"Tomorrow"

Four years ago I did a pretty decent job of predicting Election Night. This time around, my guess is pretty much a reflection of Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight website. I don't think Obama/ Biden will pull out Florida or North Carolina, but they'll get every other swing state and win with 303 electoral votes.

How I see it

Here's how you know President Obama is headed to victory:

• Desperate Attacks in Ohio: The Romney campaign has steadfastly maintained it would "not be dictated by fact-checkers." Never was this more apparent than in its ads that claimed the auto-industry bailout would lead to Chrysler shipping jobs to China. But in a campaign full of half truths and outright lies, that was a bridge too far. Chrysler called them out, and the claims failed to dent Obama's consistent lead. It seems to me this attack was a last-ditch desperate attempt to swing Ohio. If Romney thought he was ahead there, his campaign wouldn't need to resort to such tactics.

• Romney tries to open Pennsylvania: Romney spent parts of the week before the election campaigning in Pennsylvania. The Romney campaign claimed it was expanding the map and laying the groundwork for a landslide. Nonsense. Romney campaigned there for the same reason he ran the Chrysler ads, he knew he wasn't going to win Ohio. McCain did the same thing four years ago, making a late and ultimately unsuccessful play for Pennsylvania. Seeing Romney bound around the Keystone state tells me his advisors can read polls better than many of their supporters, who are hellbent on discrediting Silver's math. But if you can't win Ohio, which normally leans Republican, you ain't winning Pennsylvania, which leans Democrat.

Nate knows. And, really, Mitt does, too.

• Emphasis on tiny states: I actually live in a battleground state media market, New Hampshire. This is just anecdotal evidence, but it seems to me Romney is advertising here far more than Obama. Once again, this tells me that Obama realizes his campaign is 1) ahead NH in polls, and 2) safe electorally without New Hampshire. Romney's appeal for New Hampshire's four electoral votes indicates how desperate he is to patch together 270.

• Threw up in my mouth a little: Last night I watched 60 Minutes which aired a truly disgusting segment on the broken mess that is the U.S. Senate. It was the typical "Both parties are partisan and don't want to get things done!" B.S. that has made shows like 60 Minutes largely irrelevant. The most odious part was watching Tom Coburn, the ultra-conservative senator, say that the Senate is so lacking in leadership that it is better off broken than functioning. Of course no one called him on his crap, but it's a perfect example of why the Right will always triumph in our system: Conrad and his conservative colleagues WANT that disfunction. Steve Kroft, or whichever dinosaur was interviewing Conrad, kept saying that the American people want the parties to come together to solve problems. But he never mentioned that Republicans do not believe the government should solve problems. They do not believe in government. They joined it to destroy it. So when Conrad tells his constituents the Senate is better off not functioning, he wins. That incentive system is what has destroyed the U.S. Congress.

• Gross consequences: This messed up system is what allows Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan (!) to tell people to vote with them because they'll be able to deal with Congress. Think of the cynicism. The Congressional Republicans publicly stated their top goal, with the economy in shambles, was to make Barack Obama a one-term president. They fought him at every step to block his agenda. Now, when Romney says he will be able to get things done the implication is clear: We know that if the president wins the Republicans won't let him do anything, so vote for me and since I'm pushing their agenda and we control the House, and Democrats believe in government action, we'll be able to do something. Either reward our terrible behavior or suffer more of it.

• More awful incentives: A similar incentive system has destroyed U.S. elections. People hate how incessant political campaigning has become and, more than anything, how negative it is. That, too, plays into Republicans' destructive hands. The constant negative campaigning can depress turnout, which helps Republicans. So Republicans go ultra negative, and Democrats (knowing they cannot stay silent) respond with equally negative messages, causing many to tune out and drop out of the process. Again, a win for the conservative movement. Democrats rely on people participating, but Republicans have an incentive to be as negative as possible.

• Excuses excuses: Just like revisionist historians have credited the financial crisis with Obama's big victory in 2008, expect similar Republican handwringing about Hurricane Sandy. But the fact is Romney's momentum stopped before the storm, and the race is now where has always been, save three weeks between the DNC and the first debate: Obama with a small but solid lead.

