Like most of you here, I’ve kept a watch on Neil Stevens’ Swing-O-Meter and his various poll-based projections. (Always a worthwhile read, Neil.) And like many of you, I also have enjoyed watching more and more names mount and shift right on Cook’s Political Report. Being a numbers guy myself, I thought it would be fun to create my own gauge for what kind of swing the Republicans might end up with this time around, so I have come up with the 90-50 formula.

We start with the current version of Cook’s House Projections. As has been noted before, Cook is notoriously hesitant to shift any race with an incumbent beyond “Toss-Up”, which means that when he lists a race as such, there is much more than a 50% chance that the other side is going to win the race. And if you believe what you read from many other sources, many of the “Lean D” races are quite competitive, with some polls indicating a Republican lead. As for the Republican side, Charles Djou’s seat is at worst a toss-up for us (recent polls show him leading), and there is no seat that is currently listed as “Lean Republican” that looks like an upset. So we’ll leave those out.

So the formula works out like this: 90% of “Democratic Toss-Ups” will shift, 50% of “Lean Democratic” will shift. Add to that any seat that Cook has already placed on the other side, and you have your number.

So let’s see what we end up with:

Democrat Toss-Ups: There are currently 46 of them. 46 * 90% = 41.4, so we’ll round down and say 41 of these seats shift.

Leans Democrat: 28 Democrat seats fall into this category. 28 * 50% = 14 seats.

R seats leaning D: There are 3 of these (IL-10, DE-AL, and LA-2).

D seats leaning or likely R: There are 17 in the “Lean R” column, and 6 more in the “Likely R” column, for a total of 23.

So to sum it all up:

Toss-ups: 41
Leans: + 14
R to D: – 3
D to R: + 23
——————-
Total: 75 seats

That seems like a good number to me. Feel free to play along at home when Cook’s next report comes out.

For such a contentious year and such a politically odd state as Minnesota, it is not sporting a great deal of competitive house races this year.  There are two safe Republican seats:  John Kline (MN-02) and Erik Paulsen (MN-03).  On the other side, there are four seemingly safe Democrat seats:  Betty McCollum (MN-04), Keith Ellison (MN-05), Collin Peterson (MN-07) and Jim Oberstar (MN-08).

The race garnering all of the national attention is MN-06, where Republican incumbent and rising star Michele Bachmann faces Democrat challenger Tarryl Clark, a state Senator.  The truth of this race, as much as Democrats don’t want to admit it, is that Clark doesn’t have a hope in hell, and the Democrats are throwing their money down a rat hole in trying to sink the Bachmann ship.  Bachmann was able to win in 2006 and 2008 (big Democratic years) with little experience against a sympathetic — if completely unqualified — challenger in Amy Wetterling.  Now, with Bachmann being a Tea Party All-Star and quite popular, she is not going to lose to a well-known tax-and-spend liberal in Clark in this political environment.  While I welcome the Democrats to keep sinking their money in this race and killing their chances elsewhere, their only real chance of getting rid of Bachmann is to win the Governor’s race and re-district her out.  (In that case, Democrats might want to get used to the idea of “Senator Bachmann”, but that’s for another time.)

The race that has really been overlooked here is MN-01, where Democrat incumbent Tim Walz faces state representative Randy Demmer, the Assistant Minority Leader in the Minnesota House.  Earlier this week, Derek Wallbank of the Minnesota Post looked at this race and district:

The 1^st is a bellwether district — in the 2000 and 2004 presidential election it went for Republican George W. Bush but in 2008 it went for Democrat Barack Obama. In all three cases, the winner took no more than 51 percent of the vote.

Yet representatives here have a history of running ahead of their parties. In 2004, then-GOP Rep. Gil Gutknecht took 60 percent of the vote when his presidential party-mate George W. Bush got just 51 percent.

In 2008, when Obama took 51 percent of the vote in the 1^st (besting John McCain by four points), Walz took 62.5 percent in a walkover, nearly doubling the vote total of his closest competitor.

Going into this cycle, this was a district that Republicans had targeted, but it seems to have fallen off the radar with Republicans surging in many other unexpected places.  Oddly, there has been a complete lack of polling in this race, but Wallbank’s article also had this interesting nugget:

No neutral polling has been conducted in the district so far. Demmer’s camp says they haven’t conducted internal polls and Walz’s team declined to release their own numbers.

