Defeat

The only way we can pretend this is not bad is if we pretend it's not hideous. We've lost the judiciary, we've lost Iraq. That's pretty good work for one night.

A few things:
--It wasn't America that made this decision, it was about half of America plus a few hundred thousand.
--It was not Democrats who achieved this victory, it was major media. I didn't think they still had that power. They do. They still shape the way slightly over half of America thinks.
--The Democrats do not have to govern over the next two years, and won't. Nobody will notice. We've started on the two year run to the Democrat White House and that's the only thing MSM will report. There will not be any Democrat failures, just weaseling and dodging by the White House as they try to escape their just deserts for having gotten us into this mess.
--The economy will remain fine and the Iraqis will be on their own. I put these two together because they'll both be ignored. The Democrats don't really care about either. In just two years they really can't hurt the economy, and they don't really care if our troops are in Iraq or not...

...This last is very interesting. I rather expect they'll now become more chary of calling for withdrawal since now they supposedly have influence. Withdrawal would mean defeat...

This is interesting. I rather expect the tone of criticism will change. Now that they have some power they have some responsibility.

Which brings up my last point: There's always politics. Now that they have some power they're much weaker. Their only strength was criticism. It might be possible now with some adroit care to suggest that in criticism they are criticizing themselves...?

I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks.

Meander Muse Election Day

Don't know if I'll write today or just read and listen to the radio, but I'll copy out this note from my journal. It may or may not be my only entry.

Okay. I'm going to make this statement which I'd intended to make last night but was so relaxed after I finished reading at about 3:00 that I fell asleep immediately and so didn't. Had I made the statement it would have been this:

I feel very relaxed. I've thought about this election as well as I can. My analysis is that the Democrats have been nonsensical in their criticism, and the MSM has been the same and nonsensical in their criticism. They're indistinguishable and nonsensical and so have lost influence. I predict Republicans will do well because fools can not influence intelligent people in a free Republic.

So that's what I wanted to say. This will be a test of my judgment as a man in contact with his nation. That the Dems and MSM have been fools is incontestable. I would make that argument even if not one other American agreed with me. But as an observer I'm arguing that many many millions of other Americans agree with me. If things turn out as I expect those many millions will think they're just as smart as me... And that will be right and that's good.

..................
5:30 PM
Just voted, or 45 minutes ago. Packed. I was vote 783. One Republican vote! I live in an enemy land. There may be others of us, but I don't know --we don't know-- we don't have a secrete sign. It was a jovial packed crowd in a fairly small room. Forty, sixty people milling behind me, a leisured anticipation of victory. --I slipped out. I strode three blocks to my parked truck, license plate covered. I sped away. They won't be able to find me.

..........Actually, to my surprise Dems may be doing better than I'd expected....? Pessimism, Pessimism. For God's sake, even conservatives are calling it close. YOU CAN'T KNOW YET UNTIL YOU'VE GOT NUMBERS! For heaven's sake, just wait an hour.

5:50
Lammont wins in Connecticut! No wonder conservatives expect a bad night... 'Course, that was an exit poll. --It does occur to me that this is one thing the MSM can still do, they can create discouragement. Bad news, even if you understand that it's spread with no concern that it be accurate, still does discourage. A bad smell is a bad smell, even if you're pretty sure it's not deadly.

7:40
Three things:
--Everybody in the US must be on the net, and with my having dial-up I seem to be last on the list. Fundamentally the net to me to night is useless. I can't browse, I can't even leave and come back to Hewitt.
--No Dem wave
--Unfortunately, no Republican wave either. I'd kind of thought that might happen. Dewine and Santorum lost; one house seat gone. At least that's what's been called.

8:05
NRO has a quite pessimistic call on the house, 29 Republican seats lost. That's made on the basis of no votes, just exit polls and past polls. I don't understand why they're making that call on election night.

11:40
'Bout time to recognize that things did not go as I'd expected. This will take some thought tomorrow, and some information. I'm presuming that Democrats voted in much larger numbers than I would have thought. It is possible Republicans voted less. I am very surprised.

There are two questions: What does this means in terms of government? What does it mean in terms of my judgment? I will speculate on the coming government, but so what, if I was so far off tonight? If I'm off on the election, how can I presume I'm correct regarding government? This is very disconcerting.

I would state that my arguments are more important than my predictions, because predictions are a matter of degree. That they were somewhat off is not so bad as if I'd been wrong about the forces in play. This will take thought. It does appear most of the loses were close, but just nothing bounced Republican. Very upsetting.

