Sunday, September 28, 2014

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: Why I'm Cautious About 2014

Faithful readers of The Prairie Editor have noticed a certain
caution about making predictions for the 2014 national midterm

There are good reasons for this.

In 2010, and in earlier cycles, The Prairie Editor made predictions
with a certain abandon, if you will. In 2010 particularly, he was
probably the first national pundit to see the “wave” of that year
coming. As early as late 2009, he wrote that the Republicans would
likely pick up about 70 U.S. house seats. But in 2012, he misread the
political tea leaves, primarily because he overrated the GOP
get-out-the-vote (GOTV) effort. He did write a column about two
weeks before that election to remind his readers that the
Democrats had a superb and effective GOTV organization and
program, yet he did not see the final presidential election result.

All the signs so far point to a good year in 2014 for the Republicans.
They are likely to increase their number in the U.S. house, and
almost certainly will increase their number in the U.S. senate.

But will the GOP re-take control of the senate? Will there be a
political “wave?”

As we come closer and closer to Election Day on November 4, the
number of “undecided” voters (most of them independents) will
diminish, and by the week before the election, there could be a
a reasonable portrait of the eventual results drawn. It is now very
late in the campaign for any new defining issues. President Obama’s
unpopularity might move a few points either way, but he is unlikely
to be of any help to his party’s candidates this cycle. 

Late-developing events such as the resignation of the Democratic
senate candidates in Montana and Kansas (the former dooming
their chances, the latter helping them), and gaffes and revelations
can happen, but the remaining days of this election cycle will most
importantly be devoted to technical matters such as voter ID and
GOTV.  In this general area and in most (but not all) states, the
Democrats have the recent historical advantage. Republicans say
they learned their lesson in 2012, and have initiated catch-up
ID and GOTV efforts using the latest technologies. Two states
to watch in this regard are North Carolina and Colorado. In
Minnesota, this effort is being managed primarily by the state
party. At least two national GOP consulting firms are involved in
dozens of other races, but their  ability to deliver on Election Day
is yet to be proven.

But it’s not just ID and GOTV. The Democrats clearly have the money
advantage in the 2014 cycle. There is a certain irony (conservatives
would say “hypocricy”) in the national Democrats complaint about
rich GOP donors; the fact is that most of the billionaires and
millionaires contributing to candidates in 2014 are liberal Democrats.
Nontheless, the Democrats are seriously outspending Republicans,
with some exceptions, across the country. Much of this money has
been used for personal attacks against GOP challengers (an exception
to this is in Kansas where the GOP has been attacking the now
frontrunning “independent” candidate who is running against a GOP

Many U.S. big business donors, historically leaning to the conservative
side, switched to Barack Obama and the Democrats in 2008 and 2012.
So far, they have seemed reluctant to switch back to the GOP, in spite
of what conservative partisans contend is the clear anti-business bias
of the Obama administration.

Turnout and cash now come center stage in the 2014 cycle. In these
two important areas, the party in power, the Democrats, still have an
advantage, at least judged by precedent.

As Election Day approaches, the polls will become more accurate,
albeit still inexact. The Prairie Editor cannot repeat enough that
true evidence of a political “wave” election will likely not appear
until just before the actual voting (although much early voting is
already taking place).

There are good reasons for caution about making predictions
about 2014. At the same time, signs are beginning to abound that
the final results might be historic. The reader should stay tuned.

Copyright (c) 2014 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

[NOTE TO PAID-UP SUBSCRIBERS:  Watch your e-mail address
for the next installment of the race-by-race Mid-Term Countdown (#2) 
which will be sent shortly to subscribers only.]

Saturday, September 20, 2014

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: Mid-Term Countdown #1

With a bit more than six weeks to go before Election Day, 2014,
I begin a series of weekly reports on the national mid-term
elections campaigns now in full throttle.

As I have predicted, this cycle is not going in a straight line. The
Republicans, most signs indicate, have momentum and
advantage, but in several key senate races Democratic incumbents
are showing some resilience in the polls, and in one case, a
previously “safe” Republican is now in trouble.

No race is final, of course, until the votes are counted and
reported, but certain contests appear to be over, either because
of the mood of a state or congressional district voters, or because
of extreme gaffes by one of the candidates.

