Why Obama Won - By Arnold Shober

John McCain.

Pundits and the party faithful might swoon over Barack Obama's delphic message of hope and change. Or the solid support he received from the under-30 crowd. But that message had little resonance with most voters who didn't already have a horse in the race. Instead, Barack Obama's campaign was able to sit by while John McCain's strengths — recently one of America's most popular politicians — became liabilities.

There is no doubt that Barack Obama did better than John Kerry in 2004 in many demographic groups in the population. He improved his standing with most demographic groups compared to John Kerry, but especially so with those under 30. He did much better among African Americans (88% of African-Americans voted for Kerry, versus 95% for Obama). African Americans in Indiana and North Carolina tipped those states for Obama and helped significantly in Ohio and Virginia. But Obama still lost whites by definitive margins and was effectively tied with McCain in other age groups. And he didn't produce any new patterns among religious voters (whatever their affiliation) despite all of his efforts to reach out to non-African American Christians.

These patterns, if not the numbers, are consistent Democratic patterns.

Except that he won. And he had the best Democratic victory since 1964 (though nowhere near Johnson's margins).

What happened?

John McCain, his opponent, was John McCain. And John McCain lost crucial Republican voters.

McCain has a clear political philosophy that structures how he thinks about politics. McCain says what he thinks, even when he shouldn't. He knows what he doesn't know. And he says what he doesn't know, even when he shouldn't. McCain has significant legislative experience and, right through election day, trumped Obama on the question "Does [candidate] have enough experience to be president?"

McCain's candidacy opened three avenues for victory for Obama. Though any election is a combination of many factors — the precipitous drop of the stock market in September did McCain no favors — McCain's legislative pragmatism; his consistent opposition to government subsidies; and his weak support among white, evangelical Protestants proved fatal to McCain's chances for winning.

Having a political philosophy doesn't mean ideologue. The McCain campaign had no trouble producing a web ad featuring Howard Dean, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle, Joe Biden — and Barack Obama — praising him in variously glowing terms. One cannot quite picture the '04 Bush team doing the same thing. There was chatter in '04 about Kerry picking McCain for a running mate. "I'm a pro-life, free-trading, defense and deficit hawk," he responded, in typical fashion. "I'm a Republican for chrissakes."

The legislative experience that led to his pragmatism made conservative Republicans uncomfortable. Chief among his sins was McCain-Feingold. The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, the National Review, and Commentary all provided a forum for conservatives who lambasted McCain's involvement with undermining free speech, in their view. Viscerally anti-liberal Ann Coulter denounced McCain for this and similar transgressions.

McCain should have been more worried about Republicans coming to the polls than the favorable commentary of ousted South Dakota Senator Daschle.

Second, McCain has repeatedly attacked government subsidies for various programs, services, and commodities. None was more damning, perhaps, than his opposition to so-called bio-fuels — many of which are produced in the Midwest. Over the last decade, midwestern politicians of both parties have been loath to criticize these subsidies, especially ethanol, because of the generally positive reaction voters have had to the idea of ethanol. When McCain repeated his opposition to ethanol in his closing remarks to the third presidential debate, he only further repelled rural, likely Republican voters.

John McCain received 2.6 million fewer votes in the Midwest than George W. Bush did in 2004.

Third, McCain could not overcome the distrust of a significant block of white, evangelical Protestants. In 2000 and 2004, George Bush actively courted the white evangelical and Hispanic Pentacostal vote. Bush had no trouble talking about his own spiritual regeneration on the campaign trail. In 2000, he sought to project a "compassionate conservatism" based on that faith. He sought, and received, the active support of several white, evangelical Christian leaders.

Even though McCain is one of the most consistently pro-life U.S. Senators, a sine qua non for many evangelical Christians, he has not been warm toward them as a political bloc. Though he attends a Baptist church that is most certainly evangelical, he keeps his faith away from public view. And, in his 2000 campaign, he publicly disparaged some prominent Christian leaders.

