White Knuckle Time

“This country is going down.”

- Nevada voter quoted in the New York Times -10/30/10.

Democrats are headed for what, President George W. Bush called in 2006 a “thumpin.”

But people are not voting for Republicans so much as they are voting against Democrats. Most polls show Republican Congressional leaders are the least popular politicians in America.

Polls do show people are dissatisfied with the overall state of the country and see both parties as part of a larger problem. The anger with how the country is run that began to show in the 2006 election and so permeated 2008, is even stronger in 2010.

Struggling Americans knew that Bush and the Republicans threw them overboard. They thought Obama and the Democrats would pull them out of the water. Now they feel Obama has flown over them much like Bush flew over New Orleans after Katrina.

Average voters believe their situation gets worse no matter who is in power. When they look at the ruling parties they see a Republican Party that has abandoned fiscal responsibility and run up the deficit and a Democratic Party that has failed to protect the little guy.

What they see makes them angry.

In the past, when a government has not addressed its people’s anger it is swept aside. Often the political center takes control and tries and fails to bring a sense of order. When they fail, they are replaced by radicals.

The Tea Party is the result of a similar anger.

The message of the Tea Party is the country is broken and neither party can fix it - but we can. Their success occurred because it directly addresses people’s anger at the inability of Government to protect them and the perceived collapse of normalcy. The Tea Party has not stirred up anger, it simply has harnessed what has been building since in this country since 2005.

It doesn’t matter to voters if the Tea Party candidates have their facts straight.

That’s not important.

What is important is that government economic policy - be it the Democrat’s Keynsian economics or the Republican’s Laffer curve - have failed. That is why they are being evicted and laid off. “Celebrating Diversity” has only led to a socially divided society that that is falling apart. They think the experts were wrong on education which is now why Johnny still can’t read and their technical assistance is in India.

In the Tea Party mind, all of this is the result of failed policies, which were imposed by a growing and paternalistic government. Tea Partiers came of age when belief the government was lying and corrupt was the norm. Whether watching LBJ on Viet-Nam, Nixon on Watergate, Reagan on Iran-Contra or Clinton with Monica, the assumption has always been the government is not telling the truth.

On top of it all that they feel laughed at.

It stings when the pundocracy laughs at Sarah Palin’s short reading list, or Christine O’Donnell’s economic history. They feel the condescension when both women’s education is laughed at. Who has time to read when you are holding down to two jobs to keep the house? So what if it took both women a long time and a lot of schools to get a degree? Only 40% of American’s have a degree. Who can afford it with the cost of education rising faster than inflation?

To the Tea Party voter it feels like they have just been told by the elites “Let them eat cake,” and this stokes their anger even more.

The Tea Party has taken this anger and moved into the political space vacated by disenchanted centrists. Many voters supported the Democrats in 2006 and 2008 with the goal to change the system. The Democrats were going to end the harsh policies of Bush and protect the little guy.

Now in 2010, those voters don’t think that happened.

Obama brought in an economic team that seems more intent on protecting the banks than the homeowners they are evicting. Finance and Health reform seem tilted towards the industry they are supposed to regulate not to the consumer they are supposed to protect. Afghanistan grinds on, GITMO is open, Bush policies on government spying and surveillance remain in place. Bush’s frat house of insiders has been replaced by insiders from the chess club. Demoralized and disappointed centrists are staying home.

When the centrists stay home and the radicals are enraged, revolutions occur.

But in our political system being told to eat cake does not lead to the Bastille, it leads to the ballot. Rather than taking their anger to the barricades Americans sweep their governments away by voting.

In 1932, angry voters swept away the ruling classes of the day and brought Franklin Roosevelt to power. Roosevelt re-formed government’s function and role in society to what we see today. That was a revolution from the left.

In 2010, voters who are equally angry and afraid are poised to sweep away the current ruling class and again change the government’s function and role in society. What we could be witnessing this November is an equally strong revolution from the right.

The pundits could be wrong. This elections isn’t a repeat of 1994. It could be a repeat of 1932.

After The Fall

“I’m for the Republicans. But we were looking at eight to nine seats in the Senate. We are now looking at seven to eight in my opinion.”

