Not sure how the Republicans are supposed to retake the House if the Democrats have more than five times more money in the bank than they do.

The DCCC, like its GOP counterpart, spent more than it took in during Oct., thanks to the expensive NY-23 special election. Still, it outraised the NRCC, as the Dem cmte took in $3.8M last month. It also outspent the NRCC, shelling out nearly $4M (about $1.1M of which aided now-Rep. Bill Owens' (D) winning campaign).

While the DCCC has more debt than the NRCC ($3.3M-$2M), it has a huge cash-on-hand edge. At the end of Oct., the DCCC had $14.5M in the bank, while the NRCC lagged with just $4.2M.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had a net $12.2 million in the bank as of the end of October; the National Republican Congressional Committee had a net $2.2 million in the bank at the time. This means that, as of the latest reading, the DCCC had more than 5.5 times more money on hand than did the NRCC.

When the Democrats sought to retake the House in 2006, cash management played no small role in their success. Indeed, by the summer before election day, the DCCC managed to stockpile more cash in the bank than the NRCC, a nearly unprecedented achievement to that point.

The NRCC is doing better than it was doing at this point in the 2008 cycle, when the committee was still running a net deficit. Nevertheless, until the GOP is able to make up this major disadvantage on the House side, undoing the Democrats' more than 5.5-to-1 lead in campaign cash, it's not at all clear to me how they are supposed to mount the type of effort that could possibly retake the House in 2010 (even leaving aside generic ballot numbers that show them continuing to trail nationwide).

Hotline oddly frames Reid's reelection as a battle of opposition research:

Reid faces dismal approval ratings -- the latest survey, conducted by the independent Research 2000 for the Progressive Change Campaign Cmte, showed just 35% of Nevadans have a favorable opinion of the senior senator, while 54% see him unfavorably. What's more, he trails the two GOP challengers he has been matched against in public polls.

That leaves most political observers to conclude that Reid's only path to victory is to follow NJ Gov. Jon Corzine's (D) footsteps. Corzine, who was never able to move his numbers above the low-40s, sought to criticize his opponent in such a way that made the GOPer less electable than himself.

But Reid will differ in one respect: Corzine began his offensive against Gov.-elect Chris Christie (R) too late, and Christie won the election. Reid has already signaled he will begin his assault early enough to make a real difference. Some GOPers even believe Reid will get involved in their primary.

Sure, the 2010 Senate campaign in Nevada will likely include opposition research done by every candidate, like all other federal elections. But let's give Nevadans some credit: Reid's the most powerful Senator in the country, and certainly the most influential Senator (politician?) Nevada's ever had. And Nevadans know Reid's influence is to their state's benefit (see: killing the much-hated Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump).

Substituting Reid with a relative political novice who'd join the Senate in the lowest rank of the minority party might not seem too appealing come November of 2010, oppo or not.

By 1816, the American Republic began to emerge from the turmoil of the War of 1812, a war that the United States effectively lost though because of the Battle of New Orleans, which actually came after the peace treaty had been signed, many Americans seem to think we won the war. The British burnt Washington to the ground. James Madison had to flee for his life. The US invasion of Canada ended in a hasty retreat. New England threatened succession. And political disputes between North and South over tariffs and slavery were growing ever more bitter.

American elections from 1796 through the Jacksonian Republic were hotly contested. There were no parties in the modern sense. In 1816, the first US political party was still a decade away. But there were factions. Even before the ratification of the US Constitution and the election of George Washington, Americans were divided over the power and role of the Federal government. Two camps arose, the Federalists led by Alexander Hamilton and the Anti-Federalists led by Thomas Jefferson. George Washington largely sided with Hamilton and during the early part of the Republic, the Federalist "party" was ascedant. In 1796, John Adams won the Presidency over Thomas Jefferson and he followed Washington's policies even if he and Hamilton did not exactly see things the same way. Then, as now, there were spirited debates over the power of money in politics. Hamilton's Bank of the United States, a forerunner of today's Federal Reserve, was derided by Jefferson who railed against the power of New York monied interests go as far as calling New York, Hamiltonople. The National Debt, a legacy of the Revolution, was also a hot topic. The National Debt Reduction of 1802 repealed all internal taxes, prohibited the Federal government from taking on any additional debt and aimed to reduce the National Debt through external tariffs.

