Statistically speaking.

The economy has lost 400,000 jobs since last May, and unemployment has remained at least at 9.5 percent for over a year, a record length not seen since the Great Depression. The real estate market is still bunk, the dollar is tanking, and in the last two years, the Obama administration has overseen unprecedented deficits, acquiring $2.7 trillion during their last two years. However, rising stock prices reflect optimism in investors. Stock prices are determined by long-term expectations of profitability than short-run results. Experts are guessing that these changes are a reflection of the changing political outlook. Stockholders were reluctant in the atmosphere created by Obama's higher taxes and health care regulations and the ability to adopt basically whatever economic policy they choose. With Republican victories likely, predictions are for a more favorable business environment and a better economy.

Some hard statistics are able to back up these assumptions. The probability of a Republican majority in Congress is provided daily by Intrade, which is basically a market that has proven to be remarkably accurate in predicting past election outcomes. Intrade along with the Rasmussen Daily Tracking Poll, which reports on the approval percentages of Mr. Obama, show that the ups and downs of the stock market coincide well with these measures. For instance, the Dow Jones Industrial Average hit bottom on March 5, 2009, when Obama had been in office for just two months. Conversely, this year the stock market reached a peak of 11,205 when anti-Democratic sentiment was reaching its highest. Could be a good couple of years should the Republicans take over.

Whatever works.

The British government announced this past week the steepest set of spending cuts in decades. They intend to cut departments budgets by close to twenty percent and eliminate five-hundred thousand jobs in the public sector, all in the hopes of healing the country's deficit problems. Many in London are highly critical of the move, but some analysts in the United States have begun to question whether or not it might be a good idea to do the same. The move would surely create outrage in the U.S., but it would appear that drastic actions might be needed to save the economy rather than the slow and steady strategy being used by Obama's administration. One thing to note, however, is the fact that Britain's economy is one-fifth the size of America's, meaning that the budget cuts that needing to be proposed on Capitol Hill would dwarf those implemented in Britain. The director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the conservative Heritage Foundation, Nile Gardiner says that "the Obama administration is showing no appetite whatsoever" in doing what the British are doing.

Experts have been noting that should Republicans regain Congressional dominance, they may be inspired by what the British are doing. The British cuts at this point look to about $130 billion from the budget by 2015. If the United States were to cut a similar percentage, the cuts would total about $450 billion. However, Gardiner estimated that in order for the cuts to be successful, they would need to total $650 million by 2015. Insane? Of course. But it just might be insane enough to work. Clearly the slow and steady route isn't working, so just cut the infected limb off all together. Problem solved. Actually, that sounded pretty stupid... And of course this will have about .0000001% chance of passing based on the majority of people working in the public sector.

SF Giants. 2010 National League Champs. World Series bound.

The iffy exit plan.

The war in Afghanistan entered a new and possibly decisive stage a week ago, following requests by American leaders for Afghanistan's elected officials to come to a settlement with Taliban leaders to end the war. The Americans had even assisted Taliban leaders in making it to meetings. Coupled with increased and heavier attacks by American and NATO forces, it is believed that American leaders are attempting to force the Taliban into an agreement by putting them in a diminished position. Leaders are skeptical that the settlements will be agreed upon by all Taliban leaders, or if the officials are just going to end up making deals with individual commanders. However, it's possible that these efforts might just fail and the American troops with just have to withdraw again next year with fewer prospects for a successful end.

Neither of the last two commander's in Afghanistan, Generals McChrystal and Petraeus, made the point of saying that the objective was to destroy the Taliban. Rather, they pointed out that it was an attempt to break their will, to break up their movements, and to settle with as many leaders as were willing to deal. That particular strategy appears similar to the one that brought Petraeus great success in Iraq. After American leaders negotiated with insurgent leaders in Iraq in 2007, the violence dropped dramatically. It may be that they hope to accomplish the same here. However, the number of ordinance being sent at the insurgents has increased by half of the original amount since negotiations were announced. Seeing as how one can expect some Taliban leaders to go back on their agreements and for their soldiers to defect, sounds like blowing them all to smithereens if they don't accept peace is a decent plan.

Problems aplenty.

For the upcoming elections, it would appear that one piece of news is all the rage: the splintering of the Republican Party into the moderates and the Tea Party. There's a lot of talk about tensions between the establishment and their new trouble-maker of a child. But then again, it can't really be all that bad. They could be the Democrats. Tensions between President Obama and his own party have become apparent. In a recent interview with the Rolling Stone, President Obama took aim at those in his party that he sees as abandoning ship: "It is inexcusable for any Democrat or progeressive right now to stand on the sidelines in this midterm election... People need to shake off this lethargy, people need to buck up... If people now want to take their ball and go home, that tells me folks weren't serious [about change] in the first place." So basically, in short, the President decided that instead of being the repsonsible leader and trying to pull his party back in, he was going to start a little high-schoolesque drama.

Mr. Obama must not have gone to school as a child (relax, I'm not making any accusations toward his place of birth and education thereof), because if children learn anything growing up, it's that if you want someone to be friends with you, you're better off not trashing them. He went with the old sports coach technique, if you're not willing to play the game, go home. Unfortunately for him, not everybody enjoys athletic competition. The response from his own party has been pretty ferocious, making it seem like their President has let them down. One fellow leftist even went so far as to say it's a tactic to shift the blame should the election not go their way (There was also something about "hippie-punching," but that one's over my head). It's fairly clear that the Democratic party isn't in a much better position than the Republicans, as thirty-nine, yes, thirty-nine, Democrats voted with the Republicans against the decision to adjourn in the House. Coach Obama, you've got some issues you might want to look after.

Just a little flavor of the elections around the nation.