•  Professor Brad Smith is a member of the Federalist Society.  He will be providing commentary on the election results on the Ohio News Network on Election Eve.
•  Sam Iannarino is a second year night student and Editor-At-Large for the Federalists' Paper.

 BS: And what exactly are your credentials for handicapping the 1998 Midterm Elections?
 SI: My credentials for handicapping these races include graduating from Capital with a BA in Political Science, summa cum laude, admission to Phi Epsilon, the National Political Science Honor Society, which is to say remarkably underqualified. But, as Editor-at-Large, I am offered some flexibility in the content of the paper. How about running down your credentials (other than the fact that you can hold my Civil Procedure grade over my head).
 BS: Well, I teach Election Law, which is really irrelevant to this endeavor, but others don't know that, so I'm actually doing election eve commentary on Ohio News Network this year.  But we should be clear - it's all guess work, you know, since a one or two point shift by voters can decide many elections, and even the best polls don't get nearly that accurate. Perhaps my initials are a warning here.
 SI: Well...our guesses are as good as anyone else's at this point. It seems to me that the upcoming elections will bring the Republican majority rather modest gains. Even so, some of the seats they stand to gain are Democratic strongholds. Two Senatorial races I see as being tortuous to the democrats are the Boxer/Fong race in California and Mosley-Braun/Fitzgerald race in Illinois. According to the most recent polls I have seen, Mason Dixon likely voters shows Fitzgerald ahead 49-37 with 14 undecided, The Chicago Tribune likely voters has Fitzgerald 49-36 with no accounting for undecided. With a couple of weeks remaining, the candidates assailed each other over the abortion issue during last weekend's debates. It seems rather desperate. Is it possibly too little, too late for Mosley-Braun at this point?
 BS: Mosely-Braun is good as gone.  Everything is going wrong for her - she came down with pneumonia in September and had to leave the campaign trail for a time; last week her sister, an Assistant Prosecutor in Cook County, made headlines when she was reprimanded for improperly raising funds for Mosely-Braun while on the job; she's down by 10-15 points in every poll, and she's got less than half as much cash on hand as Fitzgerald.  Fong/Boxer is tougher to call.  Boxer's whole career has been based on feminism and sex harassment, so her support of the President (she is a Clinton in-law, you know) has really damaged her.  Fong is colorless, but against a polarizing figure such as Boxer, that serves him pretty well.  California's Asian-American vote, usually split between the parties, is going to Fong by 3-1.  Polls over the last month have generally fallen within the margin of error, indicating a dead heat, but they tend to show Fong with a lead of two to four points.  The big thing that leads me to predict a Fong win is that Boxer, despite being very well known, can't draw more than 45% support in the polls.  Generally, undecided voters will break about 2-1 against a well-known incumbent, so it's a sign of trouble that Boxer is that much below 50% just two weeks before the election.  Fong is short of cash, however, and California is a big state requiring big expenditures.  One race you didn't mention, Sam, is Al D'Amato vs. Charlie Schumer in New York.  The hot tip around Washington is that D'Amato's finished, but you could get rich taking bets against D'Amato over the last 20 years.  He always seems to pull it out.  Just when it looked like Schumer was pulling ahead, two polls came out last week: the NY Daily News/ABC poll showed D'Amato up by 8 among likely voters, and Zogby had D'Amato leading by 5.  The GOP should win the governor's race big (Pataki leads by about 30 points in polls), which may help D'Amato.  Plus, D'Amato is spending nearly $6.5 million, to Schumer's $1.3 million, over the final month.  The big plus for Schumer is that there are still lots of undecided voters out there - as I said in discussing California, that's a danger sign for an incumbent.
 SI: D'Amato could do well with the Jewish constituency (typically Democrats) because of his involvement in the Nazi/Swiss Bank issue. He has NY Catholics. That coupled with a big Pataki victory may serve him well.  However, the ballot issue concerning the baseball park for the Yankees being overturned by the Court of Appeals will robably lower turn out-this works in his favor. Polling data for October 20th and 21st show D'Amato ahead with most likely voters-even after calling his opponent a "putzhead." If the undecided break 2 to 1 in favor of the challenger, this would read a defeat for D'Amato. I am going to have to break ranks with the polls and go with Al. I think the typically Democratic New York is turning moderately conservative, as evidenced by Pataki and Guiliani. The last couple Senate races that I believe are hot contests are Nevada and South Carolina. What is your take on Ensign/ Reid and Inglis/Hollings?
