…pray for more polls/stories like this one:

If presidential elections were held today, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton would likely have a comfortable edge over Sen. John McCain, but take away her maiden name and McCain has a better shot of landing in the Oval Office.

So say the results of a CNN poll released Friday by Opinion Research Corp., which asked 506 adult Americans whom they preferred among potential 2008 presidential candidates. The margin of error for the survey is plus or minus 4.5 percent.

Asked if they preferred Hillary Rodham Clinton to McCain, respondents gave the Democratic New York senator and former first lady a 51 percent to 44 percent advantage over the Republican Senator from Arizona. Remove “Rodham” and McCain had a 1 percentage point advantage, 48 percent to 47 percent.

The results fall within the sample’s margin of error, so there is a “good chance, but not a statistical certainty” that Clinton’s maiden name would help her in a matchup against McCain, said Keating Holland, CNN’s polling director.

The results are consistent with earlier testing that indicated Clinton’s favorability rose when her maiden name was included in the question, Holland said.

However, using “Rodham” seems to cut into Clinton’s edge if her opponent is former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Though Clinton has an advantage over Giuliani with or without her maiden name, using “Rodham” closes the gap. Asked if they prefer Hillary Clinton or Giuliani, Clinton has a 4 percentage point advantage, 50 percent to 46 percent.

Add “Rodham” to the equation and the former first lady’s advantage over the Republican former mayor drops to 1 percentage point, 48 percent to 47 percent.

That’s right Dems…. Hillary Clinton is electable… Hillary won’t lose 42 states to 8 in a matchup with Rudy Giuliani or John McCain…. Hillary won’t get Dukakis’ed?450 to 85 in the Electoral College.

My only wish is that this poll wasn’t released on Friday. Why could they have waited until the beginning of this week’s newscycle so that more potential Democratic primary voters could read it? ?

Sen McCain discussed potential ’08 running mates on Hardball:

Do you think Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., with his military and legal experience, would be a good running mate, asked program host Chris Matthews.

“Lindsey (Graham), (John) Sununu, (John) Thune, Burr, there’s a broad variety of them, both in and out,” McCain replied, listing North Carolina’s junior senator along with other freshman senators from New Hampshire and South Dakota as prospects.

I’m assuming that Senator McCain was referring to senate VP prospects only, for surely?Condi Rice, Jeb Bush, and Tim?Pawlenty will be given at least?cursory consideration should McCain secure the GOP nomination.?

Considering that the Veep slot is ideally suited to balancing the weaknesses of the person at the top of the ticket, Sen. McCain should look no further than this man if he insists on selecting a sitting Senator as his running mate. This would certainly go a long way towards exciting conservatives about his candidacy.

The “both in and out” comment is interesting though. I wonder what former Senator he could be thinking of.

For goodness sakes though… Lindsey Graham has got to be out of the running if McCain has any sense whatsoever.

Strategic Vision Washington, October 16th-18th, 2006

For the 2008 Republican Presidential Nomination whom would you support? (Republicans Only)

Rudy Giuliani 45%
John McCain 22%
Mitt Romney 9%
Newt Gingrich 7%
Bill Frist 2%
George Allen 1%
Rick Santorum 1%
George Pataki 1%
Chuck Hagel 1%
Undecided 11%

For the 2008 Democratic Presidential Nomination whom would you support? (Democrats Only)

Hillary Clinton 35%
Al Gore 22%
John Edwards 14%
Russ Feingold 9%
John Kerry 5%
Wesley Clark 3%
Joseph Biden 1%
Bill Richardson 1%
Evan Bayh 1%
Ed Rendell 1%
Tom Vilsack 1%
Christopher Dodd 1%
Undecided 6%

?

Barack Obama backed off earlier statements he had made about having no interest in seeking the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, stating that “that was how I was thinking at that time … Given the response I’ve been getting the last several months, I have thought about the possibility … After November 7, I’ll sit down and consider it.”

I’m finding it ever more likely that Obama will be on the ticket in one way or another.? His extreme liberal voting record will not garner him many independent votes, but the Republican Party must not underestimate his enthusiastic, fresh face and rockstar appeal.? If the Republicans want to counteract this, they will want to have someone with a good amount of celebrity appeal on their ticket as well.? But, having Obama on the Democratic ticket will virtually ensure that any Republican ticket with the slighest appeal to moderate voters will sweep the electoral college.

Barron’s magazine is predicting that the Republican Party will maintain control of both the United States Senate with 52 seats (out of 100) and the United States House of Representatives with 224 seats (out of 435).

Please note that, as opposed to when this was first posted,?Barron’s has now made the entire article available for free on?their web site.

