We need to be out there proclaiming a Democratic Majority for the next Generation. So what if it's hot air? It needs to be out there.

"We have seen how modern Republicans govern--they can't. Their failiures are so extreme they must be given the time to purge themselves of these cancers and the money that metastasizes them."

I share your quease.

The reason for the queasiness, in my case at least, is that for the most part the Democratic Party (at least its most visible leaders) are barely different in name or in style than those that delivered 2000, 2002, or 2004.  (Howard Dean is the notable exception to that claim; but he's doing the electioneering, not the policy/direction/vision thing.)  So it's a quite reasonable worry that they'll blow it.  (It goes with that saying about doing the same thing repeatedly, and expecting a different result.)

What's most obviously different about this year is that the Republican's jig is up, so to speak, whether or not the Democrats have done anything to facilitate this result.  You can only be so venal and incompetent for so long before someone starts to notice.  This seems to be a year when the Republicans have conveniently committed hari kiri in a most public fashion, and as next in line, the Democrats stand to gain, if they don't get the urge to do themselves in as well.

Of course, Dean and the net roots are also a new thing this year (relatively speaking), and this does deserve at least some credit for the change in fortune.  Yet, it's hard to predict that the net roots will provide a continuing significant advantage over the Republicans long-term.  (I'd sure like to be optimistic about this, but I suspect that there's really no permanent advantage to be gained for progressives on the internet.)  At any rate, it does feel a bit like we should gather our roses while they're there for the plucking.

But the smell of the roses also generates a quandary:  should we start thinking about what to do in power (as Pelosi has just now started to do, it seems), or should we stay focused on victory, and hope that someone who has a clue will know what to do if they succeed come January.  The advantage of starting to think about policy now is that those who speak out and say what the Democrats stand for now is better positioned to step up into the policy-making that will eventually be done (if not in 2006-07, then in 2008 and beyond).  Getting the jump on making policy is important in the same way that getting a jump on an election is important:  change takes time, and them more done to organize around new ideas, get them into the MSM, and create coalitions around them, the better the chance of enacting them later, and to do so with some integrity, rather than as a PR stunt.

But starting to think policy now raises worries about alienating anyone who isn't just simply disgusted with the Republicans, and creating dissent within the ranks.  (Right now, Democrats are as unified as they can be, since they have essentially one message:  We're not those guys.  And everyone can agree about that.  Well, almost everyone coughJoeLiebermancough.)  So there are real risks in acting responsibly right now and trying to plan for leadership, rather than just trying to stay out of the way of the Republican debacle.

So, take some Xanax, and maybe for a day or two allow yourself to believe it.

And don't forget:  MyDD and you guys who run it are partly to blame (a small part, but not inconsiderable) for the fact that optimism is not unwarranted at this point in time.  You are changing the game, at least for now.  So embrace your queasiness.

Ump.

When the GOP is drowning, throw it an anvil.

I've got an idea about that, too.

You know the GOP's evangelical base has been most discouraged by the Foley scandal.  Why don't we find something else to bum them out about the GOP?

Keith Olbermann's just given us the ticket: Bush is a liar.

Except that needs re-framing for the fundie crowd.  So let's put it in religious language:

Bush has been bearing false witness about himself, about the Democrats, and a whole bunch of other things.  (Read or watch Olbermann for the details.)

As in "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness" which is one of the Ten Commandments they try to post in public places.

If I took a few good bong hits, I could imagine one of the Dems' Morality Squad (Obama, perhaps; I think I'd need LSD to imagine Lieberman) condemning Bush in those terms.  And if they did, putting a commercial with them saying that in heavy rotation on 'Christian' radio might just feel to them like Bush had tossed them an anvil.

The more we can drive down the enthusiasm and increase the depression of GOP-leaning evangelical voters, the more their GOTV network falls apart, and the greater our chances to win victories in truly surprising places.

"If nothing else, I think this feeling shows just how severely the 2000, 2002, and 2004 elections have scarred the Democratic psyche, and just how much worse things will get if we don't win this year."