There seems to be general agreement that U.S. senate seats in
Montana, South Dakota and West Virginia are going to change
political party control. Revelations, gaffes and bad tactics have
seemed to plague the campaigns of incumbent Democrats in
Iowa (Bruce Braley), Mark Begich (Alaska), Mary Landrieu
(Lousiana) and  Mark Udall (Colorado). These latter campaigns
are not over yet, but their Republican challengers seem to have
the upper hand for the time being. In Arkansas, Democratic
incumbent Mark Pryor also seems to be fading from the
challenge of GOP nominee Tom Cotton, as does Democrat
Jeanne Shaheen in New Hampshire following a surge by GOP
candidate Scott Brown. Both of these races remain too close to
call, as does the race in North Carolina between vulnerable
Democratic incumbent Kay Hagan and her Republican
challenger Thom Tillis.

In Michigan, an open seat previously held by a Democrat, the
Democratic nominee Gary Peters holds a lead in a race that might
yet tighten.

Republican incumbents who have been considered vulnerable
are generally doing well, including GOP senate majority leader
Mitch McConnell (Kentucky), Lamar Alexander (Tennessee),
and Thad Cochran (Mississippi). In Georgia, an open seat
previously held by a Republican, GOP nominee David Perdue
has pulled ahead of his Democratic challenger Michelle Nunn,
although this race is not “over.” On the other hand, veteran GOP
Senator Pat Roberts (Kansas) is in deep trouble. His Democratic
opponent has withdrawn, allowing an independent candidate
Greg Orman to pull ahead in this race. The contest is not over
yet; Orman is now being vetted for the first time, and his centrist
positions challenged, but the race does lean to a non-GOP
takeover. (Although Orman says he will caucus with the party
that has the majority.)

There are a number of races in which Democratic incumbents
have a notable lead, but which could become competitive in the
closing days of their campaigns as large numbers of undecided
voters make up their minds. These contests include Oregon,
where incumbent Chris Markely has a comfortable lead over
his GOP challenger; Delaware, where incumbent Chris Coons
leads his Republican challenger; Virginia, where incumbent
Mark Warner has a big lead; and New Jersey, where Cory Booker
won a special election last year, and has a substantial lead.
Any of these races might have a surprise result in November,
but it would take a true political “tsunami” (something not yet
visible) to alter their outcomes.

Finally, there is Minnesota. Incumbent Democrat Al Franken
has been leading by high single digits, but has been in most
polls under 50%. Still controversial after his recount victory
over GOP Senator Norm Coleman in 2008, Franken has been
mostly invisible in the senate. On the other hand, he has raised
a substantial campaign money war chest. If his GOP opponent
businessman Mike McFadden, making his first political race,
puts some of his own money in the contest, and a national
“wave” does hit this midwestern state, it could be very close on
election day.

In races for state governor, Democrats have their brightest
hopes. They almost certainly will defeat incumbent GOP
Governor Tom Corbett in Pennsylvania, and have
opportunities to replace Republicans in Maine, Kansas and
Georgia. They could also pick up governorships in Florida,
Wisconsin and Michigan. Republicans, on the other hand,
are ahead in Illinois, Arkansas and Connecticut. Minnesota
Governor Mark Dayton, now rated “safe” by most pundits,
could have an election surprise on November 4 (he’s under
50%), but so far seems well ahead of his GOP challenger
Jeff Johnson. This race, like many others this cycle, might
develop late in the cycle.

Republicans not only expect to keep their majority in the
U.S. house of representatives; GOP leaders privately expect
to pick up 5-10 seats. There are about 20 house seats rated as
toss-ups. One of those, Minnesota 8, now represented by
Democrat Rick Nolan, is beginning to look more and more
like a GOP takeover with a spirited campaign by businessman
Stewart Mills turning this normally blue district red in 2014.

Some observations from many years of covering mid-term

With no presidential election this cycle, turnout for the
    party in power will be diminished. This might be
    accelerated in 2014 because Democratic President Barack
    Obama is at, or close to, his historical popularity lows. On
    the other hand, the Democrats have the proven better voter
    ID and get-out-the-vote (GOTV) operation. Republicans say
    they have caught up in GOTV, but it remains to be seen if
    they have.

A much-discussed potential political “wave” is, at this point,
    only theoretical. Such “waves” usually only become evident
    at the very end of a campaign, so any impact of one will
    have to await later campaign countdowns.

There is always one (or more) true surprises on Election
    Night when the results are announced.


Copyright (c) 2014 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

Thursday, September 18, 2014

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: The Obama Plebiscite?

The 2014 national midterm election will turn out its results
depending on one vital question: Will the individual elections
for governor, U.S. senator and U.S. house of representatives be
determined (as is usual) mostly by local circumstances and
personalities, or will they be considered by a large number of
voters (mostly independents) as a plebiscite on President
Obama, his administration, and their performance in office?