The libertarian Cato Institute has released their “Fiscal Policy Report Card on America’s Governors: 2006,” and does not regard the work of potential 2008 GOP presidential candidates Mike Huckabee, George Pataki, and Mitt Romney very favorably in this respect – Hucakbee grades out at an F in 2006 and at a D for his overall gubernatorial tenure; Pataki grades out at a D in 2006 and at a C for his overall gubernatorial tenure; and Romney grades out at a C in 2006 and at a C for his overall gubernatorial tenure. The specific summaries:

“Mike Huckabee (Arkansas Legislature: Democrat; 2006 Grade: F; Final Overall Tenure Grade: D) – Thanks to a final term grade of F, Huckabee earns an overall grade of D for his entire governorship. Like many Republicans, his grades dropped the longer he stayed in office. In his first few years, he fought hard for a sweeping $70 million tax cut package that was the first broad-based tax cut in the state in more than 2 years. He even signed a bill to cut the state’s 6 percent capital gains tax’a significant pro-growth accomplishment. But nine days after being reelected in 2002, he proposed a sales tax increase to cover a budget deficit caused partly by large spending increases that he proposed and approved, including an expansion in Medicare eligibility that Huckabee made a centerpieceof his 1997 agenda. He agreed to a 3 percent income tax ‘surcharge’ and a 25-cent cigarette tax increase. In response to a court order to increase spending on education, Huckabee proposed another sales tax increase. Huckabee wants to run for the GOP presidential nomination next year. He’s already been hailed as a viable big-government conservative candidate by some. That seems about right: Huckabee’s leadership has left taxpayers in Arkansas much worse off.”

“George Pataki (New York Legislature: Divided; 2006 Grade: D; Final Overall Tenure Grade: C) – George Pataki started out as a tax-cutting, small-government governor. He ended up as a big spender seemingly hell-bent on overturning anything good he had done in his first term. Among his leading first-term accomplishments were his $3 billion, 25 percent income tax cut and a substantial cut in the capital gains tax and inheritance tax. But by his second term, he was proposing multi-billiondollar bond initiatives for roads and pork-barrel environmental projects. He raised the cigarette tax to $1.50 per pack. He raised taxes, on net, by more than $3 billion his final term in office. This year, perhaps in anticipation of a run for the GOP presidential nomination, Pataki tried to convince people that the tax cutter they knew and loved was back. But most of the tax cuts he proposed wouldn’t even kick in until after he’s left office and are too small to reverse the billions of tax hikes he’s already inflicted. Meanwhile, general fund spending has ballooned by more than 25 percent in the Empire State during Pataki’s final term. If he runs for the Republican presidential nomination on a record like that, it’s going to be very hard for him to convince the small-government advocates who vote in the GOP presidential primaries that he’s still one of them.”

“Mitt Romney (Massachusetts Legislature: Democrat; 2006 Grade: C; Final Overall Tenure Grade: C) – As Mitt Romney launches his bid for the Republican presidential nomination, his fiscal record as governor should be scrutinized. Romney likes to advance the image of himself as a governor who has fought a liberal Democratic legislature on various fronts. That’s mostly true on spending: he proposed modest increases to the budget and line-item vetoed millions of dollars each year only to have most of those vetoes overridden. But Romney will likely also be eager to push the message that he was a governor who stood by a no-new-taxes pledge. That’s mostly a myth. His first budget included no general tax increases but did include a $500 million increase in various fees. He later proposed $140 in business tax hikes through the closing of ‘loopholes’ in the tax code. He announced in May 2004 that he wanted to cut the top income tax rate from 5.3 to 5 percent, but that was hardly an audacious stand. Voters had already passed a plan to do just that before Romney even took office. In his budget for 2006, he proposed $170 million more in business tax hikes, almost completely neutralizing the proposed income tax cut. If you consider the massive costs to taxpayers that his universal health care plan will inflict once he’s left office, Romney’s tenure is clearly not a triumph of small-government activism.”

I have a lot of respect for the Cato Institute, especially when it comes to fiscal matters, abhor the advent of the Republican Party as the party of buying majority status through increased spending, and look forward to reading the?new book “Buck Wild” from the author of this study about how this regrettable phenomenon has come about. But it concerns me when chief executives are automatically graded down for closing tax loopholes (because tax fairness and simplicity should be Republican goals), for investing in infrastructure (because our roads and bridges need to be maintained with the gasoline taxes we are assessed), and for increasing sin taxes (because those products surely generate concomitant costs in health care) among kindred souls who favor smaller, leaner, more accountable government. Should the incentive really be to leave tax loopholes open, refuse to invest in infrastructure, and keep sin taxes low in the name of reducing the size of government?

Having said that, I think Slivinski points out some valid concerns in this study that Huckabee, Pataki, and Romney need to be queried about in their quest to run as?fiscal conservatives in the 2008 GOP caucuses and primaries. After all, the best predictor of what a candidate will do in the office they are running for is what they have done in the offices they have previously held, all campaign rhetoric and posturing aside.

Scott Helman and Michael Levenson report in the Boston Globe today as a follow-up to their article from yesterday that Governor Mitt Romney defends plans for a national Mormon political network to assist with his presidential campaign in 2008.

The problem for Governor Romney is that too many federal tax law experts question the legality of such an enterprise. Whether or not supporters of Governor Romney have gone over a legal line or not, they have created a controversy that will be available for opponents from now on absent renouncing such plans.

