Obama, Gruber: Two peas in a pod

By LEROY GOLDMAN
Guest Columnist Blueridgenow.com

Published: Saturday, November 22, 2014 at 4:30 a.m.

I was in the hearing room that day in July 1973 when Fred Thompson, the minority counsel to Sen. Howard Baker, R-Tenn., on the Senate Watergate Committee, asked White House assistant Alexander Butterfield if he was aware of a taping system in the White House. Butterfield testified that he was aware of such a system.

Although it took another year for the end to come, those tapes changed everything.

In an analogous but different way, MIT economics professor Jonathan Gruber turns out to be President Barack Obama’s Alexander Butterfield. Don’t misunderstand — I am not suggesting that President Obama is guilty of obstruction of justice or contempt of Congress as Richard Nixon was. But I am suggesting that Gruber’s taped revelations will turn out to be terribly and irreversibly damaging to President Obama and Obamacare.

Gruber’s tapes document how the Obama administration deliberately misled Congress and the American people in order to get Obamacare enacted and implemented. They make it impossible to deny what really happened. Gruber’s revelations strip away the plausible deniability that presidents normally use to shield themselves from the political fallout of wrongdoing or blunder.

Here’s how Gruber’s condescending arrogance coupled with his loose lips have boomeranged on the president and Obamacare:

Obama and Gruber go way back. At a Brooking Institution conference in 2006, then-Sen. Obama said of Gruber and a few other academicians that he had “stolen ideas liberally” from people like Jon Gruber and others “who can inform policy debates with a prophetic voice.”

2 of 3

And now we know that Obama meant what he said. Writing for The Hill, Justin Sink reported earlier this month that from 2009 until this year, Gruber visited the White House nearly two dozen times. He met with President Obama, former OMB Director Peter Orzag, former National Economic Council Director Larry Summers, and Nancy-Ann DeParle, who had the lead for the White House on Obamacare.

According to Steve Rattner, who worked as a lead adviser for President Obama in 2009, Jonathan Gruber was “the man” behind Obamacare.

And Gruber profited enormously from his unique role in advising the president on Obamacare. In March and June of 2009, the Department of Health and Human Services negotiated contracts with Gruber that totaled almost $400,000. In addition, Gruber and his firm have been hired by at least eight states to assist them with their health care exchanges. These contracts have provided Gruber with millions of dollars.

But here’s the heart of the matter: Gruber’s tapes document that the Obama administration knew the individual mandate, the centerpiece of the legislation, was a tax, but the administration also believed that the bill would not pass if either the American people or the Democrats on the Hill understood that.

So the bill was written in a way to disguise that. It was written so that the Congressional Budget Office would not score the mandate as a tax. Gruber drove that point home by saying that “the lack of transparency is a huge political advantage” and “the stupidity of the American voter ... was really, really critical for the thing to pass.”

It gets worse. In 2009, President Obama was interviewed by George Stephanopoulos of ABC News. Stephanopoulos asked the president five times if the mandate was a tax. The president responded by insisting the individual mandate was “absolutely not a tax increase.”

3 of 3

And in 2009 in a speech to the American Medical Association, President Obama said, “No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”

Going forward, the president and top administration officials repeated this promise 37 times. They knew it wasn’t a promise. They knew it was a lie.

Ironically, in 2012, when the individual mandate’s constitutionality was being challenged before the Supreme Court, the administration was forced to reverse course and argue what Gruber tells us it knew from the outset — that the individual mandate was a tax.

So it comes down to this: Gruber and President Obama believed that the Democrats in Congress and the American people were stupid enough to be hoodwinked. Now President Obama believes the American people are stupid enough to buy his notion that Gruber was just a bit player in all of this.

In oral arguments before the Supreme Court next March in King v. Burwell, the Obama administration will expect that a majority of the Supreme Court will be stupid enough to fall for its assault on the plain English meaning of the section of Obamacare that limits subsidies to states that have established exchanges.

In 2012, Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s four liberals and saved Obamacare. But much has changed since then. Public support for the legislation has dipped to 37 percent, an all-time low. Earlier this month, the electorate punished Democrats and repudiated President Obama’s policies. And now the firestorm created by the Gruber tapes has ripped the scab off the administration’s duplicitous “selling” of the law.

Next June, I believe the Supreme Court will rule in King v. Burwell that the administration’s reach went beyond its grasp. And that will enable the American people to force the president and Congress to rewrite this contrived and tortured piece of legislation.

LeRoy Goldman is a Flat Rock resident.

The Shadow Welcomes Comments  

Please contact me at:  EmailMe

Obamacare’s smoking gun

By Leroy Goldman

Charlotte Observer
Special to the Observer

Posted: Monday, Nov. 10, 2014

In 2012 the U.S. Supreme Court in a complicated ruling upheld the constitutionality of the center piece of Obamacare, the individual mandate, which requires Americans to purchase health insurance or face financial penalties imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.

But now the president’s signature domestic accomplishment is back under scrutiny by the Supreme Court. And the danger posed by the latest legal challenge, King v. Burwell, is existential. The question the Supreme Court has taken up is whether Obamacare’s subsidies – tax credits, if you will – apply nationally or whether they are limited to only the handful of states that chose to establish their own exchange for individuals to purchase health insurance under Obamacare. In most states the exchanges have been established by the federal government because the state refused to do so.

And there’s the rub because in the section of the Act that establishes state exchanges and the tax credits for the millions of Americans qualifying therefor, the operative language says such subsidies are available only in exchanges “established by a state.”

