How do you predict a landslide political shift?

A few weeks before the 2006 election we are looking at public opinion polls, at the closness of races around the country for House, Senate, and governorships, and at the real-life events that shape elections;

• The deteriorating situation in Iraq with mounting attacks and casualties.
• The House page sex scandal in which a congressman wrote sexual e-mail and text messages to under aged students.
• The general sense that the Bush administration is incompetent in every way - the FEMA Hurricane Katrina relief effort being the methaphor for government incompetence.
• The complete and record breaking low approval ratings of the US Congress which hit 17% this week - 17%!! That's half of the approval rating of the news media!
• The mailing out three weeks before the November election of a 107 page, confusing, stupid and ridiculous booklet called "Medicare & You" sent to all American qualifying for Medicare. Only someone with a PhD in bureaucracy could understand this gobble-de-gook and actually take advantage of health care opportunities.

The question is ... can we predict a landslide victory for the Democrats who are the "out party"- out of the White House, out of the House, out of the Senate, and out of the Supreme Court?

The out party (not responsible by virtue of being the minority party, should technically be favored by voters embittered and disappointed by the failure of the federal government over the oast 12 years of Republican control of the Congress and 6 years of GOP control of the White House.

So what could derail this analysis?

The most important factor is the "power of incumbency" - those who seek reelection to public office have been anointed with a renewal of their job by a whopping 90+%.

The pundits - "wise" commentators, (or at least "wiseguys"), and analysts - all seem to agree that the Democrats should do very well.

It will be interesting to see if the conventional wisdom pans out on election night. If it does the tools of predicting turnover will be confirmed. If they fail we will be going back to the drawing board to devise more accurate predictors.

Of course if the Republicans lose control of the House and Senate all will change and Pres. Bush will be in deep trouble. There are many Democrats (and Americans) who feel that he has violated the Constitution and may merit impeachment.

North Korea. A Partisan Issue or just a PROBLEM?

Ok, so we know that North Korea exploded a nuke (October 2006).

We also know that North Korea has developed missiles capable fo hitting the US West Coast (and, of course, South Korea, Japan, and other neighbors who, by the way, are freaked out about this capability). They tested them and they seemed to fly ok.

The question that came up was "Would the Democrats - say Bill Clinton, or Hil Clinton, or John Edwards, or ... but I digress ..) handle this problem differently from the way the Republicans are doing it?"

The answer is - what difference would it make?

North Korea's leader is determined to have nukes so this poor, miserable country can be "taken seriously" as a player on the world stage. Honestly, I believe that there is no strategy - such as "bilateral talks" with the USA - that will distract the N Korean government from giving up nuclear weapons.

Bill and Hillary Clinton claim that if only Bill was still in charge he could have charmed Kim Jong Il, the self indulgent leader of the North, to give up on the only thing that makes this starving country worth even five second of our time.

Should the US talk "directly" to North Korea?

It does not matter!

North Korea is on a path to becoming a nuclear power (albeit a minor, irrelevant one).

So is Iran and I am afraid to say it, I think Hugo Chavez wants Venezuela to have the "Big One" too.

The NY Times had a very scary article about the new wave of nuclear powers who'd like to be part of the "club" of big boys/girls who posess the ultimate toy. Such a shame. This is one toy that we need to keep in the box and NOT let out!

I wonder how excited the Democrats are about inheriting the White House in 2008 and all the incredible problems that come with that job? I do personally think it is good for parties to alternate power. In a democracy (you can look this up!) it is very important for power to circulate or alternate between the major players. Single party rule is a bad, bad idea.

But, if I were Hillary (or John Edwards, Tom Vilsack, Barack Obama, Ted Kennedy, Al Sharpton, Evan Bayh, John Kerry, or whoever..) I'd be very worried about N Korea and Eye Ran (which will also have nukes soon)!

I think Pres. Bush should send Bill Clinton to Pyongyang. See how far he gets!