Coffee at the Pink Flamingo

I forgot and you probably did too. The Iraq war is over for us this month. How did the WMDs work out for you? It's MISSION ACCOMPLISHED--sort of.

Well, it didn't take long for the Republicans to adopt my strategy on the tax cuts for the rich. They finally admitted it would deepen the deficit but tax cuts for the rich are really for job creation. Fox News was helpful in pointing out that the elimination of these tax cuts would be Obama declaring class war in the United States and threatening what made America great--the rich? Karl Rove has pivoted and says that the tax cuts for the rich are really aimed at small businesses. Ironic in that the Republicans have fought against every tax break for small businesses since Obama took office. But also, it doesn't really apply because only about 1% of small businesses make a profit of $250,000 a year. The Tax is not on gross receipts. As for the stimulus effect of these tax cuts, the bad news is that reputable think tanks like the Center of Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute have shown that job creation after the Bush tax cuts was weaker than any other recovery in our history. But why fool around with facts?

Still bitter after all these years, Senator John McCain and his new sidekick Senator Coburn issued a report that found problems with 100 stimulus projects of the thousands. What's worse for McCain is the new Pew Poll that shows that a vast majority of every party prefers their representative to bring government projects to their home district. McCain hasn't brought any and has campaigned against pork barrel spending his whole life. It seems Americans respectfully disagree.

Someone at the Dailykos decided to post the horoscopes of the Republican and Democratic leaders as well as the heads of the congressional campaign committees to ascertain the results of the November elections. Great idea and fun. The Republicans all come out as frustrated, while House Democrats go through tough times but emerge more powerful. Hmmm.

The horoscope may be the best answer yet. Yesterday's Gallup poll had Republicans regaining the generic poll by five--which is a direct reversal of the previous two weeks.

Republican staffers have been informed not to give out their bosses' home district schedules for the recess. Rumor has it that they fear 99ers showing up at townhall meetings. I would love to see a reverse Tea Party on the Republicans.

Richard Trumpka of the AFL-CIO has committed $53 million to the mid-terms to create a firewall against Republican in-roads. He called this year's choice "the cleaning crew versus the wrecking crew".

No one has mentioned this but while Republicans will pick up a number of state houses this fall, Obama may come out the biggest winner. If Democrats (and they have a real shot) win California, New York (done deal), Florida, Ohio and Texas (which I believe), that's 167 electoral votes and Obama is 103 away from re-election.

Meg Whitman officially has spent $99 million so far to buy the state of California. Governor Moonbeam has spent $450,000.

Let's play Senate elections for our summer amusement. Nate Silver has automatic Republican pick-ups in North Dakota, Arkansas, Delaware, and Indiana. Observers point to tight races in Wisconsin with Russ Feingold up for re-election and Washington State with Patty Murray. I think both incumbents will be OK. I think Patty Murray will beat Dino Rossi convincingly. I'm willing to call Florida now for Charlie Crist over Marco Rubio. I also believe that the Democratic nominee in Colorado will inch past the Republican,who will be crazy no matter who wins the nod. While I like Rodney Glassman in Arizona as a candidate--someone to watch, McCain will win again.

So the Democrats are minus 3 at this stage. I believe Democrats can pick up Ohio with Lee Fisher over John Kasich, North Carolina with Elaine Marshall over Burr, Kentucky with Conway over Rand Paul, Louisiana with Charlie Melancon over Diaper Dave Vitter and New Hampshire with David Hodes over one of the teabaggers. That would put Democrats up 2.

Right now Missouri, Pennsylvania and Illinois are too close to call. I can't see Mark Kirk regaining momentum in Illinois with his serial fabrication. In Pennsylvania, the Republicans look certain to take the state house but Pat Toomey seems too extreme for a state that has benefited enormously from the stimlus projects. And Missouri has evolved into one of the craziest political states in recent years that it's anyone's guess. Let's just say out of the three, Democrats lose 1.

Democrats have a lock on West Virginia with Gov Manchin. I like Roxanne Conlin as the Democratic candidate in Iowa. Iowa will elect former Governor Bradstad to the state house. Will this be enough to bring Grassley over the line? His approval rating has slipped to below 50% for the first time in his career.

Right now, Democrats could gain 1 in the Senate. CW would put loses at 4.

The question that hasn't been asked is whether Republicans will change their leadership in both chambers of Congress if they fail to win the majority. Do you want to stick with the policy of "No" through the presidential elections in 2012?

My rule of thumb at this stage of the elections is that Republicans must be polling at least 10 pts ahead to conclude they will win. It's like a reverse generic ballot, where Democrats polling 5 pt leads are actually tied.

Gallup released yesterday a 50 state poll ranking states as political conservative, moderate or liberal. This type of poll has always been circulated by right-wing friends of my as indicating that the country is conservative. But as we saw with David Stockman's blast at Republican eceonomics in the New York Times that traditional "Republican" values, those we associate with "conservative", are not radical and the hard right of today's party. That's why on the other end of the spectrum The Young Turks can claim most Americans are progressive, according to issues. in the future, Gallup should actually dig deeper to establish what values lie beneath "conservative" and "liberal". It would also be interesting to see how "libertarian" turns out.

The most conservative states are Wyoming, Mississippi, Utah, South Dakota, Alabama, North Dakota, Idaho, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Louisiana. So it breaks down to Western libertarianism, Mormonism, southern neo-confederate, Christian wingnuttery, and actually three normal conservative states Nebraska, and the Dakotas.

The top liberal states are D.C.,Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont, Massachusetts, Colorado,New York, Oregon, Washington, and New Jersey. So that's African-American, the Yankees, Pacific Northwest, and the cosmopolitan mid-Atlantic states.

Well, how are our family value states doing? Law professors Naomi Cahn and June Carbone have published a new book "Red Families v. Blue Families: Legal Polarization and the Creation of Culture", which examines the family patterns of socially conservative, "pro-family" people and their blue family counterparts. What I found interesting is that their findings mirror what evangelical sociologists have found about their flock. Red states have higher divorce rates and higher teen birth rates,slightly lower abortion rates, and higher out of wedlock births. One interesting fact is that 90% of women in all states use contraception. In fact, about 46% of women who procured abortions hasd not used some form of contraception the previous month so that the authors believe you could half this number with better education and the availability of contraception. Alot of their findings reflect not only differences in attitudes toward families but also a direct relationship to economic well-being and education. Ironically, those who live a more traditional family lifestyle are in blue states and the states with the lowest divorce rates are those ,which allow gay marriage. The evangelical studies go farther into meth addiction, porn use and domestic abuse, which show evangelicals are more dysfunctional than other sectors of society.