Tomorrow Will Be A Huge Republican Night

Tomorrow evening, probably pretty early here on the left coast, we will know the margin of  Republican control of the senate, an increased majority in the house and how many state houses will look like for the next two years.
One important reality is that my state, California, will not see much of a change as Gov. Jerry Brown will cruise to reelection. But there are chances for the GOP will make gains and begin a long march to respectability in the once Golden State. But that is for another post.
Let me say now that the GOP will get the six seats needed to take the majority and I think with a lot more ease than we are seeing in the polls to today.
And I will stipulate the three seats that are currently in Democrat hands most if not all analysts believe go the the GOP. Those seats are in Arkansas, South Dakota and West Virginia. There is nothing to comment on those seats except that it boosts the Republicans to 48 seats in the senate.
So, where do the votes come from to get the three more seats needed?
Well, there are a lot of places and these would be the three seats I believe will get the GOP over the top in no particular order.

IOWA:
State senator Joni Ernst (R) is ahead of the Democrat candidate, congressman Bruce Braley in the Real Clear Politics average of polls by 1.4% and that is the margin of error. But almost all polls are showing Sen. Ernst ahead and the highly respected Des Moines Register poll shows her ahead by seven points. And that may end up being the margin of victory. Sen. Ernst has ran a pretty flawless campaign while Rep. Braley has done everything possible to alienate a lot of potential voters, especially farmers which is a large voting bloc in Iowa.

The RVFTLC prediction:        Joni Ernst(R)     53%     Bruce Braley(D)   47%    GOP gain

COLORADO:
This has turned into the bizarre race of the cycle. Current Democrat incumbent, Sen. Mark Udall should have been winning this race but decided he would run his campaign on the so-called "War on women" meme. Current Republican congressman, Cory Gardner, like Sen. Ernst, has run a flawless campaign by essentially taking much of the sail off of that made-up issue. But by running on such a non-issue, it appears that Sen. Udall is running himself out of a job. And the voters seem prepared to reward Rep. Gardner with a six-year term. According to the RCP average, Rep. Gardner is up about two percent.  And that maybe enough to even pull in a GOP governor against the equally hapless incumbent, John Hickenlooper. An aptly named pol if there ever was one.

The RVFTLC prediction:      Cory Garnder(R)  55%     Mark Udall          45%     GOP gain

ALASKA:
The current Democrat incumbent is Sen. Mark Begich. Sen. Begich is lucky to be in this position because in 2008, he was able to ride a wave of one Barack Obama and a conviction of then-Sen. Ted Stevens (later overturned) to victory. A narrow one at that. This time around, the GOP has a strong candidate in Attorney General Dan Sullivan and he has had Sen. Begich on the ropes throughout this cycle. And it has been so strange to see Sen. Begich declare that the president of the United States, fellow Democrat Obama, to be irrelevant. It is not helping Sen. Begich anymore than anyone else to run away from the Dear Leader, President Obama. And Mr. Sullivan is ahead in the RCP polling average also about two percent.

The RVFTLC prediction:      Dan Sullivan(R)    55%     Mark Begich(D)        45%     GOP gain

And those are what I think will be the sure GOP bets to get to the magic number of 51 seats to control the senate.
So is there anywhere else that the GOP can win? Can they add to the senate majority they are expected to win tomorrow night?
Why yes, there is.
How about North Carolina? Well, this race has been one of the toughest fought on both sides. The current incumbent is Democrat Sen. Kay Hagan. Her Republican challenger is the speaker of the North Carolina house, Thom Tillis. The fact is that Sen. Hagan has been ahead this whole race but her margins are within the margin of error, usually between three to five percent either way. Sen Hagan is now averaging a lead of 0.7% in the RCP average of polls. That means as long as Mr. Tillis is this close and closing in, the chances are at minimum 50-50 he can pull off a close win. Will I dare to predict this one? Sure will. Here it is:

The RVFTLC prediction:      Thom Tillis(R)     50%     Kay Hagan(D)         48%     GOP gain

