Minnesota’s Quirky Primary This Tuesday

For many years, Minnesota has employed a quirky procedure for nominating its state elected officials. It began innocently enough, with the two major political parties trying to increase their control of the nominating process by giving increased value to the endorsement by party activists at party conventions throughout the state. The official nomination, of course, came from a formal primary election held in September, but party endorsing conventions at the district level were routinely held in the spring, and soon after that, the state party convention was convened to endorse statewide candidates including governor and U.S. senator.

With the new rules put forward by the liberal McGovern-Fraser commission in 1972 (Fraser was at that time a Minnesota congressman), the party caucus system was made more complex on the Democratic side, and small (usually more radical) groups which had no real chance to prevail with their ideas and candidates were enabled through an arcane system of sub-caucuses to impose policy ideas and candidates that would not win if put before the all the voters of the party. This radicalized the Democratic Party (called the DFL in Minnesota), and over time sent pro-life and more conservative DFLers to switch their allegiance. Occasionally, DFL voters would reject the party-endorsed candidate in a primary, but with radical DFL activists making common cause with organized labor, it was difficult to do. This explains why, with its post-W.W. II reputation as a liberal state (Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, et al), Minnesota has not elected a DFL governor since 1986. (That governor, incidentally, was Rudy Perpich, a pro-life and pro-business DFLer.) In fact, Minnesota has not elected a conventionally liberal DFLer as governor since 1974!

Having been chased out of the DFL, pro-lifers either joined the GOP or became independent voters. By 1998, it seemed that it was the DFL’s turn to reclaim the governorship (with its immense powers of appointing judges and state government officials). Previous DFLers, many of them blue collar workers with socially more conservative views than DFL activist elites, now formed a significant unofficial voting bloc, and many of them voted for a last-minute Independence Party (IP) candidate Jesse Ventura who won a surprise upset victory. Since that time, IP nominees for governor, while not winning, have clearly prevented the DFL nominee from becoming governor. It appears that the same could happen again in 2010.

To be fair, although they did not adopt the extreme sub-caucus rules of the DFL, Republican activists on the right also mobilized in the caucuses in the 1980’s and 1990’s, pushing out pro-choice and other moderate Republicans. This might have deteriorated their party as much as in the DFL, but moderate Republican Arne Carlson twice won the governorship over right wing candidates from his own party, and lacking the extremist sub-caucus endorsing system of the DFL, the GOP was able to win the governorship with pluralities in 2002 and 2006, elevating their governor, Tim Pawlenty, to becoming a national figure, and soon-to-be candidate for president in 2012.

This set the stage for a DFL comeback in 2010, as remaining moderate Republicans left the GOP. But the claustrophobic endorsing system provoked long-time DFL party leader and office holder Mark Dayton (former state auditor and former U.S. senator) to eschew the state party endorsing convention and announce he was running in the primary. Former state legislator Matt Entenza, with a family fortune even larger than Dayton’s, then also announced he would go directly to the primary also. DFL speaker of the Minnesota house Margaret Kelliher won a hard-fought DFL endorsement at the state convention, but the problem remained that the delegates to the convention were chosen at precinct caucuses in which only about 1% of those who consider themselves DFLers attended. This has been the chronic and and devastating problem for the DFL (the sole exception was the 2008 caucuses where a greater percentage showed because of that year’s spirited presidential campaign) for more than two decades. (For some mysterious reason, party leaders fail to get or heed the message from voters.)

Once more, the Independence Party has fielded a serious and credible candidate. Like Tim Penny (2002) and Peter Hutchinson (2006), Tom Horner (if he wins, as is likely, his primary) will surely garner a significant percentage of votes in November, especially if voters perceive the DFL nominee as too liberal and the GOP nominee as too conservative. (If the DFL and GOP nominees really tank, Horner might even win.) Horner himself has been a moderate pro-choice Republican political consultant, and shows clear grasp of the economic issues of the state. The irony is that he is likely to draw many more votes from DFL voters than GOP voters, and once again the IP candidate is a threat to an otherwise easy win for the DFL.