Karl Rove – Fox News, After Christine O’Donnell Defeated Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del) for the Delaware Republican Nomination for the US Senate.(http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42205.html#ixzz10LeNYmLn)

Even if the Republicans don’t win a majority of the seats, will the Democrats really retain control?

Doubtful.

Let’s look at the best case scenario for the Democrats.

The Tea Party will have a Senator from Utah (Mike Lee), likely a Senator from Kentucky (Rand Paul), and a Senator from Alaska (Joe Miller). Add Scott Brown from Massachusetts, and you have four Senators (10% of the Republican delegation) who are Tea Party Senators. Now include Jim DeMint from South Carolina, who has funded many of these Tea Party candidates, you now have five Senators who have a strong Tea Party connection.

Worse yet for the Democrats, these five Senators owe nothing to the Republican Party establishment. Only Scott Brown of Massachusetts has shown any inclination to play along with leadership. But with the backing of four other votes, he is more likely to break away and work with this five person Tea Party Caucus.

These five Senators would all have their seats because they ran against both the Democratic and the Republican establishments. These five have no reason to listen to Mitch McConnell. Anything their leadership would want to do would have to go through them.

In the small clubby world of the Senate, power attracts power. Oklahoma Republican Senators James Inhofe and Tom Coburn are extreme - even by Republican establishment standards. They now have a strong group of allies in the Tea Party caucus, who can provide votes and political cover.

Now there are seven Tea Party votes, which potentially will not be under Mitch McConnell's control.

These seven Republicans who have no allegiance to the either the agenda, agreements or philosophy that have guided the Senate since 1980. This group will wrench the Republicans even further to the right into an even more uncompromising stance.

It gets more interesting.

Nate Silver at Fivethiryteight (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/) projects roughly an 85% chance that the Democrats will retain 50 Senate seats. He rates seven seats as having a greater than 50% chance of flipping from Democrat to Republican. Of those seven (North Dakota, Arkansas, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Illinois and Nevada), three of those likely takeovers would be with Tea Party candidates – Pennsylvania (Pat Toomey), Colorado (Ken Buck), and Nevada (Sharron Angle).

They bring the number of avowed Tea Party Senators to 6, add Inhofe and Coburn and you have 8. Include Jim DeMint who helped finance them, in some cases over McConnell's opposition, and you have 9 Tea Party Senators. This represents nearly 25% of the Republican delegation who owe allegiance only to their ideological purity and Jim DeMint, and not to the Republican Party leadership.

Up for election are six ideological sympathetic establishment Republicans who are not Tea Party candidates: Roy Blunt (R-Mo); Richard Burr (R-NC); John McCain (R-AZ); David Vitter (R-LA); Johnny Isakson (R-GA); Chuck Grassley (R-IA). After the election they will throw their lot in with the Tea Party Senators. This brings the number of Tea Party Senators to fifteen – an even more formidable voting block.

Add to the Tea Party Caucus, those Republican Senators up in 2012 who will cave to the Tea Party caucus to improve their re-election chances, and even if Mitch McConnell retains his leadership post, he won’t be calling the shots anymore.

Now think about what happens if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) looses.

Reid is in the fight of his political life, and stands a good chance to lose his Senate seat. Aside from the fact that a Sharron Angle victory would really embolden the far right Tea Party crowd, there is the impact on Senate leadership.

If Reid is out, it is likely Charles Schumer (D-NY) would take his place. Reid has been an effective Majority Leader. His ability to steer big legislation by Republican roadblocks testifies to that.

But one advantage the Republicans have had for years is Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has one of the safest seats in the Senate. He does not have to look over his shoulder with every move worrying about his election like Reid has had to. McConnell can be as partisan as he wants without fear of being thrown out. Schumer would be in the same position.

He has also helped a number of his colleagues get elected or retain their seats. So they owe him. The Senate would be run by two hyper partisans from safe seats not known for compromise. Everyone would posture for 2012 and for two years nothing will get done. The public’s anger will build. 2012 could make 2010 look like a walk in the park.

So regardless of whether or not the Democrats retain the control of the Senate it is hard to see how they can retain control of the Senate’s agenda.

No matter what happens they have lost the Senate.

After Labor Day

However, the headlines for this election have not yet been written, and there is considerable uncertainty in the outcome.

- Nate Silver predicting a 40 seat gain for Republican in the House

You don’t wear white after Labor Day, and voters don’t begin to focus on elections until then either. The current conventional wisdom is that Democrats will loose control of the House and maybe the Senate.

