Economist Nouriel Roubini, who correctly predicted the financial collapse, believes the coming combination of President Obama in the White House and the Republicans controlling at least one part of Congress will result in a fiscal train wreck.

Pat Buchanan believes we are in uncharted waters, comparing the current state of the country to the French Fourth Republic which collapsed in the late 1950s when the governing parties were incapable of solving the pressing problems then facing France. They sent for Charles de Gaulle, who helped create a new constitutional order called the Fifth Republic. We have never made such a fundamental change, and I do not expect that we will do so now or in the near future. I expect that we will face political gridlock over the next two years (Paul Krugman certainly expects it), as the GOP will not be able to overcome any Presidential vetoes, and the President will not be able to get any initiative passed unless he has significant Republican support (which he will not get on anything of substance, unless he completely adopts a GOP position on the issue).

This means that Charles Krauthammer is correct when he contends that this election matters, as will the 2012 election, because we see real differences between President Obama and the GOP. But Krauthammer seems to think the election is about issues, the President who is attempting a leftist transformation of America versus the GOP trying to prevent such a transformation. Not so. As John Podhoretz correctly points out, this election is about punishing the President and the Democrats. Partisan Republicans, most of whom are ideologically Conservative, are understandably angry at Obama's efforts to move the country toward Democratic Socialism along the lines of Western Europe. They are being joined by independents voters, most of whom are non-ideological, who are unhappy with policies that seem to endorse bad behavior, whether that behavior is the recklessness of the rich, or the foolishness of the middle class, or the self-destructive behavior of the poor. They fear an American in decline, and in that fear they lashed out at the GOP in 2006 and 2008, and now are lashing out at the Democrats.

Adam Brodsky says voters on the Left and in the middle are blaming Obama for breaking his promises.

Robert Reich says business leaders should fear the Tea Party.

The latest Gallup poll shows an electorate skewing heavily to the Republicans.

A new New York Times/CBS News poll shows shows many Obama voters from 2008 now leaning Republican.

Karl Rove sees numerous signs of Democrats in trouble all across the country.

The Wall Street Journal says Democrats are in trouble because they governed from the left.

The Hill says Democrats are in deep danger.

Larry Sabato has updated his numbers. He now believes the GOP will win 55 House seats and 8 Senate seats.

Do you see a pattern here? I will be shocked if the GOP wins less than 50 House seats and 8 Senate seats on Tuesday.

NATIONAL ELECTION PREDICTIONS

When the political blogger for The New York Times says the Democrats are going to lose 52 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, will the liberal elites finally take notice? Smugness may prevent it, at least until the actual results are in.

How about political guru Charlie Cook? He says the Democrats will lose 48 to 60 seats.

OK, what about Stu Rothenberg? He says Democrats will lose 45 to 55 with 60 seats a possibility.

Larry Sabato says the Republicans will gain 47 seats.

Former NYC Mayor Ed Koch, a Democrat, says the Republicans will take both the House and the Senate.

The new Battleground Poll shows Republicans leading Democrats by 14 points among independent voters.

As for me, I'll stick with my earlier prediction of a GOP gain of 60 House seats and 8 Senate seats. Unless all the polls are fundamentally flawed, next Tuesday should see a historic rout for the Democratic Party across the country.

NEW HAMPSHIRE ELECTION PREDICTIONS

With one week to go before the election, here are my New Hampshire predictions (for what it's worth). I'm not going out on a limb on any of these, but here goes...

Governor John Lynch (D) will survive the Republican tsunami, beating John Stephen (R), but by a closer margin than polls predict. Lynch wins by only three points. Here are the latest polls on the race, courtesy of RealClearPolitics.

For U.S. Senate, Kelly Ayotte (R) will beat Paul Hodes (D) pretty handily. She wins by ten points. Here are the polls.

In Congressional District 1, former Manchester Mayor Frank Guinta (R) will beat incumbent Carol Shea-Porter, but not by such a big margin as you might expect. Guinta by five points. Here are the polls on that one.

In Congressional District 2, Charlie Bass (R) is the old face, having held the seat from 1995-2007. This is not a good year for old faces. Still, if the GOP wave is big enough, and I think it is, he will squeak it out over Ann McLane Kuster (D) despite the fact that the polls now put her in the lead, and that the district is more liberal than the 1st CD. Bass by one point (or less).