One would think that if Walz was doing well, he’d be happy to say so.  Something tells me that the picture isn’t looking quite as rosy as Walz thinks it should.

Walz is still doing slightly better in fundraising and has about $1 million in cash on hand, which would normally be a big advantage, but this isn’t necessarily a year where that is going to matter.  The primary problem Walz has is this:  he was able to get himself elected by posing as a conservative, but now he’s got the dueling millstones of Obamacare and cap-and-trade around his neck (he happily voted for both), which means his opponent now has some evidence to show this mildly conservative district that Walz is really an unapologetic liberal.

Demmer, meanwhile, has done OK in fundraising, keeping up with Walz reasonably well, but he hasn’t gotten a lot of help from the national party.  Given the number of seats the Republicans seem to think are in play, this isn’t surprising; there’s only so much money to go around.  The national party is starting to take notice of Demmer, however, and they seem to think they have a shot here, which means that perhaps it will get more attention.  Demmer has been added to the “Young Guns” list, a list of up-and-coming Republicans that they hope can lead a new wave of representation on the national scene.

So if you’re looking to help a good Republican candidate in Minnesota, this is a good place to look.

With the primaries completed, let’s take another look at those Minnesota races…

MN-GOV: Current Governor Tim Pawlenty leaves after two terms. Former U.S. Senator Mark Dayton won the DFL (Democratic-Farmer-Labor — Minnesota’s version of the Democrats) primary, while State Rep. Tom Emmer had no serious challenger on the Republican side. Tom Horner will represent the Independence Party. Minnesota has always been a rather contrarian state politically; despite not having voted Republican in a Presidential election since 1972, Minnesota has also not had a Democratic Governor since Rudy Perpich was defeated in 1990. In that span, there have been a pair of two-term Republicans (Arne Carlson from 1991-1998 and Tim Pawlenty from 2003-present), and one independent (Jesse Ventura, 1999-2002). Pawlenty survived the Democrat wave in 2006 to get re-elected. Yet despite the Republican wave that seems imminent this year, this stands as a good chance for a Democrat pickup. Dayton’s two big advantages are in money (self-financing) and name recognition. Dayton’s two biggest problems right now are in being a Democrat in a Republican year, and the fact that he was basically useless as a Senator during his lone term (2001-2006). Still, he leads in the polls right now, but we’ll see what happens as November comes and people learn more about Emmer.

Current Prediction: DEM PICKUP, confidence level 2/10

MN-SEN: Neither Amy Klobuchar nor Acting Senator Al Fraudken are up for re-election this year. Pity.

MN-SOS: Soros-approved Democrat Mark Ritchie, who was instrumental in the installation of Al Franken in the Senate, is up for re-election. He is opposed by Republican Dan Severson. As of now, I’ve heard practically nothing about this race, but I expect we will as election season rolls around. Until something happens, the incumbent has the advantage.

Current Prediction: DEM HOLD, confidence level 5/10

MN-AG: See MN-SOS, substitute “Lori Swanson” for “Mark Ritchie” and “Chris Barden” for “Dan Severson”.

Current Prediction: DEM HOLD, confidence level 5/10

MN-01: Incumbent Democrat Tim Walz is running for re-election in this R+1 district, opposed by Randy Demmer. Walz came in with the 2006 wave and was easily re-elected in 2008. This is very much a bell-weather race; it is exactly the sort of race that could flip based purely on Republican momentum. Walz is the typical conservative-district Democrat who talks a good conservative game at home, then votes right down the line with Pelosi while in Washington. This is a district that has traditionally been held by either a Republican or a conservative Democrat (back when Congressmen like Tim Penny actually existed), and Walz will receive a serious challenge. Demmer has an advantage that his 2008 predecessor didn’t have: being able to pin critical and unpopular votes (such as Obamacare and cap-and-trade) on Walz. For the moment, I think Walz will barely survive, but that can change quickly.

Current Prediction: DEM HOLD, confidence level 1/10

MN-02: Incumbent Republican John Kline is running for re-election in this R+4 district, opposed by former State Rep. Shelley Madore. This is my home district, and Madore was the state representative in my district for one term before losing re-election. She brings nothing to the table that should make Kline at all nervous, especially in the current electoral climate.

