With the last three days of the Major League Baseball season upon us, I've thought of how a baseball season is akin to a political race. Being it's a Friday and everything should be lighter on a Friday, let's look at this more closely.

A campaign, like the 162-game major league season is a marathon, not a sprint, a bad day in a campaign can be overcome the next day or week by a good showing and a mistake today could back and haunt a candidate in the crucial final weeks. Some candidates go out to an early lead and cruise winning two out of three games every series while some teams lead for the entire race and all of a sudden find themselves tied with one series left and momentum going against them.

If you take some time to poke around the web, the consensus opinion among professional pundits and amateur wannabes like myself is that the Republicans don't really stand a chance in 2008. They talk of veto-proof majorities and Congressional landslides as if they are a given.

I say not so fast and hear me out on this before you break out your crayons and write that I'm wrong.

On the Dem side, Hillary is far and away the frontrunner with no one within a stones throw. Obama made some noise as did Edwards (Elizabeth, not John) but it added up to squat. It was Hillary's race from the beginning and anyone who even dreamed it wasn't was deluding themselves. She has the money, the advisors and Bill, 'nough said.

On the GOP side, you have a wide-open race. I say Giuliani is currently the frontrunner but Fred Thompson is giving him agita and McCain and Romney could surprise once the primaries begin. In other words, the Republicans have no clear cut leader.

Hillary will be anointed in February leaving her wide open to attacks from all corners. I suspect that Obama and Edwards will still be in the race but will be extremely desperate and have no choice but to hit Hillary hard from the left while at the same time the GOP will open up from the right. It will be non-stop Hillary bashing for months. Her actions at that time are critical and I wouldn't be surprised if the Hsu story continues to break hitting its crescendo right around early spring making her a huge target. The Dems are hip to this and some leaked info spells it out in detail:

The private memo, leaked to The Washington Post, painted what researchers described as a "sobering picture" for Democrats who believe that President George W Bush's disastrous favourability numbers almost guarantee they will capture the White House next year.

All party preference polls show that Democrats are much more popular than Republicans. But when the names of individual candidates are used, the gap narrows considerably.

...The leaked poll found that Mr Giuliani, a centrist Republican with liberal stances on issues such as abortion and gay rights, leads Mrs Clinton by 49 per cent to 39 per cent in the swing districts.

By the time the GOP race is decided, she will be battered and the GOP candidate will have survived a bruising race leaving him experienced and hungry. Factor in that Hillary has the highest negatives of any candidate in history and Bush-Clinton fatigue and you have the makings of a GOP upset. Not only in the presidential race either, Hillary's polarizing nature will bring a slew of conservatives and Republicans out just to vote against Hillary and they'll vote Republican straight down the line. Will the GOP regain the House? No, but the Senate may well be a possibility if the RNC can pound home the fact that this has been the single-most inactive Senate in three decades.

I'm not going to go out on a limb and predict that a Republican wins, yet the scenario I've spelled out is plausible. We still have five months before the first primary ballot is cast (unless some state moves it up to November 2007) so a lot of things can happen between now and then.

Yesterday, Patrick Casey tried to put a good face on the woeful state the Republican Party finds itself in concerning its prospects in the House of Representatives. The best that can be said is that while '08 looks like another blood-bath in the making, perhaps a second drubbing will convince the GOP to change its ways.

No doubt about it, Republican prognosticators are not happy at what the tea leaves are telling them. From today's Politico:

Top Republicans are privately bracing for the possibility that they could lose additional House seats in next year's elections as a result of untimely retirements, ongoing scandals and unexpectedly gloomy fundraising forecasts, according to several members and aides.

House members up for re-election in competitive districts are throwing in the towel. Why? Because the NRCC is broke. Nobody's donating. Even members of the military have increased their donations to Democrats. And it's the same story in the Senate. An unfortunate combination of retirements, scandal, and the Iraq war are poised to make 2008 another losing year for the GOP.

Despite the negativity in the air on the campaign trail there is mercifully still some room for levity and the humor has centered on the first true, major question of the 21st century...If Hillary Clinton wins the presidency, what will everyone call Bill? Will he be the First Man? The First Spouse? The First Laddie, as Mr. Clinton previously joked?

The topic of Mr. Clinton's role in the White House pops up now and then and this week Fred Thompson jokingly mentioned that NRA convention that his wife would make a better "First Lady" than Bill Clinton. Mitt Romney has said that in terms of First Ladies, his wife would be much prettier than Bill Clinton. In a recent interview on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, said that he would "slit his own throat" at the prospect of being called the "First Husband." (Ouch).

The campaign trail has heated up recently in terms of inflammatory rhetoric as the controversy over the Move On advertisement has led to a great deal of animosity on both sides that has resulted in a lot of terse exchanges. Because of this, the campaign trail has taken on a somewhat grave tone. Thankfully, there exists some room for levity and it is appreciated.

