Obama and Keith Ellison: Fact Checking

Andrew Sullivan accurately derides this piece by Scott Johnson as “It is the highbrow equivalent of the Obama-Is-A-Muslim-Terrorist emails. Except it isn’t even that highbrow. It’s a strange attempt to draw parallels between Congressman Keith Ellison’s career and Barack Obama’s.”

I can personally fact check one point made by Johnson, and want to push back on another point:

Johnson claims::”both Ellison and Obama were the leftward-most viable candidates running for the Democratic Party endorsement, and both won endorsement against heirs apparent.”

Hilalry Clinton ran to the left of Obama in the primaries on domestic policy, and John Edwards ran to the left of both of them - and was certainly viable as a candidate in a way that Dennis Kucinich was not (Kucinich is the only other candidate Johnson mentions by name).

But that’s just triviality, really.

The one point I can fact check personally is Johnson’s claim that “Despite the natural alliance that should exist between them, Obama has scrupulously avoided Ellison.” As his only data point, he notes that Obama did not want Ellison to address a mosque. It seems that given the shady sites wrongly linking Obama to being a Muslim, Obama would think that sort of event would be counterproductive.

Indeed, I can think of three events personally that I saw Ellison address Obama, two of which I even live blogged:
1) Obama’s Minneapolis event in the primaries. Would Obama want to hide from Ellison, but still have him address 20,000 people?

2) Obama’s rally the night he won enough delegates to win the nomination in St. Paul. Ellison was in the building, and shook hands with the crowd. 

3) Event as University of Minnesota Law School this year. Ellison spoke there, and in his remarks included why he endorsed Obama. I can’t prove this, obviously, but I think Occam’s Razor is on my side.

And a bonus fact check from Google:

4) Doing a quick check of Google, Ellison campaigned plenty for Obama. There’s even video on Obama’s site.

Sphere: Related Content

Divided Government: How judicial appointments work

MW is very unhappy with me apparently. In response to my argument about judges, he states:

A simplistic look at the risk of McCain Supreme Court appointments (such as Jeff and John make here), pretends that the large Democratic majority in the Senate does not exist and will have nothing to say about confirming a McCain appointment. A simplistic look will completely ignore John McCain’s moderate record in the Senate with Judicial appointments of both parties. A simplistic look will completely ignore the fact that John McCain led the “Gang of 14″ bipartisan moderates in the Senate against George Bush and the GOP leadership, earning him the enmity of his own party to preserve the filibuster in the Senate for the minority Democratic party on Judicial picks. A simplistic look will ignore that he did so at the risk of his presidential amitions, for no other reason than because it was the right thing to do for the country. And - oh yeah - force the GOP’s hand on more moderate judicial selections

.

His argument betrays ignorance both of recent history and John McCain.

Historically, there’s not much for an opposing Senate to do anything but knock down an over the top judge. So sure, someone like Robert Bork can be rejected. But Bork and Harriet Miers are the only two unsuccessful nominations since Nixon.

Moreover, let’s imagine a world in which John McCain gets elected, and John Paul Stevens retires. Do you really think that the conservative movement would allow McCain to nominate a moderate for the Court? With McCain already making Fred Thompson the point man for his judicial philosophy? The best liberals and moderates could hope for would be a conservative without a paper trail. And furthermore, there’s only so many nominations you can stonewall before the public turns on you. ANd MW does not push back against the dire consequences of a far right appointment; he’s just blindly confident it won’t happen. (That’s a noticeable trend)

The end result of MW’s worldview is a publicly unpopular Congress and re-defeated Democratic party.

Divided government does well when the point is to stonewall a government domestically, or to just be a caretaker government. When there’s actual problems in the country that need to be solved, it’s not really suited for that.

Moreover, government is divided: conservatives have the edge on the Supreme Court. But I guess that branch doesn’t count to MW.

He lists about 15 other arguments and tries to push back, but none of his pushback is particularly effective. There’s a common assumption running through his post that if government just maintains the status quo, everything will be fine.

