Optimo's Official Election Recap

There will be much time to talk about 2009 and the coming Obama presidency, but it feels right to start off with a recap of the election.

Obviously we know Obama won, and decisively so. He definitely has amassed 364 EVs and still could end up with 376 (Missouri and the single Omaha district remain too close to call). He outperformed John Kerry in just about every demographic group you can imagine. Check out the details, they're pretty striking. Obama won the 18-29 age group by an astounding 2-to-1 margin. Regionally, major gains were made in the coastal South, upper Midwest, Northeast and non-Mormon areas of the Mountain West. It's hard to see these gains fading away anytime soon if Democrats manage to deliver on at least some of their promises over the next few years.

In Congress, Republicans actually did a little better than expected. Although a few races in both chambers are still yet to be decided, they lost ground but managed to avoid a major landslide. As of now, the count stands at 22 seats flipping from R to D, 4 '06 D pickups flipping back to R, and eight still yet to be decided. If the eight remaining seats split 4-4, the final count will be 258-177.

The Senate saw at least six Democratic pickups in a very tough year for Republicans, while 3 races involving R incumbents remain too close to call. AK is waiting for all mail-in ballots to be counted, MN will go to a recount, and GA will go to a runoff election. If the D challenger wins in all three (which is very unlikely), then Democrats reach that supposedly magical 60 mark. Georgia would really be a shocker, and both sides will be throwing a ton of resources into the special December 2nd runoff election. My best guess for the final tally is 57-43: Franken wins in Minnesota and Lieberman bolts to the GOP. Again, both houses see non-negligible Dem majorities, but not large enough for the center-left governing coalition within the party to easily get legislation through.

The state level elections produced few surprises and was much more even. Democrats picked up the Missouri governorship which will impact policy there, but all other governor races stayed the same. Democrats picked up 5 state legislative chambers, including the NY Senate (as expected) for the first time in over a century, and Republicans surprisingly picked up both chambers in Tennessee along with 2 other bodies. New Hampshire now has the first majority-female legislative body in the country's history. Ballot initiatives were a very mixed bag. I won't bother with the details, but some nonpartisan review can be found here.

Election predictions

Here is what I expect for tomorrow's election:

Obama wins 53-45 with 1-2% voting for someone else.
He will amass 359 EV's, by winning all the Kerry states and picking up Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio and Virginia.

Three other potential Obama states - Georgia, Indiana and Missouri - will be slight losses due to voting "irregularities". Each of these state governments is dominated by Republicans, and the urban minority areas will be plagued by massive lines, voter intimidation and potential other funny business.

In the Senate, Democrats will pick up eight seats tomorrow: Virginia (Warner), New Mexico (T. Udall), Colorado (M. Udall), Alaska (Begich), New Hampshire (Shaheen), Oregon (Merkley), North Carolina (Hagan), Minnesota (Franken). Georgia's race will go to an early December runoff, and odious incumbent Saxby Chambliss will prevail in a nailbiter. Lieberman will lose his committee chairmanship but will reluctantly decide to remain in the Dem caucus. Thus, Democrats will end up with 59 members, but still be able to break some GOP filibusters by flipping moderates like Snowe, Specter and, yes, the re-re-reinvented McMaverick.

The House is more nebulous (too many damn races to follow), but I expect around 30-35 D pickups and 2-4 R pickups.

Dems pick up the Missouri governorship, and all others remain in current hands. Dems pick up the NY State Senate and prepare to eradicate the state of all Republican congresscritters after the 2010 census.

California's Proposition 8 (gay marriage ban) fails. South Dakota's abortion ban, designed specifically for a Roe v. Wade challenge fails. Affirmative action banning and anti-worker initiatives all fail. Massachusetts' measure eliminating the income tax fails, but marijuana decriminalization passes.

Can you say landslide?

Make your own predictions here.

Campaigning vs. Governing

So now we have our full tickets: Obama-Biden and McCain-Palin. And they are very revealing about the nature of this election and the dynamics of the partisan landscape these days.
The most important revelation here further clarifies that Obama is running his campaign in a manner that sets him up to govern effectively, while McCain is simply running to win, governance be damned.

Okay, raise your hand if you'd heard of Sarah Palin before she became the VP nominee. Right. The buzz said Palin was a potentially smart pick because it shored up support for McCain among social conservatives and may be able to pick up some disaffected Hillary supporters because she is a woman. Which may be true. But the fact is, how the hell does she in any way pass the "commander-in-chief" test? This is the person who John McCain wants to take over the country should anything happen to him (he is a health risk after all)?! She is just over a year into her term as governor of a state with fewer people than Fort Worth, TX and a fantasyland welfare system driven by massive oil profits. In terms of governing preparedness and helpfulness to a potential McCain Administration, Sarah Palin is an absolute zero.

Whereas with Joe Biden, Obama has added perhaps the foremost foreign policy expert in Washington to his team. It would be very difficult to say this pair is not capable of handling a crisis of foreign affairs (although Rove & Co will try). Biden is also extremely well respected on Capitol Hill and will help build unlikely alliances to shepherd through his boss's agenda. In short, this is a VP selection that will help with electoral politics, but even more so with effective governance.

This episode is further evidence that Barack Obama is not just trying to get into the Oval Office, but clearly wants to be a highly capable leader once there. We have seen that in the way Obama handled the primary debates, not seeking to sow hatred against fellow Democrats at any point even while his rival chose to take a different path. We have seen that in the ways Obama has handled rolling out his policy platform, refraining from ambitious policy proposals that he does not believe he can deliver. When pressed for specifics, he has stuck to the core aspects of his agenda and refused to pander to the base just to win an election. That is not "running away from his base", it's preparing for honest governance. As for those that say he is not providing specifics, I believe they are either partisan agents aiming to deliberately misinform low-information voters, or being played by those smear merchants.

John McCain, on the other hand, seems not to care all that much about governing; he is attempting to be all things to all people. I can't think of an issue (except arguably Iraq) where he has maintained the same position he held in 2000, when he ran as an actual "maverick". Abortion, tax cuts, immigration, torture, campaign finance....the list goes on and on. Furthermore, he has betrayed over the course of the campaign a fundamental lack of understanding of the key issues facing the nation today. He gets Sunnis and Shiites confused, or confuses them on purpose to make a warmongering talking point possible. He still says "everybody knows" that tax cuts raise revenues. He calls a salary of anything under $5 million "middle class". He has consistently opposed funding health care and body armor for the troops he continues to send into harm's way, supposedly claiming it abandons principles of fiscal responsibility while billions of taxpayer dollars go "missing" in Iraq and not a peep is uttered. He calls his wife a cunt and offers her services for a strip show but thinks feminist women will support him because Barack Obama is....smug? Worst of all, while jumping aboard the mantle of reform, he continues to staff his campaign heavily with corporate lobbying interests and disciples of the vermin that populated the vaunted Bush PR machine.

Talking points aside, it seems McCain really is running to continue the legacy of George W. Bush and the legacy of fundamentalist Republicanism, much to America's detriment. More politics over policy. That, above all, is why we cannot allow him the opportunity to pretend to govern.

Follow-up: stepping off the ledge

I'm still a little frustrated with the Obama campaign's current "path of least resistance" strategy, as Chris Colaninno mentions in the comments of the previous post. But the past couple days have given me some cause for optimism (hopefully I can earn my pseudonym at least a little!).

First, in a press conference in Ohio on Tuesday, Barack backtracked significantly from his initial rejection of Clark's statements.

“I guess my question is why, given all the vast numbers of things that we’ve got to work on, that that would be a top priority of mine?” Obama said, responding to a reporter who asked the candidate why he hadn’t called on Wesley Clark to apologize for his remarks yesterday. “I’m happy to have all sorts of conversations about how we deal with Iraq and what happens with Iran, but the fact that somebody on a cable show or on a news show like Gen. Clark said something that was inartful about Sen. McCain I don’t think is probably the thing that is keeping Ohioans up at night."