Meanwhile, The GOP has nominated an energetic conservative non-urban legislator who has some personality, but has so far demonstrated few political skills as the putative nominee of his party. His recent gaffes, in fact, have stalled his campaign. He will likely be the beneficiary of the new Tea Party movement in the state (that includes thousands of voters who usually don’t vote in state elections). But he needs IP candidate Horner to draw DFL votes so that, like Pawlenty before him, he can win the governorship with a plurality.

Meanwhile, the GOP stands to pick up significant numbers in the two houses of the state legislature (which the DFL now controls be clear margins). This trend fits into the national trend away from the liberal policies of the Obama administration (Mr. Obama won the state by 10 points in 2008, but his popularity has dropped drastically in recent polls). The high tax and spend policies of the past DFL legislature were skillfully parried by outgoing Governor Pawlenty in the most recent session, and it remains to be seen if voters want to return to increased taxes and more public spending advocated by most DFLers.

The whole picture of this gubernatorial election is thus very murky and unpredictable going into Tuesday’s primary. Mr. Dayton, according to polls, is the clear favorite, owing to his high name recognition and his legislative record on behalf of seniors (perhaps the largest bloc of voters in an otherwise low-turnout primary). But this is the first time a primary will be held in mid-August (when many voters will be on vacation), with thunderstorms forecast for the Twin Cities, and when, as perhaps not ever before, well-funded and sophisticated campaigns are targeting specific groups of voters, something which may not show up in conventional polling.

Greater Minnewisowa

In 2004, I invented the word “Minnewisowa” to define the political entity that makes up the northern midwestern states of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa — three contiguous states with similar demographics and geopolitical DNA. Together they have more electoral votes than most large states. There is no presidential election in 2010, of course, but by expanding Minnewisowa to more contiguous states, we have the heart of what might be an historic transformative midterm election.

I call it “Greater Minnewisowa.” There is no need to add more syllables to my little neologism. I add the midwestern states of Illinois, North and South Dakota, Michigan and Missouri to comprise Greater Minnewisowa. In the total of eight states (which have almost 100 electoral votes), we have the potential of dramatic shifts in the U.S. senate and house, state legislatures and governorships. To wit, the GOP could pick up a net gain of up to four senate seats, 5-10 house seats, and five governorships in these eight states alone. (I’m not predicting they will do so, but there is a very reasonable possibility they can do so.)

Looking ahead to 2012, President Obama won most of the states of Greater Minnewisowa in 2008. He almost certainly cannot be re-elected if he loses most of them two years from now.

(If I may be allowed a shameless plug for Minneapolis being the site of the Democratic national convention in 2012, let me do so here. This is a region the Democrats cannot take for granted, as will become more evident after the results in 2010 are counted. The GOP convention in St. Paul in 2008 did not change the results toward the Republicans in this region that year, but it was a year when virtually nothing the GOP and its candidates could do after the bank/mortgage meltdown would have given them victory. Unlike the river that goes through Cleveland, incidentally, the Mississippi is not going catch on fire……)

Congress Is The Problem

Congress has not ever been so low in public opinion, and this evaluation is fully deserved.

The recent “indictment” by the House Ethics Committee of two long-time and always previously outspoken Democratic members, Charles Rangel (NY) and Maxine Waters (CA), only underscores the chronic decline of public regard for the legislative branch of the federal government (and of regard by some elected officials for the public and its interests).

I have not previously supported the notion of term limits for members of Congress, but I am rapidly changing my mind. Most of the worst ethics offenders seem to be members who keep getting re-elected time after time in “safe” districts, and who seem to think that rules of good behavior do not apply to them. Right now, most of the “bad apples” are Democrats, but in the past, Republicans have had their share of unethical behavior. The lesson, it would appear, is not to give either party too much of a majority for too long a time.