I expect the GOP will take control of the Executive Council, the House and the Senate, leaving John Lynch and Jeanne Shaheen (the other U.S. Senator) as the last Democrats standing. Why will this happen? Because independent (or unenrolled, as they are called here) voters are leaning heavily against the Democrats. Lynch's personal popularity will keep enough of them in his camp to stave off defeat, but that won't help Hodes, Shea-Porter or Kuster, or the numerous other Democrats on the ticket. Add to that dynamic the fact that Republicans are much more energized than Democrats, which is also the case nationally, and you get a very bad day for the Democrats.

Jay Cost shares his predictions for the election...a GOP gain of 61 seats in the House and 8 seats in the Senate. My gut feeling two months ago was 60 House and 8 Senate seats, so I feel pretty good about that one now that Cost has weighed in with almost identical numbers.

Sean Trende has this excellent piece which asks the most important question concerning the election; who will come out to vote? The most difficult task facing pollsters as they try to accurately gauge voter sentiments and intentions is the attempt to ascertain whether or not the people they poll will really turn out and vote. Trende believes most pollsters are accurately determining how people will vote based on their self-identified party status. For this election, in just about any poll you look at, 90-95% of Republicans and Democrats say they will vote for the candidate of their party, while independents are breaking for GOP candidates about 55-45% or so. Trende believes pollsters are, deliberately or not, giving Democrats a 3-4% advantage because they are predicting a voter pool that looks more like 2006 and 2008, which were good years for Democratic turnout. He believes 2004 is a better model for this election. If that is the case, look at each race (my opinion) and add 3 points to the Republican's score. So, let's experiment with this technique by looking at the most hotly contested Senate races (using RCP averages)...

CT - Blumenthal (D) 52% McMahon (R) 45%
CA - Boxer (D) 45% Fiorina (R) 43%
CO - Buck (R) 46% Bennett (D) 45%
IL - Kirk (R) 41% Giannoulias (D) 39%
KY - Paul (R) 46% Conway (D) 42%
NV - Reid (D) 45% Angle (R) 45%
PA - Toomey (R) 46% Sestak (D) 44%
WA - Murray (D) 49% Rossi (R) 47%
WV - Manchin (D) 46% Raese (R) 44%
WI - Johnson (R) 51% Feingold (D) 45%

I'm not including Missouri and New Hampshire, where the GOP candidate in each contest has an average lead of 10 points. I think national Democratic strategists are writing both of them off, as they are both for open Republican seats.

If you add 3% to the GOP candidate's total, then the Republicans are leading in nine out of the ten races, rather than five out of the ten. Only the real poll on election day will tell, of course, but I will be looking for this trend early that night.

The Pew Research Center has a new poll showing a more intense ground campaign than 2006, and more intense Republican enthusiasm, among other things.

Juan Williams writes about why he was fired from NPR.

The Wall Street Journal blasts NPR for their actions.

The Washington Post also criticizes the decision.

The National Review calls for them to lose their taxpayer funding.

Paul Krugman pans the British government for their spending cuts, while Sally McNamara praises them.

Brian McGrory of The Boston Globe writes about something those of us who have worked in the Boston-area media for a long time, which is that Congressman Barney Frank is a pill. He is arrogant, condescending and cantankerous. But we just put up with it, understanding that he was a powerful politician, unassailable in his seat, and expected to be around for many years to come. But this year, when all things seem possible, even Barney Frank may have to find some charm to stay in his seat.

Will the Federal Reserve precipitate a new civil war in this country? The short answer is...no.

Dick Morris and Eileen McGann take a look at how the GOP might clean up a bunch of congressional seats in New York.

Peter Beinart, using the example of Britain's new Conservative Prime Minister, blasts the Republicans for being hypocritical on the issue of debts, deficits, spending and taxes. He makes a good point. But he does so by saying that it is the Tea Party people who are the frauds. Not so. The establishment GOP are the frauds, and when they fail to reign in spending over the next couple of years, they will find the Tea Party folks turning on them. Then we will see a true third party movement.

E.J. Dionne looks at Ohio from his liberal perspective and George Will looks at West Virginia from his conservative perspective. Each makes some interesting points about the election atmosphere in those two crucial, neighboring states.

Bill Kristol blasts NPR for firing Juan Williams.

