Dear Markus,

I respectfully disagree with your take on the latest polls.

The recent numbers showing Obama with narrow leads, or even statistically even (I know, it’s Rasmussen so it doesn’t really count) are so frustrating to me that I can’t help but feel fairly pessimistic about the way things are going. Three reasons:

1. John McCain is a terrible candidate who is running a terrible campaign. He has made gaffe after gaffe after gaffe (I’m not even bothering to find links for each gaffe because they’re so well-chronicled on this and every other blog in existence), he is uninteresting, he is getting zero media coverage, and everyone hates Republicans right now.

   Barack Obama, on the other hand, is the most exciting candidate the Democrats have ever had. So WHY IS HE ONLY WINNING BY TWO POINTS?! If Obama cannot beat McCain under the current conditions, or even if he wins by a slim margin, I cannot imagine another situation in the foreseeable future in which a Democrat would actually win the Presidency.

2. I disagree that people aren’t paying attention. This election is different from every other before it, and I think people are watching.

   But even if they’re not paying too much attention, every household in every swing state is currently getting bombarded with McCain’s attack ads. And while the ads may be completely freaking ridiculous, the problem is that they’re not being countered by the Obama campaign, and impressions are formed early and are hard to change.

   Obama is afraid to get his feet wet after claiming a "new style of politics." He’s been running his campaign too conservatively, and he has to start firing back early and often. It doesn’t need to be mudslinging. But the fact that this video isn’t seared into the mind of every American and "mental recession" isn’t a household phrase is appalling, considering that this election is gearing up to be all about the economy.

And while he’s at it, he can show McCain’s ads to be the old kind of politics by producing a negative yet substantive ad.

3. I also reject the argument that the race is all about the electoral votes and the popular vote doesn’t matter. Obama’s weak (given the political atmosphere and the events of the race so far) numbers are disappointing from a down-ticket race stand point. Standing on the assumption that a majority of people will vote straight down one of the party lines, Obama needs to start doing better with the working-class white people and the moderately-conservative independents who will be the key to a 6- or 7-seat gain in the Senate and a 30-seat gain in the House (both of which should be attainable given the political climate).

Paris Strikes Back

So, what do you all think of her energy plan?

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.

Why are you a Democrat in 2008?

So the Democratic Convention is running this contest on YouTube for people to submit a 2 minute video answering the question "Why are you a Democrat in 2008?"

This contest and the question it asks raise some interesting questions.

First here is the entry we helped make for Congressman Sarbanes'(MD-03):

I think this is a pretty good answer and the theme of leadership is important.

But I think it is interesting that the question doesn't just ask "Why are you are Democrat?" but "Why are you a Democrat in 2008?"

Why? The recent history of the Republican Party and the graphic of Wal-Mart contributions at the bottom of Markus's post yesterday are two examples. We aren't old enough to remember, but back in the day, it was actually an intellectually defensible position to be a member of the Republican Party. It stood for small and good government at a time when the Democratic Party was stocked with bigoted Southern racists and corrupt machine politicians.

This has changed over the last 40 years but many older people who grew up with the old Republican Party. For example, take former Congresswoman Connie Morella, our well meaning but disingenuous Republican guest this spring. Her claim that "I never voted for Delay" because she and three other 3 moderates in the Republican Party meekly offered a sacrificial lamb to get crushed in the Republican caucus' vote for Majority Leeader? Give me a fucking break, Connie, you voted for him every day with the R next to your name. People like Morella stuck with the Republican Party well past the time when it was all too clear that their party was driving the country off a cliff.

Right now, the Democratic Party is the clear choice for us. But as Markus pointed out with his graph, it can always get away from its core values and current status as the pragmatic party. I hope that I will have the balls to jump ship if it ever drifts too far.

