Thoughts on whether Karl Rove will be Romney’s Sarah Palin…

He will not appear on the Republican ticket or speak at the GOP Convention, yet his impact on the 2012 race for President of the United States has already been felt. He has skillfully navigated the post Citizens United landscape, helping to push the Tea Party into Congress. He is currently helping to pour millions of dollars into negative ads attacking President Barack Obama in swing states. He has attempted to depict Obama as an outsider, a celebrity, and distorted and twisted the President’s record/persona in order to get his messages across to key voting blocks. His and all other Super PACs are legally bound not to have any coordination with a candidate’s campaign, but it would be naïve not to see the many ways in which the new rules can be skirted (See Newt Gingrich on stage at campaign event with his sugar daddy). He is Karl Rove, George W. Bush’s former Deputy Chief of Staff, and his American Crossroads Super PAC cohorts are in the business of throwing political hand grenades.

Although Mitt Romney has not yet selected a running mate, he can rest assured that regardless of his pick the same kinds of inciting statements made to Republican crowds by the likes of Sarah Palin during the 2008 election (at the dismay of the McCain campaign) will be made by groups such as American Crossroads via the air and radio waves and the Crossroads GPS field campaign. Unfortunately for Romney, no matter how much he spends on ads, he will have never truly have control over the conservative message during this election season.

Much like Senator John McCain never had control over Palin’s crowds during the heavy campaign season,, Romney will also have little to no control over Super PACs like American Crossroads. No matter how hard Romney tries to keep things positive or on an economic message, he will constantly be walking back ads that Rove’s group has put out. There is no way he can stop it, so he will either have to embrace it or suffer the same fate as McCain.

It's also notable that McCain was never truly in with the starkest conservatives, and neither is Mitt Romney. Romney, like McCain, is not a big draw, he is not exciting, and he doesn’t give a great speech. Like McCain, Romney was the settled-upon candidate. He is not Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, or even Marco Rubio. Yet, because of the ill-fated Palin experience, and because FOX News is a defacto GOP network with Karl Rove as an active talking head, Romney will have to walk a fine line by either picking a name that draws ratings or by trying to play it safe with a lesser-known that he can consistently overshadow and keep on message.

He can go with a big name and risk being Palin’d, or he can go with a low profile pick and risk being overshadowed by Super PAC messaging because the ticket is just too boring. Either way, Romney will eventually run into messaging issues. His VP choice will no doubt be difficult, but the end result may be the same regardless of whether the pick is Marco Rubio or Rob Portman. The more outrageous Super PAC messages will always draw bigger ratings on FOX and Rush Limbaugh than will play-it-safe Romney campaign ads, and the Super PAC nonsense makes for bigger headlines with opposition groups. There is simply nothing Romney can do to stop this phenomenon under the current rules.

The conservatives running American Crossroads are not, and never have been or will be true Romney Republicans. Sure, they want to beat Obama, but this group is for the most part composed of ex-Bush aides and veterans of the neo conservative movement who are trying to stay relevant by pursuing the same divisive political messaging that drove the Bush/Cheney to two terms in the White House. They play on religion, they entice the birthers, they are the brains behind the new Tea Party movement, but they are certainly not Massachusetts moderates. They are the same people who trashed McCain in 2000, Kerry in 2004, and both Obama and Romney in 2008.

Karl Rove and company have Romney cornered, because unlike the Democratic Party, the Republican establishment does not have a recognizable uniting voice or platform (not liking the President is not a platform!). There is no Barack Obama or Bill Clinton, and Bush is currently a bad word on the Romney campaign. There simply exists a fractured GOP composed of factions representing different eras of conservatism leaning on an aging Reagan-era base in danger of disappearing if it does not begin to appeal to the changing face of modern America.

This lack of unification, coupled with the Citizens United decision, has opened the door for candidates to be at the mercy of the Super PAC if they are not themselves an intriguing presence. As far as Karl Rove and American Crossroads go, they have harnessed the potential of having the same negative impact or greater on the Romney campaign as did the unchecked rhetoric of Sarah Palin that haunted the McCain camp with independent voters in 2008.

