the New Dominion

arch pollster Larry Sabato thinks VA is likely to go for Obama this year. That's probably true, but his insistence that it will be closer than the polls is, in my mind, mere denial of the new reality. Virginia has been the primary beneficiary of a massive influx of young, upwardly mobile and socially liberal professionals to the DC area, causing a major demographic shift over the last 10 years. It's had 2 good Democratic governors and 1 really shitty Republican one since 2000. The best of those Democrats, Mark Warner, is running against that bad Republican for Senate and is cleaning his clock by over 20 points. VA has had a flood of new voter registrants, and they are overwhelmingly Democrats. Democrats have been gaining ground at every level of government there, including, again, 2 straight Democratic governors, a Senate seat in '06 (against a very popular incumbent and former governor, no less), and now the second Senate seat. These fact-free assertions about "people who know Virginia" aside, there is no evidence-based reason to suspect that polling in VA is off across the board.

Which is really, really bad news for McCain:


The better news for McCain: Jonathan Martin asserts in this same article that "there is no feasible path to the White House for McCain without Virginia." Also not true: John McCain could very possibly sweep the battleground states of NC, MT, ND (I can't believe I just listed those), CO, NV, WV, MO, FL, and OH, but lose lost causes NM, IA, and VA, and pick off New Hampshire. In such a scenario, McCain would squeeze into the Oval Office with 273 EVs. In fact, he could lose North Dakota and get exactly 270.

This is why I keep telling people that VA is not one of McCain's make-or-break states. It's a nice feather in our hat, but he can win without it. There are several others, however, that McCain cannot live without, such as perennial battlegrounds Ohio and Florida, as well as North Carolina (because Obama can't win NC without also taking VA). If McCain fails to sweep all three, you can pop the champagne, wait for the concession call, and start tracking the Senate races instead. There is no hope.

now it's official

The biggest drag on the McCain campaign: not Bush, not Iraq, not taxes. From TPM, on the new NBC/Wall St. Journal poll:

Respondents were read a list of things and were asked to pick the two that most concern them about McCain. Thirty-four percent named Palin, versus only 23% for the runner-up, which was that it seems likely he'd continue Bush's policies.

That would seem to suggest that Palin may have become a greater liability for McCain than Bush.

Separately, the poll's toplines show Obama with an expanded lead of 10 points over McCain among registered voters, 52%-42%.

I believe this is the part where the media starts referring to her as "polarizing."

I've been saying it for a while now: by the time this thing is over, John McCain will seriously regret this decision.

local politics: South Bend water deregulation referendum

In an odd way, national politics is a simpler organism than its local counterpart. It's predictable: you can be (relatively) confident that in any given issue the Democrats will want X and the Republicans Y. Deregulation is a great example: despite a handful of apostates on either side (and, as usual, more Democratic ones than Republican), you can bet that the Democrats will oppose and the Republicans support any given attempt at deregulation. Budgeting is another area, as the US Congress generally only deals in broad strokes, far removed from the nitty gritty of funding matters, and is free to dig as deep a deficit as they want, so the Congress tends to wax doctrinaire when it comes to fiscal matters. This is a luxury local politicians just can't afford.

Hence we come to an odd situation in South Bend, where there is a referendum on this November's ballot to deregulate the waterworks, and our very Democratic mayor, Steve Luecke, is actively supporting it. Before we collectively cry "Turncoat!," "corporate sellout!," or "Bush Dog Democrat!," let's hear what he has to say. From a document the mayor has been passing out:

This is a brief synopsis of why I believe South Bend Water Works should come out from under Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) oversight. When the administration proposes a rate increase for our water customers, we hire outside professional engineering and accounting firms with utility rate making expertise and experience to review capital and operating costs, to look at the existing rate structure and determine what is needed to meet current and long-term needs. After this information is compiled, we present a proposed rate to the Common Council. These locally elected officials review the studies we have prepared, hold a public hearing and vote on the rate increase. For our wastewater utility, that is the final step. Once the new rates are approved they can be implemented. For our Water Works we must then present the same case to the IURC that we presented to the Council. This is a costly step that adds months or years to the approval process. What it doesn’t add is value for our customers.

Our average case before the IURC costs $150,000 (for consultants, lawyers and rate experts). Our last case cost over $600,000! It took three years to conclude - and the IURC ultimately approved the very rates that we had proposed. With the last four rate cases we have spent over $1 million for the IURC review. That’s $1 million that could have been spent for new wells, improved filtration, main extensions, connecting new customers or our leak insurance program. The IURC did not change our rates from what the Council had approved. Where is the added value?