No, he did not, but I could easily see this clip becoming McCain’s drag video.

The full context of the quote is up on Drudge, and it is pretty clear that McCain misspoke. But good luck stopping anyone who wants to use this at an opportune moment. This is exactly the kind of neatly packaged clip that gains insider notoriety now, is quickly forgotten, and returns to surprise people later. McCain will have to spend time beating it back, and it will be a distraction from his efforts at mollifying the Christian Right.

McCain’s support for gay marriage may be more apocryphal than real, but this is not all that different from the urban myth that Rudy Giuliani supports gay marriage. He does not, but some people assume that because he had gay friends, he does. Likewise, some people will now assume that because McCain once uttered the words, he does too. Rudy’s opponents are banking on perpetuating this myth, but now they have this shadow to contend with. McCain’s ability to wage a sub-rosa whispering campaign on the issue of gay marriage is seriously compromised.

Stuff like this must give heartburn to McCain supporters who are counting on his pro-life voting record to drag him over the finish line. But the gay tolerance implicit in McCain’s substantive point about “commitment ceremonies” as well as his opposition to a Constitutional amendment and support for stem cell research are part of a broader pattern. McCain may cast some right votes, but he is not intensely committed on the values issues in the same way that Mike Huckabee is, or Sam Brownback is, or even George W. Bush is.

The contrast may not be as clear as McCain would like, and clips like this illustrate why.

This press release from the office of Republican U.S. House of Representatives Majority Whip Roy Blount of Missouri says it all and speaks for itself.

Scott Helman and Michael Levenson of the Boston Globe report in today’s edition of the newspaper on an effort by the Governor Mitt Romney presidential campaign to organize a national Mormon political network for his 2008 run.

This fascinating article raises many questions in my mind. First, does the Governor Romney campaign have a leaker who is opposed to this effort to mobilize a Mormon network?given that?these reporters obtained the documents and got tipped off as to the meetings? Second, how appropriate, both legally and ethically, are such formal religious organizational outreach efforts? Third, will such organizational outreach efforts help the Governor Romney presidential campaign (in votes and donations from Mormons) more than they will hurt it (in backlash from those wary of his Mormon ties and/or opposed to such religious organizing)?

You heard it here first. Whoever wins the Democrat presidential nomination in 2008 will?select United States Senator Barack Obama from Illinois as their running mate for Vice President.

Many on the left are clamoring for Senator Obama, who reportedly is speaking frequently with national Democrat strategist Donna Brazile, to run himself for the presidential nomination. But whether that happens or not – and I think Obama would be wise not to run for president?in 2008 because he cannot win the nomination due to his relative inexperience and would only create more enemies in such a hard-fought campaign – I think he is the next superstar within Democrat ranks and helps energize liberal and minority voters to support their ticket in 2008. Actually, his selection as the nominee for Vice President is a no-brainer for the Democrats.

The good news for Republicans is that Senator Obama is an out-of-the-mainstream liberal, especially when you consider his record in the Illinois legislature; the bad news for Republicans is that?Senator Obama?helps Democrats maintain the 90%+ control over black voters that the latter?need nationally in order to win.

At least until Nov. 7th anyway:

Arizona Sen. John McCain, a likely Republican presidential contender in 2008, joked on Wednesday he would “commit suicide” if Democrats win the Senate in November.

McCain, on a visit to Iowa to campaign for Republican congressional candidates, was asked his reaction to a potential Democratic takeover of the Senate in the November 7 elections.

“I think I’d just commit suicide,” McCain told reporters, to accompanying laughter from Republicans standing with him. “I don’t want to face that eventuality because I don’t think it’s going to happen.”

It would not only be?unfortunate for our country if the Dems are able to run the table come November and assume control, but for Sen. McCain personally as well.?He is poised to assume the chairmanship of the prestigious Armed Services Committee, a position that he has greatly looked forward to.

Edit: Great take by Republius in the comments as to?why the senator is in this position in the first place-Kavon

Strategic Vision Georgia, Oct 13th-15th, 2006:?

For the 2008 Republican Presidential Nomination whom would you support? (Republicans Only)

Rudy Giuliani 34%
John McCain 21%
Newt Gingrich 15%
Mitt Romney 8%
Bill Frist 2%
George Allen 1%
Rick Santorum 1%
George Pataki 1%
Chuck Hagel 1%
Undecided 16%

For the 2008 Democratic Presidential Nomination whom would you support? (Democrats Only)

Hillary Clinton 33%
Al Gore 20%
John Edwards 18%
Wesley Clark 2%
John Kerry 2%
Russ Feingold 2%
Evan Bayh 2%
Joseph Biden 1%
Bill Richardson 1%
Ed Rendell 1%
Tom Vilsack 1%
Chris Dodd 1%
Undecided 16%

While most of the public national polls are predicting a disaster for the Republican Party on November 7, David Winston provides a caveat. Obviously such polls need to assume a turnout number by party. Winston’s point is that these current national polls are assuming a turnout advantage, based on party affiliation, to the Democrats that has not historically occurred anytime recently. As Winston goes on to say, such a turnout scenario could occur in which Democrat affiliation is uncharacteristically high and Republican affiliation uncharaceteristically low. But for these polls to assume such an ahistoric result may be presumptuous if not tendentious, especially in light of reports that internal Republican turnout efforts are on track to be very successful this election cycle.

