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.

UGH - spineless Dems yet again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory

Karl Rove & Co is right about something: we have many spineless appeasers among the ranks congressional Democrats. The Neville Chamberlain wing of the party, unable to stand up for its beliefs and under the tragic impression that one can negotiate with terrorists, seems to believe that if one grants enough leeway to those who wish them harm, it will placate those forces and keep them at bay.

Those Rovian hatemongers are wrong about who those appeasers are, though. Ironically, the situation we see is that the true merchants of terror are those who would slander fellow Americans for partisan political gain. The real appeasers are the "Blue Dogs" who mistakenly think that actively enabling the agenda of the conservative establishment and the Bush administration will somehow exempt them from nasty attack ads in the fall.

And these milquetoast traitors have just shredded the fourth amendment because they're afraid to be called weak on terror by KKKarl Rove and his Very Serious Pundit Friends, who will attack them anyway.

Apparently, the loser "Blue Dogs" just can't handle doing their jobs and holding this criminal president accountable to the rule of law. Instead, they feel the need to capitulate on FISA and telecom immunity....after they had already won.

Steny Hoyer, I'm looking directly at you. You are the troglodyte who decided to unilaterally defy the vast majority of your caucus and value AT&T's profits over the American people's freedom. If you said no to them and the Bush junta, we would still have a recourse of action for illegal spying. We would have perhaps obtained evidence necessary to build an impeachment or criminal case against a president that you say you oppose. But that might make Sean Hannity mad, and we can't have that!

If Steny Hoyer remains the Democratic majority leader into 2009, it may be worthwhile for progressive activists to consider whether unconditional support for the Democratic Party is really the best tactic to achieve positive change in this country. Perhaps the Democratic Party just cannot be reformed into a strong voice for the American people.

I'd like to add one more thing. As the standard bearer of the party and likely the next president, Barack Obama has the power to stop this atrocity. He can make a few phone calls to his congressional colleagues and come out publicly to denounce the pursuers of capitulation. This is a major test of what kind of transformational leader Obama really will be. Here's hoping he comes out firmly on the side of the Constitution.

June Senate Roundup

Honestly, I'm getting pretty worn out by the marathon presidential race and especially the unbearably long nomination process that's thankfully reached its conclusion. And based on what I'm hearing from those around me, you probably are too. So as a brief respite from the BIG race, here are my June Senate rankings and race updates. With almost all of the meaningful primaries also wrapping up yesterday on the Senate front, this is a good time for a full rundown.

The wonderful news for Democrats continues unabated, as quite a few races have been upgraded since the last update in March with a mere one looking better for the GOP. Getting to sixty seats is now looking distinctly within the realm of possibility, although Dems would have to knock off some tough incumbents to get there. As a baseline, we would be looking at something around 55-58 (including Lieberman) if the elections were today; that would mean a pickup of 4-7 seats.

To the rankings! As always, 1 means Definite R while 10 means Definite D
Races are ordered by chance of flipping. If "upgrade" is listed, the race got better for the Democrats.

Oh, this time Republican seats go first, because the D-held seats are almost all foregone conclusions at this point.

See the bottom of the post for a summary and the methodology behind my number rankings.

Republican-Held Seats (23)

Virginia (OPEN): 9 (Probable D)
Democratic Nominee: Former Gov. Mark Warner
Republican Nominee: Former Gov. Jim Gilmore
To put it simply, Virginians know Warner as the guy who cleaned up the mess that Gilmore made. Gilmore barely got the nomination Tuesday over a nobody state delegate. There's a good chance Warner will end up giving a hefty chunk of his campaign cash to the DSCC to fund other, closer contests.

New Mexico (OPEN): 8 (Favored D)
Democratic Nominee: Rep. Tom Udall
Republican Nominee: Rep. Steve Pearce
The conservative Pearce edged out faux-moderate Heather Wilson (of nipplegate fame) for the nomination. It matters little. A slew of polls have had Udall beating both by very comfortable margins. It may tighten a little, but right now it's hard to imagine Pearce winning.