I believe that the IURC plays an important public review role for private utilities. However, it is an unneeded level of bureaucracy when the rates are already reviewed and approved by elected officials. If the City Council feels that they don’t have sufficient expertise to review these rates, we have offered to pay for an independent review by a separate accounting company with utility rate making expertise that the Council selects to evaluate the proposal. Their charge would be to recommend the lowest rates possible to accomplish the needed work to ensure adequate quantity of safe quality drinking water for community needs. This would be far less expensive – and considerably faster – than the IURC review. If I believed that the IURC added value for South Bend customers, I would not have proposed this referendum. But I don’t believe we are getting our money’s worth.

Furthermore, our Water Works currently applies a 20% surcharge to customers outside the city limits. The IURC has indicated that they may no longer approve such a surcharge even though we have presented studies which support an even larger one. . If the IURC denies the surcharge in the future, South Bend customers will have to pay higher rates to make up the difference. I don’t think that is fair.

Almost ninety per cent of Indiana communities have opted out from IURC oversight. It appears that they are satisfied with their local elected officials setting their rates because none of these communities has chosen to opt back in to the IURC process. Not one! Lafayette, IN and other communities are also seeking to opt out this year. I believe they are making the right choice. It is also the right choice for South Bend. Please vote YES on the municipal utility referendum.

Obviously, being a Democrat, given a choice I prefer more regulation over less, and I would especially like to know if this extra layer of oversight was intentionally added at some point in the past, and if so, why. Many states have deregulated in the last 15 years only to discover the hard way that those regulations were put there for a reason. Nevertheless, the mayor makes a compelling case here: the city just doesn't have the money to be ponying up for superfluous services right now. Furthermore, the water works is a public entity, not a profit-driven private enterprise, so if there's an angle for them in deregulating, I don't see it. I tend to trust Mayor Luecke; he's run an honest administration and has done a pretty good job with a lot of difficult choices, so if he says this is the way to go, I'm inclined to believe him.

I'll be voting Yes.

it can't be

I absolutely cannot believe that God loves us this much. SurveyUSA, the most reliable pollster in the biz, on the Kentucky Senate race between Senate Minority Leader and serial filibuster-meister Mitch McConnell and Democrat Bruce Lunsford:

McConnell (R): 48
Lunsford (D): 48

That's not far from the other polls of this race.

McCain's endgame strategy

In the third debate, John McCain peppered his answers with old bromides like "redistribution of wealth" and "socialism" and, in a turn that most people considered damaging to his chances with the women vote, went on a brief tirade about abortion, gesturing scare quotes as he sarcastically intoned "health of the mother." When asked about the racist and eliminationist comments being spouted by his supporters in recent rallies, he defended his supporters vigorously, calling them patriotic Americans, not making even the slightest concession that things have gotten a little out of hand.

Sarah Palin commits another apparent gaffe a couple of days later, referring to North Carolina as one of "the pro-America areas of this great nation."

Then, two days after that, McCain himself makes the same mistake in Virginia, saying that, even though he's behind in the state as a whole, he's winning in "real Virginia."

And then today, McCain takes a racially charge turn for the worst, deriding Obama's tax plan as "welfare."

Yet despite all these supposed "gaffes," McCain has actually gained ground in the last 5 days, gaining from -12 to -4 in the indy vote and gaining 6 points among Republicans in the Research 2000/Daily Kos poll.

Can you see what's going on here?

It looks to me like the Hate Talk Express has decided to try to win the way Bush did it in '04: focus like a laser on conservatives. Return to the hard right rhetoric of the primary, rile them up, scare the hell out of them, and send them to the polls in the highest numbers you can. Use fear and hate to close the enthusiasm gap, rely on the high turnout rate of key conservative demographics and hope that once again blacks, young people, and women-- Obama's strongest demographics-- don't show up in high enough numbers to make up the difference. A judicious sprinkling of voter suppression efforts should be just enough to tip the scales.

There is obviously a case to be made that this tactic won't be enough. For one, Democrats have registered millions more new voters than the Republicans, so there may be too few conservatives put him over the top. Also, at the moment the enthusiasm gap is still much wider than it was in '04. Then there's the issue of Obama's wicked ground game and huge money advantage. McCain's tactic could backfire in a way that Bush's didn't; for instance, there's a chance that his "real VA" remark could boost turnout among Obama voters and leaners in Virginia incensed at the slight (say what you will about W, but he would never have made that mistake). There's the economy. There's Sarah Palin, whose potentially proximity to the presidency scares the bejeesus out of a lot of people.

And, of course, there's Barack's superior strategizing. Powell's endorsement was rolled out at the best possible moment to blunt McCain's case to conservatives, and he's been far more effective than any Democrat I've ever seen at working the media. McCain, on the other hand, can't even keep his own operatives from hyping a Powell endorsement before people leave work for the weekend.

"side effects may include..."

One of Obama's better moments.