If, indeed, the subsidies were so limited, the likelihood is high Obamacare would self destruct. About 5.5 million Americans have signed up for coverage in states where the Feds run the exchanges. And the vast majority of them, 87 percent, have received subsidies. If the Court strikes those subsidies, those persons would no longer be able to afford coverage under Obamacare. Their departure from the insurance pool would trigger a substantial increase in premiums, and that would initiate the Act’s death spiral.

Recognizing this clear and present danger, the Internal Revenue Service has issued regulations that permit the subsidies in all states. The Obama administration argues that congressional intent respecting the entirety of the law makes it evident that Congress intended subsidies to be available in all states. Additionally, they argue that the statutory language restricting subsidies only to those individuals in state-established exchanges was simply an unintended “drafting error.”

On its face this argument appears both plausible and reasonable. But it’s not. For openers you can be sure that the Senate Office of Legislative Counsel, which drafted Obamacare and which is made up of skilled lawyers whose independence and impartiality is above question, would have brought to the attention of the Senate Finance Committee from which the bill emerged the policy discrepancy concerning the section that placed the limitation on the subsidies. Had the language been a drafting error, it would have been rewritten. But it wasn’t.

Could the restrictive language have been intended by the Obama administration and the Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee? Amazingly, there is evidence that says yes. Call it the smoking gun.

Jonathan Gruber is an MIT economist who helped design Obamacare. After the law passed he consulted with numerous states concerning the establishment of their exchanges. Here is what he said in January of 2012: “What’s important to remember politically about this is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits.”

Gruber was giving voice to the real reason Obamacare restricted subsidies only to the states that established exchanges. The Obama administration and their Democratic allies in the Senate assumed the inducement of the subsidies would be sufficient to get all, or most all, of the states to establish exchanges. They were wrong. And now they’re trying to rewrite the law to obscure and preserve their fatal error of judgment.

What’s at stake in King v. Burwell is nothing less than preserving the constitutional doctrine of Separation of Powers. The Obama administration will soon urge the Court to enable it to deem the plain language of a statute passed by Congress to mean what it does not say. That is a precedent that should send a chill down the spine of all Americans.

The shadow Welcomes Comments

EmailMe

Republicans to recapture Senate, enlarge majority in house

Published: Asheville Citizen-Times

LeRoy Goldman 6:03 p.m. EST November 2, 2014

The stars are properly aligned for the GOP in the election 

Tuesday November 4, 2014

History is on their side. Congressional elections in the sixth year of a president's term usually deliver a harsh rebuke to the president and his party. It happened to Ike in 1958, to Nixon in 1974 and to George W. Bush in 2006. It's about to happen again.

In addition, the Republicans have a huge advantage in the Senate in that many of the seats Democrats are attempting to defend this year are in red states in the Midwest and the South. Moreover, voter turnout is lower in non-presidential elections and that hurts the Democrats too because fewer young people and minorities vote.

And there's plenty of polling data that are harbingers of trouble for the Obama administration and Democrats. The president's approval rating has been in the tank for months. Most Americans believe the country is on the wrong track. And there is a growing consensus that the Obama administration simply can't govern competently. The drip, drip, drip of incompetence may be hard to quantify, but it's real and ultimately crippling. Over the past year, Americans have witnessed the failed rollout of Obamacare, the willingness of the VA to allow veterans to die unnecessarily, the botched response to the ISIS threat, a Secret Service that is too stupid to lock the front door of the White House and now Ebola.

The Republicans control the House of Representative by a margin of 234-201. Tuesday night they will modestly increase that margin. The reason their gains will be minimal is that they harvested all of the low-hanging fruit in the election of 2010 when they picked up 63 seats in the House and simultaneously gained 720 seats in state legislatures throughout the nation. They then used their new majorities to gerrymander large numbers of congressional districts in many states, including ours here in the mountains. Mark Meadows wins without breaking a sweat.

Gerrymandering is an equal-opportunity evil. The Democrats are experts at it too. In the 12th District of Michigan, Democrat Debbie Dingell will win Tuesday night replacing her husband, John, who was initially elected in 1955. John replaced his father who was first elected in 1932. Thanks to gerrymandering, this district has become the Divine Right of Dingells.

Don't think for a moment that you pick your congressman on election night. They pick you way before the election by gerrymandering most House districts.

When all is said and done Tuesday, the GOP will control the House 242-193.

The real battle Tuesday is for control of the Senate, where the Democrats currently have a 55-45 majority. Thirty-six seats are up for election — 21 Democrats and 15 Republicans. The GOP needs to gain at least six seats to take control of the Senate. It's going to happen. Here's how.

Democrats will successfully defend 11 of their 21, and the GOP will successfully defend 12 of their 15. Thus, the real battleground is the remaining 13 states: Montana, South Dakota, West Virginia, Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Georgia, Kansas, New Hampshire, Iowa, Colorado and North Carolina.

Three popular Democratic senators are not seeking reelection in Montana, South Dakota and West Virginia. The GOP picks up all three. Republicans also will successfully defend seats in Kentucky, Georgia and Kansas, though Georgia may require a run-off on Jan. 6, and Kansas is a barn-burner between Republican Senator Roberts and Independent Greg Orman, who won't say which party he will caucus with.

Three incumbent Democrats will be defeated in Alaska, Arkansas and Louisiana, though Louisiana may require a run-off in December.

That leaves the four Democratically controlled swing states of New Hampshire, Iowa, Colorad, and North Carolina. Pay close attention to New Hampshire, where Scott Brown attempts to oust Democrat Jeanne Shaheen. Shaheen has led in the polls for months. She probably wins, but the longer into the night the race goes uncalled by the networks, the better the outlook for the GOP nationwide.

In Iowa and Colorado, respectively, Republicans Joni Ernst and Cory Gardner win.

