Democrats and Republicans Getting Mixed News

It’s Friday, June 19, 2009. Here’s what we’re looking at:

Things are looking good for Democrats in Pennsylvania. A new Rasmussen poll finds that both incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) and his possible primary challenger, Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) lead former Rep. Pat Toomey (D-PA) in hypothetical 2010 Senate race match-ups. Specter leads by a 50% - 39% margin, while the less-known Sestak is ahead of Toomey 41% - 35%.

Meanwhile, in Virginia, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds finds himself behind GOP nominee Bob McDonnell by just a point (45% - 44%). This is an improvement for Deeds since just two months ago when McDonnell led 38% - 31%. Now, with 11% of Virginia voters undecided, it’s going to be a very close race.

But Republicans are also gaining some ground. In New Jersey, for example, the Republican Governors Association is putting their money into two new ads attacking the relatively unpopular incumbent Gov. Jon Corzine (D-NJ). We’ll be sure to bring you those ads as soon as they’re released.

Luckily for Corzine, he has much more money than opponent Chris Christie, and can saturate the expensive New York City and Philadelphia media markets. Overall, that will make for a very costly and very negative race. According to Patrick Murray of the Monmouth University Polling Institute “New Jersey has a history of nasty races [and] this could potentially go down as the nastiest.”

And the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) reported today an intake of $4.5 million for the month of May. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) - conversely - raised a meager $3.45 million. Of course, about $1 million raised by the NRSC was a simple transfer of resources from the Republican National Committee fund. Nevertheless, the DSCC is still $4.17 million in debt, while the NRSC is now debt-free.

Finally, you’ve probably heard about Sen. Barbra Boxer’s (D-CA) frustration with General Michael Walsh calling her “ma’am” instead of “Senator” - which the GOP is now jumping all over - but believe us, that is nothing compared to this:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

One last thing: if you’re in the Milwaukee area on Sunday, join us at noon at South Shore Park for HSG’s second annual summer party! HSG is the parent company for WAYLA and we’d love to see you there.

Is Twitter’s Role in Iran Being Overblown?

Following the presidential elections in Iran last week, protests have broken out in the streets for at least 5 days now with no real end in sight. What is truly remarkable about the situation is how much credit Twitter - the new-media social networking website - has been given for this “revolution”.

It is true that Twitter has been a uniquely accessible service for the protesters. While the government - in an effort to crack down on the information leaving Iran - has been slowing internet connection and removing websites such as Facebook, Twitter has been okay because it is so compatible with SMS text messaging. Furthermore, as cell phone reception is turned off in some areas, Twitter feeds can still be updated by “relay” websites.


But the Iran-Twitter fascination grew even more when the U.S. State Department announced that they asked Twitter to postpone some scheduled maintenance because, as Secretary Clinton says, “keeping that line of communications open and enabling people to share information, particularly at a time when there was not many other sources of information, is an important expression of the right to speak out and to be able to organize.”

She also added, humorously, “I wouldn't know a twitter from a tweeter, but apparently it is very important.”

So of course it wasn’t long before some in the media said that the State Department controls Twitter. The operators of the social networking service responded saying:

“When we worked with our network provider yesterday to reschedule this planned maintenance, we did so because events in Iran were tied directly to the growing significance of Twitter as an important communication and information network…

…It's humbling to think that our two-year old company could be playing such a globally meaningful role that state officials find their way toward highlighting our significance. However, it's important to note that the State Department does not have access to our decision making process. Nevertheless, we can both agree that the open exchange of information is a positive force in the world.”

But is Twitter really that significant in Iran’s protests?

The simple answer is “not really” - its role is being overblown by American media which are (for the most part) doing a particularly poor job covering the developments in Iran.

From an article in the Washington Post:

It is hard to say how much twittering is actually going on inside Iran. The tweets circulated by expatriates in the United States tend to be in English -- the Twitter interface does not support the use of Farsi. And though many people may be sending tweets out of Iran, their use inside Iran may be low, some say.

"Twitter's impact inside Iran is zero," said Mehdi Yahyanejad, manager of a Farsi-language news site based in Los Angeles. "Here, there is lots of buzz, but once you look...you see most of it are Americans tweeting among themselves."

And as Thomas Friedman points out in his recent New York Times column:

“…the Islamists and their regimes have a trump card: guns. Guns trump cellphones. Bang-bang beats tweet-tweet. The [only reason the] Sunni Awakening in Iraq succeeded because the moderates there were armed.”

And if you look at opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi’s Twitter feed (as of noon EST today) he only has about 15,000 followers - a small fraction of the number of protesters right now - and as you would probably imagine, many of those followers are from places other than Iran.


What the American fascination with Twitter in these protests has produced is suspicion on the part of the Iranian regime. The government of Iran now blames “intolerable” American meddling in their domestic affairs for the current demonstrations - exactly what President Obama was trying to avoid! As much as we Americans want to reject it, the actions taken by our State Department do give some weight to that argument.

What is much more interesting about Twitter is not the impact it has in Iran, but rather the impact it has in American politics.

A few weeks ago, we mentioned how RNC New Media Director Todd Herman tweeted “new racism = no better than old” in reference to Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor. Despite the fact that RNC Chairman Michael Steele was trying to stay away of accusing her of racism, the Rush Limbaugh rhetoric found its way onto Twitter.

Now Hendrik Hertzberg of The New Yorker finds a slew of tweets made by GOP activists and operatives that keep them anywhere but on-message.

Take this recent tweet by Mike Green of Starboard Communication, a Republican consulting firm: “JUST HEARD THAT OBAMA IS GOING TO IMPOSE A 40% TAX ON ASPIRIN BECAUSE IT’S WHITE AND IT WORKS.”

It wasn’t long before Green apologized - using two tweets - for his comment.

"I SINCERELY APOLOGIZE FOR THE COMMENTS I MADE ON TWITTER YESTERDAY. I MADE A MISTAKE.

I REALIZE THAT MY COMMENTS WERE HURTFUL, WRONG AND HAVE NO PLACE IN CIVIL DISCOURSE."

As Hertzberg points out, a simple “I made a mistake” would have sufficed, but the relatively long apology (for Twitter) was probably something his firm made him do.

Then there’s Rusty DePass, a GOP county chairman from South Carolina, who posted a rather crude update on Facebook referring to an escaped gorilla from a local zoo: “I’M SURE IT’S JUST ONE OF MICHELLE [OBAMA]’S ANCESTORS—PROBABLY HARMLESS.” In his less sincere apology, he told the press “I am as sorry as I can be if I offended anyone. The comment was clearly in jest…the comment was hers, not mine” (referring to her belief in evolution).

New media can be extremely useful to political campaigning (which is why we use Twitter, follow us at www.twitter.com/HSGWAYLABlog) because it’s cheap and it reaches out to a broad audience that is no longer interested in seeing political TV ads or mailers. But it’s also creating problems with keeping operatives and activists on message - an incredibly important component of campaigns.

