Yesterday’s New York Times/CBS poll highlights the rock behind Republicans’ backs, and the hard place hovering just beyond their noses.  A majority in both parties stated that Republicans opposed Obama’s stimulus package on political, not policy, ground, and that President Obama was “striving to work in a bipartisan way.”  Most said they expected years to pass before significant economic improvement became evident, another boon to the President, and to the prospects of his party in the 2010 elections should the economy be showing few signs of a turnaround.  With an approval rating of 63% and roughly 75% saying the President is making good on his promise to bring bipartisanship to Washington, Obama is sitting pretty.  Congressional Republicans, on the other hand, are viewed by 70% of respondents as acting in a bipartisan manner.

The long and short of it is that no matter what Republicans do right now, they can’t win.  To hop aboard with Obama would win no new votes and could possibly lose some, while nay votes promote the already prevalent perception that Republicans are playing politics with millions of Americans’ economic welfare on the line.  Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.  It’s a bad time to be a Republican on Capitol Hill.

I found Wendt’s criticism of Waltz’ conceptualization of international structure to be excellent and fascinating. Waltz goes to great lengths to acknowledge that political scientists have relatively little capability to predict action on the international stage, but also suggests that his conceptualization of international structure allows a certain degree of predictability because “similar structures produce similar effects,” (Waltz, p. 88) and because the structure acts as a kind of selector, limiting the avenues open to actors within the system. Wendt quite accurately points out that this structural model functionally can predict virtually nothing. While Waltz is a proponent of the study of individual actors, his structural model alone means nothing without the constituent parts and their myriad distinctions. I found Wendt’s work to act as a kind of “unified theory,” filling in the blank spaces in Wentz’ (and Walt’s) treatment of structure. Waltz seemed to dance close to Wendt’s eventual assertion with his depiction of structure as having arisen spontaneously out of the interactions of states – I would have been much more satisfied with his proposal had he taken the next step and identified the “intersubjective understanding and expectations,… the “distribution of knowledge,” that constitute [states’] conceptions of self and other.” (Wendt p. 396)

I found frustrating Waltz’ absolute demand that the properties of units within the system be completely detached from the conceptualization of the system itself, particularly given his occasionally shaky attempts at disjoining the two. “To define a structure requires ignoring how units relate with one another (how they interact) and concentrating on how they stand in relation to one another (how they are arranged or positioned)… How units stand in relation to one another, the way they are arranged or positioned, is not a property of the units. The arrangement of units is a property of the system.” (Waltz p. 80) This statement seems to me to be analogous to a game of four-square. If I take three friends, find a sidewalk, draw four squares in chalk on the ground, and we all take our places in our respective squares, do we find ourselves in the squares because the squares were there or because we drew them with the intention of using them to engage in competition, friendly or otherwise? The nature of the system is entirely dependent upon the nature of the individual units that exist within it if, as Waltz concedes, the system is a spontaneous creation of the units.

Waltz goes on to insist: “Although capabilities are attributes of units, the distribution of capabilities across units is not. The distribution of capabilities is not a unit attribute, but rather a system-wide concept… Variation of structure is introduced, not through differences in the character and function of units, but only through distinctions made among them according to their capabilities.” (Waltz, p. 98) It seems to me that Waltz is forced to exert considerable effort to dance a very fine line around his own rules in order to flesh his proposed structure out to anything beyond a simple statement that there are multiple units and there is also a structure of which they are a part. In this instance, isn’t the distribution of capabilities, or even Walt’s balance of threats, a direct result of the actions that the unit has taken? Those distinctions, even as a function of socially constructed perceptions of threats or capability gaps, exist because of the actions of the unit and, as such, the unique properties of that unit (ideology, defense spending, etc.). Thus, these distributions aren’t a function of the structure actively arranging things to fit together appropriately, but rather the structure passively allowing these changes to take place, which certainly can’t be described as a salient feature of what makes a structure unique and apart from the units within it.

It is my opinion that had Waltz not clung so stubbornly to his rejection of any form of reductionist analysis his book would have been much more cohesive. This is not to say that I don’t appreciate his thorough dismantling of what seem to have been very widespread analytical malpractices in political science research and theorizing, or that his ideas are entirely without merit. I am merely disappointed that he has dedicated so many pages to a somewhat flimsy and skin-and-bones depiction of a systemic theory.

Works Cited:
Waltz, Kenneth N. Theory of International Politics . McGraw-Hill. New York: 1979.
Walt, Stephen M. The Origins of Alliances . Cornell University Press. Ithaca: 1987
Wendt, Alexander. “Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics,” International Organization , Vol. 46, No. 2 (Spring, 1992) pp. 391-425

Juno was, in some senses, the inevitable result of the indie-film revolution that began roughly twenty years ago.  The progression of the independent film (which I will herein refer to in a more aesthetic sense, not financial) from, say, Un Chien Andalou in 1929 to exploitation films (Child Bride, Reefer Madness, Hell Up in Harlem, The Last House on the Left, Nam’s Angels) and art films (Breathless, La Dolce Vita, A Clockwork Orange, Last Tango in Paris, Taxi Driver, Eraserhead, Blue Velvet) through the early 1990’s reflects, I think, an artistic mode of expression that was so new and revolutionary in every phase that the ideas it attempted to convey were never at the cutting-edge of philosophical and literary thought.  The emphasis, and as such, the exploration was not centered around new ideas but rather new ways of realizing or portraying those ideas.  The small-town dysfunction and, to a degree, the surrealism of 1986’s Blue Velvet is not thematically leaps and bounds ahead of the tragedy of Emmanuel Rath’s fall from schoolteacher to cabaret clown to emotional and physical wreck in 1930’s Der blaue Engel.  The primary distinction between the two films is in the means used to convey the theme.  Naturally, Blue Velvet is a very different film because of advances in technology, but at a baser level the films are very similar.