• A battle for the soul of the Republican party will begin on Wednesday, as establishment Republicans seek to wrest their party back from the Koch brothers/ Tea Party wing of ultra conservatism. The team captains already seem to be staking out their ground, with Governor Chris Christie on one end and Congressman Paul Ryan on the other. Because of the primary system, Ryan's scorched earth orthodoxy will likely win out. That is ultimately bad for Republicans, good for Democrats, and terrible for the country.

On that sunny note, I'll wrap this up. Enjoy the returns. And the weeks of Republicans shouting about how the election was stolen (unless Obama loses, in which case it likely was stolen).

Republicans Have a Big Problem And It Ain't Mitt

There is a dirty little secret festering beneath the surface of Governor Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. What started as whispers by the Republican establishment has grown into a murmur, and will likely be heard as a dull roar when President Obama takes his next oath of office in January. The secret is the plain and, for Republicans, painful truth that theirs is no longer a national party.

The Republican party's candidate for president has won the popular vote only once in the last five elections. If President Obama's current lead holds, that will be one win, George W. Bush's squeaker in 2004, in twenty- four years.

As America's demographics continue to shift toward people of color, the Republican message of deregulation and tax cuts will grow more stale and ineffective. Those policies have failed to help middle-  and lower- class families for 30- plus years, but until this decade, Republicans were able to attract those voters and win national elections through social issues. More than just raising wedge issues like abortion or gay marriage, Republicans would often talk about societal decline in racial overtones. Whether it was Ronald Reagan's anonymous welfare queen or George H.W. Bush's Willie Horton ad, Republicans gleefully ostracized minority voters.

But a funny thing happened on the way to Karl Rove's permanent majority.

The country got less white, and it gets less so every year. Working class whites have an interest in the status quo, and can be called "conservative" in the true sense of the word. This group often resents what they see as government intrusion through policies of affirmative action or welfare. Meanwhile, immigrants look to the government to provide a fair system and safety-net as they work to establish themselves. Meaning Ronald Reagan's base is shrinking as Barack Obama's grows.

Furthermore, society's evolving positions (to borrow a phrase) on issues like gay marriage and immigration, have taken once powerful weapons of mobilization out of the Republican arsenal.

So, Republican orthodoxy of tax- cuts and deregulation increasingly has to stand on its own, without social issues and under-the-table prejudice to help win the day.

And the results have not been pretty for Republicans.

Take this summer's nominating conventions, each a chance for the parties to convince the American people of its vision for government. The Republican convention came and went without a ripple, let alone a splash. Meanwhile, Democrats are still riding a wave of support generated by their prime-time speakers. The success of one convention and failure of another was not about Bill Clinton's eloquence or Clint Eastwood's nonsense. Democrats are just selling a product that more voters want to buy.

Make no mistake, the polls in this election will continue to be tight, and the Republican strategy can still work when their side is far more motivated to vote. But that isn't easy to pull off in presidential politics. And thanks to that shift in demographics and increased Republican extremism, there are flat out more people who identify and believe in the Democratic vision than the Republican.

This is something the Romney camp seems to recognize, and since tabbing Ayn Rand in shirt sleeves for vice president, the campaign it has made a hard turn to the center. That includes ads where Romney implores voters that he cares about working people just as much as the President does, and an interview in which he praised parts of Obamacare. His campaign realizes that if only 2006 Governor Romney were running, he'd have a real shot.

As First Read and Politico reported, Republicans have begun to lay the blame for a disappointing campaign on Romney himself, asserting that he did not present the clear case for conservatism. Among them, Governor Chris Christie, eagerly awaiting his 2016 run for the White House, told Meet the Press that Wednesday's debate would turn the election because Romney would  go head-to-head against the president with a message of conservatism. The implication was clear: if the campaign continues to falter it isn't about the opportunity or the message, it's the messenger.

Republicans hope that repeating this lie enough might somehow make it true. But deep down theirs is an inconvenient truth: that in order to reclaim its status as a national party, the Republican party must come to grips with a changed nation. If they don't, they'll look back on this election not as a disappointment, but on the closest they came to the presidency in a generation.