Maybe your psyche is scarred, Mr. Bowers, but not mine.  On Election Day in 2004, when Kerry lost, I was sad for our troops and all of the people who were going to be killed by George Bush's policies, but I wasn't sad for the Democratic Party.  It takes long, slow, protracted tides for the great mass of American voters to see what perhaps you and I see sooner.  And in 2004 the mainstream voters in this country still didn't understand how completely corrupt and incompetent this administration was.  Now they do.

Think for a moment what would have happened if Kerry had won.  All that's happening now would still have taken place, but the Republican spin machine would have blamed the Democrats.  Kerry's narrow loss gave Republicans nowhere to hide, and for that I'm forever grateful.

Elections are not metrics.  They're snapshots that can unfortunately have terrible real world implications.  The goal of the Democratic Party should not be winning snapshots, it should be projecting a vision of the country that is in tune with what voters want and need.  In doing that, the elections will take care of themselves.

We need to win, America NEEDS the Dems to win.  I want them to win so bad that I have had knots in my stomach for weeks.  Don't see that changing till November 8th.  

After the loss in '04, took me a week to get out of bed I was sooo depressed.  Please, oh please, let America wake up this time!

Chris,

You're one of the good guys. I've loved reading your analyses of this election. As you may have noticed, my own analyses have been more optimistic than yours. But I come here everyday just to read what you think is going on.

I agree it's a strange feeling given the political climate over the past 10 years - beginning with Clinton's impeachment. We were always on the defensive. Be it the impeachment; or Bush's "inevitable" election victory in 2000 (remember what the pundits said then with Bush's consistant 15 to 20% lead in 1999 and the first half of 2000?); September 11; the 2004 election; etc. This is so strange because WE ARE CONSISTANTLY LEADING. Our message is getting through and people still support us. The curtain has been pulled back and wizard has been exposed.

I'm too young to remember most of the re-alignment type elections...but I do remember 1994. That was the first campaign I volunteered in (for Mario Cuomo in NY). This is just reminding me of that - but in reverse. We're winning in places where we have no buisness being ahead. That's what happened in 1994. The post-mortums of the election will almost certainly focus on Mark Foley, but, in my opinion, the anti-Republican feeling goes much, much deeper.

The Republican Party is beginning to smell like death. Don't let CQ, Stu Rothesberg (sp?), or any other Washington oddsmaker freak you out. This is going to be a BIG ONE for the good guys. I just feel it in my bones.

I'm just telling my fellow local Dems who keep telling me about these stats, "Look, first beat these mothers to death with the biggest bat you got for as long as you can.  Act like we're ten points behind no matter what until after Election Day - then you can relax."

At least a few are following my advice.  ;-)

...will subside considerably if some new polls would show all four CT races breaking out way.

"and I'm not really sure what to do, how to react, or even how to feel now that we have this absolutely huge advantage."

You keep playing hard to the final whistle. Mentally ignore the score board and pretend its neck and neck to keep you motivated.

Or as Kos would say, when opponents flailing "throw them an anchor."

A progressive agenda is not going anywhere unless you learn how to, and get used to winning big. Small victory margins are not enough.

Ok, I realize I'm kind of jumping the gun here, but to try and stay ahead of things--in part because the MSM gives NO coverage to House races other than aggregate numbers (since they're so bloody ignorant of politics and government)--I want to compile a list of when the polls close in each state.  I'm happy to share that, but before I do the legwork, I'm wondering if someone knows of such a list somewhere already?  I think IN & KY are usually the first states to close, at 6pm Eastern, but then I'm uncertain which time zone applies where in Indiana now that Gov. Daniels has messed it all up.

Great post, Chris.

I also suffer from that knot-in-the-stomach-walking-on-eggs feeling, and hope it goes away on Nov. 8, along with a large number of Republican lawmakers.

I further hope we win by a large enough margin to void any ballot tinkering by the opposition, which means we must woo the independents to our side in large numbers, as we marshall our fellow Democrats to the polls. To this end, I am pledging to paper my cars bumpers with stickers that will not insult the opposition, or those on the fence. I just bought enough bumper stickers to get me through the elections in November. I plan on changing them each week, in the hopes that one of them will strike a chord with an independent, and favorably influence their vote. We gain nothing by smart-alec put-downs of the opposition.