Two weeks ago the Gallup poll that put the Republicans 10 points ahead of Democrats in the “Generic Ballot”, created a lot of headlines and a lot of panic for the Democrats. Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner (R-O) was picking out drapes for the Speakers office.

Not so fast.

Looking at the Generic Ballot poll over the summer shows how volatile this measure is. Nate Silver wrote on 08/31/10 (The Democrat’s New Normal http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/page/2/) that this lead could be statistical noise, in the same way the Democrats lead had been several weeks before.

Sure enough on 09/07/10 Gallup released the next “Generic Ballot” poll, and the Democrats and Republicans were tied at 46% each. On 09/13/10 Gallup “Generic Ballot” poll has the Republican ahead by five points. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/142982/Generic-Ballot-Splits-GOP-Dems.aspx). There is plenty of movement in these numbers.

There is a correlation between the generic ballot polling results and the number of seats won or lost. Looking at these numbers the Republicans are in for a strong showing this election cycle. There is still room for growth in support for the Democrats. 98% of Republicans support their Party while only 90% of the Democrats support theirs. If Democrats come home the election will tighten.

What really matters is a district by district look at the House races. But, this view has its own problems.

Nate Silver of Fivethirtyeight.com created a stir when he released his model of the House races and predicted a 2 in 3 chance that the Republicans will take the House. (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/).

Silver is a respected statistician with an excellent track record. He did have some caveats for his results. One was the lack of objective non-partisan data. In most districts, there were either no polls to use, or polls that were released by the campaigns themselves and were not reliable. Even then there are 90 districts where either party has a 10% chance or better of prevailing. There is, as Silver himself says a lot of uncertainty out there.

On the same week that Fivethirtyeight.Com released their prediction, Electoral-Vote.com released its prediction on the House races. They predicted the Democrats will retain a slim margin in the House with a Republican pickup of 30 seats. (Post on September 11, 2010, http://www.electoral-vote.com/)

Electoral-Vote.com has been up since 2004 has been fairly accurate in its predictions. It uses a different statistical method than Nate Silver to make its predictions.

Silver runs thousands of simulations to account for random events in the election. Electoral-Vote.com tests races against a set of algorithms and predicts the outcome based on whether the condition passes the test or not. For example they start with the view that historically, 85% of incumbents have been reelected. As a result they rates seats where the incumbent won the last election with more than 55% of the vote as safe and not a toss-up.

This difference in models leads to different results. For example Silver suggest the Democrats have only a 51% chance of flipping LA-2 from Republicans and rates this as a toss-up. Electoral-Vote.com sees this as a solid Democratic seat. It has a PVI of +25% for the Democrats, it is a “Minority Majority” District being nearly all black. A Republican had not won the seat between 1891 and 2007. They only did so when former Rep. Jefferson was caught with $90,000 in his refrigerator.

At this point in the cycle the only people really focusing on they election are hard core activists and political junkies. Many average voters don’t even know an election is taking place.

The activists most motived are the Tea Party and they are a major reason for the “enthusiasm gap,” which favors the Republicans. This number is good indication of which party is most likely to turn out to vote. But, the Democrats have a better field operation and the funds on hand to finance a strong get-out-the-vote effort. This could counteract the Republican “enthusiasm.”

But even with the huge “enthusiasm gap” in favor of Republicans, many key races are very close. Carly Fiorina trails Barbara Boxer by 2 points. Sharon Angle trails Harry Reid by two points. Meg Whitman, after spending a 100 million dollars of her own money, is only 2 points ahead of Jerry Brown for CA Governors race even though he has only just now begun to campaign. Races are close in Illinois, New York State, Kentucky.

The Democrats are still competitive.

Speaker Pelosi has made a wise choice that will pa off to let the election play out district by district, each candidate sating their case to their own constituents.

So It is left to President Obama to make the case nationally, and remind everyone what is at stake if the Republicans gain power. Now is the time. It’s after Labor day - when elections are won or lost.

An Alaskan Warning?

There's not much doubt things are getting worse for Democrats -- and they were already pretty bad. Somehow the party base needs to get reinvigorated over the next two months or there's going to be a very, very steep price to pay.

