McCain Behind the Scenes

Today's essential reading. This article already has the pundits buzzing. The NYT Magazine will publish the whole story this Sunday.

A Must Read For Polling Junkies

I try not to obsess over polls. Unfortunately, I tend to forget that. Luckily, Nate Silver's wonderful fivethirtyeight.com is around to satisfy my poll cravings.

Nate has an absolute must read on tracking polls today. He breaks down each tracking poll, noting the time released, the poll's track record, strengths and weaknesses.

If your reading my blog, I am sure your are reading his. If not, you should be.

McCain: Realistic or Delusional?

So, they finally have given up on Iowa and also Colorado?

What's that leave? Pennsylvania!

Good God. Just go back to Arizona and campaign there the next 14 days Senator McCain. javascript:void(0)

Republican Election Spending

A quick thought. Last week, at the height of the Obama lead in the polls, there was some talk here and there among pundits that the Republicans should divert money from McCain to some of the closer US Senate races - a la Bob Dole in 1996.

Now, there have been cases reported of Republicans redistributing resources (e.g. Michigan, some cut back on McCain joint ads with the RNC) but, from what I have seen so far, there has not yet been a wholesale flight of money from McCain to Republican Senators in tight races.

If it is going to happen, my guess is that it will happen this week. It will be very instructive to see what the RNC ad buys are for this coming weekend and next week. If you see a lot of cash to try and prop up Republican Senators, then you can probably assume that the big shots in the Republican party have wriiten off John McCain.

Also, look to see where McCain spends his time next week. If he does a lot of appearences in states where the Republican Senator is in trouble, the race for the White House us probably over (of course, given how bad McCain/Palin is doing in the polls, they could be told to stay away from those states too).

Finally, what kind of cool aid is the McCain campaign drinking? On a conference call today, Rick Davis from the McCain campaign said that McCain's polling shows a tight race in Iowa. Unless something had drastically changed on the ground, Iowa has not been in play for weeks. Obama has been up big for weeks in all the polls in Iowa. Yet, for some reason McCain continues to think that he has a shot there. In fact, as I recall, McCain made a visit to Iowa recently and the pundits were all asking why. Has the McCain campaign left the reality based community or do they know something that nobody else does? This is puzzling and worrying at the same time, on a variety of levels.

Colin Powell Endorses Obama

I don't think endorsements mean too much, but this one could push some rational republicans over the fence.

An Audacious Head Fake?

So, as everyone knows John McCain has decided to engage is gutter politics and will probably throw the Kitchen Sink at Obama the next 3 weeks.

Obama's obviously got a 3 tier response - first, talk about the economy; second, run positive biography Ads; and third, hit right back (e.g. Keating Five). But, come the end of Tuesday's debate Obama could have a fourth tack: take John McCain aside and say "lay off or I am coming after Arizona".

What! Arizona? McCain's home state? Am I crazy? Maybe not....

I try not to look at Karl Rove's election analysis but this caught my eye yesterday:

http://www.rove.com/images/0000/0088...

So I was looking for the remaining red states where it might behoove the Obama campaign to out some token money into and maybe have a rally. I was looking for red states where McCain's lead was < 10 pts. Here's the list:

Arkansas (McCain +9)
Georgia (McCain +8)
and...drumroll please:
Arizona where Rove puts McCain at +8

Now, if you have been following the election at all, you probably have heard that Georgia is an Obama "wish state" - they have put up a bit of an effort there to try and see if increase voter registration and youth and african american turn out could put the state in play. The last I heard (any please comment below if you know different), that doesn't look like it will pan out. But, Arizona is McCain's home state and he's only up 8? Obama is up 17 in Illinois. McCain should be way ahead of that. So I did more digging:

Pollster's got Arizona at 51.4% McCain to 38.9% Obama. But look at the polls that make up that aggregate:

Rassumussen on 9/29: McCain 59, Obama 38
ASU on 9/28: McCain McCain 45, Obama 38, Undecided 15
ARG on 9/14: McCain 56, Obama 39

OK. Not looking too good but two things jump out: first the polls are kind of getting long in the tooth on October 8, could the massive shift Obama has seen in the last week have played out in Arizona? Second, that ASU undecided number of 15...

