Another Sign of a Coming Tidal Wave?

In the past few weeks we've touched on the possibility that we could seen an immense electoral tidal wave hit in races across the country. While there had been some question of whether Democratic gains would be less than expected given the narrowing we witnessed a few weeks back in several generic congressional poll ballots, the numbers have widened again. Furthermore, at this moment, it is fair to say that Democrats are ahead or tied in the races for seven Senate seats currently held by Republicans (VA/NM/CO/NH/AK/OR/NC), and slightly behind in two more (MN/MS).

Well, today we got evidence that we may able to add one close race to the mix, a contest which really has no business being close this or any other year. Earlier in the week, Survey USA released a poll showing Kentucky Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell leading his opponent by just three points. While S-USA is seen as one of the best in the polling business, I was not alone in viewing the result very skeptically. S-USA will often spit out crazy outliers like that, and I felt the poll was simply one of those times.

Yes, there have been some polls taken in this race throughout the cycle showing a closer contest, but I have never believed McConnell could be threatened. First, he has a boatload of money, and while his opponent is wealthy, it is not clear he has the guts to try to equal McConnell's spending. Second, McConnell does not always have the best numbers in his contests, and polling can look deceivingly close in his races before bursting open at the end given Kentucky's red electoral shade.

All of that conventional wisdom might go out the window, at least for now, as a Mason-Dixon poll has found that McConnell now leads by one point: 45-to-44. This confirms that at this moment, McConnell is shockingly close with his opponent.

What can we glean from this? First, McConnell is clearly being hurt by being his position as the Senate leader of the unpopular GOP. While the poll finds that his opponent is not terribly well-liked, people are angry and clearly in an anti-incumbent mind-set.

Second, despite the fact that Barack Obama is going to get creamed in the state, the closeness indicates that many Kentucky voters may be willing to vote for John McCain at the top of the ballot, and then cast a vote for the Democrat in the Senate race.

Third, and perhaps most important, is that the economy is having a big impact in voters' personal calculuses right now. It is head-and-shoulders the top issue, and McConnell is likely bearing some brunt of voter anxiety and anger at what is happening in the financial markets. Furthermore, should McConnell ultimately help push through a bipartisan bailout plan -- which, by all indications, he is doing -- he might pay for it on election day, as the bailout remains very unpopular among Americans.

I think that uber political scientist, Larry Sabato, says it best in his quote about the poll in the Louisville Courier-Journal:

“If Lunsford is actually doing this well, its got to be because the public is so upset by the economic meltdown and may be blaming the legislative leaders. If this is true, Democrats may win a lot more seats in both the House and the Senate than people are predicting.”

This poll is telling not much for what it says about McConnell than what it says about the national political trends. Make no mistake: if Mitch McConnell, the longtime king of Kentucky politics and the godfather of the state's GOP is in danger, every single close race could go to the Democrats in November. If Mitch loses, you can expect the GOP to lose in Oregon, North Carolina, Minnesota, and probably even Mississippi (though, as we know, that race has weird internal dynamics unique to the Magnolia State).

There is no doubt that Democrats would love the chance to knock off McConnell and do to Republicans what they did to the Blue Team in defeating former Democratic Senate Leader Tom Daschle in 2004, adding a huge heap of humilation on what was an otherwise brutal election night. Given these results, I would see an uptick in interest here, particularly from the DSCC, whose financial support could be critical in a close contest.

Nevertheless, in the end, regardless of this poll, I would be shocked, floored, stunned, and in more shock if Mitch McConnell were to lose. He still has a fortune in his pocket, and his opponent has lost numerous past runs for office. Plus, overcoming a rough showing for Obama would be tough for any down-ballot Dem.

Still, the closeness of this race validates the expanding generic congressional ballot polls we've been seeing over the last seven to ten days. Democrats are once again looking good, so by extension, races like this will tighten. Republicans should be very concerned about this poll.

Burn After Watching

Today I saw the Coen Brothers' new movie, Burn After Reading. I am pretty big fan of their movies, particularly last year's No County for Old Men, Fargo, The Hudsucker Proxy, and the terribly underrated Blood Simple. While this new flick had received mixed reviews, I decided early on that I was going to see it because I am a Coens fan, plus it has several actors I like including John Malkovich and Brad Pitt, who, I have to say, is himself an underrated actor who possesses the versatility of a top character actor in a leading man's body. I think that this is the highest praise an actor can get.

Anyway, let me just say that the reviews were right: this movie is lousy. Very lousy. The movie seems to have no direction, no plot, no point. While most of the audience in the half-full theater (which sits mere blocks from where a lot of the movie's action was filmed) was in stitches with some of the film's stunts and black comedy, I have to say that I didn't crack more than a handful of laughs during the entire thing. It just wasn't very amusing. Malkovich's rantings, Tilda Swinton's icyiness, Clooney's foolishness, and Frances McDormand's innanity didn't do it for me. Even Brad Pitt stunk: portraying a world-class dunce, he was too dopey, and thus wasted with the script.

Two solid performances in the movie came from two very dependable character actors: Richard Jenkins as McDormand's boss, a gym manager secretly in love with her, and J.K. Simmons (who is better known as J. Jonah Jameson in the Spiderman movies), who plays a high-ranking CIA official. Still, because their roles were so small, they were unable to salvage this mess.

Maybe fresh off winning the Best Picture Oscar last year for No Country made the Coens listless and lazy here, I don't know. This simply was not one of their better works. I would definitely rank it below Intolerable Cruelty and The Ladykillers, two of their movies which are generally panned as among the brothers' worst products. Personally, I liked the latter if for no other reason than to see Tom Hanks in a villain's role, and the former to see Catherine Zeta-Jones in any role.

There are certain movies that you probably have to watch more than once to get a full appreciation for what the director was trying to say or do. No Country was certainly one such film, and I had to see it three times before I understood a lot of it. Perhaps this is another film like that, but given its overall crumminess, I will not be forking over another $10.50 to see it; nor will I stop on it for more than a couple of minutes when I inevitably come across it while channel surfing about four years from now.

If you really want to see something better from the brothers, rent No Country, assuming you have not already seen it. If you've watched that one, get your hands on Blood Simple, one of their very first movies. Released on a shoe-string budget in 1984, the movie sports a superb cast of actors including McDormand, Dan Hedaya, and M. Emmet Walsh (one of those great ones you've seen 100 times, don't know by name, but would know him the instant you saw him), in one of my all-time favorite roles as a slimy private investigators.

Two out of five stars.

You Can't Make It Up

First is a quote from McCain surrogate, Senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina:

McCain supporter Sen. Lindsey Graham tells CNN the McCain campaign is proposing to the Presidential Debate Commission and the Obama camp that if there's no bailout deal by Friday, the first presidential debate should take the place of the VP debate, currently scheduled for next Thursday, October 2 in St. Louis.

In this scenario, the vice presidential debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin would be rescheduled for a date yet to be determined, and take place in Oxford, Mississippi, currently slated to be the site of the first presidential faceoff this Friday.

Graham says the McCain camp is well aware of the position of the Obama campaign and the debate commission that the debate should go on as planned — but both he and another senior McCain adviser insist the Republican nominee will not go to the debate Friday if there's no deal on the bailout.

And this one from an unnamed McCain aide quoted on Marc Ambinder's blog:

A senior campaign official says that McCain will NOT debate -- no matter what -- if Congress hasn't reached an agreement on a bailout package.The aide said that Obama's refusal to suspend his campaign will have no bearing on McCain's decision to attend the debate.

The aide did not know whether Gov. Palin would attend Oct. 2's vice presidential debate if Congress, by that point, still hasn't reached a deal.

Sometimes, when I see something so astonishing, so unreal, so outrageous, I just shake my head, and say "you can't make it up." This is one of those times.

The McCain campaign in its infinite stupidity and desperation is now not only trying to weasel out of the first debate just 48 hours beforehand, but now we are beginning to see signals that they will try to nix the veep debate as well.

Trying to move the Friday debate to the same day that the sole veep debate is scheduled for? Why, that must be a huge coincidence! Of course they will just move it to another day! Right.

I guess after seeing the pathetic clips of Sarah Palin getting stumped by Katie Couric of all people, Team McCain is now looking to erase the one vice presidential debate. I guess that was inevitable, and my angst is probably silly.

All of this stuff speaks for itself. Besides, I do not think I can well express myself without resorting to shouting and pulling out my hair here. Instead, let me leave it to Sen. Chuck Hagel, who recently said the following in talking about Palin:

“She doesn’t have any foreign policy credentials ... You get a passport for the first time in your life last year? I mean, I don’t know what you can say. You can’t say anything.”

I think the same can be said about the McCain campaign in its entirety now. There's just nothing left to say.

How About Palin Debating Obama?

Here's an idea. Since John McCain wants to focus all of his energies and skills in Washington to single-handedly fashion a solution to America's economic crisis, why doesn't Team McCain send Sarah Palin to debate Barack Obama? I mean, that's assuming she can be pried away from her photo-op diplomacy, er, I mean serious high-level meetings with foreign leaders at the UN summit.

Being Vice President is all about stepping in for the President when he is predisposed or dealing with a crisis, so since McCain will be busy saving the world, allowing Palin to sit in for McCain at the debate would not only be great practice for the supposed future veep, but also a way for her to demonstrate her great abilities to do the job.

How about it, Steve Schmidt?

Debate Commission: The Show Will Go On

The debate commission has just announced that all systems are still a go for the debate. In his speech less than an hour ago, Senator Obama also said he wants the debate to happen. It looks like it will.

When McCain's whole stunt came out this afternoon, my one question was if the commission would have the guts to call McCain's bluff. They did. This should not be a surprise given how long it took to set the debates up. Furthermore, this is a big deal in Mississippi, and Ole Miss obviously would have been furious if the thing were moved or canceled. I think the commission probably considered these issues.

Mark it down: John McCain will be there. His campaign might bitch and whine tonight and tomorrow, but he will be there. There is no way they would cede a national audience and a platform to bash McCain. If McCain pulled a no-show and bashed Obama's "politics" for debating alone, he would still be the loser. The stage is too big and too much is at stake for McCain here. I would be shocked if he didn't show up.

McCain's Political Ploy

The McCain campaign's announcement that it is suspending all of its operations so Sen. McCain can return to Washington to help fashion a compromise on the financial crisis, as well as its request to postpone this Friday's debate, should be seen as one thing, and one thing alone: a fairly desperate political stunt. Regardless of how this election ends up in November, it has become pathetic to see what the McCain campaign has become. Team McCain seems almost incapable of doing anything now besides initiating stunt after stunt, with some media whining sprinkled in for good measure.

Make no mistake, this is a panic move. Team McCain is obviously startled by the string of bad national and state polls over the last week, culminating in some particularly bad ones today. The economy has become far and away the biggest issue to a majority of Americans, and McCain finds himself on the wrong end of the subject. He has President Bush, his party, and himself to blame for that ("the economy is fundamentally strong"). Therefore, his campaign's interest in turning the page, or trying to get McCain on the right side of the national environment, is understandable.

I merely question the methods here. All this is about is getting McCain a day or two of national TV time, with McCain rushing back to Washington in order to play peacemaker and fashion some sort of grand compromise on the force of his personality and maverick bona fides. Forgive me for my skepticism, but hasn't this crisis been going on for well over a week? And didn't Sen. McCain expound on the strength of the economy several times -- in emphatic terms -- over the last week? What happened to that McCain?

The answer is pretty clear. Americans don't trust the Republican Party on this issue given who has been President since 2001, and which of the two parties is more closely identified with Wall Street and its players. Having Palin around certainly does not help McCain's cause either, as she is clearly unprepared to handle a crisis of this magnitude, much less even be able to identify or cogently talk about the specific problems at hand. It seems like the McCain of last week has disappeared as the polls have shown Obama gaining strength of late.

