TrumantoLong

With Souter's Retirement, Obama Should Be Bold in His Choice

2009-05-01T14:05:00.000-07:00

With the word leaking out last night that Justice David Souter will retire from the Supreme Court at the end of the current term, President Barack Obama is presented with what may be his greatest opportunity -- now, or perhaps even over eight years should be re-elected in 2012 -- to shape the judiciary and create a permanent legacy for his own presidency. However, while some in the administration and elsewhere might prefer to elevate a moderate nominee who will engender less controversy and thus obtain somewhat easier approval from the Senate, I believe that Obama do the exact opposite and be bold in his choice to replace Souter. Obama should look to appoint both a young and established liberal intellectual to both give himself a more-lasting imprint on the Federal judiciary and to ensure a more robust liberal bloc on the High Court over the next generation.

In making a SCOTUS nomination, Presidents today are ultra careful in picking a nominee without a hint of written controversy or bold thinking -- left or right -- in their background. I am suggesting that not only should Obama not rule out someone who might have a little bit of controversy in his or her background, but that he should actively seek such a nominee. Indeed, while being bold may not be something the young administration wants to do just months out of the gate and with a myriad of other problems in the hopper, Obama and Democrats will never, ever have as great a chance as they do right now to pick a bold and clearly liberal choice to the Supreme Court.

For those who are not lawyers or big SCOTUS followers, I am not going to use this post to focus on any legal minutia; instead I am going to look solely at pragmatic and political concerns inherent in Obama's impending decision and why he should resist the conventional wisdom of a Sonia Sotomayor. I am not even going to go over the rosters of names you're seeing all over the place because I do not think that is terribly important right now given the deluge of similar analysis across the web today.

The State of the Supreme Court: Advantage Conservatives

As it stands today, conservatives have a decided advantage when it comes to control of the Supreme Court. This should be no real surprise given that seven of the nine Justices were appointed by Republican Presidents. Yet beyond that, conservatives look to have a strong hold on the Court in the years to come because Republican Presidents were also wiser in their appointments than Democrats (actually, just Bill Clinton). This is because Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush actively sought out nominees who were young and could sit on the High Court for over a generation. To demonstrate what this means, let's examine the current Court roster:

Chief Justice John Roberts Jr: 53 years old, 50 when appointed by Bush II
Justice John Paul Stevens: 89 years old, 55 when appointed by Ford
Justice Antonin Scalia: 72 years old, 50 when appointed by Reagan
Justice Anthony Kennedy: 72 years old; 51 when appointed by Reagan
Justice David Souter: 67 years old; 50 when appointed by Bush I
Justice Clarence Thomas: 60 years old; 43 when appointed by Bush I
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg: 76 years old; 60 when appointed by Clinton
Justice Stephen Breyer: 70 years old; 55 when appointed by Clinton
Justice Samuel Alito: 59 years old; 55 when appointed by Bush II

Clearly, Republicans have a more conservative Supreme Court today because GOP Presidents have been in office to proffer nominations for most of the current Justices. But a part of this control comes from the foresight of Presidents Reagan, Bush and Bush in tapping jurists who could serve for the long haul. 50, 55, 50, 51, 50, 43, and 55 were ages of the GOP-appointed Justices at the time of their elevation. Breyer was a fair 55 when picked by Bill Clinton, but Ruth Bader Ginsberg was 60 years old when she was named to replace Byron White in 1993. Faced with a conservative-dominated Supreme Court even in 1993 and 1994, President Clinton showed an astonishing lack of foresight in going with, simply put, old nominees for the vacancies he was given when the Court was already Republican-dominated in the early nineties.

For those who don't follow the Court as much, Justices Stevens and Souter have turned out fair more leftist than their original sponsors ever anticipated, and today they are both part of the generally-named liberal core on the Court, along with Ginsburg and Breyer. Chief Justice Roberts, along with Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito make up the conservative bloc. Justice Kennedy is the Court's biggest swing vote, but it is fair to say that he sways to the right on more matters than not. Still, even Kennedy aside, there is a four-man conservative group with an average of 61 (53+72+60+59) years old. The liberal bloc's average age (including Souter) comes to 75.5 (89+67+76+70) years old; excluding Souter the average is 78.3 years old -- almost 20 years above the average of the conservative core. I grant that the latter numbers are skewed heavily by Justice Stevens' advanced age, but the fact is that he is on the Court and apparently still running strong. Therefore, we have no idea when he will finally hang up his spurs, and must include him. What are those numbers again?

Average age of the Conservative Core: 61 years
Average age of the Liberal Core: 78.3 years

Consequently, what we have today is a Court which is controlled by a majority conservative group, and which, barring an unforeseen retirement or passing, will be controlled by this group in the years to come. In other words, barring the shocking retirement of Justice Scalia in the near future, these Justices will control the tenor and direction of the Court's jurisprudence regardless of who President Obama replaces Justice Souter with (or even Justice Stevens, assuming he retires in the coming years). Given these circumstances, Obama should look long and hard at who he wants to on the Court (duh!).

Building a Liberal Intellectual Center on the Court

In my view, this is the crux of the choice facing Obama as he considers Souter's replacement. Does he go with the expected choice, likely a more moderate, milquetoast judge who is today sitting on the United States Courts of Appeal and has been careful to not issue many opinions which could be seen as politically controversial? Or does he decide to make a bold choice and tap a clearly liberal individual who has expressed her ideology and bold viewpoint(s) at some point? Naturally, there are many ways to frame Obama's decision and it is not such a simple matter as looking at one angle, but I want to look at the decision from this viewpoint.

I have zero doubt that the initial inclination of many politicians and even some higher-ups in the administration is to take the less-controversial route, and tap a nominee on one of the Federal circuit courts who possesses a written record that does not smack of liberal leanings, or really any leanings at all. The thought process behind this is that such a nominee might encounter Republican resistance -- heck, it is not possible to find a nominee who would be unopposed by the right -- but he or she will nonetheless be much more easily confirmed.

Additionally, I think that one of the key aims of the White House in its pick is to find a non-white male, specifically a female, black, Hispanic, et al., or some combination thereof. This is why you are going to hear the name Sonia Sotomayor many, many times over the next few months, up to when Obama names his choice. Indeed, Sotomayor is both a woman and a Hispanic, so she possesses two assets Obama is likely seeking; not to mention, she has a good life story and is a longtime member of the Second Circuit, arguably the second most prestigious court after the Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit, and thus she has instant legal credibility as a nominee.

Nonetheless, I think Sotomayor, as well as several other potential nominees whose names have been bandied about for years are uninspiring, and frankly mediocre political choices, and Obama should look in other directions. Put another way, in part because individuals like Sotomayor are perceived as the best -- read: safest -- potential selections, Obama should look elsewhere for three important reasons.

Searching for Brennan

While its legacy remains intact in many key areas, much to the consternation of liberals, the Warren Court has been gone for some time. It was finally replaced by the Rehnquist Court in the late 1980s and 1990s, and even a bit today by the Roberts Court's decisions. The Warren Court represented the high point in modern legal history where a robust bloc of liberal judges controlled American jurisprudence. Led by Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, William Douglas, and Thurgood Marshall, the Warren Court made a lasting impact on a plethora of matters which exists up through today, despite the best efforts of skeptical conservative jurists. The last living parts of this body disappeared with the retirement of Marshall in 1991, and death of Brennan in 1997. Since then, the liberal spirit that embodied the Warren Court has been left without a voice. With this nominations, and perhaps with others, Obama can make a bold move to find new similar voices in the mold of Brennan and Marshall. In fact, I believe that Obama should actively seek out a leading liberal voice to do just that, as the opportunity to carry out such an appointment in today's super-polarized environment may never be greater than it is now.

In seeking Justice Souter's replacement, Obama should consider first and foremost not moderate "consensus-builders" but clear liberal thinkers in the mold of William Brennan. Should he do so, he could put the stamp on his own legacy, and ingratiate liberals by hearkening back to the Warren Court.

Now, what do I mean exactly? Obama should try to implant a new core component on the Court to help bolster what is clearly an aged liberal bloc. Obama should aim not for another Breyer -- an unquestioned smart and qualified lower court judge -- but instead look for another Marshall: an individual who may have a clearly left-wing bent in his or her legal outlook, and who also may have the unique social background to influence his or her jurisprudence. This may seem counter-intuitive given today's confirmation wars, but in the end Obama should actively look for a jurist who has written, orated and expounded on the big legal questions of the day, and not look for the Roberts-lite model who carefully eschewed ever expressing anything noteworthy all in the name of confirmation expediency.

This would take boldness, a boldness to find and tap a nominee with a clear and established liberal record, and stand by him or her while all the stones and rocks are being thrown, and the ensure their confirmation with numerous cowardly senators looking for cover.

55 or older need not apply

This consideration is the easiest to delineate. Simply that Obama should look very closely at the age of a prospective nominee, and he should reject certain choices if they are too old. While it is impossible to pinpoint the "right" age of a choice, I think that Obama should nix any one who is over 55 years old, if not 53.

As demonstrated above, the liberal core today is way too old, especially when compared with the conservative bloc of Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito. Appointing an older nominee over 55 or perhaps closer to 60 would do very little to help begin to put in place a liberal bloc -- and thus a liberal legacy -- for the new President. Should Obama put on some one in the late 50s, that person might end up retiring before Roberts and Alito despite being tapped some years after those choices. Such a possibility should be untenable for Obama and his brain trust.

As a result, many of the people supposedly on the President's list should be axed. Others on the cusp of 55, including both Sotomayor and Obama friend and famous law professor Cass Sunstein are right on the our line, and that fact should be given strong consideration. In my view, the closer a credible possibility is to the good side of 50, the better.

This mean seem overly-simplistic, and thus kind of silly; I can understand that. But the fact is that if Obama wants to make an impact on the Court, and begin to remake the Court's makeup, he cannot go with a nominee who won't be around Washington for at least a generation. The change to remake a new Court in the mold of the Warren Court -- or whatever you'd like to call it -- is going to take many years and many changes on the body, and thus can only be ensured with truly young, new blood.

The Time is Ripest

The third key reason for Obama to make a bold (and liberal) selection is that the current national political environment and the makeup of the Senate are more advantageous for Obama to make such a move than they have been in decades, and they may not be this favorable to a Democratic President again for 100 years.

For one thing, Obama today enjoys impressive approval ratings, and they have remained steady for some time. Sure, those numbers won't stay in the 60s forever, but right now -- and likely for the near future -- they are solid, and as a result, Obama has a good deal of political capital to spend. And there are few areas of greater importance today that the U.S. Supreme Court.

Second, is the composition of the Senate, where Democrats have a very large majority which verges on 60 votes -- the number needed to turn off Republican filibusters. With Arlen Specter's high-profile switch earlier this week, Democrats now sit at 59, and it is likely they will get to 60 whenever Al Franken is seated, an eventuality I think will occur at before Obama's nomination is ultimately voted on. It's not every day that a President enjoys a 60-seat majority in the upper chamber, and Obama would be crazy not to take advantage by putting on someone with unquestioned liberal credentials as opposed to a moderate who he hopes could garner a couple of Republican stragglers.

Make no mistake: basically irregardless of any nominee Obama will pick, Republicans will strongly object and fight. Even if Obama picks the most uncontroversial, moderate jurist, he can expect nearly every Republican Senator to vote 'no.' The judicial wars have become too partisan, and much too important for Republicans to ever strongly support any high Democratic nominee, whether it be for the Supreme Court or for an important seat on a circuit. Obama can expect incredible opposition for just about any of the names being bandied about, as well as others not being considered.

Judicial nominations today are the golden issue for the Republican base. During the second Bush administration, GOPers returned to the issue time and again as a means of ginning up their base -- using endless fundraising appeals, and who can forget the "Justice for Judges" Senate marathon where Bill Frist halted all business to have the Senate discuss a handful of judicial nominations for 50 hours straight? -- and bashing Democrats as "obstructionist." This is because many conservatives view the judiciary, and the High Court especially, as a crucial place of focus, and that the ability to place strong conservatives on the Federal courts is the key step towards undoing Roe v. Wade and other decisions they view as abominations. With Republicans no longer in control of the confirmation process -- GOPers had a robust 55-seat majority in 2005, allowing them to easily place Roberts and Alito on the bench with little trouble or resistence -- they may not be able to stop Obama's nomination, but they sure as heck will object, if for no other reason than to reinvigorate their base after long strings of bad electoral news.

Unfortunately for Republicans, none of that should matter since, as the vote-count below demonstrates, Obama should be able to get 51 votes for confirmation (we will get to the filibuster question afterward).

Counting the votes

Let's go through the entire Senate roster and determine how a vote might look for any Obams SCOTUS nomination

Absolutely, positively 100% sure to vote for any choice
Daniel Akaka (HI), Mark Begich (AK), Michael Bennet (CO), Jeff Bingaman (NM), Barbara Boxer (CA), Sherrod Brown (OH), Roland Burris (IL), Maria Cantwell (WA), Ben Cardin (MD), Tom Carper (DE), Bob Casey (PA), Chris Dodd (CT), Richard Durbin (IL), Russ Feingold (WI), Dianne Feinstein (CA), Al Franken (MN), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Kay Hagan (NC), Tom Harkin (IA), Dan Inouye (HI), Tim Johnson (SD), Ed Kaufman (DE), Ted Kennedy (MA), John Kerry (MA), Amy Klobuchar (MN), Herb Kohl (WI), Frank Lautenberg (NJ), Patrick Leahy (VT), Carl Levin (MI), Joe Lieberman (CT), Claire McCaskill (MO), Bob Menendez (NJ), Jeff Merkley (OR), Barbara Mikulski (MD), Patty Murray (WA), Bill Nelson (FL), Mark Pryor (AR), Jack Reed (RI), Harry Reid (NV), Jay Rockefeller (WV), Bernie Sanders (VT), Chuck Schumer (NY), Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Debbie Stabenow (MI), Jon Tester (MT) (facing a very hard re-elect in 2012, but I think he hunkers down on this vote), Mark Udall (CO), Tom Udall (NM), Mark Warner (VA) (moderate freshman, but hard to see him opposing), Jim Webb (VA) (facing a difficult challenge in 2012, but he's his own man), Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), and Ron Wyden (WA).

Naturally, some of these votes will be weaker than others. Begich was just elected in red Alaska, barely beating Ted Stevens, but he does not face the voters again until 2014. Bennet could also face a tough race next year, but I can't see him bucking the President. Hagan is from North Carolina, but she won by nine points, and Pryor just won a second term unopposed. Warner just won his first term with incredible ease. The two hardest votes could be Tester and Webb, as both face potentially rough races in 2012, but both of their temperments -- tough as heck -- and political outlooks (mostly socially liberal) are precisely the kind to back the President on a tough vote like SCOTUS.

The total from this list comes to 51 votes, a exact majority needed for confirmation, and we have not even gotten to the nine weaker Dem votes. Those are Max Baucus (MT), Evan Bayh (IN), Robert Byrd (WV), Kent Conrad (ND), Byron Dorgan (ND), Mary Landrieu (LA), Blanche Lincoln (AR), Ben Nelson (NE), and Arlen Specter. Of these, I would expect Conrad and Dorgan to vote 'aye', even though they are from North Dakota; both are usually stand-up votes. Ditto Bayh, despite his strange push to the center of late. Lincoln is facing re-election next year, so who knows? Byrd and Landrieu are entirely unpredictable, and Nelson and Specter could certainly vote against since they are probably the two most Republican-leaning Dem votes in the Senate. And these are conservative estimates; the point being that cobbling together a simple majority for any nominee should be imminently doable.

On the GOP, we can pencil in just about every one of them voting 'no' regardless of the nominee. Senators Collins, Lugar, Snowe, and Voinovich could possibly vote for some nominees, with Snowe and Collins voted for any female nominee, in my opinion. That makes, by my count, 36 GOP Senators who are guaranteed 'no' votes for the Souter replacement.

Filibuster trouble?

Which leads us to the $64,000 question: could Obama's nominee by filibustered? It seems clear me that any Obama nominee will able to muster a majority in the Senate despite the presence of many moderate Democrats and others who face tough re-elections over the next two cycles. Therefore, the most troubling thing that could derail his nominee's chances in the Senate would be a Republican filibuster aimed at bottling up the nomination. To properly assess this possibility, we should look at two issues: first, the chances of Republicans deciding to mount a filibuster, and second, whether or not they could find any Democrats to join the filibuster in order to ensure that cloture -- three-fifths of the body -- can not materialize.

To be candid, a Republican filibuster of Obama's nominee would represent the absolute height of political hypocrisy. When Bush II was in office, and Republicans reigned in the Senate, they screeched and howled when Democrats held up a small handful of Bush's nominees to the courts of appeal. Bush himself as well as Republicans in the Senate led by then-Majority Leader Bill Frist assailed the blocking and called Democratic use of the filibuster to bottle up judicial nominations against Senate rules. In turn, they threatened the so-called "nuclear option" which would have eliminated Democrats' filibusters and led to partisan warfare on the Senate floor even greater than that which pervaded the institution at the time (and today).

For Republicans to decide now today that filibustering judicial nominees is a-okay after decrying their use so vociferously would smack of hypocrisy and partisan double standards. Really, it would defy fair and reasoned explanation. Perhaps amusingly, despite all of that, I expect a great many Republican Senators to push using a filibuster on Obama's nominee. Times have changed since 2003-to-2005, and desperate times call for desperate measures. Republicans have lost over a dozen seats over the past two midterm elections. Today they sit at just 40, a small minority. Their options are very limited, and perhaps more important, their caucus is dominated almost entirely by strong conservatives who take glee in partisan batles and view the judicial nominations process as more vital than any matter other the Senate considers -- ground zero for the culture wars.

I think a great many Republicans, probably a majority of the current caucus will support a filibuster should they find Obama's choice particularly objectionable. To Republicans, even if a filibuster was doomed from the start, it would at least be a means of ginning up the party faithful on a favorite issue and perhaps improve immediate party fundraising. And we all know that in light of the recent "tea parties" and subsequent activities, elected Republicans are today not averse to playing solely to their hardcore supporters.

Whether or not Mitch McConnell and the GOP leadership would be able to convince their entire caucus to support a filibuster is another matter. While the 40-Member caucus is nearly entirely right wing, there would be no margin for error here: McConnell would have to convince every person in his caucus to filibuster, and then go and find at least one Democrat to join in. The first matter would hardly be guaranteed, mostly because of the presence of Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. That McConnell could arm-twist and cajole his caucus into being united against Obama's choice is not a possibility I would dismiss; in fact, I believe he could do it, simply by appealing to their diminished status. However, the hardest part might be getting the Maine twins on board, and I think their support for filibuster would depend solely on the specific nominee; in other words, they would not be a sure filibuster vote regardless of nominee as a Tom Coburn or Jim DeMint would be.

To be frank, if Obama ends up nominating a woman, I can't see Snowe and Collins voting against her confirmation, much less voting to uphold a filibuster. This is especially true if someone like Sonia Sotomayor is the pick. But let's assume that Obama nominates a very established male liberal for the post, and as a result, not only do Republicans mount a filibustering effort, but that Snowe, Collins, Lugar, and Voinovich all jump on board. If all of that happens, I still think a filibuster would fail. It would fail for the simple reason that I can't see even a single Democrat voting with Republicans to block a nomination.

Even the most unscrupulous, self-interested pol would have a hard time bucking his leadership and the White House and go support a filibuster. Should a Member decide that he or she can't vote 'aye' for one reason or another, they can always vote against confirmation in the end (assuming their vote is not vitally needed). But they would be forbidden from filibustering. In terms of the most dangerous possible switch-over, Arlen Specter, I find very hard to envision him casting one of his first big votes as a Democrat to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee and thus embarrass the President. Such a move would assure Specter of a nasty primary fight -- something he would just as soon avoid now. If Specter has any political sense, he wont do something so foolish.

As a result, I don't see a filibuster as particularly viable, or at all likely to succeed even if the Republicans are united. What this means is that Obama has the ability to make a bold choice for Souter's replacement, and he should almost certainly have more than enough votes to assure confirmation. Given this reality, he should be timid in who he decides to nominate.

Conclusion

I set out to write this little piece mostly because I've been hearing the name Sonia Sotomayor for some time, and I find her potential nomination both uninspiring on a personal and political level. Sure, Sotomayor is the "obvious" choice because she is a woman, she is Hispanic, she has a nice life story and a great pedigree, and she sits on a respected appellate court, therefore making her nomination both ground-breaking and completely viable.

Yet, I think Obama can do better, much better. In my amateur legal view -- I did not go to Hah-vahd, I did not clerk, and I am not one of those lawyers who likes to tell people in casual conversation that I was on the law review (in part because I wasn't!) -- Sotomayor is legally undistinguished, and has written few noteworthy opinions and even fewer legal articles which espouse anything bold. And this does not only apply to Sotomayor, but to numerous appellate court judges who are likely being considered and are today being mentioned in the many articles pervading media and cyberspace.

The fact is that is I view the U.S. Courts of Appeals as a judicial Senate of sorts. It is full of smart, and super-ambitious judges who dream of perhaps one day sitting on the High Court, much in the same way that many senators dream of sitting in the Oval Office (though, to be fair, I think all senators dream of being President). As a result, many of these judges are incredibly meticulous in writing narrow, vanilla opinions and articles in hopes of never saying anything controversial while at the same time perhaps attracting the attention of a White House counsel or someone at People for the American Way who could push their name as a confirmable Justice one day. This view well describes some of the Court today: certainly John Roberts and maybe Stephen Breyer. And these are precisely the names that Obama should not seek to duplicate.

For one thing, nowhere in the Constitution does it require that a Justice by a former judge on a Federal circuit court, despite the fact that that is where most Justices now come from. Additionally, Obama does not have to pick someone who is over 55 years old. Being old is not a constitutional prerequisite.

From the liberal perspective, what the Supreme Court most needs now is an intellectual thinking capable of leading a new bloc and generating new ideas for the new century. If it were up to me, I would pick someone like Noah Feldman, a 39-year old Harvard Law School professor. Feldman is a brilliant legal thinker, and he has written and expounded on a host of legal topics of considerable significance. Yes, he has said many controversial things that would drive conservatives up a wall and lead to nasty (but nonetheless fun-to-watch) confirmation hearings, but he's a true intellectual, and perhaps most important, he could serve for 40 or more years.

I just use Feldman as an example of what I think Obama should look for: a bold, smart selection. Realistically, Obama is not going to pick Feldman because he is too bold, and also because he wants to tap a minority candidate or a woman. But from a political standpoint, it is my hope that Obama, a former constitutional law professor with perhaps a greater appreciation for the judicial process than any President in recent history, will fully recognize the need to consider a new direction for his choice, and he won't take the default route of a court of appeals judge with a milquetoast record. Someone like Feldman who is being considered seriously is Elana Kagan. Given that she is under 50 years old, she might be the best option of the names today being circulated (though, the fact that she has been Solicitor General for around a month might complicate matters). Someone like Cass Sunstein -- a well known law professor, and also Obama friend -- would be good, but his age of 55 concerns me some.

I have no doubt that Obama is taking the issue extremely seriously. This is one decision where he is a super-expert in making a wise choice. But he should decide not to put someone too old on the Court. In this layman's view, 55 years old should be the high mark, if not even lower than that. And at the very least, he should not shy away from any choice simply because that person might be seen as too controversial because they've actually expressed their views in public.

If he wants, Obama can use this nomination as the first step towards finally finding for liberals their new judicial icon, both to replace what men like William Brennan provided, and to counteract the overshadowing work on Antonin Scalia, and now John Roberts. It's up to him whether he wants to be safe or bold.

Richardson's Fall

2009-04-18T20:43:00.000-07:00

Politics is a rough business. Just ask Bill Richardson. In the first extended interview of Richardson since he withdrew as Obama's Commerce Secretary nominee, the Washington Post paints a somewhat sad picture of the governor.

Maybe it is dreary to me alone, but I find Richardson's past few months kind of amazing. Sure, he never had a legitimate chance at the White House, but as late as last year, he was the political king of New Mexico, and a strong contender to be a United States Senator or Secretary of State. Instead, Richardson passed on a Senate run (in my opinion, because he thought it would be small potatoes to someone who had already been in Congress and the cabinet; which is too bad, since he would have won in a walk), and Obama passed Richardson over for the SOS slot for Hillary Clinton, despite Richardson's primary endorsement of Obama. (While Richardson was not happy about the decision, deep down he had to appreciate Obama's political calculus in selecting his former bitter foe over a helpful ally, proving once again that in politics, expediency almost always trumps loyalty.)

Anyway, after reading this piece, I thought of that great line in "The Dark Knight", where Harvey Dent (or maybe it was Bruce Wayne, or both), says "you either die a hero, or you live long enough to become the villain." I hate to equate real-life matters to movies, and I am not saying Richardson is a hero, but clearly he is a man who may have stayed on the big stage just a bit too long, and as a result he finds himself as yesterday's news.

The New PVI Ratings (and what they mean), Part II

2009-04-13T20:17:00.001-07:00

For congressional Republicans, the proof is in the numbers and the numbers are not good. The Republicans have done an absolutely pitiful job in recruiting moderates and preserving districts that are even to swing in their leanings. Sure, Democrats benefited enormously from two consecutive national "change" elections where voters moved to throw the perceived "bums" (the Republicans) out of power and move to punish the party of the hugely unpopular George W. Bush.

But a big part of the results were that Democrats seized their opportunities through superb fundraising, and even more importantly, outstanding recruitment of candidates who were ultimately able to win moderately red districts and very, very red districts. At the same time, Republicans were almost impotent in their quest to recruit. Make no mistake, however, this was not some new phenomenon borne of our of 43rd President. As our last post shows, Democrats have had a built-in advantage in branching out to districts for some time.

To wit: consider Gene Taylor (elected 1989), Jim Matheson (2000), Ike Skelton (1976), Rick Boucher (1982), and Chet Edwards (1990). Each of them was elected several terms ago, and all of them have become well entrenched in their insanely Republican homelands.

And the Republicans? Mike Castle was elected in 1992, Frank LoBiando in 1994, Pat Tiberi and Mark Kirk in 2000, Jim Gerlach in 2002, Charlie Dent and Dave Reichert in 2004, and Cao in 2008. For those eight Members, that comes out to an average of 7.5 years, or just under four terms a pop.

In order to not draw on a limited sample for the Dems, let's look at the elected years of all of the Democrats (note that I will clump in special election winners from odd years in the next election cycle; so, for example, Gene Taylor, who first won his seat in 1989, will be listed in the 1990 cycle) to make a fuller comparison:

2008 (21): Halvorson, Foster, Adler, Grayson, Schauer, Kissel, Dahlkemper, Kosmas, McMahon, Boccieri, Massa, Nye, Periello, Kirkpatrick, Markey, Teague, Griffith, Kratovil, Childers, Bright, Minnick.

2006 (15): McNerney, Walz, Donnelly, Gillibrand*, Arcuri, Wilson, Kagan, Hall, Giffords, Mitchell, Shuler, Altmire, Space, Ellsworth, Carney

2004 (5): Bean, Herseth-Sandlin, Chandler, Melancon, Boren

2002 (2): Marshall, Lincoln Davis

2000 (2): Matheson, Ross

1998 (3): Moore, Rodriguez, Hill

1996 (5): Berry, Snyder, Ethridge, McIntyre, Boyd

1992 (3): Stupak, Holden, Pomeroy

1990 (3): Taylor, Edwards, Peterson

1988 (1): Tanner

1984 (1): Gordon

1982 (4): Boucher, Ortiz, Mollohan, Sprat

1976 (2): Skelton, Rahall

1974 (1): Murtha

All together, the average tenure of service for these 69 Democratic Members of Congress comes to approximately 7.6 years, or just about four terms. This comes out to be the same as the GOP average, where the universe is clearly far smaller. Excluding the 21 freshman (plus Childers and Foster), the number ticks up to 10.98 years, or five and a half terms. In case you can't tell, these are pretty big numbers. And at least to me, they demonstrate impressive staying power for Dems in many districts they really have no place winning and then keeping.

The reason I spell out these averages here is because I want to refute the notion that Democratic control of these districts is not indicative of anything salient, and that once another electoral tide appears, this one against the Blue Team, then many of these Members will be washed out. Not so.

Note that 15 of the Members above came to office before the Republican Revolution of 1994. In other words, they withstood the enormous anti-Democratic tide of that year -- many of them easily -- and they have hung on ever since. To me, this is critically important because it shows that Democratic success in congressional elections has not hinged on the 2006 and 2008 elections alone. The seeds of triumph were planted in the ground and grown up before then, in numerous examples years before.

What this all means is practical terms is that Dems have a tremendous blueprint in place for winning and holding seats across the country, while the Republicans have a terrible existing model. The Republican Party will be unable to win back Congress and then hold it again if it cannot find a way to either (1) dislodge a lot of the above Dems, either through direct challenge or via retirements; (2) begin to promulgate their own candidates who can win in deep blue territory; or (3) both.

So what's their best option before them? Let's consider the route of taking these seats back for Team Red. There is certainly low-hanging fruit here. Minnick and Bright are in overwhelmingly GOP districts, and they won their seats by less than 2% apiece. Other freshman had problems winning last year, and can be beaten with some luck and gumption by the Republicans.

But problems abound, most notably that a great many of these Democrats, particularly the entrenched ones, are not that old and are thus unlikely to retire soon. For example, Gene Taylor and Chet Edwards are both under 60 years old, Ben Chandler is 49, and Jim Matheson is only 48! None of them will ever lose, barring some very unforeseen development, and this should drive Republicans nuts because they should own these seats like the Giants own the Cowboys in big games.

There are exceptions, of course. Minnick and Bright, for one, Skelton's seat once he retires (assuming he doesn't leave in 2012 and his seat is dissolved when Missouri loses a seat in the next census), Grayson (who I think has one term written all over him), and Kratovil, who will face enormous obstacles to hang on next year. The fact still remains that making significant inroads in Dem-occupied red lands could take the Elephants many years. Still, their best bet is that group of 36 name that gained elected over the last two cycles. The GOP needs to try to pick off some of those to ensure they don't become entrenched and end up as a group of new Taylors and Tanners. Unfortunately, since several of the '06 crop won second terms with such ease, it may be too late for many fronts.

In my mind, this leaves proper recruitment as both the best shortterm and longterm panacea for the Republicans. I know, I know: this is some revelation! Yet, for a party that has so clearly done a piss-poor job of branching out politically into districts as well as the Donkeys, it might not be as clear to the GOP House brass as it is to keen political observers like T2L's readers.

One of the worst things that has happened to the Republican Party in the last several years, besides losing the House, the Senate, and the White House, is that the party has become painfully marginalized, mostly because its moderate elements have been defeated, retired, excommunicated, or have shriveled up and died politically.

These names are many: Jim Saxton (a pro-environment Republican who was denied the Resources chairmanship by his party several years back), Nancy Johnson (ousted in 2006), Clay Shaw (also knocked out in '06), Wayne Gilchrest (moderate beaten in a primary in 2008), Joe Schwarz (another moderate knocked out in a primary in 2006), Sherwood Boehlert (retired in 2006), Marge Roukema (denied the Financial Services gavel in 2002, retired, and replaced by an ultra-conservative), Jim Kolbe (retired in 2006 and replaced with a popular Democrat), and finally the smartest GOPer and moderate in the House, Tom Davis, who retired after the Virginia GOP effectively blocked him from running for Senate for not being conservative enough; ironically, his replacement was trounced by a Democrat.

The loss of these moderates has crippled the GOP, not just because many of their seats became votes for Pelosi for Speaker, but because the absence of their voices hurts the ability of the party caucus as a whole to be fully pragmatic and productive. As of now, the House Republican caucus likely resembles an echo chamber, where all the Members from Texas, Utah, Georgia and the like all repeat and endorse the same failed strategies and extremists perspectives. These Members needed those voices, a fact many of them likely cannot (or willfully will not) fathom. Until they do, the House GOP caucus's mission to get back to majority status will not happen. Period.

Tomorrow I want to highlight a fresh story from today which highlights the dangers of conservative marginalization, and its plain absurdities in a political environment that remains caustic to Republicans.

New PVI Ratings (and what they mean)

2009-04-13T15:13:00.000-07:00

In the last few days, the venerable Charlie Cook has released the latest Partisan Voting Index (PVI) numbers for all 435 congressional districts in the House of Representatives. As regular readers of T2L know, we rely heavily on Cook's famous numbers to provide a great gauge of a specific district's partisan lean, as well as great fodder for endless discussion of politics.

For those of you unfamiliar with the system, or curious about how a PVI is tabulated, here is what Cook says:

A Partisan Voting Index score of D+2, for example, means that in the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections, that district performed an average of two points more Democratic than the nation did as a whole, while an R+4 means the district performed four points more Republican than the national average. If a district performed within half a point of the national average in either direction, we assign it a score of EVEN.

To determine the national average for these latest ratings, we have taken the average Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote for 2004 and 2008, which is roughly 51.3 percent, and that of Republicans, which is roughly 48.7 percent. So, if John Kerry captured 55 percent of the vote in a district and Barack Obama carried 57 percent in the district four years later, the district would have a PVI score of roughly D+5.

Like any other measure, the PVI is not perfect. Assuredly, there are a myriad of other ways to evaluate political lean or partisanship in a state or particular legislative district. However, given its rich history and strong reputation, I think Cook's system is the best we have in creating a thorough evaluation tool for congressional districts.

