting the urine.” This exchange occurred in the first two minutes of this video. Just a few weeks ago at another town hall meeting, a constituent asked Stark how ObamaCare was consistent with the Constitution, and asked if Stark believed there were any constitutional limits whatsoever on the federal government. Stark's reply? "The federal government can do most anything in this country." The questioner replied, "You sir, and people who think like you, are destroying this nation." The video is well worth watching.

9. Ciro Rodriguez, Texas Congressman. While talking to his constituents, Congressman Rodriguez recites standard Democratic talking points about the CBO numbers and the deficit, and then when a constituent challenges him by pointing out the CBO numbers are now being revised downward, he gets angry, slams his papers down on the table, and yells at the constituent. See the video here.

These are just some of the most outrageous examples, but are far from the only ones. It is sickening to me to see the arrogance, the sense of entitlement, the condescending attitude toward constituents that ooze from these elected Democratic officials, and many others like them. And of course, I haven't even brought up New York Congressman Charlie Rangel, until recently the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, who has been charged with 13 serious crimes, including tax evasion and abuse of power. Or California Congresswoman Maxine Waters, who is accused of violating ethics rules by intervening with federal regulators to get bailout money for a bank in which she and her husband had significant ownership. These congresspeople really seem to think the taxpayers' money is their own personal slush fund to use for their own enrichment. Then, of course, there is Democratic multi-millionaire Senator John Kerry (and recent Democratic presidential candidate), who never misses an opportunity to raise taxes on the rich, yet docks his multi-million dollar yacht in Rhode Island to avoid a six-figure Massachusetts tax. There is Obama's political team using job offers to try to coax Democrats out of Senate races in Pennsylvania and Colorado.

There is elitism and a sense of entitlement on both sides of the political aisle, no doubt, but right now it's the worst among the Democrats that I've ever seen. I don't think Congress has ever created a major new entitlement like health care that has been so strongly opposed by a majority of the American people. I can't say how important I think it is that voters send the strongest possible message to the Democratic party in November. These out-of-touch politicians need to learn that they cannot openly ignore or ridicule our concerns, ignore the Constitution, and misuse our tax dollars without serious consequences. Many, many of our elected officials think their job is to be our master, not our servant -- to tell us what to do rather than listen to us and represent us. They only serve at our pleasure, and hopefully many of the people mentioned in this article will no longer be in Congress after the election. For the sake of our country, let's pray that is the case.

Election 2010 Predictions

I have made predictions for Election 2010 U.S. Senate and governors races using a site called U.S. Election Atlas, and will be periodically updating them throughout the campaign. I will also be adding analysis to go along with the predictions. If you are interested in checking them out, here are the links:

U.S. Senate predictions page

Governors predictions page

Opinion Forum: Purist or Pragmatist?

Something I want to start doing on this blog periodically is opening topics of discussion that will (hopefully) invite reader participation. With all the recent and upcoming primary races, one topic that has been on my mind recently has been the issue of purism vs. pragmatism in voting. I would define a purist as someone who refuses to settle for the lesser of two evils, while a pragmatist is willing to settle for an imperfect candidate in order to keep a worse candidate from getting elected. While I think most of us fall somewhere in the middle on the continuum between 100% political purism and 100% political pragmatism, many of us are much closer to one end or the other.

For conservatives, this issue often comes into play in a general election in which the Republican candidate is deemed insufficiently conservative. For example, I have conservative friends who were unhappy with John McCain during the 2008 presidential race and chose to either vote for a third-party candidate (such as the Constitution Party candidate) or to sit out the election altogether. Others, such as myself, chose to settle for McCain because we considered him far, far better than the alternative. (In my opinion, subsequent events have demonstrated just how bad the alternative to McCain truly was!)

This issue also can be significant in deciding which primary candidate to support. Several weeks ago, I was talking politics with a friend from Pennsylvania in advance of his state's U.S. Senate primary. On the GOP side, the race was between Pat Toomey, a well-known former congressman with the entire GOP establishment behind him and a campaign warchest of $5 million, and Peg Luksik, a little-known, poorly-funded pro-life activist with past Constitution Party associations. As a matter of fact, I did not even know Luksik was in the race and assumed Toomey was unopposed. I was surprised when my friend told me that he felt Luksik was the only candidate in the race whose conservative credentials were beyond question and that he was voting for her out of principle. Although Toomey had waffled on the abortion issue back when he was first elected to Congress a decade ago, he compiled a strongly pro-life voting record in Congress, challenged liberal Republican Arlen Specter from the right during the 2004 Senate race, and was a strong advocate for the free market economy and limited government during his tenure as president of the Club for Growth. In my mind, Toomey was clearly conservative and also the only electable candidate in the race, so he was the logical choice. But in my friend's mind, the primary is the place to vote for the absolute best candidate, not to "settle."

