“Voters aren’t much swayed by promises to improve upon all the unprecedented legislation we’ve achieved for bankrupt financiers, insurance companies, and so forth. This is a recipe for debacle and Democrats can expect an unlikely, super-undeserved Bush recovery to persist thereafter.”

Nevermind the “shock” polls. Wait until W. is respectfully campaigning in safe, or relatively safe, districts in 2012. There’s your coup de grâce.

Barry, you’re doing a heckuva job. Dude.

(h/t: Jackohoft)

When does the head of the Democratic Party refuse to endorse the Democratic nominee in the MOST Democratic state in the union.

In the age of Obama it seems.

Obama's Press secretary said that Obama was not endorsing the Democratic nominee for governor of Rhode island because Obama and former Republican Senator Chaffee, who now has taken the lead in the polls since Obama's visit to R.I., were "friends."

WHAT!?

Let us remember that in 2006, Caprio, the endorsed candidate of the Democratic Party, was elected General Treasurer of Rhode Island, receiving 73% of the vote. He won by a larger margin than any candidate for a contested statewide office in Rhode Island that year.

Very simply, in 2010, Frank Caprio IS the Democratic Party's choice to be the Ocean state's next Governor.

ALL of the coverage about how Obama very publicly chose not to endorse Democrat Frank Caprio, our candidate for Governor and the currently RI's Democratic Treasurer, in Rhode island has been about the "shove it" comment.  I have only seen two people in the ENTIRE media mix (thank you google) even mention how unprecedented it is for the titular head of a political party to help elect someone NOT in his own Party.  (Thats taught on day one of Party politics 101 for you people new to politics)

It is unforgivable to every Democrat who cares about his country and his Party that the head of our Party made a big public thumbing of his nose at our Democratic nominee for Governor of Rhode Island.

Making such a public show has very possibly killed our chances of winning there. That was to be expected and sadly, it was intended to do just that.

Proof of this is David Axelrod press statements that added fuel to the fire, further damaging Democratic chances to win.

White House senior advisor David Axelrod said Demcratic gubernatorial candidate Caprio sought the same presidential endorsement he told Barack Obama to "shove."

The Caprio camp was blindsided to see the front page of Monday’s Providence Journal carrying a banner headline about the White House telling reporters Obama would not endorse the Democratic nominee out of respect for Chafee.

“The issue for us was not around his decision not to endorse – the issue for us is more the way the White House handled the situation,” Cario spokesman said.

By speaking to the press without contacting the Caprio campaign first, the White House “basically dropped on us” a negative story amid a high-profile Obama visit in the midst of a tight three-way race for governor.

When Obama came to R.I. he actually held the DCCC fundraiser (which was the purported reason for the trip) at the home of a major supporter of former Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee's and pointedly said he wasn't endorsing the Democratic nominee.

Not good form coming to the state and then embarrasing and then Kicking your Party's own Candidate Under the Bus. Is that any way to build Party loyalty in a election where so many good Democrats are threatened with losing their seats?  I think not and I think many will remember this when Obama in the future asks endangered Dems for support or a favor.

What gives Obama the right to undercut and destroy the electoral chances of his own Party.

As President Obama IS the head of the Democratic Party, not the Barack Obama Party.

The message he sent:

"It doesn't matter if you vote for the Democrat in the race.  I don't care."

I would say that Caprio's response validate's Obama's decision completely.

What Obama did in Rhode Island was shocking, outrageous and unprecedented.  Ive never heard of anything like this happening before, its troubling and it leaves a lot of Rhode Island democrats out in the cold in a very terrible situation. This is a close three way race and President Obama's act can easily swing the liberal vote up there by this and cause the Democrats to lose the Governor's mansion.

The Executive Director of The Democratic Governors Association agrees:

"This is disappointing. Frank Caprio has spent his career fighting for the values of the Democratic Party, and I think he deserves the full support of our party and its leaders. While this might not be what the White House intended, the president’s refusal to endorse a fellow Democrat in the worst environment since 1994 sends a bad message to everyone who’s working to get Democrats elected this year."

There's more...

Enjoy.

• Google donates 5$ Million to Journalism. (jeffrtho)


• The Opportunity Agenda invites a discussion on what's driving -- or curbing -- enthusiasm in 2010 with Midterm Elections in the Public Discourse.


• What we meant when we said "change," via theyoungturks in What Obama is Missing.


• Go vote.  Seriously.  Are We in for Another Round of “Whatever It Is, I’m Against It?” (Heather Taylor-Miesle NRDC Action Fund)


• Prison companies' profit motive sheds new light on Arizona's immigration law. (Restore Fairness)


• Take a deficit quiz with Hoomai29 and Republicans 0 for 20 (0%) on Debt Reduction Since 1978.