The Democratic Party needs the answer to be the former; the
Republican Party and most independent voters want the answer
to be the latter. The huge amounts of money being spent by
outside groups for vulnerable Democratic incumbents reveals
how intensely the liberal party and its supporters are trying to
keep this cycle as local and personal as possible. They have had
some success, it should be noted, but the price has been high.
Campaigns of defamation and personal attack when supported
by massive TV and mail advertising are proven strategies.
Republicans are fighting back, but their financial resources this
cycle are more limited, especially against incumbents.

Evidence of all this can easily be seen by the Democratic
candidates themselves. Most of them are attempting in one way
or another to keep Mr. Obama out of the minds of voters in their
races. One Democratic candidate recently got as specific as
possible by publicly stating “I am not Obama!” The president’s
poll numbers are at, or close to, his all-time lows. In Minnesota,
for example, he is currently at 38%, although he carried the state
easily in his two presidential elections. If his unpopularity is on
Minnesota voters’ minds on election day, both Governor Mark
Dayton and U.S. Senator Al Franken have a serious re-election
problem. Both of them are currently ahead of their Republican
challengers, but each of them are under 50% in most polls. This
is also true of many close races across the country where
Democratic incumbent still lead in the polls, but are notably
under 50%.

Historically, truly undecided voters at the end of an election
campaign rarely vote for incumbents or the party in power.

The stock market is up, but a number of stock analysts are
openly predicting a steep decline or crash ahead. Official
unemployment is down, but the true numbers are still very
high. The economy is uncertain. Inflation, interest rates,
government deficits, home real estate values and higher
taxes are a concern for most American voters as election
day approaches. Foreign affairs, usually not significant in
U.S. voter decisions, fills the daily headlines with terrorist
threats, U.S. diplomatic missteps and blunders, and
American retreat from its hitherto preeminent global

The leadership of President Obama, senate majority leader
Harry Reid, and house minority leader Nancy Pelosi has
moved the nation abruptly to the left since 2009. They and
whomever the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee
will be in 2016 want the voters to confirm their actions and
policies in 2014. With a new figure at the top of their ticket in
2016, Democrats can then anticipate remaining in power and
continuing these policies.

If many voters decide in 2014, however, that their only way to
signal their dissatisfaction with the Obama policy regimen
and its results is to vote massively for the opposition party,
all bets are off for the next presidential election.

Copyright (c) 2014 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: Jungle Creatures

The cinema has not usually been a source of truly profound
utterances, but there is a line said by Eleanor of Aquitaine
(Katherine Hepburn) to her husband Henry II (Peter O’Toole)
in playwright James Goldman’s great film “The Lion In Winter”
in which she says, “We are jungle creatures, Henry, and the
dark is all around us.

The first time I saw that film, and watched that scene, I knew
I had heard something very powerful and true. Years later, it
still echoes as I read the latest headlines about the enduring
barbarity in the world in which we all live.

I am talking about the “civilization” of the species known as
human beings. I know many of my readers will protest that
I should not include most of Western “civilization” which
includes Europe and North America, but why should I not
include them?

Yes, democratic capitalism has advanced human society
beyond the “naked” tribalism which has long existed in much
of the world, and still prevails over a great portion of the
human population. But more than two hundred years after
democratic capitalism emerged in the West, and prevailed
among some persons in some areas of the world, astonishing
levels of barbarity survive and reappear in its midst.

The 20th century was among the most barbaric in all of recorded
human history, and in spite of so many advances in technology,
millions were unspeakably murdered in some of the previously
most advanced societies. The 21st century, now in its early years,
continues with more of the same. This is the century of the
internet, astounding medical breakthroughs, and the rapid
transformation of science fiction into science fact. And what do
we also have? A worldwide religious war of savagery and
intolerance. and a “United Nations” which supports and
celebrates the denial of human rights, while it promotes
conflict and hatred. In less than a century after they occurred,
Europe has a case of amnesia about its Holocaust, and Russia
has a case of amnesia about the murder of millions of Ukrainians
by Stalin.

The world seems determined to repeat its past depravities
again and again.

I know the reader would prefer a message of a more hopeful
and positive world ahead. I would much prefer to write it.

But we are jungle creatures, and the dark is all around us.

Copyright (c) 2014 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

Friday, September 12, 2014

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: Waiting For The Fat Lady

There has recently been an excess of speculation in the media
and by the U.S. political class about whether or not there will
be a political “wave” on November 4, 2014.