Another example of the debate between purism and pragmatism can be found in the upcoming GOP gubernatorial primary in my home state of Maryland. Maryland is a heavily Democratic state that has only elected a Republican ONCE to a top statewide office in my lifetime -- when GOP congressman Bob Ehrlich won an upset victory in the 2002 governor's race. Ehrlich had a reasonably high job approval rating when he ran for re-election in 2006, but was swept out of office due to the anti-Bush Democratic wave that year. Now, he is running again and early polls suggest he is running neck-and-neck in his rematch with liberal Democratic governor Martin O'Malley. However, Ehrlich is a fairly moderate pro-choice Republican, and he is facing a tough, if little-known, conservative challenge in the primary from Brian Murphy. There is little doubt that Murphy's views are more in line with my own than Ehrlich's are, especially on the issue of the sanctity of life, and I have heard he is quite articulate as well. Other conservatives I have talked to (including family members) are enthusiastic about voting for him. While I too like Murphy, I have nagging doubts about whether it would be better to vote for Ehrlich, the only Republican candidate who has been able to win in Maryland in decades and possibly the only Republican with a chance of winning in the general election. While Ehrlich is pro-choice, he has supported certain restrictions on abortion like banning partial-birth abortion and parental notification for minors, which would make him far preferable to his Democratic opponent even on this issue. Ehrlich is not perfect, but he would serve as a much-needed check to our state's radically left-wing legislature. I still haven't decided who to vote for yet in the primary (although Ehrlich would certainly get my vote in the general election if he wins).

These are but two examples of an issue that most of us, as conservatives, face nearly every election year in our two-party political system: do we settle for imperfect candidates or do we choose to give our vote only to those candidates who are in complete or near-complete agreement with our values? In my opinion, there is no hard-and-fast rule, and decisions of this type must be made on a case-by-case basis.

Let me first say that, for those of us who are Christians, our voting must be done as an act of worship and obedience to Jesus Christ. We are under obligation to use our voting privilege in a way that honors God and does not violate our conscience. For example, it would be hard for me to justify voting for a Republican simply because of his party affiliation if he had a history of corruption, had proven to be blatantly dishonest and untrustworthy, or had demonstrated complete disregard for Constitutional principles, even if his opponent were just as bad or worse. Our highest loyalty must be to principle rather than political party. (For the same reason, I believe we have an obligation to educate ourselves about the candidates and their beliefs before voting. We cannot glorify God if we are uninformed or ignorant.) But of course, the Bible doesn't come with a filled-out voter card attached. We still have to use our minds and think through these issues to determine what voting decisions are most glorifying to God.

Some might argue that voting according to our conscience means we can only vote for candidates that are fully in agreement with our principles and beliefs. I disagree. In certain European countries, for example, where there are a large number of political parties with differing ideologies, it might be much more feasible to vote for a candidate whose beliefs are in nearly complete agreement with our own. But in a two-party system like the U.S., the vast majority of the time we are stuck with a choice between a Democrat and a Republican. For a conservative like myself, the Republican candidate is frequently disappointing and the Democratic candidate is almost always unacceptable for ideological reasons. But the only other options are to vote for a third-party candidate who cannot win or to refuse to vote at all, both of which are in effect forfeiting our right to impact the choice of our elected officials. Sitting out an election or voting for a third-party candidate (essentially the same thing) are only acceptable decisions if both major-party candidates are so truly awful that voting for either of them would be a betrayal of conscience -- and I think this is quite rare. (There are some very rare exceptions when strong third-party candidates emerge with a genuine chance of winning. The 2009 NY-23 special election is an example, but it was caused by the fact that the Republican nominee was so left-wing that she was unacceptable to many Republican voters who flocked en masse to the Conservative nominee. This is an example when voting for a third-party candidate is not a throw-away vote and is also the only real option if we want to stay true to our principles.)

