President George W. Bush is everywhere as we come into the final weekend of this mid-term election.
Democrats, understandably, are upset about the President traveling around producing a "Bush Bounce" in the tracking polls.
One of the reasons George W. Bush is everywhere is because everyone wants him. In the previous three mid-term elections, this was not the case:
In 1990 - Bush 41's mid-term - One word: Taxes. President Bush came out in favor of a tax increase shortly before the mid-term elections and lots of Republican candidates didn't want to spend the last weeks or days of their campaign discussing why raising taxes was a good idea.
In 1994 - Bill Clinton's first mid-term - Two words: Health Care. There were lots of Democrats who didn't want to spend the last weeks or days of their campaign discussing Hillary Clinton's policies.
In 1998 - Bill Clinton's second mid-term - Six words: M-O-N-I-C-A. There were lots and LOTS of Democrats who didn't want to spend the last weeks or days of their campaign discussing President Clinton's behavior.
The Democrats have no one who can go everywhere. Some of them can't go anywhere.
Bill Clinton is more-or-less limited to inner city visits and stealth phone calls.
Al Gore is - where IS Al Gore?
DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe - who was hand-picked by Bill Clinton - is belatedly acting like a party leader but only serves to remind us of that famous H.R. Haldeman rejoinder: T-L-Squared. Too little. Too late. The buzz about McAuliffe being dumped is now standard Washington chatter
Tom Daschle has done everything possible to hang on to the U.S. Senate but is not someone people will line up to see at a political event outside of South Dakota.
No one - for a year - has thought the Dems have had a realistic shot at taking back the House. Dick Gephardt, may well pay a heavy price for a House campaign which has been unenthusiastic, unimpressive and, the greatest sin of all, under funded. The buzz du jour is that Gephardt might be in for an outright challenge to his leadership post or, at a minimum, will have to make a deal to allow the more activist Members a greater voice in Democratic House strategy and tactics.
Democrats have not been able to build a high level of enthusiasm in their base voter groups, generally.
Many union voters have subliminal images of President Bush traveling with Senator Kennedy after the education reform legislation was signed. That, coupled with the seared-in image of the President at Ground Zero with a bull horn, have made it difficult to portray George W. Bush as the enemy of the working man or woman.
Without having Bill Clinton to rally around - and without having Newt Gingrich as one-man axis-of-evil to rail against - reporters are chatting about the fact that the intensity of the African-American vote is spotty: High intensity in some places but modest, at best, in too many others.
As of this writing, the most likely outcome when all the votes are counted and all the law suits are settled is: status quo ante. The GOP will have the White House and the U.S. House; the Democrats will have the Senate by a vote.
That is also the worst reasonably possible outcome for the Republican Party. In the world of mid-term elections, that's not so bad. In fact, if you would have offered that outcome to Karl Rove the day after the Jeffords defection, he might well have taken the deal.
The worst case scenario for the Democrats is they lose the Senate (which is not only possible, but within a few polling points of being likely) and thus go into the Presidential election cycle playing defense in all three phases of the game.
Separate issue: In our neighborhood last night, the kids were out in force. After what they've been through with the snipers, answering the doorbell and hearing the children shout their traditional Halloween battle cry was, indeed, a treat.
On the Secret Decoder Ring page today: An explanation of the "Bush Bounce," an explanation of H.R. Haldeman, and an explanation of status quo ante. There is also a Mullfoto of the day which is worth a peek.
� 
