Predictions. But Don't Hold Me to Them.

I've learned my lesson, so I'm going to throw in predictions for easy races. Grade inflation, you know. I'll start national and then go state:

• The Democrats will take the House, picking up 20-23 seats. That's lower than most estimates, but I'd rather be pessimistic and surprised by the results.
  
  
• Democrats will not take the Senate, though they will win four or five seats. No Dem incumbents will lose, except Joe Lieberman.
  
  
• Jim Doyle will be re-elected. Owen expects a Green victory, based on the "Incumbent Rule." I say, let's ask President Kerry what he thinks of the incumbent rule. And the margin won't be that close--something in 52-48 range. Eismann just won't be a factor.
  
  
• The Falk-Van Hollen race is too close to call, almost. (That's my hedge.) That said, I think Falk will win a squeaker--this may well be the last state-wide race to get called.
  
  
• Both statewide ballot measures will probably pass. I don't put it out of the realm of possibility that the amendment will fail--Fair Wisconsin has run an airtight campaign--but momentum in the "no" direction isn't enough. I wanted to see at least one poll with the thing going down before now.
  
  
• Republicans will keep the state Assembly. I know, I know, out on a limb there. But I feel confident.
  
  
• Democrats will take the state Senate. Reynolds and Zien definitely lose. Baby-daddy McReynolds is the most likely next loser.
  
  
• Herb Kohl will . . . wait for it . . . win. By at least 20%.
  
  
• The House races:
  1. Paul Ryan
     
  2. Tammy Baldwin
     
  3. Ron Kind
     
  4. Gwen Moore
     
  5. Jim Sensenbrenner (though with a much smaller margin than in 2004)
     
  6. Tom Petri
     
  7. Dave Obey
     
  8. Steve Kagen (by five or six points)
  
  
• Despite my ringing endorsement for Don Holt, David Clarke will be re-elected.
  
  
• John Chisholm will win the Milwaukee County DA's race.
  
  
• All the various Iraq war bring-'em-home referrenda will pass.

No matter what really happens--big Dem wins or big Dem losses--I agree with Scott:

I further predict that whatever happens, the right half of the blogosphere will instantly proclaim it a victory for their side. Yes. Because someone you never heard of said on CNN three months ago that Democrats could take the senate, the fact that it didn’t happen will be touted as proof-positive that the American people have rejected the left’s flawed agenda, while giving a mandate to the Republican party to move further to the right. [Ed. See Ann Coulter, laying that groundwork.] It will also be said that we played dirty. So dirty, in fact, that the only explanation for why we didn’t win every election by a landslide is that voters utterly spurned our bankrupt ideology in favor of GOP ideals.

Add to it claims of vote fraud (crack-heads making up names for ACORN is not a winning vote-fraud strategy, by the way) and perhaps even a lawsuit by Mark Green to challenge the legality of his loss. It will get uglier before it gets better. That is a prediction you can take to the bank.

WI-AG, the folkbum endorsement: Kathleen Falk for Attorney General

The biggest problem Republican J.B. Van Hollen seems to have--or, rather, the biggest problem I have with J.B. Van Hollen--is that he thinks the job of Attorney General is something other than what it is.

Actually, that may not be true; Van Hollen and his staff people are probably not, in fact, that dumb. But they have made a conscious decision to campaign on a flawed premise, in the hopes that they can fool enough of the people for a few more days and collect the votes they need to put Van Hollen in office.

That premise? J. B. Van Hollen wants to be Superman. You know, out there fightin' for truth, justice, and the American way.

Every time I've heard him (or one of his surrogates), the emphasis is on fighting crime. Tackling illegal immigration. Stopping all the terrorists lurking behind every cheese-and-taxedermy shop in the state. Which is all such a small part of what the state Department of Justice does, it's not even funny.

I can't say I blame him; the only thing Van Hollen ("Jump!
Jump! Go ahead and jump!" Sorry--I just couldn't hold out any longer) has going for him is his record as a tough-on-crime prosecutor and US attorney. And when stacked up against Kathleen Falk's decidedly less shallow vitae, Van Hollen's resume looks pretty thin, hollow, unimpressive.

I endorsed incumbent Peg Lautenschlager in the primary not because I don't like Kathleen Falk, but rather because I thought Peg had done well as Jim Doyle's successor in the office, and she deserved a second term. But as I predicted, Falk won easily enough. And that's okay with me--as I wrote at the time, "she is head, shoulders, and torso above the Republican competition." She remains so.