Here in North Carolina, Obama's and Harry Reid's doormat, Kay Hagan, is reelected thanks to the bungled job Thom Tillis did as House Speaker in Raleigh on the education issue and the ineptitude of his Senate campaign. Sadly, the most expensive Senate race in United States' history forces us to pick a winner from two losers.

Final tally: Republicans 53, Democrats 47

The Shadow Always Welcomes comments

EmailMe

The following text contains Flat Rock resident LeRoy Goldman's predictions for the 2014 Congressional races and the 2016 election, as delivered in a lecture Friday at Blue Ridge Community College.

Goldman's predictions for the 2014 and '16 elections

By LEROY GOLDMAN
Guest Columnist

Hendersonville Times-News
Published: Saturday, November 1, 2014 at 4:30 a.m.

It's nice to be back at Blue Ridge College, and to see familiar faces in the audience. This afternoon I plan to discuss two topics. First we'll look at the dynamics of the 2014 Congressional election, and I'll try to predict winners and losers in the key races. Hopefully, I won't end up with too much egg on my face. After the break I plan to turn our attention to the issues that will shape the 2016 election. I believe that election will be a pivotal one for the nation. At the end I'll take your questions.

The 2014 election

So, most of us know Congress is hopelessly broken. You don't have to take my word for it. There have been numerous polls that document our collective disdain for Congress. My favorite was published by Public Policy Polling last year in which it found that the American people by wide margins favored head lice, colonoscopies, root canals, cockroaches, or Genghis Khan over Congress. Congress, I suppose, could take some morsel of solace from the finding that it did come out ahead of Lindsay Lohan and the Ebola virus. The poll's overall result for Congress was 85% unfavorable and 9% favorable. The part that mystifies me is the 9%!

Unfortunately, the breakdown in Washington is by no means limited to Congress. The Presidency and the Executive Branch are similarly paralyzed, but that is not the subject of this lecture.

2 of 13

We've been in the grip of this paralytic force now for almost 20 years. And that covers the Presidencies of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. It began with the Congressional election in 1994. It was the Republican Revolution. It was Newt Gingrich and his Contract With America. It was the election that saw the GOP gain 54 seats in the House and take control of it for the first time in 40 years—40 years. The Republicans also gained 8 seats in the Senate and took control of it too.

The issue, more than any other, that brought the GOP to power in the House was Health Care Reform. Bill Clinton had campaigned extensively for it in 1992. Not long after taking the oath of office President Clinton attempted to move the issue forward by naming his wife, Hillary Clinton, as the person responsible for putting the legislation together and getting a Congress controlled by the Democrats to pass it. She failed. The bill she produced was so complex, so convoluted, that no one understood it. By the summer of 1994 the Democratic leadership on Capitol Hill decided not to bring it up for a vote, and for good reason. They knew it would not have passed.

The Clinton's bungled handling of Health Care Reform had brought the GOP out of 40 years of wandering in the Wilderness. We can lament, though not be surprised, that the GOP could not resist their irresistible temptation for vengeance. By 1998 the Government was paralyzed. The Lewinsky Affair and the House vote to impeach President Clinton on charges of obstruction of justice and perjury were the icing on the cake.

Clinton left office under a cloud, and, in a contested election ultimately decided by the United States Supreme Court, was succeeded in office by George W. Bush. Bush won the electoral vote by a whisker, 271-266, while losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes. It was the fourth time in the nation's history that a presidential candidate had won the popular vote and lost the election. The others occurred in 1824, 1876, and 1888.

3 of 13

Eight months after having taken the oath of office The Bush Administration and the nation were rocked by the 9/11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Those events and America's military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq dominated and ultimately destroyed the Bush Administration and the Republican majorities on Capitol Hill.

In 2006 the Democrats recaptured the Senate and the House of Representatives. And two years later Barack Obama handily won the Presidency based upon a campaign of Hope and Change as the nation's economy began its plunge into the deepest recession since 1929.

President Obama chose to ignore the lessons of how Health Care Reform had backfired on the Clintons in 1993-94. Thus, with the economy in free fall, he chose to make Obamacare his top legislative priority in 2009. He foolishly turned the job of writing the legislation over to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. The bill the Democrats produced was as mind numbingly complex as was Hillarycare fifteen years earlier. Although the President attempted dozens of times to explain the bill to the American people, he failed. They never understood it, and a majority of Americans opposed it, and still do.

The debate over Obamacare divided the nation and lit the fuse that gave the Tea Party just what they sought—power. In the 2010 election they gained 63 seats and took control of the House of Representatives. In addition The GOP made significant gains in state legislatures all across the nation. They gained 720 new state legislative seats, the most since 1928. And most importantly they made those gains just at the time of the new census and the congressional redistricting that follows it.

In many states, including North Carolina, the new GOP majorities began a process of gerrymandering that would cement their hold on the House of Representatives for a decade going forward. By stupidly repeating the health care overreach of the Clintons, President Obama neutered his Presidency during his first year in office. It's no wonder that by 2014 he felt compelled to give voice to his inability to govern by saying, “I've got a phone and I've got a pen.” Yes, many of the House Republicans are uncompromising zealots. But it was Barack Obama's naivete, hubris, and incompetence that put them in the catbird's seat.

The conclusion is inescapable. The Government of the United States is broken and paralyzed. The evidence is everywhere evident. Large majorities of the nation's citizens believe the nation is on the wrong track, and many believe that their children's future will be worse than theirs has been. The President's approval rating is dismal, and Congress' is worse. President Obama is a lame duck.