OK, there is an equally tight race in New Hampshire between Democrat incumbent Jeanne Shaheen and former Massachusetts Republican Sen. Scott Brown. Now I'll totally be fair here and while I like Sen. Brown, he can not live down the label of carpetbagger. Finding a place where he thought he could win election. He could have ran again in Massachusetts this year, but would have lost to the incumbent Sen. Ed Markey. It is the one thing that I believe may save Sen. Shaheen. But like Sen. Hagan, Sen. Shaheen is falling and her RCP poll average is also bellow a margin of one percent (0.9%). Mr. Brown is in range to win this and has to make a super strong closing argument and I think that he could. So, the fearless prediction is:

The RVFTLC prediction:      Scott Brown(R)     50%     Jeanne Shaheen(D)  48%    GOP gain

Now there are a couple of races that I will say could potentially hurt the GOP and dent some of the predictions made here. Meaning that all of the above need to happen to offset at least one or maybe two losses.
Kansas is one that may be a loss for the GOP but it may have happened no matter what. The GOP incumbent is Sen. Pat Roberts. Really he is a solid conservative. But what I think really hurt him is his inability to identify with his home state. He does not own a home in Kansas and rarely visits the state. And he had a bruising primary with Tea Party favorite, Milton Wolf, a cousin of the Dear Leader, President Obama, and only this past Friday Mr. Wolf endorsed Sen. Roberts reelection bid. He is being challenged by "Independent" candidate Greg Orman who, because of his showing in the polls, caused the Democrat candidate to bail out and the state supreme court said that was just fine. Mr. Orman is being blatantly endorsed now by the Democrat party. But Mr. Orman is very coy as to what party he will caucus with in Washington. In the past, he has been a active Democrat. But if he should win and the GOP is in the majority, he may well just keep the seat for the GOP. But it is a bad chance to take. I think that this goes to Mr. Orman but by a small margin.
In Louisiana, there is a strange way general elections are held. There is no primary. Essentially the primary is on the day of the general election. If one candidate, no matter what party, gets 50% plus one, they win. Since that rarely happens, there is a runoff between the top two vote getters in early December. The Democrat incumbent is one Sen. Mary Landrieu. She is facing two strong Republicans, one being current congressman Bill Cassidy and Rob Maness. One of those two will go on to the election in December. Most polls show that Rep. Cassidy will be that candidate. There is the polling for tomorrow here in which Sen. Landrieu is ahead but in December she will lose to Rep. Cassidy. I see this as a GOP pick up. Louisiana is just turning more and more Republican and this is an icing on that cake.
Is there one race, one race that is off the radar that could be a surprise win for the GOP tomorrow night? Any race?
One to look for could well be in Virginia. Democrat Sen. Mark Warner is facing former GOP chair Ed Gillespie. Polling has shown Sen. Warner consistently ahead. But Mr. Gillespie is closing the gap. How close can he get? Probably not enough to win. But if this race is not called right away by the networks tomorrow night, it could be a huge upset in the making.
All of this at the end gets the GOP control of the senate. If my predictions hold out, the GOP gets seven seats and the number in congress will be 52 seats. If there are huge upsets other than Virginia, it well could be ten seats and a lot of breathing room. But I am sticking with 52 to 48. Unless Greg Orman in Kansas surprises everyone and caucuses with the GOP. Then its 53-47.
So, what about the house?
No one has been talking much about the house, but I see really big gains that no one else does. Currently, the GOP has 234 house seats. There is a goal of gaining 16 to get to 250 seats. Not only do I think that it is doable, but more than likely. And many of the gains will happen in Blue states.
There are at least two to three seats that can go the GOP way in California. Yes, California. In New York state, two seats will change to the GOP for sure. Illinois and Ohio are possible GOP pickups. I see that the GOP will probably gain 20 seats and give them 254 seats.
One other thing that could pad the GOP majorities is Democrat defections. It is very possible. If Mr. Orman wins and decides he will caucus with the GOP, a possible defection is West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin. He may look at the landscape and think being in the minority sucks. And that he is more aligned with the GOP on some key issues. It's a possibility, but not overly likely.
Maybe some house members will come to the same conclusion. I would not be surprised if it happens.
On the state level, the GOP may pick up the governor's office in Colorado, Illinois and Massachusetts. But they may lose in Alaska to an Independent backed by former Gov. Sarah Palin. They may lose Florida to the insufferable Charlie Crist. And also Kansas. That leaves a wash at the governor's level. But they could pad their control of state legislatures and or make gains in some they do not control. In California, the GOP has to gain only one seat in each house to end the Democrat super majority they gained in the 2012 presidential election year. That would be substantial.
Tomorrow will be a huge night for the Republican party. They will gain control of the senate and make gains in governorships in Blue states. They will increase the majority they have in the house.
The big question we can start asking on Wednesday is what will all this mean for governing in the United States?