This ploy may give McCain some headlines, but I think it was a panic move, and one he probably did not need to do. While the national polls today have not been great, the tracking polls over the last 2-to-3 days have been trending ever so slowly back to him; and it is the trends that are more important than the numbers himself. Even a handful of state polls from Virginia, New Hampshire, and Michigan today are favorable, though we can argue on their precise accuracy. The point is that this is undoubtedly an over-reaction to bad polling, and I question how much it will help McCain rebound.

One more thing. Team Obama seems to be indicating that the debate will go on as scheduled Friday evening. Good for them. This is a political stunt, and if McCain wants to go to Washington tomorrow, nothing should hold him from being in Jackson, Mississippi on Friday. John McCain is not going to craft a big solution in a day or two, by himself, even if all he cares about about is creating that appearance.

I am not sure how the people at the debate commission will react, but assuming Obama heads to Mississippi, McCain's campaign would whine as only they can, but McCain would very likely head there too. I think he would look like a crybaby otherwise, and if somehow Obama ended up on TV by himself, it would be a disaster for McCain.

All in all, all my politics aside, this is another sad stunt for a man I used to genuinely respect as a national leader. The way he has been conducting his campaign reaffirms everything cynical thing that people believe infests politics. This is not about Obama. This is about McCain and his campaign becoming a pitiful spectacle that is regrettable for Democrats and Republicans alike.

The Palin Shield Should Surprise No One

Call me unsurprised. When Sarah Palin was tapped about a month ago to be John McCain's #2, we theorized that Team McCain would subsequently shield Palin from any and all substantive probing until the election, knowing full well that Palin would not be able to answer even the simplest probes on domestic or foreign policy from a sharp press corps. (And no, Charlie Gibson, Sean Hannity and Katie Couric are not substantive or serious.) A lot of people scoffed at this view, incredulous that a major party candidate would just decide not to answer any scrutiny whatsoever. Ah, one should never underestimate the survival instinct of purely self-interested political parties. Yesterday's mini-revolt from media outlets angry at a lack of access to Palin was silly. The press, and anyone else for that matter, should have expected this behavior for day one, and should act surprised today, after weeks of the same.

The McCain campaign has never had any other option. Not only is Palin completely unqualified to discuss even uncomplex matters, Palin has likely never really considered or pondered any of the serious issues of the day. She has never had the need, and clearly she is not terribly intellectual curious. That is the difference between her and someone like Mitt Romney or Bobby Jindal. All politics aside, they are both bright men with a wealth of knowledge on policy issues Sarah Palin had probably never seriously thought about up to the day she was selected. (In fact, one could argue, she may not even be thinking about them much now, given her intellectual depth).

Sure, you can hammer a bunch of broad, meaningless platitudes into an uninformed politician's head so they can regurgitate on command. That was what the Gibson "interview" was all about. But with someone as clueless as Palin, you can only go so far. Team McCain knows this, and following her sad performance with Gibson, they have probably decided simply to never let her talk to any real media at any time over anything serious. The veep debate is an exception, but again, what else could they do -- back out of that? They were stuck there, so they watered down the debate rules to ensure there would be no opportunity for any banter or back-and-forth, restricting it to be a stale affair where Palin can hopefully just survive on her memorized cliches.

In order to combat what has become the louder and louder drumbeat from the media on the outrageous Palin shield, the McCain campaign has fallen back on an old reliable strategy for Republicans: attack the messenger, in this case the "biased, left-wing" media. The media is of course biased in McCain's eyes simply because it wants to ask Palin questions, but for a desperate campaign, what other option is there?

The point of all of this is simply that no one should be surprised. Yes, Palin was a politically astute pick, and it kept McCain in the game at a time when he was dying a slow political death. But given her rank ignorance on the issues that matter to Americans outside of Alaska, the campaign has had to resort, by necessity, to having Palin act as McCain's rally side-kick, spewing regular campaign invectives, and occasionally staging "serious" meetings with national and international leaders in order to bolster her credibility by means of the photo-op.

As patently absrud, and quite frankly insulting as this tact is, Team McCain has never had any choice. What a spectacle.

The Senate Picture

If you have been perusing our site here for a while, you have probably noted that I do not spend much time analyzing specific races for the purpose of making predictions. This isn't because I do not like looking at individual races and making picks; quite the contrary: I love the "art" (probably more like the complete guess work) of political prediction. Rather, because you can find smart, as well as baseless political predictions on House and Senate races just about anywhere on the web today, we try to stay away from that area. Still, today I wanted to make a post on the Senate map as we approach the end of September, just over a month before the elections. I think it is worthwhile to look at the Senate races because it is becoming clear that Democrats could make incredible gains in the upper chamber.


While it has been clear for some time that Democrats would add to their tenuous majority, few could have forecast that things would look as good as they do for the Blue Team today, just over six weeks until the election. Impressively, Democrats appear ahead, tied, or slightly behind in nine races for seats currently held by Republicans. Let's briefly look at them, and what this all means.

--Virginia and New Mexico look to be almost sure pick-ups for Democrats, and have been for some time. This is because the longtime (and unbeatable) incumbents retired, and Democrats were able to recruit arguably the two best possible nominees for the seats in Mark Warner and Tom Udal (though, to be fair, Gov. Bill Richardson would have been an even stronger nominee than Udall in all likelihood), while the Republicans ended up running two mediocre challengers.

--New Hampshire is step below Virginia and New Mexico, but it remains highly likely to flip. Sitting Senator Jonh Sununu is the most threatened incumbent running for re-election, kind of this cycle's Rick Santorum, as he has been down in just about every poll, and often by big margins. In a state that is trending Democratic, this seat looks like it too will switch sides.

--Colorado is obviously a bit more conservative than New Hampshire, but the Democratic nominee, Rep. Mark Udall, is well known in the state and has been ahead in just about every poll released, albeit by a smaller margin than Dem leads in NH. This looks like another pick-up, but it should be seen as leaning Democratic right now.

That makes four seats that have been leaning or likely to turn blue for some time. By themselves, four pick-ups would be a good haul, to be sure, but there are five more races that are right now on the precipice of turning.

--North Carolina is a race that has surprised me. I never felt that Sen. Elizabeth Dole would lose, given her universal name recognition in the state and her opponent's lack of a statewide profile. Yet, state Sen. Kay Hagan has hung tough, fundraised well, and has released some sharp, hard-hitting commercials that have clearly taken a toll on the incumbent. Polls over the last couple of weeks have shown the race tied or have given Hagan a narrow lead. To my mind, this is pretty astonishing. I don't think Dole will fall in the end, but right now the race is undoubtedly a toss-up.

--Oregon has been a frustrating contest for Democrats. While there has never been any doubt that Sen. Gordon Smith can be beaten in fairly blue Oregon, Chuck Schumer and DSCC suffered probably their worst string of recruiting set-backs when their top four choices for the Democratic nomination -- former Gov. John Kitzhaber, and Reps. Peter DeFazio, David Wu, and Earl Blumenauer -- all said no. While the eventual nominee, state House Speaker Jeff Merkley isn't all bad, he is not a great nominee, and he has never really hit his stride. Until apparently now. The two latest polls show Smith with just a one-point lead. More importantly, Smith's favorabilty scores are in the toilet. Should Obama run up a big win here, Smith could find himself ousted from the Senate.

--Similarly, after being down all summer, Al Franken now looks to be tied with Sen. Norm Coleman. Like Smith, Coleman is a skilled and shrewd incumbent facing a weak challenger. But also like Smith, he finds himself in a fairly blue state, and one that could go to Obama by a strong margin (though, recent polls here have the presidential contest close), therefore endangering his own future. Franken's rise in the polls is not so shocking, and I do think he could pull off a win, but it is still impressive that he has been able to claw his way back into this thing with all the negative press he's gotten.

--Readers of this blog know the deal with Ted Stevens and Alaska, so we won't rehash everything yet again. Needless to say that right now, Mark Begich probably has a small to decent single-digit lead over Stevens. Still, his chances will be almost entirely dependent on Stevens himself, or more precisely, what happens in Stevens' trial which begins tomorrow. If Uncle Ted is convicted before November, I don't see how he can be re-elected, even in Alaska. But if is acquitted of all charges, or if the jury deadlocks, all bets are off, and I would bet that he improbably gets re-elected by his loving electorate. Only time will tell here, but I to agree with the thinking that 12 men and women on the federal District of Columbia jury panel will likely determine the winner of this race.

--Finally, we also all know about Mississippi. Right now if the latest R2K poll is even close to accurate, Musgrove is down, but with many more black voters than white voters undecided. If Musgrove can: (1) hold onto the nearly one-quarter of whites he has; (2) end up with around 91 percent of the black vote; and (3) get black turnout of 39 percent or more, he will score an incredible upset. I keep saying it, but watch this race on election night. A win is absolutely not out of the question, though it will be tough.

In total, that makes nine races Democrats can win. In a political era where incumbents are nearly unbeatable because of the money they can raise and the earmarks and accomplishments they can rack up in six years, it is pretty amazing that Democrats are in such a good position.

They remain poised to win at least four seats, and with the right breaks, can easily double that number. While I am not postulating that they will get to that magic 60-vote threshold, I am merely trying to point out the great position the party is in at this moment, and the awful position Republicans find themselves in. If Senator Obama can score a big national victory, look for many of these close or tied races to turn bigtime for the Democrats.

Hindsight

In the last few days, I have come across a couple of articles and respected blogs arguing that given the recent pronounced dip in the popularity of Sarah Palin, John McCain would have been better served picking another running mate. The thinking goes that, among other things, because Palin is so inexperienced, she has completely undercut McCain's ability to attack Obama's lack of experience and highlight McCain's own long record of service in government.

This is a fair argument. I simply disagree, and not just because I called on McCain to tap Palin during the summer. The fact is that sure, Palin's personal numbers are dropping, and in turn, McCain's favorables, as well as the lead he held less than a week ago, are both evaporting, the latter having completely disappeared. It is completely reasonable to argue that McCain's drop can be traced at least a little bit to Palin's fall.

Still, this line of reasoning is cherry-picking at its finest. McCain is at his lowest point since before the political conventions. Numbers come and go at the drop of the hat. In a week, if McCain is back up or tied, does that mean Palin is now a good choice again? Maybe. Maybe not.

Few have been as critical of Sarah Palin as me. But those criticisms have been based on Palin's professional credentials, or as the case may be, her lack of credentials. Politically, I believed and continue to believe that tapping Palin was a savvy, gutsy, and brilliant move by McCain, no matter my feelings of Palin's merits. They are two separate issues.

While this is pure conjecture, had McCain tapped Joe Lieberman, Tim Pawlenty, or Mitt Romney, it is unlikely that McCain would have done as well in completely uniting an up-to-then moribund Republican base while at the same time giving himself a huge bounce in the polls to the point that he held a sizable lead coming out of the RNCC.

It is hard to envision the other usual suspects giving McCain nearly the same boast; though Bobby Jindal would have come very close (but Jindal's main problem would have been that while he is clearly brilliant and more qualified than Palin by a mile, as a man, he would have been much more vulerable to base political attacks for his extremist positions, but that's another post for another day). Palin excited Republicans for a host of reasons, but one of the biggest was that she gave Republicans their own (conservative) Barack Obama: a political rock star on their ticket. No one else really could have matched that and providing the raw energy and seemingly endless frenzy of immediate media attention.