Sarah Palin invokes the possibility of a third party in an effort to convince Republicans that, should they take power again, they need to follow through on their small government, free market rhetoric.

Arthur Herman believes al Qaeda is in the ascendant due to the policies of President Obama. Essentially, the President has indicated his top priority is to get our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. This tells the locals in both places that they had best start following the strong horse, and that horse isn't the United States.

Bob Herbert has that sinking feeling about the President, and puts the blame squarely where it belongs.

A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows the Republicans still hold the lead as we head down the stretch to the election.

Jay Cost sees many Senate races tightening up. This is due to the fact that the GOP is trying to take seats in states that are, or should be, Democratic strongholds.

You really think you can build an aircraft carrier without also building aircraft to go with it?

Of course, that proposal is just part of the biggest defense reductions by the United Kingdom since the end of the Cold War. By the way, I believe this story is a preview of what we will see in the U.S., since there will not be enough political will to cut entitlement programs or raise taxes, so the only place left to cut where you can find big savings is in the defense budget.

Andrew C. McCarthy says he is not the only one to believe that Islam is an inherently totalitarian ideology.

Daniel Pipes says Americans who support Israel should carefully consider which party is more likely to back Israel, and which is more likely to back Israel's enemies.

In The New York Times today we find two stories about the problems facing the Democratic Party. This one highlights how the Democrats continue to lose seats in the South, and this one looks at their problems in New York State.

David Brooks says there is very little evidence that money makes a big difference in elections.

Whether or not money matters, Republican Meg Whitman is still spending a boatload in her effort to win the race for Governor of California. Why she would want the job is beyond me.

Via Insatpundit, the coming middle-class anarchy. I believe circumstances like the one described in the post is the major driving force behind the Tea Party movement and what is almost certain to be a big Republican surge in November. It will not, in my view, devolve into some sort of anarchy, but it will create big political swings, unless and until one party or the other gets a handle on the situation. In 1932, it was FDR and the Democrats who seized the imagination of the public, creating hope and confidence, at least among a very large segment of the population, which allowed the Democrats to get a stranglehold on the political system that lasted for decades. Will one party or the other do the same in 2012? Or will the situation be muddled so badly that a new party arises, as was the case in the 1850s with the disintegration of the Whig Party and the rise of the GOP over the issue of slavery? Time will tell.

George Will writes about Barack Obama's Seventies show.

Amir Taheri writes about the growing influence of the Iranians on the government of Iraq.

Fareed Zakaria writes about the possible collapse of North Korea.

Robert J. Samuelson wonders if the Federal Reserve can do anything to improve the economy.

Paul Krugman points out the fact that the Chinese have almost a monopoly on rare earth resources, and are throwing their weight around. Krugman is wrong about a lot of things, but he is not wrong about how the Butchers of Beijing are behaving.

Scholars re-discover the 'culture of poverty' and are, at last, starting to spend real time and effort on researching how and why it develops.

Tom Brokaw points out that only a small percentage of Americans are bearing the majority of the burdens imposed by our two wars.

Ross Douthat outlines the comfortable illusions most liberals continue to hold about the Tea Party movement.

Investor's Business Daily says Barney Frank is a liar.

Victor Davis Hanson says there are ten steps that can turn a recession into a depression, and the Obama people are doing all ten.

The Tea Party has made the GOP a more conservative and principled party, according to a New York Post columnist.

The Tea Party is set to win enough seats to have a significant influence, according to The New York Times.

A new poll shows Kelly Ayotte maintaining a 15 point lead over Paul Hodes for the U.S. Senate seat in New Hampshire. Hodes is toast. Call this one a Republican hold.

Charles Krauthammer has this pre-election post-mortem.

Jay Cost surveys the election prognostications. Every one of the experts has the GOP winning at least 35 seats, and most have them winning at least 45.

I will be sitting in for Dan Rea on Nightside this evening on WBZ radio in Boston from 8 to 10 PM. Among the issues up for consideration...

The controversy between the Cahill and Baker campaigns continues, with e-mails that might show unlawful cooperation between the Cahill campaign and state lottery officials regarding an advertising campaign. If you are a voter in Massachusetts, does this make you more or less like to vote for Cahill, Baker, or the incumbent Governor Deval Patrick? Polling data would seem to indicate that the controversy is helping Patrick extend his lead.