While I would prefer to see Obama take charge of the issue head-on and confront the matter of McCain's military experience as automatic presidential qualification directly, this bob-and-weave strategy has been working for him and will continue to be effective. It actually mirrors his strategy on the Jeremiah Wright situation pretty closely, and I think he handled that about the best he could have given the fine line he had to walk. Also note that it took him a couple days to find a clear voice in the wake of the Wright "scandal", but thereafter he successfully redirected the conversation by straightforwardly and vocally refusing to acknowledge these petty attacks as a serious campaign issue.

As a corollary, I am becoming more and more convinced that General Clark would be the best choice for Obama as a running mate. This episode is solid evidence that the two can effectively play off each other going after McCain's record in a good cop-bad cop sort of manner. I still think Edwards would also be a great pick, of course for different reasons. However, Clark is probably the safer choice at this point, balances some of Obama's negative attributes (inexperience) and would allow Obama to focus almost entirely on offense. With the good General, the chances of a landslide would be pretty significant as McCain's true nature is gradually exposed.

Venting Some Frustration on Obama and controlling the narrative

Oy. The past week or so has been a frustrating one in election land. Obama seems to be pulling the usual Democratic triangulation in order to stave off attacks against his perceived super-liberalism and lack of patriotism. Obama has recently straddled the issue on guns in reaction to the Supreme Court's recent decision overturning the DC gun ban. He caved in on FISA after pledging just a few months ago to actively support a filibuster, and rubbed it into our faces by acting like Dems got something out of the "deal". To top it off, Today we find out that Mr. Civility has chosen to renounce a smart, legitimate attack by Wes Clark on McCain's presidential qualifications.

In a statement, Obama spokesman Bill Burton said, "As he's said many times before, Sen. Obama honors and respects Senator McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's statement by Gen. Clark."

To clarify, the crux of General Clark's statement yesterday was as such:

"In the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk," he said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "It's a matter of gauging your opponents and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war.

"He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world, but he hasn't held executive responsibility," Clark said. "That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn't a wartime squadron."

Moderator Bob Schieffer, who raised the issue by citing similar remarks Clark has made previously, noted that Obama hadn't had those experiences nor had he ridden in a fighter plane and been shot down. "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president," Clark replied.

So what about this doesn't Obama agree with? Does he believe that getting shot down does qualify McCain to be president? Does he think that going after McCain's history is out of bounds, even after McCain has made it a central part of his campaign? Or d0es he harbor the notion that refraining from direct attacks on John S. McMaverick is a safe election strategy? I worry it is that last point motivating Obama's thinking here. If this is indeed the case, he is ceding an crucial rhetorical point to the GOP, one that will hurt him later on.

See, McSame doesn't have much to run on, since he is a Republican and most voters that the current Republican president all but ruined the country.

• The economy? A mess, and getting messier. McCain loses badly if this is at the forefront of voters' minds.
  
• Ethics and fiscal sanity? Maybe 15 years ago, but not now, not as a member of the party of wide stances, lobbyist-sponsored brothels and a trillion dollar defense contractor boondoggle in Iraq.
• The environment? HAH!
• Immigration? Not an electoral winner, and McCain has a similar position to Obama anyway.
• Guns? Long past its relevance as a mobilizing issue, and defused by the recent Supreme Court decision anyway.
• God and Gays? Maybe effective to appease a chunk of the ornery GOP base, but definitely not enough to win a nationwide election by itself.

Military and security? Ah, now there's an issue in which McCain might have a prayer. McCain is a war hero and withstood torture in Vietnam, whereas Obama did not serve. That issue, if it becomes the defining issue of this race, will vault a clearly inferior candidate into the White House.

I suspect you all knew this already, but it's important to reiterate how crucial it is that Obama take on this issue headfirst, and not allow Sen. McOrnery to define the terms on this issue. The only way he challenges the media frame of Strong Republican, Weak Democrat is to boldly question the silly assumption that only war heroes can effectively lead a nation in wartime, and every war hero would make a superior president. Any thinking person can recognize that to be a gross oversimplification, even if it were true* (see below for more on this point).

Along those lines, one would think that sending out former military commander Wes Clark to challenge McHero's inherent qualifications would be a purely brilliant tactical move on the Obama campaign's part. So it utterly boggles my mind that the campaign would overtly shun such an effort. Sure, a jujitsu tactic would justify the Obama spokesman's reaction, but "of course rejecting" Gen. Clark's attack is way too heavyhanded if they are really pursuing the good cop/bad cop strategy. If this dichotomy continues further, then the line of attack on Obama as a slick flip-flopping double-talker with no substance will be enhanced immeasurably, and frankly he will deserve it. He will be no better a candidate than all the triangulating Dem nominees before him.

In my mind, the only way Barack comes out of this episode unscathed is by clearly yet subtly concurring with the General's take on McCain's qualifications. While it is not too late, I fear the opportunity to do so may be slipping from his grasp.

**************************
A follow-up note on military vs. civilian leadership: While not a disqualification in itself, a military perspective on governance can lead to skewed priorities. The current cadre of chickenhawk neocons notwithstanding, those more focused on conquest abroad than providing for the citizens at home have been of a military background, while those seeking to improve the quality of life of their people are often of a civilian, highly-educated nature. The argument can easily be made that right now, the American government needs to turn inwards and solve the growing problems of economic instability, health care and energy dependence right here at home.

Texas!

As many of you know I believe Texas to be an important dark horse state in this election. It isn't among the best bets to flip among traditional red states.....those honors go to Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, the upper Prarie states and Alaska (I consider Colorado to be traditionally purple). But Texas' sheer size and importance as the crown jewel of the Republican electoral portfolio means it is a very worthwhile target. Plus it can be competitive under the right circumstances, which I outline below. When we talk about "expanding the playing field", I believe actively competing in Texas is a key component of such a strategy.

That's why I'm very excited by this new Politico article that discusses Obama's robust 50-state strategy and the plan to fully attack some GOP bastions like Georgia and Montana as well as all of the states mentioned above. But the article also contains a passage about Texas:

Obama’s campaign will also devote some resources to states it’s unlikely to win, with the goal of influencing specific local contests in places such as Texas and Wyoming.

“Texas is a great example where we might not be able to win the state, but we want to pay a lot of attention to it,” Hildebrand said. “It’s one of the most important redistricting opportunities in the country.”

Texas Democrats are five seats away in each chamber from control of the state Legislature, which will redraw congressional districts after the 2010 census.

...

Hildebrand’s plans underscore the unusual scope and ambition of Obama’s campaign, which can relatively cheaply extend its massive volunteer and technological resources into states which won’t necessarily produce electoral votes.

In Texas, for instance, Obama’s three dozen offices were overrun with volunteers during the primary; the campaign’s challenge is, in part, to find something useful to do with all that free labor. But, while Hildebrand said Obama is unlikely to pay for television advertising outside a core of about 15 states the candidate thinks he can win, he will spend some money on staff. Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, reportedly told donors in Houston that he would send 15 staffers to Texas, and the campaign has committed to having some staff on the ground in all 50 states.

A promising start to a groundbreaking campaign. This, in a nutshell, is the difference between the factions of the Democratic Party personified by Clinton (either one) and Obama. The former has an all-consuming goal of getting elected, and lacks an overarching vision or agenda beyond obtaining and keeping power. The latter still works hard to win their own election, but also expends considerable resources growing the progressive movement and building a lasting mandate for a focused agenda. Obama's campaign style demonstrates that he wants not only to win the presidency, but to accomplish great things once he is there. Having expanded Congressional majorities in both chambers will be a major boon to his chances of enacting sweeping systemic changes.