I have been critical recently of President Obama and his policies, but there is little harm he can do, other than in foreign policy, without the support and encouragement of his large majorities in the House and Senate.

The cliche “Throw The Bums Out!” is usually a simplistic slogan for a national mid-term election, but perhaps this year is the exception that proves the rule. Congress exists to enact the laws of the land, to levy taxes and to set appropriations for foreign and domestic policies. In some cases, it provides advice and consent to executive appointments and actions. In all cases, it should set an example for the highest standards and the best impulses of a self-governing society.

The “sins” of the current Congress are not only ethical lapses. Not in memory have I observed a Congress less respectful of its own rules, and more importantly, less respectful of the those it works for, i.e., the public at large.

As the example of the recently deceased Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) illustrated one more time, there is little to be gained for society by allowing legislators to serve well into their 80’s and 90’s. It does not matter if the elected official is a Republican or a Democrat.

But we don’t currently have term limits. As the saying goes, each election serves this purpose, too, but only if voters use their power wisely and alertly.

In my adult lifetime, I have not seen an election which cries out more for the retirement of incumbents in Congress, especially of incumbents of the party which now has too much power and too little regard for the true interests and ethics of our Republic.

Two Ships Cross The Atlantic

Traveling by airplane, for almost half a century the most efficient way to get from one distant place to another, is no longer cost effective, nor even minimally pleasurable. Rail travel in the United States, while notably improved from Amtrak’s first days in the 1970’s, is not yet up to acceptable standards, especially on long distance routes. (Only the Empire Builder from Chicago to Seattle; the Coast Starlight from Seattle to Los Angeles; and the premium Acela high-speed train from Boston to Washington, DC, are truly memorable experiences with enough special features, decent food and onboard services, to justify the extra time it takes to go by rail from city to city.)

What has become available to most traveling and vacationing Americans, seeking luxury accommodations, exceptional food and great service, is travel by ship. In the old days, there were a small number of transatlantic liners and a larger number of cruise ships that transported, fed and entertained the nation’s elites in grand stye. Today, thanks to perhaps overbuilding of large new cruise ships, a holiday at sea is now the most affordable value in travel, the highest quality experience, and the by far most fun.

Since my first voyage on the Queen Elizabeth I in 1964, I have made 29 international sailings to near the tip of South America; to the Caribbean; to, from and throughout Europe; through the Panama Canal, and in the Pacific Ocean. Already by the 1960’s, great travel by sea was becoming affordable to middle class travelers. Before that, ships were strictly separated by class, and the luxury experience limited to first class passengers only.

Millions of new Americans, of course, came to the U.S. in steerage across the Atlantic in ships large and small, fleeing persecution, famine, poverty and prejudice in Europe. In the highest decks, first class passengers lived in spacious staterooms, drank champagne like water, dined in Edwardian splendor and were constantly taken care of by servants and stewards. At the same time, numerous emigrants below, with literally no more than the clothing they wore, lived in crowded dormitories in the decks below, decently fed but with simple food, no entertainment but the music and pastimes they provided for themselves.

Today there is only one transatlantic liner left making the crossing on a regular basis. The Queen Mary 2, only a few year old, is the culmination of a grand tradition of non-military naval history, and is almost certainly the greatest passenger ship that has crossed the Atlantic. Its sister ships, Queen Mary I and Queen Elizabeth II, now rest in moorings in Long Beach, CA and the Persian Gulf where they are hotel destinations. Queen Elizabeth I now rests at the bottom of the sea off Hong Kong. Cunard has also built two new cruise ships (cruising and crossing are two different maritime experiences), Queen Elizabeth (in effect, QE3) and Queen Victoria. These latter now routinely tour the Caribbean, the Pacific and Mediterranean Seas, stopping at ports, and providing luxury cruise itineraries.

But Cunard is only one of many cruise ship companies serving the seas and waterways of the world to a rapdily growing cruise vacation clientele.

Norwegian Cruise Lines has just launched a gigantic new cruise ship, Norwegian Epic, a ship so large that it could contain several Titanics.