Something important to keep in mind about our two-party system is that legislation can only come up for consideration in Congress -- not to mention become law! -- when it receives support and approval from the leaders of one of the two political parties. The Constitution Party has some great ideas, I readily concede, but it has no influence whatsoever on any real legislation because there are no Constitution Party members of Congress. If we as conservatives want to see our Constitutional vision of justice and morality triumph in the halls of Congress, we have to be willing to work through at least one of the two major political parties. And it seems pretty obvious to me that there is only one political party whose leadership is even the slightest bit open to constitutional conservative ideas.

Let's take the pro-life cause as an example (although it is only one of many that could be used). Suppose you are a pro-life conservative like me and live in a state or district that is liberal and that features a race between a moderately pro-choice Republican and strongly pro-abortion Democrat. Your first impulse might be to say, "Who cares? Politicians are all the same. Neither of the candidates is going to stand up to protect innocent human life, so why should I bother to vote?" But if you dig a little deeper, you will notice first that there is usually a significant difference between pro-choice Republicans and pro-choice Democrats in liberal districts. The overwhelming majority of pro-choice Republicans still support a ban on partial-birth abortion, support parental notification for minors, and oppose taxpayer funding of abortion. The overwhelming majority of pro-choice Democrats are against any regulation or restriction on abortion whatsoever. For example, I believe that every single Republican in the House, including a number of pro-choice ones, voted in favor of the amendment to ban taxpayer funding of abortion in the recent health care bill. A huge majority of Democrats voted against this amendment.

Another thing you will notice is that the pro-choice Republican you elect will cast his/her very first vote to elect the Republican leader to be Speaker of the House or Senate Majority Leader. They will vote to select other leading Republicans as committee chairmen. The overwhelming majority of these Republican leaders are pro-life and will use their influence to permit pro-life legislation to be voted on and to support its passage. By contrast, the very first vote the pro-abortion Democrat will cast will be to make the Democratic leader Speaker of the House or Senate Majority Leader, and they will subsequently support other leading Democrats as committee chairmen. The overwhelming majority of these Democratic leaders are radically pro-abortion and will use their influence to keep pro-life legislation on the shelf, as they have done very effectively in the current session of Congress. You could be doing a lot to protect the lives of the unborn by voting for that pro-choice Republican over that pro-choice Democrat!

Now, what about primary fights? Isn't that the time to vote solely for the candidate you like best and forget about pragmatism? Most of the time I believe that is true. Certainly if you are living in a conservative or swing state or district and you have a choice between a staunch conservative and a squishy moderate, I think it is a no-brainer that you go with the conservative. For example, I strongly supported Pat Toomey over Arlen Specter in the 2004 PA Senate primary, and was very disappointed that President Bush and Senator Rick Santorum chose to do otherwise. However, I think pragmatism may come into play in two types of primary situations. One is when two candidates have generally similar views on the issues, but one is clearly much more electable than the other. The PA primary race between Toomey and Luksik (discussed in paragraph 3) is an example of this. Yes, Luksik is probably a bit more in line with my views and certainly more outspoken about them than Toomey. But they are both clearly conservative, and my guess is that they would vote the same 95% of the time -- so it makes sense to vote for the candidate with the better chance of winning in a Democratic-leaning state to avoid the catastrophe of electing a left-wing activist like Democrat Joe Sestak.

The other primary situation where I think pragmatism may come into play is in a strongly Democratic or liberal state or district, where an outspoken conservative may find it next to impossible to get elected. An example of this situation is this year's gubernatorial primary in Maryland (discussed in paragraph 4). Yes, Murphy is more conservative, but Ehrlich is reasonably acceptable (certainly not in the Arlen Specter/Lincoln Chafee category IMO) and is the ONLY Republican that has won statewide in my lifetime. I'm not saying I will definitely vote for Ehrlich, but I am saying it is a situation when I will at least consider a more pragmatic choice. I would have a hard time voting for a staunchly liberal Republican like Specter or Chafee in the primary in any state, and possibly in the general election too.

The bottom line is that voting decisions are deeply personal, and even people who share the same commitment to conservative values will often vote in very different ways. I have presented my perspective on purism vs. pragmatism in this (much longer than intended) post. I would be curious to know what you think, so please feel free to weigh in with your opinion. I would like to get some dissenting opinions, because I know there are conservatives out there who think I'm too pragmatic!