In terms of building that movement infrastructure, enthusiasm is truly paramount. Given the natural challenges to moving a progressive agenda through Congress, the progressive grassroots and donor base will need to be much more fired up than their conservative counterparts and keep constant pressure on their elected officials. While a decade-plus of failed conservative governance has assured the left of staying excited for the near future, conservatives still control a large swath of the country. I believe the Republican coalition needs to fully unravel for lasting political change to occur in America, and this is where Texas comes in. The symbolic importance of George Bush's home state to conservative identity should not be underestimated. If Democrats can seriously compete there or even turn it blue, that might be the straw that irrevocably breaks the elephant's back and leads the rats to desert that sinking ship.

Texans traditionally love to seize opportunities without hesitation. Isn't it worth an investment of $25 million, around 3-5% of Obama's expected campaign stash, to give the Lone Star State a chance to finalize this nation's utter rejection of modern conservatism?

Here's why I think Texas is in play:

1) The state's demographics are changing. Of course many older Texans will never vote for a progressive minority Democrat, but they are a shrinking segment of the population. Younger urban voters are growing in number and the ideological divide by age might be as stark in that region as anywhere else in the country. The 18-35 crowd there is as proudly liberal as most of the other places in America, with classic Texas swagger to boot. Plus, the Hispanic population is exploding and carries increasing weight in the voting population. They have traditionally been a swing segment of the electorate, but...

2) Texas Hispanics will be voting overwhelmingly D this year. I'm talking 80/20. First, you better believe they noticed the nativist bigotry flying around the GOP recently over immigration, and that probably alienated a good chunk of those voters for life. Also, the Democratic Senate nominee is a fellow named Rick Noriega, a State Rep and Iraq War vet who reminds me quite a bit of Jim Webb in political style. He is running a tough and coordinated grassroots campaign, is a proud Hispanic with appeal to white moderates in West and South Texas and presents a dramatic contrast to Chief Chickenhawk Jon Cornyn on just about every issue. Cornyn's approval is hanging around something putrid like 40-48 and Noriega isn't taking any of his swiftboating garbage. I think Noriega and Obama will both benefit from each other's demographic coattails and a revived grassroots Democratic base.

3) Along these lines, two polls came out within the past couple months that had both Cornyn-Noriega and Obama-McCain only down by single digits. Statistically competitive, before the general election campaigns heat up and the spotlight is shone on these two deeply flawed Republicans. From what I gather, non-firebreating Texans are really embarrassed of W (approval rating about 37%) and he has the same negative effect on his congressional enablers among independents as just about everywhere else in the country. So I don't think there's as huge a hurdle to overcome as would be expected for Texas.

4) The state GOP machine is corrupt, bloated and lazy. Obama is already sending 15 organizers into the state and may follow with further investment later on if things look close come September. Between that and the partisan energy gap I have a feeling the Republicans aren't prepared to fight a close battle based on retail politics, and will be caught off guard.

From the "Never Thought I'd Quote Him" Department

Rahm Emanuel, a few weeks ago:

“The way the loser loses will determine whether the winner wins in November.”

With the primary schedule concluding tonight, and rampant speculation circulating that Clinton will throw in the towel, I remain more cautious in leaping to conclusions. She can suspend her public campaign efforts, which is all but certain. Yet that will not necessarily mean she supports the efforts of Barack Obama or even acknowledge that he is the legitimate nominee. Without a full and overt endorsement, followed by active efforts to build bridges, mend fences and other euphemisms for pursuing unity, Hillary Clinton's proclaimed exit from the already finished race will be meaningless. I worry that the Clintons themselves have little interest in seeing Obama reach the White House, but hope my hunch is proven wrong rather promptly.

Clinton's core supporters, on the other hand, perhaps should not be expected to come around so immediately. They are still working through the five stages of grieving and that process has to work itself out naturally for divisions among the party's rank and file to fully heal.

Hopefully by the time we reach Denver, this matter will be put fully behind us and every true Democrat will be pumped to clobber John McSame and the crumbling conservative reality-denying coalition.

A point on the Michigan & Florida issue

So as you probably know, the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee is meeting this Saturday in DC (an event I tried to get a pass for but they sold out in ten minutes). And in the meeting, the 30 members of this committee will decide the fate of 366 delegates from Michigan and Florida. More delegates than the total amount remaining from other sources. So the decision of the RBC will be very important in framing the remainder of the primary battle.

In case you've been living on Mars the past few months, both Michigan and Florida were stripped of all their delegates to the nominating convention for moving their primaries before February 5th. You can see a good timeline of the full MI & FL history here (hat tip to Mr. Super, who is an actual superdelegate from California).

The Clinton camp is fighting hard for a full seating of the delegates selected in these elections. The narrative seems to have coalesced around the point that some compromise has got to be reached. Some Obama supporters have even suggested that he should call Clinton's bluff and offer to seat the delegations in full as per election results. But such analysis ignores a key point regarding process, and one I feel is crucial to future reform of the primary system.

Both Florida and Michigan moved up their elections because they wanted to have more influence over the nomination process. They argued that the DNC rules prohibiting states from moving up before 2/5 were unfair, and in doing so both states directly challenged the DNC's authority to set the rules of the nomination process. Regardless of whether or not the DNC's rules are fair, they are the rules nonetheless, and therefore both elections cannot be considered legitimate.

The stakes of the party committee holding its ground on this matter are huge, and not just for Hillary Clinton. If DNC decisions about election process are viewed as something less than absolute, reformation of the primary process for 2012 and beyond will be nearly impossible. In such an atmosphere, we can expect Iowa and New Hampshire to pull out all the stops to maintain their first-in-the-nation status, setting a race to the front where many primaries could move deep into the year before the general election. That would be an absolute nightmare. And don't think the RBC and the DNC isn't fully aware of that point.

This doesn't mean that the original decision to strip the states of 100% of their delegates needs to be upheld; it just means that the elections cannot under any circumstances be recognized as fully legitimate after the fact.

Expect Florida to cut the delegates in half, but assign them according to election results to appease the Clinton camp. This is not an ideal solution by any means, but it seems to be the easiest way to keep both sides relatively satisfied. Okay, I don't think any hearing result will satisfy Hillary herself at this point, the key is satisfying her reality-based supporters as to blunt any argument that the election was stolen. Plus it maintains some form of penalty on Florida for breaking the rules.

Michigan, however, is much trickier. I believe the proper word would be "clusterfuck". Michigan's Soviet-style "election" in January yielded 73 pledged delegates for Clinton, and 55 for that formidable candidate Uncommitted. Obviously the Clintonian camp's claims that Obama deserves zero delegates from Michigan is obscenely absurd on its face. So a full recognition of the MI vote is virtually out of the question. It remains to be seen, however, whether they allow even partial recognition in determining if/how to seat the state's delegates. I hope they don't, cut the delegates in half and split the allocation right down the middle - 32 Clinton, 32 Obama. More likely we will see something akin to the 69-59 split proposed by the state Dem establishment, and hopefully cut in half to 35-29.

As the saying goes, we shall see...

Update: The entire RBC must have read this post and were deeply moved by my advice (hey, a guy can dream). On Saturday they decided to do exactly what was predicted above, although Michigan ends up at 34.5-29.5. This is a small numbers victory for the Clintonites, but way short of what they would have needed to stay relevant. Obama's magic number (before P.R.) is now up to 63. Clinton's is 240.5.

Update x2: Clinton wins huge in Puerto Rico, 68-32. Word is she pandered hardcore to the pro-statehood faction, which tends to vote much more consistently in statewide elections. Kudos to the Clinton campaign for pursuing a successful strategy for a change. However, Obama's magic number is down to 46. Expect him to get over the hump on Tuesday or Wednesday as superdelegates declare in droves.

See detailed delegate news & updates at DemConWatch

Why I don't subscribe to the Washington Post

I'll admit it. I don't read the major newspapers all that much. I do read the Express, the free paper they give out at Metro entrances, regularly on the way to work. But I don't have any interest in buying any of the more "serious" daily papers. Today's leading media outlets have utterly failed to provide unvarnished truth and information in an atmosphere of increasing uncertainty; indeed many have willingly participated in the destruction of reality-based public discourse. In terms of failing to live up to its classic image, the Washington Post is the worst of all. Along with the New York Times, it is supposed to be the gold standard of quality reporting, hard-hitting journalism and timely analyses, transcending the partisan muck of Beltway politics. Yet its persistent tendency to obfuscate conflicts of interest, kowtow to a wildly unpopular White House and present opinions as news deeply belies such a reputation. Frankly, at this point I find certain blogs and independent newspapers to be much more reliable news sources than such a compromised tool of the cocktail-party circuit.

