The State of the Presidential Race

With the election a little over eight months away and the Republican nomination as uncertain now as it was eight months ago, I figured it would be an interesting experiment to evaluate where the swing states line up now and see how it holds up leading up to the election. I'm still leaning towards Willard Romney being the GOP nominee simply because as gaffe-prone as he's proven to be, his opponents are more gaffe-prone. And while there's a core of Republican voters who would love to install another candidate than the current crop of losers running as the nominee in a brokered convention, such a scenario would require continued long-term relevance of both Gingrich and Santorum, which seems unlikely. It would also create an organizational headache that would produce a nominee without a campaign infrastructure less than three months before the election. As crazy as this process has been this cycle, and the persistence of fierce opposition to Willard, I won't rule out the prospect of a brokered convention, but for the sake of constructing this hypothetical, I will assume Romney is the nominee but make passing observations on the viability of Santorum in certain states.

But before I go to the state level, I have three overarching predictions. First, turnout will be very low...in the 50% range. There won't be much inspiration for a second act of Obama or either of the GOP clowns who make George W. Bush look like Julius Caesar in terms of political skills. Second, there won't be a historic blowout comparable to 1964 or 1972 either way. The nation is polarized in a way that such a historic wipeout is almost conceivable. The maximum either Obama could win is 30 states no matter how horrible the Republican challenger is and the maximum the Republican could win is 32-33 states (with disproportionately small electoral vote counts). Obama will not win Kentucky under any circumstance and Willard won't win California under any circumstance. Third, whoever the Americans Elect candidate is will get a significant protest vote....easily 5%. If it's somebody as charming and thoughtful as former Louisiana Congressman and Governor Buddy Roemer, currently throwing his name in the ring, a little media coverage will go a long way in helping him get even higher numbers of voters who find him preferable to either Obama or Willard/Santorum.

Now onto the horse race, starting with states that are effective locks for either Obama or the Republican....

Certain Obama--California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington

Certain Romney/Santorum--Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming

Now, the "swing states", with varying degrees of swing....

Arizona--I decided to include every state that could conceivably be rated as a swing state, and in the case of Arizona it's a tremendous stretch no matter how optimistic the Obama campaign's spin. In a total blowout like 1996, Arizona is a conceivable blue state turnover. Beyond that, the demographics haven't changed fast enough to help Obama. Who knows about a generation from now, but in 2012 Arizona is a Republican state.

Colorado--There hasn't been a lot of polling in Colorado and it's easily to believe that since the Democrats came out unscathed in the state even during the 2010 GOP bloodbath that the bodes well for Obama. It well may, but the Republicans running in Colorado in 2010 were so awful (even worse than Romney and Santorum!) that it wouldn't be wise to consider their defeats as referendums in support of the President or a continuing Democratic tide in Colorado. With that said, the relative moderation of affluent suburban Denver, where elections are decided in Colorado, bodes well for Obama against what Romney and especially Santorum are selling. Furthermore, the most blistering growth in Colorado appears to be occurring in ski towns, which are overwhelmingly Democratic. I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that with current political conditions, Obama will win Colorado. If any number of things go wrong, it's winnable for Romney, but would probably not be the deciding state either way. If Obama's losing Colorado, Romney is winning nationwide with more than 300 electoral votes.

Florida--My feelings on Florida have not changed since last year. I can't see it determining the outcome of the 2012 election. It's likely to go red, and if it does go blue, Obama will have more than 300 electoral votes already. Obama had the perfect storm of maxed-out African American turnout and strong Puerto Rican turnout in 2008 and only won by two percentage points anyway. Since then, his approval ratings with older and Jewish voters have fallen, suggesting Obama would have to do even better with nonwhites and younger voters to win the state. Seems like an incredibly heavy lift. Furthermore, I continue to suspect Senator Marco Rubio is the frontrunner for the veepstakes, which will make it that much harder for Obama to win. Only in a landslide at least on par with 2008 will Obama win again in the Sunshine State.

Georgia--I only include Georgia because the black and Latino populations are growing so quickly that it's hard to know when the arithmetic will become untenable for Republicans. I don't think we're there yet but was impressed that Obama did as well as he did in 2008. At the current pace, it's easy to envision Georgia as a swing state in another decade, but it seems very unlikely to come soon enough for Obama.

Indiana--The consensus opinion even among Democrats is that Obama's Indiana win in 2008 was a fluke with almost zero chance of being repeated. I think they're right, but plan to hold out for some polling to support that notion before throwing in the towel. Indiana is still an auto-producing state and there could be some residual goodwill over the bailout. It would have to be a landslide nationally, but I'm not completely ready to write off the state of Indiana yet given the tremendous weakness of Romney and Santorum.

Iowa--I'm torn on the believability of the recent Des Moines Register poll showing Obama losing to every Republican except Newt Gingrich. It's inconsistent with most polls, but those polls were all taken quite some time ago before the Republicans monopolized the airwaves in the state with mostly favorable treatment, with only Gingrich (the one guy trailing Obama) leaving the state with a bloody nose. However, it's hard for me to abide the huge divisions between the Des Moines Register poll and the polls showing Obama with double-digit leads in Minnesota and Wisconsin given that the three states usually vote similarly. My guess is that Obama prevails in Iowa this year but it probably won't be as lopsided as four years ago even if Romney (or Santorum) was getting killed nationally.

Michigan--At least right now, most polls suggest Michigan isn't even a battleground state, with Obama vanquishing all Republican challengers by 15 points or more. Such an outcome would make sense given the success of the auto bailout and the contrast with the GOP diagnosis (particularly Romney's). Things would have to go dramatically wrong for Obama between now and November to lose Michigan, and if he did it would be a 1988-style Democratic thumping nationally.

Minnesota--Unlike the other Upper Midwestern states, virtually nobody has expected Minnesota will be competitive this fall and every available poll confirms that with comfortable Obama leads over all challengers. Barring a huge meltdown, Obama should have no problem winning Minnesota a second time, and his strength here makes the soft numbers in Iowa confusing.

