10/11: Leftward Ho!

Despite exhortation from DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas not to start celebrating victory quite yet, MyDD's Chris Bowers has two lengthy posts up focused like a laser on framing the meaning of the Dems anticipated takeover of Congress. Bowers two main points: 1) the Dems are succeeding by moving to the left, not to the center; 2) Dem victory is due to the strength of the netroots, not recent GOP mistakes (like Foley). Will these frames get picked up? Will Dems move visibly left when they take power? Or is it still too early to even be asking these questions?

FOLEY FALLOUT: No Really, Why Should You Vote GOP In '06?

Univ. of WI prof. Charles H. Franklin at Pollster.com compares pre and post Foley generic ballot results and finds "The post-Foley Folly polls find an upturn in the Democratic margin in the generic Congressional ballot." Franklin identifies the development as "all the more important because prior to the Foley Fiasco the trend had moved a bit down, then flattened ... Whatever possible gains Republicans were beginning to make have now been wiped out."

The vast majority of righty bloggers are admitting the damage Foley has caused:

• National Review Online's Larry Kudlow: "The first batch of major polls released following the Foley scandal and Speaker Hastert's mismanagement of this mess has hit the street. They are devastating to the Republican outlook for the congressional elections on November 7-devastating. ... Perhaps the GOP will get an election comeuppance; and maybe that's not such a bad thing after all."
• RCP Blog's John McIntyre: "It's clear now that the Foley scandal has hurt Republicans in national Generic polling, what isn't clear is whether this movement will flow through to individual Senate, House and Governor races across the nation. Common-sense suggests that it will, what is unknown is the degree."
• Erick Erickson at RedState: "As John McIntyre notes this morning, generic balloting that has come out after the Foley scandal shows a 5.5% swing to the Democrats. ... If the GOP cannot change the message *this week*, the GOP majority in the House and, most likely, the Senate is toast. That's life and that is reality.
• Townhall's Dean Barnett: "Like I said a couple of days ago, the time has come for the Republican Party to move on from the Foley affair. If this election is in any way a referendum on that matter, Speaker Pelosi becomes a tragic inevitability. ... The Pelosi stand on missile defense, especially in light of this weekend's antics on the Korean peninsula, show how the Democrats as a party just aren't ready for primetime when it comes to national security issues. .... Tell your favorite Republican strategist - it's time to talk about matters of consequence.

Hope is not lost on the right. Power Line's John Hinderaker writes: "At this point, it appears that the Republican majorities in both House and Senate are poised on a knife edge. If we can have four weeks of normal campaigning between now and November 7, I still think enough Republicans will get their messages out to hold both chambers. But that's a big "if."

All the GOP doom and gloom inspired RedState's Erick Erickson to sponsor a contest: "And while the Republicans, like rats on a sinking ship, are starting to flee, they've left behind a mess of a message. So, here's the contest. ... The topic: Why you should vote Republican in 2006. It should be 100 words or less. ... And, I'll buy the winner a one year subscription to the Limbaugh Letter."

FOLEY FALLOUT II: We Earned This

MyDD's Chris Bowers argues " it needs to be made clear that Republicans have not blown this election through a series of mistakes." Bowers claims "the big problems that have pushed Republican chances so low--Iraq, Social Security, Terry Schaivo, Katrina, and now Foley--are not Republican "mistakes" as such. They are instead, inherent to Republican governance." Bowers concludes:

While there was tremendous help from across the progressive ecosystem, Social Security would be dead right now if not for the netroots helping to keep Democrats in line. ... Would the narrative on Foley have so quickly metastasized into a broader indictment of the Republican leadership? ... The reason is the political and media prowess supplied by the netroots, by the progressive movement and by the Democracy Alliance nexus. ... Democrats and progressives have earned this lead--it did not fall into our laps."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum admits luck has had a role in Dems upcoming success, but still gives the netroots credit for their work making sure Dems could take advantage: "if the Republican Party does continue its ongoing implosion, it's going to make Howard Dean look pretty smart, isn't it? It'll mean that Democrats win a historic victory this year and have made two year's worth of progress on improving their state organizations for 2008. Sure, some of that is just luck. Neither Dean nor anyone else predicted this year's Republican meltdown. But you know what they say: luck favors the well prepared.

