In 2002, Republicans strengthened their majorities in Congress, bolstered by their increasing dominance on national security issues and the popularity of their war president, George W. Bush. One addition to the Republican caucus came at the expense of Max Cleland, a double amputee Vietnam veteran and Senate Democrat. Saxby Chambliss, a U.S. Congressman for Georgia and small-city lawyer, won Cleland’s seat through a hard fought grass roots campaign and a heavy dose of dirty politics. Seizing on the national security issue, Chambliss attached the character of Cleland, questioning his commitment to our nation’s security:

In a state like Georgia, Republican dominance is unfortunately a given, at least lately. In 2002, Republicans swept elections in the state legislature and recaptured the governorship for the first time since Reconstruction. Georgia was the first state called for Bush in 2004 and it has reliably stayed in the Republican column ever since.

But six years later, Chambliss and the Republicans face the possibility of an upset. Because of Barack Obama’s surging popularity among African-American voters in the state and their expected turnout, the candidacy of once also-ran Democrat Jim Martin has transformed into a real shot at wresting this seat back into the Democrat column. Polls in the state have shown a tightening race between Chambliss and Martin while also showing some unsettling trends relating to the presidential race, softening the hue of this once reliably red state.

But like so many races this election season, so much hangs in the balance:

New registrations give Georgia blacks more power at the polls
By Carl Hulse
New York Times

The Georgia race was initially considered out of reach for Democrats. But Mr. Chambliss has been hurt by his vote for the $700 billion Wall Street bailout — which was widely unpopular, both among conservatives and African-Americans — and by a flood of tough attack advertisements from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. The contest is one of the longshots Democrats would need to win to reach a 60-vote majority in the Senate that would let them thwart filibusters.

“A month ago this would have been a cakewalk,” said Merle Black, an expert on Southern politics at Emory University. “This is not the election that they thought they were running.”

The Georgia race has another twist. To be declared the winner, a candidate needs to receive more than 50 percent of the vote — an absolute majority. Both the tight race reflected in the polls and the presence of a third-party Libertarian candidate, Allen Buckley, raise the possibility that neither Mr. Chambliss nor Mr. Martin will break 50 percent, forcing a runoff on Dec. 2. If a 60-vote Senate hangs in the balance, the runoff could take on outsized importance.

It’s an uphill battle for both candidates, but Chambliss clearly has an edge. For one, while polls have tightened, Martin has yet to demonstrate a lead. Also, if the 2004 Senatorial race can be any indication, Republicans have no problem turning out to support their candidate. Democrat Denise Majette, an African-American candidate, lost to Republican Johnny Isakson 40 percent to 58 percent, slightly disputing the fact that an African-American presence on the ticket will automatically lead to a tight race in the state. This and many other reasons automatically leads me to dismiss the often used notion that turnout is going to be a significant factor in this election. They say it every cycle and it never delivers, get over it. I’ll believe it when I see it.

Martin’s only chance is taking advantage of the Georgia law that requires a simple majority to elect any candidate for Senate, but even that may lead to his downfall. If Chambliss and Martin can’t muster 50 percent of the vote, there will be a runoff election that the whole country will focus on. The Georgia Senate seat is one that is needed if Democrats hope to gain a filibuster proof majority in the 111th Congress. If Joe Lieberman caucuses with Republicans, like he’s almost certain to do, the Republicans will have a strong argument to return Chambliss to Congress in order to balance the chamber. Also, with Obama off the ticket in the runoff race, Democrats will be running on the same flimsy “high turnout” argument, which is often trumped in this red state.

The Democrat’s only chance, albeit slim, is to best Chambliss in a stunning upset on Nov. 4. If they can squeak by with 50 percent of the vote, this is going to be an election to remember, and voters will have delivered Chambliss the payback he deserves for impugning the reputation of a brave Vietnam veteran who made great sacrifices for his county.

I know, I said I would look into this whole (bogus?) claim that Obama is actually a socialist. But let’s ponder for a second on something that a lot of Democrats and progressives would resist: McCain has more than a chance in hell to win this election.

Yeah, I’m probably going to predict otherwise (but you should know my predictions suck), but I can’t help but think about 2004 and the certainty Democrats felt when they pondered a Kerry presidency. Granted, the polls were demonstratively closer then than they appear to be now. But isn’t it possible that McCain might hold a bit of Bush’s best advantage? Are Democrats underestimating their opponent?

Undecideds should break for McCain
Dick Morris

If current survey trends continue, Obama will finish with less than 50 percent in the polls. Even discounting the Nader vote (some people never learn), the undecided voters could tip the race either way. How will they break?

Since there is no incumbent, they cannot automatically be assigned to the challenger; and since turnout is likely to be huge, the current undecided voters will probably make their way to the polls and cast their ballots.

But for whom?

… Even if Obama clings to a four- or five-point lead over McCain in the polling, the election is not over. The question is not so much how large his lead is over the Republican, but whether or not he is topping 50 percent. As long as the polling leaves him below that mark, he is vulnerable and could well lose.

Clearly, in recent weeks, McCain has been able to cast Obama as a leftist. He has made the issue of income redistribution central to the campaign. With the aid of Joe the Plumber and the discovery of Obama’s Chicago PBS interview, in which he lamented the absence of redistribution of wealth, McCain has made the proposition seem central to Obama’s ideology. The unprecedented power the bailout has given government over the banking industry raises the real specter of socialism in America. The banks have, effectively, been nationalized. How will government use its power over them? This new reality, coupled with Obama’s professed pursuit of “social and political justice” through “redistribution of the wealth,” is enough to send a shiver down the spine of those who embrace the free market as the key to economic growth.

Morris makes some great points, but he seems to be making some dangerous assumptions. He points out that Obama has not polled above 50 percent, when clearly he has. Bush’s polling in 2004 shows little distinction from Obama’s in 2008, so I seriously doubt this contention that Obama is somehow bruising for an upset.

The assumption that Obama’s supposed socialists policies are somehow at odds with a center-right country is also a little funky. Are people really quick to defend their free market in the wake of an economic catastrophe that even the Holiest of Holies, Alan Greenspan, has attributed to a free market run amuck, lacking the necessary regulation to keep it in check? I mean, Morris is a former Clinton adviser, do I really have to say it?

It’s the economy, stupid! That’s what’s different this year compared to 2004. I don’t have to remind you that I am a horrible judge of elections (according to my track record), but conventional wisdom begs me to dispute this crazy notion that this election is tightening when it’s clearly not.

Seriously, I’ll be the first to concede real traction for McCain, I want to believe he’s got it in him, but I’m afraid the writing’s on the wall. Conservatives just need to look up.