History teaches us that the Congressional election that occurs in the sixth year of a President's tenure is a harsh referendum on the President. In 1958 The GOP lost 48 seats in the House and 13 seats in the Senate in Ike's sixth year. In 1974 the Republicans lost 49 seats in the House and 3 in the Senate as Watergate sunk the Nixon Administration. In 1986 The GOP lost 5 seats in the House and 8 in the Senate in the twilight of the Reagan Administration. In 1998, the outlier in this pattern, The Democrats gained 5 seats in the House and lost none in the Senate as the Clinton Administration waned. In 2006 the GOP lost 31 House seats and 6 Senate seats as President George W. Bush's Administration collapsed.

What then can we expect next Tuesday? It would appear that what's on the horizon should be significant gains for the Republicans in both the House and the Senate. I don't believe that will occur in the House. The Senate, however, is a different kettle of fish. Let's go to the predictions.

House of Representatives

The current lineup in the House is 234 Republicans and 201 Democrats. Thus, the Democrats would need to gain at least 17 seats next Tuesday in order to recapture the House. That will not happen, and you can take that prediction to the bank. And you can be just as confident that the Republicans will not substantially increase their majority in the House. The reason is clear. The GOP so significantly gerrymandered so many House seats in 2012 that essentially all of the low hanging fruit has already been harvested by the Republicans.

By my count the GOP is safely in control of 230 seats, and the Democrats have control of another 188 seats. If I'm right, that means only 17 of the House's 435 seats are in play—only 17! When all is said and done the Republicans will modestly increase their majority in the House by about 8 seats. Mark Meadows will win handily here in the 11th District of North Carolina. I predict that lineup of the House, as the 114th Congress convenes, will be 242 Republicans and 193 Democrats.

The best way to gauge how the House election is going is to keep your eye on five districts: the 1st in New Hampshire, the 3rd in West Virginia, and the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd in Iowa. All of them, except Iowa-3, are currently represented by Democrats. And in Iowa-3 the Republican incumbent is not seeking reelection. All five seats are toss-ups. If the GOP wins three or more of them, it's going to be a big night for House Republicans.

Finally, it's difficult to exaggerate the corrosive effect of gerrymandering gone wild to the effective working of the legislative process. Here's my favorite example—one of many.

In 1932 John Dingell, Sr. was elected to Congress from the 15th district of Michigan. Dingell was a New Deal Democrat and found a safe home in the overwhelmingly Democratic and Polish district on the West side of Detroit. Dingell served until his death in 1955. He was succeeded in office later that year in a special election by his son, John Dingell, Jr. Today Dingell Jr. is the longest serving member in the history of the House of Representatives. Now 88 years old he is not seeking reelection. But the story's not over. Turns out that the Democrat seeking election to Dingell's district is his wife, Debbie Dingell. She's 28 years his junior and only 60. She, of course, will win this coming Tuesday and with a little luck will be able to continue Dingell dominance of this district for another 20 years or so. If she can make it to 2032, the Dingells will have held this seat for a century. Call it the Divine Right of Dingells.

Don't think for a moment that you pick your congressman on election day. They pick you, long before election day, through the corrosive and undemocratic process of gerrymandering.

Senate

The current lineup of the Senate is 55 Democrats and 45 Republicans. Included among the Democrats are two independents who caucus with them, Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Angus King of Maine. In order to take control of the chamber the GOP must make a net gain of at least six seats. A 50-50 tie would allow the Democrats to continue to control the Senate because of the tie breaking vote of Vice President Joe Biden.

36 Senate seats are up for grabs on election day. 21 of these seats are currently controlled by Democrats and 15 are controlled by Republicans. Thus, the playing field is tilted in the direction of the GOP because the Democrats have more seats to defend next Tuesday. And the Republicans have another and more significant advantage in this election cycle. There are several incumbent Democrats seeking reelection from states that are conservative, voted for Governor Romney in 2012, and are hostile to President Obama. These states include Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, and, of course, North Carolina. These Democratic incumbents are deeply vulnerable.

Of the 36 seats up for election I believe that 13 of them are in play. Democrats will successfully defend 11 of their 21 at risk. And the Republicans will successfully defend 12 of their 15 at risk. If I'm right, the Democrats at that point would have control of 45 seats and the GOP would control 42 seats.

Thus, the outcome that we care about will be determined by what happens in those 13 states which are in play. They are: Montana, South Dakota, West Virginia, Kentucky, Georgia, Alaska, New Hampshire, Arkansas, Louisiana, Iowa, Colorado, Kansas, and North Carolina.

Montana

Democratic Senator Max Baucus chose not to seek reelection this year. He is currently the U.S. Ambassador to China. His vacancy was filled by former Lt. Governor, John Walsh. But after winning the Democratic primary earlier this year, Walsh was hit with plagiarism charges in a 2007 research paper he authored. Walsh has pulled out of the race and was replaced by Amanda Curtis. The winner of the Republican primary, Congressman Steve Daines, is the prohibitive favorite to win the Senate seat in this deeply Red State. Montana is a pick up for the GOP.

South Dakota

In Ruby Red South Dakota, Democratic Senator Tim Johnson announced he would not seek reelection. The Republicans nominated former Governor Mike Rounds, and the Democrats nominated former congressional aide, Rick Weiland. That on its face is a mismatch, but there is a wild card in this deck. Former Republican Senator, Larry Pressler is running as an Independent and he has refused to say which party he would caucus with, if elected.

The national Democratic Party is pouring money into South Dakota in the closing weeks of the campaign in the hope of derailing Rounds. It won't work. Rounds wins and South Dakota is another Republican pick up.

West Virginia

Five term Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller has announced that he will not seek reelection. During the latter years of his service, West Virginia has moved inexorably from Blue to Red. The Republicans have nominated Congresswoman Shelley Capito, and the Democrats nominated West Virginia's Secretary of State, Natalie Tennant. Capito wins going away, and this is another GOP pick up.