LANDSCAPE: Don't Count Those Chickens Quite Yet

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas warns his troops "I'm getting a little nervous with people thinking we have any race this fall in the bag." Markos continues: "We've got to pick up six seats for a majority, seven if we want to avoid a potential Lieberman blackmail situation (if he wins his race). We have to hold all of our own endangered seats (looking solid in MN, okay in MD, and iffy in NJ). Then, in the Republican-held competitive races left -- MO, MT, OH, PA, RI, TN, and VA -- all but one feature incumbents, always the hardest races to win. Incumbents rarely, rarely lose." Markos then offers a reason why each race could still be lost including:

• We're leading in the polls in Ohio, but DeWine (R) had $3 million more cash on hand than Democrat Sherrod Brown, with the RNC and NRSC already dumping what could end up being $5-15 million more into the state
• Same case in Missouri, where Talent (R) has more than $4 million more than Democrat Claire McCaskill
• Montana seems great on paper, but Burns (R) has about $1.5 million more than Democrat Jon Tester in a state that George Bush carried 59-39
• In Pennsylvania, the polls have shown the race tightening. Meanwhile Santorum (R) has over $4 million more in the bank than Democrat Bob Casey
• In Tennessee, the recent spate of positive poll results for Democrat Harold Ford are a godsend, but we can't assume they'll hold in conservative Tennessee.
• And in Virginia ... heck, we're still trailing in Virginia.

LANDSCAPE II: Quick Hits

TPM Cafe's Kenneth Baer argues 2006 may be more like 1982 than 1994: "First, the numbers. 54 percent of those polled said they would support the Democratic candidate for Congress (41 percent said the Republican). Looking down the table, one notes that those numbers were 47-42 on November 6, 1994 -- a testament to the importance of turnout. The only period that compares to this spread is the 58 percent to 39 percent reading on October 27, 1982."

Also at TPM Cafe, Matt Corley reports 90% "of the National Republican Campaign Committee's ad budget will be spent on so-called "contrast" ads between now and election day, according to NRCC spokesman Ed Patru. ... "Contrast" ads, of course, are negative ads."

Finally, RCP Blog's Jay Cost casts doubts on the legend of the GOP turnout machine: "More generally -- voter mobilization is a long-standing tradition of American politics. If it did not work, I suspect that strategic politicians would have moved away from it long ago. So, the fact that we cannot demonstrate its efficacy via a statistical model does not mean that it is ineffective. Our inability is a testament to our lack of data."

CT SEN: This Race Clearly Needs More Al Sharpton

MyDD's Matt Stoller looks at Hartford Courantnumbers showing Sen. Joe Lieberman (I) leading cable exec Ned Lamont (D) 48-40 and claims "Lamont Regains Some Momentum." Stoller finishes: "Lieberman's been up on the air a lot more than Lamont recently, so Lieberman's apparent bleeding of support lends some credence to the theory that he's peaked. Lieberman's an excellent politician, and Lamont's a novice, so it makes sense that Lamont couldn't easily get his message of change out. It's nice to see that beginning to shift."

With help from lefty bloggers, Lieberman has successfully involved Rev. Al Sharpton in the race again. TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent notes the New York Times reported that Lieberman invoked Sharpton's appearance on stage with Lamont's primary victory party to question Lamont's "commitment to Israel." This prompted Sharpton to send Lieberman a letter "hammering him for the comment." Lieberman spokeswoman Tammy Sun then dismissed the letter as "a baseless, extreme and divisive attack from one of Ned Lamont's closest advisers." Sargent then called Sharpton who was more than happy to further comment on the matter: "It definitely borders on racism and I think it's beneath Joe Lieberman. It's so close to the border that he needs a passport. I might add that the only one who's brought up race in this campaign is them."

Sargent also has video of Lamont's new ad "attacking Joe Lieberman in his own words -- in Lieberman's words, that is. The screen shows a youngish Lieberman 18 years ago, during the campaign in which he unseated then-Senator Lowell Weicker in 1988, and quotes him making promises about attendance and voting which the Lamont campaign contends he's broken."

OH SEN: Putting A Soldier At Risk

TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent received no comment from Sen. Mike DeWine's (R) campaign as to whether "a soldier appearing in one of the campaign's political ads is an actor or a real member of the military. The ad -- which ran roughly in the last week of September and the first week of October and is right here -- pictures family members of soldiers praising DeWine. For about three seconds, what appears to be an actual soldier is visible in uniform." Sargent notes that DoD policy prohibits military personnel from wearing uniforms at "political campaigns or election events." Sargent concludes: "By airing an ad touting DeWine's help for troops, he may have put a real soldier at risk."