Is Congressman Barney Frank to blame for the meltdown of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

Should the government impose a moratorium on foreclosures? Could the lack of a proper paper trail for so many foreclosures cause a repeat of the 2008 financial crisis?

Will Massachusetts become a more Republican state after all the votes are counted?

Could the GOP really win more than 60 House seats across the nation?

George Will sees a historic shift in the making in this election.

David Brooks writes about the paralysis of the state. Is American government, at all levels, no longer capable of doing big things?

If you are an independent voter, how will you vote next month? It appears as if the middle-of-the-road voter is growing increasingly frustrated with both major parties.

Jeff Jacoby writes about Obamacare blowback. People are beginning to realize that they were sold a bill of goods. You cannot keep your health insurance, or your doctor. You will not see your medical insurance costs go down. Instead, as is already becoming apparent, costs will continue to rise, insurance companies will start getting out of particular areas of the business that are made less profitable (or unprofitable) by the new law, and people will lose their insurance as a result. Until we realize that our health insurance system is a product of a series of historical accidents, and was not designed for the social and economic conditions of the 21st century, we will not begin to get a handle on the problem. Want to solve the problem? Recognize that health care is a service provided by people to other people, and the people providing the service need to get paid for their labor and their expertise. The people getting the service should pay for it directly as much as is possible. Everyone above a certain income level should be responsible for paying for routine medical care out-of-pocket, and should be required to carry catastrophic health insurance (within a very wide range of plans) that they purchase directly. People below a certain income level can be covered by a government plan for routine expenses as well as catastrophic care, unless we are willing as a society to simply rely on charity to care for their needs.

Brian McGrory says teachers need a lesson. I say this...teachers have a tough job, and oftentimes they are left holding the bag for the failures of parents, administrators and politicians. But the root of the problem is that we are trapped in a state-run system that worked well during the first 50 or 60 years of the 20th century but is no longer a workable system for the 21st century. Want to solve the problem? Sever the link between school and state. Provide state-funded schools to serve people of limited means, but allow everyone else to pay for the education of their children directly, in whatever manner works for them. This is how we do it at the university level, and we have the best system of higher education in the world.

Fred Barnes writes about the four causes that will lead to a Democratic disaster next month.

Still, it is the bleak economic conditions, especially the fact that there does not seem to be any light at the end of the tunnel, that is driving the current political train down the track leading to electoral debacle for the Democrats. If things do not improve much in the next two years, President Obama may face his Jimmy Carter moment in 2012.

Toby Harnden in The Daily Telegraph of the UK blasts the Obama team for their attempt to make the U.S. Chamber of Commerce foreign money story into a big deal. He includes a video of David Axelrod being interviewed on Face The Nation. Really, when Bob Schieffer of CBS News asks, "Is that the best you can do?", then you are going to lose big, really big.

The New York Times says there is no evidence that the Chamber is using foreign money to fund its election advertising. But, according to Axelrod, that doesn't matter because "is there any evidence they are not" using foreign money? Some standard. Some strategy. Let's hammer away at foreign money in ad campaigns instead of talking about jobs. I guess they think this will fire up the base.

Gallup has a new poll out which shows Republicans still winning the likely voter scenario by a wide margin. So, I guess all the folks who won't pay any attention to Rasmussen numbers because they skew to the right will now have to start ignoring Gallup, as well.

Stanley Kurtz says Barack Obama really is a Socialist, and he has the evidence to prove it. Skeptical? Well, can you prove that he is not?

Republicans are now challenging Democrats for seats once considered safe.

Jay Cost has a special Democratic desperation edition of his daily take on polls and politics.

Even George Soros says he cannot stop the Republican avalanche.

Walter Russell Mead, as always, has some insight into the changes impacting the American political landscape. In essence, he believes that the the old, New Deal formula that was so effective for the Democratic Party in the 20th Century no longer works, either as a political strategy or as an effective governing strategy. This is because the electorate, by-and-large, no longer believes Democratic solutions will solve current economic problems, even though those problems are similar to the ones that gave the Democrats control of America's national political institutions in 1932.