Again, this is all speculation we can't really prove or disprove. Right now, the salient issue is that Palin gave McCain a lead, and as the result of several different factors, he was unable to hold on to it very long. Whether or not he can completely regain his political footing is unclear (I bet he can and will, at least to some extent), but regardless, it is silly to question the Palin pick right now given the alternatives available to Team McCain at the time.

Should McCain go on to lose on November 4, we can revisit this question and draw a better, and more educated conclusion.

Mississippi Ballot Chronicles

Color me surprised. Late Thursday, the Mississippi Supreme Court issued a surprise decision in finding that Governor Haley Barbour's placement of the special U.S. Senate election at the bottom of the ballot was unlawful. We were not alone here in being fairly confident that the state high court would side with Barbour, as much of its composition was appointed by the governor, and it had already sided it with him earlier in the year in allowing the race to be held in November, as opposed to April which appeared to be required by Mississippi law.

The decision was an interesting specimen in the art of legal and political gymnastics. The court made two salient holdings. First, the justices found 8-to-1 that the movement of the special election to the bottom of the ballot, after many state and local races, ran afoul of a state law which required that any races for federal office (President, Senate, House), had to appear at the top of the election ballot. However, the court also ruled 5-to-3 that the lower circuit's order that the race be moved up to the top of the ballot was unlawful, and dissolved the edict. The supreme court reasoned that the order encroached on the governor's authority, and that the judicial branch cannot compel the executive to do his job in a specific manner. The court reasoned that the governor would have to act illegally before a court could order him to act otherwise. This finding was quizzical since the whole point of the lawsuit was that Barbour had already ordered the ballot to be designed in a manner contrary to law, and that the lower court's order was a means to remedy that.

Clearly, the court was trying to balance between making a proper interpretation of the ballot statute, while at the same time laboring hard not to order Barbour to do anything proactive that was not predisposed to do on his own. This line of reasoning and action drew the ire of a dissent which noted that Barbour could still force through the same ballot, as the court's opinion had not actually ordered him to change the ballot. Some liberal bloggers immediately opined that Barbour would do just that, but shortly after the decision was issued, Barbour's spokesman announced that he would comply with the court's reading of the statute, and re-draw the ballot in such a way to put the special Senate election near the top with the other federal races.

It is difficult to say what the exact impact of this decision is; though it is probably at least a tiny bit helpful to Ronnie Musgrove. It is likely that the lower the race fell on the ballot, the less people would vote in the special election. Many of these voters could well have been new to the process, or individuals who do not generally cast ballots. My personal feeling is that these voters, many of them less affluent or educated, would be more likely to vote Democratic. So, in that sense, I would guess that this decision will help Musgrove more than it will help Roger Wicker. As we have posted before, in a race that should be really close, that little difference could be a big help to the Democrat.

One other even thing. Even though he lost, and I disagree with his actions and his personal politics, let me again tip my hat to Governor Barbour. Here is a shrewd political operator, and a guy who really knows how to play hardball to get what he wants.

How to Lose Political Friends and Alienate People

We all know that there are some incredibly bitter and petty Hillary Clinton supporters out there, not yet fully able to bring themselves to support her former primary opponent, Barack Obama, full-blast. I guess that this is understandable, at least to an extent, though I think that when push comes to shove, nearly all of Clinton's supporters will vote for Obama on November 4.

There are of course those former HRC boosters who break the mold. One such person is a Clinton friend and big-time money-person for the Senator, Lynn Forester de Rothschild. Rothschild, also a prominent member of the Democratic National Committee, has announced that she will be endorsing John McCain for President, and will actually campaign with him.

I have several reactions this news. The first one is:

What. A. Loser.

I find it funny that Ms. de Rothschild thinks that she is so important that her endorsement means something, and that more, she needs one of her press flacks to announce the big news. In case she doesn't already know: It doesn't. No one cares. No one. Sure, McCain is probably happy to have some more money, but other than that? Her announcement indicates that she will campaign for McCain to "help him through the election." Few people realized that her campaign help was needed, but I'm glad she set the record straight.

Democrats should actually welcome this news. Even though she can say she is a Democrat for McCain, no one cares about her. More importantly, having a de Rothschild on Team McCain actually helps Sen. Obama's arguments that the Republican Party is out of touch with the economy in the tank.

Here's my favorite part of this story, in the form of a quote from the former Clinton supporter describing Obama:

"I feel like he is an elitist. I feel like he has not given me reason to trust him."

I am not sure someone with the name Lynn Forester de Rothschild has any license to call someone else elitist, but she must hold herself to another standard. The article notes that Ms. de Rothschild is CEO of a "holding company" with influence around the world, she is married to an "international banker," and she "splits her time living in New York and London." What this all means in layman's terms:

--When your name has a "de" before your last name, you're really rich, or elitist, or more likely both.

--When your name is "Rothschild", you are really really rich.

--When you are married to an "international banker," you buy your groceries exclusively at Dean and Deluca, and you own houses in Vail, Jackson, Wyoming, and Maui, among other places.

--When you "split" living between New York and London, you live in Central Park West, fly first class so much, they the flight attendants know you by name, and you have one of those black American Express cards.

--A holding company is a fancy word for "business that caters only to the super rich."

So, to summarize, a really really really really really rich woman is endorsing John McCain because she finds Barack Obama to be an elitist. Ok. That means perfect sense to me.

In some seriousness, I guess a story like this reveals how bitter, and quite frankly, plainly stupid some people can be. I hope Ms. de Rothschild enjoys the company of McCain, because after this move, she won't be welcome in Democratic circles ever again. So, this story really is a great tale on how to lose friends and alienate people.

Then again, I doubt Ms. de Rothschild cares. When your name is de Rothschild, your life is never going to be tough.

Sinking Sarah To Meet Katie Couric

The world is very lucky. Sarah Palin, the object of gushing political lust of evangelicals and starry-eyed conservatives everywhere has apparently agreed to another news interview. Saints be praised. Apparently Palin will meet CBS news anchor Katie Couric for an interview that will be broadcast on September 29 and 30, shortly after the first presidential debate but before the first and only vice presidential debate where Palin will face off against Senator Joe Biden.

One might think that with Palin's steadily tanking numbers, the McCain campaign would rethink its strategy of shielding the Alaska governor from any questions which might blatantly expose what everyone else already knows: that she is frighteningly unqualified, and unable to answer even basic questions about national and world affairs. Not so much.

Yet, Team McCain has no choice. Even neutral observers had to acknowledge that Palin's interview with Charles Gibson, despite being chock full of softballs and silly questions, did not go well for Sarah. While she did her best to spit out the answers her McCain handlers hammered into brain with his usual hockey mom I'm-just-one-you-accent, it was pretty darn clear that her responses were almost entirely superficial. She did lousy, and just barely kept herself from looking like the dilettante that she is.

Besides, given that Palin's favorable ratings have been badly dropping every day for about a week, maybe it isn't such a good idea to get her out in front of prying cameras. Perhaps the more people see of the Alaskan extremist, the more they dislike her.

Yes, I think Team McCain has decided to stick with Plan A, one they learned very well from President Bush: keep sticking Palin exclusively in front of adoring conservatives crowds in places like western Ohio, Colorado Springs, and Lancaster County, Pennslyvania, reading that same innane speech filled with dozens of shameless lies, fabrications, and other whoopers. Indeed, President Bush perfected the art of only talking to his base, and never venturing far. His camp went so far as to remove any unbelievers from Bush rallies or speeches. It seems like this is the direction we are headed with with Queen Sarah.

So it is a win-win for Republicans. They can keep drolling with forelorn love stares at their Alaskan moose goddess, and the McCain campaign can keep covering up for her titanic inadequacies via endless applauses and standing ovations at Palin speeches. Heck, if it worked at the RNCC, why it can't it work straight through November?

Well, if the polls over the last week are indicative of anything, perhaps they are showing that many people will ultimately not be fooled so easily. We can only hope. Whether or not that will come to impact John McCain himself, remains to be seen.

Diego/Hotline Trendlines

I just found that the Diego/Hotline daily tracking poll also releases its findings for free, so from now on I will include their findings while I am looking at R2K for the purposes of comparing/contrasting.

While the Diego/Hotline poll does not release detailed trendlines broken down by ethnicity, region, and age, it nonetheless gives us some data worth examination. Their poll seems more interested in asking questions along the line of issues. Let's look at the favorable/unfavorable splits for the four major-party candidates:

John McCain: 59-38 (Sept 12)/57-37 (Sept 13)/55-40 (Sept 14)/54-40 (Sept 15)/51-41 (Sept 16); -11 points (from +21 to +10)

Barack Obama: 53-40/53-40/54-39/52-40/54-37; +4 pts (from +13 to +17)

Joe Biden: 44-30/45-30/45-31/45-32/45-32; -1 pt (from +14 to +13)

Sarah Palin: 51-29/52-30/49-34/48-36/47-36; -11 pts (from +22 to +11)

These trendlines well mirror R2K's findings in terms of movement. Both McCain and Palin had had significant drops over the last week, in large part from all of the negatives stories out there and from the campaign attacks being circulated. Here too, Obama has made a decent gain, and while Biden went down a point over the five-day span, I think that is probably insignificant, and we can say that his numbers have remained largely the same.

The difference in exact numbers between R2K and Diego/Hotline are probably because of the break-down of respondents. For R2K's polls, respondents are 35% Democrat/26% Republican/30% Independent. Diego/Hotline uses a split of approximately 42/35/20. Though, of course there could be other reasons. Still, the trendlines between the two are very similar.

Interestingly, and not surprisingly, respondents rated the economy, gas prices and energy, and the war in Iraq as the top three issues. When asked to identify their most important issue, 39 percent responded the economy, 9 percent responded gas and oil prices, and 8 percent said Iraq.

On issue-by-issue questioning, Obama has a very clear advantage on the economic issue, which well explains why he has been able to grab a national lead. On the question of which candidate would do a better job of handling the nation's economy, Obama led 45-42 (9/12), 47-43 (9/13), 50-41 (9/14), 47-40 (9/15), and 47-36 (9/16). As the economic issue has come to the forefront of the campaign, it has obviously benefited the Democrat, perhaps partially because of his focus on the issue, but also because of President Bush's popularity. This is an issue Obama and his campaign will likely continue to push.

Similarly on energy policy, Obama has opened up a big lead. The splits on this issue question over the same time period have been as follows: 45-43/45-44/47-44/46-42/50-38. As these economic problems become large in Americans' minds, Obama has been able to open a sizable lead here too. Because the economy and energy policy/fueld costs are the top issues for around half the country, McCain will need to chip away at this margins in order for him to get back on strong national footing.

R2K/Daily Kos Tracking: McCain's Bounce Over?

The last three R2K/Daily Kos presidential tracking polls released Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday show increasing evidence that John McCain's Palin/convention bounce is over, and that Senator Obama may be regaining an important national advantage. As we will highlight, Senator Obama has seemed to have made at least some gains across the spectrum.

Tuesday's poll gives Obama a 48-to-44 lead. It was 48-45 on Monday, and 47-to-45 on Sunday. While the change is small, it is perceptible particularly as it was tied on Saturday.

The cross-tabs provide interesting evidence for this change, as it appears that McCain is steadily dropping among many key groups where he had made impressive, albeit small gains earlier. Among men, McCain led 49-42 Sunday, 49-43 Monday, and 48-43 Tuesday. So, McCain has gone from +7 to +5 over the three days. Similarly, for women, the splits were 52-42/53-42/53-41 -- all in favor of the Democrat, increasing Obama's margin from +10 to +12.

Party voting is fairly unchanged. GOP voters were 91-6 on every single day, further showing that identified Republicans are now hardened in their support of McCain and unlikely to change. Among Democrats, Obama's splits were 83-13/84-13/84-12, showing a tiny bit of gain, but nothing huge so far.