What seemed to happen at some point in the early-to-mid 1990’s was inevitable — film caught up with the ideas it was attempting to realize.  There were no bounds save imagination.  Thus, there were only three directions a film could take from that point forward.  First, utilize this creative freedom to better grapple with the ideas we have.  Push the boundaries, explore new ways of considering our relationships with self, other, and the world, expand the realms of human experience to things which had previously been unexamined.  Second, attempt to perfect what already exists.  Take what we have and make it better.  Leave the boundaries where they are, but take the lessons learned from the experiences within them to perfect what was groundbreaking into what will be classic.  Third, do absolutely nothing.  In the absence of ideas to catch up to, abandon ideas entirely in favor of marketing demographics.  Create something that is definitively out-of-the-mainstream entirely for the sake of being so and to no greater end.  Crash (1996), Mulholland Drive, The Dark Knight, Requiem for a Dream, and Pan’s Labyrinth fall into the first category.  No Country for Old Men, There Will be Blood, The Savages, The Squid and the Whale, The Visitor, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, Good Night and Good Luck, Brokeback Mountain, and Lost in Translation are securely in the second category.  Juno falls neatly into the third.

To preface my criticism of Juno, let me first quote author Tobias Wolff.  “I have never been able to understand the complaint that a story is ‘depressing’ because of its subject matter.  What depresses me are stories that don’t seem to know these things go on, or hide them in resolute chipperness; ‘witty’ stories, in which every problem is an occasion for a joke, ‘upbeat’ stories that flog you with transcendence.  Please.  We’re grown-ups now, we get to stay in the kitchen when the other grown-ups talk.  Far from being depressed, my own reaction to stories like these is exhilaration, both at the honesty and the art.  The art gives shape to what the honesty discovers, and allows us to face what in truth we were already afraid of anyway.  It lets us know we’re not alone.”

While Juno is framed around the difficult subject matter of teen pregnancy, the avenue by which it approaches that subject is decidedly of the “witty” variety — a decision that relegates the film to the ninth circle of frivolity.  I suppose this is not altogether surprising, having been written by a woman who actually chose to be called Diablo Cody.  This choice very succinctly describes, insofar as I can tell, the nature of the writer and, resultingly, the nature of the writing.  Cody chooses her words carefully.  Unfortunately for her, me, and everybody else, choosing your words carefully is not in any way the same thing as choosing them well.  Take, for example, this line from Cody’s autobiographical work, Candy Girl.  “I racked up telephone bills that unfurled like the Magna Carta and hit the floor in tandem with my jaw.”  Now, I am as familiar as anyone with simile, but this sentence exemplifies the distinction between choosing words carefully and choosing them well.  Nothing can unfurl like the Magna Carta because the Magna Carta is written on a single piece of paper which is nowhere near long enough to unfurl in any way, whatsoever.  We are then left with another important distinction — that between perception and truth.  Anyone who doesn’t know that the Magna Carta is very short could certainly imagine what Cody was driving at in that sentence.  The distinction, however, between the good writer and the great, the difference between the expendable and the irreplacable, is equal parts intellect, love, and hard work.  You will never find Joyce or Hemingway or Ovid or Neruda refer to something that isn’t true.  Attention to detail is paramount to quality, and to be anything but accurate, to say, for example, that something is as pink as a bananna, is inexcusable.  Even if banannas ceased to exist, even if anyone who ever happened to read that clause did not realize that banannas were not pink, the statement itself would be false, would be empty, would be meaningless, and, as such, completely without worth.  Choosing words well is the centerpiece of value because without it meaning is lost, and it is there that Cody, regardless of the story being told, utterly collapses.

Juno is a film composed of a wildly vast array of very carefully chosen words, but none of those words were chosen well.  I cannot imagine, if I were to live a hundred thousand lives, hearing a convenience store clerk say the following:  “That ain’t no etch-a-sketch. This is one doodle that can’t be un-did, homeskillet.”  In point of fact, I can’t imagine hearing anyone say that.  Of course, the response is automatic:  “People in films don’t speak like real people.  That would be boring.”  Yes, it would.  That is where the art in filmwriting comes to its creative zenith.  The trick, the real magic of film is getting people to seem to speak like real people without actually doing it.  Replacing every single line of dialogue with outrageous witicisms provides absolutely nothing of value.  If the characters on the screen don’t appear to speak like real people do, or at least how we imagine they should, they cease, immediately, to be believable, relavant, or available to us.  The idea that, in order for us to believe a young female protagonist is witty and intelligent, or that she uses her wit to guard herself against some deeper insecurity, she has to utterly cloak herself in a collage of everything a 30-something attempting to relive their youth can grab at the local American Apparel is outrageous and absurd.  Some illustrative quotations:

“Oh, and she inexplicably mails me a cactus every Valentine’s Day. And I’m like, ‘Thanks a heap coyote ugly. This cactus-gram stings even worse than your abandonment.’”

“I’m not crying, I’m just allergic to fine home furnishing.”

“Can I use the facilities? Because being pregnant makes me pee like Seabiscuit!”

“No, this is not a food baby all right? I’ve taken like three pregnancy tests, and I’m forshizz up the spout.”