He’d have a better chance persuading me of a Republican Congress. But apparently that’s too difficult for him. (Or he’s just not smart enough to notice the vast differences between a a Democratic President / Republican Congress and a Republican President / Democratic Congress.)

Sphere: Related Content

Inside Sarah Palin’s Mind

Do you want to know how Sarah Palin thinks on her feet? Then read how she read her speech as opposed to how it was written. It sounds a bit awkward as I write it, but click through and read the first paragraph. it’s riveting.

Sphere: Related Content

Obama TV Tonight: What Did You Think?

Reminder that obama’s network TV special starts at 8 eastern / 7 central. 

Put your thoughts down in the comments section. We’re going to be watching, but not liveblogging unless something extraordinary happens. 

Do you think the idea is ridiculous? a good idea? 

I’m inclined to shrug at the idea - apparently it was common in the 70s and before. But we’ll see based on the execution if it’s more over the top messianic stuff or pragmatic details and appeals.

Sphere: Related Content

2012 Watch: Who Is In The Mix For a (Possible) 2012 GOP Nomination?

Over at Donklephant, Justin lists three candidates for the 2012 GOP nomination should McCain lose as expected, after looking at the Newsweek poll: Palin, Romney, and Huckabee. I have a single, major problem with his analysis: It’s too early to narrow it down to frontrunners. The Newsweek poll numbers are useful, but solely for the purpose of seeing how deep Palin is loved among Republicans. It shows she has a lot of ground to make up.

So, for a more thorough listing, here’s some other contenders for whom there is credible evidence of interest in a run:

Bobby Jindal (La. Gov)

Haley Barbour (Miss. Gov.)

Tim Pawlenty (Minn. Gov.)

Newt Gingrich (Former Speaker of the House)

And the longer shots:

John Sununu

Richard Burr (N.C. Sen.)

Jon Huntsman (Utah Gov.)

Jim DeMint (S.C. Sen.)

Jeff Sessions (Ala. Sen.)

David Petraeus (General, Centcom)

And the wildcard:

Jeb Bush (Former Gov., Florida)

Frankly, we don’t know which way the party will go, which will be a significant factor in who gets nominated. Obama was not at the top of many lists.

It’s far too early to guess anything but who is in the mix. The next two years will be spent building support networks, gathering donors, and getting a base of support. Palin and Huckabee in particular have no extended donor base of their own. Huckabee is starting with his Huck Pac, but clearly has a ways to go. Palin needs to get a group of trusted advisors and build a nationwide support network - and I doubt that McCain will be much help in that. Moreover, she’ll have to do that while governing a state far removed from the traditional areas of either financial or logistical support. Early primaries are biased towards the Midwest and east.

Can she do it? Sure. After Obama’s quick rise, it’s prudent to never say never. But it’s not going to be easy, and the tone of the campaign - being based on Nobama instead of about any idea in particular - makes her chore more difficult. The Democrats were all about Bush in 2004, but Obama’s convention speech was still about a postiive idea. Can Palin find a rationale to put her at the top? Or will she try to get the nomination based on the old Republican notion of being next in line?

That said, it’s too early. This election still needs to be had. At this point it’s more interesting to see who would be in the mix.

Sphere: Related Content

Awkward: Lieberman Says McCain Will Live Until At Least 85

In another example of Palin’s perceived drag on the ticket, McCain supporter, Sen. Lieberman tried to assuage concerns about the possibility of Palin assuming the presidency if McCain were elected by talking about McCain’s longevity.  Said Lieberman:

“People say to me, oh jeez, he’s 72 and he’s got skin cancer…I can tell you he’s been in remission for eight years. Secondly, I talked — because I get asked this question so much — I talked to doctors and insurance actuaries. And they tell me based on McCain’s age, his health, including skin cancer, he’ll live till at least 85. And probably longer.”