The congressional generic ballot numbers have always skewed toward Democrats, and Winston warns that this may be acutely so this cycle. And all politics is local, so what really matters are the individual?House and Senate races. And while Democrats are going to pick up seats this cycle, the question is whether or not they will take control of either or both houses of Congress? The national polls indicate a blowout for Democrats on November 7, but there is a long way to go and significant evidence that some of the national polling figures we are seeing are distorted if not disingenuous.

Republius, one of my fellow writers on this fine blog, recently composed some wonderfully written, well thought-out commentary on a minor issue that has been raised about Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s choice of words during the swearing in of Ambassador Mark Dybul, PhD as the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator on October 10, 2006.? During her remarks, Sec. Rice acknowledged the close friends and family members of Dybul present, which included his parents, his same-sex partner, and his partner’s mother.? Sec. Rice referred to Dybul’s partner’s mother as Dybul’s “mother-in-law”.? My colleague claims that this is the “final nail in the coffin for a 2008 Secretary Rice GOP candidacy”. ?I respectfully disagree.? Here’s why. (more…)

Insight Magazine claims that Speaker Newt Gingrich will not run for president in 2008 and will instead attempt to be a voice and spokesperson for the conservative right in the aftermath of the 2006 elections and in the waning years of the George W. Bush presidency.

As someone who has worked with Speaker Gingrich and many other elected officials at the federal level, I think this is a daring but somewhat transparent piece of conspiratorial misdirection. Most folks understand that?following the George W. Bush presidency and a difficult if not disastrous 2006 election cycle for Republicans, whoever wins the GOP presidential nomination for 2008 will be in the best position to set the tone and direction for the party and country. Nobody standing on the sidelines rather than lined up behind a microphone and podium during presidential debates in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina is going to have a bully pulpit or the media’s attention in shaping the GOP and nation’s agenda and debate; all those guest slots on Hannity and Colmes and The O’Reilly Factor and?Meet the Press?that the Speaker is used to will be given instead to announced candidates and their surrogates and staff during the 2008 election cycle if he does not run.

On a personal level, which should always be calculated in when calibrating political campaigns, Speaker Gingrich?admittedly sees?his destiny as a transformational figure. And there is no better place to fulfill that destiny than from the Oval Office; conversely, few if any think tank analysts ever get their ideas manifested in policy – their brilliance is?relegated to policy seminars and largely ignored treatises. It would be naive bordering on delusional to fall for the line that?Speaker Gingrich?does not want to be president, it seems to me. This is his chance to transform institutions, and it is merely a matter of how rather than whether he enters the presidential fray. As former Republican Congressman Jim Rogan admitted and famously opined, the only antidote for political ambition is embalming fluid. And the Speaker has said recently that he has been immersing himself in the study of Abraham Lincoln – who I might add was a brilliant, ambitious, and seemingly flawed and damaged politician who craved the opportunity to re-emerge as a national candidate – which is probably not a coincidence of timing. So as long as Speaker Gingrich is alive, don’t expect to find him anywhere but in the center of where politics and publicy policy are happening – which in 2007 and 2008 will be the race for the presidency.

Therefore, if Speaker Gingrich wants to influence the debate, as quite clearly he does and should, he will need to run for the presidency and attempt to win it. But by positioning himself as a vocal and interested outsider who?does not want to?get in the race, Speaker Gingrich and his allies are cleverly laying the groundwork for an eruption?of popular conservative opinion demanding he run for president in 2008. And once that demand reaches critical mass and places him on the presidential ballot, it will help insulate Speaker Gingrich to a great degree from the negatives his candidacy will be saddled with; he can claim that he does not choose to?run but is being asked to?run, which will only make personal attacks on him during the campaign that he is vulnerable to seem all the more mean-spirited in the face of his magnanimity. It will also be a very dramatic way to quickly generate publicity and campaign funds at the last minute. And it?prevents Speaker Gingrich from being a political pinata if he enters the race at the same time as most others and of his own accord, as would otherwise happen.

The Speaker Gingrich scenario, with all respect to Woody and Debbie (and they should note how the article mentions that Secretary Rice has plummeted favorability-wise among conservatives, and this is probably prior to her “mother-in-law” comment, which is just more evidence that she will not be a 2008 candidate – at least not as a Republican), is the one realistic draft scenario looming in the 2008 presidential race. And with this article and?stories like it that will surely emerge, the seeds are being planted for?a Speaker Gingrich draft?to germinate as a typical non-spontaneous, spontaneous political phenomenon.