“I don’t want to give my baby to a couple who describes themselves as ‘wholesome.’ I was looking for, maybe, a thirty-something graphic designer with a cool Asian girlfriend who kicks ass on the bass guitar, but I don’t know, I don’t wanna get too particular.”

The last is, I think, the most demonstrative of the real nature of Juno.  The titular Juno is looking for the same thing Cody is, it would seem.  Appearances.  Cody wants Juno to scream of cultural relevance, connection to the youth, and the in-vogue ‘hipster’ mystique.  What is that?  Is it a film, or a marketing ploy?  Can you imagine what the couple Juno envisions are like as people?  She describes a visual, an ideal in the least important of ways.  A marketing ploy.  Jason Bateman’s character is eventually condemned for being afraid to grow up and deal with responsibility, but this is an afterthought at best.  Juno has her baby, everyone is happy, Bateman’s character is never spoken of again, and things at the close are exactly as they were at the beginning.  What, then, can one take from Juno?  It doesn’t matter what happens, as long as you speak in an uninterrupted string of pop culture references and puns nothing can have any impact on your life?  And why?  There is only one answer, and it is the most obvious.  Juno is, in no way, a film which attempts to deal with problems.  It does not, in any sense, portray anything human.  There is no real conflict, no growth, no fear, no anguish.  Convictions are not so much as rattled, conventions are not so much as glanced at.  Juno is a film made for exclusively one thing: to make money.  Cody and her cast piled up so much meaningless schlock to convince themselves and everyone else of their own relevance and cleverness and, from thence, new contracts!  As a cash machine, at least, Juno is a resounding success.  In all other respects it is an absolute failure.

The White House Staff

*****************************************

White House Chief of Staff:  Rahm Emanuel

Congressman Emanuel has represented Illinois’s 5th Congressional District since 2003.  He chaired the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2006, where he oversaw the Democratic gains that brought a majority to the party, and following the Democratic gains that year, which gave Democrats the majority in the House, he was elected chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, making him the number four Democrat in the chamber after Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, and whip Clyburn.  Emanuel is 48 years old, and has long been considered a rising star in Democratic circles — a fact evidenced by his extremely rapid rise amongst House Democrats.    Emanuel graduated from Sarah Lawrence College in 1981 and then went on to receive a Master’s Degree in Communication from Northwestern University in 1985.  Emanuel was a prominent advisor in Bill Clinton’s 1992 Presidential campaign, where he was renowned for his fundraising prowess.  He hit the trail with Clinton again in 1996, a cycle which would cement his reputation for being intensely committed to his political work, a ruthlessness which earned him the nickname “Rahm-bo”.  It is said that the night after Clinton’s re-election Emanuel stood up at his table at a victory dinner and began listing people who had criticized the President during the campaign, shouting “Dead!” after each and stabbing his knife into the tabletop.  He has since, according to friends, relaxed his attitude somewhat.

Emanuel served as a Senior Advisor to the President in the Clinton White House from 1993 to 1998, working first in Political Affairs and then as Senior Advisor for Policy and Strategy.  Emanuel was responsible for choreographing the famous handshake between Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat after the Oslo Accords.  Emanuel left the White House in 1998 to work as an investment banker, and from 2000-2001 he served on the board of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation before resigning to run for congress, replacing Rod Blagojevich who vacated the seat to run for Governor.

An interesting aside:  Much has been made of the bizarrely accurate parallels between the television series The West Wing and the 2008 election cycle, and Emanuel is one more facet of that eerie semblance.  In the show, a young Hispanic Congressman from Texas takes on a moderate Republican for the Presidency after winning a bruising primary fight against much more prominent members of his own party.  The campaign manager for that fictional Congressman, Josh Lymon, then goes on to become White House Chief of Staff after winning the election.  Lymon’s fictional character was reportedly based on Emanuel.

Deputy Chief of Staff: Mona Sutphen

Mona Sutphen graduated from Mount Holyoke College and the London School of Economics.  She served in the Foreign Service from 1991 to 2000, and spend the last two years of her work at State in the National Security Council under then-National Security Advisor Sandy Berger.  She presently serves on the Obama transition staff, and was previously Managing Director of Stonebridge International, an international strategic consulting firm run by Berger.  It is safe to assume that Sutphen will be advising Obama on international affairs.

Deputy Chief of Staff: Jim Messina

Messina, a graduate of the University of Montana, will likely act as a more political player, in contrast to Sutphen’s policy.  He is currently the Director of Personnel for the transition team, and prior to that acted as Chief of Staff for the campaign.  Before his work on the campaign he was Chief of Staff to Senator Max Baucus, Senator Byron Dorgan, and Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy.  It’s likely that Messina will be interacting frequently with Congress, the Senate in particular, as Obama has been packing his staff with Capitol Hill veterans.  Messina’s selection is indicative of what is looking like an aggressive administration that’s going to be spending a lot of time in Congress peddling its agenda.

White House Counsel: Gregory Craig

Another Clinton White House veteran, Craig, 64, has been a prominent Washington lawyer longer than I’ve been alive.  Most recently, Craig acted as a foreign policy advisor to Obama during the campaign, but prior to that was special counsel in the Clinton years, when he defended the President against impeachment.  A graduate of Harvard, Cambridge, and Yale Law (where he first met the Clintons), he first worked for Williams & Connolly, representing John Hinckley, Jr. who attempted to assassinate Ronald Reagan.  In 1984 Craig joined Senator Ted Kennedy’s staff as a senior advisor on defense and international relations, a post he held until 1988.  In 1997 he served as a senior advisor to Secretary of State Madeline Albright, acting as Director of Policy Planning from 1997 to 1998, until he was called into the White House to act as special counsel.  He played John McCain in the Obama campaign’s practice debates.

Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs: Philip Schiliro

Schiliro is a long time Congressional veteran, and has spent a very long time as one of Rep. Henry Waxman’s top aides — the same Waxman that just pulled a coup and nabbed the chairmanship of the House Energy Committee.  Coincidence?  Schiliro is presently acting as Congressional liason for the transition team, and previously served as Chief of Staff to Waxman and the House Oversight Committee, as Policy Director for Democratic Leader Sen. Tom Daschle, and as Staff Director for the Democratic Leadership Committee in the Senate.  Schiliro is well-known in Washington for being one of the brightest operatives on the Hill, and it certainly doesn’t hurt that he’s close to Waxman, who now chairs both the Energy and Commerce and the House Oversight and Government Reform committees.

Senior Advisor to the President:  Peter Rouse

Rouse was Obama’s Chief of Staff in the Senate, and was also Chief of Staff to Tom Daschle for nearly twenty years, Dick Durbin for two, and Terry Miller, Lt. Gov. of Alaska, from 1973-1983.  A gradute of Colby College, the London School of Economics, and the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, Rouse is a savvy political mind who’s long had a foot in both the political and policy sides of government.

Press Secretary: Robert Gibbs

Gibbs served as Communications Director in Obama’s Senate office, and served as Communications Director and later Senior Strategist.  He previously worked on a number of campaigns, most notably for Fritz Hollings in South Carolina, and in the early stages of John Kerry’s presidential race.  Gibbs is much more confrontational that Obama, as evidenced by his interview with Sean Hannity in which he asked Hannity if he was an anti-Semite.  Gibbs has perhaps spent the most time with Obama of any other member of the staff, having barely left his side in four years.  The whole “hope” thing?  That would be, at least in part, Gibbs’ brainchild.  Gibbs graduated from North Carolina State University, where he was the goalkeeper on the soccer team.

In less than 24 hours the polls will open in what is surely the most historic election of my lifetime.  With this wild and unpredictable campaign drawing to a close, it’s time for me to take a shot at what I think will happen tomorrow.

I predict that Sen. Barack Obama will become the first African-American President of the United States with a final tally of 52% and 356 Electoral Votes to Sen. John McCain’s 45% and 182 Electoral Votes.  Now for a state-by-state breakdown of what I think will happen, including key down-ballot races.

Certain Obama States - 228 Electoral Votes

Washington (11 Electoral Votes)

Oregon (7 Electoral Votes)

California (55 Electoral Votes)

Hawaii (4 Electoral Votes)

Iowa (7 Electoral Votes)

Wisconsin (10 Electoral Votes)

Illinois (21 Electoral Votes)

Michigan (17 Electoral Votes)

New York (31 Electoral Votes)

Maine (4 Electoral Votes)

Vermont (3 Electoral Votes)

New Hampshire (4 Electoral Votes)

Maryland (10 Electoral Votes)

Rhode Island (4 Electoral Votes)

Connecticut (7 Electoral Votes)

New Jersey (15 Electoral Votes)

Delaware (3 Electoral Votes)

Massachusetts (12 Electoral Votes)

District of Columbia (3 Electoral Votes)

Competitive Down Ballot Races in Obama States

Washington 8th Congressional District

Congressman Dave Reichert finds himself in a situation common to Republican incumbents this cycle.  I believe they’ve had some jackets made.  Reichert is a popular incumbent and a savvy politician, but he may just find himself out of work in January because of the widespread dissatisfaction with his party.  Polling through early October showed Reichert with a lead between six and eight points over Democrat Darcy Burner, who was a mere two points from unseating Reichert in 2006.  The two most recent polls, however, show Burner with a lead of four and the two tied at 46% each.  Burner has done an excellent job fundraising this cycle, and Reichert is going to have a hard time getting out his voters in enough numbers to push back against the Obama campaign’s voter mobilization efforts.  Obama’s momentum in Washington, combined with the Democrat’s tremendous ground game, should put Burner over the top against Reichert, who has yet to garner more than 52% in these Seattle suburbs.

Prediction:  Burner (D) 51% - Reichert (R) 49%

Oregon Senate

Republican Sen. Gordon Smith has been fighting against the prevailing political wins, a low approval rating, and a state that has been trending strongly Democratic in recent cycles.  State House Speaker Jeff Merkley is looking to benefit from the Democratic lean here, and all recent polling would indicate he is well positioned to cash in.  With Merkley’s numbers hovering just short of 50% and Smith stuck in the mid and low 40’s, it is a near certainty that Merkley will ride Obama’s coattails into the Senate.

Prediction: Merkley (D) 53% - Smith (R) 46%

California 4th Congressional District

Rep. John Doolittle’s retirement kept this race close.  After being mixed up in the Jack Abramoff embroglio, Doolittle had no choice but to retire.  After the story broke, but before any investigation had gotten into full swing, Doolittle squeaked past comically named Democrat Charlie Brown 49-46 in 2006.  Brown is running again, this time against State Senator Tom McClintock, who doesn’t actually live within 400 miles of the district.  Polling has Brown up half a dozen points, and Brown should also ride Obama’s powerful lead in California to victory.

