What the hell are you talking about, you say? Well, the race for George Voinovich's Senate seat has officially begun on the Democratic side. Jennifer Brunner made her announcement official. Here's the (warning: 3min not 30sec) YouTube:
As I warned, this is not the shortest intro video, but that is exactly what it is meant to be, an intro video. We've elected her to statewide office but the average Ohioan doesn't know our Secretary of State as well as they do our Governor or either of our Senators. Thus, she needs to introduce ourselves to the electorate. Her website is up and running here.
I like this development, which is not unexpected. I was very impressed with her resolve during the election in the face of Kevin DeWine conjuring visions of legions of fake voters descending on the polls in Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati. He, and he his fellow scaremongers/disenfranchisers, got a well deserved upside to the head by Ms. Brunner's office.
Apparently our esteemed Lt. Governor, the Honorable Lee Fisher, also made his decision this weekend and is now scrambling to make an announcement on the heels of the Secretary of State. There are stories here and here. As of 8PM I can't really find anything about him announcing despite the fact that one of the stories says he was planning to announce around 6PM. Could be the crappy local websites. (Please fix this Plain Dealer/Cleveland.com)
Other news on this front has the man I would have given the front runner position, U.S. Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH-17), claiming that he will not run and will throw his support behind Lt. Governor Fisher. I haven't seen other confirmation on this though.
Anyway, less than two months after the start of the term, it is already starting to get interesting in Ohio politics for 2010. There could still be others who throw there hat in the ring but these were the big three that were seriously considering a run. I am looking forward to a campaign that doesn't get too dirty. But we'll see.
I won't be endorsing anyone for a while. My early endorsees in primary battles generally tend not to fare well. :( Witness that I freely admit that Barack Obama, though I love the man and freely accept him as my party's standard bearer, was my third choice in the democratic field. I supported John Edwards followed by Hillary Clinton and finally Barack Obama. (I wasn't one of the die-hards who waited until his convention speech to admit it though.)
This should be fun. I hope.
Comments welcome,
Pat McGovern
It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.
I am quite sure that Rush Limbaugh will, with the help of his ample staff, jump on every single miscue President Barack Hussein Obama makes, real and imagined. It will require his staff because, unlike President Obama's immediate predecessor, he will make far fewer gaffes. Those he does make will probably often require someone more intelligent than an average fifth grader to pick up on as well. Another difference.
But, enough Bush bashing. The was NO good way to phrase this sentence other than how he did.
"Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath."
The loyal opposition: OMG! He doesn't realize that Grover Cleveland served twice! He's not worthy!
Well, "forty-four presidents" might have been better. At least you can make an argument that Grover Cleveland was two presidents as he was both the 22nd and 24th president. Regardless, using a number other than forty-four would have seemed disjointed at best to the bulk of the populace that was listening to that speech. The phrasing might have seemed disjointed if used any other workable way as well. Sorry, "Forty-four Presidents have now taken the presidential oath" just does not flow as well. So, a tiny bit of room for poetic license here please? It was not completely inaccurate! Certainly not as much as saying that Iraq "certainly" possessed WMD's on a national television broadcast before the invasion of Iraq! (I know that was former Vice-President Dark Lord, but the idea is the same!)
What is particularly annoying is how the right is attacking the statement like it is proof of his incompetence! That works now? It didn't work for us for the last eight years! Further, these were not off the cuff remarks, this was a Presidential Inauguration speech. This, regardless of whether or not it was largely written by President Barack Obama, was vetted. I believe President Obama knows that only 42 individuals preceded him. I am completely sure that David Axelrod knows that only 42 individuals preceded his boss. They went with the terminology not from ignorance but because they preferred it to other alternatives.
What the right really hates is this: President Barack Hussein Obama. President Barack Hussein Obama. President Barack Hussein Obama.
They will do anything to discredit him. If they do it indiscriminately, such as with the "Obama Flag" incident in Ohio (it was Ohio's state flag), then it will simply further discredit them.
One last thing, just for Rush Limbaugh: President Barack Hussein Obama!
Comments welcome,
Pat McGovern
It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.
Here is what I think about Senator Saxby Chambliss being re-elected to a second Senate term after facing a runoff with Jim Martin in Georgia: good. What!?!
Look, I know that Chambliss is still the same slimeball that smeared a true American hero when he ran against Max Cleland in 2002. He is still a slimeball.
My point is that this result provides affirmation to the wrong-headed wing of the Republican Party on what direction they should take. Read this:
In his victory speech, Chambliss said his re-election was a triumph of conservative principles.
“This race has been nationalized and people all around the world had their eyes on Georgia. And you delivered tonight a strong message to the world that conservative Georgia values matter,” he said.
Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan, who stood by Chambliss as he gave his victory speech, echoed those remarks.
“As we head into the 2010 cycle, tonight’s result sends a strong and confident message to those committed to electing candidates who stand by the core principles upon which our Party was founded,” he said in a statement.
Their argument throughout the post-election period, and in some cases before, is that the Republican Party needs to stop compromising it's "core" beliefs. Amongst those "core" beliefs, according to them, are opposition to abortion rights and gay marriage. Yes, these are "core" beliefs according to them.
There is a great battle forming: the social conservatives vs. the rest of the Republican party. The social conservatives think they can win this and, in the short term, they very well might.
Here is a statement from a prominent conservative Ohio blog, NaugBlog, by Matt Naugle, referring to Ohio Republican Party Chairman Kevin DeWine (inline link included):
That statement represents the thinking of the vast majority of the "social conservative" wing of the Republican Party at the moment. My problem with that statement is that while Reagan reached out to Jerry Falwell and the Christian Coalition as well as various other parts of the "social conservative" movement, he never delivered on anything much as far as the "social conservatives" were concerned. Why?
Reagan Democrats.
Ronald Reagan was a lot of things but stupid does not make that list. He was a brilliant politician. You do not bring a polarizing issue to the forefront if you expect to win, especially nationally. Reagan understood this. He made nice nice with the Jerry Falwell's, made them think they had a voice in the corridors of power, and then did nothing with it.
Reagan was a conservative more on the mold of Barry Goldwater. Did he have sympathies toward the social conservatives? Almost certainly. But he was, in true conservative, small government, libertarian style not going to make that a priority. Cutting taxes, cutting spending, national security, smaller government, letting people get on without the government interfering. That was Reagan conservatism.
Karl Rove understood this as well. That is where "compassionate" conservatism came from. You have to make conservatism, especially social conservatism, palatable to the "Reagan Democrat." Whether that term applies to the moderate/conservative Democrats or Independent voters. Either way, conservatism can sometimes seem like a heartless ideology to those not inculcated into it. Reagan and Bush made it palatable with sheer force of personality and knowing just how far they had to go with the social conservatives to make them happy without alienating the middle.
John McCain had a twofer! He, in and of himself, alienated social conservatives a long, long time ago. To rectify this situation he picked a staff that, obviously, did not learn well enough at knee of Karl Rove when attending the Atwater-Rove school of winning elections. Then he picked a running mate who energized the "base" (apparently meaning the social conservatives) while simultaneously alienating the very middle he used to own. I would have considered voting for McCain eight years ago. I would have voted for Bush/Cheney before McCain/Palin though. I am not the target audience but that should give some idea to the level of alienation some moderate Dems and Indys felt with the Palin pick. Thus, he did what Reagan and Bush never did and alienated the middle in order to appease the right. (Dole, on the other hand, said screw you, I'll win anyway to the right whilst failing to attract the middle. Arguably this was worse electorally.)
So Saxby Chambliss' win affirms the social conservative idea that embracing the "core" values, which, remember, are what Reagan stood for plus an activist pro-life agenda/litmus test and keeping gay marriage from ever happening, is what the Republicans need to do in order to return to power.
2010 will be an interesting year. I have no doubt that this philosophy may improve things in the south. In every other part of the country, including the mountain west, I see this becoming a big problem for them. Heck, in the mountain west Democrats can just go on about how "If the Republicans can interfere with homosexual relationships what's gonna stop them from interfering in a heterosexual relationship?" That line of thought will play well against the Republicans in what is essentially a libertarian area of the country. They care too much about their freedom to do what is essentially giving the government license to interfere in yet more stuff.
So we shall see where this will lead. I predict that it will get worse for the Republicans before it gets better.
Comments welcome,
Pat McGovern
It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.
Yup. I'm sure that I have not a few Republicans and Democrats rolling on the floor with that one. I am very aware that Barack Obama needs to win multiple states in which he is not ahead in order for this to occur. John McCain also needs this to happen, on a much more massive scale than my map, in order to win. He thinks he is going to win. I say, if it's good for the goose....
First off, why am I so optimistic? Well, firstly, I think that the youth vote is seriously underestimated in ALL the polls because of the cell phone issue. I think the fact that very few of the 'serious' polls do anything with cell phone users is a fundamental problem. The ones that do tend to be considered 'outliers.' Hmm.
Second: early voting. There has be a lot of it in states where it is permitted. There is no hard evidence, other than what are essentially rudimentary exit polls, but everything on the early voting seems to have broken towards Barack Obama. Hard.