The bottom line is that Mitt Romney cannot control Karl Rove even if Rove is trying to help him win. Because Romney will be outspent by Super PACs in an inter-party battle to define the key issues of this election, the Rove message will inevitably become part of the Romney message. Sure it’s still early, but it’s definitely not a stretch to say that Rove will end up having a Palin-like effect on Romney’s bid this November. Maybe Rove can help Romney fire up a segment of the conservative base that Romney cannot reach, but in the end, Rove’s push to fire up the Republican on dated social issues, along with his desperate attempts to create a straw man version of Barack Obama, could seriously backfire for Romney with undecided voters seeking to further distance this country from Bush-era practices and policies. Unfortunately for Mitt Romney, the money is in the bank and continues to flow to Karl Rove’s and other similar groups, their ads are already hitting the tubes, and the end results will be telling of the true effect of Citizens United on those who fiercely advocated for the Super PAC system.

Thoughts on RNC Chairman Michael Steele and the damaged Republican brand…

Since his 2009 election to the position of RNC Chairman, there has been no lack of drama or satire provided from the curious persona that is Maryland’s own Michael Steele. Though he still maintains loyal supporters within the RNC and the GOP leadership, many Republican insiders would no doubt put Chairman Steele on their main list of potential and present political liabilities to the conservative movement in America. His controversial takes on issues such as race, global warming, and especially the policy decisions of the Obama Administration, have made him a polarizing figure within a majority of the prominent GOP circles of power, with harsh criticism of his actions coming from the likes of Senator John McCain, Karl Rove, and even notorious neocon William Kristol. His recently recorded comments on the Afghanistan War have helped to strengthen the worst fears of the most seasoned Republican politicos. His calling the nine year old war begun under the Bush Administration in retaliation to 9/11 “a war of Obama’s choosing” could go down as one of the most ignorant statements by any party leader in US history. Still, remarkably, and despite the Voyeur Club incident and his other missteps, he remains at the helm of the RNC for the foreseeable future, even as he has become a huge liability for the GOP.

Though the majority of non-cynical minded Americans will brush off Steele’s comments as playing to a crowd that is ignorant to common fact, the bigger problem for Republicans (benefit to Dems) is that this kind of rhetoric makes their brand look bad. Most people are asking themselves, “This is supposed to be the man who leads the Republican cause into the next decade?” When you layer his recent comments on Afghanistan with his “Greenland” remark on the science of global warming, and his constant fictional depiction of what he refers to as the “radical Obama agenda,” it makes sense that many within the GOP are continually calling for Steele’s resignation. Even those standing firm behind Steele, such as Ron Paul of Texas, come off as disingenuous when defending the factually deficient statements of their party chairman. His blog, strangely titled “What Up?” is both misguided in its title and feels out of place when coupled with the realistic look and texture of the current Republican Party. He has also alienated many potential Republican voters with his perceived arrogance and disregard for those who question his spoken words in the media and elsewhere.

Most Democrats are well aware of the Chairman’s negative effect on the larger conservative political movement, and because of this they would be smart to stay silent and let Steele self-implode until the election season heats up. Then, his ridiculous comments can be used to argue against the stability of the Republican Party and its leadership. Though Steele’s backers will always play off his comments as misconstrued satire, his outlandish commentaries, and the disbelief shared by the masses in response to his statements, are impossible to ignore. The Democratic Party basically has an unlikely ally in Mr. Steele, in that he exemplifies the exact persona that political liberals seek to portray when placing a status quo definition on what it means to be a real Republican in 2010. Therefore, it will be interesting to see how much tape of Michael Steele is used by Democratic campaigns to counter Republican claims during the upcoming midterm elections. Thus far, as the elected leader of the RNC, it’s been a tight rope act for the troubled Chairman. Though he has backtracked on his comments on the Afghanistan War, and apologized for his mistakes in the past, it seems that he greatly underestimates the intelligence of the greater American populace. Whether he realizes this or not, it will take a major power play on the part of reasonable Republicans to reverse the damage done over the last year and a half by their own party chairman. When this will happen is anyone’s guess.