Current Prediction: GOP HOLD, confidence level 10/10

MN-03: Incumbent Republican Erik Paulsen is running for re-election in this R+0 district, opposed by Jim Meffert. Like with Kline, I see no reason for Paulsen to worry given the current climate.

Current Prediction: GOP HOLD, confidence level 10/10

MN-04: Incumbent Democrat Betty McCollum is running for re-election in this D+13 district, opposed by Teresa Collett. It would take a massive Republican wave to unseat a Democrat in this district.

Current Prediction: DEM HOLD, confidence level 10/10

MN-05: Incumbent Democrat Keith Ellison is running for re-election in this D+23 district, opposed by Joel Demos. Despite the ethically-challenged Ellison being the incumbent, it would take an even bigger Republican wave to turn this seat.

Current Prediction: DEM HOLD, confidence level 10/10

MN-06: Incumbent Republican (and current conservative darling) Michele Bachmann is running for re-election in this R+7 district, opposed by Tarryl Clark. This is the main event among Minnesota races, as Bachmann’s star is on the rise, and she is probably the Left’s second most despised Republican woman behind Sarah Palin. This is one of the few House seats that Democrats think they can pickup, but Bachmann is in a much stronger position now than she was in 2006 and 2008. Democrats can huff and puff all they want, but Bachmann’s house is made of bricks.

Current Prediction: GOP HOLD, confidence level 9/10

MN-07: Incumbent Democrat Collin Peterson is running for re-election in this R+5 district, opposed by Lee Byberg. One would think that given the PVI, Peterson might be in trouble, but so far there has been no real indication that he is. Peterson did vote against Obamacare, which likely will help his cause. This could be one of those races that could be taken if the Democrats totally collapse, but for now, Peterson seems safe.

Current Prediction: DEM HOLD, confidence level 9/10

MN-08: Incumbent Democrat James Oberstar is running for re-election in this D+3 district, opposed by Chip Cravaack. This is a safe Democrat district in the northern part of the state.

Current Prediction: DEM HOLD, confidence level 10/10

With all of the talk going on about Arizona’s new immigration law, it seems that we have developed a severe lack of perspective. Arizona has become the most evil place in the world if you believe anything you hear on MSNBC. Given this and the latest from our old friend Mahmoud Ahmabignutjob (or Ahmedinejad, if you prefer) about how we should dismantle our nuclear weapons, I thought it might serve us well to provide a brief compare-and-contrast between Iran and Arizona and see which one really presents the bigger danger. Feel free to add to the list in the comments if you like.

Arizona: Called Nazis and fascists by the media and liberals.
Iran: Has a leader who speaks highly of Hitler and claims the Holocaust never happened.

Arizona: Considers hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants a major problem that needs to be dealt with.
Iran: Considers four illegal immigrants a major problem that needs to be dealt with.

Iran: Ignored by the “mainstream” media despite ignoring every treaty and U.N. resolution.
Arizona: Condemned by that same media for attempting to enforce existing laws.

Iran: Wants nuclear plants for weapons, despite claims of wanting them for power.
Arizona: Has nuclear weapons, but are obstructed from building nuclear plants for power.

Iran: Treats women as third-class citizens, after men and goats.
Arizona: Has a female Governor.

Iran: Obama and liberals seek fewer sanctions.
Arizona: Obama and liberals seek more sanctions.

Looking at this list, I’m rather inclined to consider Iran to be a slightly bigger threat than Arizona. It would be nice if the people in power would take that same view.

SPOILER ALERT: If you are a “Star Wars” Extended Universe reader and have not yet read the “Legacy of the Force” series, this piece contains spoilers for it. You’ve been warned.

Previously, I took a look at the character of Emperor Palpatine and his chief tactic for consolidating power, and how today’s leaders use those same tactics. However, another “Star Wars” comparison may prove itself true down the road for our current leader: Could Obama be following the lead of Jacen Solo?

Jacen Solo, son of Han and Leia Solo, nephew of Luke Skywalker, and grandson of Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader did not emerge emotionally unscathed from the Yuuzhan Vong war. He lost his younger brother, and was captured and tortured himself before escaping. During his time of exile, he was twisted a bit by his captors, but also became convinced by his semi-ally Vergere that a special destiny awaited him. Also during the war, Jacen had become a father, which we’ll address momentarily.