Last year, we looked at the PVI numbers of the 110th Congress in a variety of ways. Indeed, there are so many fascinating ways to dissect and examine PVI data, that one could spend ages doing it. Here, we spent a good deal of time looking at crossover Members; in other words, Republicans representing districts that have Democratic-leaning PVIs, and Democrats who represent districts that lean towards the Republicans in national elections. After drawing them all out, the numbers were pretty stark, and they are worth pasting below for review:

110th Congress

Republicans representing Dem districts (14)

D+0 -- Tom Latham (IA-04)

D+1 -- Bill Young (FL-10), Vito Fossella (NY-13)

D+2 -- Heather Wilson (NM-01), Peter King (NY-03), Jim Gerlach (PA-06), Charlie Dent (PA-15), Dave Reichert (WA-08)

D+3 -- Jim Saxton (NJ-03), James Walsh (NY-25)

D+4 -- Mark Kirk (IL-10), Frank LoBiando (NJ-02)

D+5 -- Chris Shays (CT-4)

D+6 --

D+7 -- Mike Castle (DE-AL)

D+8, 9, 10... None

At the time I made this post (August), here is what I wrote about the Republicans' congressional situation:

These numbers are absolutely pathetic and should be troubling to any Republican. Of these 14, two seats -- Fossella's and Walshs's -- are almost assured of flipping in November, as both men are retiring (Fossella under bad circumstances), and the Democrats have strong nominees in each facing weak GOP opponents. Saxton is retiring, and the Democrats have recruited an excellent nominee (thought the race is a toss-up as the district has unique geographic which could favor the weak GOP nominee). And with Wilson leaving Congress after running for the Senate (and losing her primary), and Kirk, Reichert, and Shays all facing very tough races this year, all of their seats could potentially flip. At an absolute worst case scenario, half of these seats could be gone this time next year. More likely, I see four or perhaps five of them flipping -- still a good results for Dems and a bad one for GOPers. This would leave nine of ten GOP Representatives sitting in Democratic seats out of close to 200 Members in the caucus.

(As it turned out, Republicans ended up losing several of the seats which belonged to the retiring Members, as well as numerous other ones which did not appear quite as endangered in three months before the election.)

Democrats representing GOP districts (51)

R+0 -- Vic Snyder (AR-02), Carol Shea Porter (NH-01)

R+1 -- Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-08), Tim Walz (MN-01), John Hall (NY-19), Michael Arcuri (NY-24), Solomon Ortiz (TX-27), Henry Cuellar (TX-28)

R+2 -- Allen Boyd (FL-02), Tim Mahoney (FL-16), Bart Stupak (MI-01)

R+3 -- Jerry McNerney (CA-11), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY-20), Bob Ethridge (NC-02), Mike McIntyre (NC-07), Jason Altmire (PA-04), Lincoln Davis (TN-04)

R+4 -- Harry Mitchell (AZ-05), Joe Donnelly (IN-02), Dennis Moore (KS-03), Bart Gordon (TN-06), Ciro Rodriguez (TX-23), Steve Kagan (WI-04)

R+5 -- Melissa Bean (IL-08), Bill Foster (IL-14), Charlie Melancon (LA-03), Dan Boren (OK-02)

R+6 -- Bud Cramer (AL-05), John Salazar (CO-03), Collin Peterson (MN-07), Zach Space (OH-18), John Spratt (NC-05), Alan Mollohan (WV-02)

R+7 -- Baron Hill (IN-09), Nancy Boyda (KS-02), Ben Chandler (KY-06), Don Cazayoux (LA-06), Heath Shuler (NC-11), Tim Holden (PA-17), Rick Boucher (VA-09)

R+8 -- Jim Marshall (GA-08), Chris Carney (PA-10)

R+9 -- Brad Ellsworth (IN-09)

R+10 -- Travis Childers (MS-01), Stephanie Herseth (SD-AL)

R+11 -- Ike Skelton (MO-04)

R+12 --

R+13 -- Earl Pomeroy (ND-AL)

R+14 --

R+15 -- Nick Lampson (TX-22)

R+16 -- Gene Taylor (MS-04)

R+17 -- Jim Matheson (UT-02)

R+18 -- Chet Edwards (TX-17)

And here is what I said about the Democratic breakdown back in August (forgive the extended remarks):

The total here is a whooping 51 Members in GOP-leaning districts, with an impressive eight of them in seats which are R+10 or more. Try to conceptualize this for a moment. R+10 means that the district averages 10 percentage points higher to the GOP side in presidential elections. Think about that a minute. These are seats that go to the Republican presidential nominee by huge margins. And not all of them have been around forever: Childers was elected this May, Lampson in 2006 (after serving in the House prior to Tom DeLay's redistricting plot redistricted him out of his seat), Herseth-Sandlin in 2004, and Matheson in 2000.

Right off the bat, I acknowledge that several of these individuals won their seats under unique circumstances involving corrupt or otherwise seriously flawed GOP incumbents. This list includes Gillibrand, Space, Cazayoux, Carney, and Lampson. Furthermore, many of these Members -- 18, to be exact -- won in the tidal wave of '06, and therefore, some of them will probably have close races this fall. There is no question that specifically, Shea Porter, Boyda, Cazayoux, Carney, and Lampson are going to have a tough time winning.

But this should not take away from this list broadly illustrates. It speaks volumes to the Democrats' outreach that they have just over 50 Members of their caucus in districts that are Republican, with over half in R+5 or greater districts. This is nothing short of amazing, even if it is partially the product of a rare wave election. Indeed, most of these men and women, even several in the infancy of their career, have already carved out electoral niches for themselves, and face minimal opposition this November. Others like Skelton, Pomeroy, and Edwards are basically unbeatable in enormously Republican districts. Sure, just about all of these seats will be gone when some of these men decide to hang it up, but the fact that they have held on this long says a lot about the political diversity of House Democratic Caucus and the national Democratic Party in general. Further, there are also plenty of Republicans whose districts will promptly turn the year they decide to "spend more time with their families."

Taken together, the 14 vs. 51 number says a great deal about the present state and future direction of the parties. Going further, whereas only two GOP reps have D+5 or greater districts, 28 Democrats are in R+5 or more districts. And I have no even gone into this year's map, where a plethora of Democrats appear even or slightly ahead in red districts.

Needless to say, my view then was that the Republicans were in grave danger of becoming an entirely right wing and regionalized political party while the Democrats had much greater extended success in electing and subsequently re-electing and entrenching their Members in Republican areas, as the rosters showed.

There are a plethora of ways to look deeper at the numbers. One is to look at the extremes: whereas there are just three Republicans today representing districts of D+5 or greater -- pretty darn blue places -- there are 43 Democrats in districts with a PVI of R+5 or more. That is a ratio of more than 14-to-1. And of those 43 Democrats, 26 of them have been in Congress for more than two terms so far.

In light of the new PVI numbers which I am about to go over, my view has not changed at all. If anything, I feel even more strongly in my arguments of seven months ago, as Republicans have lost nearly all of their moderates in the House, and Democrats have further bolstered their ranks with conservatives from bright red districts across the country.

How could this be possible given the wide dispartity that was already in place in the 110th Congress? Well, let's take a look:

111th Congress

Republicans representing Dem districts (8)

D+1 -- Frank LoBiando (NJ-02), Pat Tiberi (OH-12)

D+2 -- Charlie Dent (PA-15)

D+3 -- Dave Reichert (WA-08)

D+4 -- Jim Gerlach (PA-06)

D+5 --

D+6 -- Mark Kirk (IL-10)

D+7 -- Mike Castle (DE-AL)

D+25 -- Joseph Cao (LA-02)

Democrats representing GOP districts (69)

R+1 -- Jerry McNerney (CA-11), Melissa Bean (IL-08), Deborah Halvorson (IL-11), Bill Foster (IL-14), Tim Walz (MN-01), John Adler (NJ-03), John Murtha (PA-12)

R+2 -- Alan Grayson (FL-08), Joe Donnelly (IN-02), Mark Schauer (MI-07), Bob Ethridge (NC-02), Larry Kissel (NC-08), Kirstin Gillibrand (NY-20)*, Mike Arcuri (NY-24), Charlie Wilson (OH-06), Solomon Ortiz (TX-27), Steve Kagan (WI-08)

R+3 -- Dennis Moore (KS-03), Bart Stupak (MI-01), John Hall (NY-19), Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-03)

R+4 -- Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-08), Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24), Mike McMahon (NY-13), John Boccieri (OH-16), Ciro Rodriguez (TX-23)

R+5 -- Vic Snyder (AR-02), Harry Mitchell (AZ-05), John Salazar (CO-03), Collin Peterson (MN-07), Mike McIntyre (NC-07), Eric Massa (NY-29), Glenn Nye (VA-02), Tom Periello (VA-05)

R+6 -- Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01), Betsy Markey (CO-04), Allen Boyd (FL-02), Baron Hill (IN-09), Heath Shuler (NC-11), Harry Teague (NM-02), Jason Altmire (PA-04), Tim Holden (PA-17), John Tanner (TN-08), Nick Rahall (WV-03)

R+7 -- Mike Ross (AR-04), Zach Space (OH-18), John Spratt (SC-05)

R+8 -- Marion Berry (AR-01), Brad Ellsworth (IN-08), Chris Carney (PA-10)

R+9 -- Ben Chandler (KY-06), Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD-AL), Alan Mollohan (WV-01)

R+10 -- Jim Marshall (GA-08), Earl Pomeroy (ND-AL)

R+11 -- Rick Boucher (VA-09)

R+12 -- Parker Griffith (AL-05), Charlie Melancon (LA-03)

R+13 -- Frank Kratovil (MD-01), Lincoln Davis (TN-04), Bart Gordon (TN-06)

R+14 -- Ike Skelton (MO-04), Travis Childers (MS-01), Dan Boren (OK-02)

R+15 -- Jim Matheson (UT-02)

R+16 -- Bobby Bright (AL-02)

R+17 --

R+18 -- Walt Minnick (ID-01)

R+19 --

R+20 -- Gene Taylor (MS-01), Chet Edwards (TX-17)

The two numbers to focus on here are eight and 69. As in, there are just eight Republicans sitting in PVI blue seats, and a whooping 69 Democrats in red seats. That nearly a 9-to-1 ratio. (Note that for the 111th, Cook has gotten rid of R+0 and D+0 districts, finding that any time a district can be rounded down to zero, it is now rated as "EVEN").

Despite four Dems in the 110th losing their seats last November -- Tim Mahoney (FL-16), Nancy Boyda (KS-02), Don Cazayoux (LA-06), and Nick Lampson (TX-22) -- all the others held on, and Democrats went from 51 to 69 (though, to be precise, some Members' districts went from red to blue in their PVI number). That is not an insignificant gain by any stretch of the imagination.

In total, I count 21 freshman Democrats on this list (including Travis Childers and Bill Foster who were elected in spring 2008 special contests). Additionally, there are 15 Democrats on the list who won their second term in 2008.

Conversely, only one of the eight Republicans listed was elected in the last four years, Joseph Cao, and he is a fluke congressman who I would bet my Xemex watch and Oakley sunglasses will be tossed out next year like garbage strewn about after Mardi Gras. In other words, the Republicans are not electing any new blood to moderate districts and they are stuck with a small pack of Members which seems to dwindle a bit every two years. Indeed, from the 110th, the seats formerly held by Heather Wilson, Jim Saxton, Vito Fossella, James Walsh, and Chris Shays are now in the hands of the Democrats, with only Kirk, Gerlach, and Reichert surviving rough challenges.

In the next post, I will consider the implications of these numbers.

To the Victor, Goes the Spoils

2009-03-02T11:25:00.000-08:00

There's an interesting article in the St. Petersburg Times today I wanted to briefly highlight. Apparently, with the census not even completed and state legislative and congressional redistricting over two years away, a group of Florida Democrats is attempting to block Republicans from controlling the next round of redistricting by trying to pass state constitutional changes which would "require that voting districts be compact, contiguous, respect city and county boundaries whenever possible, and not favor incumbents or political parties."

State Democrats are concerned that Republicans, who control both houses of the state legislature, as well as the governorship (which looks very likely to remain in GOP hands if Gov. Charlie Crist seeks a second term in 2010), will draw maps that are decidedly unfavorable to Democrats in Tallahassee and in Congress, similar to the current maps which were put together by Jeb Bush and legislative GOPers in 2001.

While Democrats are rightly concerned by the specter of another round of harsh redistricting in 2011, I don't really agree with their efforts. Republicans deserve to be in charge of the process as they control Tallahassee with an iron fist. Democrats have had 10 years to retake the legislature, and they have failed, and they have not won the governor's mansion since Lawton Chiles was re-elected in 1998. Republicans have held on to their political power in fine style, and redistricting is one of the key plums that comes from their political consolidation in the Sunshine State. Similar efforts by both parties have been sprinkled across the national landscape in recent years, and I abhor each of them. If you are a staunch party member, and in your state your party has strong minority status, then you should not be able to draw the lines. That's just how it is. To the victor, goes the spoils.

In the article, several Dems loudly complain that the weird shapes of the districts themselves not only illustrate the fierce partisanship inherent in the process, but also that they make no sense and plainly look ugly. I find this line of argument more silly than anything else that is generally said in the fights that surrounds redistricting. The fact is that any districts, no matter how aesthetically pleasing their ultimate shapes turn out, are themselves arbitrary. There is no correct way for a district to be drawn or how it should look. Since the Founding, redistricting has been a political process, and districts themselves have very often not been "compact." The argument that a district is in some way offensive because of an odd shape is foolish; even if all districts were perfect shapes of equal size, they too would be arbitrary, even if they look nice and compact.

If Dems and Republicans don't look the way redistricting is happening in their state, they should work harder to take over their states' political positions and machinery so that they can draw the maps the next time around. This has been going on for hundreds of years, and it should not just change today because the losers are upset.

Bunning Theatens to Quit ... Then Denies

2009-02-27T19:41:00.000-08:00

In the on-going saga that is Kentucky Senator Jim Bunning, we get another story today. Apparently while speaking before a fundraiser crowd in Washington, Bunning floated the possibility of just getting up and quitting before his term expires in January 2011 if the national GOP did not give him adequate support. According to a report in the Louisville Courier-Journal, Bunning wryly noted that if he did this, he would get the "last laugh" on national Republicans as the governor of Kentucky is currently a Democrat and he would presumably appoint a fellow Dem to fill out Bunning's term. Today, Bunning angrily denied that he ever said anything to that effect, denouncing his homestate paper in the process.

As evidenced by his continued angry comments directed towards the NRSC and its chair Senator John Cornyn, Bunning is harboring a lot of resentment for Cornyn's and others' attempts to ease the junior bluegrass Senator into retirement. Recently, he threatened to sue the NRSC unless it backed him. He genuinely seems primed to run again despite his age and other issues. As we have discussed in the past, this is great news for Democrats.

At this point, anything can happen in this contest. Bunning is committed to running again, but a primary challenge from somewhere seems more and more likely as Bunning seems more and more out of it. The relative strength and credibility of a potential primary foe would determine if Bunning could be toppled before November 2010. Should Bunning hang on for the general, he would be in big trouble, especially as his erratic behavior and outbursts continue. At this point, the best the NRSC can hope for is that a good primary challenge will be able to win without national backing. The NRSC might be forced to publicly back Bunning -- despite trying to recruit a different candidate already, drawing Bunning's ire -- but that does not mean that GOP power-players won't work behind the scenes to bolster a primary foe who would not be a sure-loser in a general.

We'll continue to follow this one closely, if for no other reason than its inherent comic value.

Obama Approvals Jump

2009-02-27T19:16:00.001-08:00

A fresh Gallup poll finds that in the wake of his speech to Congress, President Obama's approval ratings jumped significantly after tailing off a bit last week.

February 18-20: 63% approve/24% disapprove
February 21-23: 59/25
February 24-26: 67/21

It seems that Obama got a nice boast from his nationally-televised speech at a time when it was sinking a bit, perhaps because of the stimulus fight in Congress. I think that it is fair to say that his approvals had been high already, but at +46, he is doing as well as a President can do. I guess the honeymoon period continues.

The split by party is pretty interesting

Democrats
Feb. 18-20: 89% approve
Feb. 21-23: 86%
Feb. 24-26: 90%

Independents
62-54-62

Republicans
27-27-42

As you can see, Obama's most recent jump gave from a nice rise among indies and Republicans, while he still enjoys near-universal support from Democrats. I don't think there is much chance that Obama will have high numbers from GOPers for too long, but if he can maintain his standing with independents, that may not matter.

For its part, the weekly Daily Kos/R2K poll finds that Obama's latest split is 71/25 (+46), after being 69/26 (+43) a week ago. The +46 mirrors Gallup's finding. Also of interest is that the approval ratings for congressional Dems went from 41/53 (-12) to 46/45 (+1) over the same time period, while congressional GOPers went from 18/70 (-52) to 17/68 (-51).

I think that these numbers confirm not just Obama's strength, but that his positive numbers are being imputed by many Americans to congressional Dems. Republicans in Congress, however, remain deeply unpopular. If these pitiful numbers persist at such low levels, GOP leadership might need to re-evaluate its guerilla tactics against the new administration. Personally, I would not expect that move even if GOP approval was 2/95, but it is something John Boehner, Eric Cantor and the boys should start pondering nonetheless.

Evaluating the House Stimulus Roll Call Vote

2009-02-14T19:13:00.000-08:00

I wanted to write a post looking at some of the more surprising (or put less diplomatically, stupid) votes case by House Members in the stimulus conference vote. We all know by now that the Republicans voted in unison against the measure, but I think it is worth looking at some of the more stand-out votes on both sides of the aisle.

Noteworthy Democratic Votes

Democrats voting 'no' on both the initial vote and on the conference bill: Walt Minnick (ID-01), Bobby Bright (AL-02), Gene Taylor (MS-04), Heath Shuler (NC-11), Collin Peterson (MN-07), and Parker Griffith (AL-05).

For the most part, Democratic House leadership should not be too upset at these individuals, as most of them represent strongly Republican districts. Taylor is a very conservative Democrat and somewhat iconoclastic, but he represents one of the reddest districts in the Deep South (McCain won here 68-to-32), so it is tough for Democrats to ever criticize him, even if he is safe at home. Bright and Minnick were just barely elected last year (Bright by less than one percent and Minnick by less than two percent) in incredibly Republican areas. Leadership can't say anything about that. Griffith is also a freshman (he won by 52-46 in what was an R+6 district in Northern Alabama), but his district is slightly less red than the rest. Still, it would be hard for leadership to punish him in any way.

The last two names should draw the ire of Democrats. Peterson is very quirky, and he often votes with Republicans from his conservative Western Minnesota nest. This has been tolerated for some time, in part because the rural district is R+7 (according to the latest PVI), but Obama only lost here 50-to-47; in other words, this district is hardly Southern Mississippi. Furthermore, the seat is safe for Peterson until he retires (which he has threatened in the past). As the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Peterson should begin to watch himself a bit better, or as my friend wisely noted to me, he could face a Dingell problem down the road.

Ditto second-term Rep. Shuler, who voted against after winning 62% last year. I imagine the leadership is fuming at the Western North Carolina congressman right now, particularly when they consider Shuler's strength at home coupled with Obama's narrow 52-to-47 loss in the Eleventh District. Shuler, who is considering a run for Senate next year against Richard Burr might have really helped potential primary opponent state Attorney General Roy Cooper's case with national Dems with this vote.

Democrats voting 'aye' on the conference bill who come from districts that John McCain won last year: Marion Berry (AR-01); Vic Snyder (AR-02); Mike Ross (AR-04); Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01); Harry Mitchell (AZ-05); Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-08); John Salazar (CO-03); Betsy Markey (CO-04); Allen Boyd (FL-02); Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24); Jim Marshall (GA-08); Brad Ellsworth (IN-08); Baron Hill (IN-09); Ben Chandler (KY-06); Charlie Melancon (LA-03); Frank Kratovil (MD-01); Travis Childers (MS-01); Ike Skelton (MO-04); Earl Pomeroy (ND-AL); Harry Teague (NM-02); Mike McMahon (NY-13); Eric Massa (NY-29); Mike McIntyre (NC-07); Charlie Wilson (OH-6); John Boccieri (OH-16); Zach Space (OH-18); Dan Boren (OK-02); Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-03); Jason Altmire (PA-04); Chris Carney (PA-10); John Murtha (PA-12); Tim Holden (PA-17); John Spratt (SC-05); Stephanie Hersheth-Sandlin (SD-AL); Lincoln Davis (TN-04); Bart Gordon (TN-06); John Tanner (TN-08); Tom Periello (VA-05); Rick Boucher (VA-09); Alan Mollohan (WV-01); Nick Rahall (WV-03); Chet Edwards (TX-17) and Jim Matheson (UT-02).

This list includes a pretty good mix of veterans representing pretty red districts, old-timers representing very red districts, and freshman from a smattering of both.

Salazar, Hill, Marshall and Edwards deserve some special recognition because they are usually loyal even though they have district where they could always face a tough contest. Freshman and young members Kirkpatrick, Markey, Kratovil, Childers, Teague, Dahlkemper, Carney, and Periello should all be remembered later for casting what was a tough vote. Most of these names are young members who represent red districts, especially Childers, Teague, Periello, and Kratovil. They all showed some guts, and I am guessing their loyalty was noted by Pelosi and Hoyer.

Noteworthy Republican Votes

Republicans voting 'no' on the conference bill who come from districts that Barack Obama won last year: Dan Lundgren (CA-03); Elton Gallegly (CA-24); Buck McKeon (CA-25); David Dreier (CA-26); Ken Calvert (CA-44); Mary Bono-Mack (CA-45); Tom Campbell (CA-48); Brian Bilbray (CA-50); Mike Castle (DE-AL); Bill Young (FL-10); Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-18); Tom Latham (IA-4); Peter Roskam (IL-6); Mark Kirk (IL-10); Judy Biggert (IL-13); Don Manzullo (IL-16); Aaron Schock (IL-18); Joseph Cao (LA-02); Dave Camp (MI-04); Fred Upton (MI-06); Mike Rogers (MI-08); Thad McCotter (MI-11); Erik Paulsen (MN-03); Lee Terry (NE-02); Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02); Leonard Lance (NJ-07); Peter King (NY-03); John McHugh (NY-23); Pat Tiberi (OH-12); Steven LaTourette (OH-14); Jim Gerlach (PA-06); Charlie Dent (PA-15); Randy Forbes (VA-04); Frank Wolf (VA-10); Dave Reichert (WA-08); Paul Ryan (WI-01) and Tom Petri (WI-05).

This is another interesting list to pore over. Some of these votes are not only understandable from the rep's perspective, but they make cold political sense. There are also a lot of stupid votes here, many of them cast by short-sighted Members who could face a problem later for their hyper-partisanship.

Freshman: Not a lot of names here, mostly because the GOP did not win much last year. When it comes to freshman, they pretty much have to obey leadership early on or risk excommunication to crummy committees and other slights. Additionally, with men like Paulsen and Lance, they won their first terms so easily, they probably feel emboldened to oppose Obama even if their constituents voted for him. The same applies to someone like Schock, but he should be careful: his district is moderate and it is in Obama's backyard. Ditto second-termer Peter Roskam. I've already talked about Cao: he's a dope.

Long-timers who have grown fat and stupid: There are several people here who should know better. Mike Castle should be careful. His free ride could end at any time coming from Delaware. He should reflect on the lesson of Bill Roth in 2000.

Thad McCotter is just too partisan and too dumb to do anything against leadership. That he got 51% last year against a guy with no money should have taught him something, but clearly it did not. Mike Rogers won easily last year, but only because he had not major opposition. His distict is blue, but I think this vote is easily explained by (1) Rogers is a partisan bomb-thrower; and (2) he wants to run for governor next year and will have a very tough primary.

LoBiando has been safe in South Jersey for a long time, but a reckoning could finally be coming if Dems recruit a strong challenger to him. He should learn to shape up, but I doubt he will.

Both Tibieri and LaTourrette need to be very careful. Tibieri in particular has had a very conservative record in a district Obama easily won. It is coming time that both will have stronger Democratic challengers at some point.

Gerlach almost lost against a nobody, but I figure he is thinking about his own 2010 gunernatorial run (and primary) too.

Finally, even though Frank Wolf easily won, his district is changing very fast. He may retire before it is dark blue, but this vote won't help his standing. Randy Forbes is too crazy and arrogant to vote any other way (i.e. against the party line), but Obama's win in his district was an amazing occurence that bodes well for Dems in Virginia. Lee Terry clearly thinks Obama's performance in Omaha last year was a fluke.

The rest of the names can certainly get away with a vote like this because they are so insulated in their district. That being said, a look at this list reveals that if Democrats decided in 2011 to finally get tough with redistricting in California and Illinois, they could wipe out close to 10 Republicans (hi Judy Biggert and David Dreier) who have been getting away with conservative records in moderate districts. This is an issue I will post separately on soon.

Delay Delay Delay Franken

2009-02-14T19:02:00.000-08:00

In complete candor, I can't say I blame Republicans for pushing Norm Coleman's court case as a means of delaying Democrat Al Franken's ascension to the U.S. Senate. After all, with one extra vote in their pockets, Democrats will have an even easier to time of passing their legislation, needing only one Republican of the Collins-Snowe-Specter troika to switch sides to overcome any filibuster on key legislation. For this reason, after reading this Politico piece of GOP efforts to bolster Coleman, I really can't disagree with the Republicans, at least on the tactical political merits.

All of that being said, it is a near-certainty that Al Franken will be seated in the Senate. With 58 votes right now, Democrats will never allow Coleman to be seated, even if he somehow is able to change the outcome -- currently showing a 225-vote win for Franken -- in court. It just ain't happening. If that were to happen, Democrats would bottle the issue up until the end of time. Also, as the article notes, the body in charge of examining any seating issue, the Senate Rules Committee, is chaired by one Charles Schumer, one of the shrewest men in Congress today, the former head of the DSCC, and one of the most bare-knuckled partisans in recent political history. In the immortal written words of Stan Lee, 'nuff said.

Months ago I noted that it was Coleman's choice if and when to bow out. I posted that calling on a man to just give up after losing by less than 0.01% of the vote was something I would not do. While I still feel that way, it has been several months, and Norm Coleman has to decide whether he wants to keep pushing a fruitless case and being a pawn of his former colleagues. Then again, maybe he has no choice, and if he gives up to easily, he won't have a cushy landing as a lobbyist via his GOP friends. In Washington, DC, I would not dismiss that possibility.

This one is moving closer to a conclusion, likely with Al Franken occupying a regal desk on the floor of the United States Senate. Who would have seen that coming a few years ago?

Fitzgerald Stays

2009-02-14T18:32:00.000-08:00

One story that was buried in all of the stimulus discussion this week was of the announcement that President Obama will retain Patrick Fitzgerald as United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).

Regular T2L readers will recall we debated the question of whether or not Obama would keep Fitzgerald on once he was sworn in. While we noted that Presidents nearly always bring in entirely new slates of U.S. Attorneys -- to stock the important posts with loyal party members and to give key patronage slots to different state power players, among other reasons -- we decided in the end that Obama would probably keep Fitzgerald simply to ensure continuity in the Blagojevich case and to avoid any criticism that would have likely come Obama's way if he had booted Fitzgerald. The move simply gibed with Obama's cautious nature, so Fitzgerald's retainment really should not surprise anyone.

Now Obama has to hope that Fitzgerald lets the Rezko investigation die.

Dodd in Danger? Nope

2009-02-14T18:24:00.000-08:00

One of my favorite political writers, Steve Kornacki of the New York Observer, has a piece this week wondering aloud if recent weak poll numbers portend trouble for Connecticut Senators Chris Dodd and Joe Lieberman. While I have already recently written on Lieberman, I wanted to say a quick word on Dodd.

While the recent Quinnipiac poll gives Dodd a ghastly 41/48 approval rating, I think there is almost no danger that the senior senator will lose next year, minus some crazy scandal coming out. There are three simple reasons for this. First, Dodd is a state institution in Connecticut, and even if his numbers are low now, and even if they are low in 18 months, I find it hard to see Connecticut voters tossing him to the curb. Second, Connecticut remains an ardently blue state, and it has not elected a Republican to the U.S. Senate since Lowell Weicker won in 1982. Third, and perhaps most important is that the GOP bench in Connecticut is basically barren. As we like to say here, you can't beat something with nothing, and the state GOP has essentially nothing. Former Reps. Chris Shays and Rob Simmons might be good nominees, but just remember they lost House races in 2008 and 2006, so I can't envision them winning a statewide contest

If ultra-popular Gov. Jodi Rell were to shock the establishment in Hartford and run for Senate, then maybe Dodd could be in trouble. But until that happens -- and I think it remains highly unlikely as she will probably run for governor again -- Dodd is safe.

Specter's Strength

2009-02-14T16:48:00.001-08:00

Quinnipiac was out with a poll earlier this week on Arlen Specter which I wanted to briefly reflect on. While the poll provides some initial numbers which appear quite poor for the incumbent Republican, closer reflections shows that Specter has considerable strengths as he seeks a sixth term next year.

Does Specter deserve to be re-elected?

Overall: 40% yes/43% no (-3)

Among Republicans: 42/42 (+0)
Among Democrats: 41/42 (-1)
Among Independents: 36/45 (-9)

Among Men: 41/48 (-7)
Among Women: 38/38 (+0)

These are not good numbers for any incumbent, especially a five-term one who has been involved in his state's politics for decades. Interestingly, Specter's re-elect number is basically identical with voters of both major parties (and it tanks with indies). Both Republican and Democratic voters are equally ambivalent about sending Specter back to Washington in 2011. Additionally, Specter seems strongest with women, which is good for him because he has stoked mixed feelings with many women over the years (traced back to the early 90s, when in 1992 he was almost toppled by a female Democratic candidate over his harsh questioning of Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings).

Yet, as bad as these numbers may look at first glance, let's check out the senator's approval ratings.

Specter approvals

Overall: 56% approve/30% disapprove (+26)

Among Republicans: 55/33 (+22)
Among Democrats: 62/26 (+36)
Among Independents: 49/35 (+14)

Among Men: 56/34 (+22)
Among Women: 55/27 (+28)

These are pretty good numbers, but what sticks out at me is the breakdown by party ID. Specter is at a mediocre +22 with his own party. This is not terribly surprising since Specter has always tried to carve out a centrist path in his career, often earning the ire of conservative Republicans. Dissatisfaction among Pennsylvania Republicans came to a head in 2004 when Specter faced a strong primary challenge from then-Rep. Pat Toomey, and Specter barely won by just 51-to-49.

What is striking is how well Specter does with Democrats. That a Republican senator enjoys a +36 rating from Democratic voters in this day and age of extreme partisanship is pretty impressive. Republicans may not universally love one of their own, but many state Dems clearly have an affinity for the old codger.

What does this mean? In my opinion, it shows that Specter is in strong shape to win another term so long as he is not ousted in a primary. If Specter is at +36 right now, and he makes it to the general election, he should beat any Pennsylvania Democrat short of Ed Rendell, who is almost certainly not going to run against his friend and former boss Specter.

And unlike in 2004, a strong Republican primary challenge has not yet fully materialized. It may well still happen and we need to stay tuned, but until it occurs, Arlen Specter should feel pretty good for himself if he makes it to November 2010. Fogetting all of the DSCC's bluster and financial largesse, as we have already noted, the state Democratic bench is pretty weak, and it might be hard to win this seat unless Specter is beaten by another Toomey-type challenger.

As for Specter's weak re-elect numbers, while I think they are absolutely something the incumbent should worry about, they are not that terrible a concern. These days, voters are simply angry at politicians and Congress as an institution, so that kind of general, loaded question is going to get a lot of people calling for their unnamed rep or senator to be tossed out of office. Besides, I remember all last year, a strong majority of voters said Frank Lautenberg was too old to continue running and didn't deserve another term, but then he ended up winning by over a dozen points. Granted, New Jersey is quirky and the DSCC may aid whoever ends up facing Specter more than the NRSC ponied up to Dick Zimmer, but I think the comparison is valuable and certain valid.

There is a reason I put Pennsylvania at #7 in our rankings: I am not convinced in Specter's dire vulnerability or Dems' ability to recruit a winner. These poll results only strengthen this opinion.

"But No One Read It"

2009-02-14T16:15:00.000-08:00

Perhaps the most foolish nonsense being circulated by many opponents of the just-passed stimulus is that no Member of Congress read the entire 1,000+ page piece of legislation before voting on it. For anyone who buys this argument, allow me to point out that as sad as it may sound, few Members of Congress ever entirely read a long bill before it is passed, particularly if leaders are pressed for time to act, as was the case here. Therefore, these criticisms are completely meritless and meaningless.

While in a perfect democracy our elected representatives and senators would read, pore over, study, ponder, and debate every syllable of a bill like something out of the founding days or a Frank Capra movie, this simply does not happen. Members don't have the time (and many do not possess the faculties) to read bills. It does not help there are literally thousands of proposed bills every Congress.

Is this ideal? No, it isn't, but that's how it is, and really, it does not matter nor is it a legitimate argument to make against this legislation or many other bills. Republicans are just trying to kick up dirt and de-legitimize the stimulus before it even reaches the President's desk.

Quote of the Week, II

2009-02-14T07:02:00.000-08:00

"The President's relations with the GOP will improve as he learned the hard way that he could not cede all this control to the Speaker."
--Republican Rep. Fred Upton on President Obama received no Republican support in the House of Representatives for his stimulus.

Yeah, right. Note that Obama reached out personally to Rep. Upton, and hoped to get his vote before the jackals in the GOP House leadership convinced him that partisanship was much more important than working together to fix the economy. And all was right with the universe!

How many individual Dem House Members did President Bush reach out to in comity when he was President and his party held a majority in Congress? Let's see: add the three, subtract the one, carry the five....er....um....oh, I got it: exactly ZERO!

