OK, so not really (or “fake, but accurate” as a certain disgraced news anchor would say), but McCain says that a Democratic takeover of the Senate would cause him to “commit suicide.”

Fortunately, I don’t see a Democratic takeover as all that likely, but I would be keeping the august Senator away from sharp objects nevertheless…

On the other hand, GOP pollster David Winston notes that the recent rounds of pessimistic polls show a massive oversampling of Democrats. For instance, the last Newsweek poll shows an 11-point Democratic advantage in partisan ID. That’s at least double of what the realistic figure should be. It’s quite possible, even probable that the Democrats are polling ahead of the Republicans in partisan self-description. However, a double-digit lead is highly unlikely.

There have been a lot of biased polls released lately — for instance, the Minnesota Poll continues to be DFL propaganda rather than a serious poll, and some of the national polls are likely off by a considerable margin.

The GOP has two big advantages coming into Election Day: they have plenty of money to spend, and they have the best voter-targeting and GOTV system in American political history. Those two things may not be enough on their own, but they certainly make a huge difference in terms of electoral performance.

The polls may show a “sea of blue” but the only poll that really matters won’t be conducted for a few weeks — and that’s the poll that always seems to favor the GOP more so than the ones that come before.

Fred Barnes takes a hard look at the electoral scorecard and finds that the GOP is in deep trouble.

If politics were fair, Democrats would be in as much trouble as Republicans. And they’d be just as vulnerable. They’ve been obstructionist, anti-tax-cut, soft on terrorism, and generally obnoxious. On top of that, Pelosi is the most unpopular national politician in America. But in the sixth year of the Bush presidency, with a GOP-run Congress, Democrats aren’t the issue. Republicans are.

This explains why efforts by Bush and Republicans to target Democrats have been so unsuccessful. A veteran Republican consultant says lavish spending on TV commercials in races he’s involved in has largely failed to either boost the poll numbers of his Republican candidates or drive down those of Democrats. Worse, in blue states, the Democratic crossover vote on which Republican candidates often rely has dried up. Democrats have gone home in droves.

Barnes is right, the GOP’s momentum in September is gone, the victim of the Foley scandal and the weight of their own past mistakes. There are only three weeks left in this campaign, and with the GOP playing defense on all fronts, the chances of the irresponsible, defeatist, and dangerous Democrats taking power are far too great for comfort. The Republicans have failed to hold themselves to the import of the moment, and not only will they pay a political price, but the country will pay as well.

We cannot afford to have the party of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Kerry, and John Murtha in power. Not when we face a crucial point in what is clearly a war that will define the course of our civilization for years to come. The result of such fecklessness is already observable: look at weakened Europe and see what the result of socialism and cultural nihilism has wrought. The Democrats would push the same set of failed policies, and the results could be even worse.

Our economic growth would be destroyed by Democratic tax increases which would erase the gains made since the end of the 2000-2003 recession. Our gains in the war on terrorism would be wiped out when the Democrats demand that we hand victory to al-Qaeda. Our efforts to stop terrorism at home will be set back years when the Democrats suspend the PATRIOT Act and once again tie the hands of intelligence and law enforcement in prosecuting terrorism.

These are serious times, and were the Democrats a responsible party that stood for a stronger America, a change in parties would be nothing more than a temporal political loss. But the Democrats are not such a party. Their ideology is dangerous to this country at this point in history, and their win would be this country’s loss.

The Republicans have done much to deserve the electoral spanking they’re heading towards. Their “leadership” has been weak, they’ve made costly and critical mistakes, and they’ve failed to elucidate the stakes in this election in a meaningful way. However, when it comes to punishing the country by putting in the most feckless, arrogant, and mindless political party in recent American history into power, the stakes are simply too high.

It’s common for societies that have been battered by war and conflict to chose a “safer” alternative — the voters of Britain rejected the lion of Churchill for the timidity of Atlee. However, our war isn’t over, not by a long shot, and while we imagine ourselves safe, while we imagine that the totalitarianism of radical Islam isn’t a threat, the reality is otherwise. The signals we send now will effect the way the rest of this century proceeds, and if we sent the signal that we’re tired of fighting for our values, we shall surely lose them.

Michael Barone is saying that if the Democrats win, it will be by a slim margin, and won’t portend a lengthy change in partisan fortunes. He’s almost certainly right. The Democrats aren’t ahead in the polls because the Democrats are attractive, the Democrats are ahead because the Republicans have been constantly screwing things up. The GOP surrendered when they should have fought (Social Security reform) and engaged in battles that they should never have touched (Terri Schiavo). Glenn Reynolds has a lengthy pre-mortem of what has gone wrong since the beginning of Bush’s second term, and it’s a rather lengthy list.