Of course, you can see more debate about the relevance of Twitter in Iranian politics by going to this article at TechPresident.com. But make no mistake about it, Twitter is going to play a much larger role (even if it’s less reported on) in the United States - especially come 2010.

In Politics, Money Makes All the Difference

It has been remarkable following gay rights issues in Washington over the past 48 hours. The White House has announced that President Obama will be signing an executive order sometime today to extend federal employee benefits to same-sex couples. Yet it all started because of a gay-oriented fundraiser that several gay activists and bloggers became upset about.

It wasn’t long before several prominent gay rights advocates - including a leader from the Human Rights Campaign - pulled out of an Organizing for America fundraiser featuring Vice President Biden because the administration had thus far made no move to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) or the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.


Much of it stems from a Justice Department brief filed in California recently that not only defended DOMA, but drew parallels between the gay marriage case before the court and several possible precedent cases involving incestuous marriages.

From a Politico update yesterday:

"I will not attend a fundraiser for the National Democratic Party in Washington next week when the current administration is responsible for these kind of actions," [activist David] Mixner wrote of a motion to dismiss a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act that drew a parallel between same-sex marriage to incestuous marriage. "How will they ever take us seriously if we keep forking out money while they harm us? For now on, my money is going to battles within the community such as the fight in Maine or the March on Washington! I am so tired of being told by Democratic operatives to 'suck it up' because so many other profound issues are at stake."

It was a good idea - not only is the LGBT community a critical base of support for Democrats, but they are a generally wealthy one.

Suddenly the Obama folks were caught off guard. DNC Treasurer Andrew Tobias, scrambling to come up with a quick response, could only say “If this debacle of a brief represented the president's views, I'd boycott too,” and then sent an email that not only said “So...counterintuitive as it may feel at this moment...come to DC for our dinner June 25, and hear what the Vice President of the United States has to say as he joins Governor Kaine and Governor Dean and Barney Frank and others in celebrating Gay Pride” but also reassured the recipients that there would be protesters outside the event!

Finally - out of nowhere - the White House made it clear last night that Obama would introduce basic benefits of domestic partnerships to LGBT federal employees.

Of course, the benefits cannot include some health and pension benefits due to DOMA restrictions - which the White House says Obama wants Congress to overturn - and so the decision received mixed reactions.

Now, this is not to say that the decision to create domestic partnerships for federal employees was based solely on dollars and cents. It is certainly the President’s wish to extend gay rights, and we can expect a move on issues such as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the Employee Non-Discrimination Act, and repealing DOMA in the future.

But the fact that the economy, health care, and other issues have been priorities (that could be derailed if the administration was to upset the GOP with gay rights issues) has stalled the President from making this move so far.

It looks like this serious uproar from gay rights advocates (and more importantly, donors) just got the ball rolling.

Campaign Updates (6/16/09)

WAYLA has decided to start bringing you periodic updates of campaigns and elections. Today we’ll look at some Senate race developments here in the U.S. as well as the presidential election in Iran.


Pennsylvania

Republican Senate candidate Pat Toomey has had an impressive few weeks with money, as it turns out, according to his campaign announcements on Monday. Not only has he brought on state GOP fundraisers Amy Petraglia and Carey Dunn to his campaign, but also his opponent’s former Finance Director, Louisa Boyd. She left Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) after he switched parties back in April.

Additionally, Toomey has now raised $1 million. While it’s still less than Specter (who has $6.7 million cash-on-hand) it’s still an impressive milestone. It’s also important to mention that Specter may have to take on Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) - who currently has $3.3 million cash-on-hand in his federal account) in a primary. Primaries cost money too, and this one might bring down Specter’s (or Sestak’s) budget while Toomey can continue to raise money.


Florida

Conservative Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) today announced his endorsement of Marc Rubio for the 2010 Florida Senate race. DeMint chose not to endorse the NRSC’s pick - Gov. Charlie Crist - because the popular governor is too moderate.


Yet despite the backing of conservative activists and DeMint, Rubio is still trailing Crist in money and the polls. A recent Quinnipiac poll, for example, finds Crist ahead with primary voters about 54% - 23%.

On the other side of the spectrum, Rep. Ron Klein (D-FL) made it official that he will not pursue the Senate seat, and joined fellow south-Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Shultz (D-FL) in endorsing Miami’s Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-FL). Meanwhile, Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL) is talking about running for that seat herself.


Arkansas

Another Republican has joined the race to take Sen. Blanche Lincoln's (D-AR) seat. Tom Cox, a conservative activist who ran his state’s Tea Party protests, announced his candidacy on Monday. He will join state Senator Kim Hendren and businessman Curtis Coleman in a primary.

One thing that could hurt his candidacy: last year federal authorities raided his boating business and arrested 15 illegal immigrants. He told the Associated Press he had "every reason to believe [the workers] were legal and they were wonderful employees." Explaining that to GOP Primary voters in Arkansas might be difficult.


Iran

Continuing to follow the Iranian presidential election closely, we did a post yesterday in which we found no conclusive evidence that the election was either rigged or clean. Although it felt like a tough point to make with how the Iranian opposition supporters are reacting (and now how some GOP politicians are reacting) the bloggers at FiveThirtyEight.com apparently agree with us - for the most part.

On Saturday, Nate Silver argued that the statistical analysis trying to prove a rigged election is not very compelling. Then on Sunday he posted the results of the election by province and used his own analysis to argue again that the results are ambiguous to charges of rigging. Finally, on Monday he suggested that voter intimidation may have been a bigger factor in Ahmadinejad’s victory than fraudulent ballot counting. Of course, in that Monday post he was largely refuting the very poll we referred to in our own post.


Meanwhile, Renard Sexton argued that while the analysis of election-rigging is inconclusive, he points out some fishy numbers coming out of Tehran. Not only is Ahmadinejad’s vote percentage outside of a statistical trend, but he defeated reformist Medhi Karroubi (note: NOT the main challenger, Mir Hossein Mousavi) by some unlikely margins. Today, Sexton commented on the announced recount by the Guardian Council and the proposed re-vote, and what course of action would be best depending on what dirty election tricks actually took place.


For all these stories and more, stay tuned.

Fallout of the Iranian Elections

Typically the elections we focus on are all in the United States, but following the highly contentious election in Iran recently, we felt it would be good to give some insight on that democratic dysfunction.

Among reports of voter fraud, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs wrote in a statement Sunday “Like the rest of the world, we were impressed by the vigorous debate and enthusiasm that this election generated, particularly among young Iranians. We continue to monitor the entire situation closely, including reports of irregularities.”

Vice President Joe Biden said yesterday there was “some real doubt” as to the election’s legitimacy while Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) called the election a “sham” in a Fox News interview today.

Was the election stolen?

Unfortunately, there were no international vote monitors to pass judgment on the legitimacy of the election results, but certainly things look a little fishy.