I also hope we can show humility if we win. The Republican gloating the last few years is going to look rather petty when they leave Washington with their collective tails between their legs.

And woe betide the Democrat who gives any indication of, "Now it's my turn!" payback instead of directly going about the People's business.

Let's show that we're bigger than they are.

Power to the People!

How come I fear that GOP will still win because of their superior GOTV apparatus.  In Maryland Ehrlich is doing phone calls encouraging people to vote absentee ballot.  Imagine--if there is organized absentee ballots he could potentially win against O Malley.

Nyah nyah, I called it.  :)

pessimism, but there is certainly reason for optimism as well.  At no point in the 2000, 2002, or 2004 election cycles were we measurably this far ahead at this point in the game.  Even 1998, which was considered a quite successful year for Democrats.  If we get it right, America could be a much better place.  

The thing is, the NRCC dropped $7.8 million -- but 90 percent of the House districts they put money into are districts they already hold.  Is there a list of these districts?  There may be a few districts that they're already conceding (like, say, AZ-08.)  29 of Chuck Todd's top 30 most likely districts to change hands are Republican-held seats, with IA-03 (Boswell) checking in at #30.

Right now, the GOP is conceding that they're going to lose seats in the House and are doing their best to cut their losses.  The Congressional session passed without them getting in a wedge issue that they can pin on us.  That's been the key for them in the past two elections: get a vote on some issue where public opinion favors them and crucify Democrats for trying to stop it.  That's not going to happen this time around.

All of our candidates need to be aggressive right now and go in for the kill.  Let the voters know that the Republican majority in Washington is driving the country into the ground and that their Congressman is part of the problem.  I know I pointed out during the CA-50 special election earlier this year that voters don't just have to know that Congress is doing a bad job; they need to know that their Congressman is part of the problem or they're not going to throw him out.

When we win will you being doing a little 'jig' naked on a bar stoool somewhere with Kos?  
Not that I really want to see that but it would be a fitting punishment for the negative words and vibes from the two of you.   ;)

Here's to some good vibes and a GREAT election outcome for the Democratic party and for all of the citzens of this country and the world!

Drink up and practice your bar stool dancing... OK?!

So, when do we get a nice line graph of your paranoia level?

1) The Republicans still count the votes; a lot of races are going to be within the 5% necessary for them to throw them to their own candidates.

2) There is no indication whatsoever that a Democratic win will do anything other than make the Party complicit in Republican thuggishness.  I honestly have no idea why one would celebrate a Democratic takeover of the House or Senate under current circumstances; since Bush's insanity regularly passes with large majorities, and since, based on their questioning of Roberts and Alito, those Dems charged with oversight are stupid, venal, and weak, all a Dem victory does is spread the blame around.

There's no point in winning when you can't do anything with it.  I'm staying home this November, for the first time in my life.

in sports.

Everything tends to drift back to the beginning. I learned that 20 years ago and it's why I'm reserved about November expectation. The long-ago political basics regarding 2006 were:

* too many gerrymandered seats for a huge House wave in either direction

* the Senate playing field is in red states.

Show me how that's changed. We will undoubtedly make big gains but on progressive sites the mindset is like parlay bettors, expecting everything to fall one way or the other. I'm always trying to restrain a private chuckle when someone lists 15 or 20 House seats in which Democrats lead at least one poll, sometimes by a point or two, and the number is added up as if it's a certainty all of them are cemented our way.

Thats's not reality or even modestly sensible. I can find a parlay card for tomorrow's NFL games with 6 outcomes, theoretically 50/50 scenarios, and the sportsbooks willing to give me 55/1 by aligning all 6 to tumble in the same direction. That's not much different than expecting 6 true tossups to each fall our way. Yeah, we can summon old quotes from Cook or Rothenberg regarding seats falling in one direction, but try putting it in action in a polarized era with both sides prioritizing congressional control. I simply refuse to believe it works that way, especially since House polling is sparse and not necessarily reliable, and in the Senate where the necessity is sweeping red regions like Ohio, Missouri and Tennessee, with Virginia a nice backup plan.