David Brooks goes way, way off message

What the hell is going on?

the HBO presidential debate

In celebration of receiving the first disk of "The Wire: Season 3" today:

Was There Too Much Sex And Profanity In The HBO Presidential Debate?

the transformation is complete

And thus John McCain became what he most despised. From TPM:

We've obtained yet another McCain campaign robocall, and this one levels perhaps the nastiest charge yet: It claims that Barack Obama callously denied newborns needed medical attention by opposing a measure to force doctors to preserve their lives when they survive botched abortions.

The call, which was sent in by a North Carolina reader, labels Obama "extreme" and to the left of Hillary, and charges Obama doesn't "share our values."
...
So let's take stock. We now have documented four McCain/RNC robocalls, some known to be running in multiple states:

* One that questions Obama's patriotism by saying he put "Hollywood above America" during the financial crisis.

* One that says that Obama and Dems "aren't who you think they are" and claims they merely "say" they want to keep us safe.

* One that attaches him to "domestic terrorist Bill Ayers," whose group "killed Americans."

* And, now, the above, which dishonestly paints him as indifferent to the lives of babies.

At what point do you think John McCain will finally look in the mirror and see George W. Bush, ca. 2000?

don't trust him

There's a rumor flying around that Colin Powell is going to endorse Barack Obama on Press the Meat this Sunday. From Politico:

The general’s camp is being coy about what he might or might not say on Sunday. But some McCain advisers suspect, without being sure, that Powell will endorse Obama.

“It’s going to make a lot of news, and certainly be personally embarrassing for McCain," a McCain official said. "It comes at a time when we need momentum, and it would create momentum against us.”

McCain officials are actively talking to the press and saying they think he'll endorse Obama? Maybe I've become too obsessed with strategy. Maybe my opinion of Colin Powell's independence and judgment have sunk too far below the truth. Maybe I'm giving the McCain too much credit. In any case, I find it very difficult to believe, not one week after Powell testified to the sterling word of honor of Ted Stevens, that he would then go on MTP and endorse Barack and that McCain's own officials would be the ones to make a story out of it on the preceding Friday.

If this story turns out to be true, John McCain is running the worst, most undisciplined campaign in history.

UPDATE (SUNDAY NIGHT): My mistake. Apparently McCain is, in fact, running the worst, most undisciplined campaign in history:

the camera is a cruel mistress

This image has made my day.

it worked

Remember the trap I was talking about yesterday?

Here's a screen cap of indy voters' reactions to McCain leveling the Ayers charge:


And here's the response afterwards:


Harold Meyerson at the Washington Post:

Now we know why Obama’s aides were goading McCain earlier this week to raise the Bill Ayres issue in the debate. They wanted to play McCain’s rage against Obama’s measured, judicious, statesmanlike, even a bit boring presidentiality. And McCain obliged them big time.

There's something else about McCain's answers in these debates that I noticed on a visceral level watching the replays, something that reminded me of the debates I've had that left me thinking less of the other person, but I couldn't quite put my finger on it. Andrew Sullivan provides the assist:

At no point have we seen a grace note from McCain. When dealing with the negativism of the campaign, it would not have killed him to seem genuinely horrified at calls for violence rather than offended that anyone dare criticize him or some of his supporters. Or to wish Obama well. It's this lack of generosity of spirit that he lacks and that people want in a president. Obama still manages to say when he agrees with or admires McCain. In this whole dynamic, Obama seems more secure, more self-controlled, more mature.

The ability (or lack thereof) to make concessions in a debate can actually say a lot about a person. It conveys the "generosity of spirit" that Sully is talking about, impressing upon the other person that you're really listening to them, that you're trying to be objective about the issue and not just advocating for your side. It also shows that you're big enough to admit when the other side has a point and not to take their opposition personally. And, frankly, in these debates it separates the men from the boys, the master debaters who are thinking on both the macro and micro level, from the jokers who don't bother with things like "focusing on a theme" or "working the crowd," thinking you win debates by scoring the most points.

As much as I hate the tactic of arguing by analogy (especially sports analogies), a poker analogy is irresistible here because it's just so damn apt: it's like Obama and McCain are at a poker table, and McCain is the aggressive novice trying to win every hand. Meanwhile, Barack often folds when his cards aren't as good, and wins the big pots by baiting McCain into overplaying his hand.

CBS snap poll: Obama won by 20%

I read one poll analyst who said: "we're getting into dead girl or live boy territory here."

Jim Poniewozik from TIME:

Um, Sen. McCain, women don't like it when you put "health of the mother" in air quotes.

Oy, that one might smart in the morning.

ambush

I said a couple of days ago that I thought Barack's sudden and uncharacteristic "John McCain doesn't have the cajones to say these Ayers attacks to my face" line sounds like a trap. He pretty clearly wants McCain to bring up Ayers, and by appealing to John McCain's impulsiveness and machismo ("you callin' me yella'?") both personally and via surrogates, he's basically forced McCain to launch the attack at the debate or risk damaging his manly military reputation.

