There’s been considerable discussion over in The Corner lately about the Latter Day Saints; and having grown up around them, and thought about and studied Mormonism to some degree, I can’t help but chime in here.

For me, Mormon history and beliefs raise many questions; but above all stands the following puzzle.

I am a Catholic. I became a Catholic because I came to believe that the Church’s doctrine, and its take on the historical story of Jesus, were the truest and most intellectually sound things in the world of religion. I still believe this.

On the other hand, my studies of things LDS have led me to believe, by contrast, that the Mormon scriptures and teachings and history range from merely derivative to flimsy to untenable to scandalous to flat-out unintentionally hilarious. (Please forgive me, Mormon friends—I know such criticism must sting, but I never could make it through more than a few pages of the Book of Mormon at a time without collapsing in laughter.)

But, presuming I am right…what has each of these belief systems wrought in America, over the past 30-50 years? Even discounting for grass-is-greener distortion, I’d have to say that the LDS is comprehensively kicking both Catholic and mainline Protestant butts when it comes to family life, to personal morality, to faithfulness and loyalty and unity within the church community, and to evangelism outside it.

So the puzzle that I am left with is this: After all these centuries of debate and conflict and even religious war, could it be that history and doctrine are really not all that important after all? Can a faith community not only survive, but thrive and bear impressive fruit, even when their history is embarrassing and their teachings a train wreck? (And—closely related to this—when their leadership and administration have long been dominated not by holy men and charismatics and theologians, but by businessmen and corporate types?)

I don’t know. Maybe I am still hostage to the outsider’s grass-is-greener perspective. Maybe the present successes of the LDS can’t possibly last—in that it is still based on real grave weaknesses, or that it is more specifically suited to a particular culture and age, than for all people for all time.

But if not…then what does that mean?

With another election cycle just concluded, my level of irritation with political direct mail is at its peak. Some of this is, of course, my fault; I should be wise enough to discard on sight each and every fundraising solicitation I receive in the mail. Yet some originate from organizations I respect, and so I feel an obligation to open them and give them a fair hearing; and some are so absurd on their face as to cause me to open them out of a morbid fascination.

The good folks at the Intercollegiate Studies Institute unfortunately met both these criteria with a recent mailing. Entitled “Educate for Liberty Census”, it had all the hallmarks of political boob bait. It started with the official-looking envelope that pushed the bounds of impersonating an official document. Inside there was a standard fundraising letter, signed by the President of the organization; and then an Official Census Form. Folded in half, this form was closed with a silly “Security Seal” sticker, and was bedecked with bogus control numbers and identification numbers and such. Near the beginning of the “survey” was a section, suffused with ALL CAPS, asking me whether this Very Important Document had reached me with the seal intact and un-tampered with. (Just why it was so important that an uncompleted survey form should be untampered with went unexplained.) It also instructed me that, if I did not wish to complete the “Census”, I should return it to ISI with the seal still intact, so they could then pass it on to someone else. (What, with my name and personal information printed on it? If I took anything this document said seriously, I would be gravely concerned by the prospect.)

The “Census” itself consisted of the standard leading questions that would gather no useful information whatsoever, even if anyone ever bothered to tally the results. (Unlike the standard political mailer, this one did not promise to pass on the critically important survey results to Important People; so I give it even less odds of being tallied than the average boob bait survey.) It concluded, of course, with a plea for money—preferably for a generous donation to the organization, but failing that, for at least a few dollars ($7 to $9 seems to be typical) to cover the costs of this Very Important Project.

In the past, I have written to some of the perpetrators of these direct-mail insults, but never enjoyed the courtesy of a reply. (Sen. John Thune’s “Heartland Values PAC” was one past offender, leaving me with a twinge of regret for having contributed to his 2004 campaign.) So this time around, I decided to instead post a message on ISI’s own forums. While not concealing the level of my displeasure with the mailing, I tried to keep things cordial, and emphasize how much I respected the organization.

My post got deleted without comment anyway. And so far I have heard nothing from ISI privately either.