The only lesson Obama should learn from this debacle, if he is smart, is that Republicans have zero interest in working with him on anything. With strong majorities for his party in Congress, and personal approval ratings which remains high, Obama needs to exercise his muscle, and push aside a regional GOP which only cares about arond 10 states.

Quote of the Week

2009-02-14T07:00:00.000-08:00

“Republicans are Republicans again."
-Rep Jeff Flake (AZ-06), proudly beaming after he and his Republican unanimously voted against the stimulus package.

I guess what Flake means is that Republicans are back to being obstructionists while offering zero ideas of their own in the name of partisanship, all while Rome burns.

I had no clue congressional Republicans ever offered anything else.

Political Dumbass(es) of the Week

2009-02-14T06:40:00.000-08:00

The deserving party or parties for this award are quite easy: congressional Republicans, but specifically one congressional freshman who I will get to below. You see, the House GOP determined a while ago to unanimously stand together and courageously vote 'no' against President Obama's stimulus plan. No, they did not offer any other substantive or cogent ideas (minus more tax cuts, of course), but that's irrelevant to them. All that matters is trying to harm or humiliate the new President any way they can. While I can't say that I would do things exactly differently if I were a typical rank-and-file Member, exercising this strategy so early, so strongly, and in such a recklessly partisan way is a little much.

Yet, while it is easy to highlight foolish Republican obstructionism, I thought that one individual Member deserved special recognition for his political idiocy. That person is Rep. Joseph Cao (LA-02). Cao, who was elected in one of the biggest flukes in recent political history when he edged out perpetually-indicted William Jefferson in this New Orleans-centric district, has shown immediate signs that he has absolutely no idea what he is doing, and he has no intention of trying to win a second term next year. Here is the money part of a very telling article in Politico:

But Cao remained the most compelling storyline. The Vietnamese lawmaker shocked the political universe by knocking off indicted Democratic Rep. William Jefferson last year in the overwhelmingly Democratic New Orleans district.

He told reporters an hour or two before the vote that he was strongly considering a vote in favor of the stimulus measure after rejecting an earlier version – “At this point, I’m leaning ‘yes,’ but I’m not absolutely certain.” He reasoned that his heavily Democratic district could use the money with many of his constituents still struggling to rebound from Hurricane Katrina.

Beforehand, Cao acknowledged that Republican leaders had put “pressure” on him to oppose the package, and the party’s chief deputy whip, California Rep. Kevin O. McCarthy, stood near Cao during the entire vote.

“They encouraged me to vote ‘no,’ but they understand the needs of my district,” Cao said.

There is a lot here. Cao pulled a classic flip-flop. Okay, no biggie: cowardly Members on both sides do that every day. What is more salient, at least to me, is not that the House GOP leadership made the determination early on that their entire membership would vote 'no', but that someone like Cao would actually fall in line!

Memo to Rep. Cao: If you have an desire to win again, stop listening to your leadership! Your victory had NOTHING to do with the national GOP or the NRCC. Wisely, they had no idea you had any shot, and they did not do anything to help you win. You are a fluke, and as a fluke, you have no attachment to the whims and controls of your leadership. Sure, you face a near-impossible task next year, but at the same time, your unique circumstances allow you to vote however you want, which means you need to vote in a way to please your overwhemingly Democratic district, not what your Texas/Alabama/Georgia caucus wants. I will bet you a dollar that Nancy Pelosi was not upset when fellow freshman Rep. Bobby Bright voted 'no' yesterday, and his district is only half as conservative as your's is liberal (something like R+13 to D+28).

The fact is that GOP leadership used Cao as a pawn to bolster their own standing and to build a united conservative front against Obama and the Democrats. For 95% of their membership coming from the South, Idaho, Utah and crazy California, that's all well and good, but for the almost extinct Republicans representing Democratic districts, that is not helpful. Cao is an extreme example, of course. He is a fluke, a man with the political savvy of a sea sponge, so I can't fault him for being stupid and now understanding that he is being used as a pawn. But if GOP rising star Kevin McCarthy had stood next to me the whole vote, I would have voted 'aye' and stared him right in the eye. Cao should understand that when fall 2010 comes around, these jokers will not be spending a nickel on his re-election with dozens of other opportunities elsewhere and Cao down 30 points in the polls.

Sadly, Rep. Cao did not get that, and for this reason, he gets to share the T2L Political Dumbass of the Week award with the fellas running the H.M.S. Titanic, er, I mean the GOP House caucus. Great job.

Republicans Emboldened

2009-02-09T07:07:00.001-08:00

Two articles out this weekend on a theme we touched on in our last post, namely that as President Obama's stimulus has hit rocky shoals and floundered, congressional Republicans have become increasingly emboldened, growing even in gleeful as they move to in united opposition to the President's plan. While this is not welcome news to the new President or the Democratically-controlled Congress, in a way it is a positive for Democrats. It can be viewed this way because it makes clear, very early on in the new administration -- really, just weeks into this new presidency and new Congress -- that Obama should not count on great cooperation from congressional Republicans for many of his key initiatives. From that perspective, last week's problems should be a learning experience for the blue team.

Coming out the November elections, the second straight brutal cycle that saw the GOP lose both houses of Congress and the White House, Republicans were dispirited, to put it mildly. Facing a hugely-popular President and strengthened Democratic majorities in Congress, Republicans were at a crossroads with no real plan to go forward, at least outwardly. As the two articles make clear, the stimulus has provided GOPers with that missing purpose. Republicans' renewed purpose is simple: oppose the President everywhere, with steely resolve and jubilant opposition.

From the Examiner:

They took a beating in November, but now, in the stimulus fight, Republicans are smiling again.

You see it all over Capitol Hill, in the hallways, the hearing rooms, the gathering spots. Republicans, coming off a devastating, across-the-board electoral defeat, are … happy. Being in opposition, after eight years of a Republican presidency and 12 years of GOP rule in Congress, suits many of them just fine.

Similarly, from the Washington Post:

After giving the package zero votes in the House, and 0with their counterparts in the Senate likely to provide in a crucial procedural vote today only the handful of votes needed to avoid a filibuster, Republicans are relishing the opportunity to make a big statement. Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Tex.) suggested last week that the party is learning from the disruptive tactics of the Taliban, and the GOP these days does have the bravado of an insurgent band that has pulled together after a big defeat to carry off a quick, if not particularly damaging, raid on the powers that be.

"We're so far ahead of where we thought we'd be at this time," said Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), one of several younger congressmen seeking to lead the party's renewal. "It's not a sign that we're back to where we need to be, but it's a sign that we're beginning to find our voice. We're standing on our core principles, and the core principle that suffered the most in recent years was fiscal conservatism and economic liberty. That was the tallest pole in our tent, and we took an ax to it, but now we're building it back."

The second-ranking House Republican, Rep. Eric Cantor (Va.), put it more bluntly. "What transpired . . . and will give us a shot in the arm going forward is that we are standing up on principle and just saying no," he said.

Okay, let's be clear: a lot of these kinds of quotes from happy Republicans are garbage. Obviously, sitting in the minority, Republicans want to do their best to put on a smiley face and act like everything is going great in their caucuses. That's all well and good. But the fact is that the stimulus mess has allowed Republicans to at least gather up their bearings and unite together after a difficult election. At least right now, with Obama's most important legislation coming forward to Congress for its approval in the coming weeks and months.

Again, this should all be a wake-up call to Obama and his advisers. Republicans enjoy being an opposition party, and more, they are happy to be free of the burden of President Bush. As a result, the President should understand that while making small gestures to engender bipartisanship are great, he is going to have to get tough to get his measures into law or else other things will get bogged down like the stimulus, similarly weaking Obama and spending the precious political capital he worked so hard to amass.

Obama Must Quickly Learn Hardball

2009-02-07T09:06:00.000-08:00

Let me get this straight. The long-running stimulus negotiation, which effectively shut down and held the entire process hostage, was done in order to get three Senate Republicans on board: Arlen Specter and the Maine twins? You can't make this up.

I am all for President Obama's decision to actively reach out to woo House and Senate Republicans on this and future initiatives. It is an admirable way to break the partisan gridlock which bloomed and festered under the Bush administration. I think Obama should continue to make nice gestures to his political adversaries in ways as simple as calling individual Republicans, going to speak with them about legislation, and giving them freer and friendlier access to the White House. Generally, no bad can come of simple niceties.

All of that being said, if this stimulus mess teaches the new President anything, it is that he cannot hang his hat on working with Republicans on anything important. He should continue trying, but if that avenue seems to be going nowhere, he should forget it and move forward with a plain majority from his side. In the first major initiative of his presidency, Obama reached out to the other side in ways his predecessor never reached to Democrats, and apparently what it got him was zero votes in the House of Representatives, and three votes in the U.S. Senate. These are not the signs of a group that wants to work with you or give any leeway.

And let me make clear that I do not fault the Republicans here. Politically, their obstructionism makes sense. If they help pass this measure, they are fully tied to it, making Democrats less culpable in future elections should it fail. However, if they join the Democrats in wide support and it succeeds in its purpose -- namely, providing a vital boast to the American economy -- they realize that President Obama and in turn the Democrats will get most of the credit, and not their party. Therefore, from their perspective, what's the point of supporting this bill?

That is all well and good, and I respect that, but President Obama and his advisers need to realize that the thought calculus the elephants are computing. Obama should thicken his skin and skull very fast, and ram through what he needs to push through quickly. As this debacle has proven, once again, when you let any matter sit and let opposition build, it is never a good thing for ultimate passage. We all knew this bill was going to pass way or another. The White House should have gauged GOP support, and when it found none, it should have pushed the stimuls through both houses right way, even if not a single Republican voted 'aye.' Once this bill is signed, how can Democrats claim it was passed with bipartisan support when only three Senate Republicans endorse it? You can rest assured that when it does pass, GOP leadership -- McConnell, Boehner, Cantor, et al. -- will be front and center bashing this stimulus. For all of his work in trying to cobble together a bipartisan super-majority, Obama ended up basically empty-handed, politically weakened mere weeks into his administration, and his bill is now watered-down to boot.

Over the life of this administration, Republicans have basically no reason to work with this President. Making the future of bipartisan endeavors even more unlikely, the GOP caucus in both bodies is now essentially bereft of any moderates -- all that is left now are hardline conservatives who believes the GOP lost badly in the last two cycles because it was not conservative enough. This is not a party that will be amenable to playing nice. The GOP knows that it cannot fell Obama now with his high approval ratings fresh off electoral victory, so it will engage in a war of attrition where it tries to bring down Obama and the Democrats with a thousand little cuts. You can score the last week as a series of small cuts.

Obama needs to realize this, and fast. Little gestures are one thing, but he must learn a new game: hardball.

James Whitmore

2009-02-06T19:31:00.000-08:00

America has lost a fine actor with the passing of the great James Whitmore. While I am not familiar with all of Whitmore many great roles, I know him well from a memorable part in my favorite movie of all time -- and the best film of all time -- "The Shawshank Redemption", where he played the doomed prison librarian Brooks Hatlan. Whitmore also played Harry Truman in the famous one-man play, and later one-man film about the life of Truman, "Give 'Em Hell Harry." For his portrayal in the latter production, Whitmore became the only man to receive an Oscar nomination for acting in a film with only one actor.

Rest in peace, Brooks.

Lie of the Day

2009-02-06T19:28:00.000-08:00

"Nothing has changed since the governor addressed this issue the last time.... She has made it clear to the Obama administration she is not interested in an appointment at this time."
-Liz Boyd, spokeswoman to Democratic Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm on the possibility of Granholm potentially accepting a future appointment to the United States Supreme Court.

That might be the most laughable denial from a politician or a politician's flack I have heard in a while. You can set your watch to it: if Jennifer Granholm were ever offered lifetime appointment to the High Court, she would physically walk over her entire family and all of her friends and loved ones to get the job. Heck, she'd knock them all to the floor if that is what it took. This is not Postmaster General, it's the Supreme Court, and this denial is typical political baloney.

T2L's 2010 Senate Rankings

2009-02-06T08:58:00.001-08:00

Today we will post our first rankings for the 2010 Senate races. It may be almost two years out, but it is never too early to spit out amateur political prognostications.

Interestingly, as we've noted here in the past, the 2010 Senate map has looked favorable for Democrats for some time. In part, this is because including special contests, 19 of the seats that are up are currently held by Republicans, and 17 are currently held by Democrats. However, the situation has become much more dicey for Republicans because of a quick succession of retirements of GOP Senators to start the year, nearly all of them creating great opportunities for Democrats to score pick-ups. With Mel Martinez (Florida), Kit Bond (Missouri), George Voinovich (Ohio), Sam Brownback (Kansas), Judd Gregg (New Hampshire) (he is not actually retiring; he is going over to the executive branch to become Secretary of Commerce), and potentially others heading for the exits, the key inquiry is no longer whether Republicans will lose even more seats -- after losing a net six in 2006, and eight more in 2008 (including Al Franken) -- but now how many they will shed in 2010.

You won't get any dispute from me that the Republicans have caught some bad breaks this cycle with these retirements, but most of them were actually expected. Furthermore, as we talked about here last year, retirements are going to happen in a body like the Senate when one party is facing a long exile in the minority, which is exactly what Republicans are staring at today. While a senator lives the Life of Riley, for someone like Kit Bond or George Voinovich -- men who have been in politics for decades and are getting long in the tooth -- going from a committee chairmanship to a member in a caucus of 41 is a big change, especially with a new Democratic President in the Oval Office. Consequently, no one should be too surprised that we saw a quick wave of retirements early on: a trickle always becomes a deluge, and really, the retiring members did the right thing by giving their party optimal time to coalesce around a new nominee and fundraise for 2010.

With us just sitting in early February 2009, the field has many unsettled patches, either because we may be waiting to hear from a few more potential retirees on whether they will run again or because the nomination fields for specific seats are unresolved. As with most of the other rankings -- most notably in The Fix blog on the Washington Post webpage or Nate Silver's new Senate counter -- these ratings rank the seats in order of those most likely to switch sides.

(1) New Hampshire (open: Sen. Judd Gregg (R) is not running for a fourth term). With Judd Gregg's nomination to become Secretary of Commerce, this race shoots to the very top of the Senate lines. The Granite State has been moving heavily towards the Democrats over the last two cycles, and this seat represents the final key statewide office out of the Democrats' hands. With the popular Gregg off the ballot, and his replacement Bonnie Newman declaring that she will not run next year (or even endorse a nominee), Republicans will have a tough time holding this seat. Look for Democrats to unify around second-term Rep. Paul Hodes, who declared for the seat almost immediately after Gregg's nomination was officially announced. Hodes' fellow Dem Rep. Carol Shea-Porter would be wise to stay out and be content with the seat she has, a post that was lucky to win in 2006. For Republicans, the bench is fairly thin. Their best nominee may be former Sen. John Sununu, who was just ousted last November. Sununu, whose father was governor and chief of staff to President George H.W. Bush enjoys universal name recognition in the state, but it remains to be seen if New Hampshire voters would send him back to Washington after decisively rejecting him months ago. Former Gov. Steve Merrill and state GOP power-broker Tom Rath are also possibilities. The fact is that this seat would have been highly contested even if Gregg had run again. Some Dems are still smarting that Gov. John Lynch did not replace Gregg with a Democrat as part of his deal with the outgoing Senator, but with Gregg gone, the seat, at least for now, leans blue anyway for 2010. So, in the longterm Democrats should be very pleased with the hand they have been dealt in New Hampshire.

(2) Ohio (open: Sen. George Voinovich (R) is not running for a third term). Some Republicans were actually pleased when Voinovich announced he was retiring. First, these people likely saw Voinovich's sagging poll numbers over the last year, and feared that he could be picked off. Second, many Republicans welcome the opportunity to replace one of the more moderate members of the Senate GOP caucus with a more conservative Ohio Republican. The GOP got just that in former Rep. Rob Portman, a high-ranking member of the Bush administration that the state and national party establishment has rallied around as their standard-bearer in this race. Republicans like Portman because of his strong conservatism, and also because he will be a strong fundraiser, taking away one concern that always exists with candidates. At this point, Democrats have not settled on a nominee, and in fact we are not even sure yet which potential pols will enter the fray. Right now, Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, and Rep. Tim Ryan are the biggest names out there. There are reports that Fisher wants to run, and popular Gov. Ted Strickland has begun making moves to clear the field. If Strickland is indeed trying to do this, then I would expect Brunner and Ryan to quietly drop out of sight and give a clear field to Fisher. While I do not think Fisher is the best candidate -- he is not young like Ryan, and he has lost some previous statewide runs before becoming state Attorney General and then Strickland's LG -- I think Dems should be slightly favored regardless of who in this group becomes the nominee. First, Ohio has been trending slightly Democratic in recent cycles, which automatically favors the "D" nominee. Second, Portman's work as George W. Bush's trade rep and then his head of OMB is the worst kind of baggage to have. Portman will run for his life away from his ties to Bush, but his most recent jobs will be used heavily against him by Democrats, and with the economy the way it is, that won't be helpful to his candidacy. Third, while admittedly none of the troika of Fisher, Brunner or Ryan enjoy high statewide name recognition, neither does Portman, who was a longtime congressman from just southwestern Ohio in the Cincinnati suburbs. Fourth, having the ultra popular Strickland at the top of the 2010 ballot will only help whoever Dems nominate. I fully expect Strickland to romp to a second term, even if former Rep. John Kasich or former Sen. Mike DeWine decide to run against him.

(3) Missouri (open: Sen. Kit Bond (R) is not running for a fifth term). I can't sit here and tell that like New Hampshire and Ohio, Dems will win this seat because Missouri is trending blue: it isn't. While Obama did very well here, he just fell short in capturing the state. Dems were also beaten in two vigorous challenges to take Republican-held congressional seats. Democrats control every statewide office today except for this seat and the Lieutenant Governorship, so clearly Missouri is a state Democrats can win in. I guess my point is that Missouri is no blue state. However, the reason I am bullish about Democrats' chances here can be traced to two words: Robin Carnahan. In Carnahan, Democrats have the strongest nominee of either party, and as a result, she should be considered the favorite, albeit narrowly given the red bent of the state. Carnahan, who was overwhelmingly re-elected Secretary of State last year (62-36), is very well liked in the state and she enjoys universal name recognition from her father who was governor (and tragicially died in a 2000 plane crash), her mother who was a U.S. Senator, and her brother who is currently the congressman from the Third District. While the Democrats have cleared the field to support Carnahan, the Republican field is completely unsettled, with several political heavyweight looking at running, including former House Majority Whip Rep. Roy Blunt, former State Treasurer Sarah Steelman, Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder, former Sen. Jim Talent and outgoing U.S. Attorney Catherine Hanaway. With all these names looking to run, I would expect a primary of some sort, and this cannot help Republicans in their quest to hold the seat.

(4) Kentucky (Sen. Jim Bunning (R) is vowing to run for a third term). Right now, Kentucky is a bit of a weird situation because we don't know if Jim Bunning will run again. By all accounts, the 77-year old Hall of Fame pitcher should hang up his glove. In 1998, then-Rep. Bunning edged out fellow Rep. Scotty Baesler by 0.5% to head to the Senate, and in 2004, he barely beat unknown state Sen. Dan Mongiardo by 51-to-49 while President Bush was carrying Kentucky by 20 points. During the latter campaign, Bunning behaved erratically: he said his opponent looked like one of Saddam Hussein's sons, he erroneously claimed his wife had been assaulted at a public event by Mongiardo supporters, and he refused to go to a debate in person, instead attending via satellite from the Republican National Committee where he may have been using notes of some kind. After 2004, many people -- including this author -- naturally assumed that Bunning would serve his six years and quietly retire. Well, it appears that Bunning has other plans. Despite having barely any money in the bank, Bunning has repeatedly said he is running again. When NRSC head John Cornyn discussed Bunning's retirement with reporters, Bunning responded that Cornyn "is either deaf, or he didn't listen very well." National Republicans want Bunning out because he has raised no money, his poll numbers have been consistently in the mid-to-low 40s -- awful territory for any incumbent -- and his behavior and age raise questions about whether he can wage a brutal campaign. However, how this race will turn out may depend more on the Democratic side than on whether Bunning retires. Right now, state Attorney General Jack Conway, State Auditor Crit Luallen, Rep. Ben Chandler, and Mongiardo, now the Lieutenant Governor are all looking at running. Mongiardo has already announced, Conway and Luallen have said they won't both run, and Chandler is still a wild card. Chandler would be the Dems' best nominee because he has universal statewide name recognition, he would be able to fundraise well, and his House district is situated in a key swing part of the state. That being said, any of the other possible nominees would be very strong. Interestingly, Kentucky really has a good Democratic bench. A key issue remains whether the primary field will be clear or contested. I think that if Chandler decides to get in, he would clear it. To make a long story short, here is how match-ups would look:

Bunning-Chandler: Chandler favored by a bit
Bunning-Luallen: Luallen slightly favored
Bunning-Conway: Toss-up
Bunning: Mongiardo: Toss-up

If Bunning decides to retire, he will be immediately replaced by Secretary of State Trey Grayson, an ambitious pol who is seen as a big rising star in the GOP. If Grayson is the GOP nominee:

Grayson-Chandler: Chandler very slightly favored
Grayson-Luallen/Conway/Mongiardo: Grayson slightly favored

(5) Florida (open: Sen. Mel Martinez (R) is not running for a second term). It may be surprising that an open seat in a swing state like Florida is not higher up on this list, at least appearing before Missouri and Kentucky. Yet, given the state of the Democratic field, the prospects for this seat flipping may not be fabulous. For Democrats, only Rep. Kendrick Meek and state Sen. Dan Gelber are in. Rep. Ron Klein is said to be seriously considering running. This field is not great as it is bereft of any political heavyweights or individuals who have already won statewide. State CFO Alex Sink, Dems' strongest contender and the party's only statewide elected official (minus Sen. Bill Nelson), surprisingly decided not to run, disappointing many in the party. Some people have speculated Sink's move was because popular GOP Gov. Charlie Crist may enter this contest. National Republicans have been lobbying Crist to run instead of going for a second term in Tallahassee, and if Crist were to run, the race would be over. Crist is extremely well-liked in Florida, and he would be an easy winner over Meek (no way a shrewd pol like Klein runs if Crist is in). If Crist does not run, the race is likely a total toss-up. Klein would be the best of the existing bunch (though, to be fair, I know very little about Gelber's abilities and he is apparently well-regarded), but I wonder if a South Florida Rep. like Klein or Meek can do well enough in the Central Florida, much less North Florida to win statewide. Without Crist, the GOP field is about equally cloudy, with names like Rep. Connie Mack, former State House Speaker Marco Rubbio, and others being mentioned. Still, even if Crist is out, I don't love this contest right now from the Democrats' perspective simply because their field seems weak to me, even though I have a lot of respect for Ron Klein. We should give the fields more time to develop before we draw stronger conclusions.

(6) North Carolina (Sen. Richard Burr (R) is running for a second term). At this time last year, I thought very little of Democrats' chances of beating either Elizabeth Dole in 2008 or Richard Burr two years later. While both of them were in their first terms and North Carolina had been showing some signs that Dems remained competitive in the state, I believed that both conservatives would hold their posts without too much trouble. What a difference a year makes. In November, a previously unknown state senator named Kay Hagan badly thrashed Dole, and today I think Democrats have a very good chance of toppling Burr as well, assuming they can recruit the right candidate. For those real big inside baseball political watchers, this is the Senate seat that has famously switched hands seven times since longtime incumbent Sam Ervin retired in 1974. Burr, who has compiled one of the most conservative voting records in the Senate so far in this young Congress, is sporting some uninspiring personal splits in fresh polling from Public Policy Polling based in his state and R2K (47/46). Perhaps more troubling, PPP found Burr trailing North Carolina Attorney Roy Cooper in a prospective 2010 general election match-up (an R2K/Daily Kos poll gave Burr a slim two-point edge over Cooper). Even before these polls came out, it was generally agreed that Cooper was the Democrats' best option. Cooper is well-known in the state from his multiple successful AG campaigns and his time in the legislature, not to mention the national attention he garnered when he spearheaded the investigation of the infamous Duke Lacrosse case. If the DSCC can coax Cooper into the fray, Burr will be in very serious trouble. And even if Cooper passes, conservative second-term Western North Carolina Rep. Heath Shuler could jump in and give Burr a strong challenge. Both Cooper and Shuler are said to mulling candidacies. If either runs, we may see this seat switch to a new senator for an astonishing eighth time in 35 years. So, while North Carolina is much bluer today than it was four or ten years ago, I think Burr is in such great trouble because of the strength of two potential challengers. To my mind, as is likely apparent from this post and my past posts, I think the most important thing to examine in assessing an election is the simple relative strengths of the candidates. This race is a prime example of that belief system. Should Cooper and Shuler both pass, this race will likely drop down the line.

(7) Pennsylvania (Sen. Arlen Specter (R) will likely seek a sixth term in office). Arlen Specter is vulnerable. At nearly 78-years old, Specter is running in a Pennsylvania that has moved increasingly towards the Democratic Party in recent years as evidenced by Ed Rendell's victories in 2002 and 2006 and Bob Casey's absolute slaughter of Rick Santorum in '06. This is not the same PA that sent Arlen to the Senate in 1980, much less the same state as that of ten years ago. This, combined with Specter's age and repeated bouts with cancer makes his seat highly endangered. All of this being said, however, today I think Specter's chances are of re-election are looking better than they did a few months ago. Specter, who faced rough fights in 1980 and 1992, has won his last two general races comfortably and he is well liked by many Pennsylvanians. In 2004, Specter faced a strong primary challenge from the right from then-Rep. Pat Toomey, who called for Specter's ouster for being a RINO, or "Republican In Name Only." After a nasty contest, Specter barely survived 51-to-49, and since then Specter and others have been watching closely if he would face another primary fight. However, Toomey has already dismissed talk of a rematch, and it looks like Specter will have a clear shot to the general, a likely enormous relief to the grizzled veteran and a bummer for Democrats who had hoped he would be picked off or at least weakened before the general. However, the most important factor in assessing Specter's re-election is that the Democratic Party has so far been unable to attract the type of heavyweight candidate needed to knock off a five-term incumbent, even a less than fully robust one. Reps. Joe Sestak and Patrick Murphy have shown little interest in running, and Gov. Rendell will not challenge his friend Specter. Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, the Dem bench in the state is neither long nor deep. Therefore, while Specter may be vulnerable, yet again Pennsylvania Democrats are showing an inability to put up a strong nominee, bringing back memories of Ron Klink (Santorum's challenger in 2000) and Joe Hoeffel (Specter's challenger in 2006), crummy nominees who were pounded after Democrats could not come up with better options. Of course, there has been some talk that Specter might retire given his age and health problems, but my view on this is that unless he is very ill, Specter absolutely will run again. He will not retire unless he is compelled to: he loves his job way too much. If he were to retire, Democrats would be favored in holding the seat in all likelihood, but the blue team should not count on this happening.

(8) Illinois (appointed Sen. Roland Burris (D) will almost certainly run for a full term). This race might be the hardest one to analyze at this time given all the factors at play. There is no doubt in my mind that Roland Burris will run for a full term next year. But unless he gets only one credible primary challenger, I could certainly see him prevailing in a crowded primary by garnering a plurality big enough to supersede a group of pols who are less known. If another black politician were to primary challenger Burris, such as Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. or Rep. Danny Davis, then all bets are off, and Burris might be ousted. This is important because, as we have discussed, Burris would be vulnerable to a challenge from moderate GOP Rep. Mark Kirk, who is pondering a run of his own. While I stand by my belief that Democrats will hold this seat even if we see a Burris-Kirk general, such a match-up has to be giving DSCC head Sen. Bob Mendendez and IL Sen. Dick Durbin a few worrisome thoughts at night.

(9) Colorado (appointed Sen. Michael Bennet (D) is running for a full term). While this seat will likely stay in Democratic hands, that speaks more to Republicans' deficiences in Colorado than to Bennet's strengths. As I posted when Bennet was surprisingly appointed, Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper would have been the better pick, as he would have walked away with the election in 2010, but Bennet himself should still win unless he really screws up in the next year and a half, or Republicans are able to scrounge some fabulous nominee. As things stand now, numerous Republicans have declined to run -- a shocking illustration of how fast and far the state GOP has fallen in just a few short years -- and Bennet is thus looking good. If former GOP Gov. Bill Owens runs, Bennet could be in trouble, but that does not look like it will happen.

(10) Nevada (Sen. Harry Reid (D) is running for a fifth term). For someone who has been involved in his state's politics for nearly four decades, Harry Reid has never enjoyed immense popularity from his fellow Nevadans. I guess that this should not be a shock given Reid's colorless pesona and his reputation as a fairly ruthless pol. Republicans are delighted with Reid's low favorable splits, and are licking their chops at the prospect of ousting another Democratic leader just six years after Tom Daschle was beaten in 2004. Reid is not assured of another term in office, but he should still be favored. The fact is that you can't be something with nothing, and while he is not unbeatable, Republicans have yet to get a definitive 'yes' from a strong Republican challenger to take on Reid next year. Challengers are probably put-off by three things. First, Reid, all warts aside, will be able to raise tens of millions of dollars in his capacity as Majority Leader to beat back any challenge. No Republican will be able to reasonably match him. Second, with GOP Gov. Jim Gibbons extremely vulnerable, strong potential nominees are looking hard at primary challenging the governor to take what would be an easier contest. Third, Obama's enormous 12-point victory in the Silver State had to have been a wake-up call to many Republicans in the state as it demonstrated that the political landscape in Nevada may have been changing very fast in Democrats' favor. In sum, should a strong challenger emerge here, Reid will be in for a tough go of it, but as things stand tonight, that is not the case.

(11) Kansas (Sen. Sam Brownback (R) is retiring after two turns to run for governor). This one is very easy. If outgoing Democratic Gov. Kate Sebelius runs for Senate, she will be a slight favorite over whoever the GOP nominates, probably Rep. Todd Tiahrt or Rep. Jerry Moran. A poll out today from R2K shows the popular Sebelius up over 10 points over both men, which is exactly where she needs to be. Given her term and a half running the state, had she been up by anything less, it would have been a sign that she was not the great hope many Dems felt she was to be the Kansas Democratic Senator in over 75 years. As it stands, she is strong, but Kansas is so red that she would only be a slight favorite to win if she ran. If she decides not to run or she takes a job in Obama's cabinet, this seat is a lock to remain Republican.

(12) Iowa (Sen. Charles Grassley (R) is probably running for a sixth term). This is another easy one. If popular Sen. Chuck Grassley does run again, he wins in a walk. However, if he retires, this seat immediately shoots up into the top three on the line, with a Dem like Rep. Bruce Braley slightly favored to win.

(13) Louisiana (Sen. David Vitter (R) is running for a second term). As crazy as it may sound, I don't give Democrats much chance of being that tainted Vitter. Vitter is still relatively popular in the state, and Louisiana has been trending more to the right since Vitter won in 2004. Like with Reid, you can't beat something with nothing, and right now Democrats have nothing to throw at Vitter in the way of a top candidate.

(14) North Dakota (Sen. Byron Dorban is running for a fourth term). If popular GOP Gov. John Hoeven were to run, the race immediately becomes a total toss-up. The reason I have this race so low is because Hoeven declined to run against Sen. Kent Conrad in 2006, and he has given zero indication that he would run for Senate next year.

(15) Oklahoma (Sen. Tom Coburn (R) is running for a second term). Like in Kansas, Democrats have only one shot of beating Coburn short of a retirement or the infamous dead-girl, live-boy territory. If popular outgoing Gov. Brad Henry were to run against Coburn, the race would be a toss-up/lean slightly to Coburn. No one else has any shot of winning. For his part, Henry has shown little interest in running despite being term-limited in 2010. This is disheartening to Dems who would love to be rid of the firebrand conservative Coburn.

(16) New York (appointed Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand is running for a full term). Democrats will not lose this seat, whether or not Gillibrand is somehow ousted in the primary (which won't happen unless one ambitious rep were to grow a pair).

(17) The Rest. The rest of the races are not changing hands unless something completely unforeseen happens, either a retirement or fantastic scandal.

Are They Hiring?

2009-02-05T21:39:00.000-08:00

Chartered flights on privates jets to exotic locales around the world, first-class cuisine at some of the finest restaurants in New York City, enormous bonuses funneled quietly into your bank account, all-expense paid apartmentsm and all you-can-eat spreads at the office. Is this a summary of an episode of Robin Leach's "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous"? No, rather it is a description of some of the perks that are lavished on campaign aides by New York City's billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

An article in today's New York Times details these and other delicious luxuries that Mayor Bloomberg routinely bestows on his political advisers and others who have the luck of working for him. The piece notes that with Bloomberg seeking a third term in office later this year, he appears eager and willing to spend over $80 million (on top of the over $100 million he spent to win in 2001 and get re-elected in 2005).

Is there a site where I send my resume, kind of like change.gov? I have visions of sushi at Nobu and summer weekends in East Hampton dancing in my head.

NJ-Gov: Did I Say That?

2009-02-05T19:39:00.000-08:00

A few weeks ago, I wrote a post assessing Republicans' chances of toppling Gov. Jon Corzine in this year's gubernatorial race in New Jersey, scoffing at likely GOP candidate Chris Christie's odds of knocking off the deep-pocketed governor and former senator. Well, on the heels of a new poll showing Christie ahead of Corzine by a healthy six points (44-38) -- and Corzine sporting some pitiful personal splits -- I wanted to take a moment to amend my initial thoughts/predictions.