Missouri--The only available polls showed a surprisingly competitive race. Until more come out, I'm assuming this is a red state in 2012 as has been the conventional wisdom when Obama couldn't even win it in 2008. It isn't unthinkable that the purple areas of Missouri could be swayed a couple thousands votes in Obama's direction since 2008 given how terrible Romney and Santorum look as candidates, but it's still a pretty tough nut to crack considering the 2008 turnout models will be a struggle to duplicate.

Montana--A poll last week showed Obama trailing by 7 in Montana, which was just small enough to consider the state conceivably winnable. Crazy to think Obama came within two points here in 2008, and a hard-fought Senate race should keep turnout high in the state. It's a 400-electoral vote blowout if Obama were to win Montana, and that seems unlikely even in the best-case scenario, but just like with Missouri, it's not unthinkable given recent trendlines.

Nevada--The only wild card here is popular Republican Governor Brian Sandoval who is being considered as a Vice-Presidential pick. A Sandoval veep selection is the only thing I can see that would make Nevada competitive given that Obama won it by 12 points in 2008. The Mormons will come out in full force for Willard, but it's the fast-growing Latino vote, and their well-organized service workers' union machine, that is driving Nevada bluer with every election cycle.

New Hampshire--Much like with Iowa, Willard got a head start in New Hampshire with the contested primary which he invested heavily in for months without a corresponding campaign message from Obama reaching into New Hampshire living rooms. For that reason and the state's general libertarian streak, New Hampshire is easier to envision turning red that most of Obama's 2008 states as long as the election is waged on taxes and the economy. But if continues to be about contraception, or certainly if Santorum is the nominee, New Hampshire will be overwhelmingly blue. Right now I venture to say it's a pretty pure toss-up but if Obama wins nationally by a decisive margin, New Hampshire will be part of his coalition.

New Mexico--Republican Governor Susana Martinez is another contender for veep selection which could conceivably put this state in play, but recent polls showing landslide double-digit margins for Obama suggest even Martinez being on the ballot wouldn't save Romney here. Obama will win this in all but the most humiliating of national climates.

North Carolina--Obama's numbers continue to hold up reasonably well here suggesting the demographic changes and Obama's long-standing investment in this state are paying off. I still think this will be a red state in 2012 but would be less surprised to see North Carolina stay blue than I would be with Florida. And if Republicans have to invest resources in North Carolina to win a national election every four years, they are really dealing to an inside straight to win the Presidency in any cycle.

Ohio--For a year now, I've been optimistic that Obama would win Ohio no matter how much doomsaying the would-be election experts parlay regarding Obama's struggles with the white working class. The bottom line is that the opposition has absolutely nothing to offer residents of a state like Ohio and the combined combination of a resurgent auto industry and the natural gas fracking industry's early successes in the region will make it hard for an opposition offering Ohioans nothing to hang the millstone of despair around Obama's neck. It'll be close as it was last time, but I expect Obama prevails here in a political environment that resembles the current one.

Oregon--I only include this one because it was competitive in 2000 and 2004, but it's hard to imagine any scenario, even a national unraveling of Obama's political standing, resulting in Oregon voting for Willard or Santorum this fall.

Pennsylvania--Every four years, Republicans think this is their year to pick off Pennsylvania but they always come up short. And true to form, it's looking like a tempting target again this year, with Willard never more than a couple of points behind Obama in any given poll. Willard's success in branding himself as a moderate northeastern Republican seems to be helping him in traditionally Republican but socially liberal suburban Philadelphia, where Pennsylvania elections are won or lost. If he can keep the charade up through election day, there's a chance of an upset here, but it's very much odds-against and the state will likely resume its tradition as a tease for Republicans as we move closer to election day. And if native son Santorum is the nominee, Pennsylvania will almost assuredly be even more out of reach for the Republicans.

Virginia--The demographic shift of Virginia sure seems to have made it Obama-friendly terrain. And particularly as Romney calls for slashing the pay and the size of the DC-based federal workforce, it seems poised to harden Democratic strength in kingmaking Northern Virginia where most of the state's growth is. If the national tide turns for any number of reasons, Virginia will be among the first states to slip out of the Obama coalition, but if current trends continue, Obama will win it again comfortably.

Wisconsin--For a state that was so remarkably consistent in its even-steven red-blue polarization for much of the previous decade, Wisconsin was been swinging wildly since, giving Obama a landslide in 2008 and Republicans up and down the ticket a landslide in 2010. All indications are that Obama is poised to recapture his 2008 mojo this time and recent polling suggests the state is barely in the battleground status today. It would take a huge national flameout for Willard to prevail here.

My current projections suggest a decisive Obama Electoral College victory of 303-235, a calculation which gives the GOP nominee Florida, North Carolina, and Indiana, among others. There's still not a lot of margin for error here though as a loss of a couple big states (think Virginia and Ohio) would make this a nailbiter. There's no indication right now that it will be a nailbiter, however, as Obama's numbers have improved dramatically with the fortunes of the economy and the weakness of his opposition. There's a real possibility the economy, international affairs, gas prices, and a center-left third party Presidential bid could reverse these fortunes, and if they do, I'm expecting a decisive victory the other direction.

The Complicated Relationship Between Spending and Deficits

To the average joe, the concept of higher government spending shrinking rather than enlarging deficits is counterintuitive. Nonetheless, particularly in a recession, there is a fairly strong consensus that the notion is true. Yes, when Obama signed the American Recovery and Reconstruction Act, otherwise known as the stimulus, in the spring of 2009, it immediately added over $800 billion to the deficit and in the next two fiscal years, deficits rose as high as $1.7 trillion for a single year. However, nonpartisan economists calculated what the deficit would have been without the infusion of stimulus dollars and concluded the number would have been nearly twice as large at $2.7 trillion.