So I am reproducing here the deleted post. I feel some regret in singling out ISI; but this mailing was so far beneath them as an organization, and their consigning my complaint to the memory hole without a word of reply is such bad manners, that I believe it needs to be done. It is my hope that many more such complaints will crop up around the blogosphere, and that the political consultants and fundraising gurus who seem to take Americans for idiots and rubes may take to heart Peggy Noonan’s recent words:

Here’s a thing about American politics. Nobody sees himself as the base. They see themselves as individuals. And they’re not dumb. They get it all. They know when you’re trying to manipulate. They’ll even tell you, with a lovely detachment, if you’re doing a good job. (An unreported story this year is the lack of imagination, seriousness and respect in the work of political consultants on both sides. They have got to catch up with American brightness.)

Let me emphasize one more time that I have a great deal of respect for ISI as an organization. I am rapping their knuckles here not because I have turned on them, but because I fervently hope that they continue to do fine work in the future, and that they will in future avoid retaining direct-mail firms that besmirch their reputation by taking their membership for morons. That said, here now is the message I posted on ISI’s message boards.

Dear ISI folks,

I consider myself a friend of ISI, and have been for a long time. I have subscribed to various ISI publications over the years, and still do. I have known a number of ISI people, and ISI has been an especially good friend to my undergraduate college.

It is because I am a friend of ISI that I raise a public complaint here about a mailing I recently opened (I am not sure if it just arrived, or was sent some weeks ago…I have been going through piles of neglected stuff in my home office). It was so silly, and such a colossal insult to my intelligence, that it makes me wonder about the state of the organization, and about the signatory of the enclosed letter.

I am referring to the “Educate for Liberty Census” mailing. On the outside, it has the sort of misleading “OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE” livery that would have made me throw it out on sight…only I saw that it had come from ISI, and so I opened it.

Inside was a “Census” document, with ridiculous “Security Seal”, and the sorts of hectoring leading questions that I would expect to come from the less intelligent Congressional candidates. (”Do you think America is a good country? Do you know that college professors are overwhelmingly Leftist scum who disagree with you about that? Will you send us money now?”)

I could go on and on about the inanity of this mailing, but I’m sure that anyone who has actually seen it and has half a brain can supply their own commentary. And I do not intend to bash ISI at unnecessary length on its own forums. But surely I am not the only one who was not only disheartened, but well nigh offended, by this colossally stupid fundraising mailing.

I am registering my complaint here in hopes that it will get the attention of people who matter. I have complained to people before about such mailings–usually to politicans and political groups, as they are the most common culprits–and never enjoyed the courtesy of a reply. I hope that because ISI is a decent organization, and because a number of people associated with ISI outside the mailroom can be expected to check in on these forums on occasion, that it will be different this time.

I do hope that it will, because I would very much like to be able to continue commending ISI to students and colleagues, without fear that they will wind up being sent mailings that insult their intelligence, and that make ISI look like a thorougly unserious organization.

(The original was signed with my full name and institutional affiliations.)

I had thought that President Bush seemed oddly relaxed and comfortable last week, in the wake of losing both houses of Congress to the Democrats. Two recent OpinionJournal columns show me that I’m not alone in intuiting not only that the Administration may be destined for a shift to the Left, but that the President may like it better that way.

Newt Gingrich writes of two kinds of bipartisanship, and warns against the “establishment bipartisanship which cuts deals between liberals and the White House”. Peggy Noonan, meanwhile, looks ahead and says: “If the Democrats are moderate, I think [Bush] will do something surprising, and yet much in line with his personality and nature.” That “something” being exactly what Gingrich is warning of.

Disenchanted conservatives should hardly be surprised to see such further disenchantment ahead, for it is indeed in line with the President’s nature. “Compassionate conservativism” was always something quite apart from, and even opposed to, the Reagan tradition; indeed, the very name of the idea betrays its acceptance of the Democratic critique of conservatism. It is this internalization of the liberal world-view that made it possible for the President to govern as an exemplar of bipartisanship in Texas. “He accepted many Democratic assumptions,” says Noonan, “he shared them, it wasn’t hard.”