It was considered by most election analysts to be a close election, but official results find incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won with over 62% of the vote - a landslide victory.

It was also an unusually big race. There was an 80% turnout on Election Day and polls had to stay open for an extra 4 hours to make sure everyone could vote. The campaigns spent millions of dollars (possibly more than $100 million) making it the most expensive in Iran’s history. They also took a cue from the Obama campaign with new methods of voter contact and ended up sending over 110 million text messages per day by then end of the race.

But polling was often unreliable because both campaigns used internal or friendly polling as propaganda. One of the only truly independent polls - conducted by ABC/BBC pollsters in mid-May - found Ahmadinejad leading main opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi by a 34% - 14% margin with 27% undecided.

Nonetheless, the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has ordered the Guardian Council to investigate claims of voter fraud. Yet the Guardian Council answers to the Ayatollah who has already confirmed the results of the election twice - thus they’re unlikely to disagree with him.

It’s tough to say whether the results truly reflected the will of the people. Much of the race came down to a class struggle, with the poor supporting the populist Ahmadinejad and the middle and upper class elites supporting Mousavi. Iran currently has a 12.5% unemployment rate and about 20% of Iranians live under the poverty line.

This would suggest that perhaps the results of the election are more legitimate than Americans believe. In fact, Iran has long been one of the few countries in the Middle East with a well-functioning democratic system - even if it’s only partially democratic.

Still, Mousavi was complaining about the prospects of voter fraud before Election Day, and with no independent international verifiers, it cannot be confirmed.

Now Iran is posed to lose their democratic privileges altogether. The ongoing protests could easily be seen as a direct challenge to the Ayatollah’s rule. As a result, police have beaten and even killed rioters while opposition leaders have been imprisoned.


Ultimately, we have to reiterate the written statement of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. All we can really say about it is that we obviously hope “that the outcome reflects the genuine will and desire of the Iranian people.”

Campaign Politics Here and Abroad

It’s Friday, June 12, 2009. Here’s what we’re looking at:

The Service Employees International Union is making a rather strange move to press Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) into supporting the Employee Free Choice Act. Instead of sending their new mailer against him to his constituents in Louisiana, they’ve been sending it to his friends and his part-time neighbors in Alexandria, VA - one former staffer even received it in North Carolina.

Democrats in Wisconsin have some good news and some bad news to talk about at their State Convention tonight. A new DailyKos poll finds that despite the fact that many Democratic politicians aren’t viewed so favorably there – Sen. Russ Feingold being the major exception – the Badger State would still choose them over Republicans in 2010.

Just next door, the Minnesota Senate race from last year takes another interesting turn. A Ramsey County court ruled yesterday that (soon-to-be-former) Sen. Norm Coleman owes (soon-to-be) Sen. Al Franken nearly $95,000 in court fees for continuing to make appeals. The question now is whether this race will ever actually end.

Meanwhile, it’s Election Day in Iran! Some analysts say it’s so close that Iran ’09 could be just like Florida ’00. Let’s hope not. The elections are being extended to make sure everyone has the chance to vote, so it looks like it will stay reasonably clean, although the challenger is very worried about rigging.

Plus journalist and political scientist Stephen Kinzer says this democratic practice could bring America and Iran closer together.

For more coverage of the Iranian election, visit the special Huffington Post page.

Is There a Way to Defend the Electoral College?

Two weeks ago today we did a post on how the Democrats may be falling short in Colorado. One topic of the post was how the Democratically-controlled state Senate approved a bill to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC).

Here’s what we said:

“Other issues mentioned above are going to be equally unpopular. The Electoral College issue, for example, is one that probably doesn’t sit well with voters. The state Senate approved a bill to join the [NPVIC], in which a state’s electoral votes would go to the overall national winner of a presidential race. Once enough states join the compact to reach 270 votes, the compact would go into effect. Because Colorado is a smaller state, they would effectively get less say in a presidential contest. Besides, a good communications director can easily argue that the bill is taking the vote away from Coloradans, and make a GOP political gain.”

To our surprise, that paragraph drew a bit of criticism from two comments. One commenter complained that “the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.”

Actually, it’s more like once every 18 presidential elections. From the time George Washington was elected in 1789 there have been 56 presidential elections and the Electoral College winner has lost the popular vote 3 times. These presidents who lost the popular vote were Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, Benjamin Harrison in 1888, and - most famously - George W. Bush in 2000.

(We should also point out that it is popularly believed that the same happened with John F. Kennedy in 1960. In fact, Kennedy won the popular vote by a mere 115,000 votes nationally. We’re not going to get into the allegations of vote theft here.)

We should make it clear that in our post we were not discussing the merits of the Electoral College or the NPVIC, but rather discussing the political side effects of trying to change the system - i.e., what it would do to the public opinion of Democrats in Colorado.

Nonetheless, the merits of the Electoral College and NPVIC is an interesting topic, so we figured we’d devote a post to the subject.


It is easy for liberals - like ourselves - to criticize the Electoral College (all three presidents that lost the popular vote were Republicans) but we think we should look at it from a more neutral position and give both sides of the argument.


Reasons to Oppose the Electoral College

Let’s see what else our commenters said...

“The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 "battleground" states. Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.”

We’re not going to fact check this, but from what we would expect this is probably true (or at least reasonably close to being accurate). The fact that many big states like California, Texas, New York, etc. are almost completely ignored during a presidential race is troubling to the average democratically-minded American (note the small “d” in democratic).

This is certainly a reason to draw concern. It seems almost morally wrong for such states to be ignored. In principle, they should receive their due attention from the presidential campaigns.

What else?

“[A] recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%...”

This is true. The poll the commenter refers to finds that a whopping majority of Americans would support a direct popular vote. And although there was a noticeable partisan divide, even 60% of Republicans support this theoretical election system.

Furthermore, the 68% support for a national direct popular vote in Colorado seems to hinder our argument from the previous post. We’ll return to that point later.

Finally…

“The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.”

Absolutely true. Just take the 2008 campaign in Nebraska, for example. For most of the state, very little effort was put in to winning it from either side because McCain was pretty certain to win there. Yet in the 2nd Congressional District - which is pretty much just Omaha - the Obama campaign was determined to win. After putting money and operatives into the city they picked up one electoral vote from Nebraska.

Nebraska is one of the only two states in the union that currently divides its electoral votes - the other being New Hampshire. Of Nebraska’s five electoral votes, two go to the overall state winner, and the other three go to the winner by congressional district. If they did not do this, the Obama campaign would have never put any serious resources or effort into the state because they knew they wouldn’t be able to win outside Omaha. So why would they bother?


Reasons to Support the Electoral College

In response to the argument that candidates don’t focus on enough states under the present system, the first thing an Electoral College advocate would say in rebuttal is that states should simply use their freedom to divide their electoral votes. In fact, many states have done this at different times in American history but have chosen not to today.