How is this possible? Because government was the only entity capable of infusing capital into an economy that shrunk at a jaw-dropping rate of 9% in the fourth quarter of 2008. The loss of economic activity was significant even with that infusion of government dollars, but without it, the shrinkage of economic activity would have been even more severe and revenue would have come far beyond projections. Add on to that the layoffs of government employees and the trickle-down effect of that and you're looking at longer unemployment lines and less consumerism.....and the end result is massive debt.

Most economists who aren't cynical hacks gaming for the Republican Party's short-term political benefit would agree with the above comments. Indeed, the consensus opinion is that the biggest obstacle to our recovery now is that balanced budget requirements are forcing state and local governments to continue to cut services and lay off middle-class employees. Last quarter's economic growth of 2.8% was said to have been 3.7% if not for the continued extraction of public sector dollars from the economy. And if the economy grows by 3.7%, revenues come in at much higher dollar figures than they do when the economy grows by 2.8%. And that means smaller deficits.

While this is conventional wisdom among mainstream economists, it's not easy to explain to the public, who typically view government spending as a zero-sum game (every dollar spent is a dollar lost, adding to the deficit) and are thus easy prey for Republican demagogues trying to score political points in the cheapest possible way. Yet curiously, even those who get the upside of government spending's multiplier effect in inducing economic activity seem to be card-carrying members of the flat earth society when it comes to long-term entitlement spending and its effect on deficits.

Now I'm definitely not going to deny that Social Security and especially Medicare are unaffordable. Reform is necessary, but the most practical means of cutting long-term entitlements is also the most politically untenable...the rationing of Medicare services and the acknowledgment that people who could otherwise have lived marginally longer will not because of denied care. That's a tough sacrifice, but the alternative is the country going bankrupt.

But back to my main point, all of the economists and media smart guys seem to agree with proposals like Simpson-Bowles and even more draconian cuts to Social Security, failing to acknowledge that such cuts will be accompanied with loss of economic activity the same way that cutting government programs is slowing our recovery today. This would be true even in previous more bullish investment eras where most workers had defined-benefit pensions and their personal savings accrued interest rates above the current rate of 0%.

By contrast, Americans today are experiencing declining wages and are thus more likely to be living paycheck to paycheck and unable to save a penny. And even those who can afford to save see their savings wiped out and then some when educating their kids at colleges with tuition rising exponentially higher than the rate of inflation. They're also dealing with 401Ks (the worthless "unpensions") that have less value today than they did in 1999, interest rates so low that non-stock investments accrue virtually no return on investment year to year, and homes that have declined in value by half over the last few years. The overwhelming majority of Americans, despite feverish planning and preparation, are light years away from being prepared to finance a retirement, and when you consider that they are the fastest-growing group of Americans, this lack of preparation forecasts a serious loss of economic activity on the horizon.

That means Social Security is poised to be more important than ever in keeping the economy afloat and providing a base level of purchasing power for elderly consumers. Yet the politicians and the experts left, right, and center in American politics think it needs to be cut....in the interest of trimming the deficit. Has nobody really thought things through this far? Does a nation of old people living in poverty really seem like a scenario that would bring about deficit reduction?

The point is that there is no silver bullet to reduce our cycle of debt and the long-term financial turmoil that will come with it. If we don't cut entitlements, the simple arithmetic of more senior citizens extracting services from a smaller group of workers financing them breaks down. But if we do cut entitlements, seniors will be living in extreme financial duress and the rate of economic growth will plunge as their economic activity is erased along with their income....and deficits will still grow larger and larger. I guess this is why all societies seem to fall at some point as the time comes where there are no good options to proceed.

The Real Kingmakers of Election 2012

In the next 10 months we'll be hearing about all kinds of groups and individuals who will be credited for determining which team wins or loses November's election. And there will be some plausible suspects thrown out there about who the real heavy is. Among them will be Angela Merkel and the European Union, Wall Street crony capitalists, Middle Eastern saber rattlers, and SuperPACs bankrolling individual candidates' campaigns with eight-figure cash infusions to render the opposition paralyzed. Any one of these could prove to be the puppetmaster responsible for determining who controls the White House and the Congress in 2013. But my money is on a different player altogether, a group that has been responsible for nearly a decade's worth of misery for Joe Sixpack already and is only getting started.....and that group is oil speculators.

For all the talk of how the economy is gonna determine the election, that's only half true. No matter what's going on with the economy, if Americans are paying an average price of $5 for a gallon of gas, or anywhere over $4.50 for that matter, the incumbent party will take it in the shorts this November because there is no more tangible metric of misery index for the average voter than spending another $40 a week on gas. And now that Obama has passed on the Keystone XL pipeline, he has given Republicans a perfect excuse to blame him for even a penny's worth of gas price increase between now and November, no matter how demagogic that connect-the-dots may be in the real world.

Making matters worse, oil prices have never been this high in January before, meaning that if one domino falls to drive down oil supply (or lead speculators to believe oil supply could hypothetically decline), the typical annual increase in oil prices as summer driving season approaches will be all the more painful. The deeply unsettled situation in the Middle East, including but not limited to Iran, makes it unlikely we'll be able to keep a lid on oil market uncertainty. It's possible the oil markets can be contained to a politically manageable level for Obama, but my money is on gas prices soaring above $4.50 nationally by summer.

About the only thing that could save surging oil prices is another bad scenario....a collapse of Europe's economy and a recession in China driving down demand. The double-edged sword of that is obviously a new set of serious problems emerge for America if the global economy loses its footing.

As cartoonishly bad at politics as both leading contenders for the Republican nomination may be, there are still plenty of icebergs for Obama's reelection campaign to steer around, and few things could hamstring his efforts for a second term more than $5 a gallon gas.

Which One of These Asshats is Gonna Be the Nominee?