It appears the announcement bounce is over for Fred Thompson. As you all know, I expected Fred to get about a ten-point bump and have that fall back five points to a comfortable range in the front. Well, as it turns out the bounce wasn't that high, but the falling back part was right, via Rasmussen's Daily Tracking:

Date	Thompson	Giuliani	Romney	McCain
09/21/07	24%	24%	13%	15%
09/20/07	23%	22%	13%	15%
09/19/07	26%	21%	13%	14%
09/18/07	28%	19%	12%	14%
09/17/07	28%	19%	12%	14%
09/16/07	28%	18%	11%	15%
09/15/07	26%	19%	9%	14%

Date	Clinton	Obama	Edwards	Date
09/21/07	36%	25%	13%	09/21/07
09/20/07	38%	22%	14%	09/20/07
09/19/07	39%	22%	14%	09/19/07
09/18/07	40%	23%	14%	09/18/07
09/17/07	40%	23%	13%	09/17/07
09/16/07	40%	22%	14%	09/16/07
09/15/07	39%	23%	15%	09/15/07

After hitting 28%, Fred dropped 4-5 points which clearly went right back to Rudy Giuliani. This is clearly a two-man race, at least at this point. The next big movement will be based on how well Fred does in his first debate scheduled on Oct. 9.

Over on the Democratic side, clearly Hillary Clinton has slid a little. Could that be attributable to worries over Norman Hsu? The corruption angle definitely should be cause for concern, but with John Edwards and Barack Obama implicated in Hsu as well, the Democrats won't have anyone to turn to. Still a fairly static race at this point.

Yes, that's about the size of it. 2006 was actually supposed to be a good cycle for the GOP. 2008 favored the Democrats already, as the Republicans will be defending more seats. But the situation just keeps getting worse as Dick Morris details here:

If the Republicans lose Virginia, Nebraska, Colorado, New Hampshire, Maine, Oregon and Minnesota - and pick up no new seats - the Democrats will have 57 votes in the Senate (counting Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman, who votes with them). It's enough to let a new Democratic president have her way legislatively without too much trouble.

I can see the GOP saving Nebraska, Maine, and New Hampshire and picking off Lousiana, but that's about the best they can hope for. Swinging the other way 60 is probably hopeless, but the Democrats could get close.

One implication is that the current GOP senators in these states will not put their necks on the line for George W. Bush whether in Iraq or on any other issue. In fact, its amazing that President Bush is doing as well as he is with the Senate so far!

The big implication is that Republican primary voters need a win for the presidency and they will be willing to cut a deal with a certain pro-choice, anti-gun, thrice divorced former mayor if he can guarantee that he will keep the White House out of the hands of Hillary Clinton. On the Republican side, all the money will flow into the presidential and House contests, not the Senate.

The Hill is reporting that one of the leaders of the anti-war movement in the House, Democrat Rep. Jack Murtha, is claiming that Republicans will join him against the Iraq war -- next year.

House Appropriations Defense subcommittee Chairman John Murtha (D-Pa.) said Monday that he expects that Republican lawmakers will begin abandoning President Bush's Iraq policy after the GOP picks a presidential candidate next year. "As soon as the primaries are over, you'll see Republicans start jumping ship," Murtha said in remarks at the National Press Club.

Murtha also is predicting that Democrats will pick up 40 to 50 seats in the House next year. To put his predictions in context, might I remind readers that Murtha, one year ago, was predicting that by this time (September '07) we would have surrendered in Iraq and our troops would be "redeploying" to areas outside of Iraq where we could provide "quick response" strikes on terrorists -- from bases as close as Okinawa, Japan, 4899 miles away.

I believe that Murtha's predictions this year are also in error. Iraq will be in play next year, but will be more of a problem in the general electorate for Democrats than Republicans. And with Congressional approval lower with a Democratic Congress than it ever was with a Republican one, I don't think you'll be seeing any Democrat landslide in '08. What are the Dems going to do, run against themselves? (Oh wait, there's MoveOn.org...)

If (a big if) Republicans clean up their act and pledge fiscal conservatism under new leadership, I think that the Senate will remain in the Democrats' control, but the House might switch again. If Iraq is going particularly well, however, that might change - Republicans could win the Senate as well. All bets are off if the Republicans continue to act like idiots. I think that the House Republicans have, for the most part, learned their lessons. The Republicans in the Senate, as of yet, have not learned theirs (as evidenced by Larry Craig and Ted Stevens), and might not until after 2008.

There will be no links or photos in this post. This is just a bunch of predictions and thoughts. We'll see how they come out:

- We're in Iraq for 2-5 more years. Even if we started withdrawing tomorrow it would take at least a year to get out. Still that's better than General Petraeus's ten years or the neo-cons century. What President Bush started he certainly will not finish.