Thoughts on the plausibility of a Rand Paul/Sarah Palin Tea Party Presidential Ticket in 2012…

Though we are nearly two and a half years from the 2012 Presidential Election, it’s never too early to speculate upon which prospective candidates will represent the respective political parties on the national stage in two years. Despite their best efforts to reign in and unite with the Tea Party, the establishment of the Republican Party may have to deal with a difficult scenario in 2012. One that is eerily similar to 1992, where Ross Perot ate up the moderate conservative vote which helped the election to swing Bill Clinton’s way. The rightward shift of the conservative political spectrum has helped to legitimize the Tea Party, and with the primary victory of Rand Paul in Kentucky this past Tuesday, the Republican Party now has in its midst the first true Tea Party backed Senatorial candidate for office.

Now, the Republican Party leadership must choose either to embrace Paul and his followers, who beat their establishment candidate handedly, or they must stay Luke warm towards the more controversial elements of the Tea Party, and the radical rhetoric that could drive away moderate voters this fall and going forward. The quagmire for Republicans is that over the next two years there are likely to be more and more social conservative candidates emerging under the Tea Party label. The Tea Party will likely continue to eat away at the Republican Party’s socially conservative base. Therefore, as national trends continue to show increased interest in alternatives to the status quo, the Tea Party could be set to run third party candidates at the national level.

Should this game changing, third party presidential run occur, the two politicians who have been the most vocal advocates of the Tea Party message, and by far the most popular figures associated with the larger anti-big government movement, are the before mentioned Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky, and the keynote speaker of the first national Tea Party Convention, former Alaska Governor and Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. This potential star pairing would most likely garner the support of a significant portion of the socially conservative electorate, dealing a critical blow to the chances of the Republican Party ticket.

The electoral impact on the other side of the aisle would be negligible, as few moderate to die hard liberals would be inclined to support the social policies of a Tea Party ticket that is to the right of the Republicans in almost every way. Therefore, if a scenario such as Obama/Biden v Paul/Palin v Romney/Brown were to arise, it’s conceivable that the Republican ticket could lose as much as 20% of its voting base in the process. Much like in 1992, this division amongst conservatives would deliver an easy general election victory to Barack Obama and the Democrats, and thus leave the Republican Party no choice but to crawl home and start over again. Only this time, the challenge for Republicans is coming from the right, and not the center of the political spectrum.

Thoughts on the updated status of KTI’s most vulnerable Senate incumbents of 2010…

Recent primary results have stamped home the message that KTI’s most vulnerable Senate incumbents are in imminent trouble politically. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, our #1 Senator to watch, lost badly to Representative Joe Sestak by a margin of 8 percentage points. Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas barely held a plurality in her 2 point victory and now faces a hotly contested runoff with Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter. And finally, just over a week ago, now former Senator Bob Bennett of Utah failed to make the top two at the Utah GOP Nomination Convention, falling to Tim Bridgewater Mike Lee, and stamping a fail sign on 3 out of the top 5 most vulnerable incumbents in 2010. Nonetheless, May has been a challenge for all politicians facing challenges from their left and right respectively.

The other two incumbents on our list, Richard Burr of North Carolina and Michael Bennet of Colorado, must focus intently on the looming November election. Despite Burr’s big primary win, and Bennet’s likely nomination in August, as freshman Senator’s they will face the growing challenge of a strong anti-incumbent sentiment amongst the American electorate. The bottom line is that change message of 2008 lives on in varying forms, and those who have positioned themselves to deliver that message in the face of establishment candidates are primed to win big come November. Both the Tea Party on the right, and MoveOn.org on the left, have already impacted the primary season, and the pressure has quickly shifted towards the few remaining moderates in Congress, a disappearing breed, to remain attractive to voters in an election season clearly defined by historic pressure from the fringes of both ends of the left-right political spectrum.