Every four years, we hear moans and groans from the media and disengaged voters how terrible the lineup of candidates running for President are. This year it's really true. The eight top candidates from the beginning of last month have declined to seven now that the CEO of a second-rate regional pizza chain had to bow out of the race early after multiple charges of sexual harassment that were starting to appear as though they had merit torpedoed his frontrunner status. Seriously! Graveyards full of founding fathers are spinning like tops in their graves.

Meanwhile, the two most interesting and well-credentialed candidates have been almost completely shut out of the debates and get zero press coverage. Former New Mexico Governor and mainstream libertarian Gary Johnson has just dropped out of the race and may run on the Libertarian ticket. Even more impressive is former Louisiana Governor, Congressman, and small-time banker Buddy Roemer who has brought more to the table in terms of policy points in a few interviews on MSNBC than the other seven lightweights have in more than a dozen televised debates pandering to the basest right-wing urges of Republican primary and caucus voters. The average IQ on the GOP stage would triple if either Johnson or Roemer were allowed to debate.

Instead, we're stuck with seven candidates who are deeply flawed superficially and an even bigger disaster substantively. This country deserves a reasonable choice between two mature emissaries of a responsible political persuasion. None of the major candidates of the more-radicalized-by-the-day Republican Party qualify. Jon Huntsman only seems reasonable within the context of a slate of candidates that openly question science. His tax policy and economic platform is further to the right than any mainstream Presidential candidate in three-quarters of a century up until 2012, but still passes for the genial moderate in this crowd peddling a policy agenda that would have made the John Birch Society blush five decades ago.

Mitt Romney, considered the most cartoonishly right-wing major candidate in 2008 is running to the right of where he ran four years ago, but even positioning himself as a man who wants to "let the housing bubble bottom out" and "let Detroit go bankrupt", taking the American economy out as collateral damage and its devastated people as cannon fodder, still gets to be the guy deemed too "centrist" to be accepted by the tip of the right-wing that has hijacked America's opposition party.

Ron Paul has all kinds of nutty ideas, but it's not his nutty ideas that are keeping enough Republican voters from embracing him to win the nomination. It's the fact that he doesn't want to start even more wars in the Middle East and has called for taking American troops out of South Korea and Germany.

The rest of the malcontents running are not even worthy of mention based on the seriousness of their candidacies, but that doesn't mean they don't still have at least a modest chance of getting the nomination. Rick Santorum may well win the Iowa caucus on Tuesday with his last-minute surge, despite the centerpiece of his campaign being an issue as unserious as "protecting the sanctity of marriage" from those rascally gays. But his campaign makes 2008 Iowa caucus winner Mike Huckabee seem well organized by comparison. Hard to see how he doesn't wither away after Iowa, win or lose.

And while Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry have been stumbling in the polls, both have the financial resources to press on even after defeats in Iowa and New Hampshire, and given that 75% of Republican voters refuse to accept Mitt Romney, it's too early to count them out. The field will eventually shrink and a prime Romney rival will arise, and whoever that is will have a giant glob of votes available to them simply for being the not-Willard.

Things are playing out now similarly to 2008, however, when John McCain prevailed in a perfect storm of opposition incompetence to overcome the fact that most of his party's base hated him and won the nomination. If Romney wins or comes in a strong second on Tuesday, he's gonna be tough to beat for the same reason McCain was tough to beat after New Hampshire in 2008. Then again, amongst an Republican
electorate that threw away winning Senate candidates in favor of Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle, Linda McMahon, and Ken Buck, I'm not sure there's any point in the primary cycle where Romney could rest easy until he has passed the necessary delegate count to secure the nomination.

So it's gonna be Romney...unless it isn't...pretty much exactly where this race has been throughout 2011 except for those few weeks where Gingrich and Perry had their respective surges that were briefly taken seriously. The good news for Obama is that Romney is a terrible politician and under any traditional scenario would lose decisively. The bad news for Obama is that there's at least a 50-50 situation that 11 months from now will be anything but a "traditional scenario", and there's almost no chance of Obama facing an ideal political situation.

Even though I still think Obama is more likely than not to be re-elected, primarily because of his good fortune to run against politically tone-deaf idiots who respond to the sorrowful cries of the disappearing middle-class by proudly vowing to take a lead pipe to their knees, 2012 is an incredibly scary year to go into with the possibility existing of having nothing but human wrecking balls unleashed onto our country unbridled next November, destroying everything in sight and puffing their chests out with pride while doing so.

The War in Iraq Finally Ends

I wasn't alive yet in 1975 when the last American helicopters left Vietnam, but I've always been under the impression it was a fairly anticlimactic final moment to a war that killed 56,000 American soldiers. Nonetheless, hard to imagine it was as anticlimactic as the closing chapter of our misguided nine-year $4 trillion quagmire in Iraq is shaping up to be. On Thursday, President Obama spoke to the troops on the eve of our withdrawal...and it was the third story on the evening news....following a head story about some student who died in a hazing ritual at Michigan State University, or something along those comparatively inconsequential lines.

As for the second story deemed more important than the President's speech to troops about their withdrawal from a war in which approximately 4,500 American soldiers died in the name of finding phantom weapons of mass destruction, it was the horse race among Republican candidates seeking to replace Obama. This is important because, with the exception of Ron Paul, the consensus among these Republican candidates is that the mistake was not invading Iraq in the first place, but "leaving too soon"! Only 17% of Americans believe we should remain in Iraq, but 86% of Republican Presidential candidates do. And the fact that the Iraq government doesn't want to stay and refuses to offer immunity to American troops if they do stay matters not at all to them.

And not only do these Republican candidates for President want us to stay in both Iraq and Afghanistan still longer, they also want us to pick up a fight with a third Middle Eastern country Iran. They've managed to turn the latest drama over that crashed drone into an epic foreign policy failure on Obama's part, and suggest that if they were President we would have gone in with guns blazing to retrieve it.