The Electoral College advocate might also argue that this method of choosing a president is grounded in the Constitution, thus cannot legally be ignored. Of course, if the NPVIC is adopted by enough states for it to go into effect, approved by Congress, and signed into law, it would be completely legitimate constitutionally.

His or her best argument would probably be that a national election is just too big for a direct popular vote. There actually may be something to this.

Presidential campaigns are divided on a state-by-state basis structurally. You are essentially running a unique campaign in every state, all held together by a relatively small national team. Frankly, nobody in campaign politics knows how to run a campaign bigger than a statewide race in California because no one has ever had to run a race bigger than that - and the Golden State only makes up about 12% of the U.S. population.

A nationally-run race would be a campaign manager’s worst nightmare. The Electoral College helps them keep it at a truly state-by-state basis because winner-take-all would be far too much for a campaign to organize on a national level.

More on that point is the money issue. It is true that presidential campaigns spend virtually all of their money in just 16 (or so) states - but in 2008 the two major presidential campaigns spent approximately a combined billion dollars. That’s not including what was spent by the DNC, RNC, and countless number of issue advocacy groups that spent their own money in support of Obama and McCain. So, theoretically (if the campaigns have to focus resources on all 50 states and not 16) under a popular vote system, the two major campaigns would be spending about $1.5 billion each - if not more - while the parties and advocacy groups would spend an uncountable number of dollars.

It might actually be a big boost to our GDP, but Americans are already concerned that this country spends too much on political campaigns as it is.

Are these the reasons why so many states have not passed the NPVIC?

There are actually more practical political reasons why the NPVIC has only passed in 5 of the 50 states.

First of all, let’s look back to Colorado. If they were to pass the NPVIC they would effectively get less say because they’re a smaller state. The reason is because the number of electoral votes a state gets is equal to the number of U.S. Senators and Representatives in their Congressional delegation. A state like Colorado - with 10 electoral votes - effectively gets more say (proportionally) in a presidential race than California - with 55 electoral votes - because the two votes each get automatically for their Senators has a bigger impact in Colorado per resident. It is likely that the 68% of Coloradans that support the NPVIC don’t realize this, or haven’t really thought about it enough.

The bigger states, conversely, are often dominated by one party in their State Legislatures (Democrats in California and Illinois, Republicans in Texas). These politicians know that more votes are basically guaranteed to go to their own party’s nominee with a winner-take-all Electoral College system than with a popular vote system.

Finally, the battleground states have no real incentive to change the system because they like the special attention they get. This is the same reason why Iowa and New Hampshire are determined to remain the first two states during the presidential primary season.

We hope we’ve given you a good overview of the arguments for and against the Electoral College - especially the arguments defending it, since so few seem to be willing to make them. Ultimately it’s for you to decide whether you agree with the system or not. There are certainly good reasons to support the NPVIC, but as is the case with any debate, there are reasons not to support it too hastily.

Virginia Primary Wraps Up - On to the General for Deeds

Today WAYLA reports on local politics from Virginia.

Yesterday, state Senator R. Creigh Deeds overcame Brian Moran and former DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe to become the Democratic nominee for governor of Virginia.

It was truly remarkable because Deeds was definitely the dark horse for most of the race. Only recently did he surge ahead of his more well known opponents. In the end he crushed them - he earned about 50% of the vote to McAuliffe’s 26% and Moran’s 24%.

Several factors went into his victory.


1) Moran attacked McAuliffe to death, and took himself down in the process...

Just take this Moran ad attacking McAuliffe for his days as a businessman:

"The press on Terry McAuliffe's insider deals: McAuliffe has made a fortune investing, sometimes in companies that went bust, laid off thousands and drained employee savings. Barack Obama ran against exactly the kind of big-money politics that McAuliffe represents."

That’s a pretty serious attack, and it was definitely going to hurt McAuliffe considering the economic pain Americans are feeling. Yet, it also made Moran look like a pretty hardcore mudslinger - something that most voters are usually turned off to.

It created a void for Deeds to fill.


2) Deeds was able to take votes from Moran and McAuliffe in Northern Virginia...

This was huge. Not only was Deeds able to secure 800 of the 830 votes in his rural home county, but he was able to make huge gains in the DC suburbs - the Moran and McAuliffe turf. The unofficial results from Fairfax County, for example, show Deeds won with about 49.5% of the vote compared to 29.1% for Moran and 21.4% for McAuliffe.

Many in the press attribute this to Deeds’ endorsement from The Washington Post about three weeks ago. It’s the paper they read in the DC suburbs in Virginia and it came out at the perfect time - just as Deeds was picking up momentum.


3) The fact that McAuliffe is a political super-star hurt him in the end...

Make no mistake about it - McAuliffe’s name recognition, fundraising advantage, and relationship with the Clintons were huge benefits at first. With national connections and their donor lists, McAuliffe raised about $7 million over the course of his campaign - compare that to Moran’s $3.8 million and Deeds’ $3.4 million.

Additionally, McAuliffe had no problem getting former President Bill Clinton to stump for him and cut a radio ad. While it all helped McAuliffe initially - see the graph posted on Friday - he could not maintain his lead.

This simple reason is that he never took a real interest in Virginia politics until he saw the governor’s seat open up, and Virginians recognized that. Furthermore, he had the same problem that his ally Hillary Clinton had when he was her presidential campaign chairman - she represented old politics at a time when Americans wanted a fresh face. Virginians did not want a Clinton-era figure in their governor's mansion.

Besides, as many of us know, campaign people like ourselves (and McAuliffe) make terrible politicians. We know the game so well we don’t look like real people to the voters, and they don’t want to vote for a politician like that.

Instead, Virginians chose an “aww, shucks” candidate from rural Virginia. He was more conservative on social issues than McAuliffe and Moran - which should have hurt him in the metropolitan area around Washington - and was generally seen as more folksy and likeable.

All in all, many Virginians believed that Deeds would be more in line with the Warner-Kaine tradition of Democratic governors in the Commonwealth. Warner and Kaine were popular because they were moderates in an extremely purple state - specifically among Democrats because they could rely on these candidates to win against more far-right Republicans. Electability was probably the number one factor in Deeds’ victory.


On to the General Election!

McAuliffe and Moran immediately endorsed Deeds. That’s important because Deeds is going to need to raise money from their donors fast to catch up to the well-financed Republican, Bob McDonnell.

Meanwhile, you can already tell the Deeds and McDonnell campaigns have begun doing their Tully charts, figuring out the best message to use for the general election. In his victory speech last night, Deeds told supporters "we move into the general election, where Virginia either moves forward in the legacy of Mark Warner and Tim Kaine or backward toward the disastrous economic and social agenda of Bob McDonnell and George W. Bush."

The Republicans haven’t really found their argument against Deeds yet, but we can expect to see it develop in the next few days. Over the course of the primary, the Virginia GOP largely attacked McAuliffe, figuring their old foe would sweep up a nomination. It seems that the recent Deeds surge caught them off-guard.