Apparently Lieberman doesn’t think Palin has much “joementum.”  He’s criticized her before, saying:

But when asked by The Advocate if Palin is ready to be president from day one, Lieberman said “thank God she’s not going to have to be president from day one. McCain’s going to be alive and well.”

Yet another illustration why the McCain Campaign is having such trouble.

Sphere: Related Content

More on the Fallacy of Divided Government

I’ve talked through the philosophical problems with divided government here and here. John Judis looks at it historically, and it’s still a bad idea better:

Let’s first look at those past administrations that enjoyed singular success. Most lists would include George Washington’s two terms, Abraham Lincoln’s presidency, Theodore Roosevelt’s (just about) two terms, and Franklin Roosevelt’s four terms. A longer list not based on consensus might include Thomas Jefferson’s first term, Andrew Jackson’s two terms, Woodrow Wilson’s first term, Harry Truman’s two terms, and Ronald Reagan’s two terms.

Of the consensus choices, all enjoyed a united government (in George Washington’s days, there were not really parties.) Of the more controversial choices, Truman suffered through divided government for only two of seven plus years. Reagan is somewhat harder case. In his first six years, he enjoyed what was functionally a united government, because he could count on a majority of Republicans and conservative Southern Democrats; only in his last two years did he have to deal with a Congress controlled by the opposition – and those, of course, were the years of the Iran-Contra scandal, where, on domestic policy, his administration ground to a halt.

Now let’s look at the more disastrous moments in the history of American administrations – where charges of impeachment were brought, and recriminations paralyzed the government. That would have to include the administrations of Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton – all instances of divided government. I’d also add the last two years of Wilson’s second term when divided government (and Wilson’s illness) set America on the track of irresponsibility in foreign and domestic policy. So if you look at America’s moments of glory and ignominy, the conclusion is inescapable: divided government is a curse, not a blessing, and should be avoided, if at all possible.

Moreover, the type of relationship McCain would have with Congress is even worse historically:

[T]here are presidents who, in Skowronek’s words, are “affiliated with a set of established commitments that have in the course of events been called into question as failed or irrelevant responses to the problems of the day.” Skowroneck numbers among these James Buchanan, Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter. These presidents don’t necessarily have to contend with a Congressional opposition in power, but like Hoover and Carter in their last two years, with a nascent and growing opposition in Congress that constitutes a functional majority in opposition to what they want to do. These presidencies have also proved disastrous.

A John McCain presidency would clearly fall in the latter group, and McCain, unlike Hoover and Carter, would have to face clear and unequivocal majorities in Congress united against him. Rather than promising success, that kind of divided government would promise chaos and failure. But don’t tell that to the proponents of divided government.

Divided government works when the jo of the federal government si to do less, not more. But if actual reform is needed, large congressional majorities for the president are fairly essential to that reform.

And hey, if don’t think reform is needed, you’re probably already voting for McCain.

Sphere: Related Content

October Surprise! Stevens Is Guilty

Ted Stevens, guilty of corruption. This, of course, shifts the advantage back to him in the coot off. Robert Byrd, the ball is in your court.

And it also makes this video all the more embarrassing:

Sphere: Related Content

On Redistribution and the Courts

Marc Ambinder explores the Drudgeism of the day:

 ”Socialist” … “redistributive” … These are 20th century words with 20th century connotations; indeed, the point of Obama’s relfection was that the most progressive — most liberal — court of the era could not bring itself to violate a core American principle and could not extend the sphere of justice to the economy.  Obama wasn’t simply making a technical point about jurisprudence and history; he was expressing a liberal positivist’s lament about the court’s reluctance in one specific case – San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez – which dealt with education funding.

And here’s the redistributionist part:

“One of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement, was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still stuffer from that.”

“..so court focused…” is the tragedy, not the court’s refusal to redistribute wealth.