Special note: It does appear Michael Barone called it right on the money: Three to five lost in the Senate, sixteen to twenty in the House. We might lose more than that in the House.

Red Tide?

Polls Open in a few hours.

My fundamental argument, that in as much as this is a national election the Republicans really aren't in that bad a shape has already been pretty much validated by the last three major polls, showing the generic shift moving toward balance. I said it would happen in the voting booth, it's happened even earlier. Now the only question is how much, and that we'll only know after tomorrow.

We'll hold the Senate. State polls, even when done with methodological bias, are more accurate than district polls and they all show movement toward Republicans. Again, the rational judgment occurs most purely in the actual vote. There's going to be movement yet. Tomorrow the results will be even better than yesterday's polls and Republicans will do just fine. Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, and Washington are even possible pick-up seats. I've heard a few things about Hawaii but I consider Hawaii in outer space so have no opinion on the matter.

The House is much more difficult. The general rule would be that if the Senate does well the House will do well In fact the House should be more stable because the districts have been gerrymandered. But there are many more seats contested and there simply aren't any reliable numbers.

But simple percentages are useful. Of the 33 Senate seats being decided the Democrats would have to net 6 to take control. They would have to net 18%. In the House they need to net 16 out of 435 or 4%, so the task is easier.

If you considered only vulnerable seats (which is the way it's done and which is where you get into fantasy) the comparative numbers would be similar.

Taking the media presumption that only Republicans are vulnerable, in the Senate the Dems would have to run 6 of 6, or 100%. In the House it would be 16 of about 40, or 40%. I suppose that's possible. But if they don't take 40% in the Senate they're not going to take 40% in the House and I don't think they're going to take any in the Senate, and so I'm not sure they're going to take any in the House.

It should be remembered that just a few months ago the argument was that the House was safe but that the Democrats had a chance at the Senate. The argument has reversed but for no other reason than blather in the bubble.

What this means is that I'm simply denying that this is a Democrat year. I think this much ballyhooed tide of Republican vulnerability is concocted entirely of dreams, and that the Republicans are actually solid.

This is my argument:
--An excellent economy
--A serious war with only one serious party
--A Republican base that pays absolutely no attention to MSM and that will vote in much larger numbers than Democrats.

The Serious Consideration of Silliness

My oh my, personal problems on top of the Fate of the World... or is it... The Fate of the World on top of Personal Problems? I do get truly confused as to which modifies what, but I do know this: that Happiness will only come if we have An Accurate Count! And the only way there can not be Happiness is if We Do NOT Have An Accurate Count! --Man on man, the fate of the world on top of all my personal problems and it all comes down to whether or not the Republicans will cheat.

Rather strange world view, to my way of thinking. But then, if Bush is a liar the Republicans will cheat... as "night follows day", as the saying goes... I wonder if Nancy recognizes if there's any other issue in the world other than if she gets to pick the new drapes or not?

I think I will devote this particular day, just before our midterm elections determine the world's fate, to a muse meander on pathology. I'll just generally and lightly think about Democrats.

I see insanity when I consider the left, and since I see it, it's there, either in them or in me.

We can start with Nancy's statement: "That is the only variable in this. Will we have an honest count?'' To my mind this is boggling. It presumes the election is in the bag... This is America, no one ever presumes an election is in the bag. A free people can freely change their minds, and it seems like bad politics to imply otherwise. It seems like the same thing as saying: If we don't get our way we're going to riot. That seems very "leftish" to me, it doesn't sound very American.

Is it possible she actually believes Republicans will actually cheat? It would have to be very massive if it were only cheating that changed the present polls.

A lot of conservatives use the term "projection" when speaking of Democrats. The say the term means: You accuse your opponent of doing what you would do yourself. I personally don't like the term. It sounds like something you would say if you've been reading a book written by a psychologist, and that in itself I consider unwholesome; and the definition almost seems to suggest self awareness, as if they're cognitive and conscious and know what they're doing. I think that presumes way too much, so I'm just going with this for my formulation: that's just the way they think. And it's the only way they can think.

It's a little bit like hard wiring, the circuits can only run in a certain way. You give them a little prick and there can be only one response... again and again, exactly in every case the same response repeated. I would say that the extent to which this particular wiring allows the development of sophisticated intellectual, moral, and spiritual depth is properly summed up and expressed thusly: Bush bad, me good.