America’s social political dynamic has skewed so far to the right over the past thirty years that the liberal left is now positioned in the old center, and the socially conservative right is nearly radical in nature when compared to the conservatives of the 1980’s and prior. Therefore, this election cycle, where many moderate incumbents are vulnerable to defeat by their more liberal or conservative counterparts, should prove to be one that sees all five of KTI’s listed incumbents lose their respective seats in the Senate. These formerly popular individuals have seen the political tide shift to the fringes at their expense. Though the trends always seem to be corrected over time, the fact is that 2010 will go down as yet another change election. Americans are clearly done with the stalemate that has come to define the US Senate, and as victims of poor timing and a hostile political climate, those who are considered insiders, such as Specter and Bennet, are likely to find themselves sitting on the sidelines come 2011.

Sources:
http://www.politico.com/2010/maps/

Thoughts on KTI’s top five most vulnerable Senate incumbents of the 2010 election cycle…

Last week, we took a look at the most intriguing House races of this election year. Today’s look at most vulnerable Senate incumbents highlights candidates who face unique challenges in retaining their seat, or their party’s nomination. So without delay, KTI presents the reasoning behind the worries of the most vulnerable incumbents up for reelection in 2010.

#5 - Bob Bennett of Utah (Rep)
In a move that angered Utah conservatives, and especially the boisterous Tea Party, three term Senator Bennett's vote for the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 has placed this incumbent in a defensive position relative to his supporters. Despite the broadcasted support of Bennett by Mitt Romney, many Republicans, and conservative independents, are weary of Bennett’s true colors. Democrats have used the anti-incumbent sentiment, and the infighting amongst Republicans to launch a fight for this traditionally red seat. Since Utah’s party nominations are done by conventions, which often hinge on important single issues like the Recovery Act, our number five most vulnerable, Senator Bob Bennett, has set himself up for a difficult fight in 2010.

#4 - Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas (Dem)
At number four, Lincolns views on environmental and healthcare reforms have her head deep in hot water with liberal voters in Arkansas. In addition, she has a laundry list of competitors for her seat, highlighted by her Democratic Primary opponent, Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter, who has the all-important monetary backing of the labor unions and the liberal activist group MoveOn.org. In defending her seat, Lincoln faces a fierce battle as her vulnerabilities continue to be exploited by her primary opponent. Should she make it out of the first round, she is sure to face a difficult November election challenge.

#3 - Michael Bennet of Colorado (Dem)
As a freshman Senator appointed to the position by Colorado’s Democratic Governor Bill Ritter, Senator Bennet faces the difficult task of holding his seat in an anti-incumbent election cycle. He faces a tough primary opponent in former Speaker of the Colorado House of Representatives, Andrew Romanoff, and is defending his vulnerable post, which formerly belonged to now Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. Though Barack Obama won Colorado with 54% of the vote in 2008, the current political climate will make the November election a difficult one for our number three, Bennet, should he survive the May Democratic primary.

#2 - Richard Burr of North Carolina (Rep)
Freshman Senator Richard Burr defends his seat, which has been unkind to incumbents since 1968, in a state where Barack Obama narrowly won with 50% of the vote. As a largely unknown and somewhat unpopular figure, he faces the name identity dilemma, and the bleak history of his seat in an uphill climb to return to the Senate. His Republican primary opponent is Asheboro businessman and City Council Member Eddie Burks. Look for an upset in North Carolina in 2010, as Burr’s precarious position puts him second on our list.