 BS:  Ensign moved into a tie in the polls early this month but now Reid seems to be gaining ground.  Inglis was stalled about 7 to 10 points back, but is closing fast in the most recent polls.  Another hot contest is Kentucky, where two congressmen, Republican Jim Bunning and Democrat Scotty Baesler, are trying to take retiring emocrat Wendell Ford's seat.  It's close, but Bunning looks poised to win, with a narrow lead in the polls and more cash on hand.  Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold is also in trouble, and Washington state Democrat Patty Murray could lose to populist GOP Congresswoman Linda Smith.  Arkansas's open seat is a possibility for the GOP if they have a big night.  In North Carolina, Republican Lauch Faircloth is in trouble.   Two weeks ago I thought Faircloth would be fine, but now I'm not so sure. There are two other races where the incumbent is retiring and the seat will hange hands, but they won't be close.  The Democrats will pick up the Indiana seat held by Dan Coates, and the Republicans will take Glenn's seat here in Ohio.  Bottom line is Republicans hold New York, then win in California, Kentucky, Illinois, and one of South Carolina, Washington, Wisconsin, Nevada, or Arkansas.

 SI: This year there are 24 Republican seats, 10 Democratic seats, and 1 Independent seat up for election. There are a couple rather interesting races shaping up across the country, including ours here in Ohio. For all the fuss about campaign ads, Taft is still holding very strong leads in the polls, which means Republicans keep this seat. However, Candidate Lungren in California cannot seem to get any traction with voters in California.  Republicans across the country are perturbed by his continually campaigning on crime, an area in which voters are already familiar with his record as Attorney General.
        Texas is sure thing for Bush, Jr. What most impresses me about this race is not so much his crushing lead over opponent Garry Mauro, the Texas Land Commissioner, but his ability to get 500 mayors to endorse him-including Democrats. Although the Bush the Greater could not keep the Reagan Democrats, Bush the Lesser may be the greater if Republicans think he can do so in 2000. This is good start and great national exposure. Jeb Bush is a sure bet for Lawton Chiles Florida governor's office. That race is over.  Because Guy Millner, the Republican candidate in Georgia, is a member of my industry, temporary staffing, there is no way I can imagine him not being insightful, energetic, popular, and ready to lead. But maybe I am slightly biased. I would like to see him doing something that allows my new Atlanta office to plunder some of his market share. That said, I guess I am biased.
        A couple more interesting races are Minnesota and Michigan. In Minnesota a World Wrestling Federation champion, Jesse "The Body" Ventura is running on the Reform Party ticket. He is continually eroding the polling numbers of the Democrat (which leads me to believe Democrats are more familiar with Mr. Ventura, as they have probably spent more time watching the WWF) and seems to be throwing the election towards the Republican challenger, Coleman. As colorful as that race may be, it pales in comparison to Michigan, where the Democratic challenger to John Engler is Kevorkian's millionaire mouthpiece.  He has resorted to calling Engler "fat" and "stupid." He has no chance, but it is the obstreperous nature of politics illustrated.
 BS:  Most Americans don't realize that roughly 75 percent of the country's population lives under Republican governors.  These governors have generally worked to deregulate and cut taxes, and so deserve far more credit for the nation's economy than does President Clinton.  Many of them, such as George Bush in Texas, John Engler in Michigan, Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin, and Tom Ridge in Pennsylvania will be re-elected this year by huge margins, in some cases as much as 70%, and that may help other Republican candidates.
        That said, I agree that the Democrats will claim the biggest single prize of this election year, the California governor's office.  Republican Dan Lungren is in much the same spot as Democrat Lee Fischer here in Ohio: he's close enough to win, just seven or eight points out, but he just can't seem to cut into Gray Davis' lead.  This win will give Democrats the ability to control the reapportionment in California after the 2000 census, and California should have as many as 54 congressional seats.