In 2008, McCain knew he was viewed coolly by evangelicals but, given his temperament, was unable to change himself for their benefit. McCain's lively performance at the August 16 Saddleback Civic Forum on the Presidency convinced some doubters to support him (notably James Dobson) — but that was months after McCain had become the Republican nominee. Such lukewarm support could not have endeared him to this important Republican constituency. There were 4.1 million fewer voters who attended church at least once a week in 2008 — by most lights, these likely would have been Republican voters. And many of them live in Ohio (where Obama received fewer votes than John Kerry), Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina.

McCain could not overcome this deficit.

John McCain was perhaps the best chance Republicans had to keep the White House in 2008. Obama's election returns were not impregnable and showed no new patterns in the electorate. Indeed, they showed that the voters who did not show up — the '04 Republicans who did not vote at all — took Obama from a 50-50 candidate to a 53-46 candidate. McCain could have won, too, perhaps with a more consistent campaign style, an even-keel economy, or a more positive message. Like the only heartfelt political rhetoric in 2008: McCain's concession speech.

Do you agree or disagree with Arnold? Be sure to leave a comment!

Arnold Shober is an assistant professor of Campaigns and Elections at Lawrence University in Appleton, WI. He studies electoral politics, education policy, and American federalism. His forthcoming book, Building Government (SUNY Press), argues that competent and independent state-level bureaucracies make it difficult for government officials to avoid responsibility, thus enhancing the democratic process.

Dean Group Appeals to Democrats to Continue Dean Strategies

Recently the political action organization Democracy for America (DFA) sent two emails to supporters asking them to petition the next DNC Chairman Tim Kaine and ask the current Virginia Governor to reinstate the famous 50-State-Strategy.

The brainchild of outgoing Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, the 50-State-Strategy has been hailed by supporters and even former critics for establishing volunteer networks, donor bases, and other party infrastructure that was crucial to the 2008 Democratic victories across the country.

As we have written before, Dean has said he will appeal to his successor to continue many of the strategies he has implemented for the Democratic Party. Little did we realize he would use DFA - which he founded in 2004 - to advance his agenda through a public campaign.

Dean's brother Jim - who currently serves as Chairman of DFA - sent this message to the email list Wednesday night:

"The 50 State Strategy will go down as one of the most successful long-term programs the Democratic National Committee has ever implemented. Not just for Barack but for candidates up and down the ballot all across the country. But while there has been a lot of talk about keeping it alive, all of the original DNC 50 State Strategy organizers have been let go.

"With special elections, local mayor and city council races all coming up soon, this is one decision that can't wait any longer. Call on Tim Kaine to immediately renew the 50 State Strategy and we'll make sure he gets the message."

After Kaine accepted Barack Obama's nomination for DNC Chair the next morning, DFA sent the following message last night to follow up:

"It's official. Earlier today, Barack Obama personally announced Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine as the next chair of the Democratic National Committee…

"…The 50 State Strategy got lip service. They both had many nice words to say about Gov. Dean's DNC leadership and vision. They also credited Howard with creating a 50 State Strategy that delivered historic Democratic gains during his term. But praise is not action. And when Gov. Kaine laid out his top three goals for a new DNC, the 50 State Strategy was not included."

Again they called for supporters to petition Gov. Kaine.

As we have said before, the 50-State-Strategy has been a major factor in Democratic success stories in recent years, and Dean does deserve credit for insisting it be executed.

More relevant to what we see today - however - is how Dean will continue to be a major force within the Democratic Party, and will use whatever means available to him to continue his vision for a successful party.

Why Obama Won - By Jason Rae

When people look back at the 2008 presidential election, everyone can claim that this policy or that program or this group made the difference and helped propel Barack Obama to the presidency. In the end, it is probably likely that many, many factors went in to play, from issues like the economy to events like the debates and even to specific campaign tactics. There is one group of the electorate though that was pivotal in helping Obama secure the necessary electoral votes: young voters.

The media has often failed to properly portray the youngest generation of voters. Instead of identifying them as a civic minded and service oriented generation, the media and some political elite have labeled young voters as apathetic and uninvolved. The media, party elite, and others who underestimate the role of the youth vote need only look at the 2008 election results to see how important young voters are in any given election.

CIRCLE, the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement at Tuft's University, estimated that in the 2008 election 23 million young voters (defined as under 30 years of age) cast ballots for president. This is an increase of about four percentage points based on the 2004 exit polls, and the highest youth turnout since 1972 – another election held right in the midst of an international conflict.