So who do we think will win?

Some are already pointing to another race Deeds and McDonnell fought against each other - the 2005 race for Virginia Attorney General. McDonnell won the election by just 323 votes out of about 2 million - and he had a 2-1 cash advantage over the Democrat.

A recent survey of Democratic primary voters found that 59% will definitely support Deeds in the November election - including 55% of Republicans who crossed-over since McDonnell was unopposed in the Republican primary.


Meanwhile, a SurveyUSA poll last week found that if Deeds was the nominee, he would be tied with McDonnell with 43% each.

So at this point in the campaign it is just about impossible to say who will win in November, but because Virginia has been such a critical state for Democrats in recent years (and the fact that virtually nothing else is happening in campaign politics in 2009) we’ll be keeping a close eye on the Commonwealth in the months to come.

So stay tuned.

Follow WAYLA on Twitter!

You've already seen our page on Facebook, now get ready for WAYLA on Twitter!

Visit our Twitter page and follow us - it's a great way to keep updated on the campaign news of the day!

www.Twitter.com/HSGWAYLABlog

Why Does Obama Keep Invoking Faith?

According to a fascinating article in Politico today, President Barack Obama invokes the name of Jesus more than his predecessor, George W. Bush.

In his speech in Cairo, commencement address at Notre Dame, and even his defense of the stimulus package, he has made reference to the most important figure in Christianity. Bush, as president, only mentioned Jesus a handful of times over his two terms.

“I don’t recall a single example of Bush as president ever saying, ‘Jesus’ or ‘Christ,’” said Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Christian group Family Research Council. “This is different.”

Actually, it’s very different. For reasons we’ll see later, Obama is specifically mentioning “Jesus” and “Christ” rather than “God” as Bush would. Additionally, he has been much more careful about how he speaks about faith - while Governor of Texas, Bush once famously said “I believe that God wants me to be president.”

Beyond the speeches, Obama has actually given faith a central role in his administration.

…inside his White House, Obama has placed his Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships — run by a 26-year old Pentecostal minister named Josh DuBois — under the White House’s Domestic Policy Council. That was widely seen as an effort to involve a religious perspective in the administration’s policy decisions.

Also, religious leaders meet with White House policymakers on a regular basis — and help to shape decisions on matters large and small. A White House speechwriter working on Obama’s Egypt speech called several faith leaders to get their thoughts. After the White House unveiled its budget in April, officials convened a two-hour conference call with religious leaders to discuss how the spending plan would help the poor.

Additionally, the front-runner for Obama’s nomination to head the National Institutes of Health is Frances Collins - the former Director of the Human Genome Project and a born-again Christian.

But as the article points out, it’s ironic that Obama is placing such an emphasis on faith since his success has largely come on the back of younger, more secular voters.

Yet he’s also been careful to mention non-believers in many of his speeches - including his Inaugural Address - which has typically been uncommon of a president. And despite their growing concern about Obama’s invocation of faith, non-believers are still supporting him.

“The one important thing to recognize,” says athiest author Sam Harris, “is [Obama] is so much better than the last guy in the Oval Office, and everyone is feeling so much relief for the change he has brought, that they are inclined not to gripe too much about all the delusional stuff he may be paying lip service to or holding over from the previous administration.”

The atheist support for Obama is actually significantly more visible than the religious support for the GOP. Before the 2008 Election, Obama led Republican nominee John McCain by 25% among non-religious voters - compare that to just a 5% lead McCain had over Obama among religious voters.

In fact, Obama made some significant improvements among religious voters for a Democrat. He received a 5% boost from born-again Christians relative to John Kerry’s performance among these voters.

Of course, it is still fairly low. The exit polls we observed last year found that McCain led Obama by a staggering 33% of voters who said they were looking for a candidate who “shares my values” - about 30% of the electorate.

If it’s so hard for Obama to win over religious voters, why does he still talk about religion so much?

There actually may be some very clever political strategy behind Obama’s efforts to include the Christian community.

For Obama, Christian rhetoric offers an opportunity to connect with a broader base of supporters in a nation in which 83 percent of Americans believe in God. What’s more, regularly invoking Jesus helps Obama minimize the number of American who believe he is a Muslim — a linkage that can be politically damaging. According to a Pew Research Center study, 11 percent of Americans believe, incorrectly, that Obama is a Muslim; it’s a number that is virtually unchanged from the 2008 presidential campaign…

…For Bush, invoking Jesus publicly was fraught with political risk. He was so closely politically identified with the Christian right that overt talk of Christ from the White House risked alienating mainstream and secular voters. Bush instead quoted passages from scripture or Christian hymns, as he did in his 2003 State of the Union Address when he used the phrase “wonder-working power.” That sort of oblique reference resonated deeply with evangelical Christians but sailed largely unnoticed past secular voters.

Beyond this, there may be a long-term strategy at work.

A Pew survey released May 21 found that even as Americans remain highly religious, there has there been a slow decline in the number of Americans with socially conservative values – especially among young voters. That creates an opening for Obama, especially at a time when some conservative evangelicals are telling pollsters they are frustrated and disillusioned with politics.

“In the long term, this could be huge,” said Stephen Schneck, director of the Life Cycle Institute at The Catholic University of America, who is active in left-leaning political efforts. “There are swing Catholics and swing Protestants even within the evangelicals. To the extent Obama can mobilize those people as part of a new Democratic coalition, that marginalizes Republicans even further.”

Many evangelicals that have become disillusioned with politics are those who saw little change in actual social policy during Bush’s presidency, and are beginning to realize how impractical it is to win those arguments. The young evangelicals of the Millennial generation, in particular, are more supportive of Obama than their older religious counterparts for specifically this reason.

From a November article in the Daily Telegraph:

To [Rick Warren’s] followers, concerns like climate change, genocide in Darfur and torture have risen up the agenda.

"For 30 years abortion and homosexuality have been the mega-issues, but if you shrink the significance of those to be more or less equal with others then that will contribute to a shift in the vote," said David Gushee, professor of Christian ethics at Mercer University in Georgia.

He said Mr Obama broadened his appeal by talking seriously about reducing abortion through better welfare, sex education, birth control and health care. The campaign also contacted ministers, sent them copy of Mr Obama's speeches on faith and arranged meetings with the candidate. It visited a dozen Christian colleges, often holding meeting with Donald Miller, a popular evangelical author. [NOTE: Since this was written, Obama has actually given Miller a voluntary position in the administration].

Prof Gushee added that "young evangelicals were seeking different policies and rejecting George Bush," for sanctioning torture by the US, for playing down global warming and starting a pre-emptive war.

If Mr Obama manages to reduce abortions, he would probably expand his evangelical support and hold on to young voters gained this time.

So it appears that Obama is pursuing a long-term goal of building a new Democratic coalition - one that further erodes the GOP - as well as a way to convince voters he is not a Muslim (a plurality of Americans have an unfavorable view of Islam) without any serious political consequences.