Prediction: Brown (D) 54% - McClintock (R) 45%

Wisconsin 8th Congressional District

Democratic Congressman Steve Kagen only barely got by Republican John Gard in 2006, winning with 51% of the vote to Gard’s 49%.  Kagen, sitting in a center-right district, has made things worse for himself with a number of damaging gaffes, including an ill-advised swipe at Laura Bush.  Nonetheless, Kagen has found himself well up in the polls, and apparently the people of the 8th District are willing to give him a pass.

Prediction: Kagen (D) 56% - Gard (R) 44%

Illinois 11th Congressional District

Republican Congressman Jerry Weller is yet another veteran of the 1994 election who has decided to hang it up this year, and Republicans seem unlikely to hold on to this district given that the winner of the Republican primary has dropped out.  Republican Martin Ozinga has given Democrat Debbie Halvorson a run for her money, but Halvorson has been up over 10 points in the polls and Ozinga doesn’t seem to have much of a chance in the face of what will certainly be massive turnout to support home state candidate Barack Obama.

Prediction:  Halvorson (D) 56% - Ozinga (R) 43%

Illinois 10th Congressional District

Republican Mark Kirk beat Democratic challenger Dan Seals by four points in 2006, and the rematch has all the makings of another close race.  Kirk managed to win with 64% of the vote in a district that gave John Kerry a six point victory in 2004.  Unfortunately for him, Obama’s coattails in the Chicago suburbs that make up the 10th District are as long as anywhere, and polls since the credit crisis have punished Kirk.

Prediction: Seals (D) 53% - Kirk (R) 46%

Michigan 7th Congressional District

Republican Rep. Tim Walberg is embroiled in another rematch campaign with Democrat Mark Schauer, who Walberg beat out by four points in 2006.  Walberg beat out more moderate Rep. Joe Schwartz in the 2006 Republican primary.  Schauer ran against Schwartz in 2004 and lost 58-36.  2006 saw a six-point increase for Schauer and a ten point drop on the Republican side of the ballot, evidence that Walberg is a shade too conservative for this district.  Running almost neck-and-neck in August, the financial crisis, coupled with McCain’s pullout from Michigan several weeks ago, should give Schauer the edge.  Third time’s a charm!

Prediction:  Schauer (D) 54% - Walberg (R) 45%

Michigan 9th Congressional District

Republican Rep. Joe Knollenberg has been re-elected eight times, but most recently, in 2006, he only came out with 52% of the vote.  Democrat Gary Peters was a very successful fundraiser, and has done everything necessary to compete in this district.  Recent polling, most of which was conducted by the DCCC, shows Peters up between three and nine points.  Knollenberg most likely could have held on, and the race will amost certainly be closer than the DCCC’s polling suggests, had McCain not pulled his people out of Michigan.  Obama’s ground game and Peters’ well-run campaign should put Knollenberg back in private life.

Prediction:  Peters (D) 51% - Knollenberg (R) 48%

New York 25th Congressional District

The retirement of Republican Rep. James Walsh was yet another blow to House Republicans.  Walsh, despite having served as the 25th District’s Congressman for 20 years, only barely held off Democrat Dan Maffei 51-49 in 2006 — after winning 90-10 in 2004.  Republican Dale Sweetland has proved inept at fundraising and uninspiring on the campaign trail.  Maffei should run away with this one.

Prediction: Maffei (D) 61% - Sweetland (R) 39%

New York 29th Congressional District

Republican Rep. Randy Kuhl won in 2006 by a mere six thousand votes, and the man who nearly beat him two years ago, Democrat Eric Massa, is back at it again.  Obama’s strength in New York should carry Massa, who is polling roung eight points ahead of Kuhl, to victory, and yet another Democratic pickup.

Prediction: Massa (D) 55% - Kuhl (R) 45%

Maine Senate

Moderate Republican Susan Collins is popular in Maine, and, despite breaking her promise to serve only two terms, has been running strong all cycle.  Democratic Congressman Tom Allen has never been able to gain traction against Allen, particularly as his signature campaign issue, the War in Iraq, has faded from the headlines.  Collins should win reelection with relative ease.

Prediction: Allen (D) 41% - Collins (R) 58%

New Hampshire Senate

Republican Sen. John Sununu is having a difficult time in New Hampshire.  Despite being a highly respected legislator on both sides of the aisle, it’s simply a bad time to be a Republican in New Hampshire.  Sununu has his hands full with popular former Governor Jeanne Shaheen who has been consistently polling about ten points ahead of Sununu.  It looks fairly certain that Sununu will go the way of Lincoln Chaffee, the moderate Republican from Rhode Island who lost to Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse two years ago.

Prediction: Shaheen (D) 54% - Sununu (R) 45%

New Hampshire 1st Congressional District

Democratic Rep. Carol Shea-Porter looked to be in trouble two months ago.  She refused national Democratic money and ran a grassroots homegrown campaign, the same kind of race she ran in 2006 when she upset Jeb Bradley.  Bradley is now running to reclaim his former seat, but the financial crisis changed the dynamic of this race and Shea-Porter has been running strong ever since.  Obama’s ground game, combined with the bump Shea-Porter received in late August, should keep her in the House.

Prediction:  Shea-Porter (D) 52% - Bradley (R) 47%

Connecticut 4th Congressional District

Republican Rep. Christopher Shays is the only remaining Republican Congressman in New England, and the last two cycles have been nailbiters.  By all accounts, this race is as close as they come.  It’s races like these where the little things really come into play.  Sunny, warm weather and the overwhelming lead Obama holds in Connecticut should bring out enough voters to finally loosen Shays’ fingernails from the side of the 4th District.  Democrat Jim Himes has pounded Shays for months, but it’s luck that’ll give him the win.