Most salient is the independent vote, where McCain had been building a big lead last time we checked. Here too, Obama has made gains: Monday 47-42, Tuesday 47-43, Tuesday 46-43. This is McCain's key bloc. He will need to better solidify his votes here. With four percent undecided, double that of the GOP number and four times the Dem number, the indie vote is a bit more malleable, and clearly Obama is making gains here.

For the most part, the white and black votes remain unchanged, though McCain's advantage with whites seems to mirror the other groups above, and his lead now stands at +19 Tuesday, after being +20 Monday, and +21 Sunday.

One area of interest is the Latino vote. We noted last week that Obama's near 40-point lead among this key group dropped suddenly. While Obama has not fully regained his inital advantage with the Hispanic electorate, he is doing better. The splits: 65-32/66-32/67-30. Thus, Obama's advantage has gone from +33 to +37 in three days -- a good move. Again, it will be very interesting to see if this holds, or the lead goes back to the small-to-mid 30s. Obama will need to win the Hispanic vote very decisively.

Obama also seems to have made gains basically across the age spectrum. Among those 18-29, Obama led with the splits at 62-31/63-31/63-30 -- a net gain of two points. Similarly, among the key 30-44 demographic, what was a 49-43 McCain lead Sunday, gave way to 49-44 Monday, and 47-44 Tuesday. McCain led this group by seven points on Saturday. Among those 45-to-49 years old, the numbers have not moved as much: 47-45/48-45/48-45 all for Obama. Finally, voters 60 and over seem more entrenched, and have remained at 54-39 for McCain.

Finally, the regional numbers show some encouraging trends for Obama. What was a strong hold on the Northeast got a bit stronger: 56-37/58-36/58-35, a net gain of a couple points. McCain's Southern base has totally held, and remained at 55-37 over all three days.

The other two regions have perhaps the best news for Democrats. With Obama's lead in the Midwest down to three points late last week, he has put some space between him and McCain again in what is likely the nation's most pivotal region. He led 49-43 Sunday (beginning his move over 49-46 Saturday), 51-43 Monday, and 51-42 Tuesday -- a move of +3 over three days, and +6 since Saturday. In the West, Obama has remained surprisingly stable, up to a 50-42 lead from 50-44 Saturday and 50-43 Sunday.

Finally, the favorable/unfavorable numbers give us some final info to chew on.

McCain: 53-44 SUN/51-45 MON/49-45 WED; -7 points (from +9 to +4)

Obama: 54-39/54-38/54-37; +2 points (from +15 to +17)

Biden: 49-33/48-32/49-32; +1 point (+16 to +17)

Palin: 47-42/47-43/45-44; -4 points (+5 to +1)

It is not hard to pick up the trends here. While Obama and Biden's favorable ratings have remained relatively stable, McCain's have dropped a decent amount, putting him under 50 percent, while Palin's have plummeted; indeed, she stood at 52-35 on 9/11, 51-37 on 9/12, and 49-40 on 9/13 -- a total move from +17 to +1 in less than a week.

Even if you disagree with the exact numbers, the trendlines are unmistakable: the negative stories and Democratic attacks on McCain have been working, at least temporarily, and explain why their support has dropped slightly across the country. In terms of Palin, she has gone from a darling to a deeply polarizing figure in short order. Whether this will be lasting is up in the air, but her numbers are sinking, and if they continue, she will have a net negative rating tomorrow for the first time.

And lest you question this particular poll, Hotline's own poll has Palin's net favorable rating dropping a big 13 points between 9/8 and 9/16 -- from +24 to +11 points.

Interestingly, Hotline also gives Obama a four-point, 46-42 national lead over McCain today. Gallup and Rasmussen both have McCain up one point in their tracking polls, though without their data. As always, let me explain that I am using the R2K/D-Kos polling because they release their data. If I had access to the cross-tabs of the other polls, believe me I would go through them too.

Needless to say, however, Obama should be very pleased with the trendlines. While we can quibble on the numbers, he is making slow and steady gains the key groups: indies, women, Midwesterners, and voters aged 30-to-44. While the state-by-state polling over the last week has not been kind to Obama, if this data is accurate, I believe it will begin to show in a big way in the state polls as well.

Joe's Final #*@% You to Democrats?

Lost in the huge deluge of presidential coverage is a story that may seem small in significance compared with the big race, but nonetheless presents a very compelling narrative. Much has been made by political followers of Senator Joe Lieberman's drastic turn away from the Democratic Party. Since his defeat in the Democratic Senate primary in 2006, and his comeback win as an independent that November, Lieberman has almost deliberately made moves not just to distance himself from his from his party, but also to almost jab his Democratic colleagues in the eye.

Since the Democrats retook the Senate in 2006, Lieberman has been in a fairly delicious position, at least from his perspective. While he agreed to caucus with Senate Democrats as a self-labeled "Independent Democrat", and he has continued to do so up to this point, including donating a lot of money to the DSCC in its efforts to expand its Senate majority, he has also taken his time to needle his party. Lieberman knows that the Democrats need him a lot more than he needs them, because if he were to flip his allegiances, he would likely flip control of the Senate back to the Republican Party. It is with this in mind that Lieberman first endorsed GOP Sen. Susan Collins in her re-election bid (his close colleague on the Government Affairs and Homeland Security Committee, when she was chair, he was ranking minority member, and now it is the reverse). Then, Lieberman endorsed Sen. John McCain's presidential bid.

Even after these moves, Senate Democratic leadership held its fire, knowing they needed Lieberman's vote, and resisted rising calls to expel the rogue Democrat from the caucus. However, when word began leaking that Lieberman would speak at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, that was too much for many people. Still smarting from former Democratic Sen. Zell Miller's brutal attacks at the Republican convention in 2004, Democrats -- both on the Hill and off -- were appalled when Lieberman made official that he would give a convention speech.

Still, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid gave Lieberman leeway in hopes that he would not launch any attacks on Barack Obama in his speech. For his part, Lieberman promised to be entirely positive in terms of praising John McCain. Of course, while his speech was mostly a laudatory piece of McCain, Lieberman did take a couple of shots at Obama and his ability to serve as an effective President.

After the speech, Democratic fury probably hit its boiling point, with many Democrats saying "enough is enough." Lieberman was formally excluded from Democratic Senate caucus lunches, though in fairness Lieberman had already begun skipping many of these affairs, probably sensing the cold shoulder he was getting. Nevertheless, it is a was big step, and many reports began circulating what everyone else already knew: come January, with it almost certain that Senate Democrats would make gains in the November elections, Lieberman would be ousted from the caucus and stripped of his chairmanship for his behavior.

Democrats might never get that chance. If John McCain is elected President in November, I think that there is an excellent chance that he will pluck his good friend Joe out of the Senate, and give him a top cabinet position, perhaps Secretary of Defense or Secretary of State. If this were to happen, because Connecticut's governor, Jodi Rell, is a Republican, she would appoint a Republican to Lieberman's seat, denying Democrats a seat in one of the nation's most Democratic states.

Look for Lieberman to jump ship if McCain wins

There are numerous reasons why this is likely to happen in the event of a McCain victory. First, Lieberman and McCain have been close friends for some time, and McCain clearly appreciates his close counsel. They travel together a lot, often with Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC), McCain's other best friend in the Senate. Lieberman endorsed McCain very early in the process, something McCain acknowledged took a lot of guts and knew Lieberman would take a big hit in doing. If he wins, McCain may not owe Lieberman for his victory, but he will no doubt appreciate his friendship and loyalty a great deal, and will thus be very likely to extend him a sweet offer in the administration.

Second, Lieberman knows now, and probably knew months ago, that life in the Senate after January 3, 2009, would be very unpleasant for him. If some of his colleagues were giving him the cold shoulder before this campaign, he knows that he can expect much worse if he comes back. Speaking at the Republican convention was crossing the line and going past the point of no return, and I think Lieberman had to have known this. With Democrats likely to win at least four new Senate seats, his vote will no longer be needed to determine the balance of power, so he will be kicked out of the caucus and off his chairmanship perch. While Democrats realize a seat is a seat, there would be little difference between 56 and 55 seats, thus making Lieberman more expendable.

Sure, he would immediately be accepted into the GOP caucus and probably given some nice committee slots, but it would not be the same. It would be a tough thing to face his Democratic colleagues every single day, many of whom loathe him. Perhaps more importantly, besides the Iraq issue, Lieberman himself is in disagreement with just about the entire Senate GOP caucus on every other issue. How would Lieberman feel voting along with Republicans only a slew of rightwing judicial appointments, for example? It would be tough, even for the now-Independent Democrat.

Third, Lieberman would probably delight in being able to give one last bleep-you to his former colleagues. Nearly all the bridges have been burned, albeit mostly by Joe himself, and there may be no going back. Being able to deliver a Senate seat in deep blue Connecticut to the Republicans for at least two years -- any appointment would be filled for two years until a special election could be held in 2010 to fill the final two years of Lieberman's term -- would certainly be a big blow to Democrats, and given Lieberman's attitude the last couple of years, I doubt he would feel much reluctance to do it. Senate Democrats would be completely powerless to stop him.

Gov. Rell would appoint a Republican, perhaps Chris Shays

While Jodi Rell is a very moderate Republican, I find it hard to believe that she would not appoint a fellow Republican to the seat. Being bipartisan with such an important slot is simply not done in modern politics anymore, whether fortunate or unfortunate. As to who she might pick, one name that I think really stands is out is current Rep. Chris Shays. Shays is the last Republican member of Congress from the northeastern states, and has managed to barely survive in his liberal district cycle after cycle. While I think Shays is going to survive again this cycle -- after another close call in 2006 -- I think he would be a strong bet for the pick, win or lose this year.

Should Shays lose in November, then he could be tapped and the GOP would not have to give up a House seat (having already lost it). If he wins, I still think Shays would jump at the position. While he is apparently slated to become the ranking Republican on the partisan House Oversight Committee in lieu of his seniority, Shays knows that given the liberal bent of his district (at D+5, Obama should win it heavily this year), he may never have an easy race. Being able to jump up to the upper chamber would likely be an easy decision for him. Despite being an able GOP partisan (as evidenced by what I think was a shameful performance at the infamous Roger Clemens hearing), Shays is from one of the wealthiest districts in the country, he is an able fundraiser, and he has carved out a moderate path as a rare northeastern Republican in a caucus dominated by conservatives and southerners.

Of course this is all pure speculation, but I think the point is that Gov. Rell could give Lieberman's seat to a Republican who would be tough to dislodge. Yes, given Connecticut's politics, it is hard to see any Republican holding a Senate there seat now. But someone like Shays would have two years to build his seniority and raise money, and perhaps he could survive in 2010 against someone like Rep. Rosa DeLauro or state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal.

A state fix is also unlikely

The only other option for Democrats would be to remove the governor's power to make a Senate replacement. In other words, the Connecticut state legislature could pass a law stripping Rell of her appointment power in any of several ways.

This is not unprecedented. In Wyoming, the overwhelmingly GOP legislature, wary of Wyoming's proclivity towards electing Democratic governors, restricted the governor's appointment power by passing a law stipulating that should a Senator leave office in the middle of his term, the governor could pick a replacement from a list of three names proffered by the party of the leaving Senator. Because Wyoming has not elected a Democratic Senator since 1972, the intent behind this law is clear, and it came in handy when GOP Sen. Craig Thomas passed away last year, as it forced Democratic Gov. Dave Freudenthal to pick a GOPer from a list given to him by the Wyoming Republican Party.

Similarly, when John Kerry was running for President in 2004, Massachusetts Democrats were concerned that were he to win, Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, would replace him with a Republican. Therefore, the legislature passed a law -- over Romney's veto --stripping the appointment power from the governor, and requiring a special election to fill any open U.S. Senate seat within 180 days of the vacancy occurring.