Kentucky

Thirty-year incumbent, Mitch McConnell, the Republican Minority Leader of the Senate, seeks reelection in Kentucky. He is opposed by Kentucky's Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes. Grimes has fought a spirited fight and she has had ample financial support and the help and assistance of prominent Democrats such as Bill and Hillary Clinton. There is no doubt that the Democrats are as motivated to take down the Republican leader of the Senate this year as the Republicans sought in vain in seeking to oust Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada in 2010. It's difficult to imagine a more destructive leader of the Senate than Harry Reid, but, if anyone's up to the task, it's Mitch McConnell. Grimes falls short, Kentucky is a hold for the GOP, and Senator McConnell will try to hold his breath and lick his chops in anticipation of all of the returns from the other states holding Senate elections Tuesday night.

Georgia

Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss is not seeking reelection. The Republican nominee is wealthy businessman David Perdue. Perdue is the cousin of former Georgia Governor, Sonny Perdue. The Democrats nominated Michelle Nunn, the daughter of former Georgia Senator Sam Nunn. The Libertarian Party has nominated Amanda Swafford. If no candidate receives at least 50% of the vote, a runoff on January 6th will be required. Georgia has been a reliably Republican state for many years. But it is also a state that many believe has begun the transition to Purple. The polling in Georgia has been neck and neck. Perdue wins, but he probably will have to do it in the runoff in January. Georgia is a Republican hold.

Alaska

Freshman Democratic Senator, Mark Begich seeks reelection. He is opposed by Alaska State Natural Resources Commissioner, Daniel Sullivan. Alaska is a reliably Republican and conservative state. Unsurprisingly, it is one of many states where President Obama is viewed as an ineffective leader and or is simply despised. Sullivan wins, and Alaska is another Republican pick up.

New Hampshire

Freshman Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen seeks reelection. She is opposed by Republican Scott Brown. Brown served in the Senate from Massachusetts from 2010 until 2012. He was the surprising winner in the election to fill the seat that Senator Ted Kennedy had previously held for 47 years.

New Hampshire used to be a conservative and Republican state. Not anymore. Now it is a swing state. Its Governor and all four members of its Congressional delegation are women. Only one is a Republican. Polling in New Hampshire has consistently shown Shaheen with a lead of about 5 points.

But this is a state worthy of close attention, not only in respect of control of the Senate, but also as an early marker of the mood of the electorate in a swing state as we approach the 2016 presidential election. New Hampshire is one of four swing states that are the most important in Tuesday's election. The other three are Colorado, Iowa, and North Carolina because the outcomes in these four will tell us a great deal about whether the Republicans can compete and win in the swing states that determine which party will win the Presidential election in 2016.

An upset victory by Scott Brown would be a very good omen for the Republicans. Watch to see how late into the night it takes for the networks to call this race. The longer it goes the better will be Republican outcomes in the other three crucial Swing states, Colorado, Iowa, and North Carolina. However, Shaheen wins and New Hampshire is a Democratic hold.

Arkansas

Two term Democratic Senator, Mark Pryor, seeks reelection. He is opposed by Republican Congressman Tom Cotton. Pryor has been popular and he has been sensitive to the conservative nature of the Arkansas electorate. But this year the climb is too steep. Tom Cotton wins. Arkansas is a Republican pick up.

Louisiana

Democratic Senator, Mary Landrieu seeks a fourth term. She is opposed by two Republicans and a Libertarian, Congressman Bill Cassidy, retired Air Force Colonel, Rob Maness, and Brannon McMorris. Louisiana's election differs from the other states. The election next Tuesday is a “Jungle Primary”. If no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, there will be a runoff between the two top vote getters in December. Landrieu barely survived two close and controversial elections and run offs in 1996 and 2002. The outcome Tuesday is likely to produce another result which will require a December run off between Senator Landrieu and her principal challenger, Congressman Bill Cassidy.

Senator Landrieu will rely on her brother Mitch, who is the Mayor of New Orleans, to turn out record numbers of African-American voters on her behalf. But there's a formidable problem. In 2000 the population of Orleans Parrish was 485,000. In 2010 it had declined to 345,000. Think Hurricane Katrina. Landrieu's luck has run out. Put a fork in her, she's done. She will lose Tuesday night or in the December run off. Louisiana is another Republican pick up.

Colorado

Democratic Senator Mark Udall seeks a second term. He is opposed by Colorado Congressman Cory Gardner, a Republican from the 4th Congressional district which encompasses the Front Range in eastern Colorado. This is the second of the four vital Senate battles in Swing States that will provide insight into the extent to which the GOP can successfully compete in the states that must be won in order to win the Presidency.

The Udall Campaign has hammered away relentlessly on one issue, contraception, abortion and what the Democrats call the GOP's War on Women. About half of his TV advertising has been devoted to this one issue. His obsession with this issue has earned him the nickname, “Mark Uterus”. The approach is right out of the 2012 Democratic playbook that worked so well in bringing African-American, Hispanic, and single and divorced white women to the polls to vote for President Obama and other down ticket Democrats.

But this time it's not working nearly as well. Gardner has run a campaign that has successfully inoculated him from being perceived as an angry white male who is obsessed with women and “reproductive” issues.

The Denver Post, which supported Udall in 2008 and President Obama in both 2008 and 2012, has endorsed Gardner. In its editorial endorsing Gardner it castigates Udall for having run an “obnoxious one-issue campaign”. Gardner wins. Colorado is a pick up for the Republicans.