Conservatives find it absurd that Americans are about to elect the most liberal president of the modern era and aren’t terribly upset by it; but in capitalizing on this particular argument of Obama’s, the Republicans are rearguing whether some form of economic redistributions from white people to black people was necessary — even though Obama never really made the point.

I think that says everything to say on Obama, but I can add value by contextualizing Rodriguez a bit more. 

The case was essentially a challenge to unequal education funding across Texas. More money was spent per pupil in some areas, less than others. We see that reflected today with some public schools being really, really good, and others that barely deserve the name “school.” 

If you look this up on Wikipedia, you’ll find that the relative benign finding that “[Justice] Powell led the 5-4 majority in deciding that education was “neither ‘explicitly or implicitly’ protected in the Constitution.” He also found that Texas had not created a suspected class related to poverty. ”

Obama was specifically referring to mostly the inability of the Courts to solve problems like that, and needing social movements and social power to fix those sorts of problem. You need millions of people trying to fix funding problems for inner city schools, not a dozen people in a courtroom. He’s also conceding that the poor should not be a protected class of people, like has been done with race, age, disability, gender, and a number of other classifications, to different extents, of course.

Justice Powell’s argument against redistribution was based on the fact that poor people live everywhere, and redistribution imposed by courts would just move the problem around (citations removed):

The complexity of these problems is demonstrated by the lack of consensus with respect to whether it may be said with any assurance that the poor, the racial minorities, or the children in overburdened core-city school districts would be benefited by abrogation of traditional modes of financing education. Unless there is to be a substantial increase in state expenditures on education across the board - an event the likelihood of which is open to considerable question - these groups stand to realize gains in terms of increased per-pupil expenditures only if they reside in districts that presently spend at relatively low levels, i. e., in those districts that would benefit from the redistribution of existing resources. Yet, recent studies have indicated that the poorest families are not invariably clustered in the most impecunious school districts.

Interestingly, the one person of interest Obama is disagreeing with is Thurgood Marshall, who wrote a very spirited defense in Rodriguez. Marshall argued that the discrimination because of disparities in funding was so vast that that action was required:

The Court seeks solace for its action today in the possibility of legislative reform. The Court’s suggestions of legislative redress and experimentation will doubtless be of great comfort to the schoolchildren of Texas’ disadvantaged districts, but considering the vested interests of wealthy school districts in the preservation of the status quo, they are worth little more. The possibility of legislative action is, in all events, no answer to this Court’s duty under the Constitution to eliminate unjustified state discrimination. In this case we have been presented with an instance of such discrimination, in a particularly invidious form, against an individual interest of large constitutional and practical importance. To support the demonstrated discrimination in the provision of educational opportunity the State has offered a justification which, on analysis, takes on at best an ephemeral character. Thus, I believe that the wide disparities in taxable district property wealth inherent in the local property tax element of the Texas financing scheme render that scheme violative of the Equal Protection Clause.

You can see here how Marshall waves away the possibility of legislative reform as irrelevant. Obama’s point is that there obviously is a problem in the pay, but judges are unwilling to push that far to make changes, as evidenced by Marshall’s argument not attracting a majority vote. 

The reality that people seem to understand is that a broadly-based redistributionist scheme like Drudge et. al are trying to conjure up has zero chance at ever passing. It’s completely unrealistic. 

Also, this blog was totally the only election blog to mention Rodriguez before today. Suck on that, Ambinder!

Cass Sunstein has a great post up on this on TNR.

Also, see more here and here, including some dissenting views from Sunstein.

Sphere: Related Content

The Final Countdown: 8 Days Until Election Day

With 8 days left until election day, here’s a quick roundup of what’s going on…

• Obama will campaign in Canton, Ohio and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania today.  Biden will campaign in Greeneville, North Carolina, Greensboro, North Carolina and New Port Richey, Florida today.

• McCain will campaign in Dayton, Ohio and Pottsville, Pennsylvania today.  Palin will campaign in Leesburg, Fredericksburg and Salem, Virginia today.

