Palin is a Slap in Voters' Faces

I'm back from Denver and almost seething about McCain's pick, because it is confirmation of one of things I hate the most about 2008 McCain.

He has only contempt for the American voter.

How else do you explain picking a VP solely for electoral reasons?

He picked Palin because she's interesting, fresh, personable, young, attractive, and female. Twenty months ago she was mayor of a town of 6,500 residents and now she could be one heartbeat away from being the leader of the free world. Are you serious? This pick does not even pass the laugh test.

Now Republicans might argue the same about Obama, but Obama was state senator for 8 years, has worked with Dick Lugar to secure loose nukes, has worked with Tom Coburn to pass ethics reform, has sat on the Senate Armed Services committee for over 3 years now, and has proven his competence, temperament, communications skills, and ability to act under pressure over the past 19 months of campaigning.

So, yes, I do buy the "experience" argument despite counterexamples such as Abe Lincoln vs. Dick Cheney, and Palin simply does not have the breadth of experience to be the VP. She doesn't even know what a VP does.

I met New York Times columnist David Brooks in the Denver airport today. I said hello and that I was a fan (which is true because I always enjoy reading his columns even if I don't agree with them) and I asked him what he thought of Sarah Palin. He said, "I don't know what to think." I responded, "I don't know what he was thinking" and I walked away.

But now I've figured out what he was thinking, and this is why I think he has nothing but contempt for the average voter. He believes Americans will support this pick because she's a "hockey mom" or a "hunter" or attractive and female. To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen: "Sarah Palin, you are no Hillary Clinton."

I'm from a small town of about 5,000 people, not much smaller than Wasilla, AK. My mayor also happens to be a freeholder in my county government. My county has more people than the entire state of Alaska. Can I imagine my mayor as VP? How about my county executive? Hell no. I can't even imagine the mayor of a city of comparable size to Alaska, like Fort Worth, TX or Memphis, TN being VP.

So Sarah Palin. The pro-life, pro-drilling, pro-creationism bullshit doesn't bother me as much as the total lack of reason you should be any part of this election.

After Americans answer the question, "who the fuck is Sarah Palin?" The next questions will be "Why Sarah Palin?" and "Are you serious?"

For those of you who don't know me well, my parents are swing voters (Gore in 2000, Bush in 2004). My mom told me she won't vote for McCain because of this pick. I hope all independents react the same way.

Joe Biden will wipe the floor with her.

Update: Oh my god. She has only traveled abroad twice, to Ireland, Germany and Kuwait. I hope the analogy will be made to Bush who didn't travel before becoming President and I hope Americans are sick and tired of political leaders who have no intellectual curiosity and aren't students of the world. Sure I'm part of the "intellectual elite" but good lord....

My Two Current Loves

A. I love this:

I hope the Obama campaign continues attacks along this line (i.e. painting McCain as 'out of touch') and doesn't shift focus too soon.

B. I still love Jack Reed for VP. Not so much Bayh any more, I prefer Biden to Bayh. But the more I think about it the more I am smitten with Jack Reed. He may have momentarily replaced Bill Richardson (but not Bob Graham) in that special place in my heart.

Obviously, I like this stuff too much...

Much Better than Dukakis in a Tank...

HAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAH!!1!1!!!!!!1!!!

There has never been a better metaphor. Ever.

LOLZ! ROFLMAO!

Borrowed Time

First things first. After I wrote this post on competing electoral maps and how Cook seemed to be a little bit friendly towards McCain, they updated. They had McCain leading 240-217 EVs. Now they have Obama ahead a whopping 240-174 EVs. Now all three maps are similar and correspond fairly well with others like www.fivethirtyeight.com.

Now, lately I've been wondering how big of a Democratic majority could actually be built in the House. Obviously, using partisan voting indexes (national average versus district voting average) is not the best measurement, especially because local politics and ideologies do not often mirror the national parties, but I was wondering how many seats the Republicans were still holding on to despite Democratic advantages and vice versa. The results were pretty lopsided.

At this point, after the 2006 elections, the only existing Republican reps from Democratic districts are far and few between. The most disparate R representing D guys were Mike Castle (DE-AL, D+7), Chris Shays (CT-4, D+5), and Mark Kirk (IL-10, D+4). On the other hand, take a look at this list of Democrats in "Republican" districts. Considering almost all experts expect us to pick up even more seats in the house, I don't think there is a better image for just how far the Republican Party has lost its way. I guess this is what happens when voters realize they shouldn't elect people to the government who think the government is the enemy and seek to undermine and destroy it, or "drown it in the bathtub."