Do I still think Jon Corzine will be re-elected this November? Yes. Should I have foolishly dismissed Republicans' chances so early and out-of-hand? No. The fact is, as I have kept saying, Corzine has never been personally loved, or even well liked in the state. I glossed over this very important fact too quickly. The national financial crisis, combined with lingering high tax issues in the Garden State make 2009 a sticky year for any one to run for re-election, much less a former Goldman Sachs head who ran on a platform of bringing business savvy to Trenton. As a successful former U.S. Attorney for the state for successfully indicted bushels of high profile defendants over the last eight years, Christie can conduct more of an outsider's campaign, and as a result, his chances should not be dismissed, even if his candidacy has its own share of warts.

But there's another reason I have reassessed my initial views of this contest. One of my very key assumptions in predicting a Corzine victory was that like in his 2000 and 2005 contests, the governor would spend whatever it took to edge Christie; indeed, Corzine spent over $100 million to win those two campaigns, the first by a close margin and the second in a blow-out. However, as a couple of articles I have read pointed out in passing, given the brutal national economy, Corzine may no longer have the willingness or even the full ability to write a blank check for this race. This would be a huge break for Christie, as Corzine's greatest asset is his ability to blanket over his weaknesses with cash. If Corzine can't break the bank this time around, Christie won't need to raise as much in order to maintain a his own comfortable presence. Right now, to my mind, that might be Christie's biggest hurdle: namely, raising the tens of millions of dollars necessary not only to keep pace with Corzine, but also run a solid air war in perhaps the most expansive place in America to run statewide (New Jersey has no central media market, so for candidates to become known, they must buy ads in the New York and Philadelphia tv markets which hit the state).

So, what's my overall view right this minute? Given New Jersey's recent electoral history -- perhaps more aptly put as Republicans' string of losses in the state -- Christie and the GOP still face an uphill fight in ousting Corzine. Even if he cannot spend $70 million, Corzine won't be running a J.C. Penny campaign; for Corzine, it is always going to be a Cadillac effort. Consequently, despite the early dire polling, Corzine has an edge. I just no longer feel it as strong or deep an advantage. Chris Christie absolutely has a very good chance of winning.

What Keeps Me Up At Night

2009-02-05T11:47:00.000-08:00

[Warning: What follows is a small piece on The New York Times which will drive media-haters and likely many conservatives crazy. If you fall in either broad category, be warned that this post may raise your blood pressure.]

At night, lying in snugly in your bed, people have different fears of what lurks in the dark. For children and adults, these fears obviously vary greatly. Whereas kids fear monsters, adults might fear job loss, financial problems, or nuclear terrorism. At some point when I was a kid, after I read "Cujo" by Stephen King, I had a deathly fear that there was a red-eyed monster in my closet that would come out after my parents had gone to sleep.

Well, these days while I no longer go into sweats after seeing scary movies (or at least that is what I tell chicks), I have a new fear when I am in the dark, and it involves something much dark and sinister than the bogeyman or a mob of monsters: I am terrified that The New York Times may be on its last legs. The prospect of the Times somehow out of existence is sometimes too much for me to bear.

Like the rest of newspapers out there, the Times is bleeding money every day, and it is unclear what, if anything will stanch the deluge. Part of this because newspapers are no longer as valued with news easily obtainable from various mediums including the Internet. As a result, newspapers are becoming less and less profittable, and thus unable to contend with the high costs associated with running a broadsheet. Additionally, the Times made a huge blunder several years ago when the controlling (and founding) Sulzberger family took the company public in an attempt to make a little more money. That was a grievous error which will continue to cost the organization and the paper in the longterm.

I know, I know. These are the classic, and perhaps pitiful rantings of an East Coast liberal who thinks the Times is the only place to get news. Are many Times readers elitist in some way? Yes. But do I think the Times is the only place to get news in this country? Of course not; I only think the Times is the best place to get news.

Yet, I am not one bit talking about the politics involved here. I think people who rail at the Times miss an important point. Sure, the Times' editorial page is slanted toward the left. Heavily. Its columnists are also nearly universally of the Big "D" persuasion. But why should that matter? That Times' is still, by a wide, wide margin, the best newspaper and news source in the entire world. Bar none. There is no source out there where the quality of the writing, the uniqueness of the stories, and the breadth of the coverage is as detailed and complete as that in the New York Times. It is not even close. The loss of the New York Times would be catastrophic for this country, and for the quality of other news outlets which try to emulate the Times not just in overall quality, but also in covered subject matter.

For those media-bashers who loathe the Times and can't stand the sight of the Gray Lady's famous editorial page, I have a simple retort: if you don't like the back two pages of Section A, just skip them. As I said, there is doubt that the editorial page is just about all left-wing But I do not think this detracts one iota from the overall fabulous quality of the rest of the paper. I know that I won't find something close anywhere else. Not in print, not on the web, and certainly not on CNN/Fox News/MSNBC. I live in Washington, and to those who have said to me that the Washington Post is as good or better than the Times are out of either insane or lying to themselves. The Post is a fine regional paper with some good stuff on the White House, Capitol Hill, and some select international affairs. Nonetheless, comparing the Post to the Times is like comparing a fine cod dinner to lobster tail, filet mignon, and jumbo shrimp. It is not even fair.

And you know what? Despite leaning more to the left than to the right in matters of politics, I never read the editorials. Never with a capital "N". I never read the vapid Maureen Dowd, I never read Paul Krugman, I never read Bob Herbert, and I never read Nicholas Kristoff. (I do, however, read Frank Rich, whose exquisite political take-downs usually elegantly express what I can only think and occasionally shout out loud in incoherent terms). This is not because they are bad writers or I do not agree with their general worldviews, but because I am simply not interested in what they have to say. I enjoy getting my news straight from a basic source, wherever I find it. To borrow from Fox News' famous credo, I like to get my reporting, and then decide what I think.

I wish haters of the Times would do the same. Just because the editors are slanted in their backpage stuff, does not mean that you should ignore the rest of the paper, which is not nearly as slanted in its writing. Those that feel this way should forget the editorials and the fiery columns, and instead judge the paper for its quality on every other page. Using that test makes it much more difficult to impugn the Times' considerable strengths.

Clearly, like the hundreds of other newspapers facing dire financial situations today, the Times has limited options besides continual cutbacks. One idea that has been bandied about a lot recently has been for the Times to begin charging subscription fees to access any of online content. Naturally, a lot of people have been critical of this idea, noting that the Times' popular website would lose a large majority of its regular traffic, with many people going elsewhere to get their news.

While I would not love the idea of the Times charging fees to read its sites, fees that could be potentially high, I would absolutely pay just about anything they required. For one thing, the Times' webpage has been the very best news website out there for years, ever since I started using the Internet back in college. Unlike many papers, the Times puts all of its material right online. Its page has always been pretty sleek and easy to access and navigate. Additionally, as I noted above, the page has totally free (except for a brief time when the editorial page was behind a pay-wall) to anyone who wants to read it and create an account name. In other words, readers have been enjoying the online content at no charge for over a decade. For this reason, I would have no issue with being asked to finally pay something for a paper I would have had to buy from a newstand. It would be equittable, not to mention fully worth it as the Times webpage has gotten really innovative in the last few months.

Forgive me if this post comes across as a gross New York Times lovenote over a week before Valentine's Day. It was only meant to be a little gushing. I just wanted to spell out how important the Times is not just to me, but to anyone who enjoys or appreciates terrific writing and news coverage. As the Times begins to sink deeper into financial trouble, I will continue to be terrified -- yes, terrified -- of the prospect that the Times could somehow cease to exist. I do not question that the newspaper industry as a whole is dying, though I certainly mourn it. However, to me, the New York Times is more than a run-of-the-mill newspaper. It is an American institution that is irreplaceable, and the world would be a worse-off place without it.

You Know You Have No Life When.....

2009-02-05T11:40:00.000-08:00

You know you have no life when, despite being late for a date, you stay with your friends at a bar, refusing to leave until you fulfill a bet to name every county and statewide elected official in Colorado. I don't if that is worse than when I stayed up an entire night, checking the results of the Alaska Republican House primary in August, refreshing the Alaska Secretary of State webpage every 10 seconds in hopes that Don Young would ultimately survive. If it is not worse, it is close.

For the record, I fell two counties short. I just had to go, and my lateness was not appreciated.

Strickland's Clout

2009-02-05T10:48:00.000-08:00

Three small news items over the last week have helped draw a clear picture of Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland's enormous clout in the state with his re-election looming next year along with an important open-seat Senate contest.

First came a piece which said that Strickland was strongly backing his Lieutenant Governor Lee Fisher for the Senate seat, going so far as to lightly pressure Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner not to make the race. Then came polls showing Fisher owning a slight lead over Brunner in the prospective Democratic primary for the seat. Finally, today Quinnipiac has a poll out showing Strickland with a 60/19 favorable unfavorable split, and whooping 20+ and 30+ point leads over his two most dangerous prospective general election nominees, former Sen. Mike DeWine and former Rep. John Kasich.

The morale of all this? Ted Strickland is the unquestioned king of Ohio politics right now, and what he says and does will hold a great amount of weight not only in his own race, but in the Senate contest as well. It's my opinion and the opinion of other observers that Lee Fisher is not Democrats' best nominee for the Senate seat. Personally, I think Rep. Tim Ryan would be a great general election nominee -- his pro-life, pro-gun views gibing very well in Western Ohio in a general -- while I have to acknowledge I know very little about Brunner's politics or general disposition. Fisher, the former state Attorney General before joining Strickland's ticket in 2006 is alright, but he had statewide runs for office before, and is not that young (58 years old). Additionally, despite his long-standing presence in Ohio politics, he is not terribly well known across the Buckeye State.

Yet, all of this will likely be irrelevant if Strickland continues to swing his influence around both in the Senate primary and the 2010 general elections. It will be hard for Brunner (not to mention Ryan, and any other interested people who may not be out there) to defy the very popular governor and make a run if he actively backs Fisher. Furthermore, while Fisher may not be the best choice out there, with Strickland at the of the ticket above the Senate match-up next year, that may not matter if the governor is able to provide a big boast to rest of the 2010 Democratic ticket by winning decisively. In 2006, Strickland's massive victory certainly helped out then-Rep. Sherrod Brown who toppled then-Sen. DeWine by a larger margin than expected (though, of course, that 2006 was a strong year for Democrats across the country must be acknowledged).

If Fisher were to win, he would be Ohio's first Jewish Senator since Howard Metzenbaum, who held the other Senate seat before Mike DeWine won it and 1994.

For Jindal, Patience in Key

2009-02-05T07:42:00.000-08:00

Since the November elections, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has become a bit of a celebrity on the political and Republican speaking circuits. Jindal, at 37 years old the nation's youngest governor, is viewed as a penultimate star in the GOP today and one of the party's future national leaders. For his part, Jindal has seemed to enjoy the attention, traveling around the country for various engagements, political and not, all the while coyly side-stepping questions about his possible presidential ambitions, questions he is no doubt delighted to address but not answer.

This is absolutely the wise course for Jindal because unlike many any other politicians with images of the White House dancing in their eyes, Jindal has plenty of time to be patient. After losing a close runoff for the Louisiana governorship in 2003, Jindal was elected to the House of Representatives for his first elective office in 2004. He left Congress upon being elected governor three years. As a result, Jindal is afforded not only relative youth, but also a thin record which will not burden him later. His presidential "freshness" will still be neatly intact for several years to come.

When Jindal is re-elected governor in 2011 -- and barring some unfortunate circumstances for him, that will happen given the current demise of the Louisiana Democratic Party -- he has options at his disposal. Assuming Barack Obama still looks very strong in a few years, he can sit tight in 2012 and not put himself out there as a nominee must likely to be sacrified to the Obama machine. Or, if he so desires, he could be a strong contender to be the running mate for someone like Mitt Romney, the king of whitebread candidates. Even if he were to be the number two on a losing ticket, he would be strongly positioned for an open seat in 2016.

Of course, Jindal can also stay completely out of the 2012 circus if a GOP slaughter looks likely, thereby walking above the fray and not being hit with the taint of a terrible loss afterwards. Naturally, he risks waiting too long and allowing his star to potentially set before then, because as we all know: in politics, a few years is a whole bunch of lifetimes. Nonetheless it is a risk worth taking from Jindal's perspective because of his youth and his lack of a long elected or legislative history. Unlike many ambitious pols who yearn for the presidency but have piled up too many years in office to remain palatable (basically the entire U.S. Senate on both sides), Jindal is still a relative newcomer to the scene, and as a result, he has a great deal of flexibility for his own career plans. This what makes him a likely frontrunner when he decides to make his move. I predict it will be in 2016.

Onward to the General

2009-02-03T14:37:00.000-08:00

One of our favorite pollsters, Public Policy Polling is out with a new poll this week of the Virginia gubernatorial Democratic primary between former state Del. Brian Moran, state Sen. Creigh Deeds, and Democratic fundraiser and former DNC chair Terry McAuliffe, and the poll gives some strong news to McAuliffe with the campaign just getting under way. The poll shows the former DNC chair tied with Moran at 18%, and Deeds further back at 11%.

The reason this is good news is that whereas Moran has been a longtime political fixture in northern Virginia and has high name recognition (also in part because his brother James is a Congressman), McAuliffe got into this race as a complete unknown in Virginia except to the most diehard Democratic politicos. Indeed, part of McAuliffe's early showing here is due to the fact that he started airing commercials last month -- an unprecedented early opening for a primary that falls in June -- which have undoubtedly bolstered his name recognition.

While the race is still extremely early and this poll has an immensely high undecided number (not to mention, it gives McAuliffe higher negatives than both of the other two candidates), I expect McAuliffe to win the primary. I feel this way not because McAuliffe is a better candidate or politician than the other two, but rather for the simple reason that he is a spectacular fundraiser, and as the early commercials evidence, he will raise tens of millions of dollars in this campaign that Moran and Deeds will be unable to come close to matching. Central to Moran's and Deeds' campaign strategies will be to label McAuliffe a millionaire carpetbagger who is trying to buy the governorship, but unless they can raise a mint of money or hijack a couple of Brinks trucks, they are going to face tough sledding. You can bet your bottom dollar that neither of them will be on the air any time soon. Consequently, I see McAuliffe heading to the general election against state Attorney General Bob McDonnell.

Even this early, we can already turn our sights to the main event. In one corner, McAuliffe will raise a zillion dollars and run aggressively and gregariously (as is his personable nature), and in the other McDonnell will run on high name recognition and a strong law-and-order resume, but he is more polished than 2005 race loser and AG predecessor Jerry Kilgore. At this point, I would give the edge to McDonnell because he will be able to raise and spend a good amount of money, although certainly not in McAuliffe's neighborhood. Additionally, with the Virginia GOP having lost the last two gubernatorial races, as well as both U.S. Senate seats, three House seats, and the State Senate, the party is very hungry and determined to win back the governor's chair, especially with redistricting looming in 2011.

However, I think the biggest reason that McDonnell should be favored right now is because of McAuliffe's baggage as a plain fundraiser and a carpetbagger. Virginia is certainly not the state it was ten years ago when connections to the Clintons would be immense liabilities that a politician would run away from, but McAuliffe is still not running in New York. And McDonnell is certainly going to run on these themes. Then again, if McAuliffe ends up raising $80 million, it might not matter what McDonnell does.

We will all follow this one closely since a Democratic victory will signal the completion of Virginia's transformation to a blue state. And let me also state that my prediction here may not be worth a great deal since I foolishly guaranteed in 2005 that Kilgore would beat Tim Kaine who I preceived as too liberal to win statewide. Virginia may well just be blue enough now for a run-of-the-mill liberal Democrat to win. We'll see.

John Lynch

2009-02-03T11:23:00.001-08:00

There is little question in my mind that New Hampshire Governor John Lynch is going to become a punching bag for many Democrats over the next few days after he appoints a Republican to fill out the final two years of Judd Gregg's current Senate term. Lynch, who apparently agreed to appoint a GOPer to the seat at the behest of Gregg, will be criticized by both state and national Democrats first for making a deal with Gregg, and second for slotting in a Republican despite his own party affiliation as well as the quick leftward movement of his state.

In my opinion, much of this criticism has been, and will continue to be wrongheaded, while some of the broader attacks on the guts of the Democratic Party is spot-on. In terms of the specific upcoming appointment, irate observers need to keep two things in mind. First, Lynch did not have much choice in this matter. If he did not give Gregg his assurances that the Senator would be replaced by a fellow elephant, Gregg likely would not have taken President Obama's appointment and would have stayed in his seat in order to prevent Democrats from getting to 60 seats in the upper chamber. Despite their party differences, having Gregg in the cabinet is a net plus for New Hampshire in terms of politics and plain pride, so it certainly is a good appointment from Lynch's perspective. Therefore, he made the deal, and I do not blame him for it.

Second, despite the momentary setback of having Gregg being replaced by a Republican, this is still a big net plus for the Dems in the longterm. As we have discussed ad naseum, Judd Gregg remains the most popular current Republican officeholder in New Hampshire. Had he run again next year, he would have certainly been more beatable than he ever has been, though he still would have been a slight favorite against Rep. Paul Hodes (who today announced he was running for the seat next year, not a big surprise). In other words, the seat was within the Democrats' grasp, but hardly a sure thing. By getting Gregg out of elected politics, Democrats now have a much easier shot at the plum office. I would go so far as to say that Hodes is now the favorite to be New Hampshire's next junior senator, given his own strengths and the state GOP's weak bench. So, Dems should not be too upset here: that kind of mindset is greedy and short-sighted as it relates to the seat itself.

Of course, all of this assumes that Lynch will appoint a placeholder to the seat who will not run for a full term next year. All indications are that that will happen, but if it does not, the entire calculus changes, not just for national Democrats, but for John Lynch himself. If Lynch were to tap someone who eventually ran as an incumbent, it would infuriate Democrats and end any national future he might have had before this saga. It would make much of this post moot.

One more point on all of this. Clearly, I have sympathy for John Lynch here. He is in an impossible position where no matter what course of action he takes, he will piss off one side. If he were to appoint a Democrat, Republicans would be apoplectic that the governor was taking a seat New Hamshirites had elected a Republican to, and given it to a Democrat. For a man who styles himself as strongly bipartisan -- as evidenced by his past behavior, and his enormous victory margins in his last two elections -- that kind of reaction would have been anathema. On the other hand, by appointing a Democrat, Lynch would undoubtedly bother his own party both in Corcord and Washington, DC.

All of that being said, I find it impossible to envision the Republicans honoring a similar agreement and arrangement if the roles were reversed. There is no way on earth any Republican governor (short of Vermont GOP Gov. Jim Douglas--maybe!) would appoint a Democrat to a seat where his party in Washington controlled 59 Senate seats. Of the two parties, only the Democrats would show this lack of gumption in such a political situation. As my old boss used to say, and admiringly, "Republicans' DNA is just different than Democrats'." And I make this observer too with admiration, not disdain!

Obama the Political Genius?

2009-01-30T08:17:00.000-08:00

The news this morning that New Hampshire Republican Senator Judd Gregg is under serious consideration to be Secretary of Commerce is very big. Should Obama offer Gregg the job, and the Senator accept, it would rob the Republicans of yet another Senate seat, and potentially give the Democrats a 60th seat in the current Senate. In a word, such a move by Obama would be brilliant. And it would show just how far Obama has come as a political strategist and partisan thinker.

These discussions have come completely out of left field. No one saw this one coming. Sure, there has been scattered talk about Obama possibly offering a position to someone like Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins -- the usual suspects given that they are the two most left-leaning Senate Republicans left -- but no one ever really considered Gregg for a post, especially since the cabinet filled out. This is precisely why the move would be so brilliant.

As we have noted in past posts, Gregg is up for a new term next year. A longtime fixture in Granite State politics, Gregg remains popular in New Hampshire, and it would be fair to say that he is the most popular Republican left there. Despite all of this, however, Gregg likely faces a tough race next year against someone like Congressman Paul Hodes. For this big reason, there has been a lot of chatter that Gregg has been thinking about making this his final stint in Congress. That he is now being considered for, and is himself considering a job in Obama's cabinet should only reinforce the validity of those rumors. Indeed, if Gregg were strongly married to the decision to seek another term, he likely would not be entertaining leaving the Senate right away.

Which brings us back to Obama. Obama and his team know all of this, and their decision to probe Gregg's candidacy as Commerce Secretary shows incredibly shrewdness. The cat may be out of the bag now, but Republicans were still caught flat-footed, and there is no doubt that prominent Senators have been lobbying Gregg hard over the last 24 hours not to accept any appointment that would lead him to vacate his Senate seat and give Democratic Governor John Lynch the power to appoint his replacement for the rest of this Congress. An appointment of Gregg would put another moderate Republican in the new Democratic President's cabinet, it would give the Democrats a great chance to get to a filibuster-proof 60 seats (assuming Al Franken is ultimately victorious), and it would rob the Republicans of one of their smartest members and at the same time strip the moribund party of one of its few remaining moderate voices (though, to be fair, Gregg is pretty conservative, just not when compared with individuals like Tom Coburn, Jeff Sessions, Jim DeMint, and others).

Obama's consideration of Gregg is a brilliant power-play, and the appointment of Gregg would be a political masterstroke. While this is hardly a done deal, this story would not have gotten out if Gregg were not under serious consideration.

Let me say one final thing. As I have documented before, when Obama first started running for President, I had little respect for his political savvy, believing him to be a somewhat idealistic and naive politician (as evidenced by his initial desire to vote to confirm John Roberts to be Chief Justice in 2005). Obviously, as the presidential campaign germinated and progressed and Obama ultimately emerged the big winner, this view of mine altered considerably. Making Rahm Emanuel his first appointment only reinforced this. However, should Obama tap Gregg for the Commerce post, I can promise that I will never, ever, ever question Obama's political chops, savvy, or plain ruthlessness ever again. To me, the move would be that smart.

America's Dumbest Senator

2009-01-20T21:17:00.001-08:00

John Cornyn of Texas is reputed to be America's dumbest senator for good reason. He has had to work very hard to demonstrate time and again that he may be the biggest fool in a body inhabited by dozens of dodos.

But today, Cornyn really one-upped himself. First, he blocked the Senate from considering Hillary Clinton's nomination to be Secretary of State. Because it was for a voice vote, Cornyn had the power to delay consideration of the nomination, but the nomination will sail through tomorrow through a roll call vote, which cannot be stopped in a similar fashion. So, in other words, Cornyn blocked for a single day a cabinet nomination which is sure to go through overwhelmingly, all on the day that a new President is being inaugurated. Classy job.

But what really got me was a small thing that happened in an interview Cornyn did this afternoon. While asked about Senator Ted Kennedy's seizure at the congressional inaugural lunch, Cornyn included a comment where he noted that -- and I am paraphrasing, since I don't remember his exact words -- 'while I do not agree with much with Kennedy politically, I hope for his speedy recovery.'

Earth to John: Everyone in America knows Kennedy is a liberal, and has been for decades. Duh. And we all know that it is a typical partisan dance for one hack to say that about the other party's hacks: i.e. we don't agree, but gee whiz, we still like each other and don't want each other to get sick. But with Kennedy just being stricken with a seizure, and continuing to battle lethal brain cancer, is it really necessary to qualify kind words with some partisan mumbo jumbo? I realize he is trying to really burnish his GOP credentials now that he is NRSC honcho -- then again, I don't think it is possible for Cornyn to be any more of an outward Republican foot-soldier than he has been since he took office in 2003 -- but couldn't he have just let it slide, and simply said some kind words about Kennedy?

In November, Cornyn easily won a second term over Rick Noriega. He won not because he was a great candidate or leader -- he is neither -- but because Noriega had no money, and the DSCC had too many other opportunities to lavish big bucks on an expensive Texas campaign. Cornyn has never been terribly popular in Texas. Watch 2014. Texas is slowly but surely becoming more blue. Had Noriega had really funding, he would have ended up around 47 or 48%. Come 2014, someone like moderate Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar has a good chance of ousting Cornyn.

Wise up, John.

Eight Years?

2009-01-20T21:05:00.001-08:00

A jarring thought just hit me: it has been eight years since the disputed 2000 presidential election. This is jarring to me because I remember that election night like it happened last week.

I was a junior in college at the time, and I watched the results come in with two of my fellow student council members/political junkies. We watched CNN until pretty late at night. I had guaranteed to my more skeptical friends that Al Gore would thread the needle by carrying Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida. One-by-one these keys bricks fell into place, and when Florida was called, the whoops rose from my friends' third-floor apartment and the vodka flowed freely. However, when the Florida call was rescinded by the networks, confusion, then anger, then sadness, then despair, and then depression came and went in rapid succession, followed by more vodka, this time for a different purpose. I remember distinctly walking home along the Arts quad, with one of my friends it tow, blaming me for the loss because I had not "delivered" the states I promised would go blue. Silly me. When I got home, I flopped immediately into bed. I woke up around 4 AM, and checked CNN.com which said Bush won Florida, and went back to bed. We all know what transpired over the next month.

Anyway, I just can't believe it has been eight years since all of that went down. It seems like election night 2000 was more recent than election night 2004, though that may be because the latter was so awful it is worth suppressing from the Democratic perspective (in 2000, Democrats did have a fantastic night in the Senate races). Maybe all of this just means I am getting old.

I Was There

2009-01-20T14:42:00.001-08:00

Not long after the November elections, I was vowing that I intended to flee the city for the presidential inauguration. I have never been too big into pomp, circumstance, ceremony, balls, and cotillions, and I see the January inauguration the same may I view January football: it is viewed much more comfortably from a couch than from actually being there. Nor do I like huge crowds and throngs of people. This is precisely why I live in Washington as opposed to somewhere like New York where it is impossible to not walk five paces without bumping into another person. Finally, because I did not make it home for the holidays -- from a combination of laziness, disinterest, my family's dormant Judaism, and my folks getting a nasty intestinal flu on Christmas day from my niece -- it seemed liked as good a time as any for me to make an escape up north.

With but a few days remaining, I seemed pretty set to fulfill my plans to head up to lovely New Jersey for a week, not thinking twice about it. I even cashed in 3,000 of the Amtrak points I have been hoarding for years for a train ticket. Then I got a call from my mother. She pointed out how foolish it was for me to live the city when history was about to happen right in my own backyard. She noted that I could come back any time. And she invoked how much it meant to her when she saw JFK's inauguration with Robert Frost as a teenager. That last one was the kicker. I knew she was right, and I switched gears right away. (Though, I did not hurt that I actually had some parties and other activities to go to for once.)

So, this morning, I awoke at 6 AM to make a short trek down to the Mall. (I have to say, I must have been more excited than I thought I would be, as I had a pretty vivid dream that I overslept and missed the whole thing and could not find my friends either.) From the moment out the door, I realized it was going to be a pretty surreal day. Despite the strong cold and remaining darkness, there were streams of people headed down 17th Street towards Constitution. A casual observer of the scene might have placed it in a horror or end-of-the-world film, but the feeling permeating the crowd was not an eerie one, but rather a sense of built-up exhilaration and really, pure energy. Indeed, despite the early hour, the long walk for some, and harrowing temperatures for all, it seemed as though as everyone on their way to the National Mall was in perfect spirits.

The walk to the Mall was really not too bad. People were packed like sardines, but I think I got up early enough to get through fairly easily, not to mention that I live only a few blocks from the Washington Monument. Once I got to the Monument, there was much more space for me to get some daylight. I had one objective: to move well onto the Mall, and as far up as I could go. I had few illusions about reaching the reflecting pool by the Capitol -- I had no tickets -- but I wanted to go far up. Because I was unable to connect with some friends -- pre-planned meeting spaces have little meaning in the midst of closed streets, unreliable and packed subway cars, and millions of people smushed altogether -- I had the freedom to make my move unencumbered by slow-poke and distracted associates.

I was able to move fast to the outskirts of the Department of Agriculture on the main part of the Mall, where things were slowed by 14th Street. Once I got there, it was like eating soup with a fork: tens of thousands were already there, and moving forward was a matter of finding open pockets of grass (or in winter's case, dirt and straw), getting right behind other forward-thinking (not to mention moving) individuals, and displaying a plucky and at time shameless resolve to use myself and others as a human battering ram to get where I wanted to go. Yet, despite my pushiness, I found the mood of the crowd to be similar to the jovial feeling that was infused around me on my walk down 17th Street. People were almost universally in great spirits, and no one seemed to complain about the uneasiness of some (read: me) wanting to get to another spot.

After weaving through an impressive maze of police, barricades, barriers, fences, and people, I made it as absolutely far as possible, ending up by the Air and Space Museum and next to the MSNBC structure. Ultimately, I moved down a bit to stand next to a set of speakers. While I did not have the perfect view of one of the many huge screens erected on the Mall, I at least wanted to ensure that I would hear all of the key proceedings.

I would be remiss if I did not say a few words on the weather, perhaps the most uninviting part of today's festivities. It was cold. Very cold. When I got up this morning, it was in the teens, and I do not believe that the mercury rose much through the course of the morning. The blowing winds did not make things much more inviting, and after a while, my chapped skin and and the colorless surrounding dirt made me feel, albeit very briefly, that I was occupying the arctic tundra of an Alaskan interior village. The sun made sporadic appearances, but never really impacted the thermometer.

Nevertheless, what is interesting about all of this is that it did not bother me as much it should have or usually would have. When I decided on a place to put up my tent -- i.e. a location to stand for the duration -- I looked at my watch and ruefully wondered to myself how the heck I would survive the four hours before the swearing-in was supposed to take place. Yet, as the minutes melted by -- though, that word might not be the most appropriate given the temperature -- I was not at all miserable. For once I had had the foresight to bundle up: I had on five layers, a scarf, and a winter cap my mother sent me that would please active Eskimos, and I passed the time in relative contentment.

I was certainly not alone. The entire crowd seemed to exude a similar feeling. People were certainly freezing, but no one seemed in despair, boredom, enormous discomfort, or to betray any feeling that they wanted to be anywhere else. The crowd remained friendly throughout. This is not to say that the inauguration crowd -- at least around me -- was all standing together and chatting like everyone was an old friend of everyone else, even if that is the type of Candyland vision I am sure a lot of people in the media would like to push. Still, I don't think that mattered one bit. Some people were chatting, absolutely, but mostly, I think people were just standing there trying to weather the elements, but full of complete eager anticipation for the ceremonies to begin. That's a pretty good thing too.

To me, the ceremonies, particularly Obama's speech, were anti-climatic. The speech was merely okay, and the endless litany of announcements of politicians and their spouses on the stage was not terribly interesting. The best part of the day was something else. It was being in the middle of that astonishing crowd -- there must have been two million people there, as the entire Mall was blanketed with bodies -- and being part of something that I don't think could have happened today in any other modernized country on earth: the election of a black chief executive.

At the end of the speech, I lingered up front to see if I could get a better view of the Capitol and surroundings. Besides seeing the largest amount of assorted refuse I had even laid my eyes upon -- the poor clean-up crew! -- I was amazed at how many people remained on the Mall. Like me, I think many, many people just didn't want to leave, and wanted to continue to soak up whatever history, magic, whatever you want to call it that was still in the air. In 30 years, assuming I am lucky enough to remain on this earth, I likely won't remember the specifics of Obama's speech, or Chief Justice Roberts' minor flub of the oath, but rather this whole scene. This is going to be what I remember most about this day.

I have no idea if Obama will succeed as President. He certainly has the opportunity to do big things, but who knows? Yet, even though I am one of the most hardened political cynics in the world and am someone who sees little good in most national politicians, it is hard for me not to be at least a little bit awed by today's inauguration. That millions of people braved the bitter cold -- many of them for many, many hours -- is no small feat, and it is not lost on even a political pessimist like me.

When I finally got home after spending seven hours outside, with my nose running like a faucet and my feet feeling like sacks of granite and rusted pennies, all-in-all I felt pretty good. It was almost as if amazingly, the weather and the wait had no negative impact at all. I am very happy that in a generation I can say I was on the Mall on January 20, 2009.

This Time, Dems Taste Bad Luck

2009-01-15T12:27:00.000-08:00

As we have been discussing of late, since the new year, Senate Republicans have caught a series of bad breaks, as four incumbents have announced their retirements in quick succession, knocking the party right back into the hole it found itself in the morning after the election. Well, this week Dems got a bit of their own bad news, as popular New Hampshire Governor John Lynch fairly emphatically announced that he will not challenge Republican Senator Judd Gregg in 2010.

Had Lynch decided to run, he would have been the likely frontrunner, even if Gregg opts for another term. Lynch is hyper-popular in New Hampshire right now, and he has received enormous majorities in his last two elections in 2006 and 2008 (New Hampshire's governor is up every two years). He was far and away the Dems' best possible nominee for the seat in two years. The focus now turns to second-term Rep. Paul Hodes, who is probably the best option remaining for the blue team. Hodes is supposedly strongly considering it. As we have already discussed, Second District Rep. Carol Shea-Porter is also thinking about running, but we believe she would be a weak challenger, and an almost sure loser if Gregg runs again.

A lot of people (Democrats) have been looking at this race in the wrong way in their view of Gregg's viability. No one can question that New Hampshire has moved sharply to towards the Democrats in the last few years, with the party capturing and holding the governor's office, the state legislature, both congressional seats, and one of the U.S. Senate seats. That being said, Gregg remains the most popular Republican figure in the state, and a longtime fixture in New Hampshire (before coming to the Senate in 1992, he was governor). His popularity may not be as high as it once was, but he will still be a very formidable foe for national Democrats to take out. Even against Lynch, he would have had a good shot to win, and against lesser opponents, his chances are improved. If Hodes runs, Gregg should still be favored, and I think he would probably win in the end too.

There is talk that Gregg is considering retirement. Personally, unlike someone like Chuck Grassley, I don't think Gregg is a great candidate for retirement as he is not that old. However, should he decide to hang up his spurs and head for the exits, New Hampshire would move to the very top of the list of Senate seats likely to switch sides. For that reason, you can bet your life that John Cornyn, Orrin Hatch, and others are pleading with Gregg to stick it out for at least another term.