Although I don't subscribe to the Washington Post, my roommate Brian [update: apparently not Brian], however, does. A few days ago, I was eating breakfast and caught a glimpse of a headline starting at me from the other side of our kitchen table:

Obama Has the Upper Hand. But McCain Can Still Take Him.
by Dick Morris

I knew Dick Morris was a former Bill Clinton strategist and the kind that urged Democrats to reject liberalism, so I figured this would not be an article telling Obama to remain true to his grassroots-driven message of change. Little was I prepared, however, for the mind-boggling dishonesty, jaw-dropping stupidity and downright wrongness of the literary hairball Morris has coughed up with this column.

The first line of the article should have told me enough to avoid reading on:

John McCain is America's favorite kind of candidate.

Oh, you mean the angry old warmonger with the consistency problem kind? Or the ultra-partisan, lobbyist-loving and economically clueless kind? Please provide more specifics.

With his record of extraordinary patriotism and his distinctive Senate tenure, McCain is a nominee whom voters from both parties -- and independents, too -- could easily support.

Hmmm. The McSame campaign couldn't have said it better themselves. So we would expect an unbiased source to treat the Obama camp in a similar manner, right?

Meanwhile, McCain's likely rival, Barack Obama, has raised such doubts among voters that their concerns momentarily energized even Hillary Rodham Clinton's sagging campaign.

Actually Dick, no, your perceived doubts about Obama didn't energize the Clinton campaign. In the two weeks prior to the publish date of this moonbat screed, 49.5 superdelegates publicly endorsed Obama, as opposed to just 7.5 for Clinton.

Obama

Clinton

Uncom- mitted

Obama Lead

Obama %

5/4

248

269

278

-21

48.0%

5/11

275

270.5

250

4.5

50.4%

5/18

297.5

276.5

222

21

51.8%

As you can see, Obama took the superdelegate lead during this period. Thus Clinton lost a major justification for continuing her campaign, that superdelegates would favor her come convention time. Furthermore, she now has a formidable war chest of around negative $10 million. Clearly, two "energized" weeks for this increasingly quixotic campaign.

That's just a small taste of the incomprehensibly inane offering Mr. Morris lays forth to the unwitting reader. Here are a few more classic lines.

• To sum it up: A candidate who cannot get elected is being nominated by a party that cannot be defeated, while a candidate who is eminently electable is running as the nominee of a party doomed to defeat.

Funny how Mr. Unelectable Scary Black Man is beating Mr. McMaverick in all the recent national polls, and an electoral analysis shows that a blowout victory (around 360-178) is well within reach for Obama. More analysis to come on that in the near future...

• [McCain's] base will be there for him; indeed, it will turn out in massive numbers. Wright has become the honorary chairman of McCain's get-out-the-vote efforts. The growing fear of Obama, who remains something of an unknown, will drag every last white Republican male off the golf course to vote for McCain, and he will need no further laying-on of hands from either evangelical Christians or fiscal conservatives. So McCain doesn't have to spend a lot of time wooing his base.

Yup, that's exactly why McCain is pulling only 3/4 of the recent GOP primary vote against Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee, even with the latter having emphatically endorsed his former adversary. Also, maybe Dick Morris' friends play golf all the time, but believe it or not there are some white Republican males who think of golf as throughly elitist. Bloviating types tend to call them "Reagan Democrats". Ya know, the ones that Obama can't win. They've been Republicans for the past three decades. So either Mr. Morris either thinks it's 1976, or he is admitting that the only real Republicans are the rich ones.

• If the GOP nominee were [anyone else], independents and Democrats might not vote Republican even if they became convinced that Obama is some kind of sleeper agent sent to charm and conquer our democracy.

Wow, what an ass. On another note of equal journalistic integrity, some people say that Dick Morris is in charge of a secret child pornography ring in Cambodia.

• Earlier in the race, Iraq might have been a deal-breaker. But a kinder, gentler war has emerged. Still, most Americans don't like the war, and McCain must deal with their opposition if he wants to win.

That's right, it's the fault of the damn pinko hippies for not clapping loud enough. If only they were all "disappeared", then the war would be as popular as it should be. Nevermind the fact that our veterans get treated like and torture is now

• Which brings us to George W. Bush, the least popular president of modern times. Unlikely as it sounds, the soon-to-be former president needs to get out of the White House, reenter the political arena (much as it will pain him) and go around the country telling us two things: First, we are winning in Iraq; second, the economy is not as bad as most people think. With the Dow at around 12,800 and unemployment at 5 percent, Bush can make a good case that things aren't really headed for the rocks.

Hahahahahahahahaha. Oh goody, yes, please do George! I'd love nothing more than for you to remind Americans that Republicans are responsible for the Iraq mess and the current state of the economy. Let's not forget to mention our friendly neighborhood oil companies and how well they're doing! Seriously for a second, it takes a special kind of Beltway obliviousness to think either of these issues can work to the advantage of any Republican.

• Forget about the base. It will be there. Obama's liberalism, his pro-tax agenda and his proposed weakening of the USA Patriot Act -- as well as fears that he would appoint to office people such as Rev. Wright and William Ayers, a former member of the Weather Underground -- will all assure the full mobilization of the right. Immigration reform and McCain's other acts of apostasy will be forgiven for the sake of beating Obama. So McCain needs to go after the swing voters.

Again, the Patriot Act...there's another GOP political winner for ya! I do agree that immigration reform will be forgiven by the base - they don't really care that much about it anyway. How did Tom Tancredo do in the primaries? And honestly, the only reason why people might worry that Obama would appoint Scary Black Men to office is blatant fearmongering like yours, Dick.

• [McCain should] go after the Democrats for their proposals to lower sentences for crack cocaine to make them equal to those for powder cocaine. (Instead, McCain should urge raising penalties for regular cocaine.)

That right, lock even more nonviolent offenders in jail and throw away the key. Inmates generally cost over $20,000 each per year. That's some solid fiscal responsibility right there!

• The collected quotes of Rev. Wright will be a bestseller this summer. Obama once had to prove to us that he was not a Muslim; now he must convince us that he never really went to church much. Just as Sen. John F. Kerry was buffeted by veterans who had less than heroic memories of their service with him in Vietnam, so Obama will have to weather the recollections of his fellow parishioners. Count on several to surface and claim that they sat next to him during some particularly incendiary sermon.

Actually, media bias may become an issue as this plays out. Yes, I do count on something like UCC-Trinity Members for Truth to become a reality during the sweltering summer months. But the traditional media has the responsibility to expose their blatant lies, if they can be easily disproven, as such. It's important to point out that NONE of the Swift Boat Veterans were EVER ON A SWIFT BOAT, and therefore had no business commenting on "their service with him". The corporate media just parroted their talking points without ever stopping to question their validity. They may choose that path again in 2008, but trust me, they won't get anything remotely resembling a free pass if they do. This time, Dems and their base are prepared.

• The American public will not ultimately doubt Obama's patriotism; that is a bridge too far. But we will come to think less of his credibility and strength as he fumbles his way through awkward denials.

So let me get this straight. The Manchurian Candidate garbage won't stick to Obama, but he'll be done in by failure to articulate fully why he isn't indeed a terrorist for the thousandth time?

Color me confused. Maybe I'm just not as intelligent as Dick Morris. I guess I just don't fully appreciate the potent bloviationary capacities unleashed by engaging in transparent cognitive dissonance.

After finishing the article, the scariest thought I had was that I was not that shocked by it. I have come to expect such useless tripe from the Washington Post.