What's really scary is that they're not kidding...and even though American voters would overwhelming oppose starting even more wars in the Middle East, very few will base their vote on it next November. There was never a point where the war in Iraq was genuinely real to most Americans, even in the early years of heavy combat, but today it's just an afterthought, as evidenced by the fact that the war's end doesn't even make the headlines on the evening news. So I'm not sure Americans have war fatigue as much as they have war detachment. At least since the quasi-successful surge of 2007, hardly a word has been spoken about the war in any conversation I've been engaged in, meaning we've been in a state of war for four years and it has gone under the radar of just about everybody not directly involved with the military.

So when a bunch of idiot Republican chickenhawks start pounding the drums for yet another war to court favor with the bloodthirsty warmongers in their base and the defense contractors bankrolling their campaigns, voters are nominally opposed but collectively shrug while voicing their opposition. Only five years have gone by since the ugliest scenes of the Iraq war were played out on the evening news every night, yet it could just as well have been 50 years for as much as voters seem to care about it. Whether we invade Iran and spend trillions more or not, voters don't seem to feel strongly either way. At least they must not...or else none of these Republican chuckleheads insisting that not enough American blood has been spilled in the Middle East would be registering above single digits in the polls let alone well-positioned to win.

Newt-ron Bomb

Who could have ever imagined back in June that Newt Gingrich would be the frontrunner for the Republican nomination three weeks ahead of the Iowa caucuses? Amazing now to think back to 2000 when the Presidential nomination process was more or less a formality....a coronation of the establishment choices with only minor speed bumps (i.e. John McCain in New Hampshire) along the way. In the internet and cable news era we live in today, political partisans are far too engaged in Presidential politics to allow a 2000-style process to play out again in the foreseeable future, meaning the volatility of the last three primary cycles is probably the new normal. But even with that said, Newt Gingrich??? Has it really come to this, Republicans?

A lot of Democrats are giddy about the prospect of facing off against the erratic and undisciplined Gingrich, knowing he's likely to melt down countless towns over the next 11 months. They're probably right, but it's worth noting that politicians with a reputation for being erratic are all too often given tremendous latitude by voters for doing so. Joe Biden is a classic example for Democrats, and the fact that Herman Cain was able to keep his soldiers in line for several weeks even after an endless drumbeat of amateur hour gaffes suggests Gingrich will really have to step in it for voters to respond. That is a huge advantage up against either Romney or Obama, both of whom are expected to be perfect and for whom any minor misstep is exaggerated over several news cycles.

Whatever current poll numbers show, my feeling is that both Romney and Gingrich are poor general election candidates who will lose decisively in a political climate similar to the one we have now. Romney's profile as a smart and steady-handed Rockefeller Republican only holds up when nobody is scrutinizing him personally or politically. His policy agenda is boilerplate Tea Partyism and would have been seen as way out of the mainstream in any previous election cycle, but he passes as a faux "moderate" amongst this stage full of jesters. Once voters in suburban Philadelphia; Lakewood, Colorado; and Canton, Ohio, are made aware of this, Romney's would-be general election viability declines. And if he pivots to Rockefeller Republicanism in the general election, he risks losing his wingnut base who already dislikes him. As for his alleged personal inflappability, it's a myth that has been disproven three in the last two months, twice at the hands of the lightweight Texas Governor in the debates and again in an interview by Bret Baier of Fox News. Rattle Willard in the least and he becomes as brittle as an icicle in 32-degree weather.

Combine all of that with his baggage as a jobs assassin for Bain Capital and his overall robotic demeanor and this guy doesn't scare me....and I'm not entirely sure Gingrich brings more negatives to a general election than does Romney. The wild card is if Gingrich's erratic tendencies can be successfully sold as a form of mental illness. If the media and the Obama campaign make that narrative stick, Gingrich will become "Sarah Palin at the top of the ticket" and we could be looking at a 1988-style Electoral College landslide. Anything's possible with Gingrich, and he could well aid and abet that perception, but I don't think Democrats should count on that. Romney brings complete predictability to the table in a general election, and the Obama campaign will have the advantage of knowing every move he makes in advance. With Gingrich, they're gonna get a daily onslaught of curveballs (and spitballs), and while it's certainly possible these curveballs and spitballs will make Newt look bad, if Obama is caught flat-footed by any of them, it becomes Obama's problem.

And therein lies the gamble of cheering on a Gingrich candidacy for the blue team. While I think the current political environment favors Obama's re-election, the political environment could change. If Europe crashes, as I still think is a serious possibility, it takes America down with them. A Dow Jones average of $8,000 and an unemployment rate of 13% next November is not a climate Obama can get re-elected in....against anybody. So then the question becomes, do Democrats want somebody who is sane or somebody who is insane as the President? Most seem willing to take the gamble and are crossing their fingers that Professor Gingrich to remain popular with wingnut GOP primary voters. I'm still undecided.

And one last thing worth mentioning that scares me most is that a lot of National Review-type pseudo-intellectual conservatives are so spooked by their terrible choices that they're starting to suggest Jon Huntsman might be acceptable. This is Obama's worst-case scenario as, unlike Romney, Huntsman can probably get away with faking he's a Rockefeller Republican through next November. It still seems unlikely that there's enough time for Huntsman to catch on, but it was about this time in 2007 that John McCain first started getting some momentum in New Hampshire, and we know how that ended.

Early Look At 2012 Senate Races

Perhaps it's pointless to get too far in the weeds on the 2012 Congressional races 11 months before the election, particularly when the field isn't even set in most states, but my modus operandi is nothing if not pointless so I'm giving it a whirl anyway. Just as is the case with the Presidential election, the Democratic Party's success or failure in the Senate races has more to do with what Angela Merkel does in Germany than what Barack Obama or John Boehner do in America, as if Europe falls next week and America has a 13% unemployment rate next November as a result, voters will unjustly spank the Democratic Party next fall. But if Europe holds off from self-destructing until either after our election or before it does any serious damage to us, the Democrats stand poised to get a strong majority of the overall votes in this year's Senate races.