One of the greatest strengths of the Obama campaign strategy was a concerted effort to register new voters. In states like Wisconsin, that is not as important because we allow same-day registration at the polls. However, in places like Virginia and Ohio, two states that were crucial to Obama's victory, the Obama campaign made a targeted effort to register new voters. Obviously, new voters are not synonymous with young voters. However, the efforts made on college campuses and large urban areas to register young voters before registration deadlines certainly helped to contribute to the over 23 million young voters casting ballots.

Beyond the number of voters, there is a number that is even more striking: 34 points. That is the margin between Obama and Senator McCain. President-Elect Obama received the support of 66% of young voters, while Senator McCain only had the support of 32% of young voters. This difference is one of the largest since the reporting of exit polls in 1976. The 34 points is crucial to understanding why Obama won in November. Had the margin been smaller, like previous elections, many of the states that were decided by only the narrowest of margins would have gone the other way. Take for example places like Indiana or North Carolina. Drop the support of young voters from 66% to say, perhaps, only 60% and you would likely see an entirely different person taking the oath of office on January 20.

An important question to be asked then is "why did President-Elect Obama finish the election with such a historic margin of support from young people?" Young voters today are the most progressive and most diverse group in the electorate. Despite government failures of leadership in trying times like September 11 or Katrina, young people see government as a vehicle for social change. This is different from the Generation X which saw business as the main force for solving problems.

Obviously, it was not young voters alone who got Obama elected, but young voters were instrumental in the effort. The campaign deserves credit for their work in developing peer-to-peer organizing efforts and providing for youth directors on the ground in most battleground states. The campaign knew full well that it could not neglect the youngest generation of voters and knew that we Millennials do matter. The Obama campaign, rightfully so, invested millions of dollars in targeting and turning out the youth vote.

However, this is not the end. Sadly, the record turnout did not necessarily translate into as many down ticket wins as Democrats may have hoped. This shows the party on a national and a local level must continue the efforts and funding of specific efforts to engage young voters. When young voters are engaged and involved, with campaigns specifically reaching out and involving them, we can see record turnouts. It shows that young voters are not a group that can be taken for granted. For when young voters vote, they help make decisions in elections.

Young voters have played and will continue to play an important role in elections in this country.

Do you agree or disagree with Jason? Be sure to leave a comment!

Jason Rae is a member of the Democratic National Committee and the current Chair of the College Democrats of Wisconsin. As one of the country's youngest Superdelegates and a leader within Wisconsin's Democratic political scene, he has worked to increase turnout among young voters and advocated for a greater youth participatory role within the Democratic Party.

The New Power Plays of Harry Reid

As he enters his second term as Senate Majority Leader - this time with more fellow Democrats in the chamber and another in the White House - Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) has taken it upon himself to demonstrate his power this week over two seats: one from Illinois and the other from Minnesota.

Although Roland Burris went to Washington to fulfill his appointment from Governor Rod Blagojevich (D-IL), Reid and the Senate Democrats refused to confirm him yesterday officially because he did not have the Illinois Secretary of State signature due to allegations that Blagojevich was planning to sell the President-Elect's former seat.

"Mr. Burris is not in possession of the necessary credentials from the state of Illinois," Reid told the press.

And while legal issues still linger over the hotly contested Senate seat in Minnesota, Reid decided to accept the state's initial ruling that former comedian Al Franken would be the next Senator from the Land of a Thousand Lakes.

In a very striking comment, Reid told reporters that Coleman would "never ever" return to the Senate.

But the icing on the cake of his new-found confidence was that he declared he would serve as Majority Leader until at least 2015.

Yet his confidence does not seem to make him more effective at holding the Democrats together. Not only has Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) disagreed with the decision to block Burris, but now Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) has strayed from the party line saying "despite the controversy, we can't go down the road of having essentially a few subjective considerations to decide who gets seated. That would be an affront to states and their laws."

Furthermore, rumors of backdoor deals to seat Burris have come to light, and many media outlets are now reporting that Burris will in fact take the role of Senator.