So, having fully and fairly plumed the depths of the liberal soul and intellect, what does it all mean?

Unpleasantness.

Absolutely nothing good can come out of the mind of a liberal.

...To be continued. Right now I have to face one of my personal problems. I only got four hours sleep last night and have got to take a nap.

Death Penaly for Saddam

This from the BBC

Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has been convicted of crimes against humanity by a Baghdad court and sentenced to death by hanging.

As the judge began reading the death sentence Saddam Hussein shouted out "Allahu Akbar!" (God is Greatest) and "Long live Iraq! Long live the Iraqi people! Down with the traitors!"

The former leader looked shocked and furious as the sentence was passed, and continued to shout, denouncing the court, the judge and the US-led occupation force in Iraq.

But the BBC's world affairs editor John Simpson said that after his tirade, as he was led away from the courtroom, Saddam Hussein seemed to have a small smile on his face.

"It was as if he was thinking 'I've come here and done what I intended to do'," our correspondent said. [I'm so glad "our correspondent" is able to communicate this to me. What a man!]

Few Iraqis think the trial verdict will ease conflict, the BBC's Andrew North in Baghdad says. Even those Iraqis who want to see their former leader dead do not believe his execution would make things any better. [Ya it will.]

And this from Dean Barnett, I'm Bursting!!

After criticizing known errors in previous exit polls, he applies that criticism to the present polls:

None of the foregoing means the polls are worthless. It just means that to get an accurate gauge on things, you have to add a significant layer of Republican support to the reported numbers.
So what’s it all mean? In the tied races, the Republican will win. In the close races, the Republican will win. It adds up to Republicans running the table in the Senate.

And he predicts roughly the same for the house, but with some losses due to local issues, mostly scandal.

To which I commented:

If MSM is objective these polls are scientific. Actually, polls, pundits, and MSM are the same this year, nuts. I note Nancy says this is the worst economy since the Great Depression, that Bush mishandled the war, and that she's going to get to pick out the new drapes. Polls, pundits, and MSM would say every one of those three statements was true.

And what's the connection between these two stories? Just the MSM. They have a great need to create their own world. Saddam is heroic and a gentleman and Nancy is the next Queen of the House, and everybody hates the war and hates Bush. And they really believe that. I don't, and I betcha next Tuesday I'm right.

...................
Several hours later, I note my reaction is...ho hum. Not so for the Shia:

"Execute Saddam," they chanted....Breathing heavily as he ran along the streets, 35-year-old Abu Sinan said, "This is an unprecedented feeling of happiness ... nothing matches it, no festival nor marriage nor birth matches it."

Saddam is to be hung. They're joyful. This is as it should be. This is as I expected.

There are those though, who are sour:

"This government will be responsible for the consequences, with the deaths of hundreds, thousands or even hundreds of thousands, whose blood will be shed," Salih al-Mutlaq, a Sunni political leader, told the Al-Arabiya satellite television station.

I've been checking for the violence. Several hours now. Not much. Must be one of those "Arab Street" things.

Ho Hum.

(7:13 AM)

...................
About 1:00 PM. It must be 9 hours now since I first read Saddam is going to hang. Still haven't spotted the violence. I must be a very poor observer of social matters in Iraq, way back here as I am in the Midwest. But there must be violence, so many of the Iraqis are outraged by the inhumanity. I'm sure there is a spontaneous uprising somewhere. Somebody in NY can find it.

I read a comment by Sister Rosetta, I think on Iraq The Model. In describing her response she used the expression "calmness and peace". I like them Catholic women. --Ho Hum.

...................
I've been looking looking looking. No violence. Just rose petals and dancing in the streets --actually, "celebratory" gunfire, not rose petals; but a lot of dancing. Another broken promise by the Bathists. Just who can you trust these days?

I will note that when we entered Iraq and weren't greeted with rose petals and dancing it was because we were occupiers and our mission already in the first days was a failure. There is dancing now, and virtually no gunfire in battle. That would seem to suggest that Iraqis consider their new government a success.

Lastly, I will note, it is my opinion that in America on Wednesday there will not be dancing in the streets. It's not because the government won't be considered a success, it's because Republicans don't dance.
(12:19 AM}

Polls, Pundits, and Dubya

Polls and Pundits predict Democrat victory, Dubya and Rove say no. I'm going with Dubya, on the basis that he's smarter. Smarter, as in: Good Sense, and Political Brilliance. He agrees with me in fact.