- Tom Jensen Public Policy Polling

Lisa Murkowski (R-ALK) was in trouble. Throughout the primary in Alaska it was a given that Murkowski would beat Tea Party Express candidate Joe Miller for the Republican nomination for Senate. With only a deficit of 1,688 votes and close to 7,600 absentee ballots which can be counted as late as two weeks after the primary, Lisa Murkowski needed to get over 56% of the outstanding absentee votes to have done so. But by Tuesday morning it was obvious she wasn’t going to pull ahead of Joe Miller.

On 8/31/10 Murkowski conceded defeat. She had not ruled out a third party or write-in run for the seat. But the Libertarian Party said they would not put her on their ticket. She could still run as a write-in. But for now she says she will go back to Washington, finish her term and come home.

In a post released on 08/289/10 Public Policy Polling (http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/08/alaska-senate-race.html) the Democratic nominee Scott McAdams, is in a strong position. He is running even with the Republicans with the support of 42% of Independent voters. He has a unified Democratic party behind him with the support of 81% of his party’s voters. But with an 18% deficit in party Registration any Democrat has an uphill battle in Alaska.

McAdams may benefit from the fact that Joe Miller, like Sharon Angle has some very extreme positions. These positions may send independent voters as well as disappointed Murkowski voters his way. But currently the Republicans are favored to retain the seat.

Looking back to the one poll taken in the primary, Nate Silver of Fivethirtyeight.com pointed out that Miller had surprising hidden strength in voters. (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/26/a-closer-look-at-alaska/) A large plurality of voters who knew both Murkowski and Miller supported Miller. In July when the poll was taken 65% of voters didn’t even know who Miller was. With Miller’s name recognition being so low, this was a warning to Murkowski that as voters got to know Miller they would abandon her and vote for him.

Is there a similar warning to the Republicans nationwide?

For most of this cycle In the Congressional generic ballot question tracked by Gallop, the Republicans have held a lead of anywhere between 3-7 points. When the question gallop asks changes from a Generic ballot question to “Do you think your Rep should be reelected?” a majority of respondents say yes. With Democrats in a solid majority this should translate into some seat stability.

The other interesting number shows in a CNN poll. The more Republican voters cite animosity for Obama rather than a support for the Republican party platform as their reasons for voting for Republicans.

How will this play out?

If Obama begins to engage the 2008 voters (likely) and if he increases his popularity (possible), voters whose allegience to the Republican cause is more through anti Obamaism may drift away, just as Murkowski supporters went to Miller.

This is possible. One thing polls have shown consistently is that Republican congressional leadership ranks last in support behind both Obama and the Democratic leader. Republican Congressional leadership does not even have a majority support among likely Republican voters, (for example : http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_National_813.pdf).

A chart published by Gallup also shows that looking across the entire cycle Republicans had a lead outside of the margin error only once - throughout the month of August. The August 31 poll that puts the Republicans ahead at 10% while not good news for the Democrats, may not be the final word. The lead in this poll has changed several times since May. Which indicates soft support for both Parties. There was nothing in the news this week that would drive a seven point spike in the poll for the Republicans. So this lead could be the start of a trend, or just as likely statistical noise.

Right now the two main groups focussed on the election are pundits and Tea Party members. At this point only the hard core and the activist know an election is underway. The average Democratic voter simply isn’t engaged yet. The closer a race gets to election day the tighter it becomes. This one should be no different.

The Democratic party also has a significant edge in cash to use to get out the vote and engage their voters. They have the financial resources to buy $48 Million of advertisements to run two weeks before the election. This, with a stronger get out the vote infrastructure could make the difference in close races.

The nuts and bolts of getting voters to the polls can carry a weaker candidate past a stronger candidate with a poor get out the vote operation. That is what made the difference for Blanche Lincoln in her primary win.

So don’t count the Obama machine out. On 8/25/10 President Obama sent an email message to members of Organizing For America, the PAC he formed after the 2008 campaign, based on his list of volunteers and contributors. In the email Obama asked PAC members to support Jerry Brown’s (D-CA) campaign for Governor of California.

So many people responded that the Brown website crashed.

The enthusiasm for Democrats is there, it is simply waiting to be tapped. It is not too late for Democrats to tap in. Voters may simply waiting to be asked.

And that could make the difference.