- A third party candidate will enter the race (probably next year). I think Chuck Hagel will be a part of it and Michael Bloomsberg will either run or bankroll it. Altho the country is pretty receptive to change, it will not go third party in this time.

- I'm still amazed by the lack of focus on how corrupt and inefficient this administration is. With the combined wars we have over $750 Billion in defense with little results and we're seriously in huge debt. Yet, our obsession with entertainment and sports goes on and on.

- Every time I hear another in the endless talking points on why we can't leave Iraq and then I hear a report of more American or Iraqi deaths, my heart sinks. This war has gone on for more than we were in WW2 and for far less noble a cause.

- I wish any of the leading current Republicans running would tell the truth. Something like: 'The American people are right. This war is a quagmire, there's no solution and the longer we stay the worse it gets. i can't say that because the current President is from my party.'

- At the current rate, Democrats will have a veto proof majority in Congress and no matter who is president, the war will draw to a close faster rather than sooner.

One of the things some bloggers do is review both the traditional media and the new media (mostly online). One thing I've noticed is the disconnect between TV's nightly news and the new media. By the time one watches the news at night what little there seems dated and offers little depth or analysis. There are warning signs of a possible bombing or war with Iran and yet there's barely a murmur from the traditional media. I certainly would prefer to be wrong but it's not just me. It's not a left or right issue.

There are foreign policy experts

Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere. And that is why the United States is rallying friends and allies around the world to isolate the regime, to impose economic sanctions. We will confront this danger before it is too late.

Who said that? Bush on Aug. 28, 2007. What will be the threats we will be told about ? Iran's imminent nuclear capability/attack, links to 'terrorists', and attacking Americans in Iraq. Get ready for more of the same mushroom clouds, yellow cake weapons and terrorists. Facts be damned, this administration will stop at nothing. Of course, if this campaign to misinform the public is launched it can be challenged. But by whom and how? Follow below the flip for more analysis on more precisely who will launch and who might respond.

That's apparently what "The Economist" wants their readers to believe in a new article, Under the weather. Or rather that is until you get to near the end of the article, by which time The Economist hopes that people have stopped reading. I have to thank Jim Geraghty of NRO's The Campaign Spot for directing me to finish this piece, otherwise I would have given up on reading it after a few paragraphs.

The Economist is a British political and economic publication, ensconced firmly in the world-wide left. Their latest issue focuses on the question "Is America Turning Left?" They certainly hope so, and the overwhelming part of the article regurgitates facts and figures from the American mainstream media and polling firms such as Pew and Stan Greenberg's The Democracy Corps to support that position.

The author obviously views the "mistake" of the Iraq war and the failure of the Bush presidency as established, final facts. In that sense, the article is no different than a press release from the Democratic National Committee. But in the final few paragraphs, the article includes a few polling results that should scare the Democrats and the Left mightily, even more so since they come from Stan Greenberg (Clinton's pollster) himself:

The Democrats' good fortune is much more the result of a Republican collapse than a Democratic revival. The March Pew poll shows that the proportion of people who express a positive view of the Democratic Party has actually declined by six points since January 2001. It's just that the proportion of people who express a positive view of the Republican Party has declined by 15 points. The Democratic-controlled Congress is even more unpopular than the Bush White House, with the lowest approval rating in 35 years.

Americans remain sceptical about the Democrats' favourite tool for improving the world-government action. A Democracy Corps poll found that Americans believe by a majority of 57% to 29% that government makes it harder for people to get ahead in life. The same poll found that 83% of people believe that, if the government had more money, it would probably waste it, the highest level of anti-government sentiment in a decade. America is not entering into a new era of liberal activism.

The American public is still receptive to the conservative message. It's just that they will not tolerate it coming from a source perceived, in many cases correctly, as corrupt (aka the Republican Congress of 2006). Nor should they. If the Republicans ever get their act together, I believe that the Democrats' majority status in Congress will be very short lived.

If the title sounds preposterous, blame Chris Bowers and this article he posted over at OpenLeft. Apparently it's not too early to draw up state by state Electoral College maps, but it should be.

In a hypothetical Rudy Giuliani - Hillary Clinton matchup Chris has this change from 2004:

New Republican States: Connecticut
New Democratic States: Arkansas, Iowa, Florida, Kentucky, New Mexico, Ohio, Virginia. Plus four congressional districts in North Carolina.
States Within Three Points: Florida, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Virginia

Let's think about that for a second. Giuliani wins Connecticut, but loses Kentucky? Clinton, Hillary Clinton, wins the state of horseracing, country music, coal mining, and tobacco? I'm trying to get across how incredulous I am. Trust me, I live here, in Southern Ohio, right across the border, and I do not see a scenario where Hillary simultaneously loses Ohio and wins Kentucky. Leave aside that Hillary will be spending money in the Northeast and California where no Democrat usually has to go.

