The Odd Mutual Pessimism Between Democratic Elites and Conservative Grassroots

Today on NRO

John Fund: Even Dems tire of Harry Reid’s strong-arm tactics. Reid on the Ropes

Kevin D. Williamson: Wendy Davis and the wages of fanaticism. Twilight of the Froot Loops

Eliana Johnson: David Perdue, a boring competent businessman, is looking good. Just Enough in Georgia

Benny Johnson: Scott Brown hands out drinks and burnishes his everyman image. Bartender Scott Brown

Slideshow: Campaign Trail 2014

Morning Jolt
. . . with Jim Geraghty

November 3, 2014

Check back on Campaign Spot throughout today and tomorrow for many updates, including a final projection on all the big races . . .

The Odd Mutual Pessimism Between Democratic Elites and Conservative Grassroots

Rarely have we seen an election cycle where the Democratic elites and most of the mainstream media seem convinced a Republican landslide, or near-landslide, is imminent, while a lot of Republicans and conservatives aren’t so sure.

The signs of doom for Democrats are piling up like delayed flights in a thunderstorm . . .

The Washington Post’s Election Lab calculates there’s a 96 percent chance Republicans will control the Senate. (They calculate a 99 percent chance of winning the House.) They project GOP wins in Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, and Louisiana; Democrats hold on in North Carolina and New Hampshire.

Nate Silver and the FiveThirtyEight crew give Republicans a 73 percent chance of winning a majority in the Senate. The New York Times gives the GOP “just” a 68 percent chance of winning a Senate majority.

The pollster for the Des Moines Register looked at Republican Joni Ernst’s 7-point lead in her poll unveiled Sunday and concluded, “This race looks like it’s decided.”

The early vote in Colorado shows that of the 1.1 million votes cast through Friday, 41 percent were by Republicans, 32 percent by Democrats, and 25 percent by voters not registered with either party. That’s a 104,000 vote margin that Mark Udall and John Hickenlooper have to overcome — not impossible, but a very tall order.

NBC News: “Just days before the midterm elections, Republican Senate candidates are in strong positions in three key Southern states [Kentucky, Georgia, and Louisiana] putting the GOP well within striking distance of regaining control of the upper chamber, according to brand-new NBC News/Marist polls.”

Up in New Hampshire:

According to the survey, Brown's at 49 percent and Shaheen's at 48 percent. Brown's one point margin is well within the poll's sampling error, meaning the race is deadlocked. About three percent of those questioned said they were unsure or preferred someone else.

"This race is a complete toss-up," said Wayne Lesperance, Professor of Political Science at New England College.

John Harwood of CNBC: “Dems haven't given up hope of holding Senate but play seems to be Doug Flutie ricochet to Franco Harris bouncing to David Tyree-helmet-catch.”

Chicago Sun-Times: “With only two days to go, Democrats slipping in Senate contests.”

How intense is Democratic panic? Today the New York Times op-ed page features a piece entitled, “Cancel the Midterms.”

And yet, go to the comments section of Campaign Spot or any other political blog covering the elections, and you’ll find at least one guy saying some variation of, “eh, it doesn’t matter, the Democrats will just find a trunk full of extra ballots at midnight and steal the election.” Does voter fraud exist? Sure. Does it exist on a scale large enough to swing elections? Sure, particularly really close elections. Does this mean that the entire process of elections is a futile, rigged exercise, where conservatives would be better off staying home in silent protest? Heck no!

If there’s fraud, conservatives are better off showing up and going to the polling places to witness it — or serving as poll watchers whenever and wherever possible. If the voting machines are turning Republican votes to Democrat ones, then you have to show up and attempt to vote “Republican” to catch it!

Are these people with some sort of trauma from the 2012 results? Congenital pessimists? Or Democratic operatives attempting to depress the opposition?

This isn’t an insane reaction, mind you; conservatives have been disappointed on Election Night before and it will inevitably happen again some year. There are certainly some races that came along and surprised Republicans — they probably thought Thom Tillis would have an easier time getting a consistent lead in North Carolina, and Pat Roberts’s problems against the so-called independent in Kansas presented another tripwire. Things can and will go wrong.

But there are signs of . . . progress, to use an ironic term. From Harwood’s column:

In response, Democratic candidates lean on fundamental shifts in their party’s direction on social issues. But Republicans have deflected their “war on women” attacks more effectively than before.

There will be a lot of “lessons” to come out of this election cycle, but that may be one of the biggest.

Thanks a Lot, Ashley Judd!