Torture and the 14th Amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

- Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution

If you listen to the Republicans, people are streaming across the border to have babies which become US citizens.

To counter this “danger” presented by these “anchor babies” the Republicans are pulling out all the stops to repeal Section 1 of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution. Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) is the latest to jump on this bandwagon.

The 14th amendment was one of the three great reconstruction amendments. passed after the Civil War. It creates a hard bright line defining who is an American citizen.

It’s simple, if you are born here you are one.

The framers included no description in the constitution of what defined a citizen. But then again they did not explicitly define other basic freedoms we take for granted. To them, it went without saying that citizens of a Republic would automatically enjoy those freedoms as part of their natural rights. Even after these rights were specified in the constitution as a price for its passage, everyone assumed that if you were in America you were a citizen.

That is until 1856 and the US Supreme Court’s decision in Dred Scott.

In Dred Scott, the Supreme Court denied the rights of citizenship to free African Americans and reduced the legal standing of slaves to nothing more than that of a chair. It was the first time that a branch of the US government moved to deny citizenship to any group of free people.

After the Civil War, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment was designed specifically to overturn Dred Scott. It clearly defines who is a citizen and that all citizens have rights against the power of the government.

So why tinker with the 14th Amendment?

The obvious answer is politics.

The Tea Party is running the Republican party and anti-immigrant xenophobes are a powerful wing of the Tea Party movement. Sen. Graham came out in favor of altering birth-right citizenship because he is up for re-election in 2012 and is already under pressure from the Republican right in South Carolina.

He can score a lot of points with his base and shore up his right wing without paying a political price. After all, voters who support birth-right citizenship aren’t going to vote Republican anyway so there is no great risk involved.

Or is there?

The short term risk is not to any one Senator or Congressman’s seat. The risk is to the long term principles of the country and how we define ourselves.

In politics, fringe ideas can become mainstream, and once they are mainstream they become policy or law. If these ideas don’t make it to law, they can become an accepted part of the country’s philosophy.

Racial integration, supply side economics, Charter schools and same-sex marriage are all ideas that were once fringe ideas that are now mainstream. Their supporters moved these ideas to the mainstream incrementally, by creating a smaller framework for debate off the political center. This made it easier to win support for each of these ideas. Winning these smaller debates moved the political center towards these idea’s eventual acceptance. But if the framework of those debates had been too far from the center, supporters would have created stiff opposition which would have caused those ideas to fail.

National health insurance is a good example of this. The Clinton national health insurance initiative failed not because of the “Harry and Louise” ads, but because the debate was far off the political center of the time. So it was easy to paint it as extreme, stir up opposition and defeat it.

Fifteen years later we now have “health care reform” not “national health insurance.” The topic itself shows how the debate shifted. Obama and the Democrats won because they made the debate about health insurance access, which was left of center, but gave up on public option which was too far left of center. Obama’s reforms are now the new center, which is closer to the defeated public option proposals. As a result, in the future, it will be easier to debate those proposals again and turn them into law.

The risk in the debate on the 14th Amendment is that it will follow the path of the debate on torture, which lead Americans down the road from moral outrage to apathetic acceptance. Between 2002 and 2010, the discussion around torture went from should we do it, to how we should do it, to acceptance.

Initially, supporters of torture successfully moved the debate from the high moral ground of their opponents and staked out an acceptable position as far right as they could. The debate became less about enforcing and adhering to international law and more about what would you do if a bomb were ready to go off? Would you follow the law, or slap the bomber silly until he confessed? Once supporters of torture got the country to believe that slapping was the way to go, the rest was easy.

Now torture is accepted, and is not even part of the public discourse.

In the torture debate the danger was the terrorist. Now the danger is the illegal immigrant who comes to the US to have a baby. Never mind that according to the US Census Bureau, in 2008 only 8,000 “anchor babies” were born in the US.

8,000 babies is equal to 160 babies per state. This is hardly a dangerous wave.

But to protect us from this “danger” politicians want to redefine who gets to be a citizen and enjoy all the rights that citizenship brings. They know they won’t be able to repeal the 14th Amendment. But they learned from the “torture debate” that by pushing an extreme solution into the main stream debate today, tomorrow they can successfully pass laws narrowing the right of citizenship.

That is more dangerous to the fabric of America than 8,000 “anchor babies.”