While it is important for the dominant party to have a strong leader, Reid is skating on a thin ice of power before falling into the chilly waters of arrogance. Not only will this make his fellow Democrats weary of his position, but it will demonstrate crude partisanship to independents and moderates, and infuriate the GOP.

In fact, the notion that Republicans may try to make Reid a vulnerable incumbent in his 2010 re-election race was a topic of yesterday's press conference.

"You know, to be honest with you, I hope I am," he said. "That way, [the Republicans are] going to spend lots of resources on me and leave states we're looking at. They won't have as many resources — and we have a lot of targets."

We would advise the Majority Leader to "be careful what you wish for."

Why Obama Won - By Kelly Fero

The oldest campaign slogan in the book is, "It's time for a change." In 2008, it really was.

The president-to-be earned his victory by running a campaign of nearly flawless mechanics. He assembled a crack staff, honed a message that was both relevant and emotional, stuck to that message with admirable discipline, and worked hard to guarantee that his tone almost always matched the mood of the country. His ground game had genuine spark. He outraised and outspent the opposition. He adhered to his strategy of a state-by-state march toward 270 electoral votes with a great mix of confidence and flexibility, especially after Hillary Clinton revived her primary campaign with narrow wins in Texas and Ohio on March 4. He harnessed technology and targeting to tap into new voters where they live, not where media consultants say they live in order to rake in bigger commissions.

The next president won by capitalizing on an international yearning for an end to Washington's failed foreign policy. On the night of the election, President Christina Kirschner was speaking to an outdoor rally in Argentina and paused to announce that Obama had been elected; the crowd gave him a 20-minute standing ovation. While Obama was being hailed on his European tour last summer, a poll in Australia — a largely white nation and proud member of George W. Bush's "coalition of the willing" — showed that Aussies favored Obama over John McCain by a 76-10 margin. In nation after nation, the hope for a man of the world in the Oval Office was palpable, and U.S. voters showed that sometimes what others think matters.

The President-elect won because in September, just as attention focused most fully on the race, the global financial system went into free-fall. Initially viewed as a little halting in his response, Obama benefited by comparison with the bizarre behavior of his opponent, who first declared the fundamentals of the collapsing economy "sound," then suspended his campaign to rush back to Washington but instead rushed into the arms of Katie Couric for a CBS News interview. Erratic, indeed.

In the end, every presidential election is about accomplishing two goals: taking away the voters' permission to vote for your opponent and granting them permission to vote for you as an acceptable alternative. After 22 months of coolheaded and evenhanded campaigning, Obama was the one left standing when the economic crisis hit during the third week of September. For all the rhetoric about "turning the page" and "leaving the old politics behind," he won by embodying the oldest campaign slogan in the book: "It's time for a change."

Do you agree or disagree with Kelly? Be sure to leave a comment!

An award-winning journalist and author who covered politics and civil wars from Central America to California, Kelly Fero has three decades of experience in developing political and public policy strategy at the state, national, and international levels. He is a recognized expert on how to create messages that communicate complex programs to the broadest possible audiences.

Why Obama Won: A New Series

From now until the Presidential Inauguration on January 20th we'll be taking a look into why Barack Obama was elected – hearing different perspectives from a panel of sources.

Perhaps it was the strength of his campaign's strategy. Perhaps it was mistakes made by the McCain campaign. Perhaps it was demographical shifts. Perhaps it was really just time for a change.

Our "Why Obama Won" panel will consist of respected Democratic consultants and strategists, academic minds in the political science field, and other progressive political professionals. Ever other day (or so) will feature a post with a different analysis from a different source.

A great many factors went into the President-Elect's decisive victory in November. But there are many perspectives as to the key reason or reasons why the United States has chosen this Commander in Chief. We hope you enjoy the different accounts to why Obama won.

Have your own ideas to why Obama won? Give us the full scoop on your own Key Reason at HogensenStrategiesGroup@gmail.com.

What Will We Look At in 2009?

We hope you had a happy New Year. We certainly look forward to bringing you top-notch political news and analysis for 2009. Here is a preview of what we will bring you.

Soon we will begin our next series "Why Obama Won" – which will feature a panel of strategists, academics, and other politicos giving their weight behind the key reasons for the Democratic victory. We will continue posting their analyses periodically until the Inauguration.