Consider, for example, the decade and a half Falk served as an Assistant Attorney General, years of experience doing the kind of work that AG's actually do. Most of that time, Falk was our Public Intervenor, the person who directly answered to the will of the people on matters that involved distputes between the public and other state agencies. She knows exactly what it's like to stand up for and with the citizens and voters of this state, which Van Hollen can only dream about (in his red cape and underpants-on-the-outside).

Consider, as well, the fact that Falk manages, budgets for, and leads with competence and acumen an organization many times the size of the state's Department of Justice. It should be a piece of cake for her to handle an office of that size, while Van Hollen has only ever lorded over a virtual fortress of soiltude.

Consider, finally, the fact that Falk was arguing cases in Wisconsin's courts--including our Supreme Court--almost before Van Hollen could change his own clothes, phone booth or no.

That's just three basic, fundamental, critical ways Kathleen Falk is light-years ahead of Van Hollen in what it takes to be AG. And yet, Van Hollen and his team (Fraley, in particular) have tried to make this race one about experience, since Van Hollen, in his understudy Superman role, has prosecuted criminal cases. Anyone remember a single criminal case, outside of Chai Vang's, that an AG in Wisconsin has personally tried in the last decade or two? No? Me neither.

So this is what we're left with: J. B. Van Hollen, who thinks this job is all about the Superman, and who has a great deal of experience that doesn't adequately prepare him for the office, thinks Kathleen Falk doesn't have the experience or the expertise to do the job. This, ladies and gentleman, is what we in the business call irony--like the clothing brand the misspells academics, or the old Norton CrashGuard program I had that wouldn't used to let my computer start up. I'm not saying that the AG's office never prosecutes the kinds of crimes Van Hollen thinks he'll get to try; however, the AG's office is so much more than that.

Unfortunately for Van Hollen, he's banking on the voters forgetting that fact, that the AG does more than just what Jack McCoy does, more than just fighting crime. I don't know that he can pull that deception off to the extent that he needs to.

--

Like me, Paul Soglin endorsed Peg Lautenschlager in the primary, and he was much less sanguine about a Falk nomination than I. However, I open up my browser yesterday to see this from the former Madison mayor:

I have had my differences with Kathleen Falk. They are relevant as to differences within the progressive community. My views on her negotiations with Governor Thompson on the future of regional planning and certain land use issues were important within the Democratic Party primary. When I look at her opponent's values on these matters, the contest isn't close.

He identifies his level of support as "enthusiastic." The Recess Supervisor, perhaps sensing the same issues with Van Hollen that I have, also endorsed Falk yesterday--though I say perhaps because he doesn't seem to do it for any good reason other than he thinks she'll make a good governor some day.

--

Experience isn't always the end-all and be-all of electoral politics. I support both Steve Kagen and Bryan Kennedy, neither of whom have held office before. After all, the House is the kind of place where the leadership doesn't let you do very much unti they think they can take the leash off of you. And a quiet first term is not a bad way learn the ropes and start working, as one of 435, toward a committee chair or other leadership positions.

But the Attorney General doesn't get to stand back and watch the world work around her. The job requires an ability to jump in with both feet running, an ability to be the leader from day one. Kathleen Falk doesn't have to learn on the job. She doesn't have to learn how to listen to the public when they speak. She doesn't have to learn how to successfully manage a department as large and diverse as Justice. She doesn't have to learn how to represent the people or the state in court on matters not criminal. The learning curve for Falk, in other words, is near zero.

J. B. Van Hollen may want to be--may think he is--Superman. But not even the ability to leap steep learning curves with a single bound is enough for him to deserve this. Vote for Kathleen Falk on November 7.

Wednesday Briefs

• Don't forget Drinking Liberally in Milwaukee tonight. I may sign autographs if you ask nicely.
  
• A propos to my long (sorry about that) piece yesterday about blogs and the "MSM," Chris Bowers suggests that, on the national level at least, there is no right-wing blogosphere anymore.
  
• Is this Peg's revenge on Doyle for his pushing Falk into the AG race? Jack Voight is also on the ballot this November, and may be looking for distance from Doyle as well.
  
• Those rosy studies showing that there are plenty of high-achieving, high-poverty schools? Bunk.
  