Politics was a bitter cup of tea during the early Republic; far more bitter than they are now in this age of Tea Parties. It serves to remind you that Adams and Jefferson would not speak to each other for over a decade such was their feud. And in 1800, Aaron Burr would kill Alexander Hamilton in a duel over a political dispute. Politics was not as genteel as Americans today imagine it. In fact, people would cross the street so as to not speak with their political opponents. It even divided families. In 1806, two cousins, both members of the House from Virginia, fought a duel over a salt tax.

The latest numbers from the Gallup three-day tracking poll are in, and at present Barack Obama's approval rating stands at 49 percent -- the first time he has slipped below 50 percent in the survey. Forty four percent now disapprove of the job he is doing.

For the past three and a half months, the President's approval rating had varied, though within a clear range, between 50 percent and 56 percent. Today's rating doesn't fall far outside of that range, and the change from the previous few days finding of 50 percent isn't significant. Moreover, more still approve of the President than disapprove of him. That said, this is a marker point, one that will garner more than a few pixels I would imagine.

Politicians in both parties have complained that proposed federal climate change bills are "unfair" to Midwestern states, which rely largely on coal to generate electricity. Utility companies and corporate groups have tried to reinvent themselves as defenders of the public interest against those who would unjustly "punish" consumers living in coal-dependent states.

Physicians for Social Responsibility released a report this week on "Coal's Assault on Human Health." This report should be required reading for all members of Congress, especially Democrats who have demanded more subsidies for coal-burning utilities in the climate-change bill. From the executive summary (pdf file):

Coal pollutants affect all major body organ systems and contribute to four of the five leading causes of mortality in the U.S.: heart disease, cancer, stroke and chronic lower respiratory diseases. [...] Each step of the coal lifecycle--mining, transportation, washing, combustion, and disposing of post-combustion wastes--impacts human health. Coal combustion in particular contributes to diseases affecting large portions of the U.S. population, including asthma, lung cancer, heart disease, and stroke, compounding the major public health challenges of our time. It interferes with lung development, increases the risk of heart attacks, and compromises intellectual capacity.

In yesterday's Des Moines Register, Lee Rood highlighted some of the extra burdens Iowans bear because of coal-fired power plants. Several other Midwestern states, such as Missouri and Indiana, rely even more heavily on coal for electricity.

Over the past year, Iowa Independent has published many outstanding reports on coal ash disposal. I recommend reading the latest piece by Jason Hancock: "Effects of coal ash contamination go beyond health risks."

It's clear that coal-fired power plants extract a huge toll on public health. Creating financial incentives to move away from coal as a source of electricity isn't "unfair," especially since low-income Americans could receive increased subsidies for utility bills.

What's unfair is for corporations and politicians to fight for the status quo, without regard for Americans who die prematurely or suffer from preventable health problems because of coal.

In one blog post I can't do justice to the extensively documented report by Physicians for Social Responsibility, but here's one more excerpt from the executive summary (pdf file):

A nationwide study of blood samples in 1999-2000 showed that 15.7% of women of childbearing age have blood mercury levels that would cause them to give birth to children with mercury levels exceeding the EPA's maximum acceptable dose for mercury. This dose was established to limit the number of children with mercury-related neurological and developmental impairments. Researchers have estimated that between 317,000 and 631,000 children are born in the U.S. each year with blood mercury levels high enough to impair performance on neurodevelopmental tests and cause lifelong loss of intelligence.

When conservatives who supposedly want to protect unborn children stop clamoring for more coal-fired power plants, I'll take them more seriously.

You don't have to believe in global warming to recognize the dangers of relying on coal and the benefits of moving toward cleaner ways to generate electricity.

Strange day, when all sorts of things are mixed in juxtaposition.

Republican Ron Paul and Democrat Alan Grayson getting a terrific transparency of the Fed bill out of Committee and it will for certain pass the House (many progressive Democrats voting against it).

The Page putting up Sarah Palin & Paul Krugman anti-TARP and Bailout Quotes that are similar (good for both of them).

You gotta love this photo up on Huffington Post:

The balding older one for Obama & community, and the younger hippie dude against Obama & socialism.

I picked up both the Plouffe and the Palin books yesterday, so expect some upcoming posts on the '08 history.