Iowa

Senator Tom Harkin, a Liberal Democrat, has represented Iowa in Congress since 1975. He was elected to the House in 1974 and then to the Senate in 1984. He is retiring. The Democrats have nominated Congressman Bruce Braley. The Republicans have nominated Joni Ernst, a member of the Iowa State Senate.

This is the third of the four crucial Senate battles in Swing states. George W. Bush carried Iowa in 2004, but President Obama carried it in 2008 and 2012.

The polling in Iowa has been nip and tuck for months. Initially Braley held a small and statistically insignificant lead, now Ernst does. Braley is from Eastern Iowa, where most of the state's Democrats reside. Ernst is from Western Iowa, where the Republicans rule the roost.

Braley is a lawyer who put his foot in his mouth early in the Campaign by making disparaging remarks about farmers. Ernst grew up on a farm where she castrated hogs. She made headlines several months ago when she said, “When I get to Washington I'll know how to cut pork. Let's make 'em squeal.” Ernst is a Lieutenant Colonel in the Iowa Army National Guard and has served 21 years in it and the United States Army Reserves. She carries a gun in her handbag.

During its 168 years as a state, Iowa has never elected a woman to Congress or as its Governor. Next Tuesday night that's going to change. Joni Ernst wins. Iowa is another Republican pick up.

Kansas

Three term incumbent Republican, Pat Roberts, seeks reelection. He is opposed by wealthy businessman and Independent, Greg Orman. Chad Taylor, who won the Democratic nomination, has since dropped out of the contest and his name will not appear on the ballot next Tuesday. Kansas is an overwhelmingly Republican state. It last elected a Democrat to the Senate in 1932.

But Roberts, who is 78, is deeply vulnerable. Earlier this year it became known that he does not own a house in Kansas. His residence is in the Northern Virginia suburbs of Washington. In the Republican Primary earlier this year Roberts only received 48% of the vote.

Orman is much younger than Roberts and has run an aggressive and clever campaign. He has refused to say which political party he will caucus with, if he wins this Tuesday. All he's said is that he will caucus with the party that has a “clear” majority. But he won't say what the meaning of “clear” is. Orman has said he voted for Obama in 2008 and Romney in 2012.

Orman reminds me of the title character in the 1960 movie Elmer Gantry. Burt Lancaster played Gantry and won an Oscar for Best Actor. Gantry was the fast talking con man selling religion to small town America – in Kansas no less.

The national Republican Party is going all out to save Roberts. What an embarrassment it would be for the GOP if they did not take control of the Senate simply because they lost a seat in Republican, rock-ribbed Kansas. This one's going to be a squeaker, but my money's on Roberts to win by a nose. Kansas is a Republican hold.

North Carolina

Freshman Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan seeks reelection. She is opposed by Republican Thom Tillis, the Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives, and Sean Haugh, the nominee of the Libertarian Party. This is the fourth and final Swing State that we want to pay close attention to.

Throughout this hard-fought and increasingly bitter campaign, Senator Hagan has maintained a narrow, but consistent, lead of about 4 points. However, in mid-October the margin began to narrow. The Real Clear Politics average of all polls at that time was Hagan 45.1% and Tillis 43.6%, a margin of 1.5% for Senator Hagan.

Throughout the campaign, the Libertarian candidate, Sean Haugh, has polled at about 5%. Haugh is a 53-year-old pizza delivery man. He has little or no financial support, and his campaign has relied upon the videos that he posts on YouTube. Traditionally third party candidates like this fade as election day approaches. But most of the votes Haugh receives would otherwise be Tillis votes. In a very close race, Haugh may play the role of spoiler for Tillis.

Hagan should be extremely vulnerable in this race. North Carolina was the only swing state that voted for Governor Romney in 2012. It is a state in which President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are deeply unpopular. Senator Hagan has been largely invisible during her first term in the Senate. She's an easy target as one who has been a consistent supporter of or doormat for President Obama and Leader Reid.

Yet she continues to lead. Why? The answer is that Thom Tillis dug himself into a deep hole earlier this year while serving as Speaker of the State House of Representatives. The GOP controls all the levers of power in Raleigh, the House, the Senate, and the Governor's Mansion. Yet Tillis, Senate Leader Phil Berger, and Governor McCrory could not accommodate each others egos. They turned what should have been a legislative session of accomplishment and competence into an internal GOP pissing match. And they did so around the incendiary issue of state funding and tenure for North Carolina's teachers.

That has give Senator Hagan just the issue she needed in order to mobilize and energize the most important part of the Democratic base—women. That is how she has been able to maintain her lead in the polls.

If Tillis loses, he will have earned “THE BIGGEST LOSER” award of the 2014 Senate cycle. Think of it this way. When you combine arrogance with a risk averse and unimaginative campaign bad things happen. Hagan wins, and North Carolina is a Democratic hold.

And there you have it. The Republicans take control of the Senate, though it may take until run-offs are completed in Louisiana in December and/or Georgia in January to know the final tally. My prediction is that the Republicans will end up with 53 seats. The Democrats will have 47 seats. And don't forget this important point. 53 is less than 60. And absent 60 votes, the Senate will remain in gridlock, paralyzed by the filibuster. The only difference, and it's a difference without a distinction, is that next year it will be the Democrats who will be doing the filibustering.

Looking back at presidential elections over almost 75 years reveals a repetitive and illuminating pattern. Once elected, most presidents are reelected. Ike won twice. LBJ won what would likely have been President Kennedy's second term. Nixon was twice elected, as was Reagan and Clinton. George W. Bush had two terms, and President Obama is now completing his second term.

