More Election News

• MN: Dems Keep Cash Edge
• MD-1: Kratovil Attacks Harris Over Tax Proposal
• AK: Race Heats Up on Sunday Shows
• TX: Trial Lawyers Spending Big on Bill White
• VA-2: Will Tea Party Help or Hurt Republican Challenger?
• WI: Will Tea Party Rally Around Ron Johnson?
• PA: Obama to Stump for Sestak in Philadelphia
• HI: Abercrombie to Face Aiona After Trouncing Hannemann
• PA-7: Lentz Questions Advertisement From Outside Group
• OH: Who Would Best Nurture Ohio's Long-Wilting Economy?
• NC: Business Bolsters Burr as He Builds Financial Advantage Over Marshall
• NJ-3: Adler Near Top in Spending to Reach Voters
• WI: Feingold's Votes Support Maverick Label

Roger Simon recently wrote a column in Politico titled: "2010 Is Gone For Democrats".

Let's consider exactly what Simon wrote, and why I believe that any suggestion by any major Democrat that "2010 is gone for Democrats" is not only wrong as a matter of politics but a betrayal of Democratic members of the House and Senate, a betrayal of Democratic donors large and small, and a betrayal of the Democratic base throughout the nation.

Simon quotes an unnamed "source" he describes as a "big time Democrat" saying that President Obama "cannot save" the 2010 election for Democrats, and that he "must concentrate on saving 2012."

I have full faith in Roger Simon's professional integrity. However, I deplore the use of unnamed sources, because it cheats readers of the ability to evaluate the credibility and/or interests of the source. Simon's readers deserve to know the identity of the person providing such a controversial and extreme analysis which is, literally, a suggestion for surrender of the 2010 elections by the President and Democrats.

I believe Simon's source is either Rahm Emanuel or someone who works for the White House staff, or another "big time Democrat" who for whatever reason puts loyalty to reelecting the President in 2012 ahead of electing Democrats to the House and Senate in 2010 - even at the Draconian price of electing a Republican Congress.

Maybe I am wrong about the source. Maybe he or she will have the courage to disclose his or her identity. In the end, however, it doesn't matter. Many of us are continuing the battle of 2010, and while we welcome whatever the President will do, we are not waiting for him to save us, or the election, because this is not a battle about personalities. It is a battle about the course of the nation that began long before the President took office, and will continue long after the President leaves office, whenever that may be.

Whoever Simon's source may be, it would be an outrage for any President of any party to listen to the kind of advice offered in the Simon column in the closing days of a midterm election.

There is certainly at least a 50-50 chance that Republicans win control of the House, and as of today, the odds are probably slightly higher. But Democrats have a good chance to gain House seats in Hawaii, Louisiana, and Delaware. A significant number of House Democrats in vulnerable races have pulled even or within the margin of error. Many of them have significant fundraising advantages. All are backed by a very strong campaign team for House Democrats led by Rep. Chris Van Hollen which, in my opinion, is markedly superior to its GOP counterpart.

In the Senate there are at least 10 Democratic seats that cannot be called safe, but many of these Democratic Senators are strong candidates, while others benefit from Tea Party opponents who give Democrats the edge.

Looking at the state and district polling trends reported daily on RealClearPolitics, it is clear that literally dozens of the races for the House and Senate could ultimately turn either way.

My personal opinion is that the most likely outcome is that Democrats lose about 4 Senate seats and between 35 and 45 House seats. But in an election year as volatile as 2010, with high voter unrest throughout the nation and with Republicans as unpopular as Democrats, there is a very wide potential swing both above and below my projected numbers.

Control of the House, and the final outcome of Senate elections, will be decided by a relatively small number of voters in countless states and districts. It is very possible that control of the House will not be decided until the day after the election, and it is equally possible that 4 or 5 Senate seats will not be decided until the day after the election.

For any "big time Democrat" to counsel a President or party to surrender and throw all of these hotly contested Democratic seats under the bus in the closing weeks of a midterm election is not only political malpractice, it represents the kind of defeatist lack of will that has brought the Democratic Party to the brink of disaster today.

The biggest single variable that will decide the outcome in House and Senate elections, by far, will be turnout of the Democratic base. There will be a gigantic and potentially historic turnout of the Republican base. We do not know the degree that the Democratic base, which is currently dispirited and depressed, will or will not be rallied to vote on Election Day, though today the mood is dark and the election is deadly dangerous for Democrats.

Still, for any Democrat to hide behind a veil of anonymity and suggest that President Obama abandon hopes for 2010 to enhance his position in 2012 is the most disastrous and morally repugnant political advice I have ever heard offered to any President, in either party, in my lifetime.