P.S. Dick wants your feedback! I encourage you to tell him how much you loved his opinions at:
dickmorris@dickmorris.com

Response to a conservative friend

I got this message on my Facebook wall today from a friend:

didnt realize youre an obama guy. doesnt the fact that he hates america bother you? he wont wear an american flag pin on his lapel, wont put his hand on his heart to sing the national anthem, and his wife isnt proud of her country, they go to a church where a leftwing demagogic nutjob says traitorous, antiamerican, and highly unpatriotic statements, spreading lies and distortions about his country and Israel. All of that is ok with you? Or perhaps you dislike America too?

Here is my response:

Wow, that came from nowhere. Mine was a civil gesture towards playful political banter, and I get a frothing-at-the-mouth response! Now, I’m gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your tirade was indeed a playful taunt. I think you’re smarter than to actually believe much of what you said. But the suggestion that I “dislike America too” struck a nerve, so please bear with me as I respond with a raw reaction.

I actually appreciate your giving me this opportunity to practice exposing your talking points as the worthless piles of horse manure that they are. It actually amuses me that your heroes are so devoid of policy ideas that you have nothing to campaign on except to reflexively fall back on your tired old smears. That aside, you’ve got some fucking nerve questioning my patriotism. I’m sorry to inform you, but the right wing and the American Empire faction in particular DO NOT OWN PATRIOTISM. I certainly love this country, as do many of my fellow progressives. The Constitution after over two centuries remains unparalleled among governing documents in protecting fundamental liberty. The American people have an independent spirit and a moral resilience that is truly extraordinary. As a nation, we have demonstrated a remarkable and persistent ability to recognize our past sins and take painful steps to right those wrongs. But right now I feel that we are lacking in this introspective ability. Right now, I’m pretty damned ashamed of the American government. I worry that a dominant faction of the American political community, ironically those that claim be the true patriots, are unwittingly destroying the very fabric of what we know as America.

Many in the conservative movement and the Republican Party it has co-opted have lost touch with what has made America great. Their reflexive contempt for public sector activity and worship (note: word chosen very deliberately) of the free market is highly ignorant of the economic booms fostered primarily by direct government intervention in the economic realm. I know you’re rolling your eyes, but keep in mind that the greatest periods of economic success in the past century – the Roaring Twenties, the Postwar Boom and the Dot-Com Era – all were preceded by Teddy Roosevelt’s Progressive Reforms, the New Deal safety net and the massive military investment in communications infrastructure, respectively. On the other hand, the greatest economic scares – the 1929 stock market crash and bank run, the S&L crisis of the mid-late 1980s and the recent/current housing market woes - have followed periods of aggressive de-regulation by hyper-capitalist ideologue Republicans.

But it goes beyond economic policy. Conservative leaders seem to have decided that America can be a bully to the world and countries we occupy should throw rose petals at our feet. Conservative public appointees testify before Congress that they “swore an oath to the President”, not the Constitution. They treat the Earth as a garbage can and think it can go on this way forever. And worst of all, their political operatives have decided that it is an eminently preferred tactic to divide, distract and slander their way into power. They have become scarily efficient at demonizing certain segments of the population for political gain. That is a textbook characteristic of fascism.With that in mind, let us address the particular slanders of Barack Obama that you choose to highlight in your note.

Obama hates America? Show me the proof. Since when has the President of the Harvard Law Review chosen not to make a pile of money and instead serve his country in public life and, before that, as an educator? To me, that demonstrates patriotism. For that matter, since when does blue-blooded Harvard Law choose anyone but a man of impeccable moral credentials to lead its most prestigious journal? Are you saying they hate America too, or they’re just too stupid to see a Manchurian Candidate when they see one?

Obama doesn’t wear a flag lapel pin? I direct your attention to super-patriot John McCain.











But…w-wait, there’s something missing. Is it possible that McCain HIMSELF isn’t wearing a flag lapel pin? Why does John McCain hate America? You can see how silly that one is.

He won’t put his hand on his heart for the national anthem? That reminds me of a similar line, that he doesn’t know the Pledge of Allegiance. Funny, he sure seemed to know the Pledge and put his hand on his heart when he led the U.S. Senate in both Pledge and Anthem numerous times.

Michelle Obama isn’t proud of her country? Yes, I can buy that. Based on one cherry-picked statement out of everything she has said over the course of two years. Her comment, discovered by a campaign intern given the specific task of searching for attack material, separated from all contextual meaning and trumped up into a blanket statement completely removed from reason, clearly is quite telling despite the lack of any further evidence in Ms. Obama’s words or actions. Ah, the classic anatomy of a smear.

That brings us to Reverend Wright. Needless to say, this instance also follows the classic smear etymology quite nicely. But I actually don’t see what’s that different about the Reverend from other prominent pastors. Demagogic? Nutjob? Okay, and that’s different from evangelical preachers - John Hagee, for example….how? Hagee is the guy who called the Catholic Church “The Great Whore”. Left-wing? Seems like a compliment to me! And please don’t try to tell me you’ve agreed with everything your EVER said. But you probably never left your over such disagreements. (note: specifics of religion generalized to protect identity of friend).

So why is Wright different? Could it be because he fits the stereotype of the Angry Black Man?!?! Do you really want to go down that road? Oh, right…. subtle racial identity politics is a proven winning political strategy for conservatives. But hell, you guys have demographics on your side; why would you bother with the wimpy pussyfooting? I say come out fully in support of White Power, that uppity Negro Obama needs to be stopped! McCain will win in a landslide!

Whatever. Regardless, Obama has made clear since before it was politically convenient that his draw to the Trinity United Church of Christ was based on its incredible ability to foster community and bring people of different backgrounds together in harmony. Yup, that church must have been led by a divisive, radical bigot in Rev. Wright. It’s amazing how successful slander seems to have this dramatic effect of utterly obliterating reason in the minds of its believers.

To be honest, I’m just happy you didn’t call him a Muslim. That would’ve really got me going.

Finally, although I didn’t feel like getting into exactly why I am an “Obama guy” here, definitely feel free to ask me why if you legitimately care.

Some food for thought on presidential "qualifications"

Who would you rather have as your President?

a) A seasoned and highly respected politician who has been regarded as a hero in many circles for serving valiantly in an unpopular war decades ago. In addition to descending from a politically influential family, this man has served close to two decades in the Senate and even more time in Washington, and has effective working relationships with political leaders of both major parties. He is considered highly qualified to be the Commander-in-Chief during a period of great turmoil.

b) A relative newcomer to the national scene, with most of his prior professional experience arising from work in the Illinois state legislature and a stint as a private sector attorney. He has come to be renowned for his oratory prowess but is largely untested in matters of policy. Indeed, perhaps his most salient claim to fame is a speech he gave a couple years ago upon accepting his party's nomination to the U.S. Senate. Although he has the potential to enrich the national discourse and campaigns on the necessity for national unity, he is also lambasting a failed status quo and thus firing up supporters of change.

If you picked Politician A, congratulations. You just elected James Buchanan, widely considered one of the worst presidents ever, over Abraham Lincoln, his successor.

Lincoln's "speech he gave a couple years ago":

'A house divided against itself cannot stand.'(Mark 3:25) I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other.

Remind you of anything? (hint: see the post immediately below this one)

Why I'm not worried about Obama (part 2)

From the now-famous "A More Perfect Union" speech delivered last Tuesday:

We have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change. That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

This passage is nothing short of kryptonite for conservatives. There's a reason I turned to my co-worker right after watching Obama's post-Iowa speech and said, "this man is our next president." The rhetorical tactics he uses are utterly brilliant, in polar opposition to the bland old talking points of other Democratic leaders. He manages to speak controversial truths while maintaining his low-key, folksy tone, and this enables him to subtly pull down the curtain of the conservative worldview, exposing the inherent inconsistencies of the Reagan/Bush coalition.

Here are a few of the main points that do so:

1) You can be patriotic and still wish to improve upon the status quo.