Year of the (Pro-Life) Woman

Ramesh Ponnuru has a great article in the New York Times about the large number of high-profile pro-life women running for political office this year and what it means for the pro-life movement. Check it out here.

"Super Tuesday" Primary Today

It's a pretty big primary election day today in several parts of the country. Arkansas, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky have some important, closely-watched Senate primaries, and there is also a key special election for the U.S. Congress in the 12th district of Pennsylvania. Since I'm a political junkie, I can't help but give my predictions, for what they're worth:

1. Arkansas Senate Democratic Primary -- Incumbent Blanche Lincoln will (barely) get the most votes but will fall short of 50%, meaning she goes into a runoff with her top challenger Bill Halter. I'll say Lincoln gets around 48% and Halter around 46% or so, with a third candidate pulling about 5 or 6%. A runoff will weaken both candidates in the general election, so I'm all for that.

2. Arkansas Senate Republican Primary -- John Boozman will (barely) get more than 50% of the vote and avoid a runoff. Again, good news for the GOP.

3. Pennsylvania Senate Democratic Primary -- Joe Sestak, once far behind incumbent Arlen Specter in the polls, should beat Specter today. Although the most recent polls showed a dead heat race, Sestak has the momentum and I don't think Specter's supporters are energized enough to turn out for him in large numbers. In fact, I expect Sestak will win by at least 5, and maybe as much as 10 points. This is bad news for the GOP, as Sestak in my opinion will be a more formidable general election candidate. But I can't say I'm sorry to see a corrupt, opportunistic turncoat like Specter go.

4. Kentucky Senate Republican Primary -- Every poll is showing a big lead for Rand Paul (son of former presidential candidate Ron Paul), and I see no reason to believe it won't translate into a big win on election night. I largely agree with conventional wisdom that Paul will have a harder time winning a general election in Kentucky than his primary opponent Trey Grayson because of Paul's libertarian leanings. But on the other hand, Paul's anti-government, anti-spending, anti-Washington message will probably never be more in tune with the public's mood than in 2010. His path to victory will probably be a bit more challenging than Grayson's, but I still think his odds of winning against the Democrats are better than even.

5. Kentucky Senate Democratic Primary -- Moderate Democrat Daniel Mongiardo has led most of the way but at the end the more liberal Jack Conway has been closing in thanks to a large cash advantage and an advertising blitz. I am predicting a narrow Conway victory tonight. The Democratic establishment is supporting Conway and believes he is the more electable candidate in November, but I'm not so sure I share conventional wisdom. Conway's liberalism -- including his support for health care reform -- may not play so well in this conservative state where Obama is very unpopular. Conway may be well-funded and disciplined on the campaign trail, but he will be easy to tie to Obama and Pelosi and may help Paul consolidate his Republican establishment base effectively. I would prefer Mongiardo to win because I dislike Conway's liberalism and nasty campaign style, but a Conway win might actually be better for the GOP's prospects here in the fall.

6. Pennsylvania District 12 House Race -- Every indication is that this race is very tight, and special elections are notoriously hard to predict anyway. I have gone back and forth on this race, but in the end I think Democrat Mark Critz is going to beat Republican Tim Burns by a couple of points. This is a hard race for Burns to win because the district has twice as many Democrats as Republicans. Yes, I know that many of those Democrats are fairly conservative and I know that McCain won a very narrow victory over Obama here. Yes, I know Obama and his agenda are very unpopular in the district right now. But Obama is not on the ballot. Critz is, and he has very carefully positioned himself as a conservative Democrat who opposes the health care bill and cap-and-trade, as well as being pro-life and pro-gun. Democrats also have an advantage in this race that they will not have in November. The election is the same day as the primary, and the Democrats have a competitive Senate race while the Republicans do not. This will likely draw a lot of Democrats to the polls and will counteract the enthusiasm advantage the Republicans have. In the end, despite Obama's unpopularity, enough conservative Democrats in the district will choose a (supposedly) conservative Democrat over a conservative Republican to give Critz the win. Burns ran a great race, and even if he loses he may have a better chance of winning in November. A Democratic win here does not mean that Republicans will not do very well in the fall, but a Republican win here is a very bad sign for Democrats going into the fall elections. I hope I'm wrong, but I think the Democrats win this race.

In a few hours, we'll find out whether I know what I'm talking about....