Wake Up and Smell the Reality

2009-01-12T18:37:00.000-08:00

This item from this evening caught my eye:

Now that Roland Burris will soon be seated in the United States Senate, National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn is calling the Illinois Senate race a “top priority” for the party in 2010.

“I fully expect that the voters of Illinois will not soon forget this dark chapter in their state’s political history, just as I also expect voters across the country will not soon forget the arrogant mismanagement of Senate Democrat leaders in recent weeks,” Cornyn said in a statement.

“Rebuilding the public trust in Illinois and re-gaining this Senate seat will be a top priority for Republicans in 2010.”

There is no doubt that even though the current Burris/Blago saga is over and Burris is being seated in the Senate, Democrats are not in the ideal position right now with regards to the seat. People in Illinois remain embarrassed and disgusted with the Blagojevich scandal, and Burris' very presence makes both him and the state party vulnerable when the seat comes up in 2010. Nevertheless, I see little chance that the seat will flip to the Republicans in two years, even if by some unlikely event Burris is the Democratic nominee in 2010.

Consider the following:

* In two years, once Blagojevich is out of office, and perhaps even convicted by then, the stench of corruption will waft a little less strongly over the seat

* There is an excellent chance Burris will be ousted in a primary -- assuming he runs for a full term -- by another Democrat who is not tied as closely to Blagojevich

* The Republican bench in the state stinks

I realize John Cornyn has to speak with lots of bluster in his position as NRCC honcho/GOP cheerleader, just as people like Schumer, Van Hollen, and others have had to do for Dems in their positions. Still, don't expect this seat to change hands any time soon, for one simple reason:

Barack Obama.

Regardless of what happens to Obama's national popularity in the next two years, he will remain a national force, and a hero in his homestate. What does this mean? Simply that there is absolutely no way Obama would allow this seat, his seat to be lost. Even in the worst case scenario for Dems -- Blago's trial is still ongoing in late 2010, Burris wins the nomination, and the GOP nominates their best possible nominee in Mark Kirk -- the blue team would still likely hold the seat. If the race is close (and even if it is not that close), Obama will play a big role in raising money and jacking up turnout on behalf of whoever runs for a full term on the Democratic line. Obama will not let his own seat go to the Republicans on his watch. You can take that to the bank.

The only way I saw Dems conceivably losing this seat was if state legislators were foolish enough to call a special election while people were still furious at Blagojevich and Dems. If that had happened, Kirk could have snuck past also-rans like Burris, Danny Davis, Jesse Jackson Jr, or others. But with no special -- the legislators wised up fast -- Kirk would have a hard time winning in November 2010.

In sum, if you ever fall into the trap of thinking that the Illinois Senate seat could be endangered, just remember who is in the White House. Other than that, it would take the old Earl Long dead-girl-live-boy scandal to turn the seat red.

Another GOP Bummer in Ohio

2009-01-12T17:19:00.000-08:00

Today's announcement by Republican Senator George Voinovich (Ohio) that he intends to retire next year is another headache for a party already sitting at 41 seats in the upper chamber. Voinovich joins Kit Bond (Missouri), Sam Brownback (Kansas), and Mel Martinez (Florida) as GOPers already announcing that they will not run for another term when they come up in 2010.

Voinovich's retirement is a somewhat mixed bag for the Republicans. On the one hand, unless a rep or senator is under indictment, it is always undesirable for a sitting incumbent's party to lose an incumbent, given most incumbents' high name recognition and their ability to raise money more easily. For his part, Voinovich is a longtime fixture in the Buckeye State, and his moderate, even posture has made him a formidable political force there. That being said, in recent years Voinovich's political standing at home has taken a big hit (in no small measure to the self-destruction of the Ohio Republican Party), and polling has suggested that had he run again, Voinovich would have faced a tough slog towards a third term. Therefore, am argument can be made that replacing Voinovich with a fresh face might give the Republicans a better chance to hold the seat.

I am inclined to buy the former line of thinking, and I see this latest retirement as more bad news for the Republicans. Voinovich has universal name recognition in Ohio, and as a more moderate member of Congress, he would not have been less vulnerable to attacks by Democrats attempting to tie him to the unpopular GOP Congress and the even more unpopular Bush years. I think he would have been a slight favorite had a chosen to run again next year, but now the race is a toss-up, at least until the primary fields develop more fully.

The GOP side looks a little more settled, even today, and not necessarily in a good way. Former Congressman Rob Portman appears like he is jumping right in. Portman left Congress a few years ago to join the Bush administration, first as the U.S. Trade Representative and then as the head of the OMB. A solid conservative from the red Cincinnati suburbs, Portman should garner widespread support among state and national Republicans. He should also be able to raise big money from his contacts and deep-pocketed allies.

Still, I think Portman will be a flawed candidate. First, despite the bluster of Republicans today, Portman is not well-known statewide. He was a rep for just one-eighteenth of the state, and even though he served in two very important federal posts, they are not exactly jobs that many Americans know a thing about. I would wager a great deal of money most Ohioians have no idea that one of their own was the trade rep and head of OMB. Second, Portman's ties to the brutally unpopular Bush years, particularly as a member of his economic/budget circle before the economic collapse, will be a prime target for Democrats, and it will become nightly fodder for hard-hitting commercials. You can bet that Portman will run away from what he has been doing the last few years, but these ties will take a heavy toll on his candidacy.

At the very least, Portman will likely be able to sew the nomination up pretty neatly. One likely opponent, former Congressman John Kasich has been making more noise that he wants to challenge Gov. Ted Strickland in 2010 instead. And even if Kasich would prefer to go for the Senate prize, look for John Cornyn and the NRSC to try to muscle him out in order to avoid a costly primary. If Kasich were to get in, that would make for an interesting match-up: the former head of OMB versus the former chair of the House Budget Committee. Specifically, Kasich is a likeable guy, and he has been hosting a semi-regular show on Fox News for some time, so he has retained at least some of his name recognition (he left Congress in 2000). However, his work for the GOP Congress, not to mention a post-Congress stint working for Lehman Brothers, could be big liabilities. Former Secretary of State and 2006 gubernatorial nominee Ken Blackwell could also run, and to Portman's right, but for the time being he is pursuing the chairmanship of the RNC, so his prospects are much more uncertain today.

The Democratic side is a harder to call tonight. In my opinion, the strongest nominee is current Congressman Tim Ryan of Eastern Ohio. Elected in 2002, Ryan is very young, very telegenic, and he has a good blue collar base (Youngstown) that could serve him very well in a statewide run. Additionally, while Ryan has a mostly liberal voting record, he is pro-life, which would be an asset for him in the more conservative pockets of the state. Some may argue that Ryan is less likely to run because he was tapped for the Appropriations Committee in the last Congress. Just as when this argument is proffered in relation to other members, let me again call it complete hooey. Yes, Approps is one of the very best committees in Congress, but take a look at Ryan's resume. He was elected to Congress the age of 29. This is not a guy who wants to sit as a back-bencher in the House forever: he is very ambitious. A Senate run for an open seat next year is the perfect opportunity for him, and if he has any guts, vision, or savvy at all, now is the time to make a race. Given his age, he could serve six or seven terms. But if does not run, a Senate seat may not open for 20 years. Ryan is tonight said to be considering this race.

The other possible Dems are okay. Lieutenant Governor Lee Fisher may be too old, and he has already lost statewide runs. Second-term Congresswoman Betty Sutton, is, in my humble opinion, a light weight, and her representing the same district that current Sen. Sherrod Brown vacated in 2006 to go to the Senate may not be an asset. Fellow second-termer Zach Space is very interesting. Space represents a pretty Republican district, and if he could do well in his region of the state, he could win on the back of the urban centers. Plus, he may consider a run with a more difficult contest looming for him in 2010 (not to mention that Ohio is going to lose two House seats in the next census). To be honest, I don't know enough about Space's record to make a fully reasoned opinion of him, but he could be a potentially strong nominee and someone worth watching, especially if Ryan foolishly decides not to run.

A Portman-Ryan or Portman-Space race (forgive the unintentional pun there) would have to be viewed as a toss-up. Both national parties will spend heavily: Republicans want desperately to hold off Ohio's seeming leftward movement, and Democrats want to control both Senate seats for the first times since the days of Howard Metzenbaum and John Glenn. With Gov. Strickland likely to romp to a second term in 2010, whoever the Dems put up will likely see a boast from the popular governor, not to mention the fundraising advantage cash-rich Dems will enjoy over their counterparts. My own initial sense is that while Democrats would be foolish to dismiss Portman's chances, Ryan should be able to beat him, barring a change for the worse in the economy or in Obama's popularity. And even if this outlook may be a bit too rosy for the blue team, there's little doubt Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn are suffering from some heartburn tonight.

Perspective

2009-01-06T20:26:00.000-08:00

Today Norm Coleman announced that he would contest Al Franken's apparent victory in their Senate contest, taking the matter to court. Coleman's announcement, which had been expected given the fighting words of his attorneys over the last few weeks, does not seem to gibe well with his words on election night. That night, despite holding a tiny lead -- incidentally, of fewer votes than the 225 votes Franken apparently won by at the end of the recount -- Coleman called on Franken to concede defeat.

Perspective is a funny thing, isn't it?

That being said, I understand Coleman's feelings today. While I have said in the past, and continue to believe that Coleman has had a charmed political life -- he would have lost in 2002 had Paul Wellstone not died days before the election, and had Dean Barkley not run a third party challenge this year, the race with Franken likely would not even had been close -- losing a race by less than one-hundredth of one percent is a tough pill to swallow. To prepare your whole life and all of your professional actions to one day serve in Congress, and run a campaign day and night for two years, only to lose by a couple hundred votes out of three million is likely an awful experience. For that reason, I can't fault Coleman for having a hard time letting go and I won't criticize him too much.

Terrible Break for Republicans

2009-01-06T19:41:00.000-08:00

The GOP caught some awful news today when former Florida Governor Jeb Bush announced he would not run for the Senate seat that will be vacated by Senator Mel Martinez in 2010. This is a rough one for the Republicans, and a terrific turn of events for the Democrats.

For a while, Martinez had been viewed as the most vulnerable sitting Senator coming up in 2010, and there is little question that this long-standing weakness played a large role in his decision to retire from the Senate after serving just one term. At the time, his move was a downer to many Dems who were eager to take on the wounded senator. Additionally, Bush's initial interest in the seat was really bitter for the Blue Team, and for more than the obvious Bush-hate. Make no mistake: had Bush decided to run, he would have been an extremely strong favorite to win the seat, almost regardless of which Democrat had decided to run against him -- and it is likely that every strong Dem on the Sunshine State bench would have avoided making the race like the plague.

It is for this reason that Republicans should be fairly devastated today. Bush would have virtually guaranteed that the seat would be a hold in their column, but now the Democrats again have a superb shot of gaining a new pick-up, as they have a handful of very strong potential nominees headlined by state CFO Alex Sink and second-term South Florida Rep. Ron Klein. To be sure, the GOP also has some strong nominees including uber popular Gov. Charlie Crist (though, personally I don't think he will go for it and instead opt for a second term as governor, also in 2010). Still, Bush's decision to sit this race out is a big blow to the GOP, and a boon to the likely frontrunner Sink.

Harry the Field Mouse

2009-01-04T20:58:00.000-08:00

In the past, we've described Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as a "field mouse." Really, what's the first word that pops into your head when you think of Reid? Besides "mouse", honestly, the second word for me would probably be "weak." Harry Reid is a weak leader, and you can read it on his face, not to mention in his meek words and even meeker actions.

This all was evidenced once again with the most recent events in the Roland Burris-Rod Blagojevich Senate saga. After Burris' appointment was made, and up through the last few days, Reid has talked very tough, intimating that he would do whatever he could to ensure that Burris would not serve in the United States Senate. Indeed, this stance made a great deal of sense, as any appointment by the disgraced Blagojevich would potentially taint national Democrats in the Senate and elsewhere. However, already today Reid seems to be beginning his perhaps-inevitable backtracking, noting that he is willing to "negotiate" the matter with Burris.

Reid's backtracking is not a great shock, given that he possesses limited means to block an individual legally appointed to his seat. In Illinois, despite his considerable troubles, Blagojevich today remains in office, and as a result, under state law he may still make appointments to vacant U.S. Senate seats. So, Burris, despite being a huge distraction and a potentially enormous liability, is coming to Washington, and there is little Harry Reid or anyone else can do about it. Therefore, one cannot fault Reid or other party leadership for not upending the appointment, or even trying to talk tough in an attempt to deter Burris from taking the job he covets.

All of that being said, this latest episode does nothing to strengthen Reid's weak standing. In simple terms, Reid's threat and then heady retreat hardly make the Senate Majority Leader's position look strong. This is another incident in a series of recent and fairly-recent stories that have made Reid look weak and uninspiring. More importantly, they bring into question whether Democrats should have confidence that Reid is the man who should guide the 59 Democrats in the Upper Chamber towards ratifying the new President's agenda. In my un-expert opinion, they should not. But unfortunately for savvy Dems, do not look for Reid to be ousted from his position any time soon, unless he is defeated for re-election in 2010 (a distinct possibility, but nonetheless far in the distance). The prospect of tossing out a leader with a strong majority and a new popular President is extremely unlikely to occur, even if Chuck Schumer or Dick Durbin would be a far better option.

Kaine to DNC No Big News

2009-01-04T20:26:00.000-08:00

The leaked word today is that Virginia Governor Tim Kaine would take over the leadership of the Democratic National Committee (first on a parttime basis, and then fulltime once his term as governor expires at the end of this year), is not really much news at all. The reason for this is that the formal head of the Democratic Party -- the party soon to be in control of the White House -- is a mostly powerless position: President Obama will be the true head of the Dems, and his decisions will guide its decision-making at the national level. Whoever heads the party is a cheerleader and salesman (mostly on tv) for the President's agenda and policies, and a bagman who concentrates on being a prolific fundraiser (and really, Obama himself will be the party's biggest draw and the top fundraiser by a very sizable margin).

When it comes down to it, this appointment says on two key things. First, that the head of the party has to be a staunch loyalist to the President, and Obama gets that in Kaine, one of the very first big elected officials to endorse Obama's presidential run. Second, this is a reward for Kaine's early and vociferous support of Obama. Because Kaine's term as governor does not end for another year, this factor likely played a big part in Kaine not obtaining a cabinet position as he would have had to leave the governorship in the hands of the Republican Lieutenant Governor. Consequently, with Kaine slated to be out of work at the start of 2010, Obama wanted to put him in a high-profile (albeit institutionally weak) position in order to remain relevant until a nicer slot opens up (perhaps in the cabinet or elsewhere). Reading too much into what this job means for Kaine or Obama should thus be avoided.

What is Bill Ritter Doing?

2009-01-04T19:40:00.000-08:00

This happened a few days ago, but it is nonetheless still big news. In a surprising move, Colorado Governor Bill Ritter tapped the head of Colorado state education, Michael Bennett, to finish out the final two years of the departing Ken Salazar who is taking over the Department of the Interior. The appointment was fairly shocking, as Bennett was not on any of the public short lists of candidates being circulated by the media.

What surprises me most is that Ritter picked the unknown Bennett over the very well-known John Hickenlooper, the current mayor of Denver. As we already noted here in a recent post, Hick was head-and-shoulders the best choice for Ritter given his high name recognition, his business-centric personal and professional record, the strong relationships he enjoys with several state Republicans, and his lack of a legislative record. The only polling I saw on prospective 2010 contests had Hick easily beating some of the GOP's best possible nominees including former Govenor Bill Ritter and outgoing congressman Tom Tancredo.

Now, there is no question that Bennett also possesses that final attribute, as he has never served in a state or federal legislative body. Prior to assuming his current position, he was ironically the chief of staff to Hickenlooper. That being said, I think Bennett is considerably weaker than Hick precisely because he has absolutely no name recognition. Hick would have started in his position well known right of the gate, and a very strong candidate to win a full term when the seat comes up in 2010.

Bennett will now have nearly two years to make a name for himself and build up his electoral viability across the expansive state. He will also likely be able to tap the national party and his status as incumbent to raise the boatloads of money necessary to run for U.S. Senate these days. Not to mention that with both Colorado moving further to the Democratic Party -- as evidenced by the Democrats capturing the governorship, both senate seats, the state legislature and the Third, Fourth, and Seventh congressional districts, all in the last few years -- and the shallow Republican bench in state, Bennett should, by all accounts, be able to win a full term without enormous problems.

Still, Democrats should be a little nervous and perhaps taken aback by the selection. Bennett starts his Senate tenure weak and totally unknown. Ritter's passing over Hickenlooper was foolish politically, and if some rumors are to be believed -- some state political observers surmise Hick was passed over because of lingering resentment for his flirtation with running against Ritter in the 2006 gubernatorial primary (in a contest he likely would have won) and then not endorsing Ritter until late --Ritter's decision was colored by the typical petty political vendettas that often dominate the decision-making of powerful leaders who should know better. In other words, all concerns may be moot if Bennett is able to conquer a weak GOP challenger in two years (see Tancredo, Tom), but these fears would not be terribly relevant if Ritter had made the smart political move. Only time will tell on this score, however. In my opinion, it is likely that Bennett was picked in part to preempt a Hickenlooper primary challenge, as Hick and Bennett remain close (at least from what I have read; though that relationship may not become frayed!).

One more thing on the appointment. In all of the articles coming out on the surprise Bennett pick, few failed to mention that Bennett is a Yale Law School alum, and that -- gasp! -- he was an editor at the Yale Law Journal. Can I ask why in God's name this matters? Who the [bleep] cares if this guy worked on a law review and why should this make him qualified to be a United States Senator? This really bugs me, and you see it a lot. One's pedigree is always a nice garnish in life, but I have come to believe that it means just about zero in determining whether he or she should hold something like high elective office. It is a joke, and it should not matter one iota. And all of this is coming from a guy who graduated from an Ivy League college. I am just sick and tired of huge reliance on one's membership on a law journal as some great indicator of brilliance or worthiness of life's success. And having worked on Capitol Hill, I know full well that Democrats are far guiltier of relying on pedigrees and fancy school degrees in making hires. It's awful.

Another Viewpoint

2008-12-29T19:51:00.000-08:00

Former Bush administration officials are kind of challenging the viewpoint espoused by Karl Rove that President Bush is a voracious reader. Former Colin Powell Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson, who has become a strong critic of the administration, provides an interesting counterpoint to Rove:

"It allowed everybody to believe that this Sarah Palin-like President - because, let's face it, that's what he was - was going to be protected by this national security elite, tested in the cauldrons of fire," said Wilkerson.[...]

Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism adviser, said then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and her deputy, Steve Hadley, told him, "Don't give the President a lot of long memos. He's not a big reader."

Said an astounded Clarke: "Well, s---, I mean, the President of the United States is not a big reader?"

Ouch.

Silence is Golden

2008-12-29T19:43:00.001-08:00

Perhaps the sweetest silence we have had in some time comes in the form of that which accompanied the apparent birth of the newest addition to the family of the Alaska governor. The governor's teenage daughter had a son over the weekend. The best of all of the this? The media completely ignored it. This is an absolutely, positively tremendous development We can only hope that this is sign that our nation's pitiful media is growing up.

Hopefully we will hear the Alaska governor's name only two more times in my lifetime: when she announces a run for President in 2012, and when she drops out sometime after she is inevitably trounched, either in the primary or in the general. I would not bet on it, but we can hope, no?

Inauguration Warning

2008-12-29T19:00:00.000-08:00

For anyone planning on going to the January 20 inauguration ceremony, including those with actual tickets, I strongly recommend you read this short piece on the expected conditions of the event.

Needless to say, you can expect endless delays, interminable waits, potential bitter cold and icy rain, millions of people cramped all together, and other fun things in order to see the short ceremony. As I have been telling interested friends: do yourself a favor and watch it on television. It won't be nearly as fun or fascinating as you might think.

The Sad Demise of Michael Barone

2008-12-29T18:37:00.000-08:00

As a devout political junkie, I view Michael Barone as one of the very best in the business. He is the longtime editor/author/guru behind the incomparable Almanac of American Politics, the only book which has a permanent spot beside my bed. For some time I have believed that Barone is one of the very sharpest minds covering American politics. While Barone is an avowed conservative (and likely a Republican), this has never really bothered me because I have long found his work so insightful.

It is for this reason, that I find the current direction of much of his work so dispiriting. Perhaps he is still bitter over the results of the November elections, but for the last few months, Barone's columns and blog posts have been filled with nasty, snide comments and absurd premises. Seeing his two most recent posts -- comparing President Bush to Harry Truman and calling on President Bush to pardon Scooter Libby -- really makes me sad. Sure, I may not agree with these positions on the political merits, but it goes beyond simple politics: these contentions are plainly wrong, not to mention silly. But worse is that it seems as though Barone is slowly retreating from being a brilliant political observer into being a petty bomb-thrower.

Perhaps I have just not been reading Barone for long enough and he has always been like this more or less, but I don't think that's the case. It's a pretty sad turn of events. You can do better than that, Michael!

Rudderless

2008-12-29T08:54:00.001-08:00

The Hill has a good article today which sheds considerable light on the problems facing the national Republican Party as we enter 2009. In discussing the Party's upcoming election for the new Republican National Committee, the piece implicitly notes that right now, and perhaps even after a chair is selected, the Party lacks a single leader to guide Republicans going forward.

This is one of the many problems that a political party encounters when it does not control the White House. Through good and bad, at the least the President is the leader of his Party, and his agenda, initiatives and personality all move the party along. The party that is out of power may have the luxary of not being saddled with an unpopular chief executive -- who is also the face of the entire government to the voting public -- as was the case with Democrats since 2005, but it also lacks a true leader to guide its movements.

This is precisely where the GOP finds itself right now: looking for a leader to guide its resistence to a Democratic President and a strongly Democratic Congress. It is entirely unclear if men like Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Jeb Henserling, and whoever is the next RNC chair have it in them to do the job any more effectively than Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid did during the Dems' recent wilderness years. While it remains to be seen, I am guessing that the GOP has a hard time in this department at least through the first half of 2009, especially if the economy begins to improve in any substantive and perceptible fashion,

Lie of the Day

2008-12-29T08:49:00.001-08:00

Call me a hopeless partisan (I'm not), but I just cannot believe Karl Rove's new Wall Street Journal column which claims that President Bush has read hundreds of books over the course of his presidency. No. Way.

Oh the Irony!

2008-12-20T10:16:00.000-08:00

Am I the only one who sees the delicious irony in a piece from today's New York Times which describes New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo as "fuming" and being "driv[en] crazy" by Caroline Kennedy's ascendence as the frontrunner for Hillary Clinton's Senate seat? It was certainly nowhere to be found in the article.

I hate to be judgmental -- hey, it's what I do -- but Andrew Cuomo is one of the most unlikeable politicians I've ever seen, and I know all about loser politicians given the governor of my homestate New Jersey. And really, to be honest, Cuomohas a face I just don't trust. But most important, if his last name were not Cuomo, the guy might be shining shoes in the Port Authority Bus Terminal on Eighth Avenue. However, unfair and reprehensible Kennedy's behavior is in going after a position she has no business chasing, Cuomo is the last person who should be bitching about it.

I don't know what's better: Lisa Murkowski being upset about being potentially primary challenged by Sarah Palin, or Andrew Cuomo fuming about how unfair Caroline Kennedy's actions are. Man, politicians are a different breed. The basic rules of hypocrisy just elude them.

How Low Can They Go?

2008-12-17T21:12:00.000-08:00

I had a brief, but nonetheless interesting dinner conversation this evening. A couple of friends and I were reflecting on the travails of Rod Blagojevich, who amazingly is still sitting in the governor's office in Illinois, wielding authority, when I wondered aloud how in the heck he was able to remain in power in the aftermath of being caught on tape crudely discussing how to personally profit from carrying out his duties. Then it kind of hit me: Blagojevich is not alone, as there have been scores of congressman and others who, despite being caught in scandals or doing bad behavior, not only remained in office, but actually ran again anyway. The list is long, and crosses party lines. I am sure I will miss many people, but I have to go to sleep sometime.

* Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA, 04). He fell under an ethical cloud as part of a criminal investigation, and ran again anyway in 2006, winning 49-46 in a very Republican district. Following an FBI raid, he announced he would not run again in 2008, but stayed in Congress until the end of his term.

* Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK). After his name fell into a broad federal investigation, his son's office was raided by the feds, and then his own house was raided, he plowed ahead with plans to run for re-election. Oh, and then he was indicted by a federal grand jury. But he kept running, and did not resign from the Senate. In the end, he lost by less than one percent last month, ending a 40-year Senate career.

* Rep. Vito Fossella (R-NY, 13). This might be the most comic one of all. Fossella was stopped for DUI in Virginia, and soon thereafter it was exposed that he was going to see his girlfriend and the mother of his daughter. This mattered since Vito touted himself as a "family values" politician who had a loving family back home in Staten Island. While Fossella ultimately decided not to run again (though, he actually considered seriously running again!), stopping a promising career, he stayed in office, and kept showing up every day.

* Rep. Bill Jefferson (D-LA, 02). Stayed in Congress after the FBI found tens of thousands of dollars in cash in his freezer. He did not even give up a plum committee assignment (it was stripped by Democratic leadership), and was re-elected in 2006. After his own office was raided and he was indicted for corruption, he remained in office. Shockingly, he was turned out of office a few weeks ago, a huge relief to Democrats.

* Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL, 24). He became part of the broad Abramoff scandal and investigation, and went on an infamous golf trip to Scotland with the disgraced lobbyist. The funniest part is that he did not really acknowledge his ties to Abramoff until this year when he faced a tough campaign, even cutting an ad issuing a baloney apology. He was crushed.

* Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH, 18). Ney remained in Congress following his indictment, and did not actually resign until he was convicted.

* Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA, 50). See Ney. Cunningham disgraced his office and his institution, but remained resolutely in office until he was convicted of breath-taking corruption.

* Rep. Don Young (R-AK, AL). Young has been the subject of a federal probe for over a year, spending over $1 million of his campaign funds on his defense lawyers. Like Stevens, Young plowed ahead with his campaign this year, narrowly winning his primary and general election. He remains in office, unbowed.

I realize I could go on and on. My whole point is simply that it seems like there is no scandal too great to shame a congressman into resigning. I know that a person is innocent until proven guilty, but the sheer audacity of Members today should stun even hardened cynics. Really, we have reached a point in our political culture where any crime short of the Earl Long/Edwin Edwards test -- being found in bed with a dead girl or live boy -- will not force a politician into immediately giving up power (which kind of explains who Mark Foley and Eliot Spitzer promptly resigned when their shame was revealed to the world).

Kind of amazing when you think about it. There is no lowest point for shameless politicians who will keep showing up for work. How Vito Fossella came in every day over the last six months, and looked his staff and constituents in the eye each morning is beyond me. Blago must be made of the same "right stuff".

And guess what? Vito is already plotting a comeback. You can't make this stuff up.

Another Listening Tour?!?!

2008-12-17T20:39:00.001-08:00

Back in the summer of 1999, when I was a young pup interning down in Washington, D.C., I distinctly remember Hillary Clinton's utterly ridiculous and insulting "listening tour" of New York. At the time, longtime Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan was retiring, and at the urging of several powerful Democrats, the First Lady decided to run for the seat. The only problem? She did not live in New York, and had never resided in the state for any extended period of time. To finesse this, Clinton and her people concocted a listening tour of the Empire State, whereby she would go across the state just talking with and listening to New Yorkers to "decide" what to do.

Naturally, this was all a pretext, as her run was a done deal, and her tour was a way to ease her into the contest without ruffling too many feathers and in order to get around the biting allegations that she was a carpetbagger coming from all corners across New York and the nation.

I have to admit that at the time I was disgusted with the whole thing. Never a fan of Hillary, I thought it ridiculous that she would move into the state and then be able to be its United States Senator (ah, how naive I was when I was 19!). I found her tour a joke and an embarrassment, an insult to any rational person's intellect.

A big fan of Rudy Giuliani back then (I have always respected the pre-9/11 Rudy; anyone who claims he did not help clean up New York City does not know what they're talking about, but that being said, I have always hated post-9/11 Rudy which is a farce and a bunch of crap), I even considered backing him, and wearing one of those "Hillary No" buttons that the College Republicans proudly brandished. As he was considering a Senate run too, Rudy went on his own listening tour, but of Hillary's homestate of Arkansas! I still vividly remember the frontpage of the New York Daily News, showing Rudy with a hilarious goofy grin and dark Yankees jacket with the headline "Arkansas Here I Come"; in fact, I have it saved in our attic back home.

In the end, I did vote for Hillary, not so much because I loved her at the time, but because Rudy dropped out because of his prostate cancer diagnosis (though, to be fair, I think he knew he was going to get creamed by Hillary), and I was never backing the awful Rick Lazio and child-like Rick Lazio. Still, despite my vote for her, I never warmed to her listening tour, and to this day I think it was absolute nonsense.

I bring up all these old stories of my youth because today I am reading that Caroline Kennedy is now going on her own listening tour of upstate New York as she prepares for her inevitable appointment to Hillary's soon-to-be-vacated Senate seat. While I did not see this tour coming, I probably should have. And I hate it just the same.

Who in God's name would buy this garbage? Caroline Kennedy probably has not been upstate in her life. If I had a dollar for every trip she's taken to Buffalo, Utica, Oswego, and Watertown, I might have 16 cents. This trip is every bit as insulting as Hillary's less than 10 years ago. I realize that this is her way of easing into a job she probably is not the most qualified for just as it was for Hillary back in 1999, but that does not make it any less silly. The entire spectacle just makes me queasy, to be quite honest. Sure, I think that the appointment makes a great deal of sense for Democrats on a national/public relations scale, but I am more and more irritated by the whole thing as it directly conflicts with my desire for some shred of fairness in the political process.

A "listening tour"?! Who is she kidding? Well, when she is on the Senate floor in a few months, I guess it won't really matter much.

New Jersey 2009: GOP Shouldn't Get Its Hopes Up

2008-12-17T20:02:00.000-08:00

Next year, New Jersey will be one of only two states (the other is Virginia) to hold a governor's contest. The Garden State will also be host to score of state legislative races with varying degrees of importance (read: ability to potentially flip). As this article in the Philadelphia Inquirer details, state Republicans are optimistic and really, chomping at the bit to take out several Democratic legislators, and perhaps even Governor Jon Corzine himself.

While I can understand their exuberance, state GOPers should not get their hopes up.

Being a proud New Jerseyean, I will be the first to admit that we still enjoy the most corrupt political culture in America (no Illinois, you haven't taken that title from us yet: our politicians are just a bit better at not getting caught). Furthermore, I can acknowledge that Democrats have done a lousy job running the state, particularly Corzine, a man I find impossible to like or respect, and whose leadership is grossly lacking in many, many areas.

All of that being said, I would not expect many changes in the state's political make-up. First, as the article notes, the Assembly is intractably in Democratic hands, and any gains made by the GOP will be miniscule at best. The Republicans may even lose more seats. The State Senate, at 23-17, is much closer, but it does not appear, at least at this moment, that there are any great pick-up opportunities for the minority. While Trenton is loathed by just about all New Jerseyeans -- I think three, if not four Democratic state senators were indicted in federal court in the last year or so with two of them already being convicted -- achieving much turnover is difficult given the state's Democratic climate, the more resources Democrats will have at their disposal, and the districts truly in play.

The big prize is of course the governor's race. It may be hard to believe, but the New Jersey governorship is a very big deal. It is a big deal because the governor is likely the most powerful state executive in the nation, with control over just about every aspect of the state's operations. Republicans have been very bullish about their chances for some time. This optimism is predicated on two factors: first, Corzine's habitually low approval ratings; and second, a hope that outgoing United States Attorney Chris Christie, should he decide to run, would topple Corzine.

There is no doubt that Corzine is not exactly a beloved figure in New Jersey. Taxes remain high, corruption persists, and Jerseyeans will always have some lingering resentment for a charismatic-less politician who bought first a Senate seat, and then the governor's mansion five years later when he got bored of Washington and hungered for a better launching pad from which to one day run for President (that last one is a real laugh). However, none of this will likely cost Corzine his job.

As polls go, they mean nothing, especially this early. Fellow armchair political analysts not unlike this author like to attribute New Jersey's always-strange political polling -- where incumbents rarely break 50% and are often close with weak challengers -- to the residents' distrust of pollsters and polling. I disagree. Really, the issue is that while Jersey remains staunchly Democratic, its people rarely much like the sitting politicians, and this is reflected in initial polling.

That being said, it is one thing for Jerseyeans to express reservations about an incumbent Dem in January, and it is quite another for them to actually pull the lever for a Republican in the booth. There must be a strong reason for voters to toss out a statewide Democrat, something along the lines of former Governor Jim Florio's disasterious tax raise in the early 1990s which led to his defeat (though by only one point to Christie Whitman: a fact few people like to acknowledge) and the ouster of many Democrats across the state. At the present time, despite Corzine's bad personal ratings and his own weak record, I see no such seminal event which will back up his current weak numbers come November 2009.

In terms of Christie, I am unable to see him turning out to being much of anything. There's no doubt he has been a very successful U.S. Attorney, as his office helped convicted dozens and dozens of corrupt politicians across the state. For this he has gotten many accolades, nearly all of them deserving. However, in a state like New Jersey where there is no central media market, most people have no idea who the heck he is. Against someone like Corzine -- who has spent well in excess of $100 million to win his Senate seat in 2000 and the governorship in 2005, and will spend tens of millions in next year's campaign -- that is a bad combination for ultimate success. Republicans may be right that Christie is the best possible opponent for Corzine, but that still might not be good enough in a state like New Jersey. It is just too blue. And this is coming from a guy who is not yet sure he is voting for Corzine!