Well, looks like the baiting worked. John McCain has pledged to bring up Ayers at the debate.

Did I mention that John McCain was a POW?

Obama's motives for the trap here could be simple. Perhaps this is a contest of polling, whereby McCain's pollsters believe the attacks damage Obama while Obama's pollsters have come to believe (with the aid of recent polling) that the attacks actually backfire on McCain, raising his negatives while barely denting Obama's positives. McCain's losing position virtually guarantees that he'll have to go on the attack anyway, and the more he does it, the more likely he is to turn off independents and leaners who tend to be repelled by this stuff, as Mike Madden at Salon says. Also, others have noted that the candidate who goes hard negative in the debate usually loses it (Bentson being a notable exception). This seems like an imminently reasonable explanation, almost certainly the correct one. Such a strategy would be especially productive if Williams doesn't ask about it and McCain is perceived to have brought Ayers up unasked in the debate.

But on the other hand, you just have to marvel sometimes at Obama's luck, the serendipity of the news cycle. Amazing the stories that seem to fall out of the sky on the day of a major debate.

William F. Buckley's crazy conservative son endorses Obama

An oldie that I forgot to mention at the time. Wow.

the consequences of Sarah Palin's rhetoric

You had to figure it would happen eventually. From Philadelphia's local FOX affiliate:

PHILADELPHIA -- There was a scare Tuesday at the South Philadelphia campaign headquarters of Democratic Sen. Barack Obama.

The office at 15th and Christian streets was filled with volunteers around 5 p.m. when one of them brought in the mail and opened a letter that had a note and a powdery substance on it that immediately set off alarms.
...
Fortunately, the substance found in the letter was harmless and nobody was hurt. But the incident is still under investigation as a threat, Fox 29's Sharon Crowley reported.

This is the kind of thing we have all been afraid of ever since Barack became a viable candidate in January, and that we've been especially dreading since the McCain campaign started doing the full hatemonger a couple of weeks ago. McCain may have finally started telling his supporters to cool down (though only after being thorough rebuked by the media for fanning the flames), but his VP candidate is still at it, as are the supporters at her rallies, with nary a peep from ol' Grandaddy Warbucks. Today's and yesterday's Palin gigs came complete with shouts of "Obama bin Laden" and "kill him!," while we also learned yesterday that Sarah Palin quoted a man who openly advocated the assassination of Bobby Kennedy in her convention speech. The Hate Talk Express has now inspired what we can only call "nonlethal terrorism." How long 'til the next step?

the best ad of the cycle

You are not prepared to tackle the feared Village People lobby, Roger Wicker. YOU ARE NOT PREPARED!

Manichean

James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, on Sarah Palin's foreign policy as gleaned from her talking points:

"It is absolutist and Manichean. There is good ("us") and evil ("them"). "We" stand for democracy and the "spirit of freedom that is found in every human heart". Since the clash between good and evil is both desirable and inevitable, "our" role is to bring "our values" to a waiting world and defeat evil. And in this conflict, "our" victory is preordained. Compromise with evil is unthinkable and so traditional forms of diplomacy are to be rejected as a sign of weakness and surrender. (In this worldview, diplomacy means working with those who agree with us, not finding ways to bridge differences with those with whom we disagree.)

Is there anyone on the planet more dangerous than the person who believes their military victory is preordained? Is there any force more destructive than the worldview described above?

my ascent to SUPERSTARDOM!

This lowly corner of cyberspace is getting a little more traffic the last few weeks, most likely because of the election. I poked around a bit to see if we're getting publicity, and I found that we were quoted in The Progressive. Apparently this happened 3 years ago, and I missed the party.

Sarah Palin quoted man who called for Bobby Kennedy's assassination

And she did so in her big RNC speech. No kidding. From Frank Rich's NYT column today:

No less disconcerting was a still-unexplained passage of Palin’s convention speech: Her use of an unattributed quote praising small-town America (as opposed to, say, Chicago and its community organizers) from Westbrook Pegler, the mid-century Hearst columnist famous for his anti-Semitism, racism and violent rhetorical excess. After an assassin tried to kill F.D.R. at a Florida rally and murdered Chicago’s mayor instead in 1933, Pegler wrote that it was “regrettable that Giuseppe Zangara shot the wrong man.” In the ’60s, Pegler had a wish for Bobby Kennedy: “Some white patriot of the Southern tier will spatter his spoonful of brains in public premises before the snow falls.”

And thus the McCain campaign's use of projection as a rhetorical tactic descends into farce as Sarah Palin favorably quotes an advocate of domestic terrorism.