So over to Nate Silver and what does he say about Arizona? Well, his model has got McCain winning 94% of the time (he's got Obama winning IL 100% of the time). The 538 projection for Arizona has it at McCain 54.4% and Obama 43.1% with a Margin of Error of +or- 7.7%.

SO...

Now you are saying - OK..McCain's a virtual lock on Arizona - what's your point? Well the points are the following:

First, McCain is not Mr. Popularity or Mr. Congeniality in Arizona. As late as June, the McCain campaign was projecting Arizona as a possible swing state.

Second, Obama probably (and this needs to be confirmed) has zero investment in Arizona.

So the play is this:

Throw a little ad buy in Arizona and, drop in for a rally on the way to Colorado or Nevada and see what the internal polls show.

If there is movement, lay it out for McCain: lay off the gutter attacks or be forced to spend money and campaign in your home state. If there is no movement, reap the publicity of actually campaigning (even for a couple of hours) in McCain's home state.

Now look, the only way McCain looses his home state is a 400 plus electoral vote landslide for Obama (and maybe not even then). But, what an audacious head fake this would be.

Thoughts?

Palin: the new Eagleton

OK. I'm going on the record here. Sarah Palin will withdraw as McCain's VP.

Why?

Well, she is just getting killed as are republicans trying to defend her. It seems like every hour there is a new revelation about her and none of it is good.

So far I count the following:

1. Troopergate: They have got a confession on tape from an aid and emails. I suspect they will be able to prove abuse of power
2. for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it
3. Member of the Alaska Secessionist Party
4. Directed fundraising for Indicted Sen Stevens' 527
5. Totally unqualified for the job
oh and...
6. Has a 17 yr old who is 5 months pregnant (although I put this at the bottom of the disqualifying items since it should not matter at all)

This VP rollout was just so so badly managed by the McCain campaign. It is clear they did not vet her at all, no matter how much they deny it.

So, I can safely say she will not be on the ballot come November. If I had to hazard a guess, if she has another bad news day tomorrow, by Wednesday afternoon she will withdraw. If she can somehow survive the week, I give it no more than 2 weeks.

March 4 Predictions

Well, I suppose I should post my predictions for tomorrow night's democratic primaries.

Right now the conventional wisdom seems to think that Ohio & Rhode Island will be won by Clinton,Vermont by Obama and Texas as a toss-up. I suppose I could go with the conventional wisdom. The polls certainly support this view. But, I am going to go out on a limb here - mostly because the polls have been wrong.

So here goes, for posterity sake:

Ohio: Obama win by 1%. Counting will go late into the night. Why? I think Ohio is going to be a combination of Wisconsin and Missouri - remember that the networks called Missouri for Clinton, but then retracted and then Obama finally won. I think thats going to be the case here. Now, most polls show Clinton up by an average of 6%, and the NAFTA/Canada flap probably has hurt Obama. Even the Obama campaign seems to have written off Ohio. But I just have a feeling the pollster's models are not taking everything into account. So I'll stick with my pick: Obama by 1%.

Vermont: Obama by 15%. This is pretty much in line with the conventional wisdom.

Rhode Island: Sometime around 8 PM tomorrow night, the networks will call RI for Clinton, noting that she has finally broken Obama's 11 state winning streak. Clinton by 10%

Texas: Its a dead heat right now. There's all kinds of talk about how Clinton might win the popular vote but Obama will win the caucus. Again, I'm going out on a limb: Obama wins the popular vote and the caucus. Obama by 6% in the popular vote. Don't be surprised if we don't know the result until the next day.

So there it is. I predict Obama will end the Clinton campaign tomorrow night. Come Wednesday, we'll start to see the super delegates flock to Obama.

The End or the Beginning of the End?

I am slowly coming to the realization that we may be heading to the worst possible situation - a fight for the democratic nomination all the way to the convention. We are now 3 days from March 4 and it is looking like the primaries are going to deliver us a split decision. We may well be at the exact same place we are now on March 5th. If we are, this race is a whole new ball game.

So here's the scenarios:


1. Rhode Island: Clinton Win, Vermont: Obama Win, Ohio: narrow Obama win, Texas: Obama win: I put this as the least likely scenario (10% chance) simply because I don't see an Obama win in Ohio.