But make no mistake, this should not be looked upon cynically, I think. It is politically brilliant strategy; it is the only viable way a Speaker Gingrich candidacy can succeed; it positions a Speaker Gingrich candidacy to exist on its own terms, debating ideas, rather than on its opponents’ terms,?focused on?personal issues; and it helps assure that the deepest and most articulate and passionate policy thinker in the Republican Party is in the presidential mix for 2008, which is surely a good thing for voters and the overall debate. And, frankly, the best candidacies are those that the people rather than the candidates want.

For those who have not heard about it, Secretary Condi Rice last week, when publicly swearing in a new State Department political appointee, referred to the mother of the gay appointee’s same sex partner as the “mother-in-law” of the appointee during the ceremony, which took place with First Lady Laura Bush participating – for good measure.

Sorry, Secretary Rice, but most people believe the term “mother-in-law” is the exclusive domain of traditional marriages between a man and a woman. This is especially true in the Republican Party. And perhaps you should be reminded that the President you serve advocates a constitutional amendment codifying marriage traditionally. So?you are?speaking in contravention of?administration policy to?refer to a?lady in this situation as a “mother-in-law,” implying that two members of the same sex are lawfully married or that definitions heretofore the province of traditional marriage may be applied to same sex couples.

Game over for those who still believe Secretary Rice could be a viable Republican candidate in 2008. And please do not argue that Mayor Giuliani supports gay rights and is a viable GOP presidential candidate, so this should not hurt the electoral opportunities for Secretary Rice in the Republican Party. Mayor Giuliani supports traditional marriage, and if he ever publicly refers to the mother of someone’s same sex partner as a “mother-in-law” he will be equally dead in the Republican political waters as Secretary Rice now is.

I have advocated, without much success,?that this site be dedicated to objective analysis of the 2008 GOP candidates rather than cheerleading and attacks on behalf of particular candidates. Unfortunately most contributors to this site are aligned with one particular GOP candidate for 2008, which I think hurts the credibility of their postings. And while my editorial comments here?may not seem to?be in the spirit of such an objective?philosophy, I offer them because I have also advocated that we not waste our time and bandwith on persons like Condi Rice and Jeb Bush who are not going to be candidates. Unfortunately, with respect to the former, we have been bombarded by contributors to this site?with pro-Condi campaign rhetoric. So I think it is important to make the case that we should move on and that Secretary Rice is not a viable candidate in 2008 for an overwhelming host or reasons – from her lack of desire to run to her unacceptably liberal views in the context of Republican primary voters to her association with an unpopular administration.

Not to pile on with yet more 2006 info, but I did promise?last week that I would provide a 2006 projection each Tuesday until the election, and so here is this week’s installment.? Remember, these are my own personal projections based on a synthesis of recent polling over at Real Clear Politics.? I encourage you to come up with your own projections and prove me wrong.

House: 214 R, 221 D

Senate: 50 R, 48 D, 2 I

Governorships: 29 D, 21 R

The big loss this week is in the states.? More specifically, MN Gov. Tim Pawlenty is now?running behind Democrat Mike Hatch in every poll.? This would be a tremendous loss, as Pawlenty has been one of the rising stars of the GOP over the past four years, with his name often thrown into the 2008 VP mix.? Unfortunately, Pawlenty may be yet another northern casualty of a year in which the Great Lakes states are rebelling against the Republican Party nationally.

Kavon, your thoughts as a Minnesotan would be greatly appreciated (and forgive me if “Minnesotan” isn’t actually a word!)

I check the Hotline On Call several times a day. Generally, I find it to be really well done.

Something today raised eyebrows. I checked it around lunchtime to find this post atop the page about S.C. State Sen. Mike Fair endorsing McCain.

I revisit it later this afternoon, and the same post is dated 2:05 p.m., above a 2006 Congressional roundup and Mitt Romney adding national campaign staff.

Bloggers well know that if you’re looking to aggressively promote a story, you bump it to the top of the page by changing the post time. That’s what the Hotline seems to be doing with this McCain story. In their mind, one South Carolina endorsement for McCain outweighs national endorsements for Romney or news about the elections three weeks from today. As far as I know, Hotline has never bumped a story like this, not even a major one like Foley.

I think this is a small but significant sign that they have crossed the line from favorable analysis to cheerleading.

Per Hotline, Sen. McCain lands an important conservative voice in SC politics:

In the world of SC politics, the smaller fish often taste the best. Sen. John McCain’s Straight Talk America PAC has signed up State Sen. Mike Fair, who represents some of the most conservative precincts in Greenville. Fair was a strong supporter of Pres. Bush in 2000. He is a strong, strong conservative — he ran to Sen. Jim DeMint’s right in the ’98 House primary for the 4th district (and lost). He’s leading the charge to give science teachers in the state more latitude to teach “intelligent design” as an alternative to Darwinian evolution.

Fair becomes McCain’s new wing man in the candidate’s aggressive pursuit of upstate South Carolina conservatives. His endorsement is important.