This is a crucial frame to advance in legitimizing progressive ideology to the country as a whole. It is the initial step in obliterating the "liberals hate America" smear, and makes people look past knee-jerk partisan identification to evaluate proposals. As many of my readers will agree, progressives have better proposals on most issues.

2) Regulating large corporations in the public interest is necessary to make capitalism function smoothly.

This is an extremely tough argument to make in today's political climate, and I'm not sure Obama is fully prepared to make it a central campaign issue. However, he is heading in the right direction by placing the blame for many of America's problems where it belongs: the overreach of unchecked corporate greed. In enumerating the things he believes we should focus on "this time", he is implying that his administration will not value the "profits over all" mentality over the public interest. Hence the heartfelt anger emanating from the Limbaugh faction following the speech.

3) Hate is not an acceptable campaign tactic.

By appealing directly to the more benign aspects of human nature, Obama is regaining the upper hand in the national debate. He knows that the ugly smears will come, even nastier than we have already seen. By preemptively defining all such attacks (especially coded racism) as dirty politics compensating for a lack of effective policy ideas, he will be then able to deflect them with a simple "here we go again." Not this time. Almost effortlessly, he jumps back in control of the conversation.

4) Faith does not belong exclusively to the merchants of hate.

While not directly mentioned in the above passage, Obama addresses the issue of faith in this speech with a sophistication unique to modern American politicians. In discussing his connection to Rev. Wright, he implies, "Sure my pastor said some things I disagree with, but hasn't yours?". First, kiss goodbye to the Muslim smear. Second, and more subtly, he is driving a neat wedge into the Christian community, isolating the fundies from the more moderate churchgoers that represent a vast majority of the Christian faith. If Obama and his ideological allies can neutralize the party identification gap among non-extremist churchgoers, the GOP is dead meat for a generation.

Update (sunday evening): Sure enough, the Yahoo front page features this headline: Religious vote fragmenting in U.S. presidential election. The fourth point that I mentioned may already be proving important to the dynamics of this election season.

Cutting through the Hillary-induced mayhem

There seem to be an awful lot of polemics floating around following last Tuesday's elections. Among my favorites:
-The race is thrown wide open! Anybody could win!
-Obama is in deep trouble!
-Hillary might steal the election with the superdelegates!
-A prolonged election will tear the party apart and deliver it to McCain!
-And my personal favorite: Hillary Clinton WON HUGE on Tuesday!

I have one simple reaction to all of the Chicken-Little reactionaries: PLEASE. CALM. DOWN.

Thankfully, every single one of these arguments is complete hooey. It'll take a couple posts to fully explain why, but this one will elucidate why Obama is still holding a commanding and likely insurmountable lead.

First off, I do give the Clinton campaign credit for keeping up the fight and staying alive with a big win in Ohio (notwithstanding some potential funny business in Cleveland). Yet Clinton by no means cleaned up overall that night, and as we shall soon see, is actually worse off now than she was on March 3rd.

Regardless of what the Very Serious talking heads would like you to think, math matters. Ultimately, this is a delegate race, and Obama has actually gained 13 delegates overall since last Monday. Let's break it down.

First, the big 3/4 elections (plus Wyoming):
OH - O66, C75
RI - O8, C13
VT - O9, C6
TX - O99, C94
WY O7, C5
Total - O189, C193

Next, the superdelegate endorsements:

Obama

1. DNC Carol Fowler (SC), 3-4-08
2. Mary Long (GA), 3-4-08
3. Roy LaVerne Brooks (TX), 3-4-08
4. Rhine McLin (OH), 3-5-08
5. DNC Jane Kidd (GA), 3-5-08
6. DNC Darlena Williams-Burnett (IL), 3-5-08
7. DNC Connie Thurman (IN), 3-6-08
8. Rep. Nick Rahall (WV), 3-6-08
9. DNC Teresa Benitez-Thompson (NV), 3-6-08
10. DNC Alexandra Gallardo-Rooker (CA), 3-7-08
11. Rep. Bill Foster (IL), 3-9-08
12. DNC Mary Jo Neville (OH), 3-9-08

Clinton

1. Sen. Barbara Boxer (CA), 3-6-08
2. DNC Mona Mohib (DC), 3-6-08
3. DNC Aleita Huguenin (CA), 3-7-08
4. DNC Mary Lou Winters (LA), 3-8-08

Total - O12, C4

So far, Obama has gained four delegates since the sky has fallen on him. Then, factor in the fact that the certification of the California results transferred four delegates from Clinton to Obama, netting him eight more in the process (he gains four, Clinton loses four). Finally, odd caucus rules dictate that Wyoming pledged delegates select another at-large delegate who will almost certainly support Obama, bringing his total gain up to 13 during the period in question.

So Hillary has lost ground where it counts, in the delegate race. Meanwhile about a third of the remaining pledged delegates were selected last Tuesday. With Obama expected to win big tomorrow in Mississippi, she faces an extremely difficult uphill battle where she must win close to 70% of remaining delegates to catch Obama. Given the makeup of the delegate selection process, this is just about impossible. Even if Obama somehow implodes and she wins by 25% in all the remaining elections, she will gain a mere 40-50 delegates. More likely, things will remain about even or Obama will slightly expand his lead.

But wait, Pennsylvania is huge and a Clinton stronghold! Even if she wins comfortably, it's not big enough to overpower Obama's significant advantages in North Carolina, Oregon, Montana, South Dakota and perhaps Indiana.

But wait, what about Michigan and Florida? First of all, there is no way the Michigan delegation is seated as is. The accusations that Clinton is cheating would be deafening. With Florida, at least Obama was on the ballot, but it still was not a fair and representative election. Expect a re-vote, where Clinton gains maybe 15-20 net delegates between the two states. Expect Obama to actually pick up a few delegates in Michigan unless state party leaders execute a solid GOTV operation for Clinton like in Ohio (her campaign simply can't do it on its own).

But wait, what about the superdelegates?! She might "steal the election from the voters" there, her campaign is openly supporting their goal of doing so. Well last time I checked, superdelegates are elected officials and party loyalists. Whether or not they support Clinton or think she's more electable (assumptions for which there's absolutely no evidence), they will not destroy the long-term health of the party and their own careers by alienating passionate young voters, subverting what passes for a democratic process in the state primaries and caucuses, and rewarding Clinton's snakelike campaign tactics that reinforce right-wing frames of politics-as-usual. Not a chance.

To sum all this up, for all the smoke screens the formidable Clinton PR machine has emitted in recent weeks, time will prove the current haze over the status of Obama's nomination to be nothing but hot air. I implore you, please don't waste your energy fretting over the last throes of a Clinton campaign unwilling to accept the inevitable.

Ridiculously Early Senate 2008 Roundup - D Seats

This is part 2 of my Senate roundup, which looks at the 12 Democratic seats up for re-election and analyzes each individual race. The Republican outlook predicts 5 Dem pickups, and (at the risk of spoiling the rest of this post) 1 GOP pickup, bringing the total for the 111th Congress to 53 Democrats, 45 Republicans, and 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats. If Lieberman switches sides, then he can go Cheney himself and enjoy irrelevance in the minority party.

And just in case you were wondering, all the analysis and ratings are my own.

Once again, the ratings go from 1-10, in this case 1 is a definite R pickup and 10 is a definite D hold. The list is in alphabetical order by state.

Here goes:

Arkansas - Mark Pryor (seeking 2nd term)
Key Republicans: Former Gov. Mike Huckabee (maybe), Lt. Gov. nominee Jim Holt, etc.
Notes: Much of this race depends on what Huckabee decides. At the moment, he seems to be pursuing a run for President and getting absolutely nowhere. It's still highly possible that Huckabee goes for this Senate seat, at which point it becomes a top-tier race. Otherwise, Pryor is a solid favorite.
Rating: 8 (D Favored) - would become a 6 if Huckabee switches gears.

