A few cracks are beginning to appear in the formerly Mainstream Media (fMSM) wall of solidarity in predicting a Democratic wave in the November midterm elections. While most still hold to the meme of a "Democratic year," based on public dissatisfaction with Iraq and disapproval of President Bush, the desire to be right is a siren's song to political pundits. Mike Allen and James Carney write in Time:

The polls keep suggesting that Republicans could be in for a historic drubbing. And their usual advantage--competence on national security--is constantly being challenged by new revelations about bungling in Iraq. But top Republican officials maintain an eerie, Zen-like calm. They insist that the prospects for their congressional candidates in November's midterms have never been as bad as advertised and are getting better by the day. Those are party operatives and political savants whose job it is to anticipate trouble. But much of the time they seem so placid, you wonder whether they know something.

They do. What they know is that just six days after George W. Bush won re-election in 2004, his political machine launched a sophisticated, expensive and largely unnoticed campaign aimed at maintaining G.O.P. majorities in the House and Senate. If that campaign succeeds, it would defy history and political gravity, both of which ordain that midterm elections are bad news for a lame-duck President's party, especially when the lame duck has low approval ratings. As always, a key part of the campaign involves money--the national Republican Party is dumping at least three times as much into key states as its Democratic counterpart is--but money is only the start. "Panic results when you're surprised," says Republican National Committee (R.N.C.) chairman Ken Mehlman. "We've been preparing for the toughest election in at least a decade."

Read the rest at the link above. The article goes into some depth about the GOP GOTV efforts, which use sophisticated techniques to identify potential voters and rely primarily upon volunteers instead of paid workers.

They stop short of predicting a GOP win in the fall, but do note that holding the House and Senate, even while losing a few seats in the process, must be considered a Republican victory.

I found this article via RealClearPolitics, where I also saw an interesting piece by Quinnipiac's Peter Brown, entitled "A Test for the Conventional Wisdom." Brown also stops short of predicting GOP success, but questions the assumption of a Democratic win - being careful to note that "experts" Charlie Cook and Stu Rothenberg have been all but predicting a big Democratic year. While he hedges the question completely, he is setting himself up as the expert who at least questioned whether Republicans might not do better than expected this year.

There are five major reasons most major pundits assume a big Democratic year this year. First, President Bush's low approval ratings. Second, public angst over Iraq. Third, historical trends strongly indicate a loss for the President's party in his second midterm. Fourth, Democratic fundraising was strong early this year. Fifth, high energy prices raise consumer doubts about the economy. In all five areas, the situation is subject to change:

1. Bush's ratings are rising, while not to majority approval, at least to respectability in the mid-40s.

   2. While Iraq is still seen as a problem, Democrats have no solution beyond withdrawal.

   3. There has been considerable fluctuation in the historical results, and only eight years ago Clinton defied history by picking up seats.

   4. Republicans have ended up with a significant advantage in cash on hand.

   5. Energy prices are falling rapidly.

Maybe Nancy Pelosi shouldn't be buying new nameplates just yet.