Blago Press Conference?

2008-12-17T19:37:00.000-08:00

In the words of perhaps my least favorite athlete (also of my least favorite team): Get your popcorn ready! A Rod Blagojevich press conference has the potential to be the funniest and most fascinating political exercise we may all see in a long while. Let's hope he takes questions too (though I won't hold my breath for that one)!

Some More Colorado Party ID Returns

2008-12-17T19:08:00.001-08:00

The Denver Post has an article today highlighting the election returns and party breakdown. For those interested parties who may have missed it, we took some time to dissect exit poll data for Colorado in several posts (along with the data for several other swing states). The article goes over some of the same ground, but I thought it worthwhile to go over some it again to make some new points.

According to new numbers from the Colorado secretary of state's office, Republicans in November voted in greater numbers than Democrats and — even more surprising — also turned out in higher percentages when compared with the parties' numbers of registered voters. In a state at the heart of the Democrats' Western strategy, Republicans still accounted for the largest voting bloc and yet lost in all of the highest-profile races.

That brain-twister, say political pundits, underscores the challenges both parties face moving toward what are expected to be equally contentious 2010 races for governor and U.S. Senate in a state that is now of decidedly mixed political leanings.

"Looking at 2010, you would at least say at this point there is a slight edge for the Democrats," said pollster Floyd Ciruli. "But it is very slight. This is now truly a competitive state."

I will be the first to concur that Colorado is not yet quite a blue state. It is for this reason that I think Democrats should be concerned about losing Ken Salazar's soon-to-be-vacated Senate seat. By no means should Democrats make any broad assumptions about Colorado being a reliable nine electoral votes in the blue column.

All of that being said, I think that the pollster Mr. Ciruli badly understates what these numbers say. Yes, the exit polls show that self-identified Republicans made up 31% of election voters, versus 30% being Democrats. However, that split was 38-29 in favor of the GOP just four years. That is an aggrevate movement of eight points, no small potatoes. Looking more closely at the data, we see that whereas George Bush won GOPers by 93-6 in 2004, McCain carried this group by 87-13, a movement of 13 points towards the blue team. This is a bit more evidence that the very slight 31-30 advantage highlighted in the article really does not mean much.

Statewide, Republicans still outpace Democrats in terms of total registered voters — though the numbers are closing and Democrats now count more active voters among their ranks than Republicans.

Independents, who make up the largest group of registered voters, trailed Republicans and Democrats in turnout this year. About 100,000 fewer unaffiliated voters cast ballots than did Republicans or Democrats. About 67 percent of registered independents voted in the election.

The key to the election, though, was how those unaffiliated people voted, said David Flaherty, chief executive of voter tracking firm Magellan Data and Mapping Strategies, which works with Republican candidates.

"The Republican get-out-the-vote effort executed very well," Flaherty said. "But at the end of the day, doing all those things right, it's about appealing to unaffiliated voters."

Yes and no. Sure, independents held a big role in the outcome in Colorado (as in just about every other state), but it is was only one piece of the electoral puzzle. In 2004, self-identified indies made up 33% of all votes, and they broke for Kerry 52-45. This year, they went up to 39%, and broke to Obama by a bit better 55-44 split, an aggregate movement of +3 points (which does mean more given the 6% turnout increase). In other words, there was key improvement here, but I am not sure I would say it was the reason Obama carried Colorado. When you win a state by 54-45, there are multiple reasons for it. I won't get into my analysis of Colorado again, needless to say there is oodles of data and armchair conclusions in my posts linked above.

To be sure, the gap in turnout between Republicans and Democrats this year was small, nowhere near the wide advantage Republicans once held, Ciruli said. About 15,600 more Republicans voted in the election than Democrats, out of a record 2.4 million total voters statewide. In terms of turnout, slightly more than 80 percent of all registered Republicans voted this year, compared with about 79 percent of registered Democrats.[...]

But state Republican Party chairman Dick Wadhams sees a silver lining in his party's 2008 storm clouds: The GOP turnout machine's still got it.

"This is probably the best effort we ever had in Colorado," Wadhams said. "We got the Republican vote out."

I know what spin is. It is used by both parties, especially after they have suffered a bad loss. Dick Wadhams, who spearheaded Bob Schaffer's Senate campaign this year, had a rough go of it, as Schaffer was crushed by Mark Udall, the man Wadham all-but-renamed "Boulder Liberal" in an attempt to tarnish him. But to say that he is satisfied with his party's turnout is a lot to take. The Colorado GOP is in bad shape today, and the exit data provides little comfort.

But nothing succeeds like success, and with that in mind the Colorado GOP is going to have two opportunities to make a comeback in 2010 with the Senate and governor's contests. Given that Bill Ritter was elected by something like 17 points in 2006, he is likely safe for re-election. But if Wadhams can keep Tom Tancredo out and recruit former Governor Bill Owens to run for Senate, he might be able to get a key victory under his belt. Owens could definitely win, but any loss would set the party back even further.

In the last few years, Democrats have taken over the state legislature, flipped a 5-2 deficit in the congressional delegation to a current 5-2 advantage, and have won both Senate seats and the governor's mansion, two decisively. Colorado is not yet New Jersey in terms of political make-up and Democratic reliability, but anyone claiming that the state is now at this moment basically even would be fooling himself.

Artur Davis

2008-12-17T18:47:00.000-08:00

It is never too early to focus on the next cycle, so we are going to start looking at the 2009 and 2010 contests in short order. One race that has fallen under the radar so far, and will probably not garner much attention until it happens is the Alabama's governor's contest which will be held in just under two years. With the governorship coming open (two-term Gov. Bob Riley is term-limited), there will almost certainly be a long line of candidates for the seat.

While this is Alabama, this is not a seat that Democrats cannot contest. Like a lot of strongly conservative states in the South and the West, Alabama voters may not like sending Democrats to Washington as U.S. Senators, but they have no problem electing Dems to the governor's mansion. Indeed, Riley's predecessor was popular Democrat Don Siegelman, who Riley beat by only a few thousand votes in one of the tightest races in 2002. In others words, don't write this one off just yet.

Anyway, the name I will be watching here is Rep. Artur Davis of the Seventh District (made up of the famous "Black Belt" of counties in southern Alabama). Davis, a moderate Democrat and former federal prosecutor is making it more and more clear that he intends to run for governor now that he has been passed over for the Attorney General's job. While Davis may face staunch competition from men like Lieutentant Governor Jim Folsom Jr. (a former governor himself, and the son of the very famous former governor "Big Jim" Folsom), and State Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks, the prospect of a black candidate for governor on the general election ballot is very intriguing. Despite his moderation, should Davis win the Democratic primary, it will be fascinating to see how well he is able to do in a conservative and Deep South state.

This is a race to watch. For what it is worth, I do not think Davis would be able to win in a state like Alabama where voting is generally deeply polarized along racial lines. Any strong showing by Davis would be an incredible job by the House member. The first polling will be interesting to see, but we should also wait to find out if Davis can navigate a potentially difficult primary first.

Ohio Republicans Seek to Restrict Early Voting

2008-12-17T18:35:00.000-08:00

Maybe someone can explain to me the rationale behind restricting the ability of people to cast votes. I've never understood it, but sure enough, once again a bloc of politicians is trying to do just that, this time in Ohio where the Republican-controlled State House recently passed a bill to add redistrictions to early voting in the state.

The bill would eliminate a Golden Week window in which citizens can register to vote and cast absentee votes at the same time. It would push the start of early voting from 35 days before the election to 20 days and require absentee voters to fully complete ballot envelope statements to be counted. Election observers would also be allowed to watch voting at all times.

House Speaker Jon Husted, a Dayton-area Republican, told reporters the bill was merely intended to implement recent Supreme Court rulings as well as clean up elections law that [Secretary of State Jennifer] Brunner has said needs clarification.

One can wrap a change like this in any wrapping he desires, but it cannot mask the true intent behind laws like these: to keep voters from voting. If you look at voting numbers from this past November, early voters were often overwhelmingly Democrats. While there are various reasons for this voting behavior which I won't delve into here, it pretty clearly exists.

With Republicans taking a pounding in races across the country, particularly in Ohio where Obama carried the state and Democrats picked up three new congressional seats, it seems like the GOP majority in the legislature wants to try to change the rules to decrease a Democratic strength. That is what this law is about, plain and simple. Again, I see absolutely no reason to curtail early voting anywhere, so long as there protections for that boogeyman known as "fraud". Early voting allows people who might otherwise be busy on election to be allowed to go to the polls and cast a ballot. It provides key flexibility and thus increases turnout. I concede that turnout in Ohio actually dropped this past year in comparison to 2004, but that does not establish that early voting was either a failure or unnecessary. Such an argument would be a partisan pretext.

This bill is a foolish and nakedly political piece of legislation. Governor Ted Strickland has not yet promised a veto of this bill, but hopefully he will.

Oh, and Forget John

2008-12-16T22:54:00.000-08:00

One more point regarding Colorado: Bill Ritter should not seriously consider replacing Ken Salazar with his brother John, the congressman from Colorado's Third District. The district leans Republican, and removing John from it would likely help the GOP take the seat over in 2010. Not to mention the dynasty howls a Salazar pick would elicit.

A Regional Party?

2008-12-16T22:50:00.000-08:00

Nate Silver is up with a very interesting post on a question we've been very interested in here in the past: namely, whether the GOP is becoming (or has become a regional party). I recommend you check it out. Later this morning, I will post some of my thoughts on Silver's analysis. I think he makes so great points, but I can't say I view his methodology here as perfect. Still worth a read.

The Hand of Ted

2008-12-16T22:43:00.000-08:00

With Harry Reid lobbying David Paterson to appoint Caroline Kennedy to the Senate, and even Hillary Clinton coming out to tell her supporters not to oppose Kennedy, the hand-writing is on the wall with this one.

However, what really needs to be noted is that the fingerprints of Ted Kennedy are all over. Make no mistake: it was Ted was pressured and ultimately convinced Caroline to try to make the move to Washington. And it was Ted who lined up support immediately among some of the most important Democrats in America behind Caroline.

When Caroline is sworn in early next year (barring some very weird changes to the current climate), it will be because of her Uncle Ted. Boy, what Ted wants, Ted always gets.

Memo to Bill Ritter: Pick Hick

2008-12-16T22:29:00.000-08:00

With Ken Salazar leaving the Senate to become Obama's Interior Secretary, Colorado Governor Bill Ritter is going to have to tap a replacement to serve out the final two years of Salazar's term. While a lot of names have been bandied about, his choice is very easy: he should pick Denver mayor John Hickenlooper without reservation. Hick would be the best choice for the seat by far.

The reasons for this are pretty straightforward. First, Hick is very popular in Denver, the largest city in the state, so he would have an immediate base to build on. Second, despite unquestioned liberal views on the environment, Hick has some moderate streaks (such as on legalizing marijuana), and he has gotten along well with Republicans on issues.

Third, and perhaps most important, he has no legislative record. While some may argue that having a record as a legislator is a positive as it demonstates experience, really, the opposite is true when it comes to electoral politics: the longer the record you have, the bigger the liabilty. Someone who has spent years in Congress has cast hundreds of votes on very controversial issues, issues that are bound to make that person as many detractors as supporters.

This is the dilemma facing Congresswoman Diane DeGette, also of Denver. While she has a long congressional career, her record is also long, and it is unabashedly liberal. This would make her much easier to attack in a general campaign. Hick would not have these problems. Ditto Andrew Romanoff, the outgoing State House Speaker, who also would have baggage in a campaign.

One worry for Hickenlooper would be that he could be identified as the "Denver candidate" by Republicans in an effort to hurt him in the rural eastern and western parts of the state. However, I don't think this strategy would work since the campaign to tarnish Mark Udall this year as a "Boulder liberal" failed so miserably.

Salazar's appointment should worry Democrats. While Colorado has been trending Democratic in recent years, it is not yet New York, and this seat could still be lost. Of course, the weak Republican bench (there are only two GOP congressman, one of whom will be a freshman and the other is a second-term, ultra-conservative Evangelical from Colorado Springs) will aid Dems too; especially if the retiring Tom Tancredo is able to grab the GOP nomination, an eventuality I think is very possible.

In the end, then, Dems would be well served if Governor Ritter picks the best Democrat equipped to run statewide. Given his current popularity and his lack of a record, that person is John Hickenlooper.

Interesting Blago Article

2008-12-16T07:00:00.000-08:00

The NY Times has an interesting article today on the Blagojevich saga I recommend you check out. The piece is interested in the distinction between criminal activity under the law and merely conducting political deal-making, which is quite common. The article raises the possibility that the evidence against the governor is not extremely strong.

Ever since the country’s founding, prosecutors, defense lawyers and juries have been trying to define the difference between criminality and political deal-making. They have never established a clear-cut line between the offensive and the illegal, and the hours of wiretapped conversations involving Mr. Blagojevich, filled with crass, profane talk about benefiting from the Senate vacancy, may fall into a legal gray area.[...]

“This town is full of people who call themselves ambassadors, and all they did was pay $200,000 or $300,000 to the Republican or Democratic Party,” said Mr. Bennett, referring to a passage in the criminal complaint filed against the governor suggesting that Mr. Blagojevich was interested in an ambassadorial appointment in return for the Senate seat. “You have to wonder, How much of this guy’s problem was his language, rather than what he really did?”

Personally, if I was the governor's lawyer, I would argue in court that all of Mr. Blagojevich's talk was simply bluster, and that it did not cross the line into criminal activity. On the one hand, there are legitimate arguments in favor of these positions, as the material in the indictment and on the tapes is so outrageous that it almost seems like it can't be real.

That being said, Blagojevich is still totally screwed. No Illinois jury is ever going to unanimously acquit him, regardless of the evidence presented. All Patrick Fitzgerald has to do is play these tapes over and over, and the governor is cooked. Forget potential jurors declaring their open minds at juror selection -- that's all baloney. Look at the Stevens trial: they convicted him in hours because the jurors were predisposed to convict him despite the fact that the evidence was thin. A cranky, old, white Republican from Alaska just did not cut a sympathetic figure in front of a Washington, D.C. jury, particularly since he was accused of political corruption. He was screwed solely because of where the trial was, and he knew it, as evidenced by his attempts to move the trial to Alaska (where, in reverse, the jury would have acquitted him without listening to the evidence).

Blagojevich's best hope may be getting a staunchly Polish or North Side citizen on the jury and getting a hung panel. Sadly for him, because this is a federal trial, the panel will be selected from people throughout northern Illinois.

Smart Dems

2008-12-16T06:21:00.000-08:00

There might hope for some Democrats yet, with news that the Illinois State Legislature has tabled the bill to create a special election for Senate vacancies, opting instead to move to open impeachment proceedings of Governor Rod Blagojevich. As we talked about a couple of days ago, the measure was a classic political overreaction, and if made law, it could actually cost Democrats Obama's old seat, as a quick special election could allow an untainted Republican like Mark Kirk to beat a nominated Democrat, particularly someone from Chicago. It remains to be seen if this legislation is dead for good, but for the time being, Illinois state Dems showed more forward-thinking political intelligence than Dick Durbin, Lisa Madigan, and others who have called for a legal change.

Stupid Dem Tricks

2008-12-15T17:42:00.000-08:00

What could be sillier than Senator Evan Bayh's new attempts to create a moderate, blue dog caucus in the Senate? Why, that would be Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid endorsing such an idea. It seems that even after winning the White House and a score of new Senate seats, some high-profile Democrats still lack basic common political sense.

Maybe someone can explain to me why the newly-minted 58-person caucus (or perhaps 59-person caucus, assuming Al Franken wins the Minnesota recount) should immediately be carved up into ideological camps. Assuredly, a new blue dog caucus would move to accomplish just that. Oh wait, now I remember: because Evan Bayh is trying desperately to stay relevant. After all, Bayh, who was too cowardly to pursue a White House run -- despite coveting the job since the moment he got to Washington -- backed Hillary Clinton early and heavily. Finding himself as a back-bencher now with no upward path in the near future has to be tough, and finding a way to lead the Senate's moderate Dems would be a perfect balm for Bayh's political ambitions and personal ego going forward.

Personally, I think these efforts are destined to fail for the same reasons already outlined by people smarter than I. This is because unlike in the House, Senators possess tremendous individual power in the form of unanimous consent and some other mechanisms. In the House, the majority leadership can and often does lead with an iron fist, but in the Senate, if just one single Senator wants, he or she can gum up the works and slow things down. This is precisely how Senator Tom Coburn is able to hold up the Senate so often. Consequently, getting a bloc of Senators to agree to pool their votes together on general matters and specific votes would be much harder for a new caucus group, as it would call on Senators to give up their individual power. And this is to say nothing for Senators checking their own egos for a larger group, something much less liklely in a body of a 100, where egos are even larger than in that oh-less-exclusive body of 435. For these reasons, I don't see Bayh being successful in his new venture.

In terms of Harry Reid, I think the issue is simply one of poor leadership and a plain lack of savvy. To be blunt, I just don't think he's very smart and his endorsement of a Senate blue dog caucus is indicative of that. I realize Reid is a moderate and he is also facing re-election in two years, but fracturing an already unruly body even further is not the way to run a caucus. Especially with Democrats in complete control of the federal government. Sadly, this is what I have come to expect from the man who was afraid to stand up to Joe Lieberman.

Why Senator Caroline Kennedy is Good for the Democratic Party

2008-12-15T16:19:00.000-08:00

It's no secret around these parts that I am not a fan of political dynasties, and I cannot stand nepotism. I found the appointment to the Senate of Joe Biden's former Chief of Staff in order to hold the seat for Biden's son -- by blocking the appointment of the Lieutenant Governor -- was extremely distasteful. Given my views, then, you may find the following declaration surprising and perhaps even hyprocritical, but as a Democrat, I think the appointment of Caroline Kennedy to the U.S. Senate would be a very good thing for the Democratic Party.

My rationale here is pretty simple. I think that putting Kennedy in the Senate would be a huge plus over the long haul for the national Democratic Party because of all the positive pr she would generate. For all the negatives being tossed out there right now -- she has no experience, she is trying to leap-frog over others who are more qualified and have paid their dues, given that she has avoided the limelight her entire life she would be ill-suited to deliver for New York, she would bring Kennedy baggage, etc -- people are forgetting one thing: this woman is JFK's daughter! That by itself would make her an big asset for the Party.

There's no question that today, JFK remains a mystical, beloved figure in America, not just in the northeast, but everywhere. As a result, critics should forget what she could do policy-wise or for the state of New York and realize that having her on a national stage with Barack Obama would be another signal of the national political renaissance in this country and in the Democratic Party.

On the one hand, Dems now have Barack Obama, who is going to lead the country for at least the next four years. Politically, he represents the future. Kennedy herself could play a huge role in pumping up the Democratic Party brand in a similar manner. Every time Kennedy is on tv giving a speech, the media is going to show a picture of her father. That's a given. And let's just say that if you put JFK's picture up giving a speech, it would not do poorly in a focus group. Given Kennedy's likely focus on issues like education, poverty, and all those other flowery things, the sterling publicity alone would be worth its weight in gold for the national party's image.

Contrast that with the current Republican Party, whose leadership is made up almost exclusively of two types of people: wealthy, white-haired white guys, and wealthy gray-haired white guys. Oh, and most of them today are from one region of the nation: the South. Quite the difference, huh? What types of figures would be more appealing on television and to Americans in 2009: Barack Obama and Caroline Kennedy, or John Boehner and Mitch McConnell? What's more likeable, Bill Clinton and JFK, or George Bush and endless references to Ronald Reagan? Another easy call. Putting Caroline Kennedy in the Senate would help burnish the Democratic Party's image not just as the party of the future, but also the party with the richer history, the party that led the country when times were good, as opposed to the last eight years. I think any of the negatives Kennedy would bring would be easily outweighed by these considerations.

Barack Obama himself has to love this idea. For starters, Ted Kennedy was almost certainly the most important endorsement Obama got in the campaign, as it helped him gain enormous credibility at a time he needed it. But more importantly, every time Obama is on stage with Caroline Kennedy, the pictures of JFK will come out on the news telecasts and 24-hour news feeds, and thus the JFK-Obama comparisons will flow, whether or not they are intentional. You think Obama doesn't like that idea?

Let me reiterate how much I hate political nepotism like this. Caroline Kennedy has not only never paid any political dues, but she has actively avoided real politics her entire life. What she is doing is as bad as what Hillary did in 2000 when she jumped over several senior Democrats to take Dan Moynihan's open seat. Additionally, there are big questions about how effective she would be as a Senator to New Yorkers (which should obviously be the biggest consideration for both her and Governor David Paterson, to say nothing of the raw politics we are talking about here).

One other minor consideration. Caroline Kennedy is not Ted Kennedy. Republicans would be very hard-pressed to make her out into some negative, divisive figure. She has none of the personal or political history of her uncle, or several other Kennedys for that matter. She is an elegant figure (in many ways like her mother), and is likeable. Besides, Ted has assumed lion status in American politics today and he is attacked less, especially since his illness was disclosed. So I don't think Caroline Kennedy would be a touchable figure as cheap political attacks go, and any GOPers dumb enough to try using her in that way would have a very hard time succeeding.

Democrats should be smart enough to look past the issues here to focus on the bigger picture outlined above. Having Caroline Kennedy in the Senate would be a boon to both the incoming President and the national Democratic Party. It would be a masterstroke. Whether or not she gets the appointment is up in the air, but I find it telling that her people have made her desire to serve so public. The Kennedys are not stupid, and when they want something they usually get it, so I don't think that move was made in haste. Plus, by appointing her, David Paterson actually does not have to make the choice of tapping one deserving New York congressman over several others who want the job. That is actually a plus in his personal calculus.

So, we will see. But from a purely political standpoint -- and that is always the angle I look at first -- putting Caroline Kennedy in the Senate would be a brilliant political move. And no, I am not, and have never really been a big Kennedy fan, so these are not the babblings of a JFK junkie.

Campbell Overload

2008-12-13T21:38:00.000-08:00

Is it just me, or does it seem that there is an ad for Campbell Brown's CNN show on every webpage on the Internet? It seems like everywhere I turn, I see Campbell's smiling face and how her show is all about 'no bias' and 'no bull.' There's no question that Campbell is easy on the eyes, but I still don't think I will be watching her show much for what it's worth.

Incidentally, this deluge of ads reminds me a tremendous amount of when CNN was hyping the now-departed Paula Zahn's new show after she left Fox News. Like Brown, Zahn is pretty attractive, and CNN worked her profile to the hilt. Still, we all know how that turned out. Brown, who was plucked from MSNBC should be careful and not take her new-found news stardom for granted. Personally, I give her show a year.

That's Cold

2008-12-13T21:25:00.001-08:00

Yesterday, the Chicago Tribune published the names of the people who had been submitted to Rod Blagojevich by Rahm Emanuel as acceptable to President-elect Obama to take his vacated Senate seat. The five names were state Attorney General Lisa Madigan, state Veterans Affairs head Tammy Duckworth, congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett, and state comptroller Dan Hynes. Of course, this list was submitted before this week's indictment of the governor was handed up.

What is most interesting is who is missing from this list, namely congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. To Jackson, who was one of Obama's national co-chairs and one of his earliest supporters, this has to be a real kick in the testicles. Over the last few days, he has been dealing with his name mixed deep in the Blagojevich scandal, and now he is learning that Obama did not even think highly enough of him to include him in his top five names for the Senate seat that Jackson has long coveted. Ouch.

I can't say I disagree with Obama's judgment here, however. As loyal as Jackson has been to Obama, he has never been a great name for the Senate. While he would likely be able to win a full term in a state as blue as Illinois (at least before his name was connected to this indictment), he is very liberal to the point that he could have had some trouble running statewide. Additionally, having a senator named Jesse Jackson would not have played well in a lot of parts of this country. Jackson may not be his father, but fair or unfair, having him in an elevated position in the Senate was not to the advantage of Democrats, and thus not to the advantage of Obama.

For these reasons, I think Obama was right to move away from endorsing Jackson for the seat. That being said, I wonder if he at least gave the congressman some kind of warning. I doubt it. I presume he and his advisors never thought the list would get out. Now, once all of this dust has settled, he and Jackson may no longer be so chummy. Politics is a rough business.

One more thing. What was with including Madigan on the list? Team Obama knew that he and Madigan hate each other, yet they included her name anyway. Politically, I found that one puzzling, and I think it kind of shows how little regard the President-elect and his team held for Blagojevich. Given the events of the last few days, clearly such a low opinion for the governor turned out to be quite merited, but I just found Madigan's name on the list pretty interesting.

Classy Until the Last Day

2008-12-12T22:31:00.001-08:00

Can someone explain this one to me? How can the White House refuse to let the President-elect live in the Blair House in the final two weeks before January 20? Claiming that the house is being used for prior events is bizarre and classless.

The White House has turned down a request from the family of President-elect Barack Obama to move into Blair House in early January so that his daughters can start school on Jan. 5.

The Obamas were told that Blair House, where incoming presidents usually stay in the five days before Inauguration Day, is booked in early January, a spokesperson to the Obama transition said. “We explored the idea so that the girls could start school on schedule,’ the spokesperson said. “But, there were previously scheduled events and guests that couldn’t be displaced.”
It remained unclear who on Bushes guest list outranked the incoming President.

“It’s not a public schedule,” said Sally McDonough, spokeswoman for First Lady Laura Bush, in refusing to disclose who was staying at Blair House. “It’s not a question of outranking the Obamas. Blair House will be available to them on January 15.”

Ms. McDonough said “there’s nothing more to say other than that it’s not available and won’t be available until January 15.” She added that “you’re trying to make a story out of something that’s not a story.”

A State Department official said he didn’t know of any foreign dignitaries staying at Blair House in early January.

A White House official said that Mr. Bush does not have family or friends from Texas staying at Blair House during the period which the Obamas requested. But Blair House, the official said, has been booked for “receptions and gatherings” by members of the outgoing Bush administration. Those receptions, the official said, “don’t make it suitable for full-time occupancy by the Obamas yet.”

The Blair House is being used for parties for administration officials? How about moving them guys?!

This really is not about politics, it is about simple class. It is telling that even weeks away from Bush leaving, his administration continues to exude bipartisan class.

And We Head Into Double Overtime

2008-12-12T22:18:00.001-08:00

....Or perhaps it is triple OT, as I've lost count of all of the twists and turns in the incredible Minnesota Senate race. Today there were several key developments in the race, most of them very beneficial to Al Franken's chances. Much of it is detailed here. Needless to say, Al Franken is still down (God knows by how many votes exactly), but definitely in the game.

Yet, we are not going to have any definitive answer on a winner for a while, because no matter what the state canvassing board ultimately rules on the rejected absentee ballots, challenges, and assorted missing votes, the loser will take this one to court. In fact, the Coleman campaign is already going to court (detailed in the article). Anyone who says they know what is going to happen is lying through their teeth. I won't even venture a shot-in-the-dark guess at this point. It would be pointless.

I can guarantee one thing: should Coleman remain ahead, the cowardly Harry Reid would not dare upset the certified results, even if fraud is pled to the Senate by Al Franken. If Reid did not have the stones to take on Joe Lieberman, there is no chance he would seat Al Franken in the face of what would be furious Republican outrage. But this one is as fascinating as they come. It's not every day that you see a Senate race determined by less than one-hundreth of one-percent.

Quote of the Day

2008-12-12T22:03:00.001-08:00

"To those of you who have jobs lined up, I -- congratulations. To those not exactly sure what comes next -- I know how you feel."
-President Bush, speaking to Texas A & M graduates

Forgive me, but can someone tell me when in his life George W. Bush would have ever had to worry about finding a job?

Calm Down, Carol

2008-12-12T21:45:00.001-08:00

In the large class of foolish, over-ambitious politicians, we should add a new name today: congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter, Democrat from New Hampshire's Second District. News is coming that Shea-Porter, who was just elected to her second term, is seriously considering running for United States Senate in 2010 against incumbent Judd Gregg. Wow. While we know that members of Congress tend to have incredible swell heads, this one really stands out.

Shea-Porter is definitely an interesting one. She scored perhaps the biggest surprise of the night in 2006, when she ousted Jeb Bradley 51-49 in a race no one thought she could win, including the DCCC. Last month, she beat Bradley in a rematch by a bigger margin, no doubt aided by Barack Obama's landslide in New Hampshire. However, I continue to believe that Shea-Porter is something of a fluke. She is not a terribly talented politician, nor are her approval ratings in her district that impressive. Sure, she won a formerly-held Republican seat, but whether she is ready for the even-bigger-time remains to be seen.

Shea-Porter is emboldened by GOP Sen. John Sununu's bad loss last month to Jeanne Shaheen. And also, no one can question that the Granite State has moved drastically towards the Democratic Party in the last few years. That being said, beating Judd Gregg is going to be very difficult. Gregg, who was once governor before being elected to the Senate in 1992, remains very popular in the state. His quiet, low-key style has played well for a while, and he has not committed any fireable offense (besides have an "R" next to his name). I will state on the record right now that unless New Hampshire has truly become a reliable blue state, Gregg would beat Shea-Porter head-to-head.

Really, the best -- and perhaps only guy -- who could beat Gregg is Gov. John Lynch, who may be even more popular than the senior senator. If Bob Menendez and the DSCC can coax Lynch into the contest, I think he's better than even-money to win. But Carol Shea-Porter is not John Lynch. I don't know who exactly has been whispering in her ear, and likely she is puffing out her chest after winning a second term, but I don't think she has what it takes to beat Gregg. And to be fair, I think the state's other rep, Paul Hodes, would also have a tough time winning. Dems today feel good about knocking off Gregg in two years, but they should not take him lightly. And they can start by convicing Shea-Porter to sit this one out and hold a seat she is lucky to have in the first place.

Ulterior Motives

2008-12-12T21:28:00.000-08:00

Make no mistake: when it comes to politics, the politics never ends. Case in point today comes from the Rod Blagojevich saga, where Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan is appealing to the state Supreme Court to strip the embattled governor of most of his powers and award them to the Lieutenant Governor. My response is not to applaud Madigan, but simply to state that the 2010 campaign has apparently already started.

You see, for some time Ms. Madigan has coveted the governor's chair, and she now sees it within her reach. Madigan was likely going to primary challenge the unpopular Blagojevich before this scandal broke, and those plans obviously have not changed in the last week. Her posturing today should be viewed through the lens of someone trying to grab the headlines and advance her political career.

I have no question that this is a very unusual case, as Blagojevich is on tape hatching almost unbelievable and illegal schemes, yet he remains in office. But this is precisely why we have checks-and-balances and that device called "impeachment." It is up to the state legislature to remove an executive where it sees fit, and I am sure Springfield will move in that direction should the governor stay. Of course, it is within Madigan's legal rights to try to manuever and also make Blagojevich's life uncomfortable, but forgive me for thinking that she is using all of this to make a name for herself as a reformer.

And it's worked: she was all over the news today. Her credentials as a Chicago outsider are now burnished further. Not to mention that her long-running feud with the governor (her father, the State House Speaker is also a longtime foe of Blagojevich) can only help her make the case against Blago now. In the words of Sid Farkus, I think it's safe to say that barring a very unforeseen development, Lisa Madigan will be the next governor of Illinois. That's fine, and Blagojevich clearly needs to go, but I just can't impute the purest motives to her moves today. It just goes to show you that when it comes to government and elected officials, the politics never, ever ends.

And guess who's the guest on Meet the Press this weekend? Lisa Madigan.

RIP, Robert Prosky

2008-12-11T08:21:00.001-08:00

I was deeply saddened when I opened up the paper yesterday to see that Robert Prosky, one of my favorite actors, had passed away at the not-that-old age of 77. Most people probably don't know Prosky by name. He is one of hundreds of supremely talented character actors who get little recognition, but who have more talent than all of the George Clooneys and Leonardo DiCaprio's combined.

Personally, my favorite roles of Prosky's were as a kindly priest in "Rudy", a viciously cantankerous garage owner in "Christine" (picture above), and as shadowy baseball team owner in "The Natural." Really, he was a man whose versatility and sunny demeanor defined him. In one of the obits I read, it noted that in back-to-back films, he played the head of the CIA and the KGB. Now that's versatility! To me, a versatile actor is far more talented, more likeable, and more interesting than a hollow leading man or woman (hello Nicole Kidman). Apparently, Prosky had been a talented stage actor as well, and he lived right here in Washington. Two facts I did not know.

Please check out Prosky's obits to learn some more about him. What an actor. He'll be missed.

You Can't Make it Up

2008-12-11T06:12:00.000-08:00

After a lot of debate, it is now official: Politico is a total joke. Any attempts for me or others to claim that the publication is objective should go out the window at this point. Check out the frontpage right now, at 9:12 AM. What's the top headline?

GOP Hopes Rises As Dems Hit Rough Patch

What is the evidence for this headline? According to the article, besides the Blagojevich scandal, Dems suffered bad losses in the Georgia Senate runoff, and the two House special elections in Louisiana last week. What. A. Load. Of. Garbage. Earth to Politico writers: LA-04 is an R+7 district, and Georgia is still Georgia, a state no one on earth ever reasonably expected to win. In terms of LA-02, the seat was lost because of Bill Jefferson's indictment, not because of a tarnished Democratic or Obama brand. The seat will flip back to the Democrats in two years -- you can bet your house on this. Incidentally, find me the people who argued that the Democratic win in TX-22 two years ago -- another political fluke -- was a sign that the GOP was in huge trouble. The fact that Politico is trying to kick up more dirt to bring down the Democrats one month after landslide wins is beyond pathetic.