"...the door's wide open, it's going to happen, whether you like it or not!"

"I do not believe it's appropriate for me, as mayor of San Francisco, to discriminate against people. And if that means my political career ends, so be it."

- Mayor Gavin Newsom in February 2004, on his decision to allow same sex marriage in San Francisco. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/22/same.sex/index.html)

"This is an overwhelming record that supports the fact that individuals are being hurt ... and that California has no rational basis for continuing the discrimination.

- Former Solicitor General Ted Olson, in arguments for overturning Proposition 8; California’s Ban on same sex marriage.

In January 2004, as the Presidential election was getting underway, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom (D) ordered City Hall to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.

Newsom took heat for handing the Republicans such a volatile social issue to use against the Democrats. Many blamed him for Kerry’s loss in key swing states, and the consequent re-election of President Bush. Mayor Newsom never wavered from his decision and stood by it even under intense pressure by Democrats.

As a direct response to Newsom’s actions, in 2008, California voters approved Proposition 8, banning same sex marriage, with 52% of the vote.

What a difference two years makes.

On 08/03/10, Chief US District Judge Vaughn Walker (a Reagan appointee) of the 9th Circuit of Appeals, overturned Proposition 8. This ruling is the first time that a Federal Court has ruled that a State proposition on same sex marriage violated the US Constitution.

Judge Walker ruled that voters simply couldn’t legislate a personal moral choice without a compelling interest by the State to do so. The proponents had not, Judge Walker ruled, proved such an interest. He stayed the implementation of his ruling to give supporters of Proposition 8 a chance to appeal.

On Thursday, 08/12/10, Judge Walker lifted his stay, effective Wednesday 08/16/10. He ruled that as the State had decided not to defend Proposition 8, this left its defense in the hands of private groups. Judge Walker ruled that those groups may not have standing to argue the appeal. Even if they had standing he said, they had not shown that they could prevail. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/12/MNFA1ERRMV.DTL).

In 2004 the GOP embraced opposition to same sex marriage with open arms. In 2010, other than the expected howls of outrage from the far Right, the GOP has stepped away from this issue.

Why?

It is no accident that big cultural shifts happen in boom times. Whether it is women wining the vote in the roaring 20’s or the civil rights movement in the 60’s, people can focus on these issues when they feel safe and secure.

Consequently, in boom times, the main difference between political parties becomes social issues. In 2004 the economy was ridding the housing bubble and people were living well. The Republicans were able to use social issues to define the difference between Bush and Kerry and keep the White House.

In bad economic times, voters couldn’t care less about the culture wars. The unemployment number becomes the issue a challenger uses against the incumbent. When someone is out of a job, out of benefits and out of their house, they don’t care who their neighbor marries. They only care about what stands between them and a job.

In 2010 the Republicans are openly stepping away from social issues. A few hard right think tanks and commentators railed against Judge Walker’s ruling, but the Republican Party itself instructed candidates to ignore it and keep hammering away at the economy.

Same sex marriage is a generational issue.

Younger generations are more likely to support same sex marriage than older generations. In a CNN poll released on 08/11/10, (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/08/11/rel11a.pdf) 49% of respondents said gays and lesbians currently have the right under the US Constitution to marry. But there is a 20% gap between generations. 38% of respondents older than 50 said they do, while 58% of respondents younger than 50 said they do.

When asked if gays and lesbians should have the right to marry, 52% of respondents said yes. Again there is a 20% gap between generations. 41% of respondents older than 50 said they should and 61% of respondents younger then 50 said they should.

In this poll, 67% of Democrats and 55% of Independents support same sex marriage. But only 32% of Republicans do. Even if Republicans were to focus on opposing same-sex marriage, that message will resonate mainly with older, white male voters. It will excite a base that is already motivated to vote this November, but if it alienates independents, is not large enough to carry Republicans to victory. Republicans can’t afford to alienate independent voters if they want to win elections now, and they can’t afford to alienate younger voters if they want to win in the future.

Two years after Proposition 8 passed, Mayor Gavin Newsom (D) is leading the incumbent, Republican Abel Maldonado by 7 points in the California’s Lt. Governors race, (http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/state&id=7547919).