I still think the damage will be limited. GOP voters know what the stakes are, and even though many of us are disappointed with the GOP leadership, the Democrats are simply dangerous. Their policy prescriptions would be economic disasters — raising the minimum wage would at best have no effect, or at worse it would leave thousands of mostly minority workers out of a job. “Universal” health care is nothing more than rationed health care — and when the doctors start saying that Grandpa has to wait for six months for his pacemaker because some feckless DC bureaucrat is balking at the price tag, the political consequences will be severe. The Democrats are even now proudly admitting they stand for defeat in Iraq, a position that Congressman Murtha incidentally shares with al-Qaeda. A loss there would signal to the rest of the threats we face that we’re unserious, unwilling to take risks, and can be easily swayed by a steady trickle of casualties. If that’s the message we send, we’re inviting attack.

At the same time, the Republicans have been feckless in driving home these points. The Foley mess only highlights the already prevalent idea that the GOP leadership is self-centered and incompetent. When 90% of the media might as well be the opposition research team for the other side, it’s pretty damn imperative that you get all the skeletons out of your closet. Perhaps the GOP leadership didn’t know what Foley was doing — but they certainly should have. That destroyed the momentum that the GOP has been building in September, and it may be too late to regain it.

Thankfully, Barone is right in that the Democrat’s victory will be short-lived:

The Democratic plea is that the Republicans should be punished for incompetence. But even with majorities in both houses of Congress, Democrats will be poorly positioned to offer competence itself. You can make a good case that the Republicans have run out of ideas — they’ve implemented most of Bush’s 2000 platform (tax cuts, education accountability, Medicare changes, more defense spending) and have conclusively failed to implement others (Social Security individual accounts). But Democrats don’t have much in the way of ideas to advance in their place.

If a Democratic victory presages realignment, we should see some evidence of that in the polling for 2008. But we don’t. Which party has candidates that can poll above their party’s 1996-2004 ceilings — 49 percent for Democrats (Clinton 1996), 51 percent for Republicans (Bush 2004)?

Republicans pretty clearly have two, Rudolph Giuliani and John McCain. Democrats can hope that Hillary Rodham Clinton, with her carefully calibrated stands on Iraq and foreign policy, and her bipartisan work on some domestic issues, could be another. So, if he decides to run, could Barack Obama. Another might have been Mark Warner, but he’s not running.

The polling showing Giuliani and McCain well ahead of Clinton and other Democrats suggests that national security — who can best protect the nation against those who are seeking to destroy us? — can still work for Republicans and that domestic issues don’t necessarily work for Democrats. Competence may defeat Republicans in 2006, but that doesn’t mean that ideology can win for Democrats in 2008.

If anything, I would argue that a Democratic victory in 2006 will be a Pyrrhic one. The Republicans aren’t a competent party, but the Democrats make the Keystone Kops look like Navy SEALs. The first order of business will be to impeach the President, which will look petty and vindictive. (Both adjectives that fit the Democratic Party quite well.) The Kossack left will look at this as vindication, which will empower them to pull the party farther and farther to the far fringes of American politics. The Democrats are being held together solely by their hatred of President Bush — the second 2008 starts coming up the Hillary machine and the Democratic left will start engaging in open civil war with each other.

Even so, the country must come first. The Democrats offer nothing but failed policies, divisiveness, and radicalism. They must not be allowed to take power at this critical time in America’s history. Every Republican needs to get to the polls and ensure that the Democrats do not win — the GOP has done poorly, but cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face is not a viable alternative.

Michael Barone has an interesting piece on the Warner fallout and the prospects of Hillary Clinton running in 2008. He notes in Hillary’s recent pieces on Iraq:

No. 1, she avoids the “Bush lied, people died” mantra, which tends to delegitimize our effort in Iraq. Instead, she says, not unreasonably, “We have to deal with the Iraq we have, not the Iraq we wish we had.” That sounds to me like someone who is thinking realistically about a responsibility that might be hers starting Jan. 20, 2009.

No. 2, she endorses the idea, which I championed long ago, of an Iraqi oil fund that would distribute part of the state’s oil profits in payments to every individual. She says that she recommended it in 2003 and that it was shot down by Dick Cheney–something I’ve never seen before in print.

“I thought it was something that could demonstrate clearly that we were not on the side of the oil companies, we were not on the side of the ruling elites–we were on the side of the Iraqi people.” Yes, exactly! She says that over the past month she has asked the president and deputy prime minister of Iraq and the U.S. ambassador there, “When are you going to get the oil deal done?”

The oil trust idea should have been implemented back in 2003, and while Senator Clinton is late on that bus, at least she’s got the will to think constructively about the situation in Iraq. The far left hates Clinton because she’s not a radical leftist. The far right thinks that she is. The reality is that Hillary is much like her husband, someone who’s trying to triangulate to the middle.

I still maintain that Hillary Clinton is the front-runner for the Democrats in 2008. The reputable polls agree. But what about her negatives? is the usual response — and she does have some high negative numbers.

But does anyone think those negatives will stay that way when the Clinton press machine gets rolling? The media will turn her into Lady Di, Mother Theresa, and Xena all rolled into one. We’ll get a stream of constant hagiography from the moment she runs until Election Day. The Clintons are still the media’s darling, and Hillary knows how to play a room.