RI SEN: Heck Of A Job, Liddy

RedState's Leon Wolf looks at recent RI SEN polling numbers and declared: "Lincoln Chafee is toast. So, all the NRSC money spent attacking a fellow Republican was all for naught." Wolf concludes: "In order to overcome the natural partisan tilt in Rhode Island, Chafee needed to have a solid advantage of at least 8 or 9 points - he didn't, and that should have sent up the alarm bells. For some reason, it didn't with Elizabeth Dole, and now the coffers are (at least) $1.2 million lighter, and Steve Laffey will probably never be able to run for statewide office in Rhode Island again."

VA SEN: The Martian Chronicles

Righty bloggers continue to hit back on AP revelations that Sen. George Allen (R) failed to report stock options, as required, to the Senate Ethics Cmte. The official AllenHQ has the short version:

• 1. Senator Allen disclosed the stock options in his first year in the Senate, after which
• 2. on the advice of Ethics Committee Staff, Allen's office believed that worthless ("underwater") stock options need not be disclosed again
• 3. the only compensation Allen did get was specifically approved by the Senate Ethics Committee.

Captain's Quarters and RedState also go to bat for Allen on the issue. DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas offers the left's nutshell version of events:

This stuff gets very complicated, very quickly. The bottom line is that 1) Allen used his clout to help out a company that 2) gave him options that 3) he failed to report to the Senate ethics committee as required by Senate rules. So in addition to being racist, he -- like apparently most Republicans -- refused to follow rules designed to prevent the abuses of power to which they are wholly addicted.

Meanwhile, The Plank's Jason Zengerle thinks the subject matter of the scandal offers clues as to what Allen might do if he loses: "Lost in all the hubbub over George Allen's failure to disclose his Xybernaut stock options are the details of what, exactly, the high-tech company was about. From the looks of this 2001 Space Daily article, Xybernaut was about sending a man to Mars. Maybe if Allen loses his Senate seat, he'll have a second act."

Markos also reviews new ads from the DSCC and Team Webb: "I find these really conventional negative ads. Viewers are conditioned to tune them out. I haven't seen Allen's and the NRSC's ads, but they're probably little better." MyDD's Jonathan Singer thinks a bit more highly of the DSCC effort: "The ad is, I think, successful on a number of levels. First, it gets out a lot of information about Allen's voting record, pointing out some of his more outrageous stances, such as those on the minimum wage and body armor. No, the real success of the ad lies in the fact that it uses these issues as a cover to go after Allen for his racially insensitive language, most notably targeting the "macaca" comment." On the right, The A-Team offers a claim by claim refutation of the DSCC ad, and the official AllenHQ does the same for Webb's ad.

Over at Raising Kaine ex-Navy sec. James Webb's (D) netroots coordinator Lowell Feld wonders if the presence of S.R. Sidarth caused Allen's hasty exit from 10/9's debate, and Feld later postsvideo of the debate.

MCCAIN: Scoring A Hat Trick With A Single Sentence

Right Angle Blog's Matt Lewis posts Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) 10/10 statement "I would remind Senator Clinton and other Democrats critical of Bush administration policies that the framework agreement her husband's administration negotiated was a failure," and comments: "In my estimation, this was really a hat trick. Simultaneously, John McCain has taken a step toward endearing himself to conservatives (who still hate Bill Clinton), he has taken a shot at Hillary -- his possible future opponent -- and (with midterms approaching) he has also warned voters of the danger involved in electing weak leaders to public office. In one fell swoop, McCain helped himself, helped his country, and attacked his opponent. Not bad for a day at the office." IA's Caucus Cooler has similar thoughts: "McCain took the opportunity to reinforce his national security street cred, and separate himself from Hillary as well as some of the GOP 08ers without the security experience."

Not done wooing the righty 'sphere McCain took the opportunity to guest post at Captain's Quarters under the header "Time for Decisive Action on North Korea." McCain writes: "This isn't just about North Korea. Iran is watching this test of the Council's will, and our decisions will surely influence their response to demands that they cease their nuclear program. Now, we must, at long last, stop reinforcing failure with failure."

GIULIANI: Mistakes Were Made

National Review Online's Greg Pollowitz forwards some of ex-NY mayor Rudy Giuliani's (R) remarks from his stop in WA endorsing ex-Safeco CEO Mike McGavick (R):

Whatever the mistakes that were made in the past, in not paying attention ... when September 11 happened, we realized we were attacked, and that they're going to come after us again, and we need to go on offense against them ... We need people in Washington that understand that... Mike understands that, it doesn't look like his opponent does."