I have suggested that this is a spinning of punditry wheels
with no destination since a “wave” is in fact the truly undecided
voters going overwhelmingly to one side or the other at the very
end of the campaign, and the more intense motivation to go to
the polls by voters on one side or the other, something that will
not be known until on or about election day.

I am not saying there will be, or will not be, a political wave in
the national midterm elections this year, but I am saying the
wave will not be genuinely evident until the very end of the

The appropriate phrase for this circumstance comes from the
words of a Dallas sportscaster during a football game in 1976
when he said, “the opera isn’t over until the fat lady sings.”
(This now usually generically reduced to "It's not over until 
the fat lady sings.")

The word “opera” gives us a clue to what the sportscaster had
on his mind. He was very probably referring to the 19th century
Wagnerian opera series “The Ring of the Nibelungen” and its
concluding work “Gotterdammerung” in which the soprano in the
role  of the valkyrie Brunnhilde sings an exceptionally long aria
just before the opera’s end (which is the end of the world of the
Norse gods). The sopranos who traditionally sang this role were
almost always quite corpulent, hence the “fat lady.”

This is a very long opera, and the sportscaster no doubt once sat
through it.

The enduring quality of the phrase is not diminished by its
origin in a sports broadcast. I used to think the reference was
to Kate Smith, the great American popular singer of the 1930’s
and 1940’s, but apparently that is not so.

When I write a column entitled “The Fat Lady Is Singing,” the
reader will know that I think we have a wave this year or not.

It was that singular American post-modern philosopher Yogi
Berra who took the "fat lady" phrase to its next, and probably final,
level when he said, “It ain’t over until it’s over.”

It is perhaps appropriate, considering its origin, that a sports figure
would have the last word on the subject, as the voters properly also
will have on the election itself.

Copyright (c) 2014 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

Sunday, September 7, 2014


The art and practice of penmanship used to be an important
skill in American life, and whether or not you were good at it,
writing in cursive longhand was something almost everyone
had to do to communicate until the commercial typewriter
was invented in 1868.

Today, longhand or cursive writing by most Americans is
limited to signing a check, signing a credit card slip, or
writing a few words on an otherwise printed document.

Letter writing survives technically, but most communications
today are by e-mails or text messages. Pen and ink, or even pen
and pencil, are almost extinct.

Until the 19th century, every book was written in longhand
before being typeset. Today, more and more books are being
written, published  and read electronically.

It is an irreversible phenomenon.

A few persons, however, insist on writing letters. Among them,
for example, is Tom Ridge, former congressman, governor of
Pennsylvania, and first cabinet secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security. Throughout his public career, and no doubt
before it, Mr. Ridge writes letters in longhand, in ink and on nice
paper. I might add that they are not perfunctory letters. However
short, they are always original and engaging. I prize the ones I
have received from him over the years. President George H.W.
Bush did that before him, and many Americans possess treasured
examples of his gracious penmanship. Some other Americans,
both famous and non-famous, also persist in communicating in
handwritten form. Fine writing instruments and fine papers
to write with them are still made, but pen and paper companies
are disappearing. The number of persons who write letters
or anything else in longhand is fast dwindling.

The extinction of handwriting has been hastened by the
many new devices with which you can scribble your signature
on a credit card screen with your fingernail, or send money
and information electronically without any signature at all.

Collectors of autograph letters and manuscripts no longer
have contemporary material to acquire. Autographs and
signatures themselves can be made with a machine.
Handwriting itself will soon be something only found in a

If handwriting survives at all, it will likely be as an art form
like painting, and practiced only by s few artists.

In a few generations, ordinary handwriting will likely not be
readable by anyone except a few scholars and trained
experts. The handwriting that billions of us now take for
granted will be like cuneiform, ancient pictograms and
hieroglyphics are regarded today. It will be the same for
those who speak English and other Indo-European languages,
and those who write in calligraphic ideograms and non-Roman
letters such as Chinese, Japanese, Hebrew, Arabic and Hindi.

The question is, therefore, how long will penmanship be
taught in schools? Will the children of the future even know
how to write?  Common Core does not ban teaching cursive
longhand, but it also does not require it. Even the word
"penmanship" has become politically incorrect.