That doesn’t even touch on her fundraising, the fact that she’s already establishing a strong political presence in key states, and the fact that she’s already positioning herself as a moderate in comparison to the increasingly shrill radicalism of the Democratic Party. While Republicans have a tough time imagining Hillary Clinton as a moderate, that’s where she’s heading, and she’s one of the few American politicians to pull it off. When you have the Clinton machine working on your behalf, you can pull off damn near anything. Between that and the media, don’t think for a second that Hillary is going to be an easy candidate to beat.

Hillary Clinton, like her husband, is a consummate political operator. She knows how to fundraise. She knows how to triangulate. She knows how to read the tea leaves, and she knows how to position herself to be in the right place at the right time. Even the talk that she really doesn’t have a chance works in her favor, just as Clinton’s “comeback kid” schtick worked for him in 1992.

Granted, she could utterly implode à la Howard Dean, but she’s smarter than that. The Clintons have made careers on defying the odds, and when it comes right down to it, Hillary remains the one to beat. Nobody has her organization, her machine, and her fundraising, and when it comes to 2008 those factors are going to make a massive difference.

Former VA Governor Mark Warner is saying he won’t run for President in 2008, citing family concerns. Warner was on the shortlist for 2008, and his departure makes a Hillary Clinton run all the more inevitable.

It’s not surprising that someone wouldn’t want to go through the public tarring and feathering that happens during a Presidential run, and there have been a number of able candidates who have decided not to take on that Herculean task. It’s also probably true that Warner crunched the numbers: he’s an able fundraiser, but he’d have to fight against established Democratic interests, especially Senator Clinton. He may be a good candidate, but ascending to the nomination is no easy task.

Two big winners emerge from this: Barack Obama and the GOP. Obama because it’s clear he’s thinking about taking Warner’s title of being the “anti-Hillary” and who doesn’t have the baggage of being a failed White House candidate. The GOP wins because Obama’s inexperience and liberalism mean that he probably won’t win, and the chances of Hillary becoming the Dem nominee in 2008 just went up even more. Short of Hillary crashing and burning, the far left’s hatred of her isn’t enough to sink her candidacy in 2008, and her fundraising skills ensure that she’ll be in a nearly unassailable position by the start of the next campaign season.

Glenn Reynolds is asking why the Republicans deserve to keep the House, and he isn’t finding any good answers. To be honest, the only saving grace of the House GOP is that the Democrats are orders of magnitude worse.

Unfortunately for the Republicans (and indeed the country at large), that’s probably not going to be enough.

Reynolds is right, the GOP has been playing down its moral and political capital for years now. Hastert’s idiotic defense of disgraced Rep. William Jefferson was just one sign of a House culture that has become entirely too self-obsessed for its own good. The Foley mess only confirms what most Americans already know: our Congressional leadership is utterly and completely inadequate. In a time of war, our political chattering classes are more interested in fratricide than anything else. The Democrats are foaming at the mouth, and the Republicans are drooling on their shoes, and the nation is rightly getting sick of both. No wonder Congress has the sort of approval ratings usually associated with hangnails and bubonic plague.

Hopefully this nearly-inevitable loss will awaken the Republicans to the abandonment of their principles that led them here. Then again, our political class seems utterly insulated from reality — on both parties. The Democrats are hoping that this will be like 1994 was — except the problem is that now the idea of “throwing the bums out” is less attractive when it would just be replacing them with another set of bums.

There’s an old adage that says that we get the politics we deserve. God help us.

Another poll has come out showing Rudy Giuliani with a commanding lead over both Republican and Democratic hopefuls for 2008. Giuliani gets support from 23% of Republicans, with 20% supporting Condoleezza Rice (who is almost certainly not going to run in 2008). Giuliani even picked up a strong level of support from Democrats:

54% of registered voters want to see Rudy Giuliani run for president in 2008. This includes 78% of Republicans and 57% of independent voters. Even 32% of Democrats are interested in a Giuliani presidential candidacy.

Giuliani’s positions are supposed to utterly damn him in the GOP primaries, which may be true, but that largely assumes that the evangelical crowd won’t support him. That may well be true, Giuliani is certainly not a social conservative, but I firmly believe that the actual influence of hard-core Christian conservatives on GOP politics is probably highly overrated. Giuliani needs to make it clear that he supports judges that will intepret rather than twist the Constitution, that he supports Second Amendment rights, and that marriage is an issue for the states, and he can get the support of not only a good fraction of evangelicals, but also a good fraction of Democrats as well.

If it comes down to a Rudy vs. Hillary campaign, social conservatives won’t elect someone they see as the devil incarnate — even if it means compromising on some issues. At the end of the day, what matters in the field of campaign politics is winning, and Rudy can win if he chooses the run. Most Republicans know this, and if Rudy doesn’t decide to openly attack core Republican constituencies (as McCain did in 2000), his problems in the primary season are not insurmountable.