After the Yuuzhan Vong war, the galaxy was still not at peace. The New Republic had been replaced by the Galactic Alliance, but the Alliance started employing tactics similar to that of the old Empire. Some planets, primarily Corellia and Commenor at first, objected and withdrew, leading to a potential war. Ohter key planets started choosing up sides.

Jacen, fearing for his daughter’s life in a war-filled world and having become somewhat estranged from the Jedi because of their uneasiness about promoting him to the rank of “Master” (an eery similarity to what had happened to his grandfather before his fall from grace), became convinced that if he were in control, he could unite the galaxy behind him and prevent further conflict. He became further convinced of this when he united with Lumiya, a Dark Lady of the Sith who had survived battles with Luke Skywalker in the aftermath of the first Galactic Civil War. Using his powers in the Force, he obtained visions of the past, and saw what his grandfather had done in the hopes of avoiding making the mistakes Vader did, though naturally, his vision only gave him part of the story. Jacen was convinced that he was different, because he was doing what he was doing out of love for his daughter, not a lust for power.

But of course, it all went astray, and Jacen fell to the dark side, but he was still convinced he was doing the right thing. He became the leader of the Galactic Alliance Guard, then co-leader of the Galactic Alliance itself, and eventually its sole leader. His status as a Jedi (everyone else still thought he was one) garnered him much respect and trust, and he used it to his advantage. Meanwhile, more planets and star systems saw what was happening, and the anti-Alliance faction (which included Jacen’s parents) grew stronger, making the war even worse.

As the war went on, Jacen’s allegiance to the Sith became known, and his ruthlessness only made the war he was trying to stop bloodier and more costly. Yet he remained convinced that he was the one who would unite the galaxy. He made desperate alliances, then discarded them when it suited him. Eventually, the Jedi went from a neutral stance to joining the fight against Jacen, which only drove Jacen’s madness even further. Jacen’s allies fell off, as did his loyal supporters within the Alliance, and it became clear that by the end, he was all alone trying to win a battle for the galaxy.

Of course, after a deadly war, Jacen was eventually defeated. Yet in his dying moment, Jacen realized something: his destiny had been achieved, just in a different way than he had assumed it would be. Jacen had thought that it was his destiny to unify the galaxy, and he had; what he didn’t realize until the very end was that he had succeeded in uniting the galaxy against him.

So as I asked last time: What does this have to do with today?

It is interesting to ponder if Obama is taking the same route Jacen Solo did. Obama seems quite convinced that he is the man who can cure the world’s ills. Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright serve the role of Lumiya (the background force that helped build and shape the leader and his view of his role) quite nicely. Obama is also doing a fine job of making his enemies stronger and alienating his supposed allies. The Tea Party movement (much like the anti-Alliance faction) has been built on opposition to the current administration’s growing power, and independents are leaving the Democrats on a daily basis. But the more people Obama alienates, the more he presses on shoving unpopular policies down their throats, because he is convinced that his way is the right way and will lead to a united country and world.

There is still a long way to go before 2012, but how close can Obama come to mirroring Jacen Solo and uniting the entire country against him? It’s doubtful he could make it all the way there, of course, but he sure seems to be trying.

It would seem that the galaxy that is supposedly “far, far away” is in fact much closer than we think.

Sometimes we look to history for perspective on current events. Of course, not everyone pays attention to history, because we keep having to repeat it. So when the history books aren’t enough, sometimes it helps to look into the worlds of fiction, because sometimes even in those worlds, reality slaps us in the face when we aren’t suspecting it.

In addition to being a fan of history, I also happen to be a fan of the “Star Wars” universe, not just the movies, but the “Extended Universe” novels as well. Emperor Palpatine was a fascinating figure to analyze, because of how he gained and consolidated power. Palpatine, despite being a fictional character, really underlines the key difference between a well-meaning, reluctant leader and someone who really desperately wants power and intends to use it for his own benefit and no one else’s. It can be summed up in two sentences:

Always capitalize on a crisis.  When there is no crisis to take advantage of, create one.

While Palpatine did have the Force on his side, he was also an expert political manipulator. He created the Clone Wars by essentially taking control of the Trade Federation while still being a member of the Galactic Senate, though neither side knew of his other role. He moved the pieces so that when a new Chancellor was needed, he appeared to be a moderate solution; far enough removed from the corrupt Senators that the honest Senators considered him above board, but also seemingly unassuming and docile enough that the corrupt Senators felt they could manipulate him. Of course, neither side realized until it was too late that he was manipulating both.