IA's Caucus Cooler surveys "The Gang of 50" ("the campaign consultants, strategists, pollsters, pundits, and journalists who make up the conventional caucus wisdom here in Iowa") and describes the conventional wisdom of the group: "We hear that Rudy is running, likely will enter late after the straw poll, and he likely will wait until a few of the major contenders stumble a little bit (Pataki in particular)... If Rudy does get in, how will Iowans react? How will he put an organization together in time? The Gang doesn't have an answer to those questions yet. But it goes without saying that the rest of the field is more comfortable with the Mayor on the paid speaking circuit, not the caucus circuit."

TERROR POLITICS: From The Producer Of Airplane

TAPPED's Greg Sargent takes New York Times columnist John Tierney to task for writing that Americans keep telling "pollsters that they didn't trust the Democrats to do a better job of dealing with terrorism" while "not one, not two, but three polls came out, all of which suggested that voters trust Dems as much or more than they do the GOP on Iraq and terrorism -- exactly the opposite of what Tierney suggested." Sargent concludes: "Either Tierney knew about those polls yesterday and deliberately ignored them, or he didn't know about them, even though they were all over the Internet and cable for hours yesterday. Dishonest or incompetent. It's one or the other."

On the right, Airplane! producer David Zucker's Drudge Report promoted ad hitting Dems for treating foreign policy like a game was widely linked. RedState, Michelle Malkin, Townhall, Wizbang, and Power Line all linked; Instapundit and Ann Althouse coyly.

Townhall's Dean Barnett has a lengthy FAQ on North Korea and Instapundit quotes The Pentagon's New Map author Thomas Barnettcriticism of Pres. Bush's handling of North Korea:

"We tolerate Russia and India and China instead of embracing them as key allies, and we indulge the Japanese and Europeans, when neither has shown much inclination to grow up strategically any time soon (although I have my hopes for Abe as the next iteration in Tokyo). Bush and Co. define the new era all right. They just don't seem to recognize that a lot of players have changed sides in the meantime."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Go Left, Young Man

MyDD's Chris Bowers looks at pre-2006 Dem House gains and notes that Dems "re-took their non-southern majority in the elections of 1998, and have never lost it since." Anticipating a Dem takeover this year Bowers writes:

A Democratic win in the House would thus have the side effect of geographic shift in power in this country away from the South, and toward places often-maligned by conservatives such as San Francisco and Massachusetts. New York City, San Francisco, Boston, Hollywood--these would be the new seats of power in the House of Representatives.

Bowers explains that this geographic shift "has brought with it an ideological shift" away from the center and towards the left. Bowers notes:

Still, it can be clearly argued that the left-wing shift has not hurt House Democrats in any way, shape or form. We hold our largest lead in the generic ballot in over three decades. We have by far our best chance to retake the House since 1994. We have a good chance to take more Republican-seats than in any election since 1974. And we did it all while the House Democratic Caucus moved decidedly to the left in a short period of time.

Bowers concludes that these developments will prevent the MSM from explaining Dem victory in '06 by turning to "the familiar CW they have swallowed for two decades on how Democrats must win. This will be the first post-Dixiecrat, post-Blue Dog, post-DLC, post-triangulation, post-moderation victory for Democrats in a long, long time. It will be the first victory of the people-powered progressive era."

LEST WE FORGET: Coulter In Loafers

Outside the Beltway quotes New York Magazine's Adam Sternbergh's reaction after Stephen Colbert ended a segment on eating disorder with the line "Girls, if we can't see your ribs, you're ugly." Sternbergh writes:

The audience laughed. I laughed. The line was obviously, purposefully outrageous. But it was weird to think that this no-doubt self-identified progressive-liberal crowd was howling at a line that, if it had been delivered verbatim by Ann Coulter on Today, would have them sputtering with rage. ... Of course, I'm not trying to equate Coulter with Colbert. For starters, Coulter is a shrill, abusive demagogue and Colbert just plays one on TV. But with Coulter, there's always been a sturdy suspicion that she is playing a character (like Colbert) and amping up the obnoxious rhetoric for maximum effect (like Colbert).

OTB comments: "I think that's right. Coulter has gotten increasingly outrageous in recent years and, while that has led to polarization and alienation from many (like myself) who would naturally be in her camp on many issues were she not so extreme, she gets more popular with each increment of outrageousness. It's simply difficult for me to believe that someone of Coulter's intellect and education believes half the things that come out her mouth."