Meanwhile, Gov. Romney has added some Bush/Cheney/RNC players to his Commonwealth PAC:

They include one of Jeb Bush’s closest advisers, Sally Bradshaw; a former speechwriter for Pres. Bush, Noam Neusner; former RNC strategist/DoJ comm. dir. Barbara Comstock, and press secretary Jared Young.

For months, the PAC has run on a skeleton stuff while Romney has pursued his political travels and planted seeds for his expected ’08 bid. Recently, his gubernatorial chief staff, Beth Myers, joined the PAC as executive director.

Republicans have a current majority of 55 seats in the United States Senate. Even if the GOP?loses previously Republican?Senate seats on November 7 in Montana (Burns), Ohio (DeWine), Pennsylvania (Santorum), and Rhode Island (Chafee) and fails to turn over any previously Democrat seats in Maryland (open seat where Steele is the GOP candidate), Michigan (Bouchard is the GOP challenger to Stabenow), Minnesota (open seat where Kennedy is the GOP candidate), New Jersey (Kean, Jr., is the GOP challenger to Menendez), and Washington (McGavick is the GOP challenger to Cantwell), as long as they hold closely contested current Republican seats in Missouri (Talent), Tennessee (open seat where GOP candidate is Corker), and Virginia (Allen) they will come out with a net loss of four seats and 51-49 majority.

Scott Elliott over at Election Projection has been doing some serious number-crunching regarding next month’s election, the latest iteration of which can be found here.? I recall Scott being eerily accurate on his 2004 calls, which is why I tend to take seriously any projections he makes.? The bad news for Republicans is that Scott is now predicting a Democratic takeover of the House.

The way I read Scott’s analysis (and I read it rather quickly, so I could be wrong) is that the following breakdown seems to exist in the race for the 232 current GOP House seats:

* Safe GOP: 205 seats

* Barely GOP: 8 seats

* Barely Dem: 7 seats

* Likely Dem: 12 seats

So the GOP has a floor of about 205 seats and a ceiling of about 220 seats in this election, with 15 tossups that Scott splits roughly down the middle.? The likely result, according to Scott, is a 222-213 Democratic House.? In order for Republicans to hold onto the House, they’d have to win 13 of the 15 tossups in what is largely shaping up to be a Democratic year.

Interestingly, most of the GOP’s losses appear to be occurring in purple territory from 2000 and 2004.? If Nancy Pelosi becomes Madame Speaker, she’ll have the industrial north to thank first and foremost, with the southwest and Florida not far behind.? Meanwhile, the gains Republicans made in the red south and interior west in 2002 and 2004 will remain intact.? Establishing a long-term GOP majority is akin to herding cats; just as one swing region is taken off the map, another develops.? These congresspersons losing in the industrial north generally aren’t freshmen from 2004.? Most are veteran congressmen from the ’80s and ’90s who are apparently being punished for being complicit in a GOP governance that Rust Belt Republican voters just cannot accept.? The challenge for the GOP post-2006 will be to craft an agenda that can unite the broad middle of the country and not simply enhance the red/blue divide, which is what’s?about to happen in mere weeks.

Sometimes, something happens that really causes you to recognize just how out of whack the MSM’s analysis of the ’08 field really is. The Obama Time cover is just such a thing.

Does Obama really have a shot at being President in 2008? Probably not, though he is the nominee-presumptive if Hillary loses. Experience matters in Presidential races, and it’s doubtful that the electorate will take kindly to a four year Senator whose other resume highlight included a stint in the Illinois State Senate. Learn the lesson of John Edwards, and wait, Senator (or don’t — and wreck another promising Democratic career in the making).

This doesn’t stop Time from spilling a lot of ink on the possibility, or National Journal from bumping him to #3 in their presidential rankings (just like Rudy), though the chances of Obama making a run are probably less than 20%.

In putting him on their radar screen, National Journal equated him to Rudy:

Obama is the Giuliani of the Democratic field: a candidate who probably won’t run but can’t be dismissed. He’s traveling around the country, talking to donors and burnishing his already incandescent public image. He never has a bad day in the press and is very ambitious. Bottom line: If Clinton doesn’t run, we’re pretty sure Obama will. If she does, he’ll probably step back. And as long as Clinton continues to ponder a run, it’s easy for Obama to disclaim any interest while still covertly flirting with the idea.

Obama is interesting and personally magnetic, but utterly unqualified. He’d probably have his clock cleaned in a head-to-head with Hillary (and that’s assuming Al Gore doesn’t get in). Right now, he’d probably poll in single digits or low double digits in Dem primary polls if included. It is doubtful he’ll take a chance and run for President in 2008.

Giuliani is the frontrunner of the GOP field by any conventional measure of grassroots support and enthusiasm. He regularly polls over 30 percent in Republican polls, and has opened up a double digit lead on John McCain in national polls. Moreover, he has the track record (successful two term executive of a city the size of North Carolina, national hero, sterling security credentials) that makes him the most logical future occupant of the Oval Office. His recent rise indicates that the time is ripe for him to run for President, and he probably will.