It would be sad sight to have a 75 year old Jarrett Zafran hobble into a meeting of the Harvard Republican Club in 2055 and seem as pathetically out of touch with the realities that a hypothetical ideological and corrupt Democratic Party had wrought as Connie Morella seemed when she tried to justify her 4 votes for Tom Delay and her support for the real ideological and corrupt Republican Party to the Harvard Dems in 2008.

So kudos to the DNC for adding "in 2008" to their question in the contest.

This is the source of the Clark kerfuffle?

Apparently this quote is what has disqualified Wesley Clark from consideration as Vice President: " I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."

Oh heavens! How dare Clark criticize McCain, question his military qualifications? It's a pretty tough criticism, but I think all the indignity is ridiculous, because it's a true statemen.

I like FiveThirtyEight.com's argument for Wes Clark:

A month ago, picking Wesley Clark would have seemed like a fairly safe choice -- someone who allows you to check the "foreign policy" and "liked by Clinton supporters" boxes. It might have seemed, in other words, like a pander. But because of the Face the Nation dust-up, all of the sudden it would send a very different message. It would say: we're going to stand our ground, we're not going to be so worried about being politically correct, and we're taking it right to you. Isn't that a fairly optimal message for Obama to send out given the present narrative?

McCain can only get so much mileage out of Clark's straight-ahead attacks on his military qualifications, and Clark is an effective spokesman, as he's proven again and again on cable.

Here's an example:

Visit ObamaClark.com if you'd like to sign the petition.

Ivy League Volunteers Dissed By Obama?

Courtesy of KosherDutchAfro over at OpenLeft, apparently some Obama insiders are saying that he's trying to escape Ivy Leaguers (like, obviously, us), despite being one himself. (Thanks to Phil Grimm for the link.)

My source within the Obama campaign in Chicago has told me campaign employees have had it up to their ears with overly ambitious Ivy League volunteers who have been causing problems for the campaign by putting their individual ambitions over the larger goals of the campaign as a movement. This employee and fellow South Side native has shared with me that the campaign is getting a sense that the attitudes of dedicated Ivy League volunteers had, over the course of the primary, given Republicans enough stories to run with the 'elitist' trope in the general election.

In Pennsylvania, where the campaign lost big time to Hillary due to pushy Penn students stoking conflict with long-time city activists, the Obama campaign has instituted a training that teaches volunteers how to be sensitive to existing communities.

"They (Ivy League) students come on with this attitude that this is their big break," the source said as she edited a video for the campaign in the Roosevelt Road Kinko's. "I've got news for them, they're not getting jobs."

Evidently, according to this source, Senator Obama himself feels Ivy League graduates have held sway over Washington too long and even though he attended Harvard and Columbia, if elected, he intends to do very little hiring from the Ivies. "There is a general sense around the campaign that the Ivy kids are self-interested and out of touch with the general campaign culture."

Their solution? Go for ambitious, determined, self-interested campaign staff (who might just have the added advantage of being Ivy League rejects) from Northwestern and U Chicago instead. 

As the campaign advances into the general election, word from the inside is that additional general election hiring will lean heavily towards Midwestern colleges.  

As I'm just about to leave work at my posh unpaid internship that the Ivy League gave me access to (that's sarcasm; I'm here on my own, and I live in a basement), I won't go into this very much. But I do have to say that I've met a lot of people who write me off immediately because I'm from Harvard, and that if this source is correct, I'm terribly disappointed with the Obama campaign.

No, the Ivy League isn't a perfect meritocracy; no, we're not all perfect, or even deserving of being here; no, we don't represent America -- but neither does any campaign staff. It should be the most passionate, intelligent, hardworking, motivated, skilled group he can find, the most interested in politics and in the campaign and in the future of this country -- no matter what school they go to. I don't think ambition should be a disqualification at all. And I know through my own experience that progressive "campaign culture." at least among interest groups, is often dismissive of the people it needs the most. I'd hope the Obama campaign doesn't make the same mistake.

Thoughts? (Markus Kolic, I'm looking at you.)