That's the good news for Democrats. But the fact that they hold 23 of the 33 Senate races up this year means they get a 57% popular vote in the Senate races this year but still lose the four seats they need to hold to hang onto the Senate, particularly when three of their most vulnerable seats are in bright red states where Obama will be a drag at the top of the ticket.

Arizona--Theoretically, the Democrats got a great recruit in former Surgeon General Richard Carmona to face off against likely Republican nominee Jeff Flake to fill the open seat left behind by retiring Republican Jon Kyl, but Carmona has been an indecisive and reluctant candidate who stammered about his decision to run for months leading up to his ultimate decision last month. That doesn't bode particularly well for the kind of campaign he plans to run, and given that he has no experience as a politician, it's far from clear whether he's gonna be able to go toe to toe with the well-spoken Flake, or even if he'll impress enough to secure the nomination from fellow Democrat Don Bivens. This is the kind of race that's too soon to get a comfortable feel for, but given what we know today, I have to give the edge to Flake. Prediction: Republican hold.

California--Democrat Diane Feinstein will not only win big next year, she'll get more votes than any other Democratic Senate candidate in any state in the country ever. All indications are the 78-year-old Feinstein plans to run for a fourth full term, and given that the more controversial Barbara Boxer won by nine points against a strong challenger in the toxic political year of 2010, it's hard to imagine anybody in the Republican field giving Feinstein a serious challenge. Prediction: Democratic hold.

Connecticut--If Republican voters were smart enough to nominate former Congressman Chris Shays, they'd have a very good chance at picking up Joe Lieberman's open seat....just like if they had the brains to nominate Rob Simmons in 2010, they'd probably have one more Senate seat right now. But the smart money is that Connecticut Republicans will once again forfeit a seat to Democrats by nominating wrestling baroness Linda McMahon, the same terrible candidate who got her clock cleaned last year. Congressman Chris Murphy is the most likely Democratic nominee and unless he's a rotten candidate, should be able to take advantage of McMahon's weakness. Otherwise, only a huge Republican wave brought upon by a bruising double-dip recession could make McMahon competitive here. Prediction: Democratic hold.

Delaware--Two-term Democratic incumbent Tom Carper should effortlessly get a third term. Prediction: Democratic hold.

Florida--Another race where it's way too soon to call definitively. Two-term Democratic incumbent Bill Nelson has always been the kind of guy who generates few strong feelings either way, and there's little doubt that had he been up in 2010 he would have been defeated. But 2012 may be a different story. There are a flurry of Republican candidates but the smart money now is on Connie Mack, current Congressman and the son of the former Senator. The Mack name is gold in Florida Republican circles and promises to make this a competitive race, particularly if the economy sours again. But in a neutral environment, I have to give a little bit of an edge to Nelson because he seems like a harmless enough Democrat for Florida voters to keep around to give a little bit of balance in their increasingly right-leaning politics. Just a gut feeling for now, but whatever the case Mack is unlikely to be as much of a pushover for Nelson as Katherine Harris was in 2006. Prediction: Democratic hold.

Hawaii--Yet another race that seems likely to be competitive in the most unlikely of states. Retiring Democratic Senator Daniel Akaka leaves an open seat that will be current Democratic Congresswoman Mazie Hirono's to lose (barring an unlikely nomination of Ed Case in the primary), particularly with favorite son Barack Obama at the top of the ticket. But Republicans aren't going down without a fight and have nominated former Governor Linda Lingle. Lingle stands to benefit from the deep unpopularity of her Democratic successor in the Hawaii statehouse. Still, the partisan tide in Hawaii coupled with Obama's presence on the ticket make it hard to imagine Lingle will prevail without some glaring missteps by Hirono (or Case). Prediction: Democratic hold.

Indiana--If this was 2010, long-time incumbent Richard Lugar would probably be felled in the primary by conservative Richard Mourdock. But in 2012, I think Lugar will prevail in the primary, and then dominate in the general election. It's a shame that Democrats are poised to squander a second great statewide Senate candidate this year with Congressman Joe Donnelly, but that's almost certain if his opponent is Lugar. If Mourdock prevails, the race is a toss-up, but I'm inclined to think the GOP would still have a slight advantage unless Obama decides to strongly contest Indiana again, which doesn't seem likely. Prediction: Republican hold.

Maine--Looking more and more like Republican incumbent Olympia Snowe is gonna dodge a bullet here. She has nothing but clowns running up against her in the Republican primary. That may have been enough to take her down in 2010, but I don't think it's a gamble Maine Republicans will be willing to take in 2012. Anything is possible still....one of the Some Dudes in the primary could catch on among conservatives, but it seems odds-against now, and if the popular moderate Snowe prevails in the primary, she's a cinch to win the general election. Prediction: Republican hold.

Maryland--I can't envision a scenario where a Republican can win a statewide race in more-Democratic-by-the-day Maryland in the foreseeable future. That's good news for Democratic incumbent Ben Cardin who should have a slam-dunk re-election. Prediction: Democratic hold.

Massachusetts--Six months ago, I thought Scott Brown owned this seat the way Olympia Snowe owns her seat in Maine, but it's become clear he hasn't established himself yet with Massachusetts voters based on his very vulnerable poll numbers. Factor in the Democrats' top-tier recruit with Elizabeth Warren and all signs point to a very precarious re-election fight for Brown. Brown is by no means out of the race, but if the political conversation continues to be dominated by inequality and the sins of Wall Street, Warren will prevail in deep-blue Massachusetts. Prediction: Democratic pickup. Dems +1

Michigan--Some candidates seem to be getting very lucky this election cycle, and one of them is Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenow, who is theoretically vulnerable and would most likely have been felled if she ran in 2010. But she lacks a strong Republican challenger and I ultimately think Obama's role in saving the Michigan auto industry, amidst passionate Republican cries to let automobile manufacturing in America come to an end, will work to the Democrats' advantage next year. Stabenow is not yet out of the woods, but things are leaning her direction for now. Prediction: Democratic hold.