You couldn’t find two more different candidates than Giuliani and Obama in terms of their chances in 2008. A Giuliani presidency is still far and away more likely than an Obama one. Yet who’s on the cover of Time? And who’s being equated to the Republican frontrunner?

This seems to be a case of liberals in the media trying hard to set the agenda and leaving no stone unturned for a potential Democratic winner in ’08. Could you imagine them doing the same on our side? Instead, they’re busily trying to winnow down our field.

To equate Giuliani and Obama is just… farfetched. It’s downright odd. And it shines a bright light on just how flawed the National Journal narrative about ’08 truly is.

Below are remarks by Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney yesterday in which he declares his unequivocal support for a Federal Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as exclusively restricted to the union of one man and one woman as the only way to effectively protect the institution of marriage.

While some conservatives favor a state’s rights approach to the issue coupled with appointment of non-activist judges to the U.S. Supreme Court that would uphold the Defense of Marriage Act, such approaches would not prevent states from allowing gays to marry.

For most conservatives, that is unacceptable.

The only way to absolutely protect the institution of marriage is?via a?constitutional amendment. There has been much speculation that Rudy Giuliani, who personally favors gay rights, will pledge to appoint justices like John Roberts and Samuel Alito. But it is beyond belief that he would move so far to the right as to favor the amendment Romney is advocating.

Romney is making this issue one of the defining issues of his candidacy. This issue?has a powerful appeal to the base and could make it impossible for Giuliani to get off the ground before he even starts.

http://www.mass.gov/Agov2/docs/20061015_liberty_sunday.doc

Liberty Sunday: Defending Our First Freedom
October 15, 2006
“Welcome to this historic city. The authors of liberty recognized a Divine Creator who bequeathed to us certain inalienable rights. They affirmed freedom of religion and proscribed the establishment of any one religion. Today, there are some people would like to establish a single religion for America . . . the religion of secularism. They not only reject traditional religious values, but also the values of the founders. And they set aside the wisdom of the ages. Their allies are activist judges. Here in Massachusetts, activist judges struck a blow to the foundation of civilization, the family. They ruled that our constitution requires same sex marriage. I believe their error occurred because they focused on adult rights. If adult heterosexual couples can marry, they reasoned, then to have equal rights, adult homosexual couples must also be able to marry.
?

But marriage is not primarily about adults. Marriage is primarily about the nurturing and development of children. A child’s development is enhanced by the nurturing of both genders. Every child deserves a mother and a father. Of course, the principal burden of the Court’s ruling doesn’t fall on adults. It falls on children. We are asked to change the state birth certificate. To prevent #quot;heterocentricity,#quot; mother and father would become parent A and parent B. An elementary school teacher reads to her 2nd graders from a book titled #quot;The King and King#quot; about a prince who marries a prince. And a 2nd grader’s father is denied the right to have his child removed from class while that book is being read. Our state’s most difficult-to-place adoptive children may no longer be placed by Catholic charities because they favor homes where there’s a mother and a father.
?

The price of same sex marriage is paid by children. Our fight for marriage, then, should focus on the needs of children, not the rights of adults. In fact, as Americans, I believe that we should show an outpouring of respect and tolerance for all people, regardless of their differences or their different choices. We must vigorously reject discrimination and bigotry. We are all God’s children. He abhors none of us.
?

Massachusetts is the front line on marriage, but unless we adopt a federal amendment to protect marriage, what is happening here will unquestionably enter every other state. The spreading religion of secularism and its substitute values cannot be allowed to weaken the foundation of family or the faith of our fathers who more than life their freedom loved.”

According to the latest Washington Post poll released today, Allen’s lead over Webb has shrunk down to a razor thin 2 points–49% to 47%–with Northern Virginians siding heavily with Webb and the rest of Virginia going mostly for Allen.

Unfortunately 25% of Virginians have already determined to vote for Webb as a statement against Bush, and those 25% are not going to be persuaded, if that’s what they’re basing their vote on.? That’s 25% of the vote, right off the bat, that Allen cannot ever get.? Also, 11% (that’s more than 1 out of 10 voters) are voting against Allen solely based on his “macaca” statement–and that’s another percentage of voters Allen can probably never persuade.? However, good news for Allen, 64% of Virginians think their Senate race has been far too nasty this year, and that’s indication that anymore ridiculous mudslinging by the Webb campaign may now just be met with groans and angry swatting.

This Senate campaign has been one of the most bungled, botched, messy, unbelievable campaigns I’ve ever seen.? This doesn’t change the fact that Allen is by far the right man to vote for–he is the one that will actually fight for Virginians and, as a man of wisdom and skill, the clout he’s gained in the Senate is invaluable to the GOP.? But Allen is not going anywhere in 2008.

To all other GOP 2008 hopefuls: Let the George Allen campaign be a lesson to you, especially those of you who have spent all your lives being isolated in one state or another.? When the national news channels start following you around to your campaigns in various states, you cannot slip up once.? Not even once.