• I learned two things from this story about Bush's reaction to Feingold's call for censure. The most exciting is that Russ will be on "The Daily Show" tonight. The other is that Bush keeps lying:

  "I did notice that nobody from the Democratic Party has actually stood up and called for getting rid of the terrorist surveillance program," Bush said at a news conference Tuesday. "You know, if that's what they believe, if people in the party believe that, then they ought to stand up and say it," Bush said. "They ought to stand up and say, 'The tools we're using to protect the American people shouldn't be used.' They ought to take their message to the people and say, 'Vote for me. I promise we're not going to have a terrorist surveillance program.' "

  As I said the other day, no one believes we shouldn't surveil terrorists. Not even Ward Churchill is saying that (I Googled to be sure). A better answer might have been saying he was willing to defend his program in a full investigation. Instead, he chooses to lie and stonewall.

Some Quick Hits

Some things I would blog more about if I were a better blogger:

• This scares me. I'm glad it seems everyone is basically okay, but, speaking as a teacher, that doesn't ease all my worries.
  
  
• I will never, ever, ever blog something like this. Ever. I promise.
  
  
• Kathleen Falk did the right thing, even if she was not required to by law.
  
  
• The WE Energies bill we got this week was 25% higher--on the budget plan!--than last month's bill. That was before WE Energies got a sweet rate hike today.
  
  
• The tire-slashing trial is intriguing, especially with the defendants claiming the idea came from Kerry's national campaign. If true, that means two things: One, Kerry national was stupider than I thought; and two, they lied to me when I asked to be in their conspiracy, by saying there wasn't one, and it turns out that they just didn't want me in their clubhouse. (For the record, I don't think Kerry national really was that stupid.)
  
  
• I'm not writing about Alito, mostly because others around the 'sphere are carrying the "Vote No" water pretty well. In particular, the ACLU, NARAL, and Armando are doing a good job. I especially like (via maha) the take from AmericaBlog's Michael from New York:

  Why Is Alito So Ashamed Of Himself?
  
  The far right wants us to believe that Supreme Court nominee Alito is similar to Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Even though everyone knew Ginsburg was a liberal, she was passed by a vast majority in the Senate. They are both in the mainstream of judicial philosophy, the far right says. So Alito deserves the same treatment because he's "qualified."
  
  So why is Alito so ashamed of his entire career?
  
  Ginsburg IS in the mainstream of judicial philosophy, even though she's clearly a strong liberal. But she never pretended to be anything else. And everything on Ginsburg's resume was something she was proud of. Every group she belonged to, every organization she worked for, every position she staked out on the issues of the day and every promise she made reflected who Ruth Bader Ginsburg was, what she stood for and what she believed in.
  
  Did she insist you shouldn't read anything into her work for the ACLU? Of course not; she was proud of that work. Did she insist you shouldn't read anything into her activism over the years, her push for equality among the sexes? Don't be absurd. Did she break her word on solemn pledges made before the Senate? Never.
  
  Nothing could be further from the truth for Alito. He is apparently ashamed of everything he's ever done. Alito boasted on an application for promotion in the Reagan administration about belonging to the racist, Neanderthal-ish Concerned Alumni For Princeton. Now he pretends he can't remember ever belonging to them at all.
  
  Alito said he wanted to become a lawyer because he was so distraught about Supreme Court rulings that led to "one person, one vote," a cornerstone of our modern democracy. Now, he says we should ignore his consistent, persistent attacks on affirmative action.
  
  Alito also cannily helped to devise the incremental approach to dismantling Roe v Wade that has been the very tactic the far right has used. Now Alito says to ignore all that.
  
  Alito has repeatedly proven he believes the president is more like an emperor -- someone who deserves almost unlimited deference from the Supreme Court, especially during a time of war.
  
  Finally, Alito pledged to the Senate that he would recuse himself under certain situations as a federal judge. He repeatedly broke that pledge. His excuses vary: he forgot, the computers shouldn't have assigned him those cases in the first place, he never HAD to recuse himself, and finally he never promised he would recuse himself forever. The reasons change, but the fact remains: Alito gave his word and then he broke it. He can't be trusted.
  
  Since Alito is so clearly ashamed of himself, shouldn't we be ashamed of him and keep him off the Supreme Court?

  And mad props to Russ Feingold for keeping the pressure on, in particular about civil liberties.