When a voter posted a comment to the Maldonado campaign’s Facebook site, saying that he was so disappointed in Judge Walker’s ruling that he was thinking of not voting at all, Maldonado didn’t mention the issue directly. He simply said it is going to be a close race and everyone should vote.

Maybe establishment Republicans finally realize they are on the wrong side of history.

As Gavin Newsom said in January 2004:

"...the door's wide open, it's going to happen, whether you like it or not!"

Long Odds

17%

The chances of the Republicans taking over the Senate as calculated by Fivethrityeight.com

7%

The chances the Senate Democrats will pick up an extra seat as calculated by Fivethrityeight.com

Both calculations assume Charlie Crist (I-FL) will win and caucus with the Republicans.

There are some interesting races going on right now that seem to be flying below general media coverage. How these stealth races go, could decide who controls a closely divided Senate.

In the Louisiana Senate Race, where Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) the incumbent, will likely run against Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-LA). Several years ago Sen. Vitter was implicated in the “DC Madame” case when his phone number appeared on one of her client lists. Vitter showed other politicians the blueprint for how to handle a sex scandal: show up at a press conference wife in tow, loosely deny everything, go back to work and say nothing.

It seemed to work.

The Republicans stood by him, because then Gov. Kathleen Blanco, a Democrat, would have appointed his successor had he resigned. The Senate ethics committee wouldn’t investigate as Vitter was a member of the House at the time he made the calls. The House issued at toothless reprimand.

Vitter was a lucky man.

Until recently, when the story came out that Vitter kept a male aide on staff who had held his girlfriend hostage at knifepoint, it looked like Vitter would cruise through his reelection. As a result Vitter drew strong challenger for the August 28th primary, in former State Supreme Court Justice Chet Traylor.

Traylor was seen as straight shooter and a strong candidate until stories surfaced that he had been accused of having an affair with State Senator Noble Ellington’s wife, Peggy McDowell, who divorced Sen. Ellington and married Traylor. Traylor denied the accusation saying Ms. McDowell and Ellington were already separated when their relationship started.

Ms. McDowell Traylor died last year, and now Traylor is accused of having an affair with the estranged wife of his stepson, Denise Lively, who is married to, but separated from Noble Ellington’s son, Ryan.

While the Republicans were embroiled in their series of controversies, Rep. Charlie Melancon was still out there campaigning hard. He has released several ads about Vitter covering up for his staffer. These ads have hurt Vitter and have gotten voters to think about an alternative candidate. With Traylor having trouble those voters are beginning to look at Melancon. Melancon released an internal poll showing he was pulling even with Vitter.

True, it was only an internal poll. But Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark) would be delighted to have an internal poll like this to release.

Elsewhere, in California, Republicans were excited about the chance of taking Barbara Boxer’s (D-CA) seat. Boxer’s approval ratings were below 50%. Each time she runs, Republicans and the media believe she is a vulnerable candidate, and each time she runs a strong campaign and wins. In 2003 Boxer had all but announced her retirement. But she changed her mind and in 2004, she won reelection with 58% of the vote. Boxer out polled John Kerry in California by 210,000 votes.

To take Boxer on, Republican’s nominated Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard. Fiorina is best known for the contentious merger between Hewlett-Packard and Compaq Computers. Her previous foray into politics was her stint as an economic advisor to the McCain Presidential campaign, That ended abruptly after she publicly questioned Sarah Palin’s qualifications. Boxer’s message of “I chose public service while she chose to ship jobs overseas” has resonated throughout the state. She has built a solid lead in a race that until recently had been rated a toss up or a Republican pick-up.

North Carolina is another stealth race to watch. Odds are that incumbent Richard Burr (R-NC) will break the “one and done” curse on John Edward’s old seat. This seat has turned every cycle since Jesse Helms protege, John East (R-NC) won it back in the 80’s. But an internal poll released by his Democratic opponent, Elaine Marshall put her ahead. Granted it is an internal poll but, Burr has to be nervous.

Historically races tighten as election day draws near, and in North Carolina, there are alot of undecided voters up for grabs. Generally at this point in a race, most undecided voters do not support the incumbent but haven’t made up their mind on the challenger. Burr will have a harder sell than Marshall with these voters. If there is going to be an upset in 2010 this is where it will be.

In today’s world of short news cycles the election is a long way off, and voters have not begun to focus on the candidates. After they do the odds may change and we will all be surprised.