The most recent polls put Ohio in Clinton's column:

ARG: Clinton 51, Obama 44, Undecided: 4
Zogby (for what it's worth): Clinton:45, Obama: 45, Undecided: 6
Rasmussen: Clinton: 47, Obama:45
Fox/Opinion Dynamics: Clinton: 46, Obama: 38, Undecided: 14
SUSA: Clinton: 50, Obama: 44, Undecided: 3

Now, polls have been all over the place this year, none of them have been very reliable but, it seems apparent that Clinton has solidified her position in Ohio. We'll see how the late breakers are going when polls come out tomorrow and monday, but the Obama camp can't be hopeful. I suspect the Obama campaign saw this in their internals earlier this week when they left Ohio and went back to Texas and Rhode Island (most likely just to try and keep Clinton's Ohio numbers down) before returning to Ohio tonight.

Clinton's base - folks over 65 and folks who make less than 50K/year are clearly in her camp, and there may be a tinge of racism to overcome in Ohio (see also Ed Rendell's comments on Ohio's neighboring state, PA):

If Hillary doesn't get the nomination, this man said, he'd not only vote for but work for McCain, "and I hate McCain."

"Why not Obama?"

"He's too inexperienced."

"And why else?" a woman down the bar asked.

"Because he's black."

The only hope for an Obama win in Ohio is for the Obama GOTV to outperform and, for these <50K Hillary supporters to stay home.

Which brings us to scenario #2....

2. Rhode Island: Clinton Win, Vermont: Obama win, Ohio: Narrow Clinton win (6 pts or less), Texas: Obama win: I put this as the most likely scenario (50%).

But, there does seem to be some concern here too. Obama appeared to be pulling ahead in Texas the middle of this past week, but the most recent polls seem to show a Clinton come-back:

ARG: Obama:47, Clinton: 47, Undecided: 4
Zogby (again, for what its worth): Obama: 45, Clinton: 43, Undecided: 8
Rasmussen: Obama: 48, Clinton: 44, Undecided: 8
SUSA: Obama: 49, Clinton: 45, Undecided: 3

it looks like Obama has the upper hand in Texas, but as this comment at myDD states, it looks like, over the past couple of days, Clinton's base (<50K/year, >65, Hispanic) is coming home to her at the end.

Which brings us to scenario #3...

3. Rhode Island: Clinton Win, Vermont: Obama win, Ohio: Narrow Clinton win (6 pts or less), Texas: Clinton popular vote win, delegate loss. I rank this as a possible outcome Tuesday (30%) and it is clear that this is what the Clinton camp is hoping for.

I'll address this scenario in more detail below, but lets get on with the remaining possibilities for now...

4: Rhode Island: Clinton win, Vermont: Obama win, Ohio: Narrow Clinton win (6 pts or less), Texas: Clinton win (popular vote and delegates). Obviously this is the Clinton dream scenario but I think its unlikely (5%).

Now there are some other variations on these scenarios: an Obama win in Rhode Island, big (>8%) wins for Obama in Texas and Ohio, big (>8%) wins for Clinton in Texas and Ohio, but each is very unlikely (1-2% chance).

So how does this nomination play out given these scenarios?

Scenario #1: If Obama wins Ohio & Texas, no matter what the margin, Clinton is done. She will be forced to suspend her campaign within days, if she does not do it Tuesday night. The Super Delegates will break for Obama in droves, headlined by Edwards, Richardson and possibly even Gore. Obama will then be free to begin the campaign for the general election as he wraps up the nomination in WV, NC, PA et. al.

Now, I have seen several comments about how it would be better for Obama if Clinton were to stay in so that Obama can have the chance to build up his organization in these post-March 4 states. I say hogwash. The sooner this ends, the better for the nominee. I would argue that the reason Obama seems to be slipping in Texas the past couple of days is because he has had to wage a two front campaign the past 10 days: one against Clinton and one against McCain. If Obama has to do this from now until Puerto Rico, he will be wounded for the general election. The sooner he can take over the reigns of the party, the better.

Scenario #2: This is the tough one. Clearly Obama has broken the Clinton firewall. But, the Clinton campaign has been laying the ground work to continue on if this is the scenario that comes to pass. It seems clear that they are going to argue that the Texas rules (primary & caucus) are unfair, and possibly file a (BS) lawsuit to try and put the Texas results into question. Clinton will argue that the goalposts have to moved again - to Pennsylvania on April 22, and we will be right back where we are now - Obama ahead in states, popular vote & delegates and Clinton somehow still hanging on waiting for something to turn the race her way. Between March 4 and April 22, Obama should be expected to win Wyoming (12 delegates) on March 8 and Mississippi (33 delegates) on March 11 so there is the possibility that Obama blow-outs in those states could put the pressure on Clinton to drop out on March 12, but, given the Clinton campaign's penchant for dismissing caucuses and red-state wins, this is unlikely.