• Desperation continues to spread in conservative circles.  Rove recognizes the bleak situation McCain is in, but doesn’t really have any good ideas on how he could bounce back.  Hewitt’s blog has a sad post that tries to flip all the election coverage for real: “If MSM Isn’t Trustworthy, Why Are Conservatives Trusting The MSM 8 Days Out?” Because failing to recognize reality is the best way to win this election, right?  Kristol offers some advice for McCain, but not before invoking Foch.  Foch!

• Josh Lyman says that it is your “duty to get Obama elected”.  Oh celebrity endorsements.

• As the election draws near, there is a deafening silence in the liberal blogosphere on Obama’s plans for Afghanistan.  Has that ship already sailed?  Does everyone just blindly accept the need to substantially increase troops there?

• Palin and The View co-host Elizabeth Hasselback sit down with Sean Hannity for an interview scheduled to air tonight.  Hasselback? Really?  Why does the campaign insist on Palin doing this awkward joint interviews?

• Bloomberg’s Al Hunt scolds both candidates for sugar coating reality a bit.

• If Obama wins, is there a role for Axelrod in the administration?  Ben Smith explores this.

• Morning Show summary here.

Sphere: Related Content

Defenestration Powerline Blog: Hinderaker Needs A History Lesson On His Own Blogging And Campaigns

John Hinderaker over at Powerline blog apparently has little conception of history - both United States electoral history and his own as a blogger.

Today, he lambastes Sullivan and other Palin critics as sexist in a post titled “Barbarians at the Gates — of the White House.”  He begins:

I don’t think there is any precedent in our history for the shameful manner in which the Left has treated Sarah Palin.

Oh, yes there is silly man.  Putting aside recent elections for a moment, campaigns in the distant past were incredibly vicious with far more abusive charges being thrown around by supporters and journalists.  But, I don’t really have the patience to detail history that Mr. Hinderaker clearly has no desire to learn.  Perhaps he would be more interested in some of his own historical contributions to the precedent of treating female candidates in a “shameful manner?”

In a post written by a different Powerline blogger mocking Pelosi’s book, Know Your Power: A Message To America’s Daughters, Mr. Hinderaker chimed in by comparing the ‘girl power’ theme of Pelosi’s book to the Spice Girls, and asks which spice girl Pelosi would be.  Here’s a different Powerline post, again not written by Mr. Hinderaker, criticizing Pelosi’s family/career management.

How about Mr. Hinderaker opining on previous female presidential candidates?  I’m sure his criticisms were limited to policy/substantive disagreements, I mean they must have been, otherwise, how could his sensibilities be so affected by all the recent anti-Palin hullabaloo?  Speaking about Carole Mosereley-Braun back in 2003, Hinderaker wrote:

I suppose it hardly needs be said that if Ms. Moseley-Braun were a one-term Senator of the white male persuasion, defeated in his re-election bid and unheard from since, it would not occur to anyone to suggest him as Presidential material. Think Larry Pressler. Only I think he served two terms. In fact, the only reason why Ms. Moseley-Braun is taken even remotely seriously by anyone is that she is a black woman. Will the day ever come when we can put this hypocrisy behind us?

Oh, so many levels of wrongness.  The absurdity behind his call to put hypocrisy behind us is axiomatic and reinforced by the whiny, historically inaccurate post that is the subject matter of this defenestration.  But, serving in the U.S. Senate for 6 years doesn’t qualify someone as serious presidential material, unless they’re a black woman; however, serving as the Governor of Alaska for 2 years does qualify someone as serious, regardless of their gender?  By Hinderaker’s own standard, it seems that Palin is deserving of 3x as much mockery than Braun because she has held a high office for 1/3 the time that Braun has.

Hinderaker missed one of the Democratic primary debates back in 2003, but coincidentally enough, he was more than happy to re-post Andrew Sullivan’s thoughts on Mosely-Braun’s performance:

Moseley-Braun is a complete embarrassment. She has nothing to say except “I’m a black woman.” She is, of course, an insult to black women, most of whom do not respond to life’s problems by reiterating ancient boilerplate about helping kids and moving forward.