Because computers use keyboards, the skill of typing is still
an important one. But even the ability to type may soon be
extinct. I’m old enough to recall that I thought the invention
of the electric typewriter was “amazing.” New devices now
accurately transpose the spoken word into print on a
computer screen. It is being widely suggested that even
the spoken word might be soon extinct, as new inventions,
already in development, can transpose words you “think” to
a computer or readable device. No “sound” will be necessary.

It is all happening very quickly, and even if inevitable, it will
change the whole nature of how human beings communicate
to each other in only a few generations, and with sudden
alterations of human culture itself.

What happens when the intimacy and privacy of letter writing
are gone? How does language change when no one any longer
"writes" in it.

Who knows the now inestimable consequences of this rapid
disappearance of human handwriting?

Copyright (c) 2014 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

Thursday, September 4, 2014

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: The Home Stretch Begins

The 2014 national mid-term elections have now entered
the final turn of their campaigns. Less than two months
remain, and the number of truly undecided voters is
beginning to diminish with greater velocity.

A few weeks ago, some pundits asked aloud whether a
potential “wave” election was in fact going to occur. I wrote
at that time that “wave” elections rarely appear visible
until the final weeks and days of a political cycle, but that
signs do appear to indicate that one one might be forming.

I have suggested that a clear pattern of increasingly
vulnerable U.S. house and senate seats now held by
Democrats was just such a sign. I also suggested that most
of the notable “gaffes” of the 2014 cycle were happening
in Democratic campaigns (unlike 2010 and 2014 when they
occurred in Republican campaigns).

The latest example of the latter  took place in Alaska where
incumbent Democratic Senator Mark Begich, seemingly
holding his own in a close race with Republican challenger
Dan Sullivan, ran a spurious and self-destructive ad against
his opponent, an ad which he had to quickly withdraw. But
the damage has been done, and it has changed the race.

Earlier, Democratic Congressman Bruce Braley, his party’s
senate nominee in Iowa, made absurd remarks about his
Iowa GOP senate colleague Chuck Grassley, belittling the
fact that Grassley was an Iowa farmer. Braley, at that point,
was comfortably ahead of his eventual GOP opponent Joni
Ernst. The race is still competitive, but Braley has not
regained his momentum, and is now behind.

Appointed Montana Democratic Senator John Walsh had
acquired incumbency in his contest against GOP Congressman
Steve Daines, but revelations of earlier plagiarism forced
Walsh to resign his nomination, and the race is no longer in play.

Incumbent Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu, who is part of
a powerful family dynasty in Louisiana, had been leading narrowly
her GOP opponent Bill Cassidy, a physician, but new revelations
that she is spending more time at her residence in DC, and claims
her parents’ home in Lousiana as her state residence, have been
further negatively compounded by assertions that she is the
District of Columbia’s “51st senator.” The race could end in a
December run-off, but if Republicans win control without her, her
claim of senate influence would disappear, and she would likely
lose the run-off.

For a while, it seemed that Republicans were going to get by
“gaffe-free,” but the senate race in Kansas has been turned
upside down by allegations that GOP incumbent Pat Roberts
spends little time in the state, and has run a weak re-election
campaign. His Democratic opponent has just withdrawn from
the race, leaving independent Greg Orman, a moderate
businessman, as the suddenly new frontrunner. Roberts might
still win, but if he does not, it might not be a net loss for the
GOP since Orman has declared he will caucus with the party
which has the majority in the new senate. Nontheless, the sudden
political reversal is an embarrassment to the Republicans.

Another late-developing surprise have been polls in heavily
liberal (or blue state) Illinois. Not surprisingly, controversial
Democratic incumbent Governor Pat Quinn is trailing his GOP
opponent, but no one I know ever suggested that incumbent
Democratic Senator Dick Durbin was anything but a shoo-in
for re-election. Durbin, however, is under 50%, and his unknown
Republican opponent only 7 points behind, an unexpected
political shock. Durbin will still probably win, but now has to
take his race seriously in its final days.

Otherwise, several hotly contested senate races remain close,
including in North Carolina, Arkansas, New Hampshire,
Colorado and Michigan. Potentially close races exist in
Minnesota, Oregon and Virginia. Vulnerable GOP seats remain
in Kentucky and Georgia. How these races “break” in the final
days of the 2014 elections will signal whether or not a true “wave”
election is about to happen.

Unless there are more and new gaffes by individual candidates,
the month of September should be relatively quiet politically on
its surface. Most of the undecideds, many of them independents,
will likely make their minds in October as election day approaches.
A second group of pivotal voters, disaffected Democrats, will also
decide whether or not they will vote at all.

This consequential election cycle is not yet over.

Copyright (c) by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.