With this in mind, if scenario #2 is what we end up with on Tuesday, there will need to be a game-changer to put the pressure on Clinton : Edwards or Gore endorsement, party leaders sitting her down and telling her to suspend etc, or we are waiting until PA. If the race goes to PA, Obama has to win PA or keep it close the argue that he's won the most delegates.

Scenario #3: If this happens, its off to PA. I don't think Obama would have the moral authority to argue that Clinton should suspend, even though there is still no realistic way she can catch him in delegates. We'll have to see what the PA results show - PA becomes a must win for Obama. Under this scenario I suspect the nomination goes all the way to the convention.

Scenario #4: Again, off to PA. I suspect this is the game changer scenario for Clinton. All of her arguments concerning Michigan and Florida will have to be addressed and PA will probably be the deciding contest, with the winner being the nominee.

So, here's where I think we are at:

10% chance the race ends Tuesday night.
50% chance the race ends sometime between March 4 and March 12
30% chance the race goes all the way to the convention
10% chance the race ends April 22.

Waiting for the Damn to Break: It's Obama's to Loose

Digby's Got it:

Personally, I don't think we'll have a tie much longer. It's hard to see how either candidate can unify the country if they can't demonstrate that they can unify the Democratic Party. Something has to break and I suspect voters will be the ones to do it.

That's the way I see it too. We are heading for a showdown March 4th that will decide this election.

Get ready folks, the dam is going to break. Who gets washed away is still unknown, but someone will. Lets set the scene:

1. Right now, as everyone knows, Obama has had a hell of a weekend - blow out wins everywhere (and margin of victory is very important now as I will argue below) and a Grammy to boot.

2. More bad news for the Clinton camp as they shake up their campaign. This is actually a good time to do it - better now than after the beltway primary, which is probably going Obama's way. That way there won't be weeks of talking about how shaken the Clinton campaign is. Get it over now, suffer the news cycle until Tuesday night when the narrative will change.

3. Mini Tuesday: the Potomac / beltway primary: MD, VA & DC. Most likely going 3-0 for Obama but there are some upsides for Clinton:

(a) Win 1 state - If Clinton can pull a rabbit out of the hat and win at least 1 state, with some good "spin", she's probably back in the driver's seat for March 4.

(b) I think (a) is unlikely but I do think this is essential - Clinton cannot loose 59-39 or 60-40 like she has this weekend. She has to keep the margin of victory within 10 points in at least 2 of the 3 states. Why? Because after this weekend people are going to start to notice how Obama has really been blowing her out. There's starting to be a pattern to this and if it continues, it will be discussed over and over in the Media.

4. The Big MO: so far this election nobody seems to be able to keep the MO. But if Obama goes 8-0 this week, all basically 59-39 or better, he's probably got it and that will run right into ...

5. Feb 19 WI & HI. Right now, these are probably narrow Obama wins but with MO, Obama could run off another couple of 59-39 blowouts. It will be interesting to see after Tuesday what the Clinton campaign does - do they put all the eggs in the basket and go to TX & OH or do they try and compete in WI to hope for a win to stop momentum? Also, look and see if Obama does the unthinkable and makes a flyout to HI. Even though HI should be a "home state" for Obama, Clinton does have some advantages there (Inouye endorsement, large Asian population, large senior population). If you see Obama visiting is old HI haunts then we'll know that his internal polls show him in a tight race with Clinton in HI or he doesn't have the blow out and wants to try and run up the numbers.

and now...

Dam #1: March 4.

OH & TX will be incredibly important. They are essentially the ball game now. Obama wins both - Clinton gets a visit from the party elders telling her to drop out. Obama wins one, Clinton gets one - depending on how big the margins of victory are in TX & OH it could go either way (either Clinton starts getting pressure to drop out or she gets to go to Dam #2). Clinton gets both - we go to Dam #2.

Dam #2: PA - April 22. This is it. This is where it ends. If we get here whoever looses will be told to drop out for party unity.