On my recent trip to and from Europe, I sailed from New York to Southampton on the Queen Mary 2 (QM2), and back from Southampton to New York on the maiden voyage of Norwegian Epic.

The route was essentially the same each way, but the experience was quite different. Most of the passengers on the QM2 were American and British retired couples (60-90 years old). The ship retained much of the formality and program of the traditional transtlantic crossing, including formal attire (although dark suits were allowed), fixed dinner seating, high teas, bridge tournaments, professional theater and classical music concerts and (!) self-service laundromats.

The Norwegian Epic experience was quite different. The passengers were overall much younger. Young couples with children, and slightly older couples with teenagers were much in evidence. There were numerous facilities for the young to play and socialize. Adult entertainment included the famed Cirque de Soleil, Blue Man Group (first time at sea) and Second City (improvisational comedy from Chicago). There was also a blues and jazz orchestra, country music duo and numerous orchestras for Las Vegas and Broadway-styled shows, magicians, dancers, singers and many other entertainers to keep the 4000-passenger capacity occupied during the 7-day crossing. An elegant spa and gymnasium provided everything from private trainers to manicures to tread mills, and an NCAA-regulation basketball court was open for athletic passengers who wished something more than the shuffleboard, table tennis, virtual golf and badminton (also available). While the QM2 had bridge games and a planetarium, none of that was available on the Epic. There was a very large (10,000 volumes) library with plush chairs on the QM2. No library was available on the Epic, although a small one will be open for its Caribbean cruises. Both ships had an enclosed smoking room where cigarettes, cigars and pipes could be smoked. Fine Cuban and other cigars were available for sale. The Norwegian Epic, however, also permitted smoking in some public spaces, most notably the large casino in the middle of the most travelled pubic deck, and passengers going to breakfast, lunch and dinner had to go through this area. (I heard the most complaints from fellow passengers on this smoking policy. I bet it will be changed soon.)

A special feature of the Epic is that it has rooms for single passengers. On most liners and cruise ships, rates are PER PERSON (and that almost always means two persons per room. The net result is that sailing for single passengers is often financially prohibitive (although some cruise lines will make price accommodations if their ships are not full) or they seek the single passenger market.

Your ticket on the QM3 covered almost all expenses, including all meals, room service, port taxes, entertainment, most public facilities, and of course your
stateroom. The only extras were for liquor, tips, use of the spa and masseurs, the casino, and internet time. There was also one haute cuisine specialty restaurant ($20 extra for lunch, $30 extra for dinner.)

There were more extras on the Norwegian Epic. There were eight specialty restaurants for which you paid $10-$25 extra per person. There were no free self-service laundromats. Laundry and dry cleaning service was provided at high cost. Most entertainment was free, but there was an extra charge for Cirque du Soleil. Espresso drinks in the dining room were free on the QM2; on the Epic there was a charge for these drinks (although they were better). Fruit juices, except at breakfast, were extra on the Epic; always free on the QM2.

The British ship took their extra charges, but alway discreetly. The Norwegian Line made no bones about seeking extra revenue from passengers, including a
huge casino in the middle of the ship that no passenger could avoid passing through, and omnipresent photographers offering to take photos at high prices.
Both ships offered internet services also at steep prices.

The quality of the food was high on both ships. The QM2 was much more formal in their dining rooms, but also offered informal and excellent food, buffet-style, on its upper decks. The Epic was informal everywhere, something that fits better for cruising, and for passengers with children. Fabulous food is available on these large ships 24/7. Breakfast, morning tea, lunch, high tea, dinner, midnight buffets were only the official occasions. Room service, special order pizzas delivered to your stateroom and always-open pubs (chicken pot pie, omelets and steaks) filled in the rest of the intervals.