#1 - Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania (Dem)
Our number one, former Republican turned Democrat Arlen Spector, is one of the biggest GOP targets of the 2010 election cycle. After a change to his party identification, Spector immediately stamped his name into Republican ire by voting in favor of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. His primary opponent, U.S. Representative Joe Sestak, is planting a formidable campaign to steal the Democratic nomination from Spector. Should the Senator survive to face the heat in November, he is likely to encounter former U.S. Representative Pat Toomey, who came within 1.7% of defeating Specter in the 2004 GOP primary. Therefore, despite his tenure, Spector appears to be the most vulnerable incumbent senator in 2010.

Thoughts on the DISCLOSE Act and the numbing down of the Supreme Courts Citizens United decision…

Last week, U.S. Senators Charles E. Schumer (D-NY), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Evan Bayh (D-IN) and Al Franken (D-MN) introduced legislation which is aimed at numbing down the potential effects of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision with regards to corporate personhood and campaign ads. In an earlier KTI article, we discussed how the Supreme Court’s controversial decision is believed by many to be the end for the small guy in the electoral process. Thus giving the largest corporations, foreign interests included, overwhelming influence over election spending in the United States. Also, in allowing corporations to act as individual citizens with regards to their participation in the political process, the Citizens United decision left the door wide open for opponents in Congress to take action in balancing out its effects. The DISCLOSE Act (Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act) is the first proposed, post-Citizens United legislation, which address’s this matter directly. The provisions, endorsed by President Obama in an address last week, are expected to pass through both Houses, with or without bipartisan support.

The DISCLOSE Act, as written, addresses four key areas:

1.) THE REGULATION OF CERTAIN TYPES OF POLITICAL SPENDING
a.) Banning pay to play practices by preventing government contractors and corporate beneficiaries of TARP from spending money on elections.
b.) Preventing foreign influence on elections by closing a loophole for spending by domestic corporations controlled by foreign nationals. Companies with the following four situations will be prevented from contributing to candidates, Pac’s, and parties:
b1. A foreign national owns 20% or more of voting shares in the corporation
b2. A majority of the board of directors are foreign national’s
b3. One or more foreign nationals have the power to direct, dictate, or control the decision-making of the U.S. subsidiary
b4. One or more foreign nationals have the power to direct, dictate, or control the activities with respect to federal, state or local elections
c.) Preventing organizations from coordinating their activities with candidates and parties. More specifically, for House and Senate races, the legislation would ban coordination between a corporation or union and the candidate on ads referencing a Congressional candidate in the time period starting 90 days before the primary and continuing through the general election. For presidential campaigns, the legislation would ban coordination between a corporation or union and the candidate on ads referencing a Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate in the time period starting 120 days before the first presidential primary and continuing through the general election.
d.) Regulates Party Communications, stating that any payment by a political party committee for the direct costs of an ad or other communication made on behalf of a candidate affiliated with the party will be treated as a contribution to the candidate only if the communication is directed or controlled by the candidate and party-paid communications that are not directed or controlled by the candidate are not subject to limits on the party’s contributions or expenditures.

2.) PROMOTING EFFECTIVE DISCLOSURE OF CAMPAIGN RELATED ACTIVITY
The legislation ensures that the public will have full and timely disclosure of campaign-related expenditures (both electioneering communications and public independent expenditures) made by covered organizations (corporations, unions, section 501(c)(4), (5), and (6) organizations and section 527 organizations). The legislation imposes disclosure requirements that will mitigate the ability of spenders to mask their campaign-related activities through the use of intermediaries. It also requires disclosure of both disbursements made by the covered organization and also the source of funds used for those disbursements.

3.) DISCLOSURE BY COVERED ORGANIZATIONS OF INFORMATION ON CAMPAIGN-RELATED ACTIVITY
Requires periodic disclosures to shareholders, members, and donors of information on disbursements for campaign-related activity. The covered organization shall post the information described in subparagraph not later than 24 hours after the organization files the information with the Commission under the applicable provision of this Act, and shall ensure that the information remains on the website until the expiration of the 1-year period which begins on the date of the election with respect to which the public independent expenditures or electioneering communications are made.