Why Sen. Paul's Filibuster Matters

I know that some people are grousing that Sen. Rand Paul's epic filibuster of yesterday was kinda sorta meaningless yet I am here to write that it not only was not meaningless but maybe a serious turning point for the Republican party.
What righteously rankled Sen. Paul is that the Dear Leader, the Obama administration with Attorney General Eric Holder hemming and hawing, would not say outright that this administration would not target American citizens here in the United States for drone strikes.
To me it is not a minor matter.
Look, I may be accused of splitting hairs on this, but I have no problem in the Obama administration taking out Anwar al-Awlaki as it did in Yemen. Mr. al-Awlaki was conducting his terror war against the United States in a foreign nation. We do not know with absolute certitude that Mr. al-Awlaki was not aided possibly by members of the Yemeni armed forces, such as it is, or the government itself. The fact that he was a naturalized American citizen does not bother me. Nor if he was a multi-generational descendant from the Mayflower.
But yes, it does bother me the possibility of such an event happening here on American soil.
While some mocked at Sen. Paul for suggesting that one could be sitting at a coffee bar or an outdoor cafe and suddenly a drone takes out not only a suspect, but many others. It is called collateral damage. The greater good is that it saved lives because that suspect could not carry out a horrific terrorist act.
Oh, as it turns out in that scenario they had the wrong guy and he and those enjoying their coffee drinks also taken out did nothing wrong at all.
Now, I would be for this option.
Same situation but instead of a drone strike, how about said suspect being arrested and tried in a military tribunal? I have not one problem with that. It is a compromise that should please both sides.
So let's get back to the Sen. Paul filibuster.
Sen. Paul decided to block the senate from taking up voting for the Dear Leader, President Obama's CIA director nominee, John Brennan. Mr. Brennan is considered one of the chief architect's of the current administration's drone policy.
Sen. Paul is a libertarian type and sees this potential policy that does not rule out entirely using drones on American citizens in the United States as a bad thing. He said that if a Republican president was considering the same thing, he would be against it as well. One should believe him on that score.
And let me go a step further.
I supported the Patriot Act when it was implemented.
But, with the passage of time, there is time to see what good it has or not done. And if necessary, make revisions. It is a law passed by congress, signed by a president. Meaning it can always be scrutinized. Scrapping it entirely would be a huge, huge mistake.
Having said that, Sen. Paul put an administration that ran against such things as the Patriot Act and drone attacks and the like on notice. They are being watched. And Sen. Paul had not just Republican support but some rather left-wing Democrats ended up in support of what he was saying.
Republicans were watching how one should deal with the Democrats in general. Stick to issues. If even one that is not all that glamorous as whether or not drone strikes within the United States against American citizens are OK. Sen. Paul was focused and never went into the gutter about his serious concerns.
And as an aside, too bad two of his "Republican allies", Sen. Lindsey Goober Graham (R-SC) and Sen. John "F--- you" McCain showed what douchbrains they really are.
Instead of seeing what a serious debate can do, in which in the end the Obama administration assured Sen. Paul that is not and will not be administration policy to use drones against Americans in the United States, both not only attacked him but on the floor of the senate.
Face palm and here.
Rather than realizing what Sen. Paul was bringing up is a legitimate issue, Sen. Goober went so far to say this amazing statement in regard to as to if it is legitimate to question whether the president has the right to kill Americans by drones:

“I do not believe that question deserves an answer.”