It is dangerous enough to accept Democratic assumptions about the size and role of government—we see where that has led the country in domestic policy these past six years. Even more dangerous, however, is the traditional Bush family internalization of liberal assumptions about the two parties themselves and their ideologies. To wit: Democrats are the natural party of government and the Republicans are not; fair play in elections and in D.C. requires Republicans to pull punches and lose gracefully on occasion, even as the Democrats do not; and there is something inherently virtuous about leaning left and something fundamentally wicked about leaning right.

This is the mindset that led the first President Bush to make a grand bargain with Senator Mitchell and his Congressional Democrats. The President’s purposes for entering into that deal were: a) to work together on a bipartisan basis to straighten out the Federal government and its finances, which simply seemed the right thing to do; b) to cooperate with Democrats in the hope that some of their virtue would rub off on him, and help absolve him of his Republican sins, foremost among which was his mean and nasty use of Governor Dukakis’ own prison furlough policies and ACLU sympathies against him in a national election. (This was incredibly naughty because he knew full well that such unfairly effective tactics would cost the Democrats the Presidency, and knew also that this office was rightfully theirs after Reagan’s two, even more unfair, landslides.)

Senator Mitchell’s objectives were much more straightforward: a) to secure a major tax increase, and b) to destroy Bush’s presidency and spoil Republican chances in 1992, up and down the ticket. Much simpler, and much more successful in the end.

It’s all depressingly familiar, and easy enough to comprehend. But here is the real puzzle. The current President Bush is famed for being stubborn, for demanding loyalty, for having a White House that, in Noonan’s words, will “muscle critics, silence dissent, force obedience.” This is how the Administration’s friends on the right are treated, anyhow; and even Tony Blair is considered enough of a friend to get the high hat from time to time.

But when it comes to the President’s sworn enemies, disloyalty is not only not punished, it is rewarded. The Bushite RNC went to the mat to defend first Arlen Specter, and then Lincoln Chafee (who didn’t even vote for W.! and bragged about it!). And of course the Bushes have always craved the approval of the likes of Ted Kennedy, who was the President’s partner in crafting his landmark education bill; and the NAACP, whose annual convention the President attended and whose right to speak for Black America he seems to concede, despite that organization’s long record of naked partisanship, and the special venom it has directed at him personally during his Administration.

These are the President’s new friends, with whom he will work as he, as Noonan suspects, “will over the next two years do to Republicans what he did to Donald Rumsfeld: over the side, under the bus and off the sled.” These are the people from whom he will seek political survival, historical redemption, and Strange New Respect in the next Congress. And if the new Republican minorities in Congress fail to provide a strong enough counterweight and focus for disappointed loyal Republicans to rally around, the President could thereby set the table for a Democratic sweep in 2008. Which would be a fine start in expiating his own sins.

Oddly enough, it is all in character for this President. Demand loyalty from your friends; then punish them promptly if they don’t give it…or punish them all the same, only a little later, if they do. But embrace your enemies; and when you feel that blade slip between your ribs, hug them even tighter. Internalize the presumptions of the Left and govern accordingly; resent the Right and drag your feet in responding to their desires, as those people and their ideas are icky even when they are dead right.

It all adds up to what I call a reverse Goldwater: “In their hearts, they know they’re wrong.” This mistaken knowing is the font from which most of the Stupid Party’s idiocies flow. And the taps to this font are, I fear, about to be turned wide open.

A sense of disbelieving euphoria still lingers among the Georgia faithful after the big win last Saturday down on the Plains. Amazing, isn’t it, how one game can totally change the look of a football season. But really, this Georgia season has been a close-run thing all along. The team is 7-4 at the moment…but consider how easily it could have swung three games either direction.

Suppose Vanderbilt misses that game-winning field goal with two seconds remaining; that Kentucky’s final game-winning drive is stopped short of the needed touchdown; and that Georgia either a) succeeds in taking the air out of the ball in the second half against Tennessee, and holds on for the win instead of coughing up an incredible 27 points in the fourth quarter, or b) Georgia turns the ball over less than five times against Florida, taking away the touchdown that the Bulldogs handed them at the start of the second half, and adding at least another field goal to their tally. Four plays, going the other way at the exact right time, could well have been enough to boost Georgia to 10-1, preserve their national ranking, and send them back to the SEC Championship game—leaving them one big win in Atlanta away from a BCS bowl, and even inclusion at the fringes of the national championship discussion.