With the expected-sooner-or-later news that Tommy Thompson is bowing out of the GOP presidential primary, I've been wondering, who's next?

The top tier, those who are collecting money, support, or doing well in the polls will be in it to stay. Also in it for the long haul are those for whom the message is way more important than their position in money or polling, or even their own self-respect. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, I'm looking at you. It's the middle tier, those who are serious candidates, have great resumes, but are now facing the obvious. They will never get their party's nomination. At least, not in this cycle.

My vote on the GOP side is for Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas. Despite placing third place in the Ames, Iowa Straw Poll, he lost to Mike Huckabee, who is competing for the exact same sets of conservative Christian voters, despite spending almost twice as much money. He's a senator, which is a weaker position than a governor, and there are still two governors or former governors in the race (plus a mayor who was the executive of a city with a bigger population than most of the states.). Basically he's redundant, and at some point he will face those facts, probably before January, long before January.

On the Democratic side, we have a close one between Joe Biden and Chris Dodd. Neither of them have a chance, most folks don't even know they are running. Obama is sucking up all the oxygen and whatever's left is going to Hillary and John Edwards. My bet is that Chris Dodd will bow out first because Joe Biden thinks very, very highly of himself, enough to overcome any feelings of inadequacy about scraping the bottom of the barrel in this contest. Chris Dodd is out before December?

What's your call? Who's out next and when?

Yesterday, Kos posted a very illuminating and (gasp!) measured piece on how seriously one should get wrapped up in the constant stream of polling data bombarding our computer and television screens.We are truly are a nation that is obsessed with the horse-race aspect of elections. Andrew Sullivan calls it "primary polling crack," and for good reason. But bloggers across the political divide are guilty of pouncing on the latest numbers and prognosticating the future to their readers as if God herself had whispered into their ears.

So how much credence should we give the rise and fall of percentage points? If history is a guide, Kos claims, not much. Looking back at the Gallup's Democratic primary numbers (national) in June of 2003 we see the following rankings:

Joe Lieberman 21%
Dick Gephardt 17%
John Kerry 13%
Bob Graham 7%
Howard Dean 7%

Now let's fast-forward to the first week of January, 2004, just before the Iowa Caucuses:

Even though I'm a political junkie, not to mention the fact that I get paid to follow the election, I still sometimes grow exasperated by grand pronouncements about a vote that's 17 months away. The landscape could very well be unrecognizable by the time November '08 finally rolls around. But does that stop me from making such predictions myself? Heck no! And it's not stopping the National Journal's John Mercurio, who has a piece out today listing "10 things that will surely have a decisive impact on the presidential race."

Most of them are no-brainers, like Iraq, the debates and the fact that Bush has become the lamest of lame ducks. Others, like the energy bill, seem unlikely to have a "decisive" impact, as far as I'm concerned.

I was most intrigued by this notion:

Bloomberg/Hagel/Unity '08?: Mike Bloomberg and Chuck Hagel generated buzz in early May when they dined together at the Palm restaurant. A few weeks later, Hagel drew a strong GOP primary challenger that could make a Senate re-election bid in Nebraska even less appealing. Will the two GOP mavericks team up to run as independents, perhaps under the "Unity '08" banner?

Hmmmm. Michael Bloomberg and Chuck Hagel. First I've heard of that. Verrrrry interesting.

Anyway, read the whole thing here... and then chime in. Do you agree with the list? What issues do you think will dominate as the election heats up?

John McCain drops three points in one week while Mitt Romney climbs out of the single digits to second place. Fred Thompson appears to be going all in on July 4th with cash in the bank and already sitting on a healthy polling of 12% and 4th place.

It's clear that the immigration deal might put McCain's campaign in the grave, and bloggers like Dean Barnett at HughHewitt.com haven't failed to take notice:

The general trend of the polls is unmistakable. John McCain's campaign is sinking like the Titanic after having run into the iceberg of immigration "reform". Oh sure, we can expect the McCain campaign and its misguided sympathizers to cling to the occasional outlier poll that shows the opposite much the way Leo DiCaprio clung to that piece of driftwood after the Titanic sank. But the rest of the Republican Party is like Kate Winslet, desperately trying to pry the McCain campaign's frozen clammy hand from our own as we prepare for a limitless future.

Ouch! Dean is also running a pool to predict the exact day McCain announces his campaign is over. Nobody should be surprised at this. All the Republican party needed was another viable candidate and McCain was toast. He was only being boosted by continuing doubts about whether Giuliani or Romney were candidates social conservatives could live with. On the immigration and abortion at least, it's clear. Romney is doable and Giuliani is not.