For the first class (Grill) passenger on the QM2, there was much pampering and special services, although having sailed on Cunard in all classes, I found “steerage” on the QM2 was about all most passengers would want, including lobster, fliet mignon or other steaks, rack of lamb, fresh ocean fish, etc., on all the menus. Caviar (sevruga), however, was $90 extra per serving (but free for Grill passengers). Grill passengers could also special order anything they wanted at at no extra charge. Their staterooms were of course larger and more luxurious, but the less expensive tickets offered comfortable if smallish rooms. (If the ship is not full, Cunard will also routinely upgrade passengers with inside rooms to larger outside rooms with balconies at no extra charge.)

Both Cunard and Norwegian Cruise Lines offer special incentives to frequent clients. As a “Platinum” World Club member on Cunard, I received four hours of free internet ($90 to other passenger), fast-facilitated embarkation and disembarkation (sometimes saving two frustrating hours of waiting time), a free wine tasting, and two exclusive cocktaii parties with the captain and other ship officers. There were similar, but less generous rewards for frequent NCL passengers. As a first-time NCL passenger, however, I asked for and received an almost one-hour tour of the bridge and interview with the captain. Both ships’ staffs went out of their way to satisfy passenger special requests, including special dietary needs.

In short, there was so much to do and experience on both these ships, and extras available just by asking for them, that it seemed to me unnecessary to spend the considerable difference in price for the first class ticket. (But if you have money to burn, and are accustomed to special treatment when you travel, you can indeed receive it at sea.)

Something I noticed on both ships were the numerous passengers in wheel chairs. In the past, ships were not designed for the handicapped, but the newest ships are designed to make almost any handicapped traveller comfortable and able to move easily anywhere on the ship. On the Norwegian Epic, it was explained to me that the crew is prepared to find quickly all disabled passengers during an emergency, and if it is necessary to evacuate the ship, make sure they are promptly and safely taken to their lifeboat. This is a boon to many travelers who otherwise could not vacation or make a transatlantic crossing. Safety features and procedures are many on these huge new ships, and I doubt that even an iceberg could do the kind of damage it has in the past. (As we passed over the the area where the Titanic lay in the Atlantic near Nova Scotia, the QM2 captain went on the public address system to inform us respectfully where we were.)

The most frequent objection to sailing or cruising I hear from friends and others I meet is an anxiety about seasickness. If you sail in the high season (June or July), you will likely not even know you are on a ship. The size and stabilizers of the QM2 and the Epic make even average sea waves almost undetectable. The seven days on the QM2 were ultrasmooth, and the sun was always shining. Occasional whales and schools of porpoises were sighted. But even in the off-season, or in the case of an unexpected storm at any time of the year, new and easy-to-take medications will minimalize discomfort on these large ships. (Smaller cruise ships might be another story.)

Once, when crossing the Atlantic in October, I experienced a Gale Force 10 sea on the Queen Elizabeth II. Even its size and formidable Denny Stabilizers could not alter some very rocky few days. I remember being one of only a handful of passengers in the vast QE2 dining room for several lunches and dinners (I have reasonably good sea legs, but even I felt some queasiness). Today also, captains routinely go around storms if they can, and since most ships go slower than they are able to go (to conserve expensive fuel), they can easily make up lost time from such maneuvers. The Norwegian Epic, for example, took a southern detour to avoid a storm on our June return to New York, and still arrived into New York harbor a few hours earlier than planned.

One of the most splendid aspects of traveling by sea is the variety of fascinating persons you can meet. On the QM2, with so many retired couples, I met former and current CEOs, Knights of the Garter, retired labor union officials, artists, Amish vacationers (they don’t fly), teachers and professors, shopkeepers, a young European couple who had just literally bicycled around the world (not counting the ships they had to take by sea), lawyers, physicians, and individuals with political views that ran the gamut of what I knew (and added a few dimensions I hadn’t thought about).

There is only one reason, then, NOT to travel or vacation by sea. It is easily cheaper, more delicious, more fun and more sociable than any other means of transportation. But you have to have more time, especially if you are making a transatlantic or transpacific journey. It’s the same for train travel. It does take longer, but the quality of the experience is light years apart from plane, bus or automobile travel when you travel by ship or train.