Now suppose, on the other hand, that Martrez Milner drops the touchdown pass with 46 seconds remaining that allowed Georgia to edge past Colorado; that instead of stripping the ball, the Bulldog defense yields those last 20-odd yards to the Bizarro Bulldogs, letting them complete their game-winning drive just like Vanderbilt and Kentucky; and that either: a) Georgia fails to come from behind to beat Ole Miss in Oxford, or b) Brandon Cox decides not to have the worst game of his career last Saturday, and the Bulldogs get shellacked by Auburn as everyone had expected. That would leave Georiga at 4-7, with an inconceivable 2-6 record in SEC play, in a year when Georgia had the weakest possible lineup against the Western division (with LSU, Arkansas, and Alabama off the schedule); and instead of being talked about at the edges of the national championship picture, Georgia would be showing up on the list of doubtful-yet-still-possible coaching changes.

What a weird year. What a string of strange performances. What a puzzling set of outcomes. And how very different the picture looks today than it did a week ago.

But if they didn’t intend for strange things to happen, they would have never made the ball such a funny shape in the first place, would they?

Mark Shea is shocked, shocked! that President Bush was not telling the whole truth about Defense Secretary Rumsfeld’s job security before the election.

It’s hard sometimes walking that fine line between angelistic naïvete and resigned cynicism; and so I hardly blame Mark for drifting off in the direction of the former here. But I do hope he won’t let pride—in being a skeptic, in having high standards, in not being an unthinking apologist for anyone—keep him from drifting back in the right direction once he’s able to take a good calm look at the big picture.

If one can’t stand being lied to, one would be advised not to listen to any politician ever, even the most honorable of them. Man is, after all, a fallen creature; and national political life is especially good at putting even the most honest men in pickles that it’s hard to get out of without “dissembling”. Wisdom in political life comes from learning to distinguish between fibs that can be shrugged off and those that should set off alarm bells.

Maybe it’s just my partisan colors showing here, but for my part, I find the Rummy turnaround irksome and disappointing, but not an outrage, nor a disturbing sign that lying is a way of life for this Administration. So, while I made sure to get my tut-tuts in, I’m shrugging. Just as I’ll shrug when Hillary officially declares her candidacy for the Presidency, and some of the more excitable folks crank up the campaign’s first official chorus of “HILLARY LIED!!!!!!!!!!”

Oh, and one more thing. I must say that as a football fan, I am way too familiar with the Dreaded Vote Of Confidence to have been surprised by any of this. The Rumsfeld business was in fact a textbook case of how the DVOC works.

In the aftermath of Tuesday’s election, and especially the losses of Hayworth and Graf in Arizona, many of the usual suspects are taking their whacks at the part of the Republican coalition that is steadfastly opposed to uncontrolled immigration.

I can certainly understand how the more rough-around-the-edges anti-immigration types would set off alarm bells with liberals, and make Republicans—especially those who crave the approval of liberals—feel all icky inside. On the other hand, I don’t believe most people who are worried about illegal immigration are “nativists”, and I think the blithe labeling of them as such is insulting.

And I certainly am no “nativist” or “absolutist” myself. I am in favor of a level of immigration much closer to the Wall Street Journal’s ideal than Pat Buchanan’s. At the same time, I fervently desire our southern border to be tighter than a tick. And I don’t understand why these two positions should have to be mutually exclusive.

Pro-immigration partisans seem to be advocating, either as explicit policy or through inaction, an uncontrolled southern border, over which stream immigrants who are overwhelmingly Mexican and Central American, self-selected, undocumented, and uneducated. Now I can understand how this would be La Raza’s nirvana; but is it really the WSJ editorial page’s as well? (And if so, if they do take that absolute of a free-market and libertarian view, why aren’t they calling for the abolition of passport control at the international arrivals terminal also? Or do only people who travel by foot have the right to enjoy a world without borders?)