Once Palpatine achieved power, he made sure the war escalated. He would use his connections with the enemy to ensure they could assasinate those who posed a threat to him, then use these incidents as an excuse to have loyal Senators propose giving him more power, but only temporarily. (“For the duration of the emergency” was a common phrase in Palpatine’s world.) He would always pretend to be reluctant to accept these powers, but he would then make full use of them.

By the time the endgame of the war was near, he practically had full authoritarian power. Yet a reader putting himself in the position of an average galactic citizen could look at everything that happened and totally understand how many might support each step as it happened. Of course, none of the citizens knew that Palpatine was running the other side of the war, so he could appear to be the reluctant leader who didn’t want to have the power he was being given. Once the time came to relinquish the power he had been given, he was so powerful that he could not be stopped.

This was also a tactic Hitler used once he got into power. The primary reason he got into power was the Great Depression, which he obviously had little to do with, but still took full advantage of. Once he got into power, however, he used the same tactic that Palpatine did (even though Palpatine wasn’t created until over 40 years later): creating a crisis to consolidate power. Specifically, Hitler wanted dictatorial powers, but he didn’t have enough Nazi deputies in the Reichstag to get the Enabling Act passed. So he had the Nazis burn the Reichstag building, frame the Communists for it, and use this as an excuse to get the Reichstag to pass the Enabling Act to give him the power to deal with the problem. Of course, once he got power, he replaced the disloyal representatives with Nazis and became dictator. The Reichstag still existed, but it was an all-Nazi rubber stamp for his edicts, much like the Galactic Senate (renamed the “Imperial Senate” after the Clone Wars) became for Palpatine to give his whims the illusion of legitimacy. Hitler also used this tactic to create his excuses for annexing Austria and Czechoslovakia.

So what does this analysis have to do with today?

“Crisis manufacturing” is still going full-speed ahead today as a way for government (specifically Democrats) to consolidate power. Consider the following:

• The banks are collapsing (because of bad mortgages that government pressured them to give out), so we must give Washington power to “save” them.
• The Earth is in trouble from global warming (all the socialist-leaning scientists said so, and that’s good enough for us), so we need cap-and-tax.
• GM and Chrysler are going under (because of bad labor contracts and over-regulation to solve manufactured environmental problems), so we must take them over to “save” them as well.
• We have 30 million uninsured (even though the actual number without health care is far less), so we must give government power to make sure they get health care (even though the bill doesn’t do that).
• And now, of course, Wall Street is corrupt (the SEC – which is so totally independent of the administration, despite what you’ve heard – said so), so we must now take them over to ensure you are protected from their greed.

Remember what Rahm Emanuel said: “A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.”

And of course, lest we forget, Bush conspired to bring down the World Trade Center so that he could get the Patriot Act passed so he would have the right to spy on all our phone calls. (Note to those with the power of the “ban hammer”: This is sarcasm.) I guess if Bush was using Emperor Palpatine’s tactics, that certainly explains how Dick Cheney became “Darth Vader”.

At any rate, I have a second comparison from the “Star Wars” universe for our current leader, which I’ll bring out in the sequel.

Next time someone tells you how great the idea of not allowing insurance companies to deny people for having pre-existing conditions is, ask them the following:

Let’s say that my electric bill is $80/month. I’ll make you an offer: I’ll pay you $10 each month, and you pay my electric bills each month in return. How does that sound?

Of course, at best, you’d laugh in my face at such an offer. At worst, you’d call me an idiot for thinking of it.

Now let’s say that the government tells you that you have to accept my offer, you can’t raise my rates, and you have to offer this deal to everyone else, too. How long do you think you’re going to remain financially solvent? Answer: Probably not long.

Well, that’s exactly what all the “pre-existing conditions” business is, with you being the insurance company and my electric bills being replaced with my medical bills. And each number being multiplied by 10 or more.

Lest anyone think me a cold-hearted person, I certainly do not wish for anyone who needs medical treatment to go without it. My mother is in such a condition herself. She just switched insurance companies because the one she had was screwing around with her rates and coverage, and quite frankly, it’s rather generous of her new company to offer her a $100/month payment when her prescriptions cost over $1000. There’s no question they are losing money on her.