It seems logical that Connecticut would try a similar maneuver. After all, like Wyoming and Massachusetts, it is strongly aligned with one party -- the Democrats -- and therefore, the legislature is heavily Democratic. When I first considered the possibility of a Lieberman switch, I immediately figured that the Connecticut legislature was so largely Democratic, it had either already stripped Rell of the appointment power, or would at least do so if McCain were to win. Indeed, because Connecticut has had a Republican governor for years, I assumed this had been done a while ago.

I was wrong on two counts. First, while the Connecticut legislature is indeed overwhelmingly Democratic, it is still not a veto-proof majority. They control the state house 107-44, or 71 percent. In the Senate, their hold is 23-13 -- one vote shy of the two-thirds majority necessary to override a gubernatorial veto. In other words, were the state legislature to pass a law stripping the governor of the power to make an appointment to an open U.S. Senate seat, a Rell veto would be almost certain. Unless Democrats would be able to flip one Republican in the Senate to vote to override the veto, they would not be able to pass the change into law.

Incidentally, some Democrats are stupid

Second, I foolishly overlooked the lack of will, foresight, and political intelligence of state legislators. A quote from a story on in yesterday's The Hill, well-proves my point. Asked about changing Connecticut state law to deny Rell the appointment power in the eventuality that Lieberman's seat opens, a spokesman for Democratic state house speaker Jim Amann said the following:

“[T]here’s not going to be any will or effort to change it in time for” a Lieberman vacancy or if Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) is appointed to a Democratic administration.

“If one of them do get a job with the new president, and the governor is able to appoint her choice, at that point everyone may be willing to change the process — after the fact, for the next time this happens,” he said.

Clearly, protecting Lieberman's U.S. Senate seat for the national party is not a priority for the state Democrats in the legislature. This illustrates the general disconnect between the goals and methods of the state and national parties that you will often see if you follow politics closely. While a Senate seat is a big deal to someone like Chuck Schumer, it is not so important to Jim Amann, who has his own different priorities in Hartford.

Without getting too deep into this issue, let me just say that this quote illustrates how stupid and short-sighted many Democrats are, even ones at high levels of power in state and federal government. Losing a Senate is a big deal to either party, especially in a state which leans very heavily to one side, and it should be treated as such.

This comment reminds of the expressed reluctance on the part of the Illinois state house speaker Richard Madigan and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson to re-draw their state lines in the middle of the decade to eliminate Republican congressional seats in order to counter Tom DeLay's 2004 map which ousted several Texas Democrats. Like Richardson and Madigan, Amann just does not have a full appreciation of the value of seats in the House of Representatives or the Senate. These seats cost millions and millions of dollars to win and hold! More broadly it shows, once again, the Democrats simply are not as ruthless as their Republican counterparts in doing whatever it takes to win.

Losing a Senate seat for two years or perhaps more to someone like Chris Shays in blue Connecticut should elicit a little more energetic response than "maybe we will consider it down the road." How stupid is that? What are people like Amann doing in politics, when they clearly don't grasp the simplest things of doing what it takes to win and understanding the significance of a United States Senate seat?

Therefore, my Idiot of the Month Award goes to Connecticut House Speaker Jim Amann, as well as to the leadership of the Connecticut Democratic Party political apparatus, who are apparently doing nothing to guard against this dangerous eventuality for the party.

On the bright side, Democrats would get McCain's Senate seat

If there is one silver lining to this scenario, it is that were McCain to go to the White House, the governor of Arizona, Janet Napolitano, is a Democrat, and she would be able to appoint a Democrat to McCain's Senate seat, thereby making the Lieberman GOP replacement a wash. The popular Napolitano is term-limited in 2010, and she would be a good favorite to win the seat should she decide to run for it. Still, even with this gain, a Lieberman loss would be a tough pill to swallow, not just because it would Joe's final %$@#%$ you to Democrats, but because Connecticut is still Connecticut, and politically, it is not Wyoming, Utah, or even Arizona.

Maybe my opinion of Joe Lieberman is biased these days, but I find it hard to believe that he is not actively considering many of these possibilities, hoping to get the chance to give one last kick to the groin of his colleagues before he heads out the door.

Sarah Palin's Deep Shades of Bush

If you are going to read just one article on Sarah Palin, I highly recommend that you make it this article, which will appear on page A01 of The New York Times tomorrow, but which has already been posted online.

This is both a damning and amazing piece. Quite honestly, it frightened me more than Sarah Palin's ridiculous inexperience, her gross lack of qualifications, and even her fringe extremist positions. This article astonished me because as I read it, just one name kept popping into my head:

George W. Bush

I know, I know. Liberals -- a label I do not think applies to me -- routinely argue that figures are like Bush for one reason or another, and often, those claims are far-fetched or just plain silly. Not so in this case.

In its first exhaustive piece on Palin's rise and political work in Alaska, the Times has drawn a detailed picture of a person who:

--is confident to the point of arrogance despite a lack of experience or real qualifications;

--demands dog-loyalty (read: unquestioned) from her allies, and strongly punishes any one who crosses her;

--lards government payrolls and high-paying positions with unqualified lackies and sycophants whose major asset is complete fealty to Palin;

--pursues long-term vendettas against individuals for even small issues or infractions;

--maintains an unyielding commitment to absolute secrecy, and actively searches for ways to undermine true oversight or her work or activities, whether legal or illegal, moral or immoral; and

--infuses her personal, political and even religious beliefs into her government policies.

Each of these types of behavior have been the calling card of the last eight years under the Bush administration, the difference being that Palin exercised this type of control over her little fiefdom in Alaska, while Bush ran the entire Federal Government.

In order to provide some of the article's more salient parts, I am going to highlight a several sections and quotes in italics, and then comment on their significance.


Hiring lackies, friends, and inexperienced people to key positions

So when there was a vacancy at the top of the State Division of Agriculture, she appointed a high school classmate, Franci Havemeister, to the $95,000-a-year directorship. A former real estate agent, Ms. Havemeister cited her childhood love of cows as one of her qualifications for running the roughly $2 million agency.

Ms. Havemeister was one of at least five schoolmates Ms. Palin hired, often at salaries far exceeding their private sector wages.

That's comforting to see. So Palin filled a top state agricultural position with a high school friend because said friend liked heifers as a kid? Some shades of "heckuva of a job, Brownie."

Attacking critics: no slight is too small

And four months ago, a Wasilla blogger, Sherry Whitstine, who chronicles the governor’s career with an astringent eye, answered her phone to hear an assistant to the governor on the line, she said.

“You should be ashamed!” Ivy Frye, the assistant, told her. “Stop blogging. Stop blogging right now!”

I know Alaska is a small state, and this woman was from her hometown, but was it necessary that Palin send her aide to attack a critic in this manner?

Here, we see huge shades of President Bush. During much of his administration, there has been wrong-doing across the government, most notably in the Plame leak case, and just about every time, Bush has ensured that blame was never placed at his feet, but on aides. This is a form of governance that does not place a high premium on personal or professional responsibility.

Notably, after it was found that several of Palin's aides attempted to get her ex-brother-in-law fired as a state trooper, Palin disavowed knowledge of the aides' efforts, and said she had had no idea what they doing. Maybe she has been taking lessons for President Bush on how to handle her Troopergate problems?

Apparently, leaders like Bush and Palin have no need for Harry Truman's famous axiom -- one that sat prominently on his desk -- "The Buck Stops Here!"

Demonizing dissenters

But an examination of her swift rise and record as mayor of Wasilla and then governor finds that her visceral style and penchant for attacking critics — she sometimes calls local opponents “haters” — contrasts with her carefully crafted public image.

Throughout her political career, she has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and sometimes blurred the line between government and personal grievance, according to a review of public records and interviews with 60 Republican and Democratic legislators and local officials.

Does anyone remember "I'm a uniter, not a divider"? Apparenty, any one who disagrees with Palin or dissents from her view, is labeled a "hater". In my mind, Bush's worst legacy at home has been the division he has sowed by his stubborn refusal to reach across the aisle on anything. The country could get the same division with Palin.

Maintaining complete secrecy, even to hide possible wrong-doing

Interviews show that Ms. Palin runs an administration that puts a premium on loyalty and secrecy. The governor and her top officials sometimes use personal e-mail accounts for state business; dozens of e-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that her staff members studied whether that could allow them to circumvent subpoenas seeking public records.

Rick Steiner, a University of Alaska professor, sought the e-mail messages of state scientists who had examined the effect of global warming on polar bears. (Ms. Palin said the scientists had found no ill effects, and she has sued the federal government to block the listing of the bears as endangered.) An administration official told Mr. Steiner that it would cost $468,784 to process his request.

When Mr. Steiner finally obtained the e-mail messages — through a federal records request — he discovered that state scientists had in fact agreed that the bears were in danger, records show.

“Their secrecy is off the charts,” Mr. Steiner said [...]

While Ms. Palin took office promising a more open government, her administration has battled to keep information secret. Her inner circle discussed the benefit of using private e-mail addresses. An assistant told her it appeared that such e-mail messages sent to a private address on a “personal device” like a Blackberry “would be confidential and not subject to subpoena.”

The governor’s office did not respond to questions on the topic.

Ms. Palin and aides use their private e-mail addresses for state business. On Feb. 7, Frank Bailey, a high-level aide, wrote to Ms. Palin’s state e-mail address to discuss appointments. Another aide fired back: “Frank, this is not the governor’s personal account.”

Mr. Bailey responded: “Whoops~!”

We all know that the Bush White House has been the most secretive in American history, even more so than the Nixon administration. Working on the cues of Vice President Dick Cheney and his top aide David Addington, the Bush administration has gone to almost unbelievable lengths to maintain complete and total secrecy of the executive branch. For example, President Bush has repeatedly asserted a theory of executive privilege to keep many of his former aides from testifying to Congress after being subpoenaed that is broader than any privilege ever regularly exercised by a President.

Here, Palin's crew actively -- as well as comically -- tried to get around legal parameters to preserve secrecy, and maybe even illegal activity. It should be noted, and the article also mentions, that this gentleman, Mr. Bailey, is a central figure in the Troopergate scandal, and it was revealed that he tried to apply pressure to get Palin's ex-brother-in-law fired. Perhaps not surprisingly, Palin claimed she had no knowledge of his activities.

The last thing the United States is another executive who practices this kind of secrecy and has such contempt for even legitimate oversight. Yet, this precisely what we would likely get if somehow, God forbid, Palin ascended to the Oval Office.

Palin is not one who subscribes to Louis Brandeis' wise theory that "sunlight is the best disinfectant."

Pursuing vendettas, sometimes with her husband's help

Last summer State Representative John Harris, the Republican speaker of the House, picked up his phone and heard Mr. Palin’s voice. The governor’s husband sounded edgy. He said he was unhappy that Mr. Harris had hired John Bitney as his chief of staff, the speaker recalled. Mr. Bitney was a high school classmate of the Palins and had worked for Ms. Palin. But she fired Mr. Bitney after learning that he had fallen in love with another longtime friend.

“I understood from the call that Todd wasn’t happy with me hiring John and he’d like to see him not there,” Mr. Harris said.

“The Palin family gets upset at personal issues,” he added. “And at our level, they want to strike back.”

This is something that may even go beyond Bush. By now, most of us know all about Troopergate, where Palin, her husband, and her aides attempted to pressure the Alaska State Public Safety Commissioner into firing a state trooper who was involved in a messy divorce with Palin's sister, all before Palin fired the Commissioner for no real announced reason.

