There is no such thing as "peaking too early". You can't think that the republican media blitz, mail blizzard, and sycophant media stenographers got assembled in the last two weeks? Instead of wringing your hands, try showing up at a campaign office (somewhere, anywhere) and volunteering. You just might make a difference.

There's such a thing as peaking too early in sports, where a limited number of people with limited stamina and limited focus (that is, the members of a team) can reach levels midseason which they know they won't be able to sustain.

A media narrative can peak too early, in the sense that MSM writers get tired of it before we'd like them too-- "Republicans are corrupt and protect child molesters" would have peaked too early had Foleygate broken in July (I think it came at the right time for us, really, since the MSM were looking around for an election storyline right at that time).

But a political wave can't peak too early unless volunteers get overconfident. Kos has been saying this but it bears repeating: if we outwork the bad guys we are in a position to make serious gains, and maybe take the House, perhaps even the Senate. Overconfidence and laziness are the enemy. "Peaking too early" refers to our energy level-- where I hope it's not true-- or it has no referent here at all.

The goal in this game is to keep it close until the end and then let your turnout do the trick.

In past cycles, we just didn't have enough competitive races to have even much of a prayer at the end. This year, we've got 40 house races that are within the margin of error and 7 (almost 8 if AZ keeps creeping up) senate seats...if the races stay tight and the mood stays the same we'll do well. Quite well. If the momentum swings back to the GOP (it's late, but it could happen) they might keep both houses -- but barely. There is almost no scenario where they GOP does well. Victory for them will be losing ONLY 3 senate seats and ONLY 12 house seats. Oh, and if there's a "wave" of democratic voting? We'll kick ass...right now we're close enough that that is more likely than the GOP picking up any seats.

Could this be the Democrats' closing argument?

Check out President Clinton's speech on Wednesday:

http://www.americanprogress.org/events/s pecial_events/commongood.html

NIE, Foley and State of Denial came within a couple weeks of each other, and all of them five weeks or more before election day. It was great at the time but I was cautioning on many sites that the polling would likely be skewed in our favor, and then settle to more realistic numbers about two weeks later. I think that's where we are now.

IMO, it was incredible bad luck that State of Denial came out virtually simultaneous to the Foley scandal. That book had devastating material cutting to the heart of the matter, Iraq and terrorism. Yet every day Woodward would be doing the interview circuit and the headlines would be Foley. Can you imagine if that book came out now, with singular attention? I read the book and plenty of the most damning material was never covered in the media. The Condi Rice episode was mentioned, but during Foley it hardly garnered the scrutiny and ridicule she deserved.

I still think it comes down to the coin flip House seats, as David Kowalski implied in his excellent diary examining 1994. If I had to guesstimate right now, I'd say +8 in the House is the worst Democrats can do. Then there will be maybe 20-25 close to very close races, and add the Democratic split among those races to the +8. That's the net.

Regarding Nevada, the problem is Ensign, not Jack Carter. Ensign has strengths as a senate Republican in Nevada that aren't obvious to the netroots. As long as he speaks out against Yucca Mountain and anti-gaming legislation he is considered a loyal Nevadan who takes stands against his own party. Carter is easily labeled a carpetbagger and has been underfunded, but otherwise he has been a fine candidate.

Someone mentioned momentum and sports. I'm usually guessing in politics but regarding sports I can opine confidently. Almost every instance of supposed stalled momentum is pure mythology. There are blueprints for postseason success that many teams can violate in the regular season and camouflage their weaknesses. The mainstream media is so incompetent and ignorant in regard to the blueprint they lazily attribute the failure to a halt in momentum, rather than a team philosophically unequipped to succeed in the playoffs or win a championship in the first place. Pass oriented football teams and 3-point reliant basketball teams are very often said to have peaked too early. Runaway bullshit. Their statistical resume is usually laughably flawed.

NFL teams that average less than 7 yards per pass attempt and/or run fewer than 28 times per game on average can string together all the wins they want during the regular season. Come playoff time those flimsy pantyhose tendencies are exposed. On the other hand, last year it cracked my friends and I up when the media declared the Colts peaked too early. Yeah, and they also ran up against a Steeler team that led the league in rushing attempts and with a QB averaging a surreal 8.9 yards per pass attempt. Stick that Colt team up against the other playoff entrants last year and peaking early would never have entered the language.