Post Moved...

Sorry to those of you who were anticipating a post today on tomorrow's gubernatorial primary in Virginia.

Due to a schedule change, we'll bring you the results of the race on Wednesday, an analysis of what happened, and what to look for as the winner takes on Republican candidate Bob McDonnell.

Obama in Cairo: A New Beginning

It's Friday, June 5, 2009. Here's what we're looking at:

Because there was so much talk about Obama's speech in Cairo, we decided to post the full video of his address. You can also read the full text by clicking here.



Rather than an entire new post on the subject, we suggest you read an earlier post we made when Obama addressed the Turkish Parliament: Obama, America, and Islam.

And despite attacks on Obama from Osama bin Laden, Obama has been careful not to mention him as a way of isolating him, according to an article in Politico.

Back home, a recent Pollster.com graph shows just how big of a shift has come in the Virginia Democratic Primary for Governor. With only a few days before the election, Deeds has made huge strides on both candidates - but particularly McAullife.



And we'll have more on that topic Monday.

Operatives to Orphans: The Lives of Political Campaign Workers

It’s not everyday that a really well-written article is done about campaign people. Usually the press ignores us because people don’t want to read about our lives - they don’t like the dirty work we do. But an insightful article in Good Magazine gives a wonderful exploration into the lives of former Obama campaign staff.

Overall, the article is a bit critical of the Obama campaign, perhaps not understanding the nature of the game.

"They had quit jobs, left colleges and grad schools, and ended relationships for something larger than themselves. At its peak, the campaign employed roughly 6,000 full-time workers. It seduced them with its patriotic promise, and the innocent were drawn out of the usual apathy and into what seemed an absolute purpose. With the movement now behind them, with sleeping bags and laptops and a decent shirt and pair of shoes, they drove to Washington, D.C., hopeful that Barack Obama might again give them something to do…

…Joshua was hired as a field officer for the campaign. Now, after happy hour, he walks to his car, a 1999 Toyota that he had driven from Ohio and which, for the past two months, has been his home."

Actually, it’s quite a phenomenon how so many Obama campaign workers are stuck in Washington, trying to get jobs specifically connected with the new president. In January the Obama transition team received over 350,000 applications for about 4,000 available slots in the upcoming administration.

And although their passion for Obama specifically is a new story, the general sense of the article is one that any campaign person can attest to personally.

Obama Staff on Election Night

"The days immediately following Barack Obama’s victory were intensely strange for these people. After the steady crescendo of anxiety and passion that climaxed on election night in a sort of national orgasm, the full-staff was left particularly limp. Returning to society was, after the manic frenzy that defined their campaign lives, a steep downer. And since the economic crisis, the financial meltdown, the Great Recession or whatever we eventually term the winter’s bad news, it became clear to them that life’s simple solutions, as they were, had run dry."

Although it is hard and exhausting work, it is something of a high. Be warned - prospective campaign people - about the crash that comes later.

We highly suggest reading this article.

Will Republicans Start a Comeback in New Jersey?

Today WAYLA reports on local politics from New Jersey.

Last night, moderate GOP candidate, former U.S. attorney Chris Christie, defeated the conservative small town Mayor Steve Lonegan for the Republican nomination for governor of New Jersey.

Now Christie will take on entrenched Democratic Governor Jon Corzine for the November 2009 General Election.

Currently Christie has a good lead Corzine in the polls. According to a Quinnipiac poll released May 20, Christie’s leads Corzine 45% - 38%, with independents supporting Christie 52% - 25%, and Republicans much more supportive of their nominee than Democrats are of Corzine.

A Rasmussen poll confirms this trend, with Corzine trailing Christie 47% - 38%. A Research 2000/DailyKos poll also finds Corzine behind 46% - 39%.

Much of this is due to the budget shortfalls that New Jersey - like so many other states - is facing in light of the recession. Recently, the governor suggested the state’s popular property tax rebate be cancelled to make up this shortfall.

Yet Democrats outnumber Republicans considerably in the Garden State, where a Republican has not won a state-wide race in 12 years.

Can the GOP really pull it off?

Winning a campaign comes down to three factors - time, people, and money. The most important of the three is time.

With 152 days until the General Election, Corzine will have plenty of time to mount a decent campaign if he can put it together properly. But if those who think they know who they support don’t change their minds, Corzine will have to win over the undecided voters at - at least - a 2 to 1 basis. That is easier said than done.

It’s hard to gauge the second factor - people (volunteers) - because there is really no scientific way of observing who will have the most ground support. At least not at this point. But although New Jersey is a remarkably Democratic state, Corzine is not the most popular politician within the party. 23% of Democratic primary voters opposed him yesterday - a big number for an incumbent. It seems unlikely he will bring in the number of volunteers that his campaign would like to recruit.

Of course, this won’t be an easily won factor for Christie either, as he was certainly the moderate of the two Republican candidates. Typically volunteers are activists who are very ideologically aligned to the right or left - not the middle.

In terms of money, Corzine has the advantage. The governor has raised $3.2 million to Christie’s $2.2 million. Furthermore, Corzine is wealthy. As a former Goldman Sachs CEO he has been able to put $2.3 million of his own money into the race. His net worth may be as high as $40 million. In order to match that, Christie will need a miracle.

But despite a fundraising advantage, Corzine’s future does not look so bright. Nothing is certain, but it will take a lot of effort on the part of his campaign - and perhaps a few slip-ups from Christie’s - to retain his office.

And a victory in New Jersey would be a big win for the GOP as America heads into the 2010 midterm elections.

Are Americans Looking for More Unorthodox Candidates?

Politico has an interesting article today about some of the confusing names on Capital Hill. Many of the freshmen class members of Congress have been put in Congressional Quarterly’s pronunciation guide for Hill clerks.



And, of course, the most obvious uncommon name in Washington is Barack Obama.

From the story:

…expert Grant Smith says voters often look to make meaningful connections with politicians’ names based on the phonetic sounds they make.

According to his research, candidates with the most pleasant-sounding names have won 84 percent of all presidential elections, based on a 20-part rating system that judges names by rhythm and sounds.

“It’s important to look at the relative comfort level of the names,” he said. “Voters like clear, distinctive rhythms.”

For instance, two-syllable names that alternate stronger and softer sounds, like Crapo and Clinton, score high, while choppier names like Dukakis score lower.

At least this is the way of thinking among campaign workers and election experts, because traditionally these are the trends that voters have made. This is why one of Rep. Tom Perriello’s (D-VA) campaign staffers became so upset when people mispronounced her boss’s name.

The last straw came during a campaign visit to Crystal Cathedral. Pastor Maurice Carter introduced the candidate to the congregation as “Mr. Tom Perry Ellis” and continued to refer to him as “Mr. Ellis” — as if he were the namesake for the clothing line.

The congressman politely let it pass.