We will also begin to look at smaller political races and issues from across the country as the political community gears up for local elections. As always we will bring it to you with appropriate examination and information on the local political culture.

If you have any commentary of your own as we move into the New Year, please feel free to provide it under any post. We look forward to giving you the scoop on what you want to know.

Happy Holidays

We hope everyone has a great holiday season! We will be back on Jan. 2nd.

Until then--stay safe and warm!

-HSG

Know Your Third Parties: A Conclusion

We hope you have enjoyed reading our series on America's Third Parties, and perhaps learned a thing or two.

As you may have noticed, we tried to cover a large spectrum of these minor political organizations. They include left and right wing splinter parties, such as the Greens or Constitutionists. They include parties of forgotten, but important ideologies, such as the Libertarians.

Some of these parties – like the Modern Whigs – appear to be on the rise. Others – like the Reformers – are dying down. Some – like the Prohibitionists – are really dying down.

And then there are the parties for extreme ideologies – like the several Nazi and Communist parties – which do considerably more marches and rallies than actual politicking.

Because of the traditions in the American electoral system, it is more than difficult for a Third Party to become a major party – it is virtually impossible. First-past-the-post elections and single member districts make a choice between two parties easier for the voter than a choice between three – thus Third Parties almost always appear to be a waste of a vote.

But Third Parties do have a very real place in American society – they offer organization and a platform for those who have their beliefs overlooked by the masses (for better more often than worse, probably) or are fed up with the crass partisanship that the Two Party System seems to offer.

Although it is unlikely to ever see a Third Party match the Democrats or Republicans, they will remain in the American political realm for ages to come – and it doesn't hurt to know who they are.

For those with further interest, visit www.ThirdPartyWatch.com.

Know Your Third Parties: Part 10 - the Reform Party

The Reform Party became a prominent Third Party in the 1990s as the base for Presidential candidate Ross Perot. Since the turn of the century, however, they have declined significantly as a result of inter-party squabbles and lack of cohesive vision.

It should be noted that there is also an American Reform Party - a splinter party which split from the Reform Party of the United States because they believed Ross Perot rigged the nominating process in 1996.

Members: 42,376 registered (as of November 2006)

History:

The Reform Party (or Reform Party USA) was founded by Perot in 1995 to be a base for his second Presidential campaign. Perot said Americans were disillusioned with the state of politics as being corrupt and unable to deal with vital issues, and wanted a new party.

For the 1996 Election, the Reform Party ticket appeared on all fifty state ballots. Perot ended up receiving over 8 million votes - down considerably from his first candidacy in 1992 - which was approximately 8% of the electorate.

In 1998 the Reform Party saw its first - and arguably only - major victory by electing former pro-wrestler Jesse Ventura as Governor of Minnesota.

Due to federal matching funds law - and Perot's 8% in 1996 - the Reform Party ticket was able to secure $12.5 million for the 2000 presidential campaign. The party's nomination was subsequently sought by two well supported candidates, the editorialist Pat Buchanan and three-time Natural Law Party candidate John Hagelin.

The race for Reform Party nomination resulted in a bitter division for the party, which ended up holding two simultaneous conventions in 2000. Several state affiliate parties split off, but Buchanan ended up winning the nomination. However, he secured less than 450,000 votes (.4%) in the General Election.

As a result of the poor performance, the Reform Party lost its matching funds, ballot status in nearly every state, and considerable credibility as a major Third Party.

Between these financial and organizational problems and consistent infighting, the Party opted to nominate Ralph Nader as its 2004 Presidential nominee - despite the fact that Nader never sought their endorsement.

In 2006 the Party started to build again, running several Congressional races across the country - earning as much as 11% in Colorado's 4^th Congressional District.

In 2008 the Reform Party nominated Ted Weill of Mississippi as their Presidential nominee. However, the party did not announce the nomination until October, so Weill only appeared on the ballot in his home state - earning just 470 votes.

On the Issues:

The Reform Party has always held to a series of issues regarding taxes and trade. While they do not have a real platform on their website, they do have a Mission Statement and a "Core Mission".