Stuart Rothenberg isn’t making an enormously surprising conclusion here, but the way he says it really twists the knife for Democrats:

One of the most watched Senate races of 2014 is over. Take it off your list of states that could fall either way on Tuesday.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has opened up a comfortable lead over his Democratic challenger, Alison Lundergan Grimes, Kentucky’s secretary of state, ensuring McConnell will win a sixth term Tuesday.

The only question now is whether McConnell will get a larger margin than he had six years ago, when he defeated Democrat Bruce Lunsford by six points.

Political observers have long portrayed the McConnell-Grimes race as a toss-up, but we have long believed that the race would eventually reflect the state’s fundamentals, which strongly favor the GOP nominee. In fact, we have never had the race more competitive than leaning toward McConnell.

The guys at the Rothenberg Report Decision Desk want to make last call at the bar Tuesday night, huh?

And another one of the Great Democratic Rural Hopes crashes and burns.

The hype around Grimes reflected what the media wanted to see, not what was actually there. Sam Youngman, political reporter for the Herald-Leader in Lexington, writing in Politico, December 18, 2013:

At least once a week, I hear conventional wisdom from D.C. or New York upended by words directly from the mouths of a Kentucky voter. Democratic Senate candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes’s campaign is described as strong nationally, but it looks like a hot mess up close.

Guess how many times since January a poll included in the RealClearPolitics average showed Grimes ahead? There have been 27.

Three. She’s led 3 out of the past 27 polls. But because of the glowing coverage she received as a Great Democratic Rural Hope, she was treated as a serious contender for much longer than she deserved:

Grimes follows a long and not-so-proud tradition of Democratic candidates running in traditionally red states who were heralded by the national media as signs of a changing era, helping usher in an era of a permanent Democratic majority. Call them the Great Democratic Rural Hopes. The national media loves to write these sorts of stories. They’re usually pictured on a farm or at a state fair. The headline is some variation of, “You may think that [insert Southern or Midwestern state here] is Republican territory. [Insert candidate name here] is about to prove you wrong.”

The glowing profiles go on to showcase how the candidate grew up on a farm, goes to church, wears cowboy boots, offers some kind of pro forma claim to want a more efficient government, and then veers into standard anti-corporation populism. Their campaign commercials feature them shooting a lot, but they’re often leaving some wiggle room for the nebulous “common-sense gun reform.” If they’re not managed by “Mudcat” Saunders, they’ve at least read his book.

The Pro-Illegal-Voting Advocates Begin to Speak

A letter to the editor in the Arizona Republic:

Mona Charen is worried about non-citizen immigrants voting fraudulently and tipping the scales of close elections, probably in favor of Democrats ("Voter ID laws help address election fraud," Opinions, Thursday).

Even if the one study she references is correct, where's the harm?

Considering the pitiful voter turnout among ID-holding voters, these "frauds" should be commended for risking prison time to participate in an election process that their citizen counterparts don't care enough about to get off the couch or lick an envelope.

Those election criminals pay taxes and work low-wage jobs, their children attend our schools, and they join us in church. They are vested in the community, and if they vote, it shows.

And if their votes should change election results, fine. The citizen couch potatoes have no right to complain.

Let’s concede a molecule of agreement here, in that I can’t stand people who complain about government but don’t vote for the candidate they deem least contrary to their interests.

But . . . we, as American citizens, have the right to not vote. It can be interpreted as an assent to the status quo, or a disavowal of all of the options. If I move to a new community, and they’re holding local elections, and I know none of the candidates or issues, am I being a “couch potato” by not voting? Or simply responsible in choosing to not weigh in when I wouldn’t make an informed choice?

As for “where’s the harm?” — a gentle reminder that it’s against the law. And if non-citizens can vote, then we might as well outsource our governance to the United Nations. A core element of sovereignty is that the leadership of a particular country is chosen only by the citizens of that country — otherwise you might as well allow Russians to cross the border and vote in Ukrainian elections. For that matter, if there is no benefit to citizenship — i.e., the right to vote, a right that non-citizens do not get —then there is no value to it.

And if there’s no value to it . . . why be a citizen of the United States?

ADDENDA: I’ll be joining Cam Edwards on NRANews.com today from 2 to 5. Tomorrow it’s off to Ebola City — er, Dallas — as I join Glenn Beck and the gang at The Blaze for their Election Night coverage.

To read more, visit www.nationalreview.com

Was this email forwarded to you? Sign up for NR's great free newsletters here.

Save 75%... Subscribe to National Review magazine today and get 75% off the newsstand price. Click here for the print edition or here for the digital.

National Review also makes a great gift! Click here to send a full-year of NR Digital or here to send the print edition to family, friends, and fellow conservatives.