We are looking at the biggest potential shake-up of the US Senate in decades in 2010. I now count 10 seats that Democrats could lose, 5 seats that Republicans could lose, and at least 5 seats where a primary challenger could knock off the incumbent.

I have a pretty good string going with a 100% correct record for predicting US Senate races over the past few cycles, and I've got to work on directly as a consultant or indirectly through the DSCC on over a dozen of those wins-- its been a great run. But 2010 looks like its going to be a real wildcard.

This is sorta out of character for this particular Senate class, as I pointed out previously (Senate 2010). A partisan change of 4 in '04, a change of 0 in '98, a change of 0 in '92, but then the 1980's: a change of 8 in '86 and a change of 12 in '80.

The way things are shaping up, I don't put it out of the realm of possibility that the Democrats could lose 10 seats in the Senate at this point in time; but I also don't think its out of the realm of possibility that there's little or no change in the partisan Senate makeup.

The point is, that when we are looking at a landscape where there could be as many as 15-20 new Senators elected, and still a year away, it certainly looks like a huge shake-up year.

Here's the states as I see it right now, which are probably competitive through primary or GE:

IL, DE, MO, KY, NH, FL, OH, AR, CA, CO, CT, NV, NY, ND, PA, AZ, UT.

There are 8 Democratic incumbents on the vulnerable list: Lincoln, Boxer, Bennet, Dodd, Reid, Gillibrand, Dorgan, and Specter.

Not a single incumbent Republican is on the vulnerable list at the moment.

There are 7 open toss-up seats: 2 Democratic and 5 Republican held.

And in primaries, those vulnerable are: Lincoln (D-AR); Bennet (D-CO); Specter (D-PA); McCain (R-AZ); and Bennett (R-UT).

The potential swing is wide, from 10 potential pick-ups by Republicans to 5 potential pickups by Democrats, and 4 potential primary upsets.

Ronald Reagan launched his political career in 1966 in his run for the governorship in California by targeting UC Berkeley's student peace activists, its professors, and, to a great extent, the University of California itself. His oft-repeated mantra was "to clean up the mess at Berkeley." In the end, he destroyed what was one of the great equalizers in California's meritocracy. Under Reagan began our shift from education as a right to education as a privilege for the wealthy or as an investment for the rest of us.

Reagan, who attended a bible college without distinguishing himself, viewed the Free Speech Movement at Berkeley with deep suspicion. In his campaign he vowed to "investigate charges of communism and blatant sexual misbehavior on the Berkeley campus." He proposed deep across budget cuts for the system and cavalierly suggested that Berkeley sell its collections of rare books in the Bancroft Library and hold bake sales in Sproul Plaza. He repeated Milton Friedman's views whenever and wherever he could: "Individuals should bear the costs of investments in themselves and receive the rewards."

"The state should not subsidized intellectual curiosity" declared Reagan when he finally ended a century-long state policy of free tuition in what has long been the nation's crown jewel of public universities. Founded in 1868 as a city of learning, the University of California was free for all. Today tuition runs $9,748 for in-state residents. Total cost runs over $28,000. And it is about to go up significantly effectively ending the American dream for tens of thousands who will be priced out of the nation's largest higher education system. For the 2010-2011 academic year, tuition will rise by 32 percent.

That the state of California is in crisis is by now a well-known fact. Our cupboard is threadbare and the state faces a $20.7 billion dollar deficit over the next 18 months. The implications are stark given the political impasse in the state legislature where a rump Republican minority has decided that it is to their political advantage to hold the state hostage. Nothing will get solved and lives will be ruined.

It's not just the ten flagship campuses of the University of California system that are hurting. It is the entire system.  The state's 110 community colleges are designed to be affordable launchpads to further education, with the assurance that after a two-year foundation, students can land at one of the California State University or University of California campuses. Once they arrive at universities, data shows that transfers are successful, graduating at a slightly higher rate than students who enter as freshmen. But six in ten community college students are unable to graduate largely because cuts have so devastated the system that they can't get the classes they need to complete their associate's degree. California now ranks  39th among states in the percentage of bachelor's degrees awarded to high school graduates.

And as California's educational prowess sinks so does the state overall. Restoring the California Dream does, in fact, mean undoing Reagan.