Since the days of Ross Perot, the Reform Party has always stood for a few key positions:

• A Balanced Budget Amendment
• Campaign finance reform that includes banning PACs
• Enforcing immigration laws
• Opposition to Free Trade deals (particularly NAFTA and CAFTA) and withdrawal from the WTO
• Term limits for Members of Congress
• Abolition of the Electoral College

The Reform Party does welcome members of all positions on Social Issues, which has led to a large number of moderates joining the party. Because of Pat Buchanan's staunch social conservativism, his candidacy led to much of the bitterness within the party.

Final Thoughts:

The Reform Party certainly had its moment in history. However, it was from the start a party built around the ideology of one specific man - Ross Perot. A serious political party in the United States cannot revolve around the specific policy beliefs of one candidate - especially one that has been out of the scene for over a decade.

Beyond that basic concept, however, the Reform Party has too many structural and organizational problems. The constant inter-party rifts have distracted them from accomplishing any victories like Ventura's. As these tensions continue, we can expect the Reform Party to spiral into obscurity.

Coming Tomorrow - our Conclusion

Know Your Third Parties: Part 9 - American Nazis

Like many extremist political movements in the United States, the American Nazi movement has several splinters and factions within itself. Among these groups are the American Nazi Party, the National Socialist Movement, and the National Socialist American Labor Party.

It should be no surprise that these parties are extremely racist, anti-Semitic, and quite delusional. You can fully expect to be offended by some of their positions and histories. But do expect to learn a lot of things you would not otherwise imagine.

The American Nazi Party

Technically, the American Nazi Party is a political-education organization based on the ideals of National Socialism. It was formed by George Lincoln Rockwell in the late 1950s and led the group until his assassination by a disgruntled member in 1967.

Throughout the 1960s and 70s the American Nazi Party earned notoriety for rallies and demonstrations against the civil rights movement and what they perceived as Jewish control of the government and media. Such demonstrations accumulated until 1979 when five black protesters were shot by a crowd of Nazis and Klansmen in Greensboro, NC.

In recent years the American Nazi Party - like many White Supremacist organizations - have distanced themselves from overt racism, instead supporting segregation as a means of racial tranquility. While they now support the idea of racial equality, they remain very anti-Semitic and Eurocentric - believing that White America needs to be defended.

The party's chairman, Rocky Suhayda endorsed Barack Obama's candidacy for President arguing "any time that a prominent person embraces their racial heritage in a positive manner, it's good for all racially minded folks."

National Socialist Movement

The National Socialist Movement was founded by Robert Brannen - a supporter of the American Nazi Party under Rockwell - in 1974. They claim to be "America's Nazi Party", "the largest Nazi Party operating in the United States", and "the political party for every patriotic American."

Their platform is summed up in the "25 Points of American National Socialism." Among their proposals:

• All non-White immigration must be prevented
• Nationalizing all corporations
• A flat income tax
• Prohibiting abortion and euthanasia, except in cases of rape, incest, race-mixing, or mental retardation
• That no non-American newspapers should appear without the express permission of the State, and no non-Whites should participate or influence American newspapers

They also throw in some normal positions:

• Ensure the environmental integrity of the nation is preserved by setting aside land for national wildlife reserves, cleaning our water, and regulating pollution
• Creation of a livable wage
• Supporting physical education

The National Socialist American Labor Party

The NSALP is probably the closest of these three organizations to being a political party. They have a platform, state affiliates, hold conventions (or a "Party Congress") and supposedly run candidates.

They claim not to be a hate group, "White Power militia type entity", or neo-Nazis, but rather a political party based on the theories of National Socialism.

Among their recent advocacy campaigns, they have attempted to call Barack Obama's nationality into question, as well as a letter-writing campaign to Defense Secretary Bob Gates to not ban racially-minded individuals from the military, arguing that Zionists have done far more damage to the United States than they have.

Among their platform positions, they call for:

• Ending U.S. reliance on foreign credit
• Massive public works programs
• Protecting family farms
• Environmental protection through alternative energy
• Protecting social security
• Making college more affordable
• Compulsory military service
• Ending abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, or risking the mother's health
• Ending relations with Israel

Final Thoughts

These Nazi organizations are more of a liability in terms of public safety (particularly to minorities) than they are towards American politics. The simple reason is that National Socialism is probably by far the most unpopular political movement in the United States.