Delaware - Joe Biden (seeking 7th term)
Key Republican: Rep. Mike Castle
Notes: Biden still seems to think he's running for President. It shouldn't have any bearing on his Senate seat though, since the filing deadline in Delaware is well after the primary process is finished. He'll win again if he runs as expected. If he doesn't or becomes Secretary of State in a Democratic administration, his son Beau Biden will take on Castle in an interesting matchup.
Rating: 10 (Definite D)

Illinois - Majority Whip Dick Durbin (seeking 3rd term)
Key Republicans: no frontrunners, many possible
Notes: Durbin became an key player in Congress with the Dem takeover of the Senate. In addition to his Beltway status, he is pretty popular back home. Since the Illinois GOP seems to be slowly crumbling away, I can't see him going anywhere.
Rating: 10 (Definite D)

Iowa - Tom Harkin (probably seeking 5th term)
Key Republicans: Reps. Steve King and Tom Latham, Businessman Steve Rathje
Notes: Harkin hasn't officially decided whether he'll run again, but he'd be crazy not to. He should win if he does, he's beaten sitting Republican Congressmen four straight elections and is great on agricultural subsidies, probably the most important issue in Iowa. Even if he's on the fence, Schumer will convince him to jump back in. I also want to mention he was a key establishment endorser of Howard Dean's campaign in '04.
Rating: 9 (Probable D)

Louisiana - Mary Landrieu (seeking 3rd term)
Key Republicans: many
Notes: This is the first top-tier target for Republicans, and their most likely shot at defeating a healthy incumbent. Landrieu won her 2002 re-election with just 52%, and that was before Katrina and the exodus from heavily Democratic New Orleans. Yet Landrieu has handled her situation with savvy and finesse, rebounding nicely in the polls due to her visibility in seeking federal aid for victims and rebuilding efforts. Her most formidable potential challenger, Rep. Bobby Jindal, is looking like he will be elected Governor this November, and the Republicans lack other top-tier candidates. However, this will still be a tough race given the political climate in a state trending red.
Rating: 7 (Leans D) - The one seat in which the DSCC will need to devote massive resources to playing defense (with the possible exception of NJ).

Massachusetts - John Kerry (seeking 5th term)
Key Republicans: Swift Boat Veterans Founder Jerome Corsi (because there's really nobody else)
Notes: Zzzzzzz. Many of us Bay Staters don't really love Kerry that much, especially after his pathetic performance in '04. But luckily for him, he's in Massachusetts. 85% of both legislative houses are Dems, we just elected an (allegedly) progressive Dem Governor, and all twelve federal elected officials are Democrats. Get the point? Massachusetts is a one-party state, and this is Kerry's seat as long as he wants it.
Rating: 10 (Definite D)

Michigan - Carl Levin (seeking 6th term)
Key Republicans: no frontrunner, but many strong potential candidates
Notes: Now Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Levin is a solid Democratic loyalist who has been a strong critic of the Iraq war. That is a plus in Michigan, a state that had been flirting with purple-dom until about a year ago, when the state's voters seemed to remember that Republican politicians hate the working class and that's why they always vote D. Barring any unforeseen circumstances, Levin should be fine.
Rating: 9 (Probable D)

Montana - Max Baucus (seeking 6th term)
Key Republicans: Rep. Denny Rehberg (maybe), other strong potential candidates
Notes: Baucus, known primarily as a centrist budget hawk, is an anomaly in Montana politics as a long-standing popular Democrat. Although the state has been trending towards the Dems in recent years with the elections of Gov. Brian Schweitzer and Sen. Jon Tester, it is still a tough political landscape for Baucus. He only beat Rehberg by 20,000 votes in 1996, and a rematch could be just as competitive in the right environment. However, I believe the issues that propelled Tester to victory (corruption, big government) will work to Baucus' advantage this time around and ensure his re-election.
Rating: 7 (Leans D)

New Jersey - Frank Lautenberg (seeking 5th term, 2nd in this seat)
Key Republicans: Tom Kean, Jr. (2006 Senate nominee)
Potential Democratic Challengers: Reps. Robert Andrews, Frank Pallone
Notes: Lautenberg is unpopular, but so is every other politician in Joisey. I really hope the GOP thinks they can take this one and wastes a bunch of $ in NJ's expensive media market, further jading already cynical voters with filthy attack ads while not doing anything to change their minds.
Rating: 8 (D Favored)

Rhode Island - Jack Reed (seeking 3rd term)
Key Republicans: Former Cranston Mayor and 2006 Senate Candidate Stephen Laffey
Notes: Reed has one of the highest approval ratings of any Democratic Senator, as a leading voice on military issues and loyal Democrat. Preznit Bush has approval in the mid-20s. You do the math.
Rating: 10 (Definite D)

South Dakota - Tim Johnson (likely seeking 3rd term)
Key Republicans: Gov. Mike Rounds (undeclared)
Key Democrats (if Johnson doesn't run): Rep. Stephanie Herseth
Notes: Easily the strangest situation I've seen since I started following politics. Okay, maybe the '04 race in Illinois where the waters seemed to part for Obama was in the same ballpark. But Johnson's stroke throws a extra kink into an already complicated situation. Ironically, his health issues may work to his advantage, as Republicans have been forced to hold off the attack dogs for fear of looking callous and cruel. Hahaha. This should be their top target this year, since Johnson was already endangered before his stroke. If Gov. Rounds enters the race it will be at least a toss-up. Johnson seems to be preparing for an election race and has been raising money. However, if he is unable or otherwise chooses not to pursue re-election, Rep. Herseth would make a formidable challenger. Like I said, it's a strange situation with a ton of question marks.
Rating: 5 (Toss-Up) - No matter what, this race will probably come down to election day turnout.

West Virginia - Jay Rockefeller (seeking 5th term)
Key Republicans: Rep. Shelley Moore Capito; '06 Sen. nominee John Raese (neither has declared)
Notes: Capito may have a chance, but may not want to sacrifice her relatively safe House seat unless she really thinks she can win. If she decides otherwise, Rockefeller should win with 58-60% of the vote.
Rating: 9 (Probable D) - Unless something drastic changes in the national landscape, this seat stays D.
-------
So there you have it. Anybody who made it this far, please comment with thoughts/suggestions/rants.

Ridiculously Early Senate 2008 Roundup - R Seats

Just in case the presidential horse race weren't enough to deal with in an "off" year, I figure I'll provide an overview of the Senate landscape for the junkies out there.

Things are looking extremely positive for the Democrats, with 21 GOP Senators up for re-election and only 12 Dems. That would make for a promising outlook even in any year, but 2008 will be no ordinary year. The issues that plagued the Rs this past November will get no better, I really can't see how ANY of them possibly could, and the Iraq Debacle should continue to fester.

And here's some more food for thought. The six seats that flipped in '06 were in a much tougher year: 15 GOP seats and 18 Dem. If as in the past election cycle Dems take 40% of the Republican seats and hold all their own, they will be sitting pretty at that magical 60-seat supermajority. With a Democrat in the White House, the Repugs will be all but powerless.

Let's run down each race one by one, by state alphabetical order. Each race is ranked 1-10; 1 being definitely GOP, 10 being definitely Dem. These are completely my opinions, based on what I have read and seen. Here goes:

Republican Seats

Alabama - Jeff Sessions (seeking 3rd term)
Key opponent: Ron Sparks, State Agriculture Commissioner
Rating: 2 (Probable R) - Sparks could make it interesting, but it's still Alabama

Alaska - Ted "aluminum tubes" Stevens (seeking 7th term)
Key opponent: none as of yet
Rating: 1 (Definite R) - In AK, competence or integrity seems not to be an issue

Colorado - OPEN (Wayne Allard is retiring)
Key Democrat: Rep. Mark Udall (Williams grad!) - son of the legendary Morris Udall and damn popular in his own right
Key Republican: former Rep. Scott McInnis
Rating: 7 (Leaning D) - I'm already ready to call this one for Udall

Georgia - Saxby Chambliss (seeking 2nd term)
Key opponent: no clear favorite, but decent crop
Notes: Democrats are chomping at the bit over this one; Chambliss was the fellow who beat Max Cleland in 2002, using dirty campaign tactics that questioned the patriotism of a triple amputee war veteran.
Rating: 2 (Probable R) - Chambliss unfortunately is pretty popular, as Georgia is one of the few states still trending red.