        The Republicans will partially offset the loss of California by gaining open seats in Florida and Georgia, which will give them control of the next 9 largest states after California.  Another Bush boy, Jeb, has Florida pretty much wrapped up; Georgia will be close, but I look for Republican Guy Millner to win. In other races of note, the religious right could take it on the chin; two incumbents with strong ties to religious conservatives are in big trouble.  Fob James will lose in Alabama, and John Beasley is in a neck and neck race in South Carolina.  If they both lose, and Faircloth loses his Senate race, their influence in the Republican Party could wan.  The Democratic candidate in South Carolina, Jim Edwards, has run an incredibly negative, nasty campaign, largely financed by gambling interests, but it seems to be working.  Republicans will elect their first governor of Hawaii since the guy Dwight Eisenhower appointed as territorial governor.  They'll also pick up seats in Nebraska, Colorado, and possibly Nevada and Maryland.  In addition to the Minnesota race Sam mentions, Democrats hope to pick up Massachusetts, New Mexico, and Rhode Island.  I doubt they'll get either of the first two - if they do, it's gonna be a big night for Democrats.  Overall, I look for net Republican gains of one or two governorships, maybe three or four if they have a big night.

 BS:  There are only about 80 congressional seats even in play, only about 50 that are really close.  They are almost evenly divided between the parties now, so it's unlikely that either side will make big gains.    I'm going to predict GOP gains of nine seats, but it could be as few as one or as many as 20.  The thing here is that the upside for Republicans is higher: a best case scenario for Democrats is maybe a pickup of one seat.  And some of the most likely Democratic pick-ups come where the Democrat is actually running to the right of the Republican, as in Kentucky's 4th District.  Here in Ohio, I look for all the incumbents to win, including Republican Steve Chabot in Cincinnati and Democrat Ted Strickland down south: both races will be very close, and if either party takes both, it could indicate a good night nationally for that party.
 SI: I am going to predict Republican gains of 11 seats. I would be astonished to see more than 15 or 16. The Republicans haven't held such a commanding lead in the national political landscape overall at anytime in my life-so I can't imagine having the kind of lead the Democrats have always had.  I am most interested in seeing if Brian Palmer, the Republican challenger to David Bonior's Michigan-10th District seat can get close. He has been well financed and seems to have some steam. That would be the biggest coup of 1998 in my opinion. I think Lt. Governor Hollister may be able to beat Ted Strickland, that would be a coup-albeit less satisfying than Bonior. Also, two California races come to mind. One, the California race between B-1 Bob Dornan and Loretta Sanchez is ferocious. After evidence of ballot stuffing last time, it is an automatic in my interesting races column. The second is the race between Democrat Maxine Waters and _________. There is no Republican challenger. It is interesting to note how many incumbent's get the privilege of running unopposed. It makes me more cynical (of course, I am not yet Distelhorst cynical, but I am still younger than he).

 BS: Finally, note that tons of seats in state legislatures are also up for grabs.  The Republicans should gain a few more seats and possibly control of a few more chambers: right now, Republicans control 20 states, Democrats 20, and 10 states have split control of the legislature.   Republicans will probably come out of this election cycle with more state legislative seats than at any time since 1954.  Of course, there is another election in 2000, but it looks to me like, after this election, the Republicans will control both houses of the legislature and the governor's office in 17 states with about 130 U.S. House seats, while the Democrats will control both houses of the legislature and the governorship in 8 states with about 93 house seats, as we head into reapportionment.  A party with such control can usually dominate the reapportionment process in the state, to its advantage.
        In sum, with GOP House gains minimized and the Democrats gaining the California governorship, both sides will have something to crow about.  However, the upside is much higher for Republicans - Democrats will call it a great night if they break even, whereas a great night for Republicans means another 5-7 Senate seats, 20 or so House seats, and 4-5 new governors.  The bottom line is that this election will continue to mark the steady emergence of Republicans as the majority party in the nation.
 SI: The Democrats will not break even, but they will call anything short of a 1994 style whomping a political victory. . . and it may be. They have certainly had no help from a scandal-ridden administration. The Republicans will make very modest gains, but I believe you are correct in your supposition that this election will "continue to mark the steady emergence of Republicans as the majority party in the nation." The biggest disappointment will be loss of California and the re-districting you describe-the State is already a mess.  However, I think your point on the control of the Houses coupled with gubernatorial offices is the most telling indication of political tectonic shifts, and even minor gains now will put the House out of Democratic reach in 2000, the Senate out of reach in 2000 and maybe longer, and helps set the political machinery in place for a strong Republican Presidential candidate.