The Not (yet) Ready for Primetime Player

Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, the nation's youngest governor, delivered the GOP's response to President Obama's speech to Congress. Over the past few weeks Jindal has emerged as his party's newest, and perhaps brightest, star.  He also showed a willingess to lead with attempts to decline certain portions of the new economic stimulus package.

The media has picked up his scent and the Q&A at the recent governors' meeting in DC looked more like a Jindal press conference.

Many threw around his name last year as a possible VP nominee, but he wisely (or perhaps luckily) stayed off the ticket. At 36 he was just too young to be palatable. During tonight's speech, Jindal showed potential but is still too wooden for my taste. That will improve though, and we'll be hearing a lot more about Bobby Jindal in the years ahead.

(By the way, this is the first post to get the 2012 tag)

Obstruction Junction

A version of the stimulus bill will pass in the Senate later today, it will then be sent to conference for a compromise with the House version. A preliminary vote had 61 Senators in favor, which includes the support of just three Republicans.

So, out of 219 Republicans on the Hill only three support a path to recovery endorsed by economists of all ideological stripes and the staunchly pro- business US Chamber of Commerce.

When Rush Limbaugh made waves with his "I want Obama to fail" boasts last month, I rolled my eyes and lamented the attention he received. But now, it seems that dangerous sentiment is something of the official position of the Republican party.

Republicans are in the midst of a kind of identity crisis, left to wonder how their "permanent majority" became so thoroughly dismantled. Apparently, many see the rising deficits and increased spending of the Bush years as he party's main problem.

Now, they've found ideological purity at a time when rapid spending of this type is exactly what our country needs.

Alas, this is not a genuine disagreement, but an attempt at sabotage through disingenious allegations of "socialism" and "partisanship" to score political points. This sort of gamesmanship is not new, but it's unfotunate to see it at such a crucial time for our country's near and long- term future.

Oh, and, lest you think Republicans are just purely obstructionist, their alternative? More tax breaks, beyond the $400+ bn guaranteed in the current versions (though that is mostly middle- class relief), and a battle to keep the president from instituting temporary CEO pay caps. Leave our infrastructure to crumble; do not create jobs directly; keep our buildings and schools and medical records inefficient and out of date.

But go and cut income taxes again, cause that worked out so well the last time.

Thank you, George W. Bush

On Feb. 7 I'm going with a friend to see Will Ferrell's one man Broadway show, You're Welcome America, where he plays our 43rd president.

George W. Bush was inaugurated on January 20, 2001. I was 18 years old, and politically aware and interested but not ideologically developed. The vote I cast for Al Gore remains my proudest. Before Bush took the oath of office, I had a conversation with my high school girlfriend's father. He'd voted for Bush, and I told him that after Bush was through the country would be worse off economically and socially. He disagreed.

On this, the last night of the Bush presidency, I want to take a look back at his time in office.

9/11

Just in case the above anecdote makes me seem like a know it all, indulge me one more. After 9/11, my friend and I were sitting in his dorm room watching ex- presidents and dignitaries file into the National Cathedral for a mass marking the tragic event. Gore was on screen and I remarked, "Man, I voted for him, but I'm really glad that he's not president right now. We need Bush in there." He agreed.

Bush's bravado and cowboy style comforted a nation that had its sense of invincibility rocked. He was a man who would punish those responsible and restore order to our world. Check out this SNL clip, where Ferrell plays the president just after 9/11. The cheers and hoots are remarkable and almost startling.



We craved this kind of call- out, we wanted revenge. Seven years later, this clip is more sad than funny. If you'd told the members of SNL's studio audience that night that bin Laden would be on the run and releasing tapes in 2009 I don't think they'd have believed you. I certainly wouldn't have.

But Bush was his best in those early days, even if he didn't actually accomplish anything. I'd argue the two best moments of his presidency came in late 2001:

Here, Bush is confident and well spoken, even eloquent. He's not giving prepared remarks, but reacting to the emotion of the moment and words of workers at Ground Zero.