“I was cringing,” said press secretary Jessica Barba. “We’d heard a lot of variations on the trail, but that was a little painful.”

Some campaigns find clever ways to use the confusion to their advantage. Perriello, for example, told voters in a TV ad “How you pronounce my name isn’t what’s important; knowing what it stands for is.”


Others find clever ways to make voters remember the correct pronunciation. Mayor Dave Cieslewicz of Madison, WI - who is simply known to his constituents as “Mayor Dave” since few can remember the surname - tried to familiarize voters with his last name with the button to the right.

Yet, with the election of Obama and several members of Congress with funny last names, the traditional trends don’t seem to hold.

[Now] election records suggest out of the ordinary increasingly appeals to voters. The names of incoming freshmen have grown more unusual over the years, thanks in part to a combination of the nation’s increasing diversity and, in the age of Barack Obama, a rising generation of voters with a greater appetite for unique names.

Only three of 65 freshmen elected to the 111th Congress have surnames that are included in the U.S. Census Bureau’s 100 most common last names.

And over the past four Congresses, common names in the freshman class have been decreasing, from 25.8 percent in the 108th Congress to just 4.6 percent in the current class.

Perhaps it is a new trend that Americans don’t expect to be able to pronounce every surname correctly these days, or maybe it’s because they’re looking for refreshing candidates that don’t resemble the archetype Washington politician.

Either way, it appears that Americans just aren’t looking for an orthodox name in their candidates anymore.

New Ads, New Media, and an Old President

It’s Friday, May 29, 2009. Here’s what we’re looking at:

Two new ads are out today. The first is a radio ad for Virginia’s leading Democratic candidate for governor, Terry McAuliffe. It features President Bill Clinton speaking highly of his old friend and is going to be played on black-oriented radio stations. Of course, President Clinton didn’t keep very strong ties to the black community during his attacks on Obama in the South Carolina primary last year - but perhaps by now they’ve forgiven him.

Meanwhile, one of McAuliffe’s primary opponents, Brian Moran, has posted one of McAuliffe’s new mail pieces on his website, evidently to show McAuliffe being a dirty campaigner. The piece lists four unnamed candidates for governor and lists their opinions. Then the recipient scratches off to see the candidates’ names - like a lottery ticket. Frankly, it’s a pretty innovative mail piece.

The second ad is a TV spot for at-risk Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), trying to convince voters that his work as Senate Finance Committee Chairman wasn’t all about bailouts.



Next up, the Obama Administration has been using New Media as an integral part of their transparency efforts. The Open Government Dialogue website functions as a suggestion box for citizens to brainstorm ideas to improve policy. The most supported suggestion: it comes from House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH). He says the White House should give Congress a mandatory 72-hour review period before approving any spending bills - a coy protest of how Congressional Democrats pushed through the stimulus bill.

Other top suggestions include encouraging local governments to adapt such transparency efforts, prosecuting Bush-Era officials, and - you guessed it - legalizing marijuana.

Finally, the Torture Debate takes a new turn today in Michigan where President George W. Bush finally defended the use of “enhanced interrogation” techniques himself at a rare public appearance. Speaking to the Economic Club of Southwestern Michigan, he also noted that our national security is at risk when “Ideologues…recruit when they find hopeless people. If you’re hungry, diseased, impoverished, you’re more easy to recruit.”

How Are Democrats Losing Colorado?

Today WAYLA reports on local politics from Colorado.


In 2008, Colorado proved to be a good state for Democrats. President Obama won the state with a 54% - 45% margin, while Senator Mark Udall won his first state-wide election by a 53% - 43% margin.


Additionally, both houses of the State Legislature as well as the Governor’s office are controlled by Democrats.

But all that appears to be changing. In recent months, Democrats have lost considerable support from residents of the Centennial State. A Public Policy Polling survey from last month finds President Obama with a 49% approval rating - far below the national average - with 45% disapproval in the state of Colorado.

Udall, meanwhile, suffers 41% approval and 46% disapproval ratings.

And this means trouble for the 2010 elections. According to another April poll, Democratic Governor Bill Ritter’s approval rating is 41% while his disapproval rating is 49%. Furthermore, a plurality of respondents said they would back Republican Scott McInnis over Ritter. Other state-wide offices appear to be slipping away as well.

The one saving grace for Democrats is that virtually no one in Colorado knows much about Democratic Senator Michael Bennet - so few that a quarter of voters say they know too little to have an opinion about him. Bennet was selected by Ritter to replace Ken Salazar, who was appointed by Obama to head the Interior Department.

Bennet’s race looks particularly interesting. He’s an east-coaster who moved to Colorado twelve years ago, eventually became Superintendent of Denver Public Schools, and was never really involved in politics. But he’s somehow raised $1.4 million already for his 2010 campaign, and his top Republican opponent is a District Attorney that has cost his constituency $100,000 in court fees for raiding a tax service company without properly following the Fourth Amendment. Nonetheless, Bennet has a greater disapproval rating than his approval rating and he is slightly behind one of his speculated GOP opponents.

As one Denver Post columnist put it recently, “what a bummer it can be to be a Democrat in Colorado.”

Why are the Democrats slipping?

There are only a few ways to try to explain this trend.

First, Democrats have been fortunate in Colorado recently with the help of Hispanic voters. Census Bureau estimates for 2008 say that 20% of the population in Colorado is Latino. Yet only 14% of respondents to the Obama/Udall poll identified as Hispanic.

Since the recession began, Colorado has been the state with the largest decline in immigrant employment, thus many are leaving. Of course, non-citizens cannot vote, but it is possible that Hispanic citizens are leaving the state as well. A recent study found that the “immigrant unemployment rate is now 5.6 percentage points higher than in the third quarter of 2007, before the recession began. Native unemployment has increased 3.8 percentage points over the same period.”

If immigrant unemployment is rising faster than native unemployment, it suggests that employers are waning from hiring immigrants at the moment - either because of a sense of nationalism sparked by the recession, or because of a crackdown on employment of illegal immigrants - and by extension waning from hiring Hispanics in general.

It’s a pretty loose theory.

Second, particular Democrats are lagging, not necessarily the entire party. For example, liberal blog ColoradoPols.com currently has Sen. Bennet listed as “down” because he’s “not a natural campaigner by any means [and] has been sloppy.”

But Bennet is not that far behind other Democrats in his approval rating. In fact, none of his GOP opponents - whether or not they have announced - is viewed more favorably than unfavorably by the voters. So this explanation does not work too well.

Third, all politics is local, and state-level Democrats have been making the party unpopular. This is probably the best theory.

From a conservative columnist’s recent Op-Ed in the Denver Post:

“We're now slogging through a recession that Ritter recklessly failed to prepare for, his legislative allies are split and ineffectual…Democrats this session failed on a number of cherished goals, including a tuition break for illegal immigrants, easing sentences and ending the death penalty, quitting the Electoral College, and nanny-state rules for cellphones and seatbelts.”