In 2004 the early diagnosis was Bush as an incumbent with his party in power only one term had a decisive advantage, 8 of 9 re-election successes since 1900 in that scenario. Plus he had 9/11 and national security fear as allies. Democrats spent the bulk of 2004 wanting to pretend those factors did not apply. The optimism in 2004 was always unwarranted. In 2006 it is valid but current levels, IMO, are bloated. Kind of like Tiger fans expecting a blowout over the Yankees. Hey, I'm not asserting it can't happen.:)

Is it my imagination, or isn't every single one of those data points above the red zero line -- i.e. shows a Democratic victory?

That said, there is one big advantage the Thugs have besides their ill-gotten moolah. Their guys control the defective voting machines which have been installed throughout the country, thanks to the Right to Swing the Votes Act. I think there is a pretty good chance that there will be many of them with little enough morals and a few of them with enough skill to swing a few counties and maybe states. We will probably see the phenomenon of 20% of the voters in some places changing their mind about who to vote for to the Thug candidate immediately before pulling the lever, and changing their minds back immediately afterward, in time for the exit poll. We should expect this, and be ready to fight it every way we can.

Now, I don't see them managing to swing many of the state and local elections, where we are likely to get the real Democratic landslide.

I agree with Gabe, generic polls are meaningless.  Voters always want to 'throw the bums out' but that means the bum in some other district.  They like their own 'bum'.  

What will democrats do when they win? Other than raise the minimum wage?  Will anything really change?  
If not then who cares?  Why should the democrat based be fired up to vote?  To prove some point or other?

The election is a month way, that's YEARS in political time.  

Don't count your eggs before they chicken out.  

I share Chris Bower's paranoia, but for a different reason: electoral fraud.  Given the investigations that a Democratic held House would conduct on the Republicans, even if it doesn't really want to, too many in the Republican leadership has to prevent this to keep from going to jail.  Electoral fraud is now just too easy and there are too many incentives for the Republicans to commit it.

Given the large Democratic lead in the generic ballot polls, and now in specific races, the fact that we've had one Republican Congressman resign for bribery and another for pedophia (actually sexual harrassment, but the headlines say pedophila), the collapse of the housing bubble (it was the collapse of the internet bubble that really did in Gore's campaign), continued depressing news from the Middle East, etc., I'm pretty much convinced now that if the Republicans do keep control of the House, it will confirm my view that electoral fraud is being perpetrated on a wider scale than at any time in our history.  But it will be spun in the media as an amazing comeback, and all sorts of specious reasons advanced for the Republicans turning things around.

However, I think the most likely scenario is that the Democrats win a narrow majority in the House, say 220-215, then just enough Democrats switch parties for the Republicans to keep control.  Or there are alot of people trying to find dirt on Pelosi.  But I'm too shellshocked from the last six years to believe that the Republicans will actually lose one.

I like Glenn Greenwald's take on it:  an intelligent designer is behind the Foley scandal, so obviously S/He is on our side.  

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/ 10/does-foley-scandal-prove-existence-of .html

But seriously, I hope we don't fall into the media/pollster trap of watching the horse race rather than doing so much GOTV that even Diebold can't mess up the victory.  (And in the case of shady results, I hope the netroots people lead a massive uproar, unlike in 2000 and 2004.  We cannot allow our gov't to be stolen again.)  

Meanwhile, we just have to get people to the polls, the old-fashioned way--rides to the polls, phonebanks, canvassing, etc.

"Certainly can't do anything WORSE than what Republicans have done,"

That's the problem -- they can.  If the Dems take control of the House or the Senate, and then do nothing with it, we've lost what little status we have as an opposition party.  Torture as US policy passing with a Republican House, Senate, and President is bad.  Torture as US policy passing with a Democratic House or Senate is even worse.