It appears that the Democrats, at least those inside the White House, have found their 'October Surprise', by attacking the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The allegation? That the Chamber is using foreign money to fund its advertising campaign directed against Democratic candidates all across the country. Officials at the Chamber deny it, of course. As a political issue, it seems like it might be pretty sexy. After all, it combines xenophobia with criminality (it is against the law to use money from foreign sources to bankroll campaign ads). Alas for the Democrats, it doesn't fit well on a bumper sticker, it doesn't implicate Republican candidates directly, and it doesn't propose a solution that would create a single job.

Mark Halperin doesn't think much of the issue, and he believes it is a distraction that is part of an overall pattern of incompetence within the Obama team.

Robert J. Samuelson believes the U.S. and Europe have entered an age of austerity. He is also afraid that this austerity will lead to even slower growth and extended high unemployment. My fear is that if this is, in fact, the emerging political and economic pattern, all it will take is one significant shock (a spike in oil prices, for instance), to send these economies into a tailspin. Such a tailspin could lead to an economic depression, massive social dislocation, the rise of fanatical ideologies, and war. Not a pretty picture. I hope I am wrong.

Nile Gardiner says Americans miss President George W. Bush.

More fireworks from the race for Governor of Massachusetts. All of this stuff SHOULD help Deval Patrick. But I wonder if it can counteract the big GOP momentum that is hitting Massachusetts just as much as it is hitting everywhere else.

Meanwhile, veteran Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank is getting a bit worried by a challenge from a real veteran, the former Marine who is Frank's GOP opponent.

An African-American Tea Party supporter explains why he has joined the movement, and why he opposes politicians like Barack Obama.

Larry Kudlow says the stock market is rebounding in anticipation of a big GOP win next month.

So, what is the foreclosure mess really all about? Why, politics, of course. The sad part of this whole thing is that it is putting a hammer lock on the real estate market at absolutely the worst possible time.

The Democrats now find themselves using precious resources to defend congressional seats that should be safe, but suddenly are in play.

A new American Research Group poll of likely voters shows Governor John Lynch (D) leading John Stephen (R) by ten points, 51% to 41% here in New Hampshire. It also shows Kelly Ayotte (R) leading Paul Hodes (D) 47% to 42%.

Meanwhile, according to this story from the Union Leader, UNH Survey Center director Andy Smith is predicting that the Republicans will win back control of the New Hampshire House, and might win the Senate as well. He also predicts that Governor Lynch will be re-elected, while Ayotte will win the U.S. Senate seat, and that the GOP will pick up at least one of the two congressional seats, probably the 1st District. Nationally, he believes the GOP will pick up between 35 and 90 seats in the U.S. House, but fail to win the Senate.

FYI, the current political make-up of the New Hampshire legislature is as follows:

House - 216 Democrats, 174 Republicans, 10 vacant seats (our 400 member House is the third largest parliamentary body in the world).

Senate - 14 Democrats, 10 Republicans.

In Massachusetts, the race for Governor is getting more interesting as the independent campaign of State Treasurer Tim Cahill has filed a lawsuit against some former staffers claiming they conspired to funnel information from their campaign to that of Republican Charlie Baker while they were still in Cahill's employ. Here is the story from The Boston Globe, and an analysis from the same source. My analysis? There is no logical reason why Republican operatives (which is who these people are) would join an independent campaign for Governor, unless they believed such a campaign would hurt the Democratic incumbent (Cahill was also a Democrat before he made the switch to independent status in order to undertake the run). Upon the realization that Cahill's campaign was actually more of a hindrance to Baker than to Deval Patrick, they looked for ways to undermine the campaign. So, who will this help? On the surface, it looks like it should help Patrick, which is the essence of the Globe's analysis. My gut tells me that it will not have much of an impact, but what impact there is probably makes people even angrier about politics as usual, which should hurt incumbents more than challengers.

A new CBS News poll examines the Tea Party movement, and shows more bad news for the Democrats.

Finally a poll with good news for the Democrats, at least in New York.

Is polling evidence that shows some Democratic resurgence really just a "dead cat bounce"?

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie kills a new rail tunnel project, citing cost overruns. Paul Krugman says this is exactly the wrong thing to do.

Karl Rove says desperate Democrats are resorting to personal attacks and smear campaigns.

Stu Rothenberg says the fundamentals still show big GOP gains.

Dick Morris and Eileen McGann take note of a sea change at the grassroots level of the Republican Party, driven by the concerns of the Tea Party people now taking over the party. Economic issues now trump social issues, which allows libertarian-minded people to join the GOP with greater enthusiasm.