Now, I don't have inside information, all I've got is pundits and public polls. If I look at public polls I have to go with the pundits, though without their expertise and background. If I had to choose an authority in this matter it would be Michael Barone, but even Michael Barone predicts a narrow Democrat victory in the house and a narrow Republican retention in the Senate; and he fears the American public may be poised to take another "vacation from history", which would mean Blue Tsunami.

I pay attention to Michael. Still, Dubya is smarter, and he doesn't agree. What does he understand that Michael doesn't?

Possibly...that their are more Americans who are sane than are nuts.

This may be pure faith, or it may be that brilliance I speak of as political, but in as much as this is a national election there is only one issue and that's Iraq and this is serious and there's only one serious party and that's the Republicans.

And that's the whole argument.

Faith, Authority, Choice

Been reading, making lotsa notebook notes. I may a little later copy out last night's entry, just to have it on record, but I can't say I made much progress in understanding.

The question at issue is prognostication of the coming election. I start from the presumption that the race will be close because the country is evenly divided. There will not be a wave because there can not be a wave without a reason and the Democrats offer none and the country is in pretty good shape. It is in an ill-mood but that's a media creation of constant carping and blame and is not deep and is not gong to much affect the vote; and pollsters who think party identification has much changed over the last two years have simultaneously been paying too much attention to the media and not enough.

I might note one thing about pollsters. I sure don't like their present results, not merely because they're not on my side but because they violate my sense of the way things really are. But I can't dismiss them, I can't do my own poll.

It's interesting that I can easily dismiss climate warming alarmists because they're discussing something that is rational, the material world obeying knowable laws. I don't have to study very much to know that their certainties are not based on science but on politics. Pollsters are much harder to dismiss, because their subject isn't rational, or at least doesn't obey known or knowable laws. Their subject is the individual voter, taken in composite and then broken down into preference. But who really knows what's really going on in the brain of the individual voter?

I stick now, after a great deal of reading and thought, with what had been my automatic assumption at the very beginning of this consideration on the coming elections, that while media coverage and the political tone has very greatly changed in the last two years, underlying facts and values are about the same and so I assume this election will be about the same as the last, that is, close.

So, how to prognosticate? Republican retention? Or narrow Democrat victory?

For this I finally go to faith, authority, and choice, I can do no other. I simply see no very powerful arguments toward either side. So I chose choice. I will chose my authority, and hope that they're right.

On the one hand you have George Bush and Karl Rove and Ken Melman predicting Republican retention of both houses, and on the other Novak and Barone and Zogby and Barnes predicting narrow control of the house by the Democrats (If you go nut left you get a greater predicted margin).

So who to chose as Authority?

I go with George Bush and Karl Rove, because I consider them smarter than Novak, Barone, Zogby, Barnes... Daschle or Charlie Cook. They actually win elections.

I dismiss all Democrats and MSM. They're nuts.

I dismiss pollsters because I think they're caught up in the same bubble as Democrats and MSM and aren't doing a very good job.

I stick with my basic idea that on serious matters Americans are still pretty evenly divided. I accept some Republican loss because that does seem to happen in the dissatisfied sixth year and the polls are perhaps at least that accurate, but I presume Republicans will hold both houses because George W Bush and Karl Rove told me so. And man oh man do I hope it turns out that way. How I would love to be able to tell my Democrat friends that the reason we won is because Dubya is smarter than you are.

...................
Kerry:
Heard this on a clip played by Rush. Think it was Charlie Rose speaking: "Democrats are chomping at the bit to go vote."
My take:
Democrats like Charlie who in one way or another get party perks are chomping at the bit to take power, but I'm not sure absolutely every Democrat is chomping at the bit to go vote for John Kerry. If Bush is the target for those who are chomping, I don't see why Kerry can't be the target for at least some Democrats who are gagging.
(2:15 PM)

..................
Speculations on Joe, Democrat:
Bush is barnstorming; Pelosi, et al. are disappeared. Republican folks have a leader. Democrat "folks" --candidates-- have a leader too, many: Nancy, Harry, Teddy... Democrat Joe, voter, don't. Democrat "folks" take orders. Joe will too, and he won't get his vote back. Nancy, yea hardly knew 'er.

Note, Newt:
On Hannity. Optimistic. "Going out on a limb". He's "joining Karl Rove". Predicts: Repubs hold both houses.
(4:25 PM)