These have been some big issues in Colorado’s State House. Thanks to TABOR, Colorado has difficulty producing surpluses in good economic times and the budget gets punished for it during bad economic times. It’s similar to the fiscal mess in California that has persisted since the passage of Proposition 13. Since a Democrat is in the Governor’s office, he is going to get the blame.

Other issues mentioned above are going to be equally unpopular. The Electoral College issue, for example, is one that probably doesn’t sit well with voters. The state Senate approved a bill to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, in which a state’s electoral votes would go to the overall national winner of a presidential race. Once enough states join the compact to reach 270 votes, the compact would go into effect. Because Colorado is a smaller state, they would effectively get less say in a presidential contest. Besides, a good communications director can easily argue that the bill is taking the vote away from Coloradans, and make a GOP political gain.

Voters do not necessarily separate the actions of national party leaders from the state party leaders. Hence, these local issues may very well be influencing Obama’s approval rating in Colorado.

Of course, even that theory is not concrete. As more stories and research on this issue develop, we will keep you informed as to why Democrats are letting Colorado slip away from them.


UPDATE: One explanation that hadn't been discussed is the possibility that Coloradans simply have an unusually low opinion of politicians in general (at least at the present time). For one thing it almost seems unreal that support for the Democrats would diminish so quickly in just six or seven months. Additionally, the favorability ratings of Republican challengers aren't too high either - which we mentioned before.

If this is the case the Democrats would not have to worry too much. As Kelly Fero told us in January, "In the end, every 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." If all it takes is demonstrating oneself as the lesser of two evils, the Democrats will still have an even playing field come 2010.

New Anti-Reid Ad

The NRSC has released a bizarre new ad attacking Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) for a fundraiser for him in Las Vegas on Tuesday.



We thought you might enjoy that - although it still might not compare to some of these.

All Things Sotomayor

We usually don’t do posts about the same topic two days in a row, but there is a terrific string of stories on Politico today about President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

The first story is an excellent overview of the political implications behind the Sotomayor pick. Obviously the nomination of a Hispanic woman brings with it the furthering divide between the GOP and the Latino community, but there are less obvious implications on the local level with midterm elections next year.

Second is the “How and Why” behind Obama’s selection. For example, Politico writes that with the nomination coming during the current Congressional recess “Obama caught the Republican minority off-guard, with critics not equipped to respond with the force they would during the session.”

The last story from Politico is about former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) and his opposition to Sotomayor. Like Rush Limbaugh did yesterday, Gingrich accuses her of being a “racist” for a comment she made in 2002. And although RNC Chairman Michael Steele has been warning Republicans not to say things like that, RNC New Media Director Todd Herman - the man in charge of the social networking message - went dramatically off-message when he posted “new racism = no better than old” today on Twitter.

Finally, the New York Times had an interesting story today about the upcoming confirmation battle. Of course, they forgot to mention the ad that’s ready to hit the airwaves.



Additionally, five of the past eight posts on FiveThirtyEight.com have been about Sotomayor - most of which use Silver’s skills in research and mathematics to defend the nominee from her opponents.

Will the Senate Confirm Sotomayor?

President Obama nominated Second District Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace Justice David Souter to the U.S. Supreme Court this morning.

Here is the full video of the announcement. Watch it until the end for some insightful analysis from the NBC correspondents.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

There is already a great deal of criticism coming from the right. Former Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR) today called the appointment “the clearest indication yet that President Obama’s campaign promises to be a centrist and think in a bipartisan way were mere rhetoric.”

Meanwhile, Charmaine Yoest, the president of Americans United for Life, said Sotomayor was “a radical pick that divides America…This appointment would provide a pedestal for an avowed judicial activist to impose her personal policy and beliefs onto others from the bench at a time when the Courts are at a crossroads.”

Here they are referring to the now widely circulated video of Sotomayor sitting on a panel at Duke University in 2005.



But this was undoubtedly already seen by the President’s staff during the vetting process, and a little more footage indicates that she was talking about precedent and not actually policy - making it a perfectly reasonable statement.



However, the criticisms won’t end there. In a 2002 speech at Berkeley she said that a judge’s personal background “affect the facts that judges choose to see” and “I simply do not know exactly what the difference will be in my judging, but I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.”

At face value, that already is enough to fuel the fire against Sotomayor in the confirmation process, where Republicans will accuse her of judicial activism. But these remarks will be complemented by her recent ruling in Ricci v. DeStefano, in which she sided with the city of New Haven, Connecticut over a group of white firefighters after the city threw out the results of a promotion exam because too few minorities scored high enough.

This explains why Huckabee said “If she is confirmed, then we need to take the blindfold off Lady Justice.”

Nonetheless, Republican leaders have already said they will reserve judgment on Sotomayor until they have more information.

From Politico:

“Senate Republicans will treat Judge Sotomayor fairly,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a statement. “But we will thoroughly examine her record to ensure she understands that the role of a jurist in our democracy is to apply the law even-handedly, despite their own feelings or personal or political preferences.”

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele released a restrained statement, declaring: “Republicans will reserve judgment on Sonia Sotomayor until there has been a thorough and thoughtful examination of her legal views.”

But it already looks like she may have obstacles to overcome. In 1998, Senate Republicans held up the confirmation to her current bench for a year. When she was finally confirmed, it was with the approval of only seven of the current forty Republican Senators. Some, specifically Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), have begun to sound skeptical of whether they will support her again.

Among the Republicans who voted against her were current Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Minority Whip John Kyl (R-AZ), John McCain (R-AZ), and a particularly important one, ranking Judiciary Committee member Jeff Sessions (R-AL). Each of them will be instrumental going in to the fight against her confirmation.

It will be an ugly battle, but will she still be confirmed?

As the media digs through her life and career, we will learn more about Sotomayor and more about what could prevent her from being confirmed.

As of now, she should have no problem getting through the Judiciary Committee, although she may not have the luxury of any GOP votes there.

The only way for Republicans to defeat her confirmation then is a filibuster. This action would have several backlashes for the GOP

First, each of the Republicans that fight for a filibuster will be subject to the political pressure of looking like a hypocrite. When several Democrats tried to filibuster Justice Samuel Alito the Senate Republicans had a fit over what they perceived as a misuse of filibusters.

Second, they would fail. It is unlikely that every single Republican will vote against cloture. The GOP Senators from Maine, in particular, will likely support her confirmation. It is also probable that Senators such as Judd Gregg (R-NH) will support cloture (even if he opposes her confirmation) in order to appease their liberal constituents. Gregg, Snowe, and Collins all approved her confirmation to her current bench.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, many Republicans will not want to oppose the first Hispanic nominee for the High Court. As blogger Glenn Thrush wrote this morning, “every GOP leader with a pulse knows that opposing her could accelerate the stampede of Latinos out of the GOP in the southwest, west and Texas.”

As of now, we can expect Sotomayor to be confirmed.