Jay Cost examines the latest polling data, which sees bad news for Democrats (which, of course, is just like almost all the polling data to come out in the last few months).

George Will says the new commission to examine the debt and deficit problems of the country is not getting much done, and will not get much done anytime soon.

Matt Miller says liberals (or progressives) face a moral crisis on the issue of free trade.

Could Massachusetts elect some more Republicans next month? I would not be surprised if Charlie Baker won the race for governor, and the 10th congressional district might also go for a Republican. Beyond that, I have my doubts.

Could a new political movement be building in this country? Here is one theory. I think it is a pretty good analysis. Right now, the Tea Party movement is diffuse and disorganized, but that may change over time. The successful political movements in this country tended to be focused on one issue; the Abolitionists wanted to abolish slavery, the Temperance movement wanted to stop alcohol abuse, the anti-war movement wanted to stop the war in Vietnam. Or they coalesced around a set of issues as defined and personified by a personality; the Jacksonian Democrats, the Bryan Populists, the Perot Reform Party. Typically, successful movements saw their ideals adopted. Slavery was abolished, laws were passed restricting and regulating alcohol use (although Prohibition was a colossal overreach), the war in Vietnam was ended, as was the military draft. Sometimes, their ideals were adopted by one of the two major political parties. The Democrats became Jacksonian in the 1830s. The Republican Party was formed in the 1850s in large part to take a strong anti-slavery stand. The Democrats nominated William Jennings Bryan three times for President and, obviously, adopted many of his populist positions (even though he lost each time). The anti-war folks essentially became part of the Democratic base, as they still are today. The Buckley-Goldwater-Reagan conservatives are now the GOP base. What will happen with the Tea Party movement? I suspect that it will be absorbed inside the Republican Party. If that does not happen, if the Republican establishment refuses to follow the lead of the Tea Party folks, then the GOP will see any gains made in this election erased in the next one.

New polling data shows that Latinos are not enthusiastic about voting this November. That, of course, is very bad news for the Democrats.

Some more thoughts on the stunning likely voter numbers issued by Gallup the other day. If those numbers are right (and I have my doubts), the GOP will party in November like it '94...not 1994, 1894, when they won 100 seats.

Dick Morris seems to think we might be approaching that neighborhood, as he sees a widening turnout gap.

Perhaps part of the problem for the Democrats is that their base, those 60s anti-war hippies, now deep into middle age or approaching retirement, who hold very left-wing views on foreign policy, are angry with the President. They wanted Obama to not only apologise for America's many sins (which he did), but also to immediately withdraw our troops from Iraq, quickly withdraw them from Afghanistan, close the detention facility at Guantanamo and release the men held there, end the CIA drone strikes and so-called "non-judicial killings", call for deep cuts in the defense budget, and the like. Obama, once off the campaign trail and in the White House, did none of those things once he was given the facts of life and realized he was responsible for keeping America secure.

The new Gallup generic congressional ballot numbers are in, and they show a looming debacle for the Democrats.

On the other hand, the new Washington Post/ABC News poll shows some improvement for the Democrats.

This is leading some Democrats and their allies in the media to engage in happy talk, much in the same fashion as they did in 1994, according to John Podhoretz. He remembers (as I do) that there were numbers showing a tightening race, and that few (if any) analysts thought the GOP could win the House in that election. We were all shocked by the results that night. This November, I will only be shocked if the Democrats avoid losing the House.

Jay Cost looks at the dueling generic ballot numbers from Gallup and Rasmussen.

Katrina vanden Huevel says the Democrats need to run on the issue of Social Security. She is right, of course. But that will only work if the GOP gets control of Congress and starts to make noises about changing the system.

Christine O'Donnell has a new TV ad in which she declares that she is not a witch. Good to know.

Donald Luskin writes about the tax and trade doomsday clocks.

Peter Roff says people are angry at Obama for the same reasons they were at Bush.

Are we raising a generation of nincompoops, or is it simply a matter of us old farts lamenting the fact that young people don't know how to do things we take for granted, but are useless skills in the modern world?

Heather MacDonald says Chicago, and the rest of America, won't get a handle on inner city violence unless they recognize the true origin of the problem.