I don't like George W. Bush, and I hate the New York Yankees. But this was pretty cool--



The Aftermath

Bush executed the War on Terror in a reckless way that was often politically motivated. The Senate's vote for use of force against Iraq was held right before the '02 midterms, which turned it into a political issue.

Dick Cheney executed his "unitary executive" theory, which gave the president new power at the expense of civil liberties and international law. Neo- Cons executed their Iraq- as- Petri dish experiment for American hegemony in the 21st century unfettered, at the expense of American servicemen and women, uncounted civilians and America's alliances.

And the president wasn't curious enough or interested enough or competent enough to stop them.

Iraq

The Iraq War was, as John Kerry famously put it, the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. But with improved security in the country it has become Bush's best chance at lasting achievement, and the only thing that could rescue his name from historians' bottom tier of presidents, where he now seems destined to be remembered. A stable democracy in the heart of the Middle East, and the dismantling of an abhorrent dictator is a potential game changer for our world.

But it was sold under false pretenses and done on the cheap. And when it wasn't working, Bush didn't react. The failures in Iraq can fill books. And so it can never be a source of pride for Bush. But it does have potential.

The Economy

For much of Bush's eight years in office, before the economy collapsed in on itself, the country seemed to be doing quite well economically. Unemployment was stable near historic lows, the stock market routinely broke records, and home ownership was at its highest level ever. However, polls routinely showed that Americans didn't feel good about the economy. People didn't feel good about it because it wasn't working for them. Inequality skyrocketed during the Bush years, to levels that surpassed even the "Roarin' 20s."

Through tax cuts and loop holes corporate earnings and income for the wealthiest individuals were unprecedented. Yet the benefits failed to trickle down to the rest of us. And when inflated housing numbers popped they brought the DOW down too, and Bush's signature economic accomplishments were undone while he still lived in the White House.

The Administration

In Paul Krugman's 2007 book The Conscience of a Liberal the economist distinguishes the Republican party of Eisenhower, Nixon and Bush 41 from that of George W. Bush. Bush 43 emanated from what Krugman calls"movement conservatism," and one of its main tenets is patronage based on loyalty rather than expertise.

That became evident as figures drifted from the administration to companies they were supposed to be regulating and back. It was clear after the utter incompetence of horse breeder turned FEMA director, Michael Brown who still enjoyed George Bush's loyalty even as people suffered through the federal government's incompetence.



Conclusion

Bush's presidency might be best understood through the lens of what's known as the Peter Principle. It holds that in a hierarchy, members are promoted so long as they work competently. Sooner or later they are promoted to a position at which they are no longer competent (their "level of incompetence"), and there they remain.

George Bush rose to a level for which he was simply incompetent.

However, his presidency is not so much a personal failure, I think, as it is a failure of ideology and a corrupt politics. George Bush's disposition and personal character and story made him somewhat of a blank canvas on which movement conservatives could project their vision of government. For eight years we endured that vision.

Now, thanks to that experience, eroding racism and a shift in demographics movement conservatives have turned the Republican party into a mostly regional force. When the party returns to national prominence, we can expect it to look very different.

So perhaps Bush's legacy is that he made today possible. He helped elect the most progressive government since the 1930s. And I firmly believe our country will be better off for it. What's more, he put the country in a place where it was finally ready move past, not so much its racial divisions, but the cultural roils that defined the baby boom generation. Now that our first post- Boomer is in the White House we can close the book on George W. Bush's presidency and that tumultuous age.

So, thank you, George W. Bush.

Krugman Explanations, Obama Expectations

Two notes from the New York Times:

In the Op-Ed section, Nobel laurate Paul Krugman accuses Republicans of "whining that almost defies belief."

Did Alberto Gonzales, the former attorney general, really say, “I consider myself a casualty, one of the many casualties of the war on terror”? Did Rush Limbaugh really suggest that the financial crisis was the result of a conspiracy, masterminded by that evil genius Chuck Schumer?

Yeesh, I hope not.

Krugman believes the Republican party's problems are far more entrenched than the missteps of a failed administration, and stretch back to their Southern strategy that developed in the wake of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, when the "G.O.P. decided, in effect, to make itself the party of racial backlash."