Chet Edwards - R+18 (this means that if the country voted 51% for Bush in 2004, his district voted 69% for Bush.)
Jim Matheson - R+17
Gene Taylor - R+16
Nick Lampson - R+15
Earl Pomeroy - R+13
Ike Skelton - R+11
Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin - R+10
Travis Childers - R+10
Brad Ellsworth - R+9
Chris Carney - R+8
Jim Marshall - R+8
Nancy Boyda - R+7
Baron Hill - R+7
Don Cayazoux - R+7
Ben Chandler - R+7
Heath Shuler - R+7
Rick Boucher - R+7
Tim Holden - R+7
John Spratt - R+6
Zach Space - R+6
John Salazar - R+6
Collin Peterson - R+6
Melissa Bean - R+5
Charlie Melancon - R+5
Bill Foster - R+5

So we have way over 25 Democratic Representatives in pretty solid Republican Territory.

I know they (at least the "Blue Dog Democrats") aren't the best followers as a bunch, and as a social liberal, some of their votes offend me, but I'm glad they did what they needed to so that when we elect President Obama, he will have a working majority. They may obstruct some of what he wants to do, but they're still better than having Republicans in those seats.

I don't blame the blogs for keeping the pressure on all these guys to be more liberal (in fact it's a very necessary thing and I applaud them for it), but I do get upset when the bigger emphasis is on attacking one's own instead of the opposition. This is the same reason just about everyone in the Democratic party hates Joe Lieberman now, just from the other side...

At the end of the day, I'll take a Chet Edwards over a Mike Castle because his affiliation keeps Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in power, not John Boehner and Mitch McConnell.

The Real Media Bias and Its Consequences

I get tired very quickly of stories about liberal or conservative media bias. The media only has one bias: selling papers. They look for sensational or interesting stories, nothing more. Of course that is a broad generalization and there are some ambitious journalists still left who genuinely report on neglected and important issues and do all of us a real service, but in this period of 24/7 cable news coverage, the Wolf Blitzers and Candy Crowleys of this world focus on the story of the day. This manifests itself in different ways.

The key to coverage of this election has been: Obama is interesting, McCain is not. Thus everything Obama does gets reported on and dissected, while McCain is swept aside. Here are the consequences

1) It is good for Obama. He still needs to prove to many segments of the public that he can be president. Having all the major news outlets accompany you abroad as you schmooze with foreign leaders helps. Dominating magazine covers and shows from Access Hollywood to Oprah helps acquaint the public with you. When he makes a major address, everyone hears about it. This gives Obama a platform to get his message out.

2) It is good for McCain. The consequence of the media focusing on Obama is also that they have given McCain a free pass where Obama would receive mountains of criticism.

A. McCain's many foreign policy mistakes, from saying Czechoslovakia multiple times, to saying Iraq and Pakistan shared a border, to thinking Shiite and Sunni are the same, to saying the surge helped the Anbar Awakening when the awakening preceded the surge.

B. McCain's many flip-flops from opposing drilling for oil off the coasts to supporting it, from opposing Bush's tax cut to voting for it and arguing it should be made permanent, and now, from opposing a timetable for withdrawal (which he was pretty much basing his campaign on) to supporting a timetable based on conditions on the ground, exactly like the one proposed by Obama over a year ago and seemingly endorsed by Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki last week.

McCain rejects the word "timetable" and then uses the word timetable multiple times. He also misquotes Obama and Maliki multiple times if you watch the full Stephanopolous interview.

C. The worst of all have been all of the over-the-top offensive attacks at Obama. He said Senator Obama would rather "lose a war in order to win a political campaign." Are you serious? Imagine if Obama had said that, the absolute shitshow that would be cable news for weeks on end. All of the gaffes made by McCain and idiotic things said by supporters from Phil Gramm to Rev. Hagee don't hold a candle to how low this is. And McCain always pledges to run a positive campaign, says he respects Obama, and promised a campaign on the issues. What bullshit.

Here's what Bob Herbert had to say in a great column this week:

Senator McCain crossed a line that he shouldn’t have this week when he said that Mr. Obama “would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.” It was a lousy comment, tantamount to calling Mr. Obama a traitor, and Senator McCain should apologize for it.