Colorado (OPEN): 8 (Leans D) - 2 point upgrade
Democratic Nominee: Rep. Mark Udall (Tom's brother)
Republican Nominee: Former Rep. Bob Schaffer
This contest was shaping up to be a hard-fought nailbiter. That was before the torrent of corruption revelations began to hit Schaffer. The worst one: while in congress he went on a Jack Abramoff-sponsored trip to the Mariana Islands to "investigate" sweatshop conditions, and of course reported everything to be hunky-dory. Then, in Congress he once tried to say the U.S. should emulate its workplace regulations after those of the Marianas, known as one of the most cruel places for workers in the Western Hemisphere. In other words he's a transparent Grade A Dirtbag. To make matters worse, his campaign manager, Dick Wadhams, handled Macaca Allen's implosion in 2006, so you know he can't handle PR crises particularly well. All I'm saying is, get out the popcorn, this should be entertaining to watch.

New Hampshire (John Sununu): 7 (Leans D)
Democratic Nominee: Former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen
Sununu is a Bush toady representing a state that doesn't take well to toadies, and especially not the Iraq-enabling kind. Shaheen remains pretty popular and despite a few years out of the state, still has very deep roots in the NH political community. Polls have her consistently ahead by around 10 points and that probably will not change much as both have very high name ID. If McCain can sell his case on Iraq and wins the state, Sununu has a shot. Otherwise, stick a fork in him.

Alaska (Ted Stevens): 5 (Barely R)
Challenger: Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich
Boy, Alaska Republicans are a mess of corruption right now. Stevens, as the king of Alaska politics, heads the list of course with his notorious Bridge to Nowhere and much much more. Despite the good will Stevens has generated over the years, he is starting to be seen as a black eye for the state by its residents (those who pay attention, anyway). Begich, the son of beloved former congressman Nick Begich, is also well-regarded and already governs a large chunk of Alaska's population so is widely known. This matchup should be really fascinating and I expect it to resemble many of the '06 congressional campaigns. Gonna be a close one.

Minnesota (Norm Coleman): 5 (Barely R) - downgrade
Challenger: Al Franken
Yikes! After I gushed about Franken in the last roundup, a major story came to light about how he owed back taxes in 17 states. The story may have been blown a little out of proportion, but it seems like it stuck as a scandal and may have opened a door for Coleman to build a narrative of Franken as dishonest and flippant. Even though the story broke a month ago or more, it is still too early to tell whether Franken can weather the storm. All we know is, there will be more storms to come; Coleman is very sleazy (yeah, even among senators) and will throw the kitchen sink at his opponent. This race may be the ugliest and nastiest one of the whole cycle, and yes that includes the presidential contest. Now that we see some chinks in Franken's armor, all bets are off.

Oregon (Gordon Smith): 5 (Barely R) - upgrade
Challenger: State House Speaker Jeff Merkley
The more I see of Merkley, the more I like him. This guy is just a natural leader. He got past the first step a couple weeks ago by fighting off a spirited primary challenge from activist Steve Novick, who would've made a solid albeit different candidate himself. Merkley isn't the most fiery guy out there, but he's a true progressive with a track record of getting things done. I'm guessing the election will end up as a referendum on whether Smith is actually the principled moderate that he tries to come across as. At the moment, I'm cautiously optimistic, but at the moment the incumbent has to remain a slight favorite. Oh, recent polls have the contest locked in a statistical tie.

North Carolina (Elizabeth Dole): 4 (Leans R) - upgrade
Challenger: State Sen. Kay Hagan
We already knew Liddy Dole was a top DSCC target, and recent post-primary polls have vindicated their interest in the race. Multiple polls have shown a very close battle, with some actually putting Hagan on top. This is before she really starts the general election battle. Dole has a sizable campaign stash, so she has to be given a slight edge at the moment. But that could change as the summer unfolds. Dole has shown signs that she is running scared. I should mention, however, that Kay Hagan would not be a particularly reliable party line vote - she is actually opposed to SCHIP expansion.

Maine (Susan Collins): 4 (Leans R)
Challenger: Rep. Tom Allen
Amazing that the Maine race, considered early on to be at or near the top of the list of pickup opportunities, is now just 9th. That partially is a testament to Collins' ability to sell her moderate image despite a voting record to the contrary, but there are just so many other wonderful possibilities for Dems at the moment. Collins continues to hover just over 50% in polls, and this one will certainly tighten as November draws closer. If Iraq is still a major mobilizing issue in Maine, the solidly progressive Allen has a decent chance.