We do not expect any American Nazi party to gain any significant influence or have any meaningful impact on American governance. But National Socialism is a real movement in the United States nonetheless, and it only seems right to include them in our discussion of America's third parties.

Coming Saturday - the Reform Party

Filling the Senate Vacancies

With Barack Obama's rise to the White House, several key Senate seats are open across the country as the President-Elect chooses his cabinet.

In Delaware, the Governor has already found a replacement for Vice President-Elect Joe Biden, the Senior Senator. It is Biden's own Chief of Staff, Ted Kaufman. The 69-year-old politico is expected, however, to be nothing more than a place holder for the seat.

By Delaware law, the Governor's appointed replacement can only serve until a Special Election in 2010. By that time, the future VP's son, Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden will have returned from service in Iraq.

In New York, the seat currently held by Sen. Hillary Clinton is up for grabs as the junior Senator is expected to be confirmed as the next Secretary of State. Although the decision is ultimately Governor Paterson's, everyone knows who the #1 Contender is - Caroline Kennedy.

The only other politician on the short list at this point is NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo - son of the former Governor Mario Cuomo. He has not said whether or not he is interested.

In Colorado, Sen. Ken Salazar's seat is suddenly up for grabs as the Democratic politician prepares for confirmation as Secretary of the Interior. There are several names on the short list including the Senator's brother, Rep. John Salazar, Rep. Diana DeGette, Rep. Earl Perlmutter, State House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, former U.S. Attorney Tom Strickland, and Denver Superintendent Michael Bennet.

In Illinois, Barack Obama's seat has been the most controversial following allegations that Governor Rod Blagojevich tried to sell the Senate seat to the highest bidder. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. was considered a front runner until revelations arose that he was "Candidate 5" in the scandal.

However, new revelations that Jackson was a government informant for the Blagojevich investigation are likely to put him back in the race. It is still unclear whether or not there will be a Special Election to decide Obama's successor.

What Is Significant About These Vacancies

There are two important facts to note about the current vacancies and the short lists. First is that Obama was specifically choosing Senators from states with Democratic Governors and (typically) where the Governor makes an appointment. This ensures that no new Republican opposition will come up in the Senate during the incoming President's first two years.

The second significant fact is that many politicians on the short list are from famous political families. Beau Biden might very well take his father's seat in Delaware. Caroline Kennedy (the daughter of JFK) is expected to take her uncle's seat in New York, which is currently held by the next Secretary of State and wife of a former President. John Salazar might be appointed to his brother's Senate seat in Colorado, and the Rev. Jesse Jackson - a famous civil rights leader and former Democratic Presidential candidate - may see his son become the sixth black Senator in American history.

Charles Mahtesian of Politico points out how the Democrats are embracing dynasty politics in an article today.

All told, it's entirely possible that the Senate will be comprised of nearly a dozen congressional offspring by the end of Obama's first term as president.

"It's a very interesting American phenomenon, even though there is a line in the Constitution that says no title of nobility may be granted by the United States," says Stephen Hess, a senior fellow emeritus at the Brookings Institution and the author of America's Political Dynasties. "Given where we started, it's interesting that this has developed."

While the electoral success rate of name recognition may be the obvious reason for this trend, Bob Edgar - president of Common Cause and a former Pennsylvania Congressman - says "There are three issues behind this trend. Money is issue number one, money is issue number two and money is issue number three."

After the scrutiny that current President Bush received for taking the role of his father, and the rejection of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign this year, the dynasty trend may be thin ice the Democrats walk on.

Which Americans Support / Oppose the Bailout?

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that the majority of Americans opposed the recent automaker bailout proposal. 55% of those polled opposed the plan while 42% supported it. The latest version of the automaker bailout - which would provide $14 billion of relief - is much more popular than the original $34 billion request.

Poll analysts say the reason the majority opposes the bailout is the perception that the Big 3 are responsible for their own dilemma, rather than the failing economy. 75% of Americans blame Detroit over the financial crisis.

Perhaps more significantly, 60% of those polled said it would "make no difference" or "would be good for the economy" if the American automakers filed for bankruptcy.