The whole world wants to come live in America. Doesn’t it make sense, with such a vast pool of individuals from so many countries to work with, for America to pick and choose its immigrants? Doesn’t America have the right to? Don’t the American people deserve to have the cream of the crop join them in this great country, and not just the first two four eight twelve million people who manage to wade across the Rio Grande?

Imagine sealing the southern border and taking a million college-educated Chinese next year instead. And a quarter-million Russian engineers and technicians. And quarter-million Indian computer programmers. And a hundred thousand Italian cooks. And fifty thousand Central European beauty queens. (Okay, so I’m getting a bit silly and self-indulgent as I go along…but you get the point.)

And, sure, we can throw in another couple hundred thousand Mexicans and Central Americans each year, but we will get to choose who they are from now on. So sorry, Presidente Fox & co., but we won’t just sit idly by and let you export your societal problems to us any more.

If the overall level of immigration were high enough, this sort of policy ought to still satisfy most pro-immigration people—their most important goal is to simply remain open to lots of immigrants, right? Meanwhile, the greater diversity of immigrants, coupled with a requirement of a certain level of English competency before their permanent visas are even issued, should do much to help quell the Mexifornia business and other concerns that anti-immigration folks have about the National Question. And, of course, the security imperative ought to already be providing both sides plenty of motivation to control the southern border as tightly as it can possibly be controlled.

So what am I missing here? Why must the pro-immigration side insist that doing nothing (except for issuing amnesties) is the only acceptable option, and then resort to calling people names and hinting at dark “isms” if they find this unacceptable? How could anyone reasonably find the current state of affairs to be acceptable in the first place? I just don’t see it.

It is understandable that Senators Conrad Burns and George Allen had, as of this morning, not yet conceded defeat in their races. The margins are agonizingly close, and it has taken a long time (far too long) to get something that looks like a stable 100% count.

But it’s over now. There is no reasonable hope for either man to make up the difference in his race though anything short of litigation. And that is a road down which Republicans—gathering up what remains of their honor after these last years in control of Congress—should resolutely refuse to travel.

It harms our Republic whenever a candidate fails to gracefully concede. This is true whether or not there was enough chicanery and fraud to affect the result of the election. Richard Nixon, deep in his tormented heart, realized this in 1960 and was quick to concede to John F. Kennedy. Recalling this episode has become a commonplace since November of 2000, but it is no less powerful an example for this. Nixon avoided doing great damage to our democracy and to citizens’ confidence in it, and so 1960 should be remembered and praised for at least as long as Watergate is remembered and condemned.

The proof of the harm which Nixon spared us has finally, and sadly, been demonstrated over the last six years. Confidence in the most basic institution of our democracy—the electoral system—has been badly eroded. Conspiracy theories that in prior eras would have been confined to the fever-swamps of Birchies and LaRoucheites have spead widely among our friends who lean left. And the Democratic party has too often responded by working ever harder to change the outcome even after all the ballots are in (as witness the Gregiore-Rossi debacle in Washington two years ago).

As our President would say, it’s time to change the tone. Republicans can’t make Democrats do the right thing in future, not directly; but they can act honorably and graciously now, setting an example to follow, and giving them a good solid basis for pounding and/or shaming the Democrats if they do not follow.

I’m sure that Allen headquarters and Burns headquarters are, at this very moment, full of individuals breathlessly telling tales of fraud and intimidation and malfeasance and conspiracy. Of phone outages and vandalism and improper voting assistance and polling place confusion and odd-looking precinct counts. My advice to the people in charge: don’t let yourselves get consumed and carried away by this. Don’t buy into tales that may or may not be true, and may or may not mean much in the big picture even if they are true.

And think of what Richard Nixon was up against in 1960: Mayor Daley’s machine up in Cook County, and Lyndon Johnson’s machine down in Texas. Do you think you have a better case that you wuz robbed than Dick Nixon? Of course not. Which means you have much less reason than he did to take a whack at the foundations of our Republic by engaging in an extended post-election fight.

And that makes the question even clearer: Are you in the same league as Christine Gregoire? Are you, too, less honorable than Dick Nixon?