As for cost, the emergence of online travel brokers has made the price of passenger sailing the biggest bargain in travel. I used Vacations To Go (vacationstogo.com ), but there are numerous others. Discounts are routinely 30-60%, but sometimes go even higher. Onboard credits, free bottles of champagne at sea, and other amenities are frequently available. My online travel agent at Vacations To Go also provided numerous extra services, particularly solving various travel issues. Frankly, he did much more than any local travel agent on land did for me in the past.

Travel insurance is a must. I would suggest NOT to buy the insurance sold by the cruise lines. It is usually more expensive and not as inclusive as the insurance available from you online travel agent. But insurance is a must. Last-minute cancellations, delays of any kind, accidents, baggage loss, all medical and dental emergencies are all covered (most likely, your own insurance will not cover most problems). I know you don’t seek to be transported from the jungles of New Guinea to the Mayo Clinic with a life-threatening problem by private jet helicopter, but it’s covered (without the insurance, it could be $100,000 or more).

There is a ship larger than the Norwegian Epic. It’s called the Oasis of the Seas. I believe it is twice the size of the Epic. The open area at the center of the ship is four football stadiums long. It holds 6000 passengers It is so large it cannot dock in New York and many other ports in the world. I’m sure it is a unique experience, although I suspect it is similar to the experience of walking through the Mall of America. I am not likely to sail on the Oasis or its twin sister just finished. The Queen Mary 2, Norwegian Epic or many other cruise ships are just fine for me.

In fact, the experience they offer is unlike any other on earth or sea today.

[NOTE: The opinions above are my own. I paid for my ticket on both ships, and received no services from either cruise line that were not available to all paying passengers.]

Should The GOP Take Control Of Congress?

When I first suggested, early this year, that Republicans could take control of one or both houses of Congress, my observation was greeted with disbelief by politicos on all sides. Since that time, my “off-the-wall” prediction has acquired so much credibility that several pundits and political operatives of both parties are now openly predicting a GOP takeover of the House.

At the same time, however, self-styled “sophisticated” political observers, particularly conservative ones, have been expressing “profound” reservations about winning control of Congress in the 2010 mid-term elections. These “sophisticated” operatives argue that if the Republicans control the Congress, this will enable President Obama to run against the GOP much as President Truman did in 1948. So these pundits say they hope the GOP makes significant gains in 2010, but also hope the Democrats remain in control so that the GOP ticket can win in 2012.

Whether or not this is a “ridiculous” argument, it is certainly an irresponsible one. If the Republican Party and its candidates for House and Senate truly believe that the now-controlling Democratic Party and its leaders, President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid, are taking the nation and its economy down a disastrous path, then they should be prepared to take charge of the legislative branch now (before even more damage is done), rather than later just for political advantage in 2012. It is true that, as long as Mr. Obama is in the White House, the GOP will not likely be able to enact much, if any, of its own agenda, but they would thus have almost two years to show the country what their alternative agenda is. I would argue this enhances their chances in 2012.

Perhaps there is some political risk in this (obviously I think the risk is exaggerated), but I think the prospects are ominous enough that mere childish maneuvers for advantage are greatly outweighed by the grown-up needs to shut off the catastrophe-prone policies of the current administration, and serve the needs of the whole country, and not just some partisan short-term gains.

Just as the nations of the European Union, ultra-welfare states all, are cutting back on their bloated bureaucracies and other public spending, the United States under Obama-Pelosi-Reid is trying to take the U.S. in the opposite direction. This is a prescription for eventual economic collapse. Merely lowering the margins of Democratic control of Congress will not really halt this dangerous direction. Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Reid have already demonstrated their willingness, with Mr. Obama’s concurrence, to “work around” the rules. Only control of at least one house of Congress will stem the economic bleeding until 2012 when the nation’s voters will have the option of changing the occupant of the White House, too.