But what we’ve learned over the years is that Mr. McCain is one of those guys who never has to pay much of a price for his missteps and foul-ups and bad behavior. Can you imagine the firestorm of outrage and criticism that would have descended on Senator Obama if he had made the kind of factual mistakes that John McCain has repeatedly made in this campaign?

(Or if Senator Obama had had the temerity to even remotely suggest that John McCain would consider being disloyal to his country for political reasons?)

And then finally, McCain puts his filth on television and blames Obama for high gas prices:

And then here he is saying Obama doesn't support the troops (seriously? this again?):

What a disgrace. The McCain of 2000 or maybe even 2004 might have won this election. But this guy? I have too much faith in the American voter to believe that he could win. He can't and he won't. We'll make sure of it.

Update: If there is a bias, according to this study it is against Obama.

Veepstakes

I think this Wall Street Journal article hit the nail on the head with their short-list of VPs for both McCain and Obama.

For Obama: Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, Tim Kaine, Jack Reed, Kathleen Sebelius.

For McCain: Charlie Crist, Carly Fiorina, Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, Rob Portman, Mitt Romney, John Thune.

I don't think Obama will choose Chris Dodd, Tim Kaine, or Kathleen Sebelius. Dodd because of his connections to the insurance and banking industries. Kaine because he just doesn't seem to offer that much to the ticket besides being from VA and another "outsider." He lacks foreign policy experience, national name recognition, etc. If Obama is inexperienced (of course he isn't, but...), Kaine is a baby. Sebelius because some former Clintonites might be offended that he would pick a woman who wasn't Hillary, and also for the same reasons Kaine is unlikely (no foreign policy experience). I think Bayh, Biden, Clinton, and Reed would all be excellent picks for different reasons, but Reed is still by far my favorite.

As for McCain, I think Crist, Fiorina, and Palin are unlikely. I don't have as many reasons for that. Just more of a hunch. My picks remain Portman, Romney, or Thune. Pawlenty has proven himself, at least in my opinion, to be really boring on the talk show circuit. Portman might also be boring, but he brings major economic street cred. Of course Romney Mittens Guy Smiley would be a dream come true. Thune would be a good pick, although being pretty far right wing, would have some major policy disagreements with McCain.

Guy Smiley on the stump.
How can people like this man? Seriously.

Competing Electoral Maps

Usually, if I want to check the status of the very nitty gritty horse race aspects of the elections, I consult three sources: RealClearPolitics, Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball, and the Cook Political Report. I feel that between the three of them I get a good sense of the lay of the land.

All three have slightly different electoral maps, but I noticed that Cook is definitely a bit too pro-McCain and RealClearPolitics is a bit too pro-Obama. Sabato, who lies somewhere in between seems to me the most accurate.

The Cook Report has McCain leading 240-219 electoral votes with 79 electoral votes. It lists Virginia, Missouri, North Carolina, and Florida as leaning McCain (in the same category as Arkansas?). Never mind that most polls show a dead even race in most of them

It also lists Oregon, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Minnesota as all leaning towards Obama. This would be fair except that Oregon and Minnesota (without Pawlenty) are much safer for Obama than the other three, all of which should be considered toss ups (although again with NM and WI more likely to fall Obama's way than NH). Cook also lists Iowa as a toss up except that every major poll taken in Iowa has Obama ahead of McCain, the most recent by 10 points.

I understand polls aren't anything, but compare Cook's map to that of RCP and Larry Sabato.

RealClearPolitics has Obama ahead 238 to 163. Among the toss ups it lists are Indiana (Cook said likely R), and Missouri, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida (all lean R for Cook). It also says TX is only leaning McCain. If Obama is truly competitive (even competitive) in Texas as we get close to the election, we can expect a landslide. It should be solid McCain territory. It seems to me unrealistic to categorize IN as a toss-up (without Bayh). It's not unwinnable, but it doesn't deserve to be in the same category as Virginia, a true toss up. Also, at this point, it might still be fairer to keep NC and MO in the lean category, despite the polls I cited above. FL is definitely a toss-up.

Sabato seems the fairest. He has Obama ahead 200 to 174 with 99 toss-up EVs. I do have a few gripes though. I don't think Indiana is as solid as he claims and should only be a likely McCain victory. I also think Florida should remain a tossup (like VA) for the time being. He has NC and MO as leaning Republican, which is fair, but lists Wisconsin as a tossup, which I think should be leaning toward Obama (like NM and IA).