And there is more that illuminates the voting behavior of the American electorate. After two terms in office, the American people tend to turn the reins of power over to the opposing party. Thus the Republicans recaptured the White House in 1952, following FDR and Harry Truman, in 1968, following Kennedy and LBJ, and in 2000, following Clinton. Democrats returned the favor in 1960, following Eisenhower, in 1976, following Nixon and Ford, in 1992, following Reagan and George H. W. Bush, and in 2008, following George W. Bush.

So, it would seem clear that the Republicans hold the winning hand in the forthcoming 2016 presidential election. And there are data that support this conclusion that go well beyond these historical trends.

President Obama's approval rating has been in the tank for most of this year. Most Americans no longer view him as a strong or an effective leader. A large majority of the American people believe that the nation is headed in the wrong direction. More ominously, many Americans believe that their children will not fare as well as they have fared. It has come to the point that it makes little difference whether the public's mood is measured in economic, social or foreign policy issues, Obama's marks are uniformly low.

His only major legislative accomplishment, Obamacare, managed to tear the nation in half because of its complexity, and the partisan manner in which the White House and Democrats on the Hill rammed it through. In fact, the negative reaction to Obamacare was so incendiary that it fueled the meteoric rise of the Tea Party. Their rise culminated in their takeover of the House of Representatives in 2010. And that event occurred at the best time possible for the GOP. It coincided with the ten-year census and the congressional redistricting that follows each census. And we've already talked about that today.

Thus it turns out that for the GOP, Obamacare has been the gift that has yet to stop giving!

With it President Obama gave the GOP the House of Representatives and lost the ability to move his legislative agenda through Congress. It was nothing short of madness.

No matter how you cut it, President Obama is a lame duck. His legislative track record is thin gruel at best. He has not been able to close the deal with Congress on any of the major issues that demand attention. These include tax reform, immigration, regulatory reform, entitlement reform, job growth, energy independence, and debt reduction. No wonder he was forced to say earlier this year, “I've got a pen and I've got a phone.” It was an admission of defeat. It was the plaintive, yet angry, quack of a lame duck.

In addition, a new cloud now hangs over the Obama Administration with respect to its foreign and military policy in the Middle East and Europe. Remember that the President defeated Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries in 2008 and then defeated both John McCain and Mitt Romney by leveraging his intention to remove American military forces from Iraq. Well now he's back in Iraq and Syria too. The antiwar President now has begun a war on his watch—a war that he can't pin on George W. Bush or any other Republican. If it does not go well, if the American people tire of it, and there is good reason to believe both will happen, the inevitable political fallout will be exploited by the GOP in the 2016 Presidential campaign.

The point of all of this is that there should be no surprise and no drama with respect to which party will take the White House in 2016. It should be a Republican cakewalk. The pattern of presidential elections for almost 75 years and the turmoil of the Obama presidency point clearly in that direction.

BUT NOT SO FAST, KEMOSABE! And here's why.

We all know that Washington is broken. We all know the meaning of Red State/Blue State and its contribution to the deadlock in Washington. But we are less clear about the length, nature, and severity of this problem. It has been tightening its paralytic grip on our government for almost twenty years.

The broad contours of American voting behavior are generally understood by most of the electorate. In presidential elections we know that minority groups vote heavily Democratic, especially African-Americans and Hispanics. We know that voters in big cities and also in their surrounding suburbs also favor Democrats. We know that voters in small towns and rural America vote heavily for Republicans. And we know that Protestants cast a large share of their votes for Republicans, including especially evangelical Christians. Most persons of the Jewish and Muslim faiths vote Democratic. In 2012 President Obama received 69% and 85% of their votes respectively.

But the most important thing to understand about the growing divide in our nation's electorate is the gender divide. Men vote Republican in very large numbers, and women, especially and particularly single and divorced women, vote heavily Democratic.

In fact the American people are continuing to sort out where and how they live their lives based upon these growing lines of demarcation and separation. It's a reality that has ominous implications for the functioning, or more accurately, the dysfunction of our government. Put another way, and however uncomfortable it may make you feel, we the people are the root of this problem that we conveniently blame on our elected representatives in Washington.

Let's take a closer look at the rapidly changing nature of the American electorate, and how we are walling ourselves off from one another. And let's look back before we look forward.

Beginning in the late 1930s, and continuing throughout the 1940s and the 1950s, an ever increasing tide of Black Americans left the South to seek and find jobs in the cities of the North. They were to become a vital part of the burgeoning Arsenal of Democracy that ultimately enabled the Allies to defeat the Axis Powers and bring World War II to a successful conclusion. Not only did Blacks find jobs in the North they also found a Democratic Party, led by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, ready and eager to welcome them. The Republican Party, the party of President Abraham Lincoln, who had freed the slaves, chose not to compete for the growing Black vote. The net result is that today African-Americans vote reflexively, almost autonomically, for the Democrats.

In Presidential terms the most important example is Ohio because no Republican has ever won the White House without carrying Ohio. In 2012 Governor Romney carried 72 of Ohio's 88 counties. But he lost the state by 167,000 votes. The explanation is simple—a massive turnout among the state's African-American voters. In Cuyahoga County, Cleveland, President Obama defeated Governor Romney by an astonishing 237,000 votes. There were several dozen precincts in Cuyahoga where Romney received zero votes—zero! NBC News exit polls found that in Ohio black voters picked Obama over Romney by 96% to 3%.

Surely the GOP wouldn't make the same mistake twice! Surely, they wouldn't double down by ignoring, or even worse, alienating Hispanics! Or would they?

In March of 2011, shortly after the completion of the 2010 census, the Pew Research Center published data respecting the growth of the Hispanic population in the nation. The numbers are eye popping and their political ramifications are monumental. The census counted slightly more than 50 million Hispanics in the nation, 16.3% of the nation's total. Hispanics accounted for 56% of the nation's growth over the past ten years. Racial and ethnic minorities accounted for an astounding 91.7% of the nation's growth. Non-Hispanic whites accounted for only 8.3% of that growth.