McCain Blooper Reel: Now Who's a Flip-Flopper?

John McCain, May 28, 2008, Reno, Nevada:

Senator Obama has been to Iraq once. A little over two years ago, he went, and he has never seized the opportunity, except in a hearing, to meet with General Petraeus.... Now, I asked Senator Obama to go to Iraq. I asked him to go back... and I said I would go with him, if necessary. I would be glad to go with him.

Last month, Obama announced plans to visit Iraq sometime before the election.

Jill Hazelbaker, a spokeswoman for McCain's campaign, this morning:

Let's drop the pretense that this is a fact-finding trip and call it what it is: the first of its kind campaign rally overseas.

Plus, some whining:

It is unproductive to spend it worrying about the way Obama is covered. That being said, it certainly hasn't escaped us that the three network newscasts will originate from stops on Obama's trip next week.

John McCain, a little bit later, sort of repudiating Hazelbaker's comments:

The fact is that I’m glad he is going to Iraq. I am glad he is going to Afghanistan. It’s long, long overdue if you want to lead this nation.

John McCain, another little bit later, according to the Times:

Later in the day, in Grand Haven, Mich., Mr. McCain elaborated on his and Ms. Hazelbaker’s original remarks. He differentiated the Iraq and Afghanistan parts of the trip from its other legs, saying that Mr. Obama’s activities in those other countries could have “a political flavor, to say the least.”

I'm really lost at this point as to what part of the trip is pandering and what part of the trip is legitimate fact-finding. The logic seems to work like this: If John McCain tells you to go to a country, that makes you slightly better qualified to be commander in chief, except that you should have done it before John McCain told you to go, and at any rate you're not as qualified as John McCain. But if John McCain didn't recommend a trip, it's just a big overseas rally. Ooh, that makes my head hurt.

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.

"Obama" is to "Change" as "McCain" is to... "Old"?

Remember the hype about McCain being too old? You know what I'm talking about: that site of everything younger than him (the six pack, the xerox machine, 5 out of 9 supreme court justices, your mom, etc); a whole lot of articles (including a few by our own); and, of course, blogs like this one.

It's working.

In an AP poll, widely circulated through the horse-race pundits this past Monday, voters reportedly associated McCain with "old" more than any other adjective (19%). With Obama, the top associated word was "change" or "outsider" (20%). That's right: for once, the left got its messaging right. This former Clinton supporter is a big fan of the Obama messaging engine just about right now.

But the poll has its depressing moments as well. Three percent of respondents linked Obama first and foremost with "Muslim." Five percent chose "unlikeable." Twelve percent cite his youth or lack of experience, and nine percent describe him as dishonest. I can't decide if I'm happy or not that (only?) six percent mentioned "his race" in their first association, because I'm pretty sure no one gave the answer "his race" in those words, exactly. So which one did they choose?

I'll finish off with a return to the theme (that axiom of Messaging 101): McCain is old. He’s so old that he has reached the second stage of possible deaths. This isn’t just incredulity, and it definitely is not “ageism” in the way racism and religious intolerance afflicts people who answered “his race” to the Obama question. It might be if age didn't matter—if McCain were still healthy, or if age had given him wisdom. He is not, and it hasn’t.

Age matters, because McCain is so old—and ailing—that he had to take out life insurance in case he died mid-campaign. He’s so old—and incompetent—that he leaves that whole newfangled computer thing to his millionaire second wife. He’s so old—and forgetful—that even he admitted that he was, eight years ago.

And that's how we need to frame ’08, people: “Change” vs. “That Old Guy.” Don’t let them forget it.

Want more economic opportunities? Speak more than one language!