Prediction:  Himes (D) 50.5% - Shays (R) 49.5%

New Jersey 3rd Congressional District

With yet another Republican retirement, the New Jersey 3rd is primed for yet another Democratic pickup.  Republican Chris Myers had to fight through an expensive primary and was left without much in the way of finances.  Democrat John Adler has seen his numbers rise substantially as the days wound down to Nov. 4th, and Obama’s voter mobilization efforts, which spill over from Pennsylvania into this southern New Jersey district, will give Adler the edge.

Prediction:  Adler (D) 52% - Myers (R) 49%

New Jersey 7th Congressional District

Republican Leonard Lance has been heavily outspent by Democratic opponent Linda Stender in this neck-and-neck race, but neither has been able to gain an advantage.  In a two week period the Lance campaign released a poll showing Lance up by nine points and the DCCC released a campaign showing Stender up nine points.  This is a classic example of a complete tossup race.  I’ll give this one to Lance just to spice things up a bit.

Prediction: Stender (D) 49% - Lance (R) 50%

I predict that Sen. Barack Obama will become the first African-American President of the United States with a final tally of 52% and 356 Electoral Votes to Sen. John McCain’s 45% and 182 Electoral Votes.  Now for a state-by-state breakdown of what I think will happen, including key down-ballot races.

Certain McCain States - 118 Electoral Votes

Texas (34 Electoral Votes)

Louisiana  (9 Electoral Votes)

Mississippi  (6 Electoral Votes)

Alabama  (9 Electoral Votes)

South Carolina  (8 Electoral Votes)

Tennessee  (11 Electoral Votes)

Kentucky  (8 Electoral Votes)

Nebraska  (5 Electoral Votes)

Kansas  (6 Electoral Votes)

Oklahoma  (7 Electoral Votes)

Wyoming  (3 Electoral Votes)

Idaho  (4 Electoral Votes)

Utah  (5 Electoral Votes)

Alaska  (3 Electoral Votes)

Competitive Down Ballot Races in McCain States

Texas 22nd Congressional District

Rep. Nick Lampson made news in 2006 for capturing former Majority Leader Tom DeLay’s seat in the Houston suburbs, aided by the lack of a Republican on the ballot due to DeLay’s resignation.  Republicans ran a nearly successful write-in campaign for candidate Shelly Sekula-Gibbs, whose name may well have cost her the election.  Seukla-Gibbs lost to Lampson 52-42, but Pete Olson, who is challenging Lampson this time around, is a formidable campaigner and will likely unseat the Democrat in one of the very few Republican pickups this cycle.

Prediction:  Lampson (D) 41% - Olson (R) 55%

Louisiana Senate

Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu has been widely viewed as the only vulnerable Democratic Senator in this election cycle, and former Louisiana state Treasurer John Kennedy switched parties to challenge her after coming in third to Sen. David Vitter and then-fellow Democrat Chris John in 2004.  Landrieu has never won with more than 52% of the vote, and the mass exodus of largely Democratic voters from New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina was a serious blow.  Kennedy, however, never seemed to gain traction in the race and has been polling well behind Landrieu.  Excitement amongst Louisiana’s black population over the candidacy of Barack Obama should boost Democratic turnout and carry Landrieu to a larger-than-expected victory.

Prediction:  Landrieu (D) 54% - Kennedy (R) 42%

Louisiana 6th Congressional District

Another prime opportunity for House Republicans is Louisiana’s 6th district, home of state capitol Baton Rouge, where incumbent Democrat and Louisiana-sounding-named Don Cazayoux faces Republican Bill Cassidy and African-American Independent Michael Jackson, who Cazayoux defeated in the Democratic primary for both this and the special election.  (No, not that Michael Jackson.)  Cazayoux has only been in the House since June, when he won a special election against an aenemic Republican opponent by only three points.  Recent polling conducted by the Cassidy campaign suggests a close race, with Cazayoux out in front in the high 30’s followed by Cassidy in the mid 30’s and Jackson in the mid-teens.  Only 9.6% of the population here is over 65, which is the demographic most supportive of John McCain, and the average age is a youthful 32.4, with younger voters breaking sharply for Obama.  Sunny, warm weather in Louisiana tomorrow should encourage extremely high turnout and offset the disadvantage Jackson’s campaign causes for Cazayoux.  Cazayoux’s lead in the polls, the demographics of the district, and the impressive $1.8 million raised by Cazayoux (compared with Cassidy’s $214,000) should be enough to keep this seat in Democratic hands.  Early voting numbers out of Louisiana as of Oct. 28 show that 266,880 of the 2.9 million registered voters have voted, 58.5% of whom were Democrats and 28.45% of whom were Republicans.  36.3% of early voters were African-American, notably higher than the 30.4% amongst all registered voters, indicating what will surely be a massive black turnout.  These early voting numbers certainly must be encouraging to Cazayoux, and only bolster his case.