Idaho - Larry Craig (may not seek a 4th term)
Key Democrats: Rep. Larry LaRocco
Key Republicans: Rep. Mike Simpson; Fmr Canyon County Commissioner Robert Vasquez
Notes: This race will be very hard to rate if Craig declines a run. Most are saying, however, that he will probably in fact run, so the current rating is under that assumption. LaRocco, a Veteran, will having to run in the style of Jim Webb to have a chance.
Rating: 2 (Probable R) - LaRocco could be a decent challenger, but Craig is well-liked, and is the clear favorite if he chooses to run.

Kansas - Pat Roberts (seeking 3rd term)
Key Democrats: none to my knowledge
Rating: 1 (Definite R) - Forget this one. Roberts is a legend. Like Stevens, he's a horrible man but great politician.

Kentucky - Mitch McConnell (Senate Minority Leader, seeking 5th term)
Key Democrats: ?????
Notes: Dems would LOVE to exact revenge for Daschle in '04 and take down the other party's top dawg. McConnell is the king of an imploding KY GOP, so it could be interesting. However, most of the top D prospects are balking at this race, looking more at the Gov race this year or Bunning's much more vulnerable seat in '10. My guess is at least one of these prospects jumps in and makes it a race. Stay tuned.......
Rating: 3 (R Favored) - This one could get interesting, but will only flip in another wave election.

Maine - Susan Collins (seeking 3rd term)
Key Democrat: Rep. Tom Allen
Notes: This is a first-tier race. Allen is a popular six-term House incumbent with solid statewide name recognition. Look for an insane amount of $$ per capita to get pumped into this state come fall '08.
Rating: 6 (Toss-Up) - Collins is my top pick to get Chaffee'd, a popular moderate GOP Senator in a state rapidly trending blue.

Minnesota - Norm Coleman (seeking 2nd term)
Key Democrats: Al Franken, Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak, Attorney Mike Ciresi, etc.
Notes: More than anybody else, I personally want to see Coleman's head on a skewer. So do many Minnesotans, after the circumstances of his previous victory. If it weren't for Paul Wellstone's tragic plane crash on the eve of the '02 election, he would be the overwhelming favorite to once again retain this seat. The sketchy circumstances of Wellstone's death and the Republican smear job in the aftermath of his memorial service are probably what has prompted Franken to run. Man, would it be fun to see him on the Senate floor.
Rating: 5 (Toss-Up) - If Franken proves he can be taken seriously, this becomes a 7. If not, it's anybody's race.

Mississippi - Thad Cochran (seeking 6th term)
Key Democrats: State Atty General Michael Moore
Rating: 1 (Definite R) - Assuming Cochran doesn't unexpectedly retire, forget about this one and move on.

Nebraska - Chuck Hagel (possibly seeking 3rd term)
Key Democrats: Omaha Mayor Mike Fahey
Notes: This situation is too nebulous to tell for sure. Hagel may or may not run for President, and at the same time may or may not run to keep this seat. Either way, it will probably stay in Republican hands.
Rating: 1 (Definite R) - I can't see a way this becomes a D pickup unless something drastically changes.

New Hampshire - John Sununu (seeking 2nd term)
Key Democrats: Portsmouth Mayor Steve Marchand; Katrina Swett
Notes: Sununu is undoubtedly a top Democratic target. Given the '06 tidal wave that gave Gov. John Lynch (D) 71% of the vote, flipped both Congressional seats to the Dems and saw unbelievable D gains in the state legislature, it will be hard for Sununu to win without further distancing himself from the national party.
Rating: 6 (Toss-Up) - Too early to get a sense of who will be giving Sununu the fight of his political life.

New Mexico - Pete Domenici (may or may not seek 7th term)
Key Democrats: Rep. Tom Udall; Atty General Patricia Madrid; Albequerque Mayor Martin Chavez
Key Republicans: Rep. Heather Wilson, Rep. Steve Pearce
Notes: This one is completely in flux. If Domenici runs as he has said he plans to do, he probably wins. But he is waist-deep in the US Attorney scandal and rumors have been circulating that his mental faculties are declining. If he retires, this could go either way.
Rating: 3 (R Favored) - I'm splitting the difference between a definite Domenici win and a toss-up. Hopefully both he and Heather Wilson get dragged down in Attorneygate.

North Carolina - Elizabeth Dole (seeking 2nd term)
Key Democrats: no standouts as of yet. Popular Gov. Mike Easley is not interested.
Notes: Dole is considered somewhat vulnerable, but it will take the right candidate and situation for her to be beaten. There are many possible challengers out there, but nobody stands out as a true superstar. For now, Dole has to be considered a clear favorite.
Rating: 3 (R Favored)- This is a sleeper race. Stay tuned.....

Oklahoma - James "Global warming and evolution are hoaxes" Inhofe (seeking 3rd term)
Key Democrats:???
Rating: 1 (Definite R) - Inhofe is certifiably nuts, but it's Oklahoma. Not a state I'll be visiting anytime soon.

Oregon - Gordon Smith (seeking 3rd term)
Key Democrats: Rep. Earl Blumenauer; many others
Key Republicans: Antitax zealot Bill Sizemore
Notes: The antitax group Club for Growth has announced they are targeting Smith in this election. Keep in mind they backed Steven Laffey in RI against Chaffee, and almost knocked off Arlen Specter in '04. Smith is the favorite here, but in the end may not be able to withstand spirited attacks from both sides.
Rating: 3 (R Favored) - If Blumenauer runs, this probably becomes to a 4.

South Carolina - Lindsey Graham (seeking 2nd term)
Key Democrats: ?????
Key Republicans: none yet, but primary challenge possible
Notes: For some reason, Graham is considered a maverick and may draw a challenge from some moonbat Bible-thumper. I'm not too worried about him. My advice to Democrats: don't waste your energy here.
Rating: 2 (Probable R) - Nothing much to see here. Will probably become a 1 soon.

Tennessee - Lamar Alexander (seeking 2nd term)
Key Democrats: likely no top-tier challengers
Notes: While Alexander can probably be beaten, there's just nobody to do it this time around.
Rating: 1 (Definite R)

Texas - John Cornyn (seeking 2nd term)
Key Democrats: many, but no top-tier challengers
Notes: God, I hate Cornyn's guts. To give you a sense, he was a leader in the Senate effort to push through radical conservative federal judges in '05. And he was on the Texas Supreme Court with Abu Gonzalez in the '90s. I hope somebody gives him a run for his money, but I just don't see it right now.
Rating: 2 (Probable R)

Virginia - John Warner (may or may not seek 6th term)
Key Democrat: Mark Warner (prob only runs if John doesn't)
Key Republican: Rep. Tom Davis
Notes: Like in NM, everything rides on whether John Warner runs again. Warner will be 80 on election day and may not have the stomach for what will be a bruising election battle. Mark Warner is the other real x-factor here, since he may opt to seek the Vice Presidential slot or run for Governor in '09. My guess is he only runs in an open seat where he is the clear favorite.
Rating: 4 (Leaning R) - This rating is a placeholder until the race becomes more defined.

Wyoming - Michael Enzi (seeking 3rd term)
Key Democrat: '06 Congressional nominee Gary Trauner (may choose House rematch)
Notes: Trauner was a hair's breadth away from winning a statewide Congressional seat in this reddest of red states, and is the only Democrat at this point with any prayer of taking out Enzi. My guess is he goes for the rematch against Barbara Cubin, and wins this time.
Rating: 1 (Definite R)

Summary: 12 Safe Republican, 5 Possible Pickups, 3 Toss-Ups, 1 Likely Pickup

Estimated Pickups: 5