That being said, it should not be incumbent on insurance companies to provide private welfare to those who are already sick. Insurance is supposed to be a form of protection against something bad happening down the line, not a bailout program for once something bad has already happened. At the very least, if an insurance company is going to make offers such as they have to my mother, we should recognize that it is a bad deal for them and reward them for doing it for as many people as they do, as opposed to demonizing and punishing them for not doing so for all. If we keep doing so, they will simply run out of money, and we’ll have no place to turn.

An updated look at the Minnesota races:

Governor: Incumbent Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty is not running for re-election. Oddly, despite the fact that Minnesota has not voted Republican in a Presidential race since 1972 (yes, we even voted for Mondale in 1984, though probably mostly out of pity), Minnesota has also not had a Democratic Governor since Rudy Perpich was defeated in 1990. This year is probably the best chance for Democrats to change that.

Caucuses for both parties were held on February 2nd. Straw poll results saw state House Minority Leader Marty Seifert winning 50% of the Republican vote, while state Rep. Tom Emmer took 39%, and five others splitting the rest. On the Democrat side, Minneapolis mayor R.T. Rybak took 21.8% of the vote, while state House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher had just over 20%, with eight other candidates splitting the rest. Also of note, former U.S. Senator Mark Dayton chose not to participate in the caucuses, although he intends to run in the primary.

The Democrats have better name recognition on their side, although that hasn’t always helped them in the past. Tim Pawlenty was a relative unknown when he was elected in 2002. Whle there is still plenty that could happen in the next few months, I will maintain my original stance, though with minimal certainty. Prediction: DEM GAIN, certainty factor 1/10.

Senate: Neither of the reliable liberal votes – Amy Klobuchar or Acting Senator Al Fraudken – are up for re-election this year.

MN-01: Incumbent Democrat Tim Walz is running for re-election, and has no primary challengers. This is a seat Republicans are targeting, but no strong contenders have yet emerged. Current Republican contenders include Rep. Randy Demmer, longtime congressional aide Jim Hagedorn, military veteran Frank McKinzie, and former gubernatorial candidate Allen Quist. None are considered strong contenders at this point. Walz won by a comfortable margin (30 points) in this southern Minnesota rural district two years ago (which Obama won 51-47), but the voter registration is R+1 and supported Bush in 2000 and 2004. Walz voted against ObamaCare in November, but for the most part has voted with Pelosi on everything else. This will be a closer race than in 2008, but Walz is fairly popular and the Republican field is not strong. Prediction: DEM HOLD, certainty factor 7/10.

MN-02: Incumbent Republican John Kline is running for re-election, and has no serious primary challengers. Democrat contenders include former state Rep. Shelley Madore and salesman Dan Powers. Madore will likely win the primary, but she brings nothing to the table in this conservative district. As I live in both Kline’s district as well as Madore’s former state district, I know of what I speak here. Prediction: GOP HOLD, certainty factor 10/10.

MN-03: Incumbent Republican Erik Paulsen is running for re-election, and has no primary challengers. Democrat challengers include physician Maureen Hackett and PTA president Jim Meffert-Nelson. Neither challenger poses any reason for Paulsen to worry. Prediction: GOP HOLD, certainty factor 10/10.

MN-04: Incumbent Democrat Betty McCollum is running for re-election, and has no primary challengers. No Republicans have announced for this race. Prediction: DEM HOLD, certainty factor 10/10.

MN-05: Incumbent Democrat Keith Ellison is running for re-election, and has no primary challengers. No Republicans have announced for this race. Ellison has had some ethics issues, but with no serious opposition and a D+23 PVI should still breeze through, thus illustrating a lot about what is wrong with our political system today. Prediction: DEM HOLD, certainty factor 10/10.

MN-06: This is clearly the main event. Incumbent Republican Michele Bachmann is running for re-election. Attorney Chris Johnston is challenging her in the primary, but is no threat. Democrat contenders include State Sen. Tarryl Clark and former U of MN regent Maureen Reed. Clark is the likely primary winner. Nancy Pelosi has made it clear that Bachmann is the top target for Democrats this year, and clearly wants very badly to see the conservative Bachmann gone. Bachmann has had three close races in 2004-2008 against fairly weak challengers, but she is becoming increasingly popular both locally and nationally. Sorry, Ms. Speaker, but Michele Bachmann isn’t going anywhere. Prediction: GOP HOLD, certainty factor 8/10.