Arguments against taking control, now enjoying some fashion among certain so-called “sophisticated” conservative political analysts, are an implied admission that the opposition party is not willing to take command, now or later. Thesedefeatist notions should be rebuked by party leaders and those GOP presidential candidates who want to rescue the nation in 2010 and 2012.

When an economic and political body incurs serious wounds, and faces even more serious threats, band aids and swabs of hydrogen peroxide will not do the job required.

If children and those without proper training are in charge of the hospital, its time to put adults in charge, and bring in those who can make the body better again.

2010 U.S. House Races, Or What Price A Dubious Legacy

As I recently pointed out, the 2010 mid-term congressional races have been successfully nationalized so far by Republicans. Taking control of the U.S. senate is a tall order for the GOP this year because they currently have only 41 seats, (they would need a net gain of 10 seats), and because only one-third of the senate seats are up for election.

In the U.S. House, however, all 535 seats are up, and when an election has been nationalized by unpopular legislation and policies of the ruling party, the opportunity for a takeover is substantially increased. Early this year, I suggested that about 55 net house seats could be moved to the GOP side of the aisle. At that time, such a prediction seemed “far out,” but today it might be considered a conservative estimate (in more ways than one).

Also working against the current Democratic majority in the House is the fact that a substantial number of Democrats elected in 2006 and 2008 won in normally conservative and GOP districts, but won’t have the favorable conditions of those years to enable them to repeat many or most of those upset victories. Even in more liberal districts, a number of senior Democratic members are retiring or running for higher office, and the resulting “open seat” is vulnerable to a GOP takeover in a year trending to the Republicans.

Many Democratic strategists, as well as more neutral observers and pundits, are openly forecasting a Republican takeover. The usual caveats apply, e.g., the state of the economy and the stock market, international conditions, and the impact of constantly new and often unpleasant details revealed about Obamacare legislation (including higher insurance premium rates and large numbers of citizens deciding not to participate). I take caveats seriously, so I am more cautious about an “absolute” prediction of a GOP-controlled house.

One part of the Democratic base, furthermore, seems secure for now. These are the voters in the inner cities of the most northern, eastern and midwestern U.S. These voters, including large numbers of black voters, provide President Obama and the Democrats with a major share of their base vote. The problem for the liberal party with these voters is that, lacking Mr. Obama on the ticket this year, and with the economic crisis still in full swing, they are less likely to vote than during a presidential year.

In Minnesota, for example, the Democrats (here called the DFL) are likely to have notable losses in their large majorities in the state legislature. With the DFL heading into a bruising gubernatorial primary, and the Independence Party likely to field a serious candidate in the governor’s race, DFL margins are likely to be cut seriously in November, even though he DFL has not elected a governor in 20 years. First District incumbent DFL Congressman TIm Walz is not currently listed among vulnerable House members seeking re-election, but his slavish support of Speaker Pelosi’s liberal agenda and his vote for Obamacare make him at risk in this conservative rural district.

Similar vulnerabilities exist for incumbent Democrats in neighboring states, including Earl Pomeroy in North Dakota, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin in South Dakota, Steve Kagan in Wisconsin, the long-time Democratic seat held by retiring Congressman David Obey also in Wisconsin, and Leonard Boswell in Iowa, just to mention one midwestern region.

This circumstance can be repeated all over the country. In 2008, Democrat Kathy Dahlkemper upset veteran GOP Congressman Phil English in Pennsylvania’s 3rd District. But Dahlkemper, representing a pro-life swing district, voted for Obamacare and other liberal measures not favored by many voters in this blue collar western Pennsylvania district that voted for John McCain. I don’t see Dahlkemper on any list today of vulnerable Democrats, but it would not take much to put her there. There are dozens of similar situations throughout the country.

Most damaging to Democratic prospects is the stubborn insistence of President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid on advancing their radical legislative agenda and policies which put their incumbent House members increasingly at risk in November. There is simply no recent historical precedent for this kind of political behavior, although we can easily figure out their motive, i.e., a liberal law legacy that cannot be undone by succeeding Congresses.