It’s time to concede. Today. Gracefully and without quibble or reservation.

Bull Moose has a nice “Kosenfreude” piece up, which makes a lot of sense right up until this point:

The central reason that the Democrats have achieved their major triumph is that they captured the center that was abandoned by the GOP.

What? Say again?

Conservatives have a looooong laundry-list of complaints against this President and the late unlamented Republican Congress. Are these complaints still somehow dwarfed by a justified sense of abandonment from the center?

I really don’t think so. This GOP-is-hostage-to-right-wing-lunacy school of thought usually results from a commentator’s frustration that the Republicans in D.C. haven’t yet completely thrown their social-conservative wing over the side. So long as Republicans oppose abortion and gay marriage and cloning, they will have “abandoned” all those poor moderates out there, even if 98% of everything else Republicans do these days drives their own base nuts.

And just how many moderates are out there, stranded by their obnoxiously right-wing party? Not enough to save the Chafees and Johnsons of the world, that much was clear last night. If the voters themselves are abandoning the GOP’s wets and weak sisters, why shouldn’t the party itself follow suit?

Nancy Pelosi last night: “Democrats intend to lead the most honest, the most open and the most ethical Congress in history.”

Here we go again. Recognize that boomer narcissist trope? “Everything’s going to be the just most fantasticest ever, because we’re going to be in power now, and not those terrible people who are icky and awful because they are…not us!”

Straight out of the Clinton playbook, no?

This may be an irritating two years ahead…

P.S. Memo to Speaker Pelosi: The words “ethical” and “Chairman Hastings” cannot be placed together, in any known physical universe, without a violent matter/anti-matter reaction occurring. (Not that Katie Couric would notice, though…)

As promised, here’s my take on the nine Senate races that I see being in play tomorrow (earlier poll closing times listed first).

Virginia: It is generally agreed among the pundits that Sen. Allen has run the worst campaign of this election cycle; and for once, the consensus seems to be dead on. However, Virginia is still strongly Republican; the people of Virgina haven’t forgotten Allen’s highly popular term as governor; and while opponent Jim Webb may be strikingly conservative himself for a Democrat, he is still a notably lackluster candidate. Plus, the Washington Post’s over-the-top partisanship in this race will be helping Republicans turn out their voters with the reliable “Annoy The Media: Re-Elect Senator Allen” message. Allen will hold this seat for the Republicans, winning by 4 or 5 points.

Ohio: Sen DeWine excites no one…unless you are willing to call the frequent exasperation of Ohio conservatives “excitement”. And the Ohio Republican party continues to implode as the Bob Taft administration stumbles to its end, with Gov. Taft’s approval ratings lurking somewhere below those of rabid skunks and lawyers (if still slightly ahead of rabid skunks who also happen to be lawyers). Some polls continue to suggest that DeWine has a chance…but he doesn’t. Sherrod Brown picks this one up for the Democrats, probably by a good 10 points.

Maryland: Republicans don’t win statewide races in Maryland very often, especially in years like this. But Lt. Gov. Michael Steele is an impressive candidate, and may just be the man to crack open the black vote in places like Prince Georges County—especially since he’s running not against Frizzell Gray (a.k.a. Kweisi Mfume), but Ben Cardin, a person of pallor who gets some tepid reviews on the campaign trail. Is the magical letter D going to be enough to help Cardin hold onto the 80-plus percent of the black vote he’s relying on? I’m doubting it. Steele picks up this seat for the Republicans in a nail-biter that may find its way into the courtroom before it’s all said and done.

Missouri: Sen. Talent seems to be in a real close contest in this perennial bellweather state. The fight over a constitutional amendment on embryonic stem-cell research has dominated the headlines, with the pro-research (and pro-cloning) side bringing in Michael J. Fox to accuse Republicans of heartlessness in the service of pro-life ideology, and amendment opponents countering with Patricia Heaton, Jim Caviezel, and several members of the World Series champion Cardinals accusing amendment supporters of dishonesty and obfuscation and overpromising on the uncertain benefits of their research. Whoever wins the amendment fight will likely win the Senate race as well; I predict that Sen. Talent and the anti-amendment side will prevail, by 2 and 4 points respectively, holding the Senate seat for the Republicans and giving Jeff Suppan dreams of a political career after his pitching days are through.