Arthur Herman has some thoughts on Obama's failures concerning his policy toward Pakistan.

Tom Friedman says a third party may be on the way. Of course, Friedman gets it wrong, because he expects such a party to rise from what he calls "the radical center". There is no such thing as a "radical center". To be in the center is to be far removed from anything anywhere near 'radical'. Friedman is simply disappointed that the Democrats have failed to enact their left-wing agenda, and is unhappy with our messy political system that has obstructed them in their efforts. He would rather we find a way to do things the Chinese way, without the secret police, the gulags, and the executions, of course. Silly man. How can someone so well educated not understand that you can't have one without the other?

Paul Krugman lets it be known that the Republican Party is now owned, lock, stock and barrel, by a cabal of billionaire families, including Rupert Murdoch.

It is because they are so blinded by their prejudices concerning the conservative movement that liberal intellectuals like Krugman are unable to see the truth about the Tea Party movement. Glenn Reynolds, on the other hand, was one of the first to see what was really happening, and he now feels comfortable enough to say, "I told you so."

Jay Cost manipulates the numbers and comes up with several possible scenarios for the mid-term election coming up in just one month. Essentially, it is all a matter of the enthusiasm, or lack thereof, of each party's base. If polling data is to be believed, independents are very much leaning toward the GOP. Using that as a benchmark, Cost calculates what the vote might look like by varying the degree of voter enthusiasm for each party. An interesting read.

It looks like Tim Cahill's independent campaign for Governor of Massachusetts is coming apart at the seams. At first, his candidacy looked pretty viable, then he looked like he might be a spoiler, now it looks like he will be a non-factor. Of course, the barrage of negative ads run by the national GOP did real damage.

CNN anchor Rick Sanchez is fired after he called Jon Stewart a bigot during a radio interview. My guess is that the suits at CNN were looking for an excuse to get rid of him, and he gave it to them. If he were a valuable contributor, with an otherwise good record, they would not have cut him loose so quickly.

Benny Avni thinks we could see a power struggle erupt in North Korea. The consequences of such a struggle could be quite severe for the region.

Moqtada al Sadr, the Iraqi Shiite leader in the pocket of the mullahs in Iran (and currently living in exile in that country) has thrown his party's support behind Prime Minister Maliki. This will allow Maliki to continue to run Iraq. What, I wonder, was the price for Sadr's (and Iran's) support?

The new WMUR Granite State Poll is out, and the people at the Paul Hodes for Senate campaign must be pulling their hair out. It shows Republican Kelly Ayotte now leading Hodes 50% to 35%. Looking deeply into the numbers, what strikes me is that Hodes saw his numbers tank as soon as the TV ads went on the air. I thought those ads made him look bad, but I chalked it up to my own bias. It seems my "negative vibe" about those ads was a shared experience. In the two congressional races, the poll shows former Manchester Mayor Frank Guinta, the Republican, leading incumbent Democratic Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter 49% to 39% in the 1st CD, and former Congressman Charlie Bass, the Republican, narrowly leading Democrat Ann Kuster 43% to 38% in the 2d CD. Historically, the 2d district is the more liberal of the two, but Bass was able to hold the seat from 1994 to 2006 with the perception that he was a more moderate Republican. That moderation, and the perception that he is part of the GOP establishment, may not be helping him this time.

Stop the presses! Veteran Democratic political operative Bob Shrum says that, despite the polls, the Democrats will hold both the House and the Senate. Of course, Shrum is 0-8 in presidential campaigns since 1972, which is something of a joke within the community of political professionals.

Shrum dismisses the Rasmussen polls as being biased for the GOP, but he makes no mention of Gallup, which continues to release numbers that look bad for the Democrats, including this latest poll that shows the Democrats increasingly the party of young people and African-Americans. That is all very well, of course, except that the vast majority of the electorate is made up of people over the age of 30 who are not African-American. That Gallup poll also shows something that should be worrisome for the Democrats...a decline in Hispanic support.

A Pew poll shows the same trend of a Democratic Party shrinking to include only young people and minorities.

Truly, the day of reckoning for the Democrats could be just on the horizon.

Stuart Rothenberg thinks the Democrats could lose the Senate. Fred Barnes now seems convinced that they will, and he has made the list of which seats they will take.

Peggy Noonan sees a political tornado on the way, with lasting consequences for the country.