Clearly, there is a pattern by Palin that she will pursue vendettas against her enemies and detractors, whether personal or professional, through her government authority, not seeming to notice that she is crossing a line of conduct.

We also see here, again, her husband Todd, a commercial fisherman, trying to exert himself on government officials. Why exactly, considering his work outside of the government?

First it was his calls to the Public Safety Commissioner to get the trooper fired, and now we find out that he was trying to pressure the Alaska State House Speaker because he had hired a man Palin had a vendetta against. Even if Palin herself had no idea of her husband's calls - -total bunk, in my humble opinion -- this behavior is tremendously unethical. Mr. Palin had to have known that even if he was not acting upon his wife's wishes, his calls would have placed big and undue pressure on government officials. At worst, and I think that this is more likely, Todd Palin was working on behalf of and in concert with his wife in order to routinely carry out her vendettas.

Installing political hacks into government

In 1997, Ms. Palin fired the longtime city attorney, Richard Deuser, after he issued the stop-work order on a home being built by Don Showers, another of her campaign supporters.
Your attorney, Mr. Showers told Ms. Palin, is costing me lots of money.

“She told me she’d like to see him fired,” Mr. Showers recalled. “But she couldn’t do it herself because the City Council hires the city attorney.” Ms. Palin told him to write the council members to complain.

Meanwhile, Ms. Palin pushed the issue from the inside. “She started the ball rolling,” said Ms. Patrick, who also favored the firing. Mr. Deuser was soon replaced by Ken Jacobus — then the State Republican Party’s general counsel.

“Professionals were either forced out or fired,” Mr. Deuser said.

Palin apparently accomplished a two-fer here in her time as mayor: she fired a city lawyer who had crossed one of her friends, and then replaced the employee with the general counsel of the Alaska Republican Party. Imagine what she would like to do with the Department of Justice? Her likely appointees could make Alberto Gonzales -- generally seen, even today, as the most overly political and patently incompetent Attorney General in modern history -- look like Robert Kennedy!

Infusing her extreme conservatism into government; looking to ban books

The new mayor also tended carefully to her evangelical base. She appointed a pastor to the town planning board. And she began to eye the library. For years, social conservatives had pressed the library director to remove books they considered immoral.

“People would bring books back censored,” recalled former Mayor John Stein, Ms. Palin’s predecessor. “Pages would get marked up or torn out.”

Witnesses and contemporary news accounts say Ms. Palin asked the librarian about removing books from the shelves. The McCain-Palin presidential campaign says Ms. Palin never advocated censorship.

But in 1995, Ms. Palin, then a city councilwoman, told colleagues that she had noticed the book “Daddy’s Roommate” on the shelves and that it did not belong there, according to Ms. Chase and Mr. Stein. Ms. Chase read the book, which helps children understand homosexuality, and said it was inoffensive; she suggested that Ms. Palin read it.

“Sarah said she didn’t need to read that stuff,” Ms. Chase said. “It was disturbing that someone would be willing to remove a book from the library and she didn’t even read it.”

“I’m still proud of Sarah,” she added, “but she scares the bejeebers out of me.”

This new account seems to lend increased credence to what we already know: that Palin is an extremist conservative, and that in the past she has allowed her personal beliefs to cloud, influence, and even sway her policies as an elected government official.

Furthermore, this story adds to the likelihood that Palin did indeed explore ways to ban books she deemed offensive.

Oh, but wait: she was only rhetorically asking about banning books, right?

No reformer, but a "slick" politician

Ms. Palin entered the 2006 primary for governor as a formidable candidate.

In the middle of the primary, a conservative columnist in the state, Paul Jenkins, unearthed e-mail messages showing that Ms. Palin had conducted campaign business from the mayor’s office. Ms. Palin handled the crisis with a street fighter’s guile.

“I told her it looks like she did the same thing that Randy Ruedrich [a former state GOP chair, and a fellow commissioner with Palin on the State Oil and Gas Commission, Palin resigned for the body in protest for him conducting Republican business on state time, and overly favoring companies] did,” Mr. Jenkins recalled. “And she said, ‘Yeah, what I did was wrong.’ ”

Mr. Jenkins hung up and decided to forgo writing about it. His phone rang soon after.

Mr. Jenkins said a reporter from Fairbanks, reading from a Palin news release, demanded to know why he was “smearing” her. “Now I look at her and think: ‘Man, you’re slick,’ ” he said.

What a reformer, huh? She was doing the same unethical and probably illegal activities as the very man she criticized in order to make a name for herself in politics.

Filling government payrolls with loyal friends and lackies

As she assembled her cabinet and made other state appointments, those with insider credentials were now on the outs. But a new pattern became clear. She surrounded herself with people she has known since grade school and members of her church.

Mr. Parnell, the lieutenant governor, praised Ms. Palin’s appointments. “The people she hires are competent, qualified, top-notch people,” he said.

Ms. Palin chose Talis Colberg, a borough assemblyman from the Matanuska valley, as her attorney general, provoking a bewildered question from the legal community: “Who?” Mr. Colberg, who did not return calls, moved from a one-room building in the valley to one of the most powerful offices in the state, supervising some 500 people.

“I called him and asked, ‘Do you know how to supervise people?’ ” said a family friend, Kathy Wells. “He said, ‘No, but I think I’ll get some help.’ ”

The Wasilla High School yearbook archive now doubles as a veritable directory of state government. Ms. Palin appointed Mr. Bitney, her former junior high school band-mate, as her legislative director and chose another classmate, Joe Austerman, to manage the economic development office for $82,908 a year. Mr. Austerman had established an Alaska franchise for Mailboxes Etc.

This may be the most frightening passage in the article, and it most reminds me immensely of President Bush. The evidence is clear that to Palin, absolute loyalty and friendship is more important than actual qualifications and experience.

We all know Alaska is a small state, but are we to conclude that there are no other qualified people for key positions outside of Wasilla and Palin's circle of friends?

Palin hired a total unknown and inexperienced legislator to be her #3 and serve as Alaska's Attorney General. She appointed dozens of old friends to high-paying state jobs. She seems to have made the head of the state's economic development office a man whose most expansive business experience was in starting up a Mailboxes, Etc franchise. I think that latter hire speaks for itself.

Operating in a cocoon and echo chamber

Many lawmakers contend that Ms. Palin is overly reliant on a small inner circle that leaves her isolated. Democrats and Republicans alike describe her as often missing in action. Since taking office in 2007, Ms. Palin has spent 312 nights at her Wasilla home, some 600 miles to the north of the governor’s mansion in Juneau, records show.

One of the biggest criticisms of President Bush's work has been that he surrounds himself with a small inner circle, and that he has generally cocooned himself away from any dissenting opinions on matters. Palin seems to share that trait.

This is in stark contrast to our greatest President, Abraham Lincoln, who, as Doris Kearns Goodwin has chronicled in her great book, "Team of Rivals," stacked his cabinet with personal and professional enemies in order to both take away their potency as rivals and at the same time provide valuable dissenting advice.

Interestingly, one could draw a parallel between Palin's time away from Juneau, and President Bush's many, many days away from Washington at his Crawford ranch.

Contempt for the legislature, other officials

During the last legislative session, some lawmakers became so frustrated with her absences that they took to wearing “Where’s Sarah?” pins.

Many politicians say they typically learn of her initiatives — and vetoes — from news releases.
Mayors across the state, from the larger cities to tiny municipalities along the southeastern fiords, are even more frustrated. Often, their letters go unanswered and their pleas ignored, records and interviews show.

Last summer, Mayor Mark Begich of Anchorage, a Democrat, pressed Ms. Palin to meet with him because the state had failed to deliver money needed to operate city traffic lights. At one point, records show, state officials told him to just turn off a dozen of them. Ms. Palin agreed to meet with Mr. Begich when he threatened to go public with his anger, according to city officials.

At an Alaska Municipal League gathering in Juneau in January, mayors across the political spectrum swapped stories of the governor’s remoteness. How many of you, someone asked, have tried to meet with her? Every hand went up, recalled Mayor Fred Shields of Haines Borough. And how many met with her? Just a few hands rose. Ms. Palin soon walked in, delivered a few remarks and left for an anti-abortion rally.

Generally, President Bush has employed a "my way, or the highway approach" to working with Congress. For his first six years in office, this went well for him, as the pliant Republican-controlled legislature gave him every thing he wanted, and he issued not a single veto.

In Alaska, even though the legislature has generally had a GOP majority, Palin has still had her problems with legislators, the "old guard," if you will, and others she deems "haters." She has seemed completely unwilling to work with the legislature in Alaska on many issues, choosing instead to drop edicts and directives from her perch of 80 percent+ approval ratings, and push aside or demonize any one who dares criticize her objectives.

This does not seem like an individual who could work well with a Democratically-controlled House and Senate -- which is precisely what would greet her.

Conclusion: shades of Bush

The administration’s e-mail correspondence reveals a siege-like atmosphere. Top aides keep score, demean enemies and gloat over successes. Even some who helped engineer her rise have felt her wrath.

Dan Fagan, a prominent conservative radio host and longtime friend of Ms. Palin, urged his listeners to vote for her in 2006. But when he took her to task for raising taxes on oil companies, he said, he found himself branded a “hater.”

It is part of a pattern, Mr. Fagan said, in which Ms. Palin characterizes critics as “bad people who are anti-Alaska.”

As Ms. Palin’s star ascends, the McCain campaign, as often happens in national races, is controlling the words of those who know her well. Her mother-in-law, Faye Palin, has been asked not to speak to reporters, and aides sit in on interviews with old friends.

At a recent lunch gathering, an official with the Wasilla Chamber of Commerce asked its members to refer all calls from reporters to the governor’s office. Diane Woodruff, a city councilwoman, shook her head.

“I was thinking, I don’t remember giving up my First Amendment rights,” Ms. Woodruff said. “Just because you’re not going gaga over Sarah doesn’t mean you can’t speak your mind.”

Overt secrecy. Pettiness. Lack of magnanimity in victory. Poor ethics. Placing unqualified friends or political hacks in high-paying and/or prominent positions. Demonizing critics. Ignoring dissent. Living in a cocoon and an echo chamber at the same time. Using extremist positions to set policy.

Each of these descriptions was in one way or another a hallmark of the Bush administration. Apparently, they are also perfect descriptions of how Sarah Palin has operated as mayor of Wasilla and governor of Alaska.

R2K/Daily Kos Tracking: Mixed Trendlines for Obama

As have noted in several posts over the past few days, Research 2000 has begun doing a daily presidential tracking poll for the national race for Daily Kos, and the liberal blog is also posting all of R2K's findings for the viewing public's pleasure. The information is a treasure trove because (1) it is daily, and (2) it is the only tracking poll whose trackings polls we can browse. Today, and probably in subsequent days, we are going to examine three straight daily polls to look for salient information or apparent trendlines. Because today marked the release of the third tracking poll, it is as good a day as any to start.

Over the three days, R2K found the following race break-downs:

Thursday, September 11: Obama 47, McCain 45

Friday, September 12: Obama 47, McCain 46

Saturday, September 13: Obama 47, McCain 47

Clearly, the Republican has been moving up ever-so-slightly been at the end of this week. This mirrors most of the other tracking polls showing a tied race, and a Newsweek poll released today showing the contest deadlocked at 46-46.

If we examine and compare the data from the three polls, we can easily pick up on some key trends which probably explain the slight positive movement for McCain.

Among men, today's poll finds McCain leading 50-42, and this number has moved by a point in any direction in three days. With women, there has been a bit more movement, as the split was 51-42 for Obama Thursday, 51-43 Friday, and 52-44 Saturday. Obama has thus gained one point, while McCain has gotten two.