What price a dubious legacy? With less than four months to go until election day, we will find out soon enough.

U.S. Senate Races In 2010

Almost daily polls are now being made available in the U.S. senate races slated for November, 2010. Without questioning the relative accuracy of any one of them, I say they should be read with considerable caution. Serious readers of these polls, available on numerous national political websites and blogs, have already witnessed substantial volatility in many of them. For example, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has been trailing badly in his polls for months, and now a poll appears with him ahead. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has been ahead for months, and now polls appear with her trailing. Richard Blumenthal was way ahead initially (after incumbent Chris Dodd decided not to run), then dipped after a scandal, but now is way ahead again. Joe Sestak won the Democratic primary against Arlen Spector, and then went several points ahead in the polls against his Republican opponent, Pat Toomey. Now he is several points behind again.

What does this all mean?

The answer is multifaceted, but there are some irreversible realities of the 2010 senate elections. First, the mid-term elections have been successfully nationalized by both the Republicans and, involuntarily, by President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. This, so far, works heavily in favor of the Republicans, especially since the legislative agenda of the Democratic administration has been mostly quite unpopular with the electorate as a whole. This caused a number of long-time incumbent Democratic senators to decided not to run for re-election this year (Dodd in CT, Dorgan in ND, et al) and otherwise strong Democrats (e.g., Beau Biden in DE) to decided not to run for open seats. Normally secure Democratic incumbents (Boxer in CA, Murray in WA, Feingold in WI, Lincoln in AR, et al) are also in trouble. Most open seats (OH, NH, FL, IL, UT and CO) now lean to the Republicans, or would certainly go that way if the nationalized election trends continue.

As I wrote in this column last January, there were a total of 12 senate seats the GOP might pick up. Since that time, two seats unexpectedly became open. One was actually won by a Republican, Scott Brown, in Massachusetts, and another has just opened up in West Virginia with the death of Democrat Robert Byrd. The latter will be filled with a short-term appointment, and popular Democratic Governor Joe Manchin almost certainly run this autumn. GOP Congresswoman Shelley Moore Caputo may or may not run, but the Democrat would now be favored.

Yet West Virginia demonstrates the problem the Democrats face this year with a nationalized election. If Moore Caputo or whomever the GOP picks to run this year can make the senate election about President Obama’s popularity (he is not popular currently in this state), even Manchin could be in trouble. And no matter what, West Virginia has become an unexpected and another state the national Democratic senate committee has to defend with money and time in a negative year.

Senate and House elections that become nationalized generally produce voter over-reactions in November. In 2006, there were about eight close senate elections in which there were GOP incumbents. All the Republicans had to do was win one of them to keep control. They lost every one of them, albeit some by very small margins. The same story was told in other past mid-year elections that became nationalized over the president’s and majority party’s policies.

In the inevitable lull of summer, poll numbers often do a bit of a dance of their own. They also tend to revert to local issues and personalities. Only after Labor Day, and the final campaigns get underway, do the polls begin to tell us how the voters really feel.

Right now, the Republicans seem assured, barring unforeseen events, of picking up 5-7 U.S. senate seats. But if the nationalized election continues to favor the GOP, and President Obama continues to push for unpopular policies and legislation, that number grows to 10-13 seats. The latter numbers seemed impossible last January when I first suggested them. Now they seem realistic if present trends continue.

But current polls, many of which are not objective, large enough to be accurate, or are just plain propaganda, indicate the former number.

During the primary season, the emergence of the grass roots Tea Party appeared, and some of their candidates won. The impact of this movement was to make the Republican message more conservative and clearer for November, a trend which, I believe, has generally (but not in all cases) helped the Republicans.

Let’s revisit this subject in September and October. Meanwhile, I again urge readers not to call 9-1-1 over the possibility of change of control of the next U.S. senate.