• John Russenello argues one step backward may be the only way forward for progressives in Democrats for Angle.


• Michael Bersin reports an HRCC robocall in Missouri's 121st Legislative District: desperation and homophobia.


• Project Vote gets an early start on Debunking the Tea Party’s Election Night Message.

And your bonus: From school boards to foreclosure fraud, Downticket Races May Save Your House, Health, and Community.

I've ended my hyper-partisan allegiance to the Democratic Party. In moving beyond the past decade's partisan affair with Democrats, I am ready for a real revolution to happen in this country.

It has got to happen over the next two years, and its going to take progressives, libertarians, tea partiers, coffee partiers, conservatives... everyone that is not part of the problem (the financial/political/military elite). Get radical, first by moving beyond attachment to a single party or a political identity. Radicalize them both, go independent; whatever, and if that's not you too, then get out of the way.

This is a good video, and explains where I have arrived politically.

It's quite liberating, actually. We'll see where it goes next.

The Crystal Ball’s Final Calls, good read. Their projections:

House: 55 seats. Pretty solid. My thoughts are basically that if the generic ballot is 6% Republican, the House makeup is going to revert to back to 2002-2005 level. Anything greater or lesser than that 6% means a few seats either way. 49 seats would be right at 6 percent. Democrats would be down to 206 seats. The adjustment to make is that using this as a traditional model means going by Gallup's numbers for the final generic ballots for the previous elections, and the composite generic ballot for this one. However, Gallup right now has a 9-14 percent lead, much higher than the current 6 percent composite. I'm going to wait for Gallup's final numbers on Monday to see where this falls-- I would not be surprised to see them halved.

Senate: 8 seats. This is a straight consensus shot. Of the six contests (CO, NV, IL, WA, WV, CA), Sabato has the first three going R and the other three going D. I could go with this too, but knowing that they tend to all slide one way or the other means we could see 10 too.  11 (Boxer losing seems out of mind but Rasmussen has this a 49-46 race today).

However, a 1982-like scenario is not out of the question either; where all the close one's break opposite the House, and the D's even pull out an upset, like the 3-way in AK, for a net loss of 4 or so seats.

But it sure looks like IL and NV slipped away from the Dem's this week, WV went back to Dem, CO has become tighter, with CA & WA still Dem but tightening. CT & DE are solid Dem now. KY is done.

Gov: 8-9 seats. This is where the real damage is being done, without much commentary either. FL, OH, PA, WI, but howabout CA & Brown? It's going to be tough for the "blame the professional left" meme to get started when trend-setter CA goes for the lefty Brown. Sabato adds this:

The closest of these are CA, CT, IL, MN, OR, and VT. In each case we have had highly reliable, well-placed sources insist that our frontrunner could end up on the short end come Tuesday. So again, we will keep an eagle eye on these states over the weekend, for a possible Monday update.

It's not polled that often yet, but its been a pretty solid 39% that opt for Obama in 2012.

In fact, more like him personally than like his policies. Some 48 percent think he's a nice guy, while just 42 percent approve of his job performance.

But that personal favorability doesn't translate into re-election support when voters are asked if Obama deserves a second term. Says Schoen: "Despite voters feelings toward Obama personally, 56 percent say he does not deserve to be re-elected, while 38 percent say he does deserve to be re-elected president." Worse, Schoen adds, "43 percent say that Barack Obama has been a better president than George W. Bush, while 48 percent say Bush was a better president than Obama has been."

The way out:

Still, the president has a shot at re-election, according to the poll of 1,000 likely voters taken October 18-24. Schoen found that a slight majority, 51 percent, favor a third party in American politics and if that were the Tea Party

, then Obama would win in a three-way race in 2012. According to Schoen, if the race pitted Obama, Republican Mitt Romney and Tea Party favorite Sarah Palin in 2012, Obama would top the others with 40 percent; Romney gets 32 percent and Palin 17 percent. And, in a bit of bad news for Palin, if the Tea Party candidate were Mike Huckabee, he and Romney would split the non-Obama vote 24 percent-24 percent.

... is probably not going to happen.

You'll have to excuse me, after the election next Tuesday, as I drop out of participating in the traditionary gnawing and thrashing of teeth among Democrats for the blame game.

Am at 9 seats in the Senate and 57 seats in the House for a prediction. What's yours?

The incompetent hustler Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, is in the news. I have long assumed the much-maligned chairman wouldn’t seek, much less stand a chance of being elected to, another two-year term  in January. For what it’s worth, he’s been playing it cute. “We'll worry about my re-election after I get through this election.” It’s over. More coffee?