Naturally, the other top pieces this morning are a smattering of other slanted "news":

Scandal, appointments give GOP hope
Transition site censors Blago questions
Dems rake cash from business
GOP may seek Bill Clinton's testimony

You really can't make this stuff up. From here on out, I am not going to link to any more Politico stories. This is not a newspaper, but the Drudge Report in print.

Bunning's Plans Should Concern GOP

2008-12-10T06:37:00.000-08:00

Two-term Republican Senator Jim Bunning is reiterating that he intends to run for re-election in 2010. Whether he really means this, or it is just bluster remains to be seen until at least next year. However, the idea of Bunning running again should definitely concern Republican leadership. Let me say that if Jim Bunning runs again, and Democrats get a strong nominee (hello Ben Chandler), Bunning will be defeated.

Jim Bunning has lived somewhat of a charmed life. A former congressman, he won election to the Senate over fellow Rep. Scotty Baesler by a bare 50-49 margin in 1998. Six years later, facing an unfunded and unknown state senator named Dan Mongiardo, Bunning won 51-49, despite the fact that President Bush was carrying the state by 20 percentage points. Not to mention, prior to getting into politics, Bunning was a good major leaguer and he pitched a perfect game in 1964 which helped eventually propel him into the Hall of Fame despite his likely undeserving statistics.

During the 2004 campaign, Bunning exhibited very strange behavior. He referred to his opponent as looking like one of Saddam Hussein's sons. He claimed his wife was attacked at a picnic. And he refused to participate in person at the only debate, opting instead to appear by satellite from the Republican National Committee headquarters in Washington, where it appears that he was fed answers by a teleprompter. After Bunning survived (in no small measure to the DSCC foolishly refusing to send good money to the state while wasting it in places like Missouri, Oklahoma, and South Carolina), it appeared to everyone his second term would be his last one.

Bunning does not see it that way. Despite the margins of his two Senate wins, and the tenor his last campaign, he, like many politicians who came before him, does not appear ready to relinquish his hold on power, even though he has clearly lost a lot of zip from his fastball. This is of course great news for Democrats, who surprisingly have a deep bench in Kentucky. Congressman Ben Chandler, State Auditor Crit Luallen, State Attorney Jack Conway, and others could all give Bunning a very stiff challenge. In fact, as I noted at the top, if Chandler gets in -- and I think he will -- Bunning will be history if he stays.

The biggest question, then, is if Bunning really will run again. Right now, he has basically no money in his account for a campaign that will be very costly. This doesn't mean he won't run again, but it is one sign. He is also 79, and clearly not in the best health, if 2004 demonstrated anything. Personally, I'd say it is 50-50 he runs again. At his age, clearly he wants to make the race, much like Arlen Specter, but desire and ability are two separate things. We'll see what happens, but the GOP should be hoping that he opts for retirement so they can run someone like Secretary of State Trey Grayson.

Politico's Big Day

2008-12-10T06:05:00.000-08:00

The people at Politico must have been salivating yesterday. After all, the Blagojevich scandal gives them ample opportunity to try to tarnish Barack Obama and Democrats in order to make a name for their publication. Here are the top headlines this morning on the webpage:

In Scandal, Risks for Obama
Scandal Tests Obama
Blago has been scheming for years
Republicans could win Obama seat
Aide: Axelrod 'misspoke'

And none of this even includes some other great hits from earlier this week, such as the priceless Liberals voice concerns about Obama, the typical Politico-style piece trying to sow discontent among Democrats with Obama.

Upon some further reflection do I think that Politico's editors are biased against Democrats? Probably not, though that label certain applies to some its "news" writers like Jonathan Martin. I really believe that Politico, the new kid on the block in the Capitol Hill news gang, is simply desperate to create a name for itself. As a result, it is willing to basically say anything, and blur the line between news and opinion. I think Politico should reconsider this strategy before more people begin to take it less seriously.

A Word on Jindal's Savvy

2008-12-09T22:31:00.000-08:00

A sharp friend of mine noted to me that my post blaming Bobby Jindal for the Dems' losses in LA-02 and especially LA-04 was a bit off the mark. Thinking about it, I agree with her point, though on a limited ground. Let me be clear in saying that if I were Jindal, I would have done the exact same thing. Politics is a contact sport, and he made a move to benefit his party. As it turned out, his changing the date of the election worked perfectly to the Republican Party's gain. I personally may not like the end result, but I absolutely respect Jindal's savvy. Heck, I am a guy who while attacking his motives, praised the political guts and astonishing gumption of Gov. Haley Barbour when he moved the Roger Wicker-Ronnie Musgrove special election to the bottom on the ballot for no apparent reason other than that he wanted to help water-down black support of Musgrove.

That being said, while I surely give a tip of political cap to Jindal, I still believe his move of the election cost Democrats the Fourth District, as higher black turnout on November 4 would have basically assured Paul Carmouche's victory (as he lost the December special by 356 votes). In terms of the Second, Bill Jefferson would have won easily had his race been November 4, and he was killed by low turnout, but only he is to blame for the corruption problems that put him in such a precarious position in the first place.

Bad Idea

2008-12-09T22:11:00.000-08:00

In the aftermath of the Blagojevich bombshell, several Democrats are typically overreacting with a potentially bad idea. Senator Dick Durbin has called for the Illinois state legislature to strip the Senate appointment power from the governor, and allow for a special election to fill Barack Obama's now-open seat. Such a move, if executed, could possibly cost Democrats the seat.

Right now Illinois voters are likely very angry both at Democrats, and at Chicago politics. If there were a special election, anything would be possible. A special election would be a free-shot for sitting congressmen, so we could expect a free-for-all between numerous ambitious pols. In my view, a worst-case scenario for Democrats would be if someone like ultra-liberal Chicago Reps. Jesse Jackson Junior or Danny Davis were to win the Democratic special primary. If someone like Mark Kirk were to run as a Republican, he could well beat either way. Reps like Davis and Jackson are way too liberal. That, combined with the anti-Chicago sentiment now blowing through the state and a potentially quality candidate from the Republicans could be enough to turn the seat.

If I was adivising Mark Kirk, I would tell him to get into a special election. He is moderate, very popular in his Democratic district (he just won re-election overwhelmingly in a year when Obama was on the top of the Democratic ballot), and he can raise big money. A Kirk-Jackson match-up in early 2009 would cause some heartburn for Dems.

Look, I realize all of this is unlikely. A special election would cost tens of millions of dollars, and it would take action on the part of both houses of the legislature. We all know government moves slowly, even in times of crisis like this. I don't expect the state to make this change. Furthermore, the Illinois GOP is in shambles today, and their bench is almost empty. Someone like Kirk may not even want to run.

But I do think that the extended discussion of the move by Democrats is an overreaction we've come to expect from politicians incapable of thinking ahead. If they are wise, proponents of a special election will come to their senses, and allow an appointment, likely by the governor's successor. In that case, the appointed individual -- hopefully of good quality -- can strengthen him or herself for two years, by which time the public has gotten a bit over this mess. Allowing for a special would be a big political mistake, even in a blue state like Illinois.

What Will Obama Do With Patrick Fitzgerald?

2008-12-09T20:03:00.000-08:00

Many, many issues coming out of today's bombshell indictment of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich on charges that he tried to sell Barack Obama's old Senate seat to the highest bidder in order to enrich himself. We're going to try to cover some of the more interesting stories coming out of this, at least as we see.

One topic that I think is really interesting is what will happen to Patrick Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald is the sitting United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, and as many of you know, he was the special counsel in charge of the Plamegate matter which resulted in the conviction of former Dick Cheney Chief of Staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Fitzgerald has obtained scores of convictions in his post as USA, and is well-established as an Eliot Ness-type figure. In the process, he has become a nationally-known figure. This case will only increase that stature.

Why is any of this important? Well, it is because Fitzgerald's post comes up in just a few weeks. United States Attorneys are presidential appointments, and generally at the end of an administration, every one of them is not renewed in his her post, just like all key executive branch appointments. Sure, they are some holdovers, but the overwhelming majority are not brought back for obvious political reasons. They are not technically fired, but in a way these types of appointees are fired.

This begs the question of what will happen to Fitzgerald. On the one hand, like every other major political appointee in the Bush administration, Fitzgerald should be a goner. However, on the other hand he is just beginning one of the most important corruption cases in some time. It is not every day that a sitting governor is charged in an incredibly juicy indictment like the one present in this case. Therefore, it might be better politically for the incoming administration if Fitzgerald were retained in his post. More importantly, were he forced from his job next month, Obama could be attacked for making a political move in order to protect Blagojevich.

Obama is in a very sticky situation. In just about any other situation, he would be able to replace Fitzgerald and no one would notice or care. It happens every four or eight years. But this is different. It involves a major case, and it is right in Obama's homestate. Plus, while Fitzgerald was appointed by Bush, he is not a Republican, and he has few friends in the GOP with his prosecution of Scooter Libby. In fact, Fitzgerald was appointed to help clean up Chicago at the urging of Democratic Senator Dick Durbin, one of Obama's closest political confidants.

I have no doubt that Obama will face some pressure from powerful figures back in Illinois to oust Fitzgerald. Men like Mayor Daley and others are probably terrified right now: Fitzgerald is relentless, and who knows what figures he could target going forward. Clearly, he has no problem indicting powerful people in either party.

My inital instinct was that it would be politically wise for Obama not to reappoint Fitzgerald. My reasons for this were that Fitzgerald would be totally his own man (as he should be, but we're talking about politics here), and potentially uncontrollable in terms of dictating his actions from Washington. Additionally, while Obama would encounter some initial fallout, all of that would be nothing compared to having to deal with Fitzgerald for another eight years, as any reappointment would let him sit in the job for as long as he wanted.

However, I have changed my mind. I think the fallout would probably be too great and not worth it. With all of the howling that came out when the Alberto Gonzales Justice Department tried to replace so many U.S. Attorneys, I am sure Obama not bringing back Fitzgerald would cause huge issues he would want to avoid. (I realize the Bush firings were different as they were his own USAs while Fitzgerald is not an Obama appointee, but I don't think the media or the public would appreciate this distinction). And if the Obama administration is even considering this issue, if I were a shrewd Republican, I would call on Obama to reappoint Fitzgerald, and perhaps bring it up during confirmation hearings for incoming Attorney General Eric Holder. Now that would be smart.

In the end, though, I see Obama bringing Fitzgerald back. It makes the most sense. He and some of his political allies may be uneasy about it, but I think Obama may be stuck with Patrick Fitzgerald for the long-haul. When Fitzgerald indicted Scooter Libby, Democrats rejoiced and praised him with Republicans cursed his name. We may see a reversal of fortunes in the future.

David Gregory: The Expected, But Nonetheless Mediocre Choice

2008-12-08T06:35:00.000-08:00

When Tim Russert suddenly passed away, I exchanged some emails with friends on his likely replacement. At the time, I had little doubt who it would be: David Gregory. This is not because I have any smart insight, but because I believed at the time that Gregory was the safest choice for NBC network suits, and as a result, his selection was almost a foregone conclusion. When his hiring as the host of Meet the Press was made official this week, it should have shocked no one. That being said, just because Gregory was the obvious choice does not mean he was a good choice.

The elevation of Gregory to the head of the storied Sunday morning talk show can be explained in one word: gravitas; or perhaps two words: perceived gravitas. David Gregory looks every bit the part of a serious journalist and newsman. He's covered politics and the White House for a major network for some time. He has been a notable jouster with President Bush at numerous press conferences. With his gray and white hair (but not advanced age; he's just 38) he looks like a serious, important political person. Heck, even his name, "David Gregory", sounds esteemed. And make no mistake, all of these factors were critical in his selection.

NBC has a lot of pride in Meet the Press. It likes to tout it as not only the highest-rated news program on Sunday morning, but perhaps the most influential news show in all media. Every Sunday, its rich political history is highlighted once more so we can all bask in the heady position the show has enjoyed for decades. In other words, NBC likes to remind us all how important and relevant the show is. That's all well and good, and I can readily acknowledge that Meet the Press has been popular for some time. Given the high regard NBC holds for ones its signature products, Gregory was the natural heir when Russert passed on. After all, he has the gravitas that NBC thinks befits the show.

However, I for one think it was a mediocre, uninspired choice. Remind me again why Meet the Press has been so popular in recent years? Oh yeah, it was Tim Russert, and Russert was anything but the stuffy scribe that I think Gregory embodies. Russert was not of Washington, a fact he liked to highlight proudly every single show. He was from Buffalo, and in the field of politics, he embodied unique character and a regular person more than anyone else around. His friendly, boisterous personality coupled with his unassuming manner made him beloved by many people, and his impeccable work and tough-but-fair and always respectful questioning of participants on his show earned him near-universal respect. Really, Russert was simply a political junkie and he covered politics in a way that made you realize that right away. And nothing seemed contrived.

Russert was successful precisely because he was not someone like David Gregory or others like him; in many ways, he was the exact opposite. And if NBC's corporate suits think that Gregory can tap into Russert's success even a little bit, they're nuts. Any continued success of Meet the Press will be based solely on its brand, until proven otherwise. People watched Russert, listened to him, and respected him because he was so different from endless litany of boring, phony, carbon-copy hosts and pundits you can catch on any other channel at basically any time of day, seven days a week droning on about politics.

I realize that someone like Russert is irreplaceable, and I am not suggesting that NBC should have based its search for a new host on finding the new Russert (though, I don't there was ever a search as I think Gregory was the choice for the job immediately). Such a thing would have been impossible and foolish. What I am suggesting is that in deciding a new host, NBC should have better considered why Russert made Meet the Press so successful, and in turn influential. He was liked because he was real and because he was different from the other indistinguishable rabble.

Was there a clearly better choice out there than David Gregory? I am not positive, but I think the answer is 'probably.' Personally, I would have tapped Chuck Todd for the job. Todd, NBC's political director made his bones as the head of the Hotline, the well known daily (and incredibly exhaustive) politics broadsheet that is read on Capitol Hill and by politics junkies everywhere. Anyway who has ever worked for Hotline is an unquestioned junkie, and if you've watched Todd, you know he is too, in much the same way Russert was, though minus the latter's personal and sunny exuberance. And also like Russert, Todd has never been a White House reporter, which was a knock invoked against him. However, I think that attack was silly since Todd has been on tv about 10 billion times in his life as an analyst, and I don't think him being in front of a camera was a big deal.

Of course, Todd did not get the job because he doesn't have Gregory's perceived gravitas. Todd does not look like the man who should be hosting the self-described gold standard of political journalism. He has red hair and a goatee, he's kind of chubby, and has a boyish appearance. All stark contrasts to Gregory and others. Also, in fairness, he is not as off-the-cuff and capable of fresh witty banter as Russert was; though to be equally fair, I've never seen any indication that Gregory is capable of showing that side. But again, Gregory is all about outward appearances, and that's why I think he was picked. Tell me: did Tim Russert look like he should have been hosting Meet the Press?

I'm sure part of me wants to duplicate Russert in some way, even though that's impossible. You can't recreate perfectly things like that. All I know is that Todd would have been an interesting choice, and David Gregory is a mediocre choice, no matter what the ratings tell me later. Gregory was just the safe choice to corporate suits who don't like to be different. That's a shame, because starting soon, Meet the Press will be like all the other political talk shows.

Louisiana

2008-12-08T04:25:00.000-08:00

I wanted to comment on the two Louisiana House races from Saturday. It was not a great day for Democrats, but they can thank Bobby Jindal for that. In the Fourth District, the GOP nominee, John Fleming, appears to have won by 356 votes, or 0.3% over outgoing Caddo Parrish District Attorney Paul Carmouche. In an R+7 district, this was a tough loss for Democrats, as Carmouche was a very strong nominee who was well known in the district.

In the Second District, Republican nominee Joseph Coe (pronounced "gow") shockingly ousted longtime Democratic Representative William Jefferson, who had held the seat for nearly 20 years. For those who have forgotten, Jefferson has been under federal indictment for the last couple of years, and he gained some (likely unwanted) notoriety when authorities found wads of cash in his freezer. Nonetheless, he was re-elected two years ago.

So what happened in these two races? Simple: because these were special elections, turnout was pitifully low, particularly among black voters, the most vital Democratic base in a state like Louisiana. With the big race happening on November 4, these contests were simply ignored, and this killed Dems in both.

What does this have to do with Governor Bobby Jindal? Well, if you remember, when Hurricane Gustav was bearing down on Louisiana the week of the GOP convention, he ordered that the primary runoffs be moved. Consequently, the runoffs were moved to November 4, and the general contests were moved to December 6.

Make no mistake: the move was purely political, and aimed solely at Paul Carmouche. Jindal and other Republicans realized Carmouche would have been able to win on November 4, aided by huge black turnout for Obama. Creating a special contest in December almost guaranteed terrible turnout, and in a strong Republican district, that's a death sentence for a Democrat. It is a shame for Democrats, because Carmouche was the type of Dem who could have held the seat for a decade, but that's politics, and I can't say I would have done it any differently if I was Jindal.

And let me add that I am not trying to downplay the significance of a hurricane, especially in a place like Louisiana. I have no doubt that Jindal only wants to protect his state and its citizens. That being said, I also have zero doubt that being able to move the general election for the Fourth District was also squarely in Jindal's mind, and a major consideration. So for anyone who would be offended by my arguing that Jindal had political motives in moving the contests, wake up and smell the coffee.

In terms of the Second, this is not a GOP district. In fact, it is the only Dem-leaning district in the state because it was gerrymandered to be the state's majority black district. Centered around New Orleans, the Second is PVI D+28. To give you some context for that, the reddest district Dems currently control is R+18. Prior to Saturday, the bluest district a GOPer currently held in Congress was D+7. In other words, this is not a district the GOP should ever win in its wildest dreams, and there is absolutely no chance the Republicans can hold it in two years.

In fact, if I was Mr. Coe's advisor, I would have a simple piece of advice for him: switch parties today and then go to the Democratic leadership and beg them to accept you. Plead. Coe cannot win re-election in two years. It's impossible. What he can do is switch parties. While I think he would lose there too -- he would almost certainly be felled in a primary by a black candidate in a district that is almost two-thirds black -- at least he would have a chance. Perhaps he can survive in similar fashion to Rep. Steve Cohen. Cohen, if you remember ran as the only credible white candidate in a large Democratic field of black candidates for Tennessee's Ninth District, which is based in Memphis. However, the difference there was that (1) Cohen was a true -- and liberal -- Democrat; and (2) Cohen had been a state senator from the area for 20 years and was thus well known in the community whereas Coe has negligible ties in New Orleans.

Indeed, if Coe switched parties tomorrow and was accepted into the caucus with open arms, in two years the DCCC would not give Coe a nickel. Why would it spend money in a safe seat that it knows will flip back anyway? Plus, the DCCC and many Democrats would assuredly feel pressure from the Congressional Black Caucus and black leaders in New Orleans to return the seat to a black representative. In other words, Coe is [bleeped]. Do I expect him to even try to switch parties? Absolutely not, because such a move would show political foresight, and I wouldn't expect a political fluke to have those kinds of instincts.

By the way, there is zero chance the Democrats would ever approach Coe to switch. The CBC would be livid if leadership backed a Vietnamese guy over any black candidate. I am not saying that is right, but that is how the group would react. A lot of black members backed Steve Cohen's primary opponent this year for heaven's sakes, and again, Cohen had ties in Memphis and TN-09 is not even as Democratic as LA-02. Black national leadership would not stand for any institutional support of Coe -- a man who has never been a registered Democrat anyway -- and this is a fight Pelosi would want no part of, considering she already had a battle when she kicked Jefferson off of Ways and Means and another one when she denied Alcee Hastings the Intelligence chairmanship. Facing the possibility of having to boot Rangel, this is a fight she won't touch with a ten-foot pole.

Interestingly, I actually think Democratic leaders are today pretty delighted with the stunning results in LA-02. For years, Jefferson has been a thorn in their side, as he has refused to resign in the face of a damning federal indictment, and he even refused to quit his post on the powerful Ways and Means Committee; he was ultimately removed in a move that angered the CBC. While Republicans like Tom DeLay, Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, Tom Feeney, Don Young (and a cast of thousands) have come under scrutiny or indictment, Jefferson has represented the worst of Democratic corruption, and has somewhat undercut the party's ability to attack Republicans for ethical lapses. Jefferson's amazing ability to win re-election two years ago -- not to mention a primary challenge -- infuriated Democrats, and after he won his primary this year, they were resigned to having him in the House for two more years.

Really, for this reason, Jefferson's defeat is actually a very good series of events for Democrats. The worst thing possible for the majority side would have been to have had Jefferson in the House when he was convicted. And given his intransigence so far, I figure he would have stayed until the bitter end, after a conviction up until the word "expulsion" was seriously invoked. Jefferson's defeat now removes the possibility of that bad publicity hitting the Capitol at an inopportune time. It is one thing to have a scandal like this in 2005 or even 2007, but in 2009 or 2010, something like this would be imputed to both Democratic majorities in Congress and to the White House, where a Democrat will be. For this reason, it is easy to see why Jefferson losing Saturday was a good thing for Dems.

Sure, watching a Republican hold such a liberal seat is annoying for Democrats, but Dems know it will be theirs again in two years. And that extra win will even help the DCCC pad its numbers the morning after in 2010 when seats almost certainly will be lost in aggregate. The party should be much more upset about the Fourth District, as that was a GOP seat that was just red enough that Carmouche could have stolen it for them for the long haul.

This Is Classic

2008-12-03T06:52:00.001-08:00

When I saw this story, I just had to comment. Fearful of a challenge from Alaska's governor, Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski is publicly speaking out against the governor running against her in a primary when her seat comes up in 2010:

“I can guarantee it would be a very tough election,” Murkowski said in an interview.[...]

“If she wants to be president, I don’t think the way to the presidency is a short stop in the United States Senate,” Murkowski said.[...]

“One thing that Alaskans clearly appreciate is seniority,” said Murkowski, who was appointed to the Senate in 2002 by her father, who had just won the governor’s race. “If she were to kind of move me over, if you will, to run for national office again at the expense at this seniority that’s been built, I don’t know if Alaskans would look too favorably on that.

The reasons behind Murkowski's concerns are obvious: while Lisa is a shoo-in for re-election over any Democrat in two years, the governor would have an excellent chance of toppling her in a primary. Additionally, that Murkowski would have negative feelings for the governor is not surprising considering the governor ousted her dad in a 2006 primary on the way to being elected in her own right. Sure, during the presidential contest Murkowski said and did all the right things about how she loved the governor and was supporting her. But we all know that was nonsense. What is really telling here is that Murkowski would make this statements publicly. To me, they show tremendous fear by the incumbent senator.

I have one response to this: hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!

Really, this story is one that involes no heroes and no victims, but two scoundrels who may just deserve each other. In one corner is Murkowski, who was appointed to the seat by her father, after he left the Senate to become governor. She was narrowly elected in her own right in great part because John Kerry's name on the ballot deep-sixed her opponent. The idea of her being ousted by someone even less qualified in a primary would drip of delicious irony and poetic justice.

In the other corner sits Alaska's governor, who is clearly less qualified for the job. Were she to primary challenge Murkowski, it would be for one reason and one reason alone: to give the governor a national platform and a bigger profile for a presidential run. And these ambitions would be completely naked. Any pretext of the move being done for Alaska's benefit would be utter garbage, and rational people would know right off the bat. Not that Alasakans would care, and neither would the governor.

Who would win this battle, the princess who was given the seat by her daddy, or Alaska's grossly unqualified political queen? Hard to say with the contest nearly two years away. That's five lifetimes in politics. My gut tells me that the governor would end up winning. While both ladies are popular in the state, this would be a GOP primary, and thus dominated by the state's most conservative voters, the very same people who made up a huge part of the 48% Ted Stevens got and the 50% Don Young got last month. Because the governor is much more conservative than Murkowski (a point the article makes), the governor would enjoy a strong advantage.

From a strategic standpoint, I wonder if going to the Senate would be the right move for the governor. There's no question that Washington would give the govenor more noteriety than Juneau. However, were the governor to run and win, she would get to Washington in January 2011, one year before the 2012 election the governor would clearly have her eye on. Spending mere months in the Senate before running (and she would have to announce a run sometime in 2011) would likely not grant the governor the perception of enough experience in national (and international) issues (much less true experience; though we all know the perception is what will matter). Plus, making a second run in 2012, would smack of political opportunism that will be impossible to adequately shield from criticism. Oh well. If it happens, I won't be surprised, and neither should you. Still, the whole storyline is hilarious.

Regardless of whether the governor does run, we can be assured of one thing: if she believes it will help her career, she will challenge Murkowski, regardless of whether such a move would be good for Alaska or opposed by scores of other people. Ivan Moore, Alaska's respected political pollster said it best:

“Sarah is interested in what is best for Sarah, and she is not necessarily going to get sidetracked by party loyalties,” Moore said.

Breaking Down Swing State Exit Polls: Campaign Contact

2008-11-28T08:19:00.000-08:00

In this post, we are going to look through swing state exit poll data relating to whether voters were contacted by the respective campaigns.

National Exits

Contacted by any campaign? (2008 only)
Only Obama (13%) Obama 80, McCain 19
Only McCain (6%) McCain 82, Obama 17
Both (13%) McCain 51, Obama 47
Neither (66%) Obama 50, McCain 48

Contacted by the Obama/Kerry campaign?
Yes
(2004, 26%) Kerry 66, Bush 33
(2008, 26%) Obama 64, McCain 34

No
(2004, 74%) Bush 57, Kerry 42
(2008, 72%) McCain 50, Obama 48

Contacted by the McCain/Bush campaign?
Yes
(2004, 24%) Bush 62, Kerry 38
(2008, 18%) McCain 60, Obama 38

No
(2004, 76%) Kerry 52, Bush 47
(2008, 79%) Obama 55, McCain 43

Analysis. There is a wealth of information in this data which speaks very clearly to the effectiveness of the respective campaigns. Before looking over the information, we need to conceptualize how a good voter outreach operation works. In other words, who were the campaigns reaching out to, and why, and how does this data reveal whether the campaigns were effective in their outreach? In a campaign, the key group you are reaching out to is of course your base, the voters you want energized and out voting either on election day or earlier (depending on the state). After that, a good campaign is interested in reaching out to persuadables -- targeted voters who could swing to either side, and are thus worth lavishing attention on. Consider those voters only hit up by one campaign exclusively as base voters -- ones that one party wants to get out, and the other knows are unwinnable. The center is that group contacted by both parties, and is made up of many voters both campaigns see as winnable. Examining this latter group and the exits should give us a good idea which campaign was more persuasive with swingables.

Anyway, to my mind, one of the things that stands out most from this data is the wider net the Obama campaign was able to cast compared to that of Team McCain. As noted at the top, both campaigns had basically equal effectiveness with those voters who were only contacted by the individual campaigns, but the difference lies in the fact that there were twice as many such voters in Obama's pool than McCain's. Additionally, we can see that whereas Obama contacted the same percentage of voters as Kerry four years ago, McCain contacted 6% fewer voters than Team Bush in 2004. So, while Obama's level of success with contacted voters was slightly less than Kerry's, this was alright since the McCain campaign did such a mediocre job of voter contact.

Colorado

Contacted by any campaign? (2008 only)
Only Obama (22%) Obama 81, McCain 17
Only McCain (5%) ?
Both (29%) Obama 52, McCain 47
Neither (42%) McCain 53, Obama 45

Contacted by the Obama campaign?
Yes (51%) Obama 64, McCain 34
No (49%) McCain 56, Obama 42

Contacted by the McCain campaign?
Yes (34%) McCain 51, Obama 48
No (64%) Obama 57, McCain 41

Analysis. Colorado was one of the very most important swing states in this past election. He was highly coveted by both sides, and expected to be very close. In the end, Obama won an easy victory here in part because of his tremendous campaign in the state. Note that whereas Obama's campaign touched just over half of the state's voters, Team McCain only hit one-third of voters, an enormous difference, which, as you can see, translated to a wide disparity among ultimate vote totals. It is a sad commentary that the sample of size of voters contacted by only the McCain campaign was so small that we cannot discern how effective the campaign's core outreach was.

Florida

Contacted by any campaign? (2008 only)
Only Obama (15%) Obama 75, McCain 24
Only McCain (7%) McCain 71, Obama 27
Both (14%) McCain 52, Obama 45
Neither (63%) Obama 50, McCain 49

Contacted by the Obama/Kerry campaign?
Yes
(2004, 35%) Kerry 65, Bush 34
(2008, 29%) Obama 60, McCain 37

No
(2004, 65%) Bush 60, Kerry 39
(2008, 69%) McCain 51, Obama 48

Contacted by the McCain/Bush campaign?
Yes
(2004, 34%) Bush 63, Kerry 36
(2008, 20%) McCain 58, Obama 39

No
(2004, 66%) Kerry 54, Bush 44
(2008, 77%) Obama 55, McCain 44

Analysis. Again, we see that in terms of exclusive contacts, Obama's Florida operation hit twice as many voters as did McCain's, and the former's campaign was more effective to boot. Interestingly, far less voters were contacted in Florida than in 2004, by both sides. However, Team McCain only touched about one-fifth of voters in the state, a very lower number, and 14% below Bush/Cheney in 2004.

Indiana

Contacted by any campaign? (2008 only)
Only Obama (23%) Obama 73, McCain 26
Only McCain (8%) McCain 80, Obama 19
Both (14%) McCain 53, Obama 43
Neither (54%) McCain 53, Obama 46

Contacted by the Obama campaign?
Yes (37%) Obama 62, McCain 36
No (62%) McCain 57, Obama 43

Contacted by the McCain campaign?
Yes (22%) McCain 63, Obama 34
No (77%) Obama 54, McCain 45

Analysis. As you can see, Indiana was a state where voter outreach made a huge difference. Over the summer, we postulated that McCain would have to leave states like Indiana untouched in hopes that they could hold on without large infusions of money. The rationale behind this view was simply that Team McCain would not have the funds to fight in traditional red states. In the end, McCain's (necessary) gambit failed, as Obama poured a lot of resources into Indiana with great impact. Obama hit 15% more voters than McCain. Obama lost every cross-section by a health margin except those nearly one-quarter of voters who were contacted. Obama won this group by just enough to win statewide. Voter outreach here made a big difference. Indeed, McCain badly lost voters he never contacted.

Nevada

Contacted by any campaign? (2008 only)
Only Obama (26%) Obama 80, McCain 18
Only McCain (5%) McCain 88, Obama 10
Both (24%) Obama 50, McCain 49
Neither (43%) Obama 50, McCain 47

Contacted by the Obama campaign?
Yes (50%) Obama 66, McCain 33
No (48%) McCain 51, Obama 46

Contacted by the McCain campaign?
Yes (29%) McCain 55, Obama 43
No (69%) Obama 62, McCain 36

Analysis. I've said it before, and in light of this data I will say it again: the individuals who ran Obama's Nevada operation should be taken care of in the administration. Just look at one number: 50, as in the percentage of voters who were contacted by the Obama campaign. Half of the state's voters received a contact, and of that bloc, Obama won two out of every three votes. That's your ballgame right there. Now, Nevada was seemingly predisposed to support Obama this year, as indicated by McCain's slim lead among voters Obama did not contact (as opposed to a wide lead, which would have been expected). Still, Obama's incredible state operation played a big role in shaping that predisposition. How the heck did Obama exclusively contact one-quarter of voters, while McCain similarly hit only 5% in a state the GOP had only lost twice since 1948? I guess it was true what the NY Times reported when an unnamed operative said that McCain had no presence here.

North Carolina

Contacted by any campaign? (2008 only)
Only Obama (14%) Obama 89, McCain 10
Only McCain (6%) McCain 85, Obama 15
Both (20%) Obama 50, McCain 49
Neither (58%) McCain 55, Obama 44

Contacted by the Obama campaign?
Yes (34%) Obama 66, McCain 33
No (64%) McCain 58, Obama 41

Contacted by the McCain campaign?
Yes (26%) McCain 58, Obama 41
No (72%) Obama 53, McCain 46

Analysis. Because the two campaigns split down the middle the pool of switchables contacted by both camps, this race came down to which side was able to bring out its base better, and on that score, Obama won easily. He again doubled up on base contacts here, and brought them to the polls at a better clip.

Ohio

Contacted by any campaign? (2008 only)
Only Obama (15%) Obama 81, McCain 19
Only McCain (8%) McCain 82, Obama 18
Both (28%) McCain 51, Obama 48
Neither (46%) Obama 51, McCain 48

Contacted by the Obama campaign?
Yes (43%) Obama 59, McCain 40
No (54%) McCain 53, Obama 46

Contacted by the McCain campaign?
Yes (36%) McCain 58, Obama 41
No (61%) Obama 58, McCain 41

Analysis. It seems like both sides were effective in turning people they contacted, but Obama contacted more people.

Virginia

Contacted by any campaign? (2008 only)
Only Obama (22%) Obama 81, McCain 19
Only McCain (10%) McCain 84, Obama 15
Both (28%) McCain 57, Obama 42
Neither (38%) Obama 53, McCain 46

Contacted by the Obama campaign?
Yes (50%) Obama 59, McCain 40
No (48%) McCain 54, Obama 45

Contacted by the McCain campaign?
Yes (38%) McCain 64, Obama 35
No (59%) Obama 63, McCain 36

Analysis. Like in Nevada, the Obama campaign was able to reach out to half of the people who ultimately voted. This is a hard thing to beat. Interestingly, Obama badly lost voters targeted by both sides, but he got his winning margin by comfortably winning uncontacted voters.