Prediction:  Cazayoux (D) 44% - Cassidy (R) 37% - Jackson (I) - 19%

Louisiana 4th Congressional District

Congressman Jim McCrery’s (R) decision not to run for reelection left this district, which encompasses much of the north-western portion of Louisiana and is home to famed political mind Charlie Cook, a target for Democrats.  Although a conservative-leaning and largely rural portion of Louisiana, the 4th was held by a Democrat, Buddy Roemer, until 1987, when McCrery, a former Roemer aide, took over.  President Bush won nearly 60% of the vote here in 2004, but Sen. Landrieu carried the district in 2002 and then-Governor Kathleen Blanco, also a Democrat, won in 2003.  The closed Republican primary here has been a highly contentious between attorney Jeff Thompson, coroner John Fleming, and businessman Chris Gorman.  Caddo District Attorney Paul Carmouche, the leading candidate for the Democrats, is cruising towards victory in a relatively low-key race against retired Army officer Willie Banks, and should not face a third-party candidate like Cazayoux is in the 6th.  The election tomorrow here is actually the runoff for the final vote, which will be held on Dec. 6th.  The election was moved back due to hurricane damage in the region, as was the vote in the 2nd District, which is home to New Orleans.  If Carmouche comes out the victor on the Democratic side, as he should, he will face a substantially weakened Republican foe.  If Obama comes out the winner in the Presidential contest dissapointed Republicans could fail to turn out to vote in December, which would greatly benefit Carmouche.  Assuming Obama does win tomorrow, and Landrieu is also re-elected, Carmouche could very well pull an upset here.

Prediction:  Carmouche (D) 48% - Fleming/Gorman/Thompson (R) 46%

Mississippi Senate Special Election

This race, to succeed the retired Trent Lott for his remaining four years, has become unexpectedly close in recent weeks.  Republican Roger Wicker was appointed by Gov. Haley Barbour to fill the seat in 2007 when Lott resigned, having formerly represented the 1st Congressional District.  Democrat Ronnie Musgrove has previously served as Lt. Governor, winning twice in 1995 and 1999.  Wicker’s former home, the 1st District, went Democratic in the special election which replaced him this past June after awarding 64% of the vote to President Bush in 2004, foreshadowing, perhaps, the competative race to follow.  Wicker suffered initially from name recognition problems, being known primarily only to his former constituents in the 1st District.  He has since made up that deficit in a campaign somewhat reminiscent of North Carolina’s 2004 race, where former White House Chief-of-Staff and 2002 candidate faced off with former 5th District Rep. Richard Burr.  Burr overcame the name recognition problems in the final weeks of the campaign and finished five points ahead of Bowles despite polling showing him even at the finish.  The five point difference was generally attributed to George Bush’s coattails, which were certainly more beneficial four years ago.  There could be something of the reverse effect this year, however, with Sen. Barack Obama’s candidacy bringing out a very high percentage of the black vote in Mississippi, which makes up 36% of the state’s population.  Sunny weather on Tuesday, the large lead McCain enjoys in the state, and the extreme non-competitiveness of the other Senate race here (where Sen. Thad Cochran is 20+ points ahead of Democrat Erik Fleming) may have the effect of bolstering Democratic turnout while suppressing Republican GOTV efforts.  Research 2000 recently conducted polling in which 16 percent of their sample had voted early.  Among those voters, Musgrove led Wicker 53% to 47%.  Overall, the poll found that 51% supported Wicker while 44% supported Musgrove.  This six-point spread may well prove insurmountable for Musgrove, although I believe the numbers will narrow significantly when all is said and done.

Prediction:  Roger Wicker (R) 50% - Ronnie Musgrove (D) - 48%

Mississippi 1st Congressional District

This district, formerly represented by the afore mentioned Roger Wicker, went Democratic in the special election held to replace Wicker after he was appointed to the Senate.  Travis Childers, the winner of that election, is being challenged by the man he beat in June, Republican Greg Davis.  This is a conservative district, and will certainly break for Wicker and McCain.  Davis’ campaign has attempted to do the same thing it did in the special election — paint Childers as a pawn of more liberal Democrats in the House and Senate.  That strategy didn’t succeed in June, when Childers won handily 54-46, and it’s not likely it will work again.

Prediction:  Childers (D) 52% - Davis (R) 48%

Alabama 2nd Congressional District

The retirement of Rep. Terry Everett provides Democrats with an opportunity to pick up a seat in this very conservative region of Alabama.  Everett ran around 70% in each of his last three races in this district, but the Democratic victories in runoff elections in similar districts, some of which I mentioned previously, demonstrates the vulnerability of Republicans in even very conservative districts without a popular incumbent to rely upon.  Polling in the 2nd has been erratic at best, with two polls in August showing Democrat Bobby Bright, mayor of Montgomery, ten points ahead of State Rep. Jay Love, and a second poll showing Love ahead by 18.  The most recent poll, taken in late October, shows Love with a two-point lead.  That’s very close considering the nature of the electorate here, where Bush won with 67% in 2004.  This is truly a toss-up race, but the Democrats can’t win them all, so I’ll give this one to Love.

Prediction: Bright (D) 47% - Love (R) 53%

Alabama 5th Congressional District

The retirement of Rep. Bud Cramer provides the Republicans a rare opportunity to pick up a seat.  This conservative district gave 60% to Bush in 2004, a substantial margin, but Cramer outperformed Bush here by garnering 73%, while his Republican opponent only pulled 27% — less, even, than John Kerry’s 39%.  Surprisingly, the 5th District has never elected a Republican to congress, and Republican Wayne Parker seems unlikely to change that.  Democrat Parker Griffith should be able to ride Cramer’s legacy, and a strong black turnout, to Congress.