So basically, the map as I see it is Obama 243 to McCain 200 with 95 tossup EVs, with the breakdown as follows.

Solid Obama: WA, CA, MD, DC, NJ, NY, CT, RI, MA, VT, DE
Likely Obama: OR, ME, MN
Lean Obama: WI, IA, NM, PA
Tossup: NV, CO, MI, OH, VA, FL, NH
Lean McCain: AK, MO, IN, NC
Likely McCain: MT, ND, MS, GA, AZ
Solid McCain: ID, UT, KS, NE, SD, OK, TX, AR, LA, AL, SC, TN, KY, WV

Finally, despite a lot of media coverage that made it seem like Obama lost ground in the past couple of weeks (prior to his trip), I'd just like to point out that there has not been a single national poll taken since the beginning of May that has McCain ahead of Obama.

So yeah, I'm still pretty optimistic.

Exclusive Interview: Obama Responds to Jesse Jackson!!!

This just in! Check out the official response of the Obama campaign to the remarks of Jesse Jackson Sr.

Excellent!

Actually, in all seriousness, I agree with the conventional wisdom that this was a good thing for Obama.
Shocker: White people generally don't like Jesse Jackson...
Other shocker: the enemy of my enemy is my friend!
Conclusion: if Jesse is attacking Obama, I must agree with Obama.

GOP VP Predictions!

I honestly have no idea who Obama will pick, but I'm willing to make a prediction on the McCain side of the equation.

I think it will be 1) Mitt Romney 2) Rob Portman or 3) John Thune.

I hope it will be Mittens! Oh, how I miss that adorable plastic exoskeleton and all of the beautiful clips that can be played and replayed about him:

McCain Can't Use a Computer. Game Over.

Focus about a third of the way in:

Seriously?

I'm sorry, but if you intend to lead our economy in the 21st century, a prerequisite must be competence with a computer. Good lord.

I guess it comes with the territory of being older than the ballpoint pen and the polio vaccine.

My Picks for VP

This site is easy to use to calculate the electoral math of this upcoming presidential election.

Now, I will venture a guess to say that of the swing states mentioned, Obama is a good bet to win: Wisconsin, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New Hampshire, and maybe Iowa.

McCain may end up taking Missouri, Florida, and Nevada.

That leaves Colorado, Michigan, Ohio, Virginia, and North Carolina, all of which I believe Obama can win. Electorally at that point Obama would be leading 247-217. Any two of those states would put Obama over the top.

Now, it has certainly been contested whether your VP pick affects the election at all. Friend of DemApples, Josh Patashnik '07, writes about all of this hullabaloo quite persuasively, arguing it doesn't matter too much in the election.

But it certainly does matter in the grand scheme of things, and it is a big test of the candidate's judgment in the eyes of the voters. For example, if John McCain were to choose Dick Cheney, voters might question his sanity.

So, on the Democratic side, there are basically three areas for swing states the Obama campaign is focusing on: the Southeast, the Midwest, and the Mountain states/Southwest.

With the Southeast, Virginia is undoubtedly a tossup. North Carolina has been mentioned but still leans Republican. Florida seems to as well in this election. Georgia is a long-shot and would depend on some massive outpouring of black voters unlikely to happen. So you are looking at about 13 electoral votes for Virginia truly up for grabs.

In the Mountain states and Southwest, we have Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado at play, and in the case of a massive Obama tidal wave, Montana. Altogether, Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado comprise 19 electoral votes.

The Midwest, however, is a treasure trove of must-win electoral votes. Ohio and Michigan alone comprise 37 electoral votes. Add in Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin (though I think Obama will win it handily), and Indiana (a stretch), and you jump up to 76 electoral votes. If Obama carries a majority of the Midwest, he wins the White House.

On issues, weaknesses Obama wants to shore up include military and foreign policy credentials, lack of experience, and expertise on the economy (because it will be so vitally important). That said, he doesn't want anyone too "Washington," too tied up with lobbyists and special interests, too much representative of the past, or else it might undercut his message against McCain. I actually do believe this, because I think 2008 is a transformative year, and people are not yearning for a return to the Clinton years, but an actual change to how Washington runs. Whether this can be achieved is another question, but it seems voters are responding to that message.

Thus I give you my two picks:

1) Senator Jack Reed

Reed has expertise on the economy, and specifically on the housing crisis. He is a likable, solid, liberal guy, but has military experience and the standing to attack McCain's record and look good doing it. These articles explain why picking him would be a good idea better than I can.