Mississippi-B (Roger Wicker): 4 (Leans R) - upgrade
Challenger: Former Gov. Ronnie Musgrove
There are two ways to look at this. One, Musgrove is kind of a schmuck. He would be rather infuriating as a Blue Dog senator, breaking with the party on many important issues. But on the other hand, he would be a Democratic Senator from deep red Mississippi. If you didn't hear, Democrat Travis Childers won a recent special election victory in Wicker's deep red former district, which is of course a fantastic sign. Wicker still has to be the favorite, but Obama coattails may just be enough to put Musgrove over the top.

Texas (John Cornyn): 3 (Favored R)
Challenger: State Rep. & Lt. Col. Rick Noriega
While not moving the Texas race up to Leans R, this race has definitely picked up some momentum in recent weeks. Two polls in May had Noriega within five points of the odious Cornyn. I am an enthusiastic supporter of Noriega's; he would be one of the more exciting Democrats to have in the Senate and is rock solid on all the major issues; plus he can likely appeal to disaffected Republicans in West and South Texas. Noriega is actually taking two weeks off at the moment to complete his annual National Guard training; how can chickenhawk Cornyn possibly match up with that? If Noriega can raise some serious $ over the summer and/or the DSCC makes a financial committment, this race moves up the ranks.

Kentucky (Mitch McConnell): 3 (Favored R) - upgrade
Challenger: Fmr Commerce Sec. Bruce Lunsford
I must admit I'm conflicted about this race. Same issue as Mississippi, really. Lunsford isn't so much a Blue Dog as just a classic pro-business "Republicrat". He's actually endorsed and donated to McConnell in the past. But then again, he may actually knock off the GOP Minority Leader. Revenge for Daschle in '04 would be pretty sweet, and polls have them running in a dead heat. Of course, McConnell has about $10 million to play with, or else a more competitive ranking would be deserved. Only time will tell.

Idaho (OPEN): 3 (Favored R)
Democratic Nominee: Fmr Rep. Larry LaRocco
Republican Nominee: Lt. Gov. Jim Risch
No real updates since the March version. LaRocco continues to rule and Risch continues to be a schmuck, but there hasn't been a poll of the matchup in a long time and no major stories have broken on either candidate. One potential issue lurks, however: Risch apparently is encouraging Kuwait to dump enormous amounts of radioactive waste in Idaho. I'm sure Idahoans will loooooove that.

Kansas (Pat Roberts): 3 (Favored R) - 2 point upgrade
Challenger: Fmr Rep. Jim Slattery
Talk about your turnarounds! As of my last roundup, it seemed that Democrats would be unable to find a credible challenger to relatively unpopular Bush enabler Pat Roberts, former chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Then lobbyist and former Congressman Jim Slattery stepped up at the last minute. As lobbyists go, he seems to be okay and really gets it on financial regulation issues. He has only recently launched his official campaign, but a poll had him within just 12 with very low name recognition against the universally known Roberts (and Obama only down 9 to McCain!). Slattery has to prove he is willing to fight a nasty battle against a savvy politician likely to go hard negative, but if he has the drive and fundraising ability, he just may have a shot.

Note: I'd like to take a second and point out that Democrats are legitimately competitive in an astounding 14 seats. That makes the current ceiling 65 (with Lieberman) if everything breaks positively. Could we see a Constitutional Amendment or two pass in the next few years?

Oklahoma (James Inhofe): 2 (Probable R)
Challenger: State Sen. Andrew Rice
This race does have sleeper possibilities. Rice is an exciting young (meaning 32 years old) Harvard grad and popular state legislator from Oklahoma City. Inhofe is notorious for his staunch global warming denial. In addition, he very recently put out a campaign ad suggesting Iraq to be in Africa. If the stereotypes of Oklahoma as a state full of ignorant yokels are accurate, Inhofe is the perfect Senator for them. My co-worker and friend lives in Oklahoma, personally knows Andrew Rice and suggests he is light years too liberal to win a statewide election there.