Breaking Down Swing State Exit Polls: When Voters Decided

2008-11-27T18:17:00.000-08:00

In this post, we are going to look through swing state exit poll data relating to when voters decided which candidate to support.

National Exits

Election day
(2004, 5%) Kerry 52, Bush 45
(2008, 4%) Obama 50, McCain 45

Last three days
(2004, 4%) Kerry 55, Bush 42
(2008, 3%) McCain 52, Obama 47

Last week
(2004, 2%) Bush 51, Kerry 48
(2008, 3%) McCain 50, Obama 48

In October
(2004, 10%) Kerry 54, Bush 44
(2008, 15%) Obama 54, McCain 43

Before October
(2004, 78%) Bush 53, Kerry 46
(2008, 74%) Obama 52, McCain 47

Analysis. Conventional wisdom (or at least just Republican postgame spin) has said that the financial crisis took a race that was veritably tied in late-September and gave it to Obama. The data says otherwise. Granted, the race was tighter prior to the Wall Street meltdown; Obama only led by by five points with voters who made a decision before October, and by 11% with voters who made a decision during October. Still, given that three-fourths of voters decided before October, McCain was likely in dire conditions anyway. In other words, even though the election may have turned out close had Lehman Brothers never collapsed, I think McCain still would have lost. Heck, he lost the voters who decided on November 4, and barely won voters who made a choice the last week. However, let me add that 50% more voters made a decision in October this year than in 2008. There is little doubt in my mind that the crisis had something to do with that, much to the McCain's detriment. Going further, just note how much better Obama did than Bush: in only one subset -- the final three days -- did McCain enjoy a lead outside the margin of error. Whereas Bush opened strongly enough to hold on to an overall 51-48 victory, Obama's campaign opened and closed strong -- a very impressive feat.

Colorado

Election day
(2004, 6%) Kerry 51, Bush 45
(2008, ?) ?

Last three days
(2004, 3%) ?
(2008, 0%) ?

Last week
(2004, 2%) ?
(2008, 3%) ?

In October
(2004, 12%) Bush 50, Kerry 49
(2008, 12%) Obama 53, McCain 45

Before October
(2004, 77%) Bush 55, Kerry 45
(2008, 82%) Obama 53, McCain 46

Analysis. Unfortunately, the small sample sizes give us no data for voters who decided late in the game. Nevertheless, we see that Obama had Colorado locked up before October. Even after the crisis broke and McCain foolishly "suspended" his campaign, he was already cooked in the state, In fact, Obama's level of support with pre-October deciding voters was just about identical to his support among voters who made a decision in October. In a state Kerry was trounced, Obama did spectacular.

Florida

Election day
(2004, 6%) Kerry 53, Bush 44
(2008, 3%) McCain 52, Obama 45

Last three days
(2004, 3%) ?
(2008, 3%) McCain 51, Obama 48

Last week
(2004, 3%) Kerry 68, Bush 29
(2008, 4%) Obama 55, McCain 42

In October
(2004, 12%) Kerry 59, Bush 40
(2008, 12%) Obama 60, McCain 38

Before October
(2004, 77%) Bush 56, Kerry 44
(2008, 76%) Obama 51, McCain 48

Analysis. This was a close one, and McCain closed here late in strong fashion. The data seems to indicate that this is a state that was won because of the economic crisis. Why? Prior to October, three-fourths of the voters had decided, and Obama held a three-point lead with them. However, October-deciders broke for Obama by over 20 points, ensuring that McCain's late charge would not be enough to come back. This did not occur in 2004, where, despite the fact that people seemed to decide in the same percentages in October and pre-October, Bush had a huge lead with the latter group -- more than enough to counter-balance the +19% Kerry advantage with October voters.

Indiana

Election day
(2004, 5%) ?
(2008, 9%) Obama 50, McCain 46

Last three days
(2004, 4%) ?
(2008, 5%) Obama 50, McCain 50

Last week
(2004, 3%) ?
(2008, 5%) Obama 50, McCain 45

In October
(2004, 11%) Kerry 56, Bush 43
(2008, 13%) Obama 55, McCain 44

Before October
(2004, 77%) Bush 65, Kerry 34
(2008, 67%) McCain 50, Obama 48

Analysis. The numbers that stand out here are the scores of people who remained undecided late in the game: in the last week of the campaign, about one in five voters were undecided, nearly double the national average. What happened here was that Obama was down prior to October, though not substantially, and as a result he wisely decided to spend big here. The economic crisis gave the Democrat a good cushion, and those voters who rarely went for a national Dem broke for him by just enough to award Obama a tiny statewide victory in one of the most unlikely of states.

Nevada

Election day
(2004, 8%) Bush 49, Kerry 48
(2008, 4%) Obama 53, McCain 47

Last three days
(2004, 3%) ?
(2008, 3%) Obama 50, McCain 44

Last week
(2004, 3%) ?
(2008, 3%) McCain 48, Obama 44

In October
(2004, 13%) Kerry 57, Bush 40
(2008, 14%) Obama 59, McCain 40

Before October
(2004, 72%) Bush 54, Kerry 45
(2008, 74%) Obama 56, McCain 42

Analysis. Nevada was an old-fashioned beat-down. Obama organized the heck out of the state, and McCain never had a chance, even before the Wall Street crisis. Needless to say that the pre-October polls showing a real horse-race were not terribly accurate.

North Carolina

Election day
(2004, 4%) Kerry 71, Bush 26
(2008, 3%) Obama 55, McCain 42

Last three days
(2004, 4%) Kerry 57, Bush 43
(2008, 2%) Obama 54, McCain 42

Last week
(2004, 3%) ?
(2008, 3%) McCain 67, Obama 32

In October
(2004, 11%) Kerry 50, Bush 48
(2008, 14%) McCain 60, Obama 39

Before October
(2004, 78%) Bush 60, Kerry 39
(2008, 77%) Obama 52, McCain 48

Analysis. Again we find another example where Obama was in strong shape before October. While his lead was fairly narrow, most of his work was done prior to October 1. McCain closed very strong in October and the last week -- the former period is interesting as the economic crisis did not deliver a new majority to Obama over October -- but Obama countered over the final days.

Ohio

Election day
(2004, 5%) Kerry 61, Bush 39
(2008, 5%) Obama 48, McCain 44

Last three days
(2004, 4%) Kerry 64, Bush 36
(2008, 3%) McCain 52, Obama 43

Last week
(2004, 3%) ?
(2008, 4%) McCain 52, Obama 48

In October
(2004, 11%) Kerry 61, Bush 36
(2008, 16%) Obama 51, McCain 47

Before October
(2004, 78%) Bush 55, Kerry 45
(2008, 70%) Obama 53, McCain 46

Analysis. Like in North Carolina, Obama actually did better pre-October than in October. Food for thought. And like in Indiana, we had more undecided voters after September than in many other states. It's likely that a lot of voters in Ohio could not commit to Obama, and many of the late deciders, didn't.

Virginia

Election day
(2004, 5%) Bush 48, Kerry 48
(2008, 5%) Obama 49, McCain 49

Last three days
(2004, 3%) ?
(2008, 5%) McCain 67, Obama 30

Last week
(2004, 3%) ?
(2008, 4%) ?

In October
(2004, 8%) Bush 52, Kerry 45
(2008, 11%) Obama 59, McCain 40

Before October
(2004, 81%) Bush 56, Kerry 44
(2008, 74%) Obama 53, McCain 46

Analysis. Obama did most of his hard work in Virginia before the meltdown, but the event certainly clinched the state for him.

Breaking Down Swing State Exit Polls: Party ID

2008-11-27T11:07:00.000-08:00

In this post, we are going to look through swing state exit poll data relating to voter party identification.

National Exits

Democrats
(2004, 37%) Kerry 89, Bush 11
(2008, 39%) Obama 89, McCain 10
Turnout: Up 1% over 2004
Change: None

Republicans
(2004, 37%) Bush 93, Kerry 6
(2008, 32%) McCain 90, Obama 9
Turnout: Down 5% under 2004
Change: +3% Obama over Kerry

Independents
(2004, 26%) Kerry 49, Bush 48
(2008, 29%) Obama 52, McCain 44
Turnout: Up 3% over 2004
Change: +3% Obama over Kerry

Analysis. Let's first look at the turnout picture. The percentage of voters who were self-identified Dems rose a slight 2%, but more importantly the number of GOPers dropped a not-too-small 5%. There were also 3% more indies out there. How did this translate in the election? Well, interestingly, Obama improved over Kerry very marginally with Democrats, while jumping three percent in support with the other two groups. This is where the election was won for the Democrat: among disillusioned Republicans and indies. In 2004, when Bush won just about every single Republican -- with GOPers equal to Dems as part of the voting populace -- Kerry lost when he ended up basically tied with indies. Obama's big victory with independents, combined with the drop in self-IDed Republicans equaled a cool victory.

Colorado

Democrats
(2004, 29%) Kerry 93, Bush 7
(2008, 30%) Obama 92, McCain 7
Turnout: Up 1% over 2004
Change: -1% Obama under Kerry
Difference with national gains: -1% under Dem national gains with Democrats

Republicans
(2004, 38%) Bush 93, Kerry 6
(2008, 31%) McCain 87, Obama 13
Turnout: -7% under 2004
Change: +7% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +4% over Dem national gains with Republicans

Independents
(2004, 33%) Kerry 52, Bush 45
(2008, 39%) Obama 54, McCain 44
Turnout: +6% over 2004
Change: +2% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: -1% under Dem national gains with Independents

Analysis. Colorado's results mirror some of the national numbers. Obama won the state by enjoying a larger slice of a smaller Republican pie, and a bigger piece of a bigger indie pie. It looks like a lot of GOPers identified themselves as indies, many of them crossing party lines to support Obama in the process.

Florida

Democrats
(2004, 37%) Kerry 85, Bush 14
(2008, 37%) Obama 87, McCain 12
Turnout: No change
Change: +2% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +1% over Dem national gains with Democrats

Republicans
(2004, 41%) Bush 93, Kerry 7
(2008, 34%) McCain 87, Obama 12
Turnout: -7% under 2004
Change: +5% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +2% over Dem national gains with Republicans

Independents
(2004, 23%) Kerry 57, Bush 41
(2008, 29%) Obama 52, Bush 45
Turnout: +6% over 2004
Change: -5% Obama under Kerry
Difference with national gains: -8% under Dem national gains with Independents

Analysis. Florida was an interesting state in this election, and one I certainly want to write separately about in time. As we saw with the breakdown on ideology, Obama did not improve over 2004 with moderates, nor any better with independents. The difference was at the poles, where he saw decent imrprovement among Dems and very good movement with Republicans. Later, I will come back to look at how the Florida counties voted. As we will see later, Obama did not achieve across the board improvement in the state, and focused on his base counties to win.

Indiana

Democrats
(2004, 32%) Kerry 90, Bush 10
(2008, 36%) Obama 93, McCain 6
Turnout: +4% over 2004
Change: +3% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +3% over Dem national gains with Democrats

Republicans
(2004, 46%) Bush 95, Kerry 5
(2008, 41%) McCain 86, Obama 13
Turnout: -5% under 2004
Change: +8% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +5% over Dem national gains with Republicans

Independents
(2004, 22%) Bush 51, Obama 46
(2008, 24%) Obama 54, McCain 43
Turnout: +2% over 2004
Change: +8% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +5% over Dem national gains with Independents

Analysis. Really, changes in turnout between 2004 and 2008 were not drastic. Sure, more Democrats and less Republicans came out, but GOPers still outnumbered Democrats by 5%. The key fact to be gleaned from the exit data is simple: Obama played in Indiana -- something Dems never do -- and he was able to improve across the board. I really don't think it was any neat trick. It was smart, absolutely, but just by entering the state, there was low-hanging fruit to be plucked. Kerry 39% in Indiana or whatever it was does not reflect Democratic support in the state. This is not to say that national Democrats should win in Indiana, just that their real level of support is not that low. To my mind, Indiana was the most impressive result of election night. That Obama was able to close such a large gap in four years, in a very conservative state, is a testament to his strengths as a candidate, the national environment, and his campaign's intelligence. As we will see in a future separate post, his improvements were across the geographic and partisan spectrum.

Nevada

Democrats
(2004, 35%) Kerry 90, Bush 10
(2008, 38%) Obama 93, McCain 6
Turnout: +3% over 2004
Change: +3% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +3% over Dem national gains with Democrats

Republicans
(2004, 39%) Bush 93, Kerry 7
(2008, 30%) McCain 88, Obama 11
Turnout: -9% under 2004
Change: +4% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +1% over Dem national gains with Republicans

Independents
(2004, 26%) Kerry 54, Bush 42
(2008, 32%) Obama 54, McCain 41
Turnout: +6% over 2004
Change: +0 Obama with Kerry
Difference with national gains: -3% under Dem national gains with Independents

Analysis. Huge cause for worry for Republicans: self-identified Republicans dropped 9% in the state from 2004 when the two parties enjoyed parity. This rate is nearly double what the national drop was (average 5% nationally). In a state that has been reliably Republican in presidential contests for decades, Republicans need to turn things around fast or risk losing control of this key fast-growing Western state.

North Carolina

Democrats
(2004, 39%) Kerry 86, Bush 14
(2008, 42%) Obama 90, McCain 9
Turnout: +3% over 2004
Change: +4% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +4% over Dem national gains with Democrats

Republicans
(2004, 40%) Bush 96, Kerry 4
(2008, 31%) McCain 95, Obama 4
Turnout: -9% under 2004
Change: +0 Obama with Kerry
Difference with national gains: -3% under Dem national gains with Republicans

Independents
(2004, 21%) Bush 56, Kerry 41
(2008, 27%) McCain 60, Obama 39
Turnout: +6% over 2004
Change: -2% Obama under Kerry
Difference with national gains: -5% under Dem national gains with Independents

Analysis. Obama won this state by consolidating support among Democrats. While his numbers with the other two groups appears, underwhelming, that is not entirely true. His support with GOPers was the same as Kerry's, but because turnout dropped 9%, Obama ended up with many more Republicans voters than did Kerry. Similarly, his support with indies was lower than Kerry's, but with a jump in turnout, Obama did slightly better than break even. In the end, all of it was enough to give Obama a very narrow victory here.

Ohio

Democrats
(2004, 35%) Kerry 90, Bush 9
(2008, 39%) Obama 89, McCain 10
Turnout: +4% over 2004
Change: -1% Obama under Kerry
Difference with national gains: -1% under Dem national gains with Democrats

Republicans
(2004, 40%) Bush 94, Kerry 6
(2008, 31%) McCain 92, Obama 8
Turnout: -9% under 2004
Change: +2% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: -1% under Dem national gains with Republicans

Independents
(2004, 25%) Kerry 59, Bush 40
(2008, 30%) Obama 52, McCain 44
Turnout: +5% over 2004
Change: -7% Obama under Kerry
Difference with national gains: -10% under Dem national gains with Independents

Analysis. We've talked a little about Ohio so far. While it is incredible Obama was able to get a majority in the state despite the drop in support he received with indies, it is important to keep in mind that Kerry lost the state with 49%, so Democrats did not need enormous improvement to take the state. Ohio was won by Obama's performance with Republicans. That marginal uptick made the difference. As we will see when we look at the geographic splits in the state, Obama's hard work in western Ohio won him the state's 20 electoral votes.

Virginia

Democrats
(2004, 35%) Kerry 92, Bush 8
(2008, 39%) Obama 92, McCain 8
Turnout: +4% over 2004
Change: +0 Obama with Kerry
Difference with national gains: No difference

Republicans
(2004, 39%) Bush 95, Kerry 5
(2008, 33%) McCain 92, Obama 8
Turnout: -6% under 2004
Change: +3% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: No difference

Independents
(2004, 26%) Bush 54, Kerry 44
(2008, 27%) Obama 49, McCain 48
Turnout: +1% over 2004
Change: +5% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +2% over Dem national gains with Independents

Analysis. It's interesting that Obama's percentages among both Dems and GOPers was identical to Kerry's rates four years ago. However, with Dem participation rising 4% while GOP participation dropping 6%, Obama ended up in the black in terms of gaining more voters. The state was won among independents, with whom Obama squeezed out a tight win. In fact, he did better with indies in the Commonwealth than nationally.

Jonathan Martin and Politico: GOP Hackery in Perfect Symmetry

2008-11-27T07:32:00.000-08:00

Regular readers know that I have a love-hate relationship with the Capitol Hill newspaper Politico. While I often link to stories from Politico, and I think there are many good pieces in the paper, on the whole I think Politico leans to the right. Perhaps more annoying, reading Politico you get the impression that all of its writers are of the too-cool-for-school variety, and their articles drip with unnecessary snark. A few days ago, I made some of these points in criticizing a recent piece by Politico writer Jonathan Martin which attacked Barack Obama for not appointing enough Republicans to his cabinet -- well before Obama had made any appointments at all. To me, Martin's article is typical of a lot of the stuff in Politico, and it is why Politico, despite the big ego of its writers, is what I read third after Roll Call and The Hill in the morning.

Anyway, I was curious to see what else Martin has recently written. Maybe that article was an aberration, right? Here are Martin's last five pieces:

Doves keep the faith as Obama team tilts right (11/27)
Bill Richardson: Downwardly Mobile? (11/24)
Obama skips church, heads to gym (11/23)
Whither the cabinet Republicans? (11/23)
Would-be appointees quizzed on guns (11/20)

Wow, if I had not told you these were news stories in Politico, you might have wondered if these headlines were plucked directly from the Drudge Report, because clearly, each of them has an anti-Democratic agenda.

The first one seems to be interesting in sowing dissent among Democrats (classic Drudge). The second one is typical Politico snark, snickering at Bill Richardson for taking a cabinet position that Politico seems to believe is a step down in prestige for the former Energy and UN Secretary and current New Mexico Governor. The third one wants to make Obama appear disinterested in religion and piety. The fourth one we've discussed: Martin would like to assail Obama for actions he has not yet taken. And the fifth one is a nice dig and a way for Martin to draw Obama as anti-gun. Great GOP hackery all around.

You will note that I called these "news" stories, and therein lies the problem. If these were opinion pieces, that would be one thing entirely, but they are not, and nowhere are they labeled as such. In fact, in four of these pieces, the word "news" appears in the URL. Only the Richardson piece is not a news article, as it appears on Politico's diary of the Obama transition. These are thus not news articles. They are slanted pieces, Matt Drudge-style, clearly written to push a particular viewpoint, in this case, a Republican viewpoint.

Does Martin's own bio provide any guidance for us? Let's take a look. This is lifted directly from the short bio provided by Politico:

Martin comes to Politico from National Review, where he wrote about politics for the magazine and the Web site. Prior to that, he worked for The Hotline covering topics ranging from gubernatorial contests to congressional leadership battles.

A former writer for the National Review? Shocking!

Look, just because a guy has written for a partisan body should not permanently disqualify him from professional journalism with what is meant to be a party-less publication. But to do so, we need one of two things: either Politico needs to point out that Martin is an opinion writer and not a news writer, or Martin, if he wants to write news, needs to actually do that instead of Republican hit-pieces.

Politico is new to the scene, and if it ever wants to be as good as Roll Call, it really needs to clean up its act.

Ted Stevens and John Dingell

2008-11-24T17:00:00.000-08:00

"Politics is a fateful calling. The voters can end a political life in a few hours on any Tuesday. Promising public careers can be terminated abruptly. But like life itself, political life should be measured by its quality rather than its quantity."
-Senator Dick Durbin

Late last week we saw the end of the political careers of two congressional titans: Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska and Representative John Dingell of Michigan (yes, I realize Dingell was not beaten for re-election, but he lost his very reason for being in office, his gavel). In an eerie coincidence, literally minutes after Dingell was ousted as the top Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee -- a post he has held continuously for nearly 30 years -- Stevens came to the Senate floor to deliver his final speech. That both men met the low points of their long careers moments apart was a little strange, but perhaps very appropriate. For, despite the fact that one is a staunch Republican and the other a lifelong FDR Democrat, both men are examples of politicians who probably stayed around a little too long.

I have to be honest, while I think that what happened to both Stevens and Dingell was good for the country, I felt sorry for both men. Seeing the two old political warriors, men who not long ago were among the most powerful in the country completely stripped of their power and their dignity was striking and really, somewhat tragic. But both men could have avoided their fates if they had just relinquished their positions earlier and not been so stubborn.

Ted Stevens first came to the Senate in 1968, and before this year, he never faced a close re-election. He was the King of Alaska, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Yet, when his house was raided by the FBI at the age of 84, Stevens should have announced his retirement right then and there. He could have left on the right note, and had his legacy preserved. Perhaps his retirement would have even made him a less attractive target to the Justice Department. Alas, Stevens arrogantly plowed ahead with his re-elections plans. Even after he was indicted, he remained unbowed, and we all know how that ended: he was convicted on all charges, and last week, it was determined that he was ousted from his seat, albeit narrowly. Today, his career is over and prison time appears likely. This is a pathetic ending for such a distinguished and self-made public servant.

While John Dingell was not indicted or disgraced like Stevens, he too should have seen the writing on the wall. He had run the E and C committee for decades, sure, but he has had problems with Nancy Pelosi for some time, and was thus a marked man in politics of sorts. Furthermore, how did he not watch out for Henry Waxman as the California donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to fellow members and Democratic challengers across the country? After all, Dingell was there in 1978 when Waxman ousted another more senior member to take over a powerful panel. Simply put, Dingell did not watch his back and protect himself enough. He has no one to blame for his downfall but himself.

It may seem surprising that a political hack like me would feel sorry for two Old Bulls, one of whom -- Stevens -- is someone I have taken a lot of shots at in recent months. But my personal affection for either man (or lack thereof) is largely irrelevant. As a political follower, it is difficult for me not to feel some sympathy for men who could have ended their careers with much more grace and dignity. Unfortunately, the combined 93 years of service of both men will be greatly overshadowed now. The obituaries of both men will mention their recent downfalls in the first paragraph, and I think that's regrettable.

Norm Coleman's Bush-Like Recount Strategy

2008-11-24T15:07:00.000-08:00

Nate Silver has a good post up on Minnesota Senate, where he notes that Senator Norm Coleman and his campaign are challenging more and votes as the recount moves along.

We'll update these numbers "officially" with the Secretary of State's data dump at 8 PM, but based on intraday numbers compiled by the Star Tribune (as of 4:42 PM local time), Norm Coleman's rate of challenges continues to skyrocket while Al Franken's -- though much higher than it had been on the first couple days of the recount process -- has leveled off some.

Coleman's rate of challenges thus far today is approximately 23.4 for every 10,000 ballots cast. On Wednesday, the first day of the recount, Coleman's rate of challenges was 2.5 per 10,000 ballots. So for some reason, the Coleman campaign is finding reason to challenge more than nine times as many ballots as it did on Wednesday (and the Franken campaign, for its part, is finding reason to challenge about five times as many ballots).

Now, the Coleman campaign isn't being devious or anything like that; they're simply exploiting a flawed system and trying to win a spin war...

Great info, but I disagree with Nate on one thing: Coleman is being very devious here, and is channeling Bush's campaign in 2000 in the process.

Norm Coleman has one goal right now: he wants to be ahead at the end of the recount. Sounds simple, yes, but it isn't. If Coleman is ahead at the end, but before thousands of challenged ballots are resolved and counted one way or the other, watch for the Senator to loudly declare himself the winner. This will accomplish two things. First, it will give Coleman legitimacy and allow him to solidify claims, whether fair or not, that he won the race. Second, it will allow Coleman and the GOP to demonize Franken for trying to get challenged ballots counted. Republicans will argue that such moves are Franken and the Democrats' way of trying to "steal" the election.

I have no doubt this is what Team Coleman is aiming for. They have to be ahead at the end of this process, regardless of whether many ballots are not including in those numbers. Heck, this is a guy who declared himself the winner on election night despite all of the uncertainties.

What should bother Democrats is that Team Franken seemingly has no strategy to counter Coleman's public relations moves. As Coleman's lawyers have been challenging votes left and right -- assuredly, 99%+ of which are Franken votes, if votes at all -- we've heard very little from Franken or the national Democratic Party.

After Florida 2000, you would think Dems have grown a spine, but you would be wrong. The Dems, after all of their successes, are still weak while Republicans are willing to say and do anything to win an election. This race is going to get very ugly, and watch for these events to transpire if Coleman has his slim lead intact before challenges are resolved.

Keeping It Warm

2008-11-24T12:11:00.000-08:00

In what should be a surprise to absolutely no one, outgoing Delaware Governor Ruth Ann Miner has announced that she will appoint to Joe Biden's soon-to-vacated Senate seat one Ted Kaufman, Sen. Biden's former Chief of Staff. Kaufman will hold the seat until a special election can be held in November 2010. At that time, there should be zero doubt that Biden's son, state Attorney General Beau Biden will run and win the seat his father first took in 1972. Little Biden was unable to take the appointment now because he was recently deployed as a member of the National Guard.

This appointment has many similarities to what happened to JFK's Senate seat. In 1960, after Kennedy was elected to the presidency, it seemed natural that his younger brother Ted would get the seat. However, at that time Ted was not yet 30 years old, and was thus constitutionally ineligible to sit in the Upper Chamber. Consequently, the governor appointed a man named Benjamin Smith to the seat. Smith, who had been JFK's college roommate, was a Kennedy loyalist, and sure enough, in 1962 when a special election was held, Smith vacated the seat and Ted ran, winning the slot he sits in to this day.

While I've been expecting this to happen since the moment Biden took the veep spot on the Democratic ticket -- and really, even before then as I have always figured Joe's son would one day get this seat -- it is nonetheless disappointing. There may be nothing else in politics that angers me more than naked nepotism. Seats in the United States Senate should not be treated like family heirlooms, or even birthrights that can be bequeathed like a piece of property in a will. Yet, that is exactly what often happens.

Outgoing Lieutenant Governor John Carney, who lost very narrowly in this year's Democratic gubernatorial primary to state Treasurer and now-incoming Governor Jack Markell, was seen as someone who could have gotten the nod. He is obviously close to Miner, and has wide support in the state. Still, that he was snubbed should not surprise him or anyone else. Beau's eventual ascension to this seat is about as likely as the sun rising tomorrow morning. And that's a shame.

This is not change we can believe in.

Politico Malarkey

2008-11-24T06:54:00.000-08:00

Can the Republican hacks at Politico wait for Barack Obama to actually name his cabinet before they declare that he has broken his promise to name Republicans to his inner circle? In an article that made me laugh, Politico declares the following:

As the top tier of his Cabinet begins to come into focus, however, it looks increasingly unlikely that Obama will break new ground when it comes to fashioning a bipartisan government.

Instead, he appears to be taking a check-the-box approach that would differ little from the pattern set by predecessors Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

Huh? Exactly how many names have officially been announced by Obama, fellas? Can you give the guy a little time? And besides, if you are reading the tea leaves, doesn't the fact that Robert Gates appears likely to stay on at Defense mean anything? Reminds of when Bill Clinton tapped Republican Bill Cohen as his own Defense Secretary.

Perhaps I am just foolish, but Secretary of Defense doesn't exactly seem like small potatos like Transportation or Veteran's Affairs. And remind me, but exactly how many Dems did Bush put in his cabinet in eight years? Hmm, let's see...exactly one: the aged, ineffective Norm Mineta in the Transportation post. Comparing Bush to Clinton or even Obama before he takes office is a joke.

Politico has a lot of good stuff, but in just its second year, its writers are pretty snarky, and please excuse me, they also often seem to possess GOP biases. Good job guys.

It's Never Too Early

2008-11-24T06:45:00.000-08:00

Bobby Jindal's headed to Iowa. I'm sure it is to go on a fact-finding mission for the benefit of Louisiana's sugar industry or something similar.

Yeah, right. It never ceases to amaze me how early politicians are thinking about the future. Jindal is certainly a conservative star to be reckoned with, and if the economy is in the toilet come 2011, his business-oriented background will make him very attractive. Still, I question if his extremist views might ultimately doom him.

This is a guy I am going to enjoy watching over the next few years.

Must-Read of the Day

2008-11-24T06:43:00.001-08:00

Is he right? Who the heck knows, but given Nate Silver's track record, I strongly suggest you read his most recent write-up on the Minnesota Senate race recount. Right or wrong, it is fascinating stuff as usual. We likely won't know the ultimate winner of this race for a while.

What Hillary's Thinking

2008-11-21T06:24:00.000-08:00

The New York Times has an excellent article today on Hillary Clinton and her role in the Senate. While the piece focuses on some enhanced opportunities for Clinton in the Senate should she choose to stay there, I think it does a better job in spelling out why I think it is more likely for her to end up in Foggy Bottom as the Secretary of State. Here's the part to me:

But driving her consideration, friends said, is a sense of disenchantment with the Senate, where despite her stature she remains low in the ranks of seniority that governs the body. She was particularly upset, they said, at the reception she felt she received when she returned from the campaign after collecting 18 million votes and almost becoming the first woman nominated for president by a major party.

“Her experience in the Senate with some of her colleagues has not been the easiest time for her,” said one longtime friend who insisted on anonymity in exchange for sharing Mrs. Clinton’s sentiments. “She’s still a very junior senator. She doesn’t have a committee. And she’s had some disappointing times with her colleagues.”

In particular, the friend said, Mrs. Clinton was upset when the leadership rejected the possibility of her heading a special new task force with a staff and a mandate to develop legislation expanding health care coverage.

In dismissing the idea, Senate leaders noted that Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, chairman of the health committee, planned to play the leading role in shaping a plan for universal coverage even as he battles brain cancer. In the current Congress, Mrs. Clinton is eighth in seniority among Democrats on Mr. Kennedy’s committee.

Other Democratic officials said Mrs. Clinton had then wanted to serve in a broader leadership role, perhaps as chairwoman of the Democratic Policy Committee, a sort of internal “think tank” with a staff, a budget and office space. But the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, refused to give her that post, because he did not want to force out the current chairman, Senator Byron L. Dorgan of North Dakota, the officials said.

Basically, life in the Senate is not all peaches and cream for Clinton. When she first elected in 2000, clearly the job was a stepping stone for a presidential run down the road. We all know how that turned out. Now, Clinton has little seniority and she is forced to see every day colleagues who backed Barack Obama.

As I've said before, a lot of this is about ego. If this was about being Secretary of the Interior or Veterans Affairs, it would be a non-starter. But Secretary of State is one of two plums prestigious enough for Clinton to the leave the Senate. Clearly, she is torn because she is still calculating if a future presidential run is possible. Assuming she realizes that it is almost impossible, she will take the appointment (of course, if she does not come to that, she will stay in order to fight towards 2016). Nevertheless, the Times here draws a good picture of why Clinton is likely to go to State.

Now It's 174 Votes

2008-11-20T06:37:00.000-08:00

The recount has begun in Minnesota, and what was once a 205, then a 206, then a 215 vote lead for Norm Coleman, is now down to 174 votes. Across the state, approximately 18% of all ballots, in counties are across the state, have been recounted. As Nate Silver points out, if Franken continues to gain at the same rate through the other 82% of ballots, he would squeeze out a tight win. Of course, there is zero guarantee that this will occur.

Compounding the problem is that both campaigns are challenging scores of ballots.

Campaign monitors from both sides had challenged a total of 269 votes statewide, with Coleman observers disputing 146 ballots while the Franken camp challenged 123.

If that pace continues, challenged votes could wind up being a major factor in a race where the margin is down to hundreths of a percentage point. Challenged votes will be set aside until mid-December, when a five-member state Canvassing Board will review them individually.

Indeed, it is looking increasingly likely that the number of challenged ballots will exceed the final victory margin for either Coleman or Franken once the recount is concluded. What does this mean? Simply that the fight for the seat could be decided by the courts.

Here's betting that this one gets really ugly before it is finally settled, God knows when.

A Final Word on Lieberman

2008-11-19T20:02:00.001-08:00

Needless to say I was irritated but not at all surprised by the slap on the wrist Lieberman got from the Senate Democratic Caucus. In a word, the 42 Democrats who voted to allow Lieberman to keep his committee chairmanship are pathetic. And weenies. Make that two words. Of course, Joe, knowing he got away with murder, expressed not a syllable of an apology, and was anything but contrite. Indeed, in his televised interview tonight, he was defiant and denied that he was even punished.

If I was a Senator and was able to speak at the meeting, I would have had one simple question for my colleagues: Assuming John McCain had won and Joe was tapped for his cabinet -- which would have been extremely likely -- how do they think Lieberman would have felt, leaving and knowing full well that Connecticut GOP Gov. Jodi Rell was going to replace him was a Republican, in all likelihood Chris Shays? I think the answer is clear: the prospect would have delighted Lieberman, as it would have allowed him to stick a final knife in the back of his former party members.

And that is the man they just rewarded? Brilliant. I said it before, and I will say it again: this episode demonstrates just how weak Harry Reid and Senate Democrats are. When Lieberman threatened them with switching, Reid was terrified of any fight, and backed off instantly, all despite the fact that Lieberman had zero leverage from which to make threats. It's nuts.

A lot of people think that angry bloggers like Markos and others are being over the top in their calls to strip Lieberman. I concede that there have been times where Kos has been over the top in matters relating to Lieberman. However, he is dead-right here. This is not about punishment or retribution, or getting even. Lieberman exhibited continued and outrageous behavior for a Democratic member of the United States Senate. He was a part of the caucus, and he backed not just John McCain, but Republicans up for re-election in key races like Maine and Minnesota. This all is a non-starter. Lieberman should have been tossed immediately. But again, Harry Reid is a weenie.

Given that he may face tough re-election in two years, I wish Reid would be ousted from his perch, but I know that won't happen. He's too entrenched, and besides, if Democrats lacked the guts to toss Lieberman for his behavior, there is no way they would have the stomach to push out Reid.