I bet Mosely-Braun would be relieved to know that the harsh criticism she received from the likes of Hinderaker didn’t actually take place, because, all of the criticism Palin has received is totally unprecedented.

I could continue offering examples of ridiculous criticisms espoused by Hinderaker and others at Powerline blog, but I think I’ve demonstrated my point on both accounts.  Hinderaker not only ignores election history (or just doesn’t know it), but he also ignores his own.  Back to his post…

He sharply criticizes Andrew Sullivan’s recent “Red, White and MILF” post and then adds:

I can remember when Sullivan was a respected journalist, not a gutter smear merchant and borderline pornographer. His descent exemplifies the Left’s decline in recent years to a baboon-like level of discourse. The vileness of much of what passes for political “argument” on the Left has to be seen to be believed. The worst impulses of human nature have been not just unleashed, but rewarded. If you haven’t looked at web sites like Democratic Underground, Daily Kos, the Huffington Post and Andrew Sullivan’s Daily Dish, you have no idea what the phrase “gutter politics” really means.

Nowhere has the vileness of the Left been more sickening than in its treatment of Governor Palin.

Now, let me be clear.  I think some of the criticisms levied at Gov. Palin are completely ridiculous and have sexist motivations behind them.  Not the majority, but some.  No need to go into detail here, since it isn’t relevant for this post, also, I don’t think it is a particularly big factor in her political treatment.  Nevertheless, I agree that Sullivan peddling videos that mix sexual overtones and Palin are completely absurd.  I abhor that kind of stuff, regardless of which candidate is on the receiving end.  I also applaud anyone, including Hinderaker for being sensitive to sexism and being willing to point it out when he sees it.

That said, the inferences and conclusions that Hinderaker draws from Sullivan’s post are result of logical leaps the distance of the Bering Strait.  To an extent, I agree that left-leaning sites on the blogosphere can get pretty nasty at times, but in fairness to them and as exemplified by Hinderaker’s own past absurd criticisms: how long can they be expected to stand idle while baboons toss feces at them, before they climb into the cage and get baboon-like in retaliation?

Again, I agree that the standard for what passes as political argument these days can be depressing and mind numbingly low at times (for a great example of vile in the political area, take a look at this email penned by Hinderaker).  But, Hinderacker and the other folks at Powerline are complicit in the peddling of this Novocaine.  If he at least acknowledged his own past writings that are similar in kind to the ones that he is lambasting, I would not be defenestrating Hinderaker right now, but praising his self awareness.  He didn’t.  So the verdict?  Defenestration.

(Given Mr. Hinderacker’s evidenced lack of historical knowledge, here’s some background on the inspiriation for our defenesetration of blog’s section, so he’ll know what we are talking about)

Sphere: Related Content

October Surprise: US Raids Syria

I don’t see this news pushing the economy off the minds of voters.

What’s come out so far makes this sound like a very limited targeted strike. We will update with candidate statements when available.

Sphere: Related Content

Homogenizing The Electorate: Look At The Data, Not an Imaginary Story

 

Data is the lifeblood of not only analysis, but also of conscience. The more information you have, the better informed your opinion can be, presumably. For Jennifer Donohue of the Huffington Post, facts should be disregarded in lieu of a good story, which most often insults anyone who thinks rationally about issues.

Jennifer Donahue supported Sen. Clinton in the primaries, and seems to be upset that she did not win. That’s obviously a fair opinion to have - I have close relatives who feel the same way. But she seems intent of yelling about it at odd junctures. For instance, she wrote the following one month ago,

Young voters, 18-29 years old, are registering at a higher rate than any other age group. They gave Obama the nomination, despite consistent national polling that showed Senator Clinton ahead from the start.

Now the same polling shows a dead heat, after a month of showing McCain ahead. The only way to understand current polling data is to discard it.