Nebraska (OPEN): 2 (Probable R)
Democratic Nominee: Scott Kleeb
Republican Nominee: Former Gov. Mike Johanns
Kleeb is a netroots favorite, but like Rice he is really young to be running for the Senate. Johanns is a top-tier candidate for the GOP and while Nebraska may actually be somewhat competitive on the presidential level, it's hard to see Kleeb making Johanns seriously sweat barring some sort of scandal (which is certainly a possibility with any prominent Republican these days).

Tennessee (Lamar Alexander): 2 (Probable R)
Challenger: Former TN-Dems Chair Bob Tuke
Tuke will have to run a stellar campaign and/or a bombshell scandal will have to be unearthed on the relatively well-regarded Alexander for this to become a top-tier race. But hey, anything's possible.

Georgia (Saxby Chambliss): 1 (Definite R)
Challenger: TBD (nominee not known until August 5th)
There are four or five viable candidates for the Democratic nod. Although national Dems despise Chambliss for the way he viciously smeared war hero Max Cleland in '02, it would probably take Cleland himself to make the race close. Cleland's not running, leaving a bunch of 3rd-tier candidates in the mix. One guy, former state rep. and Lt. Gov. nominee Jim Martin, could make things slightly interesting, but he's polling about third in the primary.

Alabama (Jeff Sessions): 1 (Definite R)
Challenger: State Sen. Vivian Figures
There was a top-tier challenger flirting with a run in State Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks, but he declined in lieu of Ms. Figures. It's a shame, because Sparks was a very intriguing potential candidate. Figures, meanwhile, is African-American and therefore likely to lose big in Alabama along with Barack Obama. Sadly, it doesn't even matter how effective a campaigner she is.

Wyoming-B (John Barrasso): 1 (Definite R)
Challenger: Fmr State Sen. Keith Goodenough
Barrasso lucked out by avoiding a matchup with Democratic Gov. Dave Freudenthal and any serious primary competition in a special election. The Dem bench in Wyoming beyond the centrist Freudenthal is virtually nonexistent, so both Senate seats are virtual locks.

South Carolina (Lindsey Graham): 1 (Definite R)
Challenger: Attorney Michael Cone
The biggest threat to Graham is in the GOP primary, from RNC member Buddy Witherspoon among something like eight other lesser-known candidates. Conservatives in SC seem very frustrated with Graham, but not enough to cost him his seat.

Mississippi-A (Thad Cochran): 1 (Definite R)
Challenger: Fmr State Rep. Erik Fleming
Cochran is an icon in Mississippi. He was thinking about retiring after losing his Appropriations Committee chairmanship as Dems took the Senate, but decided otherwise. A couple top-tier Dems decided to pass on a challenge. That's really all that matters here.

Wyoming-A (Michael Enzi): 1 (Definite R)
Challenger: Prof. Chris Rothfuss
Rothfuss is an interesting character, but that doesn't get him more than 30% in what may be the reddest state in the country. Hey, at least there's a Democratic challenger for every GOP-held seat, which is a pretty major accomplishment.


Democratic-held Seats (12)

Louisiana (Mary Landrieu): 7 (Leans D) - upgrade
Challenger: State Treasurer John Neely Kennedy, turncoat Democrat
Landrieu has done a terrific job consolidating her support early on and has proven that Kennedy will have to step things up a notch to defeat her. She has a huge money advantage and has led in every poll taken thus far, including a couple by double digits. It really says something that this, the only realistic GOP pickup opportunity, may be starting to slip away a full five months before election day. Of course, that could change quickly as Kennedy goes on the attack, but for now one has to give a definitive edge to the incumbent.

South Dakota (Tim Johnson): 9 (Probable D) - upgrade
Challenger: State Rep. Joel Dykstra
At this point I would be shocked if this race ended up in single digits. Of course anything can happen and another health issue for Sen. Johnson, who suffered a life-threatening brain hemorrhage only 18 months ago, could make things more interesting. Nevertheless, Dykstra does not seem to have the name recognition or fundraising prowess to give Johnson any sort of scare in the absence of unforeseen events.