Or so it seemed. It now looks as if Steele’s recent bus tour of 48 states served to bolster his standing with conservative grassroots activists, though it didn’t affect the dynamic of the campaign. In addition, Chairman Steele continues to have the support of Sarah Palin, the conservative movement’s North Star. After Palin quit Alaska in July 2009, Michael Steele joined yours truly, Ann Althouse, and the rest of my peeps, in recognizing the potential of Palin’s liberation, even though he dismissed an immediate campaign for president. He engaged in incredible spin to support her in hostile quarters. Months later, there was speculation as to whether Palin would replace Steele, but it was ridiculous. From jump street Sarahcuda has always wanted to seize the White House, not a sop.  

Nowadays Steele is heartily campaigning with Sarah Palin. After she does run for president and takes off, as I expect her to, it is possible that Mr. Steele could parlay his goodwill towards the Palins into an unlikely second term. It certainly couldn’t be narrower than his first election.

To be certain, Mr. Steele is wrong concerning just about everything except Afghanistan. Nevertheless he is fascinating. And for the time being it looks as if he won’t get that severance box of chocolates after all.

Enjoy.

• The Midterms, Bought and Paid For. (Astyanax)


• Btchakir: I’d like to take a moment to talk with all my friends around the country who haven’t decided if they will vote this year…


• A lot can change in a month.  Restore Fairness has the details in Will Latino enthusiasm color the mid-term vote?


• Inoljt urges Californians to Vote No on Proposition 22: State Borrowing From Local Government Funds.


• Good news from Project Vote: Restrictive Voter Registration Law Struck Down in Arizona.


• Over 81% of U.S. Public Debt created under Republican Presidents, says Hoomai29 in Supply SLIDE Economics: GOP's $9.1 Trillion U.S. Debt.


• Valuable races overshadowed by a media focus on Teh Crazy, writes Chuckie Corra in Where is the Coverage for the Contentious Races?


• The Media Consortium's Weekly Audit: Surprise! Bailed Out Banks Backing Anti-Bailout Candidates.

And your bonus: What will happen after the elections.

At about the 6 month mark, the Lib Dems have taken a knock in the polls, and Labour is positioning themselves as the clear left party-- Britain's Progressive Future. Here's a good read:

The Conservatives seem relatively level, as people give them "benefit of the doubt" for now. Labour do appear to have taken some advantage, but are not quite overhauling the Conservatives yet. While the Lib Dems have clearly lost out to result in a return to their downward trend, as they appear to alienate their supporters by significant reversal on some Lib Dem policy commitments.... Their figures show that most of the Lib Dem losses come from switches to "Don't Know". This is a pretty standard "Protest Vote" pattern growing around the LibDems, rather than high levels of voters defecting to Labour (currently 15%).

The Lib Dems have stepped up to the plate to govern, and a new Age of Austerity is about to be embarked upon. Open revolt has happened within the Lib Dems over some of the measures, and the cuts are just beginning. For example, the government budget in Wales will be reduced by 12% over 4 years. Overall, the government's message:

"today is the day that Britain steps back from the brink", as he outlined the long-awaited comprehensive spending review, which he said would achieve a balanced budget and falling national debt by 2014-15 while putting public services and the welfare system "on a sustainable, long-term footing".

However, that probably assumes some sort of economic growth, which may or may not happen. People don't like the LD's as much now, and critics are hitting. That was all predictable, but what's next is more perplexing. The Lib Dems have to hope these cuts work, and growth emerges (pretty much on its own). AV voting has to occur. That's really what the LD's depend upon going forward, and it has a good shot of passing.

Particularly encouraging was reading that when voters were educated about what AV Voting is, it went from being a tie to winning easily.

Am following three different trackers of the polls for the outlook. Pollster on HuffPo, 538 on NYT's, and RCP, and they are pretty similar.

RCP has Dems at 51 and the GOP at 49. They have the WV race leaning D.

Likewise, at 538, 51 - 49 Dems, with the WV race being at 50% but predicting D.

Pollster though, has WV going to the Republican, so 50 - 50 is there prediction.

It's tough to bet against these poll compilers. RCP was the first outfit that started compiling the results, and the individual pollsters made a bit of an outrage attempt in 2004. But then, and in 2006, it proved so successful that its become adopted as the best predicting calculation for the statewide races.

I'd like to look it up and make sure, but offhand, I can't recall a single Senate instance where this sort of compilation of results (2004 to 2008) has been proved faulty on the three mentioned above. There's always a first though, and you know it when it happens. I recall that, in 2006, both MT and VA were not compiled to be as close as they wound up being (off by just a bit though 1-2%).

Anyway, if we go with the above, either Joe Manchin and +1 (sometimes) for Democrats; or we wind up with a Senate where Joe Lieberman holds the keys to power. That's gonna make the 2012 CT Senate race quite contentious right out of the gate.