4.) TELEVISION MEDIA RATES
Requires media outlets to charge the lowest possible rate for air time and to afford the same rate to all parties seeking advertising spots. This ensures an evening of the electioneering playing field by forcing media outlets to diversify and open their airwaves to less financed candidates. These rates, regulated by the FCC, would apply 45 days preceding the date of a primary or primary runoff election and during the 60 days preceding the date of a general or special election in which such person is a candidate.

These anticipated, and widely supported adjustments, are a best case reaction to the unpopular Citizen’s United decision that will ultimately serve to improve on the legislative goals of McCain-Feingold. The increased focuses on monetary transparency, and the impending removal of shadowy contributors from the process through CEO and donor testimonials, are widely viewed as positive moves that should be politically popular with most Americans. With regards to protecting the voice of the individual voter, the influence of big money on elections has served to alienate the lower and middle class from the electoral process. Therefore, if implemented correctly, the DISCLOSE Act may be the appropriate legislation to counter to the Supreme Court’s ruling. The Senators who drafted this legislation have the important benefit of an electorate that feels trumped by the power of special interests and corporate lobbyists. Coupled with the vociferous support of President Obama, and many progressives in Congress, the lost voices of the individual voter may soon get a much needed boost in volume and importance.

Thoughts on four hypothetical questions facing Charlie Crist, the GOP, and conservatives…

The recent defection of former Florida Governor Charlie Crist from the GOP caught some around the country by surprise. But, many have also suspected that a disheartened Crist may have been feeling alienated by a party who once regarded him as a potential party leader, and even a possible presidential nominee. Enter Marco Rubio, and suddenly Crist was no longer welcome. Once Republicans saw Crist hug President Obama, there was no way they could stand to put their support behind him. Unfortunately for Charlie, public bipartisanship is now an easy way to get nudged out of the GOP. Given this developing situation, it’s worth taking a look at four key hypotheticals questions facing conservatives this fall and beyond.

1.) Would an Independent or RINO (Republican in Name Only) version of Senator Christ caucus with Republicans on party line votes if he is fortunate enough to win his upcoming election bid?

2.) Is Crist making a purposeful move to the left (or the Center in 2010)? And by doing so, will he emerge (along with Scott Brown) as one of the few moderate conservatives left standing in the US Congress after the 2010 midterm elections?

3.) If Crist or the Democratic nominee wins in a three way race over Marco Rubio, does that prove, to an extent, that the rise of Tea Party style, fringe-right politics will ultimately hurt the GOP in races beyond this November?

4.) Finally, if Crist is not considered “Republican enough” for the GOP in Florida or elsewhere, is there now enough room in the political spectrum for a new, moderate-Republican third party that would potentially overlap with blue dog Democrats, and also potentially court conservative independents who are more centrist than the rightist candidates currently leading the Republican Party?

KTI welcomes your answers and comments…

Thoughts on KTI’s top five most intriguing House races of the 2010 Election…

Though it’s still relatively early in the election year, there are some close mid-term races about to unfold for critical seats in the House of Representatives that are worthy of advanced billing. The GOP is eagerly looking to repeat the success of the post healthcare defeat midterm election of 1994, but this time around they face more hurdles than they at first anticipated. First and foremost, despite what label Republicans seek to put on it, healthcare reform became the law of the land this year, a huge boost to Democratic morale, and a major hurdle for President Obama and Congressional Democrats. Add to that the bipartisan Job’s bill, the Recovery Act, and the upcoming passage of financial reform aimed at cleaning up Wall Street, and it is slowly looking like Republicans will be running against a 21st Century version of the New Deal.

Given this setup, let’s take a closer look, one by one, at the five races deemed the most intriguing by KTI.