New Jersey (Frank Lautenberg): 9 (Probable D)
Challenger: Lobbyist & Fmr Rep. Dick Zimmer
After a ton of flux in this race until yesterday, I thought about upgrading this to a 10. Rep. Rob Andrews decided to launch a quixotic primary challenge to Lautenberg and lost by over 30 points on Tuesday. Meanwhile, the GOP barely avoided a major embarrassment by recruiting Dick Zimmer, an accomplished politician, into the race at the last minute. While he may be able to capitalize on an unforeseen event, Lautenberg is likely way too experienced and vetted for that to happen.

Michigan (Carl Levin): 10 (Definite D)
Challenger: State Rep. Jack Hoogendyk
After the three races above, the field just gets embarrassing for the GOP. This should be around a 20-point blowout, and it only gets worse moving down the list.

West Virginia (Jay Rockefeller): 10 (Definite D)
Challenger: Jay Wolfe
Not really sure who this Wolfe guy is, but maybe some people will only look at their first names and get confused. Rockefeller is a household name in WV. Nothing to see here....

Illinois (Dick Durbin): 10 (Definite D)
Challenger: Dr. Steve Sauerberg
Sauerberg seems to have some money and will at least run an active race. Nevertheless, nobody short of Michael Jordan could beat the very powerful Durbin. Another blowout.

Montana (Max Baucus): 10 (Definite D) - upgrade
Challenger: Bob Kelleher
Wow, I'm really not sure what to make of this race now. Baucus has been pretty safe for some time, but Tuesday's GOP primary yielded a truly shocking nominee. Voters bypassed both of the leading candidates to pick the 85-year old retired attorney and activist Bob Kelleher. This race may actually turn out to be really fun; Kelleher once ran for Senate with the Green Party, and if he campaigns will probably be attacking Baucus from the left. He seems very, er, colorful on the surface (for comparison, imagine if Lyndon LaRouche won a major party Senate nomination), and may turn out to be the first Republican I've ever enjoyed following.
Oh, here's the official reaction from a leading progressive Montana blog:

OMG!!!!! Bob Kelleher. OMG!!!!!!

It's worth scrolling down through the comments of the linked post if you want a laugh.

Iowa (Tom Harkin): 10 (Definite D)
Challenger: Christopher Reed
Apparently Reed winning his primary yesterday was also an upset. Nobody really knows who he is. I don't think Harkin's had a truly easy victory in his long Senate career, so I guess he's due for a cakewalk.

Massachusetts (John Kerry): 10 (Definite D)
Challenger: Jeff Beatty
Yet another huge embarrassment for the GOP. They had handpicked recent congressional nominee Jim Ogonowski to take on Kerry, and he had raised nearly a million dollars to this point. Well, the filing deadline was yesterday and guess what? The supposedly second-best NRSC recruit of the cycle didn't even qualify for the ballot. Truly pathetic. I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.

Arkansas (Mark Pryor): 10 (Definite D) - upgrade
Challenger: NONE
Arkansas?! They couldn't find a live body who wanted to run for Senate in Arkansas?! Now this one clearly deserves a laugh. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Delaware (Joe Biden): 10 (Definite D)
Challenger: NONE
The real election may be in early 2009, after Biden is appointed to be Obama's Sec of State. We shall see....

Rhode Island (Jack Reed): 10 (Definite D)
Challenger: NONE


Summary
Democratic pickups are bolded
10 (Definite D): AR, DE, IL, IA, MA, MI, MT, RI, WV
9 (Probable D): NJ, SD, VA
8 (Favored D): CO, NM
7 (Leans D): LA, NH
6 (Barely D): NONE
5 (Barely R): AK, MN, OR
4 (Leans R): ME, MS-B, NC
3 (Favored R): ID, KS, KY, TX
2 (Probable R): NE, OK, TN
1 (Definite R): AL, GA, MS-A, SC, WY-A, WY-B

Methodology
1: 0-5% chance Dems will win seat
2: 5-15%
3: 15-25%
4: 25-40%
5: 40-50%
6: 50-60%
7: 60-75%
8: 75-85%
9: 85-95%
10: 95-100%

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.