Where Is There Support?

The poll also charted the partisan differences in opinion regarding the bailout. 52% of Democrats support the bailout - up 10% from Detroit's original proposal. While 72% of them blame the business strategy the automakers took for their problems, 42% said that the economy would be hurt if the Big 3 failed.

The poll also found regional differences. While the South and West were generally opposed to the bailout, Americans in the Northeast and Midwest - where the manufacturing operations are more heavily based - were split evenly on the idea.

In fact, Midwest Democrats support the bailout by 56%, and Northeast Democrats support it with 61%.

Where Is There Opposition?

Independents continue to oppose the plan at previous margins with about 57% while 41% support it. But GOP opposition has grown stronger. 69% of Republicans now say they oppose the bailout - up 12% from the original proposal by Detroit executives. More than half of these conservatives "strongly oppose" the plan.

Meanwhile, Americans in the South and West oppose the bailout by roughly 60%.

Most surprisingly, union households only supported the bailout 44% to 42% - although those union workers and families were typically "very supportive" when they were supportive.

Can It Still Pass In Congress?

While the anxiety politicians might feel about Detroit collapsing is likely to grow, it would be a great mistake for Senators to now switch their vote. Any explanation would be softly heard by their constituents. Meanwhile, many Democrats recently elected in conservative districts - particularly in the South and West - will be unlikely to show any support in the New Year.

It is more likely that President Bush will try to make loans to the Big 3 with the $700 billion already allocated to the financial industry to loosen credit. When the new proposal comes to Congress, Republicans will likely demand that the cash-strapped automakers declare bankruptcy before the government can give them loans originally intended for the financial market.

Time will only tell - but time is running out. GM claims they will be completely out of resources by the end of the month. But perhaps bankruptcy will start to change opinion polls.

Know Your Third Parties: Part 8 - the Boston Tea Party

No, we're not grossly confused about the Boston Tea Party of the history textbooks - the pre-Revolution act of civil disobedience in the Boston harbor - the Boston Tea Party we're examining today is a real American political party.

Founded in 2006 by displeased Libertarian Party members, the Boston Tea Party is a party of libertarian ideology. They split from the mother party over disagreements about the party platform - namely the deletion of a large number of specific policy points - at the Oregon convention in 2006.

The Party's slogan - as read on their website - is "Time to Party Like it's 1773!"

Members: 746

Members Holding Office: At least 2 (both local and non-partisan)

History:

Following the annual Libertarian Party convention in Portland in 2006, several members, led by Thomas Knapp, left to found the Boston Tea Party.

By October of 2008, the party had grown to about 500 members with 12 state affiliates. At their national convention they nominated Charles Jay (picture below) as their first Presidential candidate. Jay went on to receive 2,346 votes nationally, appearing on three state ballots and earning approved write-in status in ten other states. They also won two local elections for the November 4 election.

The party saw dramatic growth after the Libertarian Party nominated former Republican Congressman Bob Barr as their Presidential candidate. Many Libertarians felt Barr was an inappropriate selection due to his past conservative stance on social issues.

The Boston Tea Party has practiced "cross-nominating" for elections, in which the party endorses candidates from other parties (often the Libertarian Party) when it does not have one of its own members running for the seat.

On the Issues:

Overall, the Boston Tea Party is almost indistinguishable from the Libertarian Party in terms of ideology. Their platform is very simple, but is supplemented with an annual program and several party resolutions.

According to the platform, "The Boston Tea Party supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope and power of government at any level, for any purpose."

Among their more unique policy positions, they advocate an audit of the Federal Reserve and immediate withdrawal of forces from almost all military bases overseas. They are also especially concerned about the country transforming into a police state.

Final Thoughts

The Boston Tea Party has managed to be somewhat successful in the past two years, but is unlikely to make any more of an impact in the future. It is more likely that the Libertarian Party will try to correct the splinter and bring this faction back into their organization.

Whether the Libertarian Party succeeds in doing so, nonetheless, will probably be irrelevant to how little impact the Boston Tea Party can be expected to make. Overall, it seems they will be little more than a footnote on the Libertarian movement.

Coming Thursday - American Nazis.