Hey Sen. Goober, you're wrong! It sure as hell does deserve an answer because it is a legitimate question.
And of course Sen. "F--- You" McCain, man of such decorum, said that the filibuster was a disservice to the American people and that Sen. Paul was misinforming the public about the use of drones.
Oh yeah, and where were these two douchebrains last night?
Dinning with the Dear Leader, President Obama rather than actually being able to maybe help their colleague get that answer that took him close to 13 hours of talking on the senate floor to eventually  get.
No, Sen. Paul is not a disservice to the American people. You two douchebrains are.
In fact, Sen. Paul showed poise, composure and moxie that Republicans need to show in dealing with not only the Dear Leader, President Obama, but in relating to the American people.

Yes, We Will Go Off The Fiscal Cliff And It Is Time Middle Class Americans Realize The Cost Of Big Government

I know that as I write this, there is a very small chance that the powers that be in Washington, D. C. will cut a horrible deal to avert the so-called Fiscal Cliff.
But chances are much less as the hours go on.
So, I stand by my thinking that we are not going to get a horrible deal and that the United States is going over the Fiscal Cliff.
I think that it is going to be a lesson that the middle class would rather forget, but it is necessary for the middle class to learn that big government costs real money.
And once again, Marc Thiessen of the American Enterprise Institute and Washington Post columnist explains it clearly. Clearer than House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). Clearer than Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
Let's take what Mr. Thiessen wrote here:

During Obama’s first term, federal spending grew to more than 24 percent of GDP — the highest it has been since 1946. Yet almost no one in the country (except smokers and those who frequent indoor tanning salons) saw their taxes rise.

Very true. At least at the federal level most Americans have not seen taxes rise yet the size of government is, well continuing to be out of control.
Again, from Mr Thiessen:

160 million Americans saw their payroll taxes reduced from 6.2 to 4.2 percent.

Very true.
And for a Happy New Year, when the Dear Leader, President Obama, drives the United States off the Fiscal Cliff, that 4.2% payroll tax goes back to the 6.2%.
And as noted in the column by Mr. Thiessen, one of the big reasons that we have not felt the pain, we middle class voters, is because the administration has been essentially borrowing money from our children and grandchildren.
And he should have mentioned borrowing from Red China in the form of treasury bonds.
But what is an eye-opener is that Mr. Thiessen essentially believes that it was a mistake to extend the so-called Bush Tax Cuts.
Why, pray tel?
Because while it did seem to be a quick win for the then newly majority Republican congress, all it has done is continue to let the Dear Leader, President Obama, and his policies off the hook.
In a way, it is big government on low taxes.
But, we all know that the Dear Leader, President Obama, wants to increase taxes on the eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll, filthy, stinking rich folks. The once one percent and now two percent of Americans that make a lot of money. Well, those that are unfortunate to earn $250,000 or more.
Ok, will that solve the problems of spending and taxation at all?
Oh, it is estimated that if the Dear Leader got everything he wanted, it would amount to 30 weeks of savings over 10 years. About three weeks a year.
So, again, why not drive over that Fiscal Cliff and let the middle class understand the brunt of expanding government? And let's throw in that the reality is about wealth redistribution? Something that most middle class Americans do not even realize is up President Snidley Whiplash Obama's sleeve.
Trust me folks, my state of California is on this course.
The passage of Proposition 30 was touted as saving education. And a tax on the rich.
Only that is not the fact.
The fact is that the tax revenue will be raised by not just taxing the rich but increasing the state sales tax a 1/4 cent per dollar. Which means that Californians minimum sales tax is now 7.5%. In Los Angeles county where I live, we now have the pleasure of paying a sales tax of nine percent.
Now that does not seem like much, but if one wants to make a big ticket item like appliances, a new car, something along those levels, people may start to think twice.
The point is that government costs real money.
And at some point, people need to realize that.
And maybe, driving over the Fiscal Cliff is the only way to make Americans realize the real cost of having Barack Obama as president.