But what ails the party is more than a shift in demographics, argues Krugman. Instead it's their anti- government philosophy that doomed them to incompetence and lost the confidence of the American people.

Consequently, the Obama administration has an opportunity for bold action unmatched even in the Clinton years. Krugamn hopes they seize it.

What a convenient segue...

We highlighted Dick Cheney recently saying he anticipated the incoming Obama administration to embrace President Bush's expansion of executive power:

"Once they get here and they're faced with the same problems we deal with every day, then they will appreciate some of the things we've put in place..."

Well Cheney's theory will be put the test real soon. The Times reports that the Obama administration must submit a brief to the Supreme Court "on one of the most aggressive legal claims made by the Bush administration — that the president may order the military to seize legal residents of the United States and hold them indefinitely without charging them with a crime."

The position of the new President, a former Constitutional law professor, will go along way toward defining the kind of change so many believed in.

At the heart of the case is "Ali al-Marri, a Qatari student who was arrested in Peoria, Ill., in December 2001. The Bush administration says Mr. Marri is a sleeper agent for Al Qaeda, and it is holding him without charges at the Navy brig in Charleston, S.C. He is the only person currently held as an enemy combatant on the mainland, but the legal principles established in his case are likely to affect the roughly 250 prisoners at Guantánamo."

Among the many cases on the docket, experts say a shift in course is most likely in Al- Marri's.

From the article:

Many legal experts say that all of the new administration’s options in Mr. Marri’s case are perilous. Intelligence officials say he is exceptionally dangerous, making deportation problematic.

Trying him on criminal charges could be difficult, too, in part because some of the evidence against him may have been obtained through torture and would not be admissible.

And staying the course in the Marri case would outrage civil libertarians.

“If they adopt the Bush administration position, or some version of it,” said Brandt Goldstein, a professor at New York Law School, “it is going to be a moment of profound disappointment for everyone in the legal community and Americans generally who believe that the Bush administration has tried to turn the presidency into a monarchy.”

"McSame" Cringe Moment

If, as he steadfastly claims, South Carolina governor Mark Sanford doesn't want to be McCain's VP nominee, he did a lot to help his cause in this exchange with CNN's Wolf Blitzer.

Dogged by the accusation that he's running for Bush's third term, McCain has tried to distance himself in any way possible-- he even evoked Theodore Roosevelt this weekend.

But when Sanford was asked to point out differences between McCain and Bush he, well... struggled.

McCain hits Obama on Energy

One of the biggest issues this year is the insanely high price of gas, now comfortably over $4/gallon. In response John McCain and the RNC debuted this ad seeking to play up McCain's wounded "maverick" credentials." It notes that McCain's calling for "conservation" and "alternative fuels," and but also appeases conservatives, noting his support for drilling and gas tax relief.

It also unveils the juxtaposition the RNC will use-- McCain pushing his party in a new direction vs. "Barack Obama-- just the party line"

Baldwin vows to Leave, I vow to Pack

Between Laura Ingram and Steven Baldwin, I don't know who is worse in this clip. Ingram is disingenuous, transparent and just plain nauseating. She relies on the tired old act of aligning the Democrat, this one in particular, with his celebrity- supporters, to paint him as elitist or not for "regular folks." I wonder if the good folks who watched this at home on Fox News would feel more closely aligned with the economic royalists that shell out cash for Republicans.

The worst is when she runs down the guest list and adds, "Man, I wish I could have gone." But she can't, you see, because she's just a regular gal, with a syndicated radio show who gets $30 grand a speech.

As for Baldwin, he's just a fool for walking into such an easy joke with his "I'll leave the country if Obama wins" line. OK, Baldwin, I'll bite: America should gladly sacrifice an Obama presidency to keep alive the hope of a possible sequel to Biodome... McCain '08!

Who is Voting Republican?

Why some brave Americans are voting Republican this year (and why you should too!):

One Special Election

Recently, Democrats captured two staunchly conservative Congressional districts in special elections. One was the Louisiana 6th, which Republicans controlled for over 30 years. The other (Speaker Hassert's old seat in Illinois) was held by Republicans for 76 years, save one 2- year term after Watergate.