Young voters surely helped Obama, but Clinton did not hold leads throughout the process: the Gallup tracking poll was very much split. In the end, the accepted opinion from even inside the campaign is that the failure to contest caucus states cost Obama.

But it’s not just that. The article is about cell phone voters. There’s been some very good stuff done by Pollster and Nate Silver on cell phone voters. But 500 words about how the youth will all send a protest vote on the economy is both useless and pointless, and it seems gratuitous to drag Clinton’s defeat as a jumping off point.

Finally and most importantly, her conclusion is absurd. Disregarding poll numbers is a trap. They should not be disregarded, they should be adjusted, or considered within the margin of error. Polls are not an all or nothing affair - either being accurate or being useless. Quite the opposite. Each poll has a use, but factors including the sample size, question wording, target audience, etc. must be considered. Again, I point to Pollster and Silver, and a number of others. (Tom Jensen’s PPP blog is very informative.)

She continued the trend of marginalizing the data today:

There is still a gender split in New Hampshire. Husbands are shaking their heads, annoyed by what they feel is the hijacking of McCain’s message by the far right. But sleeping next to them are their wives, who shout Sarah and “drill, baby, drill” at the same rallies they drag their husbands to.

These women are not Democrats. They are Republicans and “Undeclared” voters. Four out of five Democrats in New Hampshire have lined up behind Obama, regardless of gender. If McCain were to win New Hampshire, much of the credit would have to go to Palin for energizing Republicans and independent voters.

She’s apparently a big fan of identity politics, which I loathe on face. Moreover, the data just isn’t there to support her strange assertions.

From the UNH poll today, which Jonathan Martin calls the best around. Here are some statistics, aside from the topline numbers showing Obama up 54-39.

Favorability ratings:

Candidate	Favorable	Unfavorable
Barack Obama	61%	29%
Joe Biden	54%	27%
John McCain	48%	42%
Sarah Palin	39%	48%

The poll also broke it down a bit demographically (download the report from the page linked above):

6. Obama and Biden get their highest favorability ratings from Democrats, young voters, those with higher levels of education and proponents of legal abortion.
7. McCain and Palin get their highest favorability ratings from Republicans, older voters, religious voters, and abortion opponents.

To hear Donahue tell it, everyone pails in comparison to the popular Palin. In reality, she’s consistently the candidate with the worst favorability ratings. All that is true is that she has excited the base. That has uses - more excitement will have more turnout. And it would be really useful in a 2004 type election that was only about the base. But that’s not this year. Women are smarter than to just side with Palin because of “drill, baby, drill.” In fact, I’m offended a bit at how Donahue portrays these women voters, who are apparently smarter than she thinks they are.

Specially regarding Obama’s favorability - since Donahue makes it the crux of her argument, here’s some breakdowns:

Demographic	Favorable	Unfavorable
Men	58%	32%
Women	64%	26%
Republicans	22%	59%
Democrats	91%	6%
Independents	65%	22%

Donahue says Palin is the powerhouse in the state. Her numbers:

Demographic	Favorable	Unfavorable
Men	44%	45%
Women	35%	51%
Republicans	77%	13%
Democrats	11%	77%
Independents	36%	43%

Barack Obama is more popular than Sarah Palin by far. Moreover, the lynchpin of her argument is that women are flattered by Palin but men are not. That is also incorrect - she’s consistently more unpopular among women than men is virtually every poll I have looked at.

What Jennifer Donahue does is not journalism. It’s homogenizing the electorate into one story that may or may not be true (in this case, it’s most certainly not true) for the sole purpose of telling a story to fit her agenda. The agenda in this case seems to be questions Obama’s appeal among independents or to promote implicitly the conception of identity politics. Unfortunately for Ms. Donahue, women in real life have not been drawn to candidates solely by identity politics, because they valued principles more. Now, when principles and idealism overlap, THEN you see the results of identity politics (I’m sure GOP women will turn out at a high rate this year, just like the African American vote).