Third. I think John McCain and Sarah Palin thoroughly disgusted voters with their appeals to baser instincts over the last weeks of the campaign. I may wind up debating with Republicans for the rest of my life who swear that this is not what they were doing. Please. His staff knew exactly what is was doing with all of this. Associates with terrorists. Whether it is Bill Ayers or trying to assassinate Rashid Khalidi's character and then tie Obama to him. Socialism. Not pro-America. Yeah, they knew exactly what they were doing. The crowds they drew were exactly what they were looking for. The problem is that a lot of independents, and moderate Dems and Republicans did not like what they saw. In a nutshell, this was, by far, the worst run campaign by a major party candidate in my lifetime. Yes, I was alive for George McGovern.
Put all of that together, you get a popular vote landslide. You want me to commit to a number? 8 points or better. Roughly 53-45 or better, assuming that Nader, Barr and company grab roughly 2 percent this cycle.
But where do I get 406 electoral votes. Let's see:
So it is exactly what it looks like. Obama runs the table and then some. The only possible pickups he whiffs on are West Virginia and Omaha. (I am still not to sure about Omaha. It might be 407-131.) McCain gets shut out on everything he's been hoping to hold on to/regain. No Pennsylvania. No Virginia. No North Carolina or Florida. Georgia? Yup. Remember how I was talking about the early voting? Well a LOT of people did early voting in Georgia. Nearly 2 million people have already voted in Georgia. The entire state only cast 3.3 million votes in 2004. The people actually going to the polls tomorrow on going to have to break heavily for McCain for him to actually carry Georgia. I don't think thats going to happen.
Other "oddballs" here. He loses Arizona: Momentum has been heavy against him here. That will be what kills him here. Ditto Montana and North Dakota as Governor Brian Schweitzer comes through with his state of Montana and helps North Dakota along as well. It case no one noticed, both of those states have seriously tightened in the final weeks.
Missouri. All I have to say is: Kansas City and St. Louis, especially St. Louis. This state has been right there for years. I think it comes to our column this time. I also think that Sen. Kit Bond should be very happy to not be running this year and should probably stop being as high profile in his support of McCain as he has been. Oops! Too late.
Ohio. My home state. Won't be as close as some seem to think, despite Kevin DeWine's best try. Everyone here is voting (and yes, Kevin, they are real voters). Most of the everyones I know are not voting for McCain. Also, another early voting state. Columbus and Cleveland already have huge numbers of votes in. Neither city is going to be pro-McCain. Even they know that.
Finally, my biggest quandary. Indiana. That's right, Georgia, Montana, North Dakota, Arizona and Missouri don't bother me as much as picking Indiana for Obama. Still, this is the home state of Birch and Evan Bayh. I think it will go to Obama but, if I had to pick one state that I may be wrong about, this, believe it or not, is it.
There you have it. My landslide projection. Nobody else seems to have enough cojones to pick this, so I will. Could I be wrong? Even very wrong? Hell yeah! But I think this is how it will play out. I thought very hard about this before I decided this map. I know how "out there" it seems. Everyone seems to like to discount the youth vote. Nobody seems to be factoring in the early voters.
And, lastly I do think as Kathleen Parker has suggested and Governor Mike Easley (D-NC) also seemed to hint at a few weeks ago on Rachel Maddow's show, that a "reverse Bradley effect" may actually occur. People who aren't comfortable telling a pollster that they will vote for a black man, but, when they get in the voting booth, do. Sounds a little weird, I know, but there is some anecdotal evidence that it might occur in this election.
I will not call this the most important election of my lifetime. That happened four years ago. The second most important was eight years ago. As much of a disaster as I thought a Bush presidency might become eight years ago, I must say, it is breathtaking, quite literally, at how much bigger a disaster than I was able to comprehend, it did, in fact, become.
So there. It is the third most important election in my lifetime. Maybe fourth. That is because regardless of the way John McCain has run his campaign, I cannot wrap my mind around how he could possibly not be better that Vice-President Dark Lord and his minion the President.
Tomorrow night, I fully expect to know that Barack Obama has won the election. Hopefully, my map is pretty accurate and Barack goes in with a big mandate. I doubt that he will go in without some sort of mandate, however. Maybe he'll "only" get 330 electoral votes. But he will win. Our long winter will finally be over.
Pat McGovern
It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.
As a proud Ohioan, I say: Let is not be said that Ohio Democrats do not have a sense of humor:
Kudos to Todd Hoffman and company for this great spoof! I really do have to wonder how many people would call that number if this was indeed aired! That infamous 20 odd percent that has always and will always love George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. How sad. Oh well!
Comments welcome,
Pat McGovern
It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.