Right now, I see dam #2 as only a remote possibility. I suspect that the voters are going to see the Obama's 8-0 run, begin to let the Clinton campaign troubles start to seep into their consciousness and give Obama some more 59-39 blow outs in Feb 19. All of this will then snowball, along with what I expect to be MASSIVE media buys in TX & OH by Obama. He'll surf this wave of MO for a win in OH and a win in TX. And that will be it. The voters will have effectively ended it.

Yes, I know its a long time between now and then and anything can happen. I also know there's a lot of assumptions to this scenario, but like I said, Digby's right - the voters are going to decide this soon. I think that means that the soft Clinton supporters are going to start moving.

Now, this may just be wishful hoping on my part but if we do get to the "Thermonuclear Option" where we go all the way to Puerto Rico with both campaigns and no clear leader and it becomes apparent that super delegates are going to decide the nominee at the convention, I propose that instead of pressuring them to pick a side now, they take the following pledge:

As a super delegate I pledge to support with my super delegate vote at the convention:
a. If I am an elected official, either the winner of my State's primary or caucus or my congressional district or..
b. The person who has the pledged delegate lead after the last primary or caucus.
If I am not an elected official, I will support with my super delegate vote at the convention, the person who has the pledged delegate lead after the last primary or caucus.
The term pledged delegate lead means that person who has a majority of pledged delegates (50% of the assigned delegates +1) under the DNC rules.

While I am a super delegate, until the last primary or caucus, I am free to support any candidate in any manner except I may not imply in any manner that I will promise my super delegate vote at the convention to that candidate of he or she does not have the pledged delegate lead overall, in my state or in my congressional district.

Mapping the Nomination From Here...

Time to start wondering how this will all end.

Maybe its a bit premature, but I think this will be relevant come Tuesday night.

As I see it, TX and OH could end this campaign. I see two issues to end it:

1. Will Obama win TX & OH?

2. Will Clinton see the writing on the wall and bow out if he does?


So, as I see it, counting only pledged (not super) delegates, Obama is ahead:

Obama: 1,012
Clinton: 940

Tomorrow is Maine so lets assume, a split 12 to 12
which brings us to:

O: 1,024
C: 952

Next week we have the Beltway Primary. Assume this shakes out for Obama:

DC: O 11, C 4
MD: O 40, C 30
VA: O 47, C 36

After Tuesday we could be at:

O: 1122
C: 1022

On the 19th, we add in HI and WI. HI is a home state for Obama so lets assume that goes for him 13 to 7, and give Clinton the benefit of the doubt in WI and split the delegates 37-37. Then we have:

O: 1172
C: 1066

Now, assume Obama wins TX & OH, say 53-47. Lets assign delegates here for our scenario:

OH: O 73 C 68
TX: O 101 C 92
and RI and VT:
RI: O 12 C 9
VT O 8 C 7

At this point we are at:

O: 1366
C: 1242

Now, assuming this happens, Obama now has the pledged delegate lead and has run the table on Clinton since Super Tuesday. Here are my questions:

1. Is it over? Is Obama the presumptive nominee? Remember there are still states to vote - they are:

State Date Delegates
WI 3/8 12
Miss 3/11 33
PA 4/22 158
Guam 5/4 4
Indiana 5/6 72
NC 5/6 115
WVA 5/13 28
KY 5/20 51
OR 5/20 52
MT 6/3 16
SD 6/3 15
PR 6/7 55

So there's still 611 delegates out, but even if it went 70-30 for either candidate, nobody is gonna get the majority needed to guarantee the nomination. I guess what I am asking is this: do democrats come together at this point and say to Clinton, you lost everything since Super Tuesday, you lost TX & OH, time to hang it up?

2. If the answer to #1 is yes, should she drop out? I'm very interested to hear from Clinton supporters here. BTW, please don't argue how FL & MI count - lets not get into that right now. If you want to argue FL & MI, they you have to provide a solution to the problem of how to count them and be fair to Obama.

3. So if the consensus is she should drop out if she looses FL & TX, then here's my final question - Do you think she will do it? Is it in her character to bow out gracefully or will she fight to the bitter end?

So those are my questions.

Just to get it started, I think if Obama runs the table through March 4, pressure must be brought to bear on Clinton to drop out. Personally I don't think she will and she'll fight to the bitter end. On the other hand, if Clinton can take one of either OH or TX, I think she's earned the right to continue until at least PA. If she wins that, she's earned the right to fight on (either until the end or until it becomes obvious she can't win the overall pledged delegate count).