New Jersey: Sen. Menendez, in the best Garden State tradition, is racing to get re-elected before the indictments start coming down. Any sensible state would gladly hand this seat instead to a son of a former Governor, who seems moderate and competent enough in his own right. But this is New Jersey we’re talking about here. Menendez will hold this one for the Democrats, with a margin of 6…which, oddly enough, is also the length of the prison term I’m predicting a former Menendez ally will receive sometime next year.

Pennsylvania: Sen. Santorum drew a dream opponent in this race, in every respect save that opponent’s last name: Casey. That single, solitary feature, attached to a man who is a complete nonentity in all other respects, shouldn’t be enough to win a high-profile race in today’s United States of America…yet it might suffice in this one anyhow. Santorum is being squeezed several different ways here: he is a hate-figure in many sectors of the Left; the Casey name is a powerful draw in moderate circles; and many in his conservative base remain miffed at his full-bore support for Arlen Specter in the senior Senator’s narrow escape from Pat Toomey’s primary challenge two years ago. Firing up your opposition while depressing your base is an effective strategy for losing most any race, and Santorum’s failure to gain any traction in the polls seems to stand as proof. I’d love to see Santorum shock the world and pull this one off, as he’s been saying he will on the campaign trail…but it just doesn’t look possible. Casey by 5 or 6 points, and a pickup for both the Democratic and Empty Suit parties.

Tennessee: Harold Ford wants to be the next Barack Obama, and on the surface he seems to have many of the same ingredients. An “articulate” and “telegenic” rising young star with a “compelling personal story” (translation of the above: he’s a young black Democrat), who is able to give off an air of moderation without meaningfully deviating from standard Democratic positions—all he needs is to attach “Senator-elect” to the front of his name and the White House buzz can commence for him too. He is smooth (though not unfailingly smooth…how many days did it take again for him to finally spit out “I like football and I like girls”?) and skilled enough to have tempted Instapundit; but I’m not sure that’s enough. Tennessee is red enough to have rejected its own sorta-native son for President in 2000, and Bob Corker’s career to date has been distant enough from Washington for him to avoid being pulled under by either the President’s or the Republican House’s unpopularity. Corker holds this one for the Republicans by 3 or 4 points.

Rhode Island: The million or three that the NRSC spent on saving Sen. Chafee from his primary challenger looks like the biggest waste of resources this election season. If Chafee—who rather literally inherited the seat from his late father—were to prevail tomorrow, it would merely continue the headache of having a “Republican” Senator who is so disloyal that he publicly bragged about not voting for President Bush last time around. But this empty-suit son of the New England aristocracy has worn out his welcome, and will give way to…a different empty-suit son of the New England aristocracy, Sheldon Whitehouse. Sorry they let so many rank commoners from flyover country into Congress, Mr. Senator-elect; but do try to enjoy the perks of the Senatorial lifestyle anyway. This one is a Democratic pickup (of a sort) with an 9-point win for Whitehouse, and at the same time an Empty Suit Party hold.

Montana: This Mountain West state is not as true red as it used to be, and Sen. Burns’ direct and folksy ways are not as endearing to Montana voters as they used to be (such qualities have an inherent sell-by date). What hasn’t changed is the West’s traditional suspicion of people who stay in Washington too long, and that cuts against the 71-year-old Senator finishing his third term, especially with apparent ties to the Abramoff scandal to fan the flame. Burns’ opponent, Jon Tester, has the right sort of street cred for this part of the country (farmer and former music teacher hailing from a very small town; down-to-earth style; moderate views on most issues…when he has views) and should take advantage of this opening. Tester by 3 points for a Democratic pickup.

For those of you keeping score at home, that is four pickups for the Democrats and one for the Republicans, yielding a Republican majority of 52-48 in the new Senate. Which might be enough to get a few more good judges confirmed. (Emphasis on the word “might”.)