Barack Obama is right on this. While I don't think it is embarrassing that many Americans can't speak more than English, I do think it is holding us back from thriving economically and socially. My cousin who lives in Spain speaks English, Spanish, Catalan, and French fluently. Learning another language is a big deal in other countries, while here many people see it as either pointless or time wasted. Learning a second language opens up your clientele, it makes everyone appear to be more open-minded, etc. If you know English, that means you can speak to 300-400 million native speakers, and anywhere from 200 million to a billion secondary speakers. If you know Spanish, that is another 300-400 million native speakers. If you know Chinese, that is another 1 billion native speakers. Think how much business Americans could make if they knew a second language.

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!

Two things that pissed me off today

First, more comically: Predictably, the Federal Marriage Amendment is back, and David Vitter and Larry Craig are among the ten original sponsors in the Senate. Family values, kids! Hat tip to Ta-Nehisi Coates - and yeah, follow that link, because the Chris Rock clip is sweet.

Second, more angering: the brouhaha over something Wes Clark said yesterday. First, watch the actual video:

Or, if you're really pressed for time:

Clark: "Because in the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk. It's a matter of gauging your opponents and it's a matter of being held accountable.

"John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he has traveled all over the world.

"But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded -- that wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle this publicly? He hasn't made that calls, Bob."

Bob Schieffer: "Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down."

Clark: "I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.”

Immediately, McCain and friends flipped a shit about how Clark was smearing McCain and disrespecting his military service and probably hates baseball and apple pies and motherhood. (Oh wait - that last one would be the GOP.) This in itself is ridiculous. For starters, the idea that Wes Clark, a decorated veteran with thirty-five years of military service, would in any way devalue military experience - John McCain's or anyone else's - is simply incredible. Add that to the fact that one of the loudest critics has been Colonel Bud Day, who was active in the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and you have a thoroughly bogus accusation. But most tellingly, Clark went out of his way to acknowledge McCain's service to the military, both in active duty and in his position in the Senate. Unless I've suddenly forgotten how to read, I'm pretty sure Clark said nothing that could be reasonably construed as an insult to McCain's military service.

But what frustrates me the most is that Clark is getting in trouble for something that is absolutely true. Factually, riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is not a qualification to be president, and I doubt that you can find a single person who's been through the experience who will make that claim. Maybe I've missed something, but John McCain doesn't make that claim; neither do the people who have jumped to his (imaginary) defense. Moreover, what Clark said was a response not to anything McCain has argued, but to what Bob Schieffer said might be an argument on McCain's behalf. In essence, the Republicans are grasping at straws, trying to find something that they can get offended about, and I'd say it's not working except that the media sure is all over this non-story. Diversions from actual issues, anyone?

Good taste

Any reservations I may have had about Barack Obama -- ok, ok, shut up. But if I had had any reservations at this point, they would be gone, after I read this:

The Democratic presidential candidate discusses the music he listened to while growing up -- Stevie Wonder, Earth, Wind & Fire, Elton John, the Rolling Stones -- and the music on his iPod -- all of the above plus Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Charlie Parker, Jay-Z, Bruce Springsteen, Howlin' Wolf, Yo-Yo Ma, Sheryl Crow, the Grateful Dead and others.

But perhaps Obama's most intriguing response came when he was asked to name his favorite Dylan songs.

"Actually, one of my favorites during the political season is 'Maggie's Farm,' " he replied. "It speaks to me as I listen to some of the political rhetoric."

MAGGIE'S FARM. What a classic. Most people know that when Dylan went electric at the 1965 Newport Folk Festival, he played the revolutionary "Like A Rolling Stone" -- but fewer people know that the first song he played, the shot heard round the world, was "Maggie's Farm." Picture yourself at a folk festival, listening to placid acoustic songs, and then suddenly you're facing this (actual 1965 footage):

That right there is one of the most historic moments in rock music. Make sure you watch all the way through so you can hear the booing at the end. (There's a better version on DVD -- The Other Side of the Mirror, which I had the privilege to watch in its entirety during a PBS pledge drive -- that captures the boos and shouting from the crowd right from the first notes on that guitar.) Good choice, Sen. Obama; good choice.