Who Know Who Would Make A Good Senator From California? How About David Dreier?

Yeah, I really believe that California would be better served if Republican Congressman David Dreier would take the plunge and run for the senate next year. He would face Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein in the general election.
There are many reasons why I think that Congressman Dreier would be a formidable candidate for the senate.
Firstly, no serious Republican is mounting a challenge to Sen. Feinstein. If Congressman Dreier were to announce running, no doubt the field would be clear. And Congressman Dreier has a beginning war chest that would have been used to run for reelection in California's 26th congressional district.
Secondly, California is at this point Northern California centric. And overly Democrat represented.
Take a look at our elected officials.
At the federal level is Sen. Feinstein, from San Francisco and Sen. Ma'am Barbara Boxer. She currently lists her primary residence as Palm Springs, but got her start representing the California 6th congressional district. And that is primarily Marin County, one of the most liberal districts in California. So, she is still a No Cal at heart.
Then there are the California constitutional offices.
Gov. Jerry Brown, Democrat No Cal. Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, Democrat No Cal. Treasurer Bill Lockyear, Democrat No Cal. Attorney General Kamala Harris, Democrat No Cal. Insurance Commissioner, Dave Jones, Democrat No Cal. The only Southern California representation in Sacramento is the Secretary of State, Debra Bowen and the Controller, John Chiang.
You get the picture.
Congressman Dreier coming from So Cal would bring a different set of priorities to the senate race.
Another plus, usually not good but an exception in this case, is Congressman Dreier's length of service in congress. Congressman Dreier is currently in his 30th year in the People's House. He is important in Republican congressional leadership as chair of the Rules Committee in the House. it is basically how bills weave their way through congress.
But where is Congressman Dreier on the issues?
Congressman Dreier is a solid conservative Republican. Congressman Dreier has a lifetime American Conservative Union rating of 91%. Solid on the issues. To see what latest available votes and how Congressman Dreier voted, see this link.
Congressman Dreier has long supported conservative reform positions on Social Security, education, taxes, and national security issues. Congressman Dreier was elected the same year, 1980, as Ronald Reagan was elected president. While this link is not the most current, it does indicate the solid conservative voting record Congressman Dreier has had.
To some, it is not a perfect record and it will be highlighted.
For instance, on an issue that I will delve into in a bit, Congressman Dreier has a mixed record of homosexual issues. He opposed the Defense of Marriage Act. Opposes job discrimination based on sexual orientation. Yet he opposes same-sex adoptions in the District of Columbia.
And that leads to the elephant in the room. No pun intended.
It has long been rumored that Congressman Dreier is a homosexual. He has never been married. And the rumors are that he and his chief of staff, Brad W. Smith were long time partners.
Congressman Dreier has refused to answer the allegations.
And FTR, I really do not care if Congressman Dreier is or is not a homosexual. He has never made it an issue one way or the other. Thus, it is his business. But, if he were to run for the senate, he would need to deal with the questions. Like it or not.
And let me be clear, if we lived in a different time in our history, maybe it would be an issue to plant the flag on. But we have so many fires out there that whether or not a congressman or senator is gay is not high up on my issues list.
And I believe that Congressman Dreier would make a formidable opponent to the senior senator from California. Something that Sen. Feinstein has not had in a while.
Congressman Dreier would be a great choice for California Republicans to take on Sen. Dianne Feinstein. I am very hopeful that Congressman Dreier is giving it some serious thought. The calendar is running against him. And it would have to make the Democrat party pour millions into what should be a safe seat for them. But, with the right candidate, Congresman Dreier, it would be at best a toss up. And a huge Republican take away. And that much closer to a majority Republican senate.
So, if you are paying attention David Dreier, I think that it is time to move up to the senate and this is the time to make a run.