Three syllables is all it takes to ruin your whole career forever.

That’s my conclusion after examining the latest batch of Senate polls over at Real Clear Politics.? As you may recall, there have been eight Senate races in play post-Labor Day.? Seven involved incumbents and seven involved GOP-held seats.? Well, the undecideds appear to be breaking in most of these races, and the result is bad for the GOP but not bad enough to give Harry Reid the Senate.?

In NJ and VA, Menendez and Allen have each reached 49 percent, despite the fact that?both of them have been tarnished by personal scandal over the past couple of months.? I guess NJ voters were just too liberal for Kean, and Virginians, a bit too conservative for Jim Webb.? Take those two off the table.? In PA, MT, and RI, each of the Democratic challengers to the sitting GOP incumbents has now reached majority support in at least one recent poll.? So that’s a Democratic pickup of three seats, reducing the GOP caucus to 52.? In OH, Sherrod Brown remains comfortably head of DeWine, though the race hasn’t quite gotten to the point of no return yet.? Still, it’s a likely Democratic pickup.? That means that two Republican-held tossups will determine control of the Senate: MO and TN.? It doesn’t surprise me that Ford is ahead in TN, albeit slightly.? He’s an attractive candidate running as a centrist in a light red state during a good Democratic year.? It does surprise me that Talent is performing so poorly.? Unlike many of the other endangered incumbents, Talent has done nothing to deserve this.? He’s been an intelligent, articulate, mainstream conservative in the Senate and should be five points ahead, not slightly behind.? But MO does have a tendency to produce close, close races.? If Talent holds on, the Democrats can’t take the Senate.? The same can be said for Corker in TN.? Basically, the Dems have to run the table to take the Senate: they have to hold NJ, take PA, RI, and MT, and sweep OH, MO, and TN.? If the GOP wins just one of those races, we come into 2007 with at least 50 seats, meaning that VP Cheney casts the tie-breaking vote and Republicans organize the Senate.

CBS’s Face the Nation (check local listings for time)
FOX’S FOX News Sunday (6:00 pm-7:00 pm)

…this Sunday, October 14, 2006.? She’ll be discussing her foreign policy initiatives in North Korea, Iran, and Iraq, among other issues.

Maggie Haberman of the New York Post reports today as does Richard Perez-Pena of the New York Times and John DiStaso of the Manchester (NH)?Union Leader?that as Mayor Giuliani campaigns for Repbulican candidates in New Hampshire he appears to be in no hurry to commit to a presidential run in 2008. Also note that Mayor Giuliani is expected back in New Hampshire on November 3.

The question we have to ask is how many Republican Mark Warner-type candidates will we have in 2008? Most Democrat insiders were certain that Warner was running in 2008 until his recent announcement that he will not be in the race.

Scott Helman of the Boston Globe writes in today’s edition about how Governor Mitt Romney is reaching out to Washington, D.C. Republican insiders to build his 2008 presidential campaign.

Governor Romney has appearances today in two important and early 2008 presidential primary states – South Carolina and Michigan. It would appear he is firmly committed to running in 2008.

As noted by Kavon, we’ve gotten a trickle of New Hampshire polling after a recent dearth of it. McCain leads the field based on residual goodwill from 2000, with 32 percent of the vote. Rudy is at 19 percent and Mitt Romney is at 15 percent. What’s my perspective on this poll as a Giuliani supporter?

As good as things look for Rudy right now, polls like this show why we shouldn’t get cocky. McCain holds down honest-to-God leads in New Hampshire, Michigan, and probably South Carolina, states where he won or cracked 40% last time. Since the average voter probably hasn’t thought about Presidential primary politics since they cast that vote in 2000, these leads should not surprise anyone. In states where voters didn’t have the experience of voting for McCain in large numbers, he barely moves the needle.

At the end of the day though, these primaries going to be decided by what happens in ’07 and early ’08, as new information displaces the experience of voting in the 2000 primary. Does past success guarantee future results? Just ask George H.W. Bush, who shocked the world in Iowa in 1980 only to finish third there 8 years later.

As it is, McCain looks much weaker in New Hampshire than he did in 2000, when no one could lay a glove on him. In his breakout state from 2000, McCain has already picked up two strong challengers in Giuliani and Romney. He leads the field far and away in the “like least” category, with 19 percent. (Rudy is way, way down the list at 4 percent.) And Rudy actually leads him in net favorability, 15 to 13 percent. Great fav/unfav ratios like this are what breakout primary performances are made of. Interestingly enough, Romney has picked up some opposition with his double-digit support, with 10 percent saying they like him least.

A week out from New Hampshire, it’s very unlikely we will be looking at a three man race. The gravitational pull of frontrunner status and the winnowing process of Iowa will make it a two-man race. If McCain falls to Earth (which is my hunch), expect Rudy to grab the lion’s share of his support. If Romney falters for whatever reason (less likely), Rudy becomes the anti-McCain.