Real Delegate Count: Obama 1,012 Clinton 940

This is pledged delegates only, no supers.

This includes projections for those delegates that have not yet been officially awarded from super Tuesday.

Forget super delegates for now, forget Florida and Michigan for now. The only number that matters is pledged delegates.

Obama Total: 1,012
Clinton Total: 940

Yes, these numbers are the same as the Obama campaign but, when I run them on my spreadsheet, this is what I get too. All campaigns will spin but Obama's has been pretty straight up with delegate counts from day one (they were right on Nevada going 50-50 and they are correctly assigning New Mexico 50-50 even though there's no final count).

CNN's numbers are just stupid. They include super-delegates and they have yet to assign a bunch of delegates from super Tuesday.

California Delegate Math Deciphered

So, there's lots of confusion how you count delegates in California.

I'll take a shot at trying to start off the explanation. Hopefully someone can do the math....

CA has 53 congressional districts.

In 21 on those there are an odd number of delegates to win.

So, in the districts with an even number of delegates available, Clinton and Obama will split them (i.e if 4 are available, Clinton gets 2 and Obama gets 2). However, if one candidate gets more than 62.5% in an even number district, then they can "win" one of the other candidates delegates and thus "win" that district. Last I checked, (3am), Clinton is only up by 62.5% in a couple of congressional districts. So, in 30 or so districts, Obama and Clinton split the available delegates

Here's a link to all the districts in CA: CA Congressional District results

Here's a link that lists how may delegates each district gets: delegates

So, its only in the remaining 21 where an odd number is available that Clinton or Obama can win and extra delegate.

I suspect Obama's folks have done the math and know that no matter what, they end the night + or - 10 or so delegates (they just sent an email that they have won the most delegates tonight so maybe the did the math and they are up a few delegates).

Now, Clinton keeps adding her Super Delegates to her totals. Personally, I think thats BS since supers can change their mind at any time. I think the important number right now is how many delegates were won in the election. If this race looks like its going to the convention then supers come into play.

Omnivore’s Dilemma

Michael Pollan has an article in the NYT Magazine about why a person's wealth is the biggest predictor of obesity (i.e. the more your earn, the less obese you are). It is a great read, even if you have read Pollan's book, Omnivore's Dilemma (which I also recommend).

Pollan discusses current U.S. farm policy which rewards all the wrong things:

That’s because the current farm bill helps commodity farmers by cutting them a check based on how many bushels they can grow, rather than, say, by supporting prices and limiting production, as farm bills once did. The result? A food system awash in added sugars (derived from corn) and added fats (derived mainly from soy), as well as dirt-cheap meat and milk (derived from both). By comparison, the farm bill does almost nothing to support farmers growing fresh produce. A result of these policy choices is on stark display in your supermarket, where the real price of fruits and vegetables between 1985 and 2000 increased by nearly 40 percent while the real price of soft drinks (a k a liquid corn) declined by 23 percent. The reason the least healthful calories in the supermarket are the cheapest is that those are the ones the farm bill encourages farmers to grow.

Up with Math?

Here is a post that I actually think makes sense. The Author's contention is that the U.S. teaches math wrong, substituting depth for breadth and emphasizing math for science and engineering too early in a student's career. Check it out....

Give Lautenburg's Seniority Back

Now that Holy Joe Leiberman is (sadly) going back to the Senate, its time to start a campaign to give Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) his seniority back....

When Lautenburg went back to the senate after retiring, he lost all of his seniority. If he had maintained his seniority status, he would be ahead of Holy Joe and take over Holy Joe's committee seniority. If Joementum is going back to the senate after pissing all over his party, then I think it only fair to give Lautenberg his seniority.

Yes, Holy Joe can be part of the Democratic caucus, but a message has to be sent. Joementum can keep his seniority, but Frank Lautenburg should get his back too.

And the upside is that it will really piss Joementum off.

Election Countdown

I know that I have not used this blog in sometime. In fact, I have not blogged at all in over a year. I shut down the original Late Night Pundit blog which was hosted on its own server due to my lack of time to keep up with it.

Anyway, I hope to get back into blogging over the next several weeks but until then, here's my predictions for the 2006 mid-term elections. Take this with a grain of salt...