Minnesota--Things would really have to go badly for Democrats for incumbent Senator Amy Klobuchar to become vulnerable. Her Republican challengers are either third-tier or fourth-tier and every potentially competitive challenger has taken a pass on the race. The only word of warning I can offer for Democrats is that this is Minnesota....where the last time an incumbent Senator looked as secure as Klobuchar does today was Rudy Boschwitz in 1990, and we all know how that ended. Prediction: Democratic hold.

Mississippi--Republican Roger Wicker has been about as anonymous of a GOP backbencher as anyone else in the country over the last four years but being a Republican wallflower is all one needs to score a comfortable win in Mississippi, particularly with the radioactive Barack Obama at the top of the ticket. Prediction: Republican hold.

Missouri--My prognosis of this race hasn't changed since earlier this year. I can't imagine a scenario where Democratic incumbent Claire McCaskill can win with Obama on the ballot. Missouri's hard-right turn seems poised to have staying power particularly with less minority growth than the rest of the country to offset the wholesale shift of the state's working-class whites to the furthest-right reaches of the GOP. I'm not sure whether Sarah Steelman or Todd Akin will get the Republican nomination, but I feel secure in predicting that whichever of them does get the nomination will be Missouri's next Senator. Prediction: Republican pickup

Montana--The fact that Republican Congressman Denny Rehberg already holds small leads in every available poll does not bode well for incumbent Democrat Jon Tester. And I don't believe Tester is doing himself any favors by suddenly becoming a reliable vote AGAINST his party even on popular issues. There are certain districts and states where it makes some sense for a Democrat to think his best bet is to always be on the other side of most issues as Obama and his party's leadership, but I don't think Montana is one of those states. Montana has a substantial left-of-center Democratic base that Tester is gonna need next year. He's far more likely to keep those voters sufficiently motivated by being a good-faith Democrat than he is by trying to win over the conservative rancher from Miles City who currently leans Rehberg. Either way though, a second term for Tester is a longshot. Prediction: Republican pickup. GOP +1

Nebraska--If Ben Nelson hadn't embarrassed himself and his state with the Cornhusker Kickback deal in the health care bill, he'd probably win re-election. But since he did, I don't think that genie can be put back into the bottle. There's absolutely zero margin for error for a Democrat in Nebraska, and Ben Nelson misread his constituents and made a huge error. However much Democrats try to ease their minds by the fact that Nelson isn't trailing his hypothetical GOP challengers now by as much as he was a few months ago, he's toast. Once the ads about the Cornhusker Kickback start playing by his challenger, Nelson will decline again. The current competitive poll numbers are probably only good for convincing Nelson to run again rather than retire. I'm normally lenient towards red-state Democrats who challenge party orthodoxy but in Nelson's case, I couldn't care less if he wins or loses....he sucks that much. Prediction: Republican pickup. GOP +2

Nevada--This one looks to be one of the marquee Senate races in the country....and one of the most difficult to call. What I can say is that Nevada has a recent history of Democrats overperforming in polls, with a strong union machine that cranks out Hispanic votes in Las Vegas in defiance of polls. With that in mind, Democratic Congresswoman Shelley Berkeley would seem to have an advantage over interim Republican Senator Dean Heller. But with one of the worst economies in the country, Nevada is not likely to be as favorable of terrain for Obama as it was in 2008, and softness at the top of the ticket--whether Obama loses or narrowly wins--is bad for Berkeley. But for me the deciding factor in making this call right now was the Republican blowout in the recent special election to fill Heller's old House seat, in which the Republican overperformed traditional Republican margins even against a well above-average Democratic recruit. This tells me Republicans are more engaged than Democrats in Nevada, and if that continues Heller has an undeniable advantage. Prediction: Republican hold.

New Jersey--If the Republicans have come up with a challenger to face off against Democratic incumbent Bob Menendez, I don't know of him yet. Barring a stronger-than-expected Republican candidacy or a double-dip recession, Menendez should prevail for a second full term without breaking a sweat. Prediction: Democratic hold.

New Mexico--Here's a race I haven't seen any polling on. The likelihood is that the open seat vacated by long-time Democratic incumbent Jeff Bingaman will be a face-off between a current and a former Albuquerque-area Congressperson, Democrat Martin Heinrich and Republican Heather Wilson. The trajectory of the Latino vote and its growing pull in New Mexico would suggest Heinrich has the advantage here, but this is the kind of contest that could easily swing Republican if political conditions change for the worse for Democrats. Prediction: Democratic hold.

New York--Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand prevailed handily in the Republican year of 2010, far better than I expected she would. Unless Rudy Giuliani declares his candidacy next week, I suspect Gillibrand will coast into her first full term. Prediction: Democratic hold.

North Dakota--Democrats are understandably giddy that their recent top-tier recruit, former Attorney General Heidi Heitkamp, to fill the seat of retiring Democrat Kent Conrad has a small lead in the early polls against her likely Republican challenger, Congressman Rick Berg, but it smells to me like a post-announcement bump for Heitkamp. To be sure, this is winnable, as Democrats still win elections in North Dakota unlike most of the other Plains states, and Berg is hardly Mr. Popularity based on the available polling data. However, North Dakota is a GOP-leaning state that is in the middle of flush times with the state's ongoing oil boom. My experience is that conservative voters who suddenly become rich don't vote for Democrats in open-seat Senate races. Prediction: Republican pickup. GOP +3

Ohio--For the second straight cycle, Democrat Sherrod Brown has been blessed with good timing. He rode the "culture of corruption" wave into office with a landslide in 2006 and now stands poised to benefit from being a populist voice most loudly decrying the plutocratic overreach of unpopular GOP Governor John Kasich. Brown would have no chance of re-election in 2010, but right now he's looking pretty good for 2012. With that said, it's too early to dismiss youthful Republican challenger Josh Mandel, widely accepted as an up-and-comer in the Ohio GOP. But I don't think 2012 is gonna be his year. Prediction: Democratic hold.