There has been no movement among Democratic voters, and just about zero movement among Republicans. Needless to say while McCain is winning his side 91-6 Saturday, Obama is mired at 83-13 with Democrats. This is probably a combination of a handful of HRC supporters, but more likely a lot of self-identified, but still conservative Democrats who are voting for McCain.

The number among independents is probably the most important thing we should take away from this poll. McCain led among this group 44-42 on Thurday. His edge expanded to 45-42 on Friday, and to 49-42 today. This seems to suggest that while Obama is remaining stagnant with this key bloc, McCain is slowly but surely scooping up formally undecided indies, whose ranks went from 5 percent, to 4 percent, to 2 percent between Thursday and Saturday.

This is not good for Obama. McCain is grabbing the cross-section of voters who will most likely determine the election. There could be many reasons for this, but the take-away is that they are flocking to McCain now.

White voters are also ticking to McCain, but this is no shock: McCain's number went from 56-to-57-to-58, while Obama has remained at 35. This mirrors a lot of the other data. The black vote is unmoved, but nonetheless dominated by Obama, though it is interesting that 3 percent has remained undecided. This suggests that the high undecided percentage in Mississippi might not be a total fluke, and these voters may be very socially conservative blacks who are not yet fully ready to support Obama. Still, it is not a likely worry for the Democrat.

Today's Latino number stands out for sure. Obama has been dominating in this demographic: 67-28/67-27/65-32. Saturday's number is troubling for the Blue Team, but because it is a sudden bump which seems to have come out of nowhere, Democrats should not yet despair that it is a trendline. Still, Obama will have to get around 70 percent of the Hispanic vote nationally to win, especially to grab states like New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada.

Broken down by age group, again there seems to be one key statistic here among voters 30-to-44. This group favored McCain 48-44 on Thursday, 49-44 Friday, and 50-43 Saturday.

Looking the polls by region, Obama continues to do well in the northeastern states. McCain's southern showing went up a point a day as he solidifies himself in his base region. The huge concern here is in the pivotal midwest. It has gone from 50-43, to 49-44, to 49-46. This is another big worry for Team Obama. The trendlines are slowly moving away from him here. This is his most important region, including states like Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Colorado, Michigan, and Ohio. Finally, Obama led in the western states 48-44 on the first two days, but it went up to 50-44 Saturday. We won't call this a trend yet, but it is one promising sign for the Democrat.

In terms of the other data, there is one other interesting nugget. McCain and Obama's favorable numbers have remained fairly stable. What stands out differently is Sarah Palin:

Thursday: 52 percent favorable, 35 percent unfavorable

Friday: 51-37

Saturday: 49-40

By contrast, Biden's numbers have been 51-30/52-31/50-32. There is a clear, albeit so-far small trendline down for Palin. The next poll will be very telling is this more than a brief blip. Either Democratic attacks or the negative media stories have finally been having an impact on Palin's high numbers.

This would be encouraging for Democrats, as Palin has been McCain's biggest asset by far, but while Palin's numbers largely sank this week, McCain's surprisingly ticked up? Is this itself a trend -- that Palin's weakening is not in turn a weakening for McCain? Maybe. We will need more time to see if both trends hold or expand. If so, that is certainly a strange phenomenon, and it proves our argument that Obama should leave Palin alone and focus his fire on John McCain. Clearly, as McCain remains strong, this is obvious. It would be fascinating if Palin's unfavorable number rose higher than McCain's, and it right now it is 43 percent unfavorable for McCain, and 40 percent unfavorable for his running mate. The implications of such a move are again, unclear.

Still, the R2K polling data has more negatives than positives for Barack Obama. Most important is that McCain is seemingly pulling away among independent voters, and he is close to pulling even in the midwest. He is also increasing his margin among voters aged 30 to 44, which probably go hand in hand with these other two findings. As Obama and his inner circle craft his message and attacks going forward, it is likely that they will both be geared towards fixing movement among these groups.

Ronnie Musgrove's Tricky Path to Victory

We have talked about the Mississippi special Senate election this year and its huge political implications for Democrats. Today, on the heels of a new poll, we are going to look at the contest a bit more closely, and specifically, the path to victory for Democrats.

Democrats should be very happy with yesterday's new R2K poll Mississippi Senate poll showing Ronnie Musgrove losing to interim Sen. Roger Wicker by a 48-to-43 split. The last R2K poll from late July had Wicker leading only 45-to-44, so Wicker has clearly put a bit more distance between him and the former governor.

The last two polls of the race, both from Rasmussen, showed Wicker ahead by nine points after having the race virtually tied. The Ramussen polls had many people questioning, this author included, whether Musgrove's chance had passed. (Unfortunately, you have purchase Rasmussen's cross-tabs, so we can't look at any of them here.) After Palin was announced, and McCain's numbers exploded in the South, I believed Musgrove would probably be down 15 points right now. These results question the impact of the balance bounce on individual down-ballot races, even those in the Deep South.

They key, however, is this: while Musgrove is down five, the numbers below the surface are very favorable to the Democrat. While Wicker's base, the white vote, is nearly all decided -- with just four percent undecided, Musgrove base, the black vote, is 18 percent undecided. In other words, Musgrove has appreciably more room to grow than Wicker, and if he can rally those undecided black voters into his camp in the same numbers as the decided black voters, while holding onto his nearly-one quarter of whites, he will win.

To prove this point, let's look more closely at the cross-tabs, which Kos always provides.

Musgrove's ratings have surprisingly risen since May

In yesterday's poll, Musgrove's favorable/unfavorable split stood at 50-43 (it was 48-41 in July, and 46-33 in May), while Wicker's registered at 52-41 (51-39 in July, and 52-25 in May). Thus, we see that both men had a slight rise in both of their numbers: almost identical between the two men. What this probably means is that people who like the two men have not changed their views.

What is even more interesting is that Musgrove's favorables have actually risen four points between May and today. This is amazing because of the two candidates, Musgrove is much more well known in Mississippi, as he has been elected to two statewide offices while Wicker has only been in the Senate for less than a year after being a congressman for ten years. Therefore, one would expect Musgrove's favorable numbers to be more solidly entrenched than Wicker's. These numbers show that this is not so.

Looking at the unfavorables is also instructive. In May, when Wicker had only been in office for a few months, he had a 52/25 personal split, meaning that he had a solid approval in lieu of his party affiliation, but his negative was low because he was unknown. However, the polls show that his unfavorables have jumped from 25 to 39 to now 41. Apparently, Democrats' attacks on Wicker have been successful not so much in impacting his positives, but in jacking up his unfavorable number 16 percent. Conversely, Musgrove's unfavorable number has gone from 33 to 41 to 43, an aggregate bump of 10 points. What I would attribute this to is the GOP's attacks, and reminders of what they argue were Musgrove's various failures as governor. Still, Democrats' attacks have been slightly more successful if for no other reason than the fact that Wicker's negatives have jumped more than Musgrove's.

The key numbers among whites and blacks

The full breakdown is even more valuable. Among men, Wicker leads 52-40 (49-41 in July, 50-39 in May), while Musgrove has a slight edge with women, 46-44 (47-41 in July, 45-42 in May). Among Democrats (40 percent of the sample), Musgrove wins 84-7, while Wicker wins GOPers 86-6, and indies are virtually tied at 46-45 Wicker (46-43 Musgrove in July, but 45-43 for Wicker in May).

This information makes more sense when you look at the race breakdown. Wicker wins whites 73-23 (67-26 in July, 65-26 in May), while Musgrove wins blacks 75-7 (75-8 in July, 73-9 in May).

These numbers tell us a few things. First, despite all of the negative attention being focused on Musgrove regarding his connections to some figures in the federal trial involving that failed Mississippi beef-packing facility, his favorable ratings among individual groups are much the same as we noted above. Clearly, after being well-known in Mississippi for years, most people are pretty hard in their view of him, one way or the other.

Second, Musgrove lost three percent of whites, while Wicker gained six percent. A good part of this may be the Palin selection, and perhaps even the negative ads and stories that have been launched against Musgrove. Furthermore, I think it was plainly inevitable that Wicker would ultimately end up with at least three-fourths of whites.

Still, at 23 percent, Musgrove is doing fairly well among the conservative white population for a Democrat running statewide. If he can hold onto that total, he is halfway home. It is important to note that there are only 4 percent undecided, providing some evidence that that portion of the electorate is more hardened in its support of the two candidates (and it stands in contrast to the black electorate, as will be seen).

Third, and most importantly, these results pretty clearly show us precisely what Musgrove needs to do to win. His support among the black electorate, at least right now, is not where it has to be for the former governor to pull of the upset. It is fascinating that the black vote has not really changed between polls, as Musgrove's number stayed at 75 percent, and Wicker's dropped just one point, to 7 seven percent (it was 75-8 in July, and 73-9 in May). A whooping 18 percent of Mississippi's blacks are still undecided right now.

As we have discussed in our past posts, Mississippi has the largest percentage of black residents of any state, coming in at around 37 percent of the Magnolia State's population. In statewide elections, Democratic candidates routinely win 90 percent of the black vote, while Republicans take 80 percent or more of the white vote en route to victory. For a Democrat to compete in Mississippi, he or she has to win nearly all of the black vote, and somehow crack 20 percent of the white vote.

As the latest R2K poll shows, Musgrove is around where he needs to be with whites. Again, while 23 percent sounds pitiful, in a state as conservative as Mississippi, it is not. Where Musgrove is lagging behind is with the black electorate. Perhaps this is not terribly surprising. In the past, Musgrove has been criticized for some of his initiatives and actions as governor, and for not doing more to reach out more to the black community in the state. Rep. Bennie Thompson of the Second District has been particularly critical of Musgrove in the past.

While it is not clear that these same issues are the cause for the large number of undecided voters, Musgrove must make sure wins nearly all of the undecideds to have any chance of winning. As we will now discuss, it would also help if black turnout exploded as some commentators have suggested will happen with Barack Obama at the top of the ballot. In fact, for Musgrove to win, that may have to happen.

Let's take a look at some turnout models, and explore what percentages Musgrove will need to achieve in order to win.

Black turnout models

Model #1: Black turnout is the same as it was in 2004

In the 2004 presidential contest, exit polling showed that the vote was 34 percent black and 65 percent white. If black turnout were to remain at this level in November, even if Musgrove got 25 percent of the white vote -- clearly not a given -- he would need over 99 percent of the black vote. This is not going to happen. Thankfully for Musgrove, there is no way black turnout is going to be this low.


Model #2: Turnout is equal to the state's composition

This scenario is certainly possible, though I do not think very likely either. Assuming that the vote is 63 percent white and 37 black, mirroring the state's own composition, there are various ways Musgrove could pull out a win.

If he got 25 percent of the white vote, he would need 92.6 percent of the black vote. This is doable, but it would be tough. If it ticks up to 24 percent -- and if the latest poll is accurate, this is possible; with 4 percent undecided, it is fair to say that could break 3-to-1 to Wicker, making the final breakdown 76-24 -- Musgrove would then need about 94.3 percent of the black vote. Still a steep hill to climb, but not impossible.

What if Musgrove stays at 23 percent? He would then need around 96.27 percent of the black vote. This is very unlikely, in my opinion.


Model #3: Black turnout increases

While you may accuse me of being overly-optimistic, I think it is likely that black turnout will increase past 37 percent. The only really question is how much? Forgive me for breaking into so many numbers, but the movement of even one percent, as will be seen, could be critical to Musgrove's chances


Let's say Mississippi gets 38 percent black turnout:

If Musgrove gets 23 percent of the white vote, he would need 94 percent of the black vote;

if 24 percent, he would then need 92.45 percent of the black vote;

if 25 percent, he would then need 90.8 percent of the black vote;

This latter number is very doable for Musgrove. It would be about the same percentage John Kerry got in 2004, and it is a number most Democrats get in statewide votes.