But identity politics is not a component to swing voters. It’s a sweetner at the end.

Frankly, when I think of the GOP base, I don’t think of New Hampshire. It has gone to the GOP when the GOP seems more moderate. When it’s a base election (as in 2004) recently, it succumbs to it’s demographics and tends to be more Democrat. Point being, there’s very man reasons to think John McCain could compete there, under different circumstances. There’s very few reasons to think Sarah Palin in an asset in the state.

Why did she speak to bigger crowds? Because she appeals to the GOP base that was even to the right of McCain in the primary. That’s the reason. But you can’t get a long form essay out of that, so instead we get this hypothetical story about women being turned on like Rich Lowry by Palin. Shameless.

Sphere: Related Content

VIDEO: SNL and Ralph Nader

VIDEO: SNL Obama Variety Show

I’d love to see Bill Clinton’s take on that song.

Sphere: Related Content

More on Divided Government: The Judicial Question

There’s been a lot said about divided government, including by me. But one aspect horribly overlooked is the judicial question. Jeffrey Rosen looked at it, and if you’re a fan of moderate policies, beware:

In each of the past three elections, of course, these hyperbolic predictions have turned out to be wrong. Since 1996, Roe has been supported by a comfortable 6-3 majority, and the Court, controlled by two relatively moderate swing justices, Sandra Day O’Connor and now Anthony Kennedy, has remained fairly centrist. All of this had led some Court-watchers, including me, to conclude that the stakes for the Court in most presidential elections are less dire than many liberals fear.

Not this time. This year, for the first time since the New Deal era, a single election really does have the power to transform the Court–at the very moment that voters, rightly concerned about the tanking economy and the war in Iraq, are looking the other way. Given the fact that the older justices are liberal rather than conservative–and that the oldest, John Paul Stevens, is 88–it’s hard to deny that nominations by John McCain would change the Court far more dramatically than those by Barack Obama. An Obama victory would maintain the current balance of the Court, while a McCain Court could create a solid conservative majority.

What’s at stake is not only Roe v. Wade, but issues directly tied to the current concerns of the public: among them, Congress’s power to regulate the economy as well as limits on the president’s power to act unilaterally in the war on terrorism. Although McCain claims to favor justices who will defer to the political branches, the most likely Republican nominees are hardly consistent advocates of judicial deference. Voters who are hoping McCain will nominate relatively moderate judicial mavericks should think again.

I’ve said before that I don’t think Roe is an issue, so I’ll take it off the table here. The reality is that the court is on the brink of swinging to a near-Lochner court. There’s been strong pushback against federal government related to interstate commerce, and that trickle could become a deluge with the right Court appointees. Given the relative ages of liberals and conservatives on the Court, a Democratic president would be more likely to retain balance on the Court. Where before narrow majorities upheld issues like basic judicial access for detainees, this would change that. There’s far, far more at stake with the Supreme Court than with the actual Presidential election. Campaign finance is another issue that could be gutted.

A simplistic look at divided government always only looks at President and Congress. In all likelihood, the economy will continue to have problems in the next few years, and at some point, Republicans will be able to take advantage of that, at least in the House and possibly Senate elections. But what can’t be undone are Supreme Court appointments.

Divided government reminds me of speed limits on a highway. Yes, it’s safer to have speed limits on the highway, but what really matters is which way you are driving.

Postscript: I think a more interesting case for divided government is made by the NRSC Dole commercial which assumes an Obama victory. If there’s a run off in the Georgia Senate race, you can expect much of the same.

Sphere: Related Content

Video: SNL Mocks Biden and Murtha

VIDEO: Orlando Based WFTV Interview With Joe Biden

WFTV interviewed Joe Biden and asked some odd questions at times, and this is coming from me, who thins interviews should be incredibly challenging.  But still, some parts of this interview were a bit odd…

Sphere: Related Content

Next Page »