Now, chalk up another one.

Last night, Democrats won Mississippi's first Congressional district, which President Bush carried with 62% in 2004. A Democratic Congressional candidate hadn't broken 35% in more than 15 years. Congressman- elect Travis Childers (D- MS*) narrowly defeated Southhaven Mayor Greg Davis.

The writing is on the wall- 2008 could be a re-aligning election. Democrats can win in places they haven't since LBJ, if they continue to focus on middle class issues (more on this later) and run with the change theme.

However, with such potential comes immense expectations from loyalists and donors. That pressure falls on Democratic leaders like Howard Dean, Rahm Emmanuel, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and (of course, most of all) Barack Obama.

*- How weird does that look? It's like something out of 1954...

Gingirch Pleas to Republicans

At his website, Newt Gingrich sends out an appeal to his party to change its strategy or face defeat in November. He has some startling numbers and analysis to back him up:

This past weekend Louisiana held a special Congressional election in its 6th district. It's a district George W. Bush won by 19 points in 2004 and Republicans have controlled since 1975.

They lost it this weekend.

There was another special election earlier for former Speaker Denny Hastert's old seat in Illinois. That seat had been held by a Republican for 76 years with the single exception of the 1974 Watergate election when the Democrats held it for one term. That same seat had been carried by President Bush 55-44% in 2004.

The Democrats took it.

With these elections and Bush's approval rating at historic lows (no president has ever been under 40% this long), Gingrich argues Republicans need to adopt (or co-opt) a the message of change, or get blown out of Congress.

Polls show that Americans now trust Democrats more than Republicans to handle the deficit (52- 31), taxes (48- 40) and terrorism (44-37).

Gingrich notes that McCain's strong polling numbers suggest that his support exists independent of Congressional Republicans, and Republican candidates won't be able to count on a McCain bump come the fall.

To combat these bad Republican trends, Gingrich gives 9 issues for "Real Change" Republicans can use. Some aren't new (English as the official language), but others are interesting (slashing the Census budget, establish an earmark moratorium).

No Republicans should kid themselves. It's time to face up to a stark choice.

Without change we could face a catastrophic election this fall.

Without change the Republican Party in the House could revert to the permanent minority status it had from 1930 to 1994.

Check the above link for the full article.

For McCain, a Choice Looms

The Washington Times has begun the speculation on who John McCain will tab for his running-mate later this year. On the shortlist, it suggests, are: Governors Mike Huckabee (AR), Bobby Jindal (LA), Charlie Crist (FL) and Mark Sanford (SC), among others.

Huckabee is a bad choice because it could alienate the moderates and independents McCain will need, particularly in a race against Barack Obama.

Crist is a good option because he's a popular governor of a swing state McCain has to have, and has already said he's interested in the job.

Bobby Jindal is an attractive candidate that has a lot going for him: he's an Asian- American-- the country's first Indian governor, and is only 36 years old. So he could counter the "symbolic change" argument of Democrats nicely. He also has the backing of party Conservatives (Rush Limbaugh called him "the next Ronald Reagan"). However, he's only been in the governor's office one month (after a special election).

Another strong option is South Carolina's Sanford. He's a young (47) Washington outsider (although he was a Congressman), popular in a very Southern state. His good looks and fake tan should put voters at ease when pulling the leaver for a 72- year- old. He's also a personal friend of McCain's.

I actually have an inside operative in the Sanford camp, and spoke with my source in a SAM exclusive.

Sanford, a Long Island, NY native, is a very nice man, although also very cheap. He drives a clunker of a car (described as a 1980 Chevy Lumina) despite marrying into one of the wealthiest families in America (we're talking GE money).

But his wife is supposed to be amazingly smart and pretty, and managed his gubernatorial campaign. And Sanford is equally charming, with a picture perfect clan of kids to boot.

I think he and McCain would make a formidable pair.

Huckabee Wins WV, Romney PO'd

NBC News projects former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee won the West Virginia caucus, and picked up the state's 18 delegates.