Let's assume Mississippi gets 39 percent black turnout:

With 23 percent of the white vote, Musgrove would need 92.26 percent of the black;

if 24 percent, he would need 90.7 percent;

if 25 percent, he would need 89.1 percent;

As is obvious, Musgrove's chances get better as black turnout increases.


Now let's say black turnout hits 40 percent:

With 23 percent of the white vote, Musgrove would need 90.5 of the black vote.

if 24 percent, he would need 89 percent;

if 25 percent, he would need 87.5 percent of the black vote.


If 41 percent?

With 21 percent of white, Musgrove would need 91.7 percent of the black vote;

if 22 percent, he would need 90.3 percent of the black vote;

if 23 percent, he would need 88.9 percent of the black vote;

if 24 percent, he would need 87.5 percent of the black vote; and

if 25 percent, he would need 86 percent of the black vote.


For fun, what if black turnout hit 42 percent?

With 21 percent of the white vote Musgrove would need 90.1 percent of the black vote;

if 23 percent, he would then need 87.3 percent;

if 24 percent, he would need 85.9 percent of the black vote.

if 25 percent, he would need 84.5 percent.

It is pretty darn clear that is the black vote can somehow hit or clear 40 percent of the total vote, Musgrove would actually have a spectacular shot to win.


Analysis

Of course a big caveat is that these numbers are all estimates, and the lack of exact percentages probably skews the margins a bit; R2K probably rounded figures up and down. But since we do not possess the exact data, we have to make do with what we do have. Furthermore, as the 2004 exit polls showed, there is a tiny percentage -- definitely no more than two percent, and likely one percent or less -- of the state's voting population that is not white or black, and we have not included that small subset in our models. My guess is that this tiny bloc would disproportionately favor Democrats more than Republicans, and thus they could provide a small bump to Musgrove.

So what are our conclusions from this data? Pretty simple: the larger the black turnout, the better it is for Musgrove. I think it is very fair to say that it will surpass 37 percent, but it is impossible to predict by how much. Maybe it will hit just 38 percent, or maybe it could go to 42 percent. Quite honestly, I can't begin to guess with any certainty.

Naturally, Musgrove is going to need to work extra hard with the black community. If Rep. Thompson's criticisms are accurate, Musgrove could have some lingering problems in the community. The fact that such a large group of black voters has remained undecided -- 18 percent undecided this week, 17 percent undecided in July, and 18 percent undecided in May is certainly concerning. Though, the breakdown among blacks over the three months -- 75-7 in September, 75-8 in July, and 73-9 in May -- shows that Musgrove has pretty held a steady three-fourths plus of the population in the state, while Wicker's support among blacks has been stagnant, and remained below 10 percent.

Musgrove can also take some solace in the fact that there is surprisingly a fairly large number of undecided voters in the presidential contest.

September 11: Obama leads 80-5 with 13 percent undecided;

July: 81-4 with 15 percent undecided; and

May: 79-5 with 16 percent undecided.

Indeed, while there have always been slightly more undecided black voters in the Senate contest, the fact that there is still 13 percent of black undecided for President is very interesting. Frankly, I don't believe the number, particularly for the Obama race. Obama is going to win the black vote around 95-5 in the end, if not by more. I do not think there is any question about that.

Musgrove's success among black voters will not match Obama's. Duh. However, his number should not fall below 90 percent, despite the high undecided number. Let's look more closely at this.

Assuming the percentages from September hold, and undecided black voters break along the same 75-7 margin that decided voters have, Musgrove should get 91 to 92 percent of the black vote, with Wicker getting between 8 and 9 percent.

Of course, if Musgrove really does have big problems with some black voters, then maybe this remaining 18 percent undecided may not break along to Musgrove in as great numbers as they other 83 percent already have. This is entirely possible.

Let's then say for the sake of argument that this remaining 18 percent breaks 85-15, instead of 75-7. In that case, the margins really would not change much, and Musgrove would still end up with around 90 or 91 percent.

What if Wicker gets a quarter of the remaining undecided blacks? Then the breakdown would be around 88-12 or 89-11. It is hard to envision Wicker getting one-fourth of the remaining black voters -- that is just such a huge number for a Republican candidate -- but if he did, it would make a huge difference, and I am sure this is a group Wicker has been trying to reach. Assuming average or even slightly higher black turnout (in the range of 38-40 percent), that up-tick for Wicker would require Musgrove to get 25-26 percent of the white vote to cobble together a bare majority. (In terms of third parties, the two men are the only names on the ballot, which makes calculating these things easier.)

All of this is why this election could be determined by just a tiny move in percentages. If Musgrove gets 24 as opposed to 23 percent of the white vote, or 92 as opposed to 89 percent of the black, that could make all the difference in the world.

Applying the fresh polling data to predict an ultimate result

Assuming that the latest poll is accurate, whites are currently breaking 73-23 (with four percent undecided) to Wicker, and blacks 75-7 (with 18 percent undecided) to Musgrove, and turnout mirrors the state's composition -- a big if -- then the end result would be Wicker winning the white vote 76-24, and Musgrove winning the white vote 91.5-8.5, or approximately 51-to-49 overall, a nail-biting win for the Republican.

Should these percentages hold, but black turnout increases to 38 percent, Wicker would still win by an even closer 50.35-to-49.65,

If black turnout were to hit 39 percent with the polling data holding, Musgrove would overtake Wicker and win by 50.325-to-49.675. We have critical mass!

And just for fun, if black turnout hit 40 percent with the existing poll data from R2K, Musgrove would win by a slightly wider 50.775-to-49.225.

The lesson? Simply that Musgrove has a clear path to victory if black turnout can hit 39 percent, and he can hold onto what he has now in terms of 23 percent of the white vote and 91.5 percent of the black vote, while at the same time hoping of course that the undecideds break along the same percentages as the rest of the voters (which may be more questionable).

Do you think Governor Barbour hasn't looked at these numbers? If Musgrove gets 24 percent of the white vote in November, essentially what he has now, and the 18 percent undecided among the black electorate break 91.5-to-8.5 to Musgrove, all he needs is for black turnout to increase by just two percent over the state's overall black population. This is entirely doable, and it is likely that this scenario has been giving huge heartburn to the governor.

Barbour ballot move therefore makes political sense

Processing these numbers make it very easy to understand Governor Haley Barbour's recent power-play to move the special election to the very bottom of the November ballot. Barbour isn't stupid. In fact, in all honesty he is a pretty brilliant (albeit unscrupulous) political strategist. Take another look at our simplistic turnout models. If black turnout exceeds 37 percent, Musgrove's mission becomes so much easier. Say black voters turnout at 40 percent -- a distinct possibility -- and Musgrove wins an even 23 percent of whites. He would then need 90-91 percent of the black vote, and he would win. This has to be on Barbour's mind.

Furthermore, that it is a special election provides one more small advantage to Musgrove. Under a quirk in state law, special election candidates are given no party designation on the ballot. As a result, both Musgrove and Wicker will appear without an "(R)" or "(D)" next to their names. Without a doubt, I think that with tens of thousands of commercials, ads, campaign appearances, and mail pieces filtering across the state, just about every person in Mississippi will know who is who, so the advantage Musgrove might gain from this is very minimal. That being said, in a state as conservative as Mississippi, if even one percent of voters went to Musgrove in the mistaken belief that he was not the Democratic nominee, that one percent could prove critical.

All of this why Barbour first moved the date of the election to November, and then moved this race to the bottom of the ballot. He has no idea what how many black citizens will vote in November. Nor does he know if Wicker can break double-digits with the black vote. He may be looking at very close internal polling from the Wicker camp and the NRSC which only exacerbates his fears, but the fact is that black turnout is unknowable, even with good polling. If black turnout were to hit 40 percent or more, every thing else could fly out the window, and in that case, Musgrove (assuming that 18 percent of blacks undecided breaks to him as it should for a Democrat) would have a clear path to victory.

The white vote too has to be concerning to the Republicans given the available data. In May, Wicker led among whites 65-26, then 67-26 in July, and most recently 73-23. This data reveals a couple of salient points. First, Wicker has consolidated the white vote. This was inevitable: no Republican, even a crummy one is going to get less than 70 percent of the statewide white vote. Second, the litany of Republican attacks on his gubernatorial tenure and stories trying to tie Musgrove to the beef plant case have clearly moved some votes away from the Democrat.

The question is whether Republicans can move any more of those voters out of his camp. You can rest assured that Republicans will continue their attacks on Musgrove to try to get his number down to 20 percent. My sense is that is certainly possible, but it won't be easy given that Musgrove spent eight years as Lieutenant Governor and then Governor, so clearly he has the longtime support of a portion of the white population, however insignificant it may seem. Plus, with the undecided white vote dropping from 9-to-7-to-4 percent shows that white voters' are coalescing around a candidate, and moving them later may be a bit tricky.

The bigger matter for Republicans may be the black vote. Barbour's calculation is that clearly, black turnout will increase by some amount. Given that it was at 34 percent in 2004, there will be many new voters and other voters who do not often cast ballots in elections, even national ones. Moving the race to the very bottom of the ballot, simply by common sense and experience, will dilute the numbers of voters casting a ballot in the race. This phenomenon is not atypical anywhere, whether in Mississippi, Hawaii, or New Jersey. Therefore, Barbour's objective here is to create some drop-off because he believes that the new voters are more likely to be Obama, and by extension Musgrove voters.

Conclusion

In sum, there are two factors that will determine this election: first, whether Musgrove can hold 23-25 percent of the white vote, and second, how high black turnout will be and whether the 18 percent of undecided black voters will still break for Musgrove in the end. Republicans can try to impact the first one, but the second is largely unknown, which is why we have the ballot trick.

One thing that Musgrove certainly has in his favor is Barack Obama. R2K's poll also found the presidential race at McCain 52, Obama 39, after being 51-42 in July, and 54-39 in May. For the most part the numbers have been pretty stable, but the key number is that Obama's deficit has an average of around 12 percent. No one would argue that Obama has any chance of winning the state outright, but if Obama can end up losing by 12-14 percent, that would show that black turnout is enormous (Kerry lost Mississippi by 19 percent). In that case, those are voters that, according to our models, will favor Musgrove.

My own gut read on the race is this. I just can't see a Democrat polling poorly among blacks statewide, particularly with Obama on the ballot. I fully expect Musgrove to win the black vote around 90-10. The big questions then are (1) can he hold onto 23-24 percent of whites; and (2) just how many blacks will go to the polls on election day? Barring any really negative stuff coming out about him, I think Musgrove can hold onto that near-quarter, leaving the outcome up to black turnout. It is also a big question how much the ballot issue will impact that number.

Musgrove certainly still has an uphill battle to win this November, but if the R2K polls have been accurate, he absolutely has a path to victory. The white vote, Roger Wicker's base, is nearly all decided and less fluid than the black vote, which is 18 percent decided. Therefore, Musgrove has much more room to grow. This is particularly evidence when we examine the data above which shows that while Musgrove had 26 percent of the white vote in May, the number has been fairly stable for the last four months. Furthermore, as we found above, if the undecided voters break along the same lines as the decideds, and black turnout goes up to 39 percent, he will squeeze out the barest of victories.

It is clearly going to be a tall order, but no matter who wins, the race is going to be very close.

Links: May poll, July poll, and September poll.

Note: A state circuit court judge today ruled that the special election must move to the top of the ballot, just below the presidential race. This is a win for Musgrove, but given the composition of the state supreme court, it would be a surprise, at least to me, if this decision is ultimately upheld by the Mississippi high court. Stay tuned.