#5 – Republican Rep. Joseph Cao of Louisiana vs tbd
Rep. Cao, mentioned in an earlier KTI article, despite initially supporting the House bill, cast a controversial, largely unfounded vote against the final version of health care reform due to a personal, moral decision on abortion, and is surely in for a fight to keep his seat. Despite his best efforts to explain himself, it may be hard for the electorate in his district to forgive him for voting no on an issue they so heavily favored. His district, with a +25 Democratic lean (Cook Partisan Voting Index), should narrowly go back into the Democratic column, and is an interesting race to watch. After all, Cao was able to win his seat in this heavily African American community largely because of the well-publicized transgressions of William Jefferson in 2008, and not a broader conservative movement.

#4 – Michigan’s 1st District (Bart Stupak’s Vacant Seat)
Following the receipt of death threats in the wake of the health care reform vote earlier this year, Rep. Bart Stupak announced that he would not seek reelection to his seat in the House. As you may recall, he was part of a block of Democratic Congressmen hell bent on the inclusion of specific anti-abortion text in the health care bill. It took an Executive Order by President Obama banning the use of taxpayer dollars to fund abortions to finally get him, and the so called “Stupak Block,” to join with their Democratic colleagues in support of the landmark legislation. Stupak was a favorite target of the Tea Party, as well as abortion activists, and will seek to join another profession. He leaves an increasingly vulnerable seat behind, in a district with only a +3 Republican lean (Cook Partisan Voting Index) and no political stars.


#3 - New York's 29th District (Massa’s Vacant Seat)
Without getting into too much detail, and as KTI mentioned in an earlier article, freshman Rep. Eric Massa stepped down from his House seat following embarrassing revelations of misconduct which surfaced in the press earlier this year. Despite his best initial efforts to defend himself, Massa managed nothing but to make the job for the next Democrat in line more difficult, if not impossible. Conservative Mayor Tom Reed of Corning will run as the Republican candidate versus a yet to be named opponent. Therefore, given the inherently bad PR situation facing the potential Democratic candidate, and the +5 Republican (Cook Partisan Voting Index) lean of the district, there is a very good chance that this seat could turn back over to the Republicans in a close 2010 mid-term election.

#2 – Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida vs tbd
Few in Congress (our #1 excluded) are as outspoken and candid as freshman Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida. His recent theatre on the House floor has put him into the wingnut news cycle, while his depictions of conservatives are smiled upon by many on the left and equally despised by his political opponents on the right. If Alan Grayson were in a more liberal district, his rhetoric might play much better than it does within his divided jurisdiction in Florida. He has both the liberal to moderate city of Orlando and the more conservative suburbs surrounding the city to navigate this fall. The tilt here is slightly Republican at +2 (Cook Partisan Voting Index), giving Grayson very little room for error in what should be a hotly contested, and newsworthy race in central Florida.

#1 - Republican Rep. Michelle Bachmann vs Maureen Reed or Tarryl Clark
Perhaps the most polarizing and confused figure in the US Congress, Rep. Michelle Bachmann, has seemingly gone off the wagon with her borderline hate speech comments which have highlighted her brief tenure in the House. A favorite of the Tea Party, along with former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, Bachmann has become more and more divisive with every stump speech she gives. Her outdated, anti-minority and anti-establishment rhetoric, along with her constant call to arms in front of her supporters, has given her a sour reputation throughout mainstream America and with more moderate, commonsensical Republican’s. Her district, while leaning +7 in the Republican direction (Cook Partisan Voting Index), is vulnerable to Democratic capture due to these very evident moral flaws which Bachmann routinely projects in her depictions of America as she sees it. For this reason, Democrats are putting a ton of electoral energy into defeating Bachmann this November. Her opponent will either be a competent former Lieutenant Governor and Board of Regents named Maureen Reed or State Senator Tarryl Clark, and both will have the full support of the DNC, President Obama, and Democrats in Congress. Bachmann’s dangerous rhetoric, the DNC’s drive to defeat her, and her uncanny ability to insult reasonable Americans with her outlandish comments, makes the upcoming race for Minnesota's 6th congressional district KTI’s most intriguing House race to watch in 2010.