MN-07: Incumbent Democrat Collin Peterson is running for re-election, and has no primary challengers. Republican challengers include 2008 nominee Glen Menze, psychiatrist Karen Nelson, Melva Larson and business executive Lee Byberg. Despite the R+5 PVI, Peterson won 72% of the vote in the last election and doesn’t appear to be in any trouble at this point. Prediction: DEM HOLD, certainty factor 10/10.

MN-08: Incumbent Democrat James Oberstar is running for re-election, and has no primary challengers. Construction executive Michael Cummins (the 2008 nominee) is the only announced Republican. This is a safe Democratic district in the northern part of the state. Prediction: DEM HOLD, certainty factor 10/10.

A simple one-question quiz on the concept that our economy is a “zero-sum game”:

You are a woodworker who decides to start a furniture business. You take out a loan from the bank, purchase some retail space, hire a couple of employees, and start your business. You are successful. Twenty years later, you have paid off the original loan with interest, increased your staff to 20, opened a branch across town, and have thousands of satisfied customers.

Economically, you came out ahead in this scenario. Who lost?

a) your customers
b) your suppliers
c) your employees
d) the bank
e) the government
f) nobody

The answer, of course, is “f” Your customers got a fair value for their money in their judgment, or else they would not have purchased your furniture. Same goes in reverse for your purchase of materials from your suppliers. You employed 20 people who may not have otherwise been employed, so they came out ahead. The bank got back more money than they lent, so they came out ahead. Even the government came out ahead, assuming that everyone involved in the process paid the various taxes involved.

So how does this happen? It’s quite simple, really: your business is one of wealth creation. You and your employees take items of a certain value (such as wood, paint, etc.), and use your expertise to combine them into items which have value greater than the sums of their parts.

Understanding this most basic concept of economics (which sadly, many people do not), is the vital ingredient to understanding how an economy prospers. The more wealth being created, the healthier the economy will be, and vice-versa. This also outlines why a smaller government is better for a healthy economy: only in rare cases does government participate in the wealth creation process. Most government jobs are bureaucratic or service-oriented in nature, and while they are certainly necessary, they are best in limited quantities. And even more government money is being transferred to people who are not participating in the wealth creation process.

Furniture stores, farms, restaurants, manufacturers of all kinds – these are the careers that make our economy go. They always have been and always will be the focal point of America’s success.

I’ve been seeing a great deal of angst in various places about the fact that Sarah Palin is going to help out John McCain in his re-election bid in Arizona.  To be honest, the reasons seem to be completely obvious, but for some, they aren’t.  So let me take a couple of paragraphs to explain why this is the only move that makes any sense.

First of all, it’s a matter of personal honor and gratitude.  Had McCain not selected Palin as his running mate, she’d still be Governor of Alaska, and no one outside of Alaska would have heard of her.  Regardless of how well they may or may not line up on various issues, she owes him a debt of gratitude.  On top of that, whether you agree with McCain or you don’t, he is a generally honorable man.  If I were in her place, and an honorable man had done as much for me as McCain has done for her, I couldn’t refuse to help him with something like this.  If it were any other candidate with McCain’s record, she probably wouldn’t do it, but it’s the man who is the primary reason that she is where she is today.  She has to do it.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it would cause massive damage to her personally and politically if she didn’t help McCain, and it would also become a massive distraction for the party.  If Palin refused to help McCain, the left-wing media would be all over it.  They’d characterize Palin as an ungrateful backstabber.  She couldn’t justify turning on him for anything he’s done in the past year, because he’s been a good soldier this year, and she can’t turn on him for anything before that because it would make her look like a fool for accepting the position as his running mate in 2008.  Palin’s non-endorsement of McCain (whether she endorsed anyone else or not, just not helping McCain would be enough) would overwhelm the rest of the race, and become a massive boon for McCain’s Democratic opponent in the general election.  (I say this assuming that he’ll probably win the primary.)

Given all of this, I can’t really understand why anyone is surprised or upset that Palin is assisting McCain.  I’m not McCain’s biggest fan by any means, but the reasons here are clear.  Palin has to endorse McCain, and it’s the right thing to do, even if he’s not perfect.