House: Dems pick up 37 seats to take control of the House of Representatives. This is probably a pretty mainstream pick. Most pundits seem to think somewhere between a 25 to 40 seat pick-up for the Democrats.

Senate: Democrats 51, Republicans 49. This prediction bucks the other pundits. Most seem to think that the Senate remains in Republican control - by either 1 seat or a tie with the VP vote keeping the Senate in Republican hands.

Anyway we'll see how well I did on Tuesday. Don't forget to vote!

---EDIT: Updated April 26, 2007
----> I should have posted this update after the election: I was pretty darn close. Underestimated the Dem pickup in the house, but correctly got the senate right (and very few people saw that one beforehand). Anyway...updating the blog and thought I'd gloat a bit. lol.

Required Reading: Conservatives without Conscience

For those of you who read slashdot, this post is in the spirit of the occasional book reviews they post. And now to the point... John Dean's new book, Conservatives Without Conscience, is absolute required reading (I am in no way affiliated with this book. I just thought it was that good).

Not only is the book well written, but it comprehensively and (I would say) conclusively answers the question - why are the republicans so mean spirited? Dean's short answer is the republican party is run by autocratic ego maniacs who couldn't give a lick about you, me or even their own lemming supporters.

The question that bothers Dean is one that has bothered me - namely - how could the supporters of the radical right not see how they are being played for fools? Dean's answer: their personal make-up will just not allow them to. They are classic lemmings and share many of the same characteristics of the Germans and Italians during the late 1930's and early 1940's

I don't want to summarize the book too much (after all this is not a 9th grade book report) but Dean approaches the topic masterfully. After describing how, in the late 80's the right wing attack machine went after he and his wife, he began to question why the conservative movement had become so mean spirited and the atmosphere in DC had become so toxic. Dean examines the question using social science, political science and historical analysis and quickly comes to the conclusion that the personalities of right wing leaders are simply classic authoritarians (indeed, he puts some of them - notably Chaney and Delay in a super-authoritarian category). His conclusion is downright scary as he paints a picture of the possibility of a fascist America that could develop over the next few election cycles.

What is even more fascinating is the questions that Dean's book raises. He concludes that 30% of the electorate are, and will always be, authoritarian-followers. If true, how does that bode for the moderate democrat's argument that we have to start appealing to those voters? How can you address a democratic message for people who will simply not listen, no matter what you say?

The second large question raised by Dean is probably the most terrifying. What happens if another terrorist attack occurs while Bush is still in office? Would the backlash result in more authoritarian policies and could that lead to a fascist America?

Finally, Dean lays out how the radical right wing authoritarians have destroyed the Congress by implementing procedures designed to institute the iron fist of the majority. What happens if (and hopefully when) the Democrats take control? Do they go back to the "old" rules of congress based on civility and protection of the minority (personally I say hell no. Let the repugs rot under their own rules for a few years).

Run don't walk to the nearest bookstore (or check out audible.com for the audiobook).

A GitMo Who's Who...

Here is an interesting report on the GitMo detainees done by a professor and some students at Seton Hall Law School (my alma mater).

It is probably important to note that among the authors of the report are counsel for two GitMo detainees...

Its very short and worth a read.

Among the findings of the report:

1. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.

2. Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.

3. The Government has detained numerous persons based on mere affiliations with a large number of groups that in fact, are not on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist watch list. Moreover, the nexus between such a detainee and such organizations varies considerably. Eight percent are detained because they are deemed "fighters for;" 30% considered "members of;" a large majority - 60% -- are detained merely because they are "associated with" a group or groups the Government asserts are terrorist organizations. For 2% of the prisoners their nexus to any terrorist group is unidentified.

4. Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody. This 86% of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies.

5. Finally, the population of persons deemed not to be enemy combatants are in fact accused of more serious allegations than a great many persons still deemed to be enemy combatants.

Where are the TV networks?

The tragedy in the southern gulf looks like it might be the greatest disaster in US history. The cable news has been 24/7 since before the storm. But where are NBC, CBS and ABC?

Is Dr. Phil really more important that tens of thousands of lives? Remember that the big 3 are the only "over the air" networks which is especially important in areas without power. Last night they showed football for god sakes.

After 9/11 it was a week of non-stop coverage.

Am I being crazy here?