This set off rival candidate Mitt Romney, who's campaign issued a scathing statement after Romney carried the caucus' first round of ballots with 41%, before Sen. McCain dropped out, and his campaign asked backers to support Huckabee, who won on the second ballot with 52%.

"Unfortunately, this is what Senator McCain's inside Washington ways look like: he cut a backroom deal with the tax-and-spend candidate he thought could best stop Governor Romney's campaign of conservative change.

"Governor Romney had enough respect for the Republican voters of West Virginia to make an appeal to them about the future of the party based on issues. This is why he led on today's first ballot. Sadly, Senator McCain cut a Washington backroom deal in a way that once again underscores his legacy of working against Republicans who are interested in championing conservative policies and rebuilding the party."

The Romney camp may also believe (as do I) that McCain has cut a deal with Huckabee, where Huck will stay in the race and detract from their candidate's support, until McCain sures up the nomination and tabs Huckabee as his running-mate. However, in all fairness, Huckabee has raised enough money and garnered enough support to earn the right to stay in this race.

Michigan Recap

Mitt Romney came away with a huge win in the Michigan primary last night, winning on the strength of high Republican turn-out and his "favorite- son" status. John McCain finished in second eight points back, he'll have to win South Carolina or Florida to get his mojo back.

This couldn't have turned out better for Rudy Giuilani, because the race continues to be up for grabs heading into Florida (even though he got only 3% in Michigan, 1/2 that of Ron Paul's support). He's in a dead heat with McCain in Florida, where he's spent so much time and money, but now that McCain isn't the front runner, look for Rudy to gain in polls.

So the nomination is totally unclear, and remember the undeniable trend we've seen in presidential politics where the incumbent is not running: the party that decides its nominee first nearly always wins in November.

When Republicans Dropped the Ball

A couple of nights ago, during the Republican debate, there was a fiery exchange over immigration. Rudy Giuliani and John McCain went head-to-head against Mitt Romney, defending their position as fair and non-amnesty. The two did a good job of bringing Ronald Reagan into their fold, who offered flat out amnesty in 1986, and making the case that the penalties that go along with their plan means it is not amnesty.

Yet, as Joe Klein pointed out in audio here, Romney did well because neither Giuliani nor McCain ever hammered him with the obvious question: How are you going to get 12,000,000 illegals out of the US?

Rudy said to ship out those who have committed crimes, a much more manageable figure. But Romney decried that idea as amnesty. Yet he never said how he would get all illegal immigrants out of the US. And because McCain and Giuliani dropped the ball, he didn't have to.

The CEO vs. The Cat- Herder

The Huffington Post has a must read interview with columnist Thom Hartmann. Below, Hartmann explains his view on a fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans, and why modern Republicans tend to be more effective at communicating their message.

The other problem, both at the level of party and of congress, is the fundamental psychology of conservative versus liberal. Chris Matthews likes to make the joke that about how Republicans want a leader, Democrats want to have a meeting. It's actually true. Republicans, [who assume] that people are intrinsically evil, want to have a wise, good person take control. Democrats, believing [in] a collective wisdom, want us all to have a voice in how things are done.

What this means is that the Republican Party runs like a well-oiled machine, it really runs like a corporation. Top down, hierarchical, power driving from the top down. And when Bush talked about he was going to be the first CEO president, it made a lot of sense to Republicans. The Democratic Party on the other hand is a coalition of coalitions. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are herding cats. That's the weakness of the Democratic Party, but it's also its strength. Because it means that the institution itself is democratic, that it is reflecting the values that it seeks to uphold.

Also in the piece, Hartmann identifies John Edwards as a potential second coming of FDR and Barack Obama as potentially the next JFK.

Again this is really interesting stuff.

WSJ: Affluent Voters Switch Brands

The Wall Street Journal has an excellent piece today on the shifting voting patterns of the wealthy. The Journal traveled to traditional- Republican- turned- swing state, Colorado, and spoke with people who have altered their allegiance in favor of Democrats.