In the following states the Hispanic population doubled in the last decade: South Carolina, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, North Carolina, Maryland, Mississippi, South Dakota, Delaware, Georgia, and Virginia. Virtually all of these states are bright Red states that have been reliable electoral votes for any GOP presidential nominee. If the GOP is unable or unwilling to reach out to Hispanics going forward, that reliability will vanish.

Do you remember the Christmas Classic, Miracle on 34th Street, starring Edmund Gwenn as Kris Kringle, Gene Lockhart as Judge Henry Harper, and William Frawley as Charlie Halloran, his political adviser? As the movie reaches its climax, Judge Harper, you'll recall, was about to rule that there is no Santa Claus. But Halloran, knowing the Judge is up for reelection, catches his eye and the Judge calls a recess in the trial and meets Halloran in his chambers. There Halloran tells him that, if he rules there is no Santa Claus, his chances of reelection are gone. Of course, you remember how the United States Postal Service enabled Judge Halloran to rule that Kris Kringle was the one and only Santa Claus and save his political career all at the same time. Judge Harper was able to adapt and survive.

The GOP faces a similar apocalypse. Can they adapt? Will they survive? Any hard look at the way they are dealing with immigration reform suggests that they are in denial.

Here's another way to visualize the future of presidential elections. In 1992, the year Bill Clinton first won the White House, 87% of the presidential vote was cast by whites. In 1996 it was 83%. In 2000 it was 81%. In 2004 it was 77%. In 2008 it was 74%. In 2012 it was 72%. The trend is unmistakable and irreversible. For the GOP the point of no return is now!

And what about the gender component of the electorate? In 2000 58 million men voted in the presidential election, as did 61 million women. In 2004 there were 62 million men and 65 million women who voted. In 2008 there were 62 million men and 66 million women voters. And in 2012 there were 60 million men and 64 million women who cast ballots. As the population ages, including especially the older, white population, this “cleavage gap” will continue to grow. It is one that will increasingly favor the Democratic Party.

Yet many Republicans appear oblivious or unconcerned about the implications of all of these data for their party, their candidates, and the policies they so strongly support. Is it just stupidity, or what?

Fortunately, it's not stupidity. But it is insularity, physical, intellectual, and political insularity. It is an insularity that breeds a false sense of security and serenity that is addictive, evanescent, and crippling. And it travels on cat's paws.

Don't take my word for it. Instead let's look at fresh data from the Pew Research Center For the People and the Press that was published last June. It quantifies and describes the extraordinary, self-imposed political polarization of the American people. Here are some of the chilling takeaways from this extensive study that grew out of a national survey of more than 10,000 adults conducted from January through March of 2014.

Republicans and Democrats are more divided along ideological lines—and partisan antipathy is deeper and more extensive—that any time in the last 20 years. The number of Americans who hold consistently liberal or conservative opinions has doubled in the past two decades.

Partisan animosity has increased substantially during the same period and intense partisans of both parties believe the opposing party's policies, “are so misguided that they threaten the nation's well-being”.

Increasingly Americans are separating themselves into what the Pew Study calls “ideological silos”. Liberals and Conservatives disagree over where they want to live, the kind of people they want to live around, and whom they would welcome into their families.

For example, liberals say ethnic and racial diversity and accessibility to the arts are important factors in determining where they want to live. Alternatively, conservatives say living near people who share their religious views is important in deciding where they live. Conservatives strongly prefer small towns and rural areas. Liberals prefer cities. More importantly, both groups are relocating based upon those preferences.

These data take all of the guess work and mystery out of understanding why a state like Alabama is Red and a state like California is Blue. Think of it as voluntary secession! 150 years after the Civil War and Blue is still Blue, but Gray has become Red.

And all of the above is why I believe that the race for the White House in 2016 will not be the Republican cakewalk that historical precedent suggests. To the contrary, I believe it will be a real dogfight, well, more likely a dog and cat fight.

On the Democratic side there is no doubt that Hillary Clinton dominates the landscape. If she decides to run, and I believe that she will run, the decision is likely to be made public early in 2015. Her march to the nomination will not be uncontested, but neither will it be derailed. The hard fact of the matter is that she has been thought of as the presumptive nominee for so long that no credible threat to her ascendancy has materialized. All of those in the Democratic Party who have presidential ambitions have cowered in Hillary's shadow. These aspirants include, Vice President Biden, Senators Warren, Sanders, Gillibrand, and Klobuchar, former Senator Webb, and former Governors Patrick and O'Malley.

On the Republican side a spirited, and potentially divisive, contest looms in the forthcoming GOP primaries. The GOP field is crowded, but it is crowded with a host of individuals who very likely can not prevail in a general election against Hillary Clinton. Their political base is too narrow and too conservative to win enough votes from the center of the political spectrum and from conservative Democrats. This is the self imposed curse of the Republican Party's race to the far right over the past two decades. It is a death spiral.

This group of GOP presidential aspirants include Senators Paul, Rubio, and Cruz, former Senator Sanatorium, House member Ryan, and Governors Jindal, Perry, Christie, and Walker, former Governor Huckabee, and Ben Carson.

There are, however, two other possible nominees. One has not said if he will run, and the other has said he will not run. They are former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Either one would be competitive in a national election with Hillary Clinton. Either one could win that election, assuming they could survive the Republican Presidential primaries with their manhood in tact.

Watching all of this play out will be fascinating. Now I'll be happy to answer your questions.

LeRoy Goldman welcomes comments by email at:  EmailMe

The Shadow Welcomes Comments