Pennsylvania--Considering the mediocre campaign of Joe Sestak came within a hair's breadth of victory in the toxic Democratic year of 2010, it's hard to imagine that Democratic incumbent Bob Casey, who has pretty widespread appeal even amongst southwest Pennsylvania conservaDems, will be defeated next year. The lack of top-tier GOP opposition to rise to challenge him suggests that's the consensus opinion among Republicans too. Prediction: Democratic hold.

Rhode Island--It's worth mentioning that the state of Rhode Island, along with many of its cities, is financially about where Italy is right now. Given it's long-standing status as a Democratic stronghold, there could be some backlash next year against the party. With that said, incumbent Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse looks pretty secure for re-election next year even in Rhode Islanders are in a particularly cantankerous anti-incumbent mood. It's easy to imagine a scenario where he underperforms, but hard to imagine a scenario where he loses. Prediction: Democratic hold.

Tennessee--Democrats had the perfect political storm in Tennessee in 2006 and still came up three points short of victory. Since then, the state has moved much further to the right and Republican incumbent Bob Corker is in no way controversial or outside the mainstream of his party. That should translate to a landslide re-election for Corker next year. Prediction: Republican hold.

Texas--Long-time Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison is retiring, leaving an open seat. The most likely Republican nominee is current Lieutenant Governor David Dewherst while the field is undefined and wide open for Democrats. Theoretically, the recruitment of former Democratic Congressman Chet Edwards would put Democrats in the game here, but even with Edwards this one still leans decidedly Republican. Without Edwards, the GOP nominee should be a cinch. Prediction: Republican hold.

Utah--Given their rigid nominating process, it's still possible that long-time Republican incumbent Orrin Hatch will fail to secure his party's nomination in favor of a Some Dude Tea Party clown. If this was 2010, Hatch would be a goner, but I think he's odds-on to survive in 2012 as the nominee, a scenario in which he'd cruise to a 3-1 re-election. But even if Hatch fails to get the nomination and it's a dream scenario for Democrats pitting right-wing Tea Partyer Jason Chaffetz versus Democrat Jim Matheson, this is Utah...and whoever has the (R) next to his name wins. Prediction: Republican hold.

Vermont--Independent socialist Bernie Sanders, who caucuses with the Democrats, is about as sure of bet as anyone to win another term next year. Prediction: Democratic hold.

Virginia--The marquee race of the country and the most hard to predict of all. The retirement of Democratic Senator Jim Webb is pitting former Republican Senator George Allen against former Democratic Governor Tim Kaine. Numerous polls have already come out and every one of them is deadlocked, a scenario that is likely to play out for the majority of the cycle. Obama's strength in Virginia next year combined with the strength of the national economy will be the tiebreaker in this election. While it can't be ruled out that Allen will implode like he did in 2006, Kaine's close association with the national Democratic Party isn't doing him any favors. Even if we assume a perfectly neutral national political environment in 2012, Virginia is still slightly to the right of the rest of country, meaning I regrettably have to give a narrow edge to Allen here, with the caveat that just about anything can and most likely will change and potentially put Kaine in the driver's seat. Prediction: Republican pickup. GOP +4

Washington--Two-term Democratic incumbent Maria Cantwell has quietly won over her constituents and has a pretty solid approval rating to show for it. Hard to see how any Republican topples her next year. Prediction: Democratic hold.

West Virginia--I expected Democrat Joe Manchin to be some combination of Ben Nelson and Zell Miller after he won last year's special election, knowing he'd have to come in front of West Virginia voters only two years later with Barack Obama at the top of the ballot. To my surprise, he's been less horrible than I expected, and while still an imperfect soldier prone to some dumb statements, I sense that his heart is with the Democratic platform and if re-elected next year he'll get better. But will he be re-elected? His standing is better than I anticipated and thus far potentially troublesome challengers have opted out of the race, but if Republicans manage to time their "random WV Democrat is the same as Obama" attack right, the third time could be the charm in toppling them as they almost did with Governor Earl Ray Tomblin in October. While I still give Manchin the benefit of the doubt in avoiding this, one mistake in the next 11 months will be the end of him. Prediction: Democratic hold.

Wisconsin--Democrat Herb Kohl is retiring, and I really wish Russ Feingold would have chosen to reclaim a Senate seat next year, because my gut says Wisconsin Democrats are pissing away a seat by consolidating around Madison Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin. Perhaps I'm not giving Wisconsin voters enough credit, but I suspect Baldwin being openly gay will cost her two or three points...and thus the election. Add to that Baldwin's anti-gun record and she's a terribly flawed candidate running in the wrong state. And frankly I think the Democrats are squandering their momentum after Governor Walker's overreach with their permanent recall campaigns, which have gotta be exhausting Wisconsin voters. I doubt former Republican Governor Tommy Thompson will prevail in the GOP primary after giving the thumbs-up to Obama's health care bill, but if he does, he'll be the next Senator. But assuming either Mark Neumann or Jeff Fitzgerald prevails in the primary, I still think they have a leg up on Baldwin in the general election. Prediction: Republican pick-up. GOP +5

Wyoming--Republican John Barrasso will cakewalk into his first full term. Prediction: Republican hold.

So I expect Democrats to have reasonably comfortable victories in most of the large-state Senate races and hang onto the majority of the remaining races as well....yet still lose the Senate. Republicans will likely hold a 52-48 edge in the next Senate, and poised to make substantial additional gains in 2014, particularly if Obama wins re-election. Democrats are better positioned to make some gains in the House next year and they better hope they do because it won't be until 2016 until the Democrats can expect good news out of the Senate.