As the 2010 Mid-Term Election Draws Near...

First off - watch out for the 'spin' that is taking place from both sides!  When you see a report that seems to almost gleefully report that one side is up or the other is down, proceed with caution.  Odds are that you're looking at one of two things: 1) It's actually an opinion or guest-written piece that looks like a news story, or 2) It's a story written by someone genuinely excited that the side they are supporting is doing well.

Second - no poll matters except the one on Election Day.  And yet, the media seems downright determined to manipulate our collective thought process by conducting polls and then making the results of the polls the basis for what and how they report.  Reality is, most polls are barely valid as the questions can be leading and the same questions asked at a different time of day would probably yield completely different results.  But you don't hear that mentioned; nor do you hear that the broad and sweeping proclamations about how "the polls" are looking are often based on as few as 500 likely voters...

One thing polls don't measure well is indecisiveness.  For example, the story AP-GfK Poll: One-third may still switch candidates makes it clear that a very significant group of voters is out there that no one is really talking about.  Everything is focused on which party will control Congress - so it's all Republican versus Democrat.  But what about those who, even if they are registered with a party, haven't fully decided who they will vote for?  A lot of folks switched to Democrat two years ago to vote for either Obama or Hillary in the primaries - how sure can the Democrats be that those same switchers will still back Democratic local, state, and national candidates?

The real test of where the political landscape currently stands is best determined by watching how those who would stand to lose the most (whichever party is currently in power) are reacting.  For example, after two years of unprecedented spending, President Obama is already indicating that he will likely focus on the deficit in the next two years.  Compare his comments in these days before a mid-term election in which he is likely to lose several of his Capitol Hill supporters with those he made immediately following his election two years ago, and you see a president who is quickly attempting to rewrite some political history to lessen his own negative exposure for the next two years.  Even as he hopes to retain his own party's majorities; President Obama is already posturing for reality if he loses one or both Houses of Congress.

But then there are also the mixed signals that GOP wins could mean cooperation or gridlock.  Much like George W. Bush before him, Barack Obama came to DC saying he wanted to create a new tone of bi-partisanship.  And yet, when it became clear to everyone that Republicans were not going to sign-off on much of the president's aggressive agenda, the decision was made to not only move forward without them - but in some cases to do procedural end-runs to cut them out entirely.  So forceful and so divisive has this tactic been that, even in the face of a reversal in both majorities on Capitol Hill, the White House cannot see 'moving forward' without Democrat majorities.

If Democrats do see huge losses at the polls next week, only a fool would fail to see a connection between the Obama agenda that so many of them supported and these mid-term election losses.  For the White House to indicate that they will still continue to push the same agenda as these past two years - even though voter dissatisfaction will have been loudly proclaimed - would seem to indicate that the President and/or his advisers are rapidly growing out of touch with the very citizens they are attempting to govern.