Prediction: Griffith (D) 56% - Parker (R) 44%

South Carolina 1st Congressional District

Republican Rep. Henry Brown is used to winning big since he went to Congress in 2000, winning in 2002 with 89% and in 2004 with 88%.  In 2006, however, his numbers dropped significantly - to 60%.  Facing a solid Democratic challenger for the first time in businesswoman Linda Ketner, Brown could be in trouble.  The 1st District is 21% black and the Obama campaign has been running ads in South Carolina.  High black turnout could turn this race against Brown.  Ketner was only five points down in late October.  I predict an upset.

Prediction:  Ketner (D) 50% - Brown (R) 49%

Kentucky Senate

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is in a surprisingly tough fight against the resurgent Democratic businessman Bruce Lunsford, who twice ran and lost in gubernatorial primaries.  Recent polling shows McConnell with a five point advantage over Lunsford with nine percent undecided.  For such a large number of voters to be undecided on a long-term Republican Senator from a solidly red state, who is the leader of his party in the Senate to boot, is a bad sign.  Lunsford hasn’t run a spectacular race, but a large turnout in Lexington and Louisville could put him over the top.

Prediction: Lunsford (D) 49% - McConnell (R) 48%

Kentucky 3rd Congressional District

Democrat John Yarmouth won this District from Republican Anne Northrup in 2006, a cycle which saw Northrup on the sidelines for two months after the death of her son.  This year she’s attempting to reclaim her seat, but Yarmouth has already solidified his hold on the district and is consistently polling up over 10 points.

Prediction: Yarmouth (D) 56% - Northrup (R) 44%

Kansas 2nd Congressional District

Democrat Nancy Boyda, who lost to former Rep. Jim Ryun in 2004 before edging into Congress with a four point win in 2006, faces Kansas state Treasurer Lynn Jenkins, who narrowly defeated Ryun in the Republican primary in early August.  Boyda has refused DNC and DCCC money in the race, because, one would assume, that would tie her to national Democrats.  Unfortunately, that also left her without much money to run a campaign with.  Late August polling showed Boyda with a five-point lead, but considering how quickly Ryun backed down following his primary loss Jenkins has almost certainly made significant gains since.  Boyda would have been better off listening to DCCC chair Rahm Emmanuel.

Prediction: Boyda (D) 48% - Jenkins (R) 52%

Wyoming At-Large House Seat

The retirement of Republican Rep. Barbara Cubin, who swept to office in the 1994 Republican tsunami, opened the door for Democrat Gary Trauner to try his hand again.  He ran against Cubin in 2006, eventually losing in one of the closest races in the country: 1,012 votes.  He immediately threw his hat back in the ring, and is now facing Cynthia Lummis.  Name recognition was inititally an advantage for Trauner, but his lead in polling evaporated by mid-October.  In Trauner’s favor is the fact that much of Wyoming will be seeing rain tomorrow, which is likely to lower Republican turnout in the face of an expected landslide for McCain there.  I predict a lucky break for Trauner.

Prediction: Trauner (D) 49% - Lummis (R) 48%

Idaho 1st Congressional District

Republican Congressman Bill Sali is in hot water in what should have been a safe Republican seat after a number of slipups and an aggressive fundraising effort by Democratic challenger Walt Minnick.  Sali may have lost his seat when he said that, “There are people out there without health care, and we need to address that, but it’s not as big of a problem as some people would make it out to be.”  Not the best move.  October polling showed Minnick up between six and seven points, and there’s no reason to believe those numbers have shifted.  Sali doesn’t hold on to his seat unless undecideds break for him nine-to-one, an unlikely prospect to be sure.

Prediction:  Minnick (D) 53% - Sali (R) 47%

Alaska At-Large House Seat

Republican Rep. Don Young had his party in fits when he won the primary by a mere 304 votes.  Why, you may ask?  Because Young has been embroiled in an FBI corruption investigation, amongst other things.  After 17 terms as Alaska’s congressman, Young has virtually no shot at holding on to his seat.  Polling has consistently shown Democrat Ethan Berkowitz aroung ten points up.  This seat looks to go Democratic for the first time since Young won it in 1972.

Prediction: Berkowitz (D) 55% - Young (R) 44%

Alaska Senate

To those of you following the news, the name Ted Stevens may sound familiar.  That’s because Sen. Stevens was recently found guilty of seven counts of lying on financial disclosure forms, which is a felony.  Democratic challenger Mark Begich, mayor of Anchorage, was running even with Stevens even before his trail wrapped up on Oct. 27.  A Research 2000 poll conducted between Oct. 14 and 16, before the verdict was announced, found Begich with a two-point lead.  When they conducted the poll again, between the 28th and 30th, Begich had a 22 point lead.  All of the sudden, Mark Begich is looking like Mark Warner.  I hope you enjoy the Senate, Mr. Begich.

Prediction: Begich (D) 58% - Stevens (R) 42%

PART TWO

The verdict was announced just after 4 p.m. in a packed courtroom in U.S. District Court in Washington. Stevens (R) sat quietly as the jury foreman said the panel had reached a unanimous decision and found Stevens guilty on all seven counts of filing false financial disclosure forms.

Jurors, who re-started their deliberations at 9:30 a.m. today when a juror was replaced by an alternate, were somber as they walked into the courtroom to deliver the verdict and did not look at Stevens. No sentencing date has been set, and Stevens’s attorneys are expected to file motions seeking to have the verdict set aside.

It is certainly too soon to determine what effect this will have on Stevens’ reelection race in Alaska, here he is running almost even with Anchorage mayor Mark Begich, but it is probably a safe bet to say that Stevens’ conviction puts a victory much farther out of his grasp.