Take James Kelly, an executive at the $7B firm Vistar, who supports Barack Obama. For all the Democrats' talk about rolling back the Bush tax cuts on top wage earners, Mr. Kelly still writes big checks to Democrats.

From the article:

"The Democratic Party stands more for creating equal opportunity," says Mr. Kelley. He says the party "speaks more to me on issues of the environment, and even more to me on national security," while he criticizes Republican stands on "so-called moral issues" such as gay marriage.

As for proposals by Democratic congressional leaders and presidential contenders to raise taxes on high earners, Mr. Kelley says: "The pocketbook, the taxes, that's issue 11. And the balance has swayed so far in [favor of] the 10 other things."

It's a pattern that has developed nationally over the last four years. In 2004, voters making at least six-figures favored President Bush 58% to 41% over Democrat John Kerry. During last year's Congressional races the margin was cut to 51% to 47%. According to a new Wall Street Journal- NBC News poll, "Americans earning more than $100,000 want Democrats to win the White House next year by 48% to 41%, and want Democrats to win control of Congress by 45% to 42%."

And don't think that shift hasn't already been felt in the '08 fund-raising race, where the top 5 Dems have raised $242M to their conservative counterparts' $167M.

In my opinion, the shift seems to be the product of the deep division the Republican party has dealt with post- Reagan, between social and fiscal conservatives. The uneasy truce between the two appears to have faded, and we now see the fallout. The social conservatives are having a hard time backing a candidate like Rudy Giuliani, and the fiscal conservatives are so turned off by the party's recent priorities that they've defected.

The old adage says that people will always vote their pocketbooks, but it seems that, like much of the traditional wisdom in this election cycle, has undergone a profound change.

Check Out: Funny and Odd Site

The progressive interest group, People for the American way has a parody website called "The Right- Wing Facebook." The slogan: We watch the right so you don't have to. Check it out, it's formatted exactly like the real Facebook, with funny profiles and a newsfeed that covers everthing going on with Republican candidates, along with a decidedly liberal bias.

It's kind of interesting to see... check it out.

This Pissed Me Off

Okay... it's 3 AM and I'm still awake and pissed off. I'm mostly pissed off at the Mets, but that's another story for another blog, so I'll have to talk about something else.

Last night, a Republican debate aired on PBS focusing on minority issues. The debate, which was at a traditionally Black university, opened with the question "Can the party of Abraham Lincoln win the hearts and minds of all Americans?" Giuliani, Thompson, McCain, and Romney-- the front runners for their party's nomination for president-- declined invitations to participate in the debate. Each cited conflicting fundraisers.

I'm obviously not a Republican, and I don't want to belittle or lecture Republicans or their party, but I thought this was an unequivocal disgrace. (I'll belittle and lecture the candidates in particular, thank you.)

How could someone who aspires to lead this country put his back to so many Americans so publicly? How could they refuse to speak to their issues so blatantly?

Blacks and Hispanics are disenfranchised in this country, by almost any measure they are doing worse than their white counterparts. In that community a feeling of alienation persists, a feeling that minorities are left almost entirely out of the political process in this country.

And apparently they are.

Minorities vote less. They are more cynical about the process, and so they stay home at a greater rate on Election Day. And I guess that'll suit these guys just fine, because it seems these candidates did the political calculus that they are better off taking money from rich folks than sharing their ideas and opinions with a group that doesn't usually get to hear them. And if they don't show up to vote, if this gets minorities a little more alienated from the political process, well then that's two birds, one stone.

At the risk of sounding idealistic, a president can't duck important questions like this. It's undemocratic and un-American. Those 4 candidates said all you need to know about them right there. I mean, have some guts and the courage of your convictions.

--The crazy part is that if just one of the four had shown up, it would have been a huge story and a huge political victory, and it would have been a bigger story than anything that was said there. But instead the story is about Republicans looking like bigots. So it was a crap move politically as well, but that's neither here nor there.--

In the end, it's not about Democrat or Republican, Giuliani or Hillary, or black or white. In the end it's about a system that has gotten so F'd up that it encourages leading candidates to take a pass, and skip out on the American people and the free exchange of ideas.