One problem is that the governor of Rhode Island is a Republican, but he could only appoint a replacement for about a year, I expect we will make gains in the Senate so that it wouldn't upset the balance, and the next election the true blue voters of RI would vote in a Democrat I'm sure...

2) Senator Evan Bayh

The man is a perennial VP shortlister because he's a good choice. He's boring, white, and centrist, but he fits the Midwest like a glove, and he is undoubtedly qualified to be president. Bayh is a very popular former governor and current senator in a Red State, his campaign commercials have hit Ohio media markets over the years so they know him there, and even though he is a huge DLCer, he can be a bit more populist on trade issues, something that will play well in the Midwest as well. Of course, if there is a problem with disaffected Hillary supporters, he helps there too.

So basically, if we accept the premise that VP doesn't matter in the election, then Bayh and Reed would not be my picks. I would just pick the people I wanted most to be President other than Obama (Richardson, Gore, maybe Bloomberg). But I still do believe VP matters in the election, not because I expect them to carry their own state (I'm not sure Bayh would win Indiana), but because of the signal it sends to the voters about the message of the ticket as a whole. That message I think could be buoyed by the addition of Reed (my first choice) or Bayh.

Here's to Obama-Reed '08

As for uncalled for and early predictions: 52% Obama 45% McCain 3% Barr (roughly 306EV to 232EV)

Update: Slate's VP pick interactive is fun!

Can We Trust McCain?

Mmmmm.....I think not.

Hermione Rodham Clinton

Bush-rubber stamp Representative Heather Wilson (R-NM) wrote a letter to the New York Times.

She writes:

The Democratic nominating system favors the most liberal candidate — in this case, Barack Obama.

But there is a second reason Hillary Clinton lost that some are reluctant to openly acknowledge: a latent and lamentable sexism. She lost because the superdelegates — the Democratic establishment — went against her.

She became a caricature: too smart, too strong, too assertive, too rational, too competent. Think how the young Harry Potter and his male friends initially reacted to Hermione Granger and you get the idea.

I don't agree with her main point. Sure sexism was at play during the entire election, but I don't think it is the reason Hillary lost. Plus, if Ms. Wilson were correct we'd all be chanting Kucinich 2008...

But the Hermione comparison is quite astute, perhaps even better than the Tracy Flick analogy:

This scenario makes Barack Obama the electoral Harry Potter (fits), John Edwards into Ron Weasley (okay), and Bill Richardson into....Hagrid.

And of course all of this makes John McCain....Voldemort.

I think I'll start referring to McCain as He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named.

Where are the "New Jersey Values"?

As people who know me know well, I often defend my home state of New Jersey against the pernicious rumors that plague us. One thing that bothers is me, is a negative self-image that results.

You know all of those campaign commercials that talk about how so-and-so is standing up for "[enter state here] values"? If you are not familiar, a few examples are shown below from a quick YouTube search of certain states.

People in New Jersey, New York, California, Massachusetts, and other liberal states never do that. Why is that? Are we ashamed of our values? I'd prefer New Jersey values to Nebraska values any day. We are still honest, hardworking people, even if we don't have that farmer, rural-townfolk charm.

Adding to that is the liberal use of the buzzwords "New York values" and "San Francisco values" as stand-ins for "immorality." I've never seen a Democratic ad use "Oklahoma values" or "Alabama values" as a stand-in for "backwards" or "ignorant" or something like that. I wouldn't want to see that ad because it's wrong, but still, is this just a microcosm of the bigger differences between Democrats and Republicans in campaign commercials, and more importantly, are we losing big elections because the Republicans are better at hitting voters in the gut with black-white emotional connections. San Francisco is "the other" and "gays" are bad. Period.

But it's certainly not only Republicans doing this. In fact, I found just as many Democratic candidates use this rhetorical strategy in my quick YouTube search.

What do all of you think? Why aren't the commercials touting "New Jersey values"?

Examples:
Scott Kleeb (D) running for Hagel's open seat in Nebraska:

Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) during his awesome campaign!:

Governor Ernie Fletcher (R-KY) in his unsuccessful! reelection campaign:

And my personal favorite, Congressional candidate David Landrum (R-MS):

Here are some others for your perusal:
Mike Ciresi
Mark Kennedy
Tom Cole
Chris Carney
Joe Lieberman

Here's my take on New Jersey values: