On December 10th, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid decided to celebrate Blagojevich’s 52nd birthday by drafting a letter soliciting his resignation. The letter, which was subsequently co-signed by the entire Democratic caucus, includes this warning:

Please understand that should you decide to ignore the request of the Senate Democratic Caucus [to resign as Governor] and make an appointment we would be forced to exercise our Constitutional authority under Article I, Section 5, to determine whether such a person should be seated.

The Majority Leader is referring to Article 1, § 5, Clauses 1-2 of the Constitution of the United States, which read:

Section 5. [Clause 1] Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.

[Clause 2] Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

Due to the impeachment proceedings and Blagojevich’s newfound support for a special election, the chances are very good that no one will ever have to answer the question of whether or not Reid actually has the authority not to seat an appointed Senator. On face, this question would appear to be judicial taboo, plainly fitting the parameters for what Federal Judges often call “non-justicable political questions.” But seeing as how it is isn’t very polite to threaten someone with a constitutional power that you don’t have, some people are starting to ask some questions.

In Powell v. McCormack 395 U.S. 486 (1969), the Supreme Court held 8-0 (with Justice Fortas ironically not voting due to his own political scandal) that the House of Representatives did not have the authority to “exclude” a constitutionally-eligible person from serving in Congress. Representative Adam Clayton Powell (D-NY) – who brought the case against the Speaker, the House Clerk, the Sergeant at Arms, and even the Doorkeeper of the House – alleged that the House’s decision to exclude him (as made in House Resolutions 1 and 278, both in 1967) was unconstitutional. Powell, who was accused of misusing travel funds and paying his wife an unearned Congressional salary, fit the constitutional requirements for office as stated in Article 1, § 2, Clause 2. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction; the Appeals Court ruled that it did have jurisdiction, but that the matter was, in fact, a non-justicable political question. The Supreme Court accepted review, and heard arguments on April 21, 1969.

In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Warren wrote that the Court’s analysis of Article I § 5

demonstrated that in judging the qualifications of its members Congress is limited to the standing qualifications prescribed in the Constitution. Respondents concede that Powell met these. Thus, there is no need to remand this case to determine whether he was entitled to be seated in the 90th Congress. Therefore, we hold that, since Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., was duly elected by the voters of the 18th Congressional District of New York and was not ineligible to serve under any provision of the Constitution, the House was without power to exclude him from its membership.

Thus, it would seem that Harry Reid lacks the authority to refuse to seat a duly-appointed Senator assuming he or she meets the constitutional requirements. The Senate could, of course, vote to expel the member with a 2/3 majority. And it would also be prudent to note that no self-respecting politician would accept a Blagojevich appointment at this point anyway.

In the end, it appears that this a pretty cut-and-dry sort of thing. Harry Reid either misspoke, intending to threaten an expulsion, or else someone needs the Majority Leader of the United States Senate a copy of the Constitution.

Related posts

• Justice Stevens and Roe v. Wade’s Initial Reception (July 30, 2007)
• Today Is “Safe Harbor” Day 2008 (December 9, 2008)
• Supreme Court Rejects Question of Obama’s Citizenship (December 8, 2008)

Unsurprisingly, one factor that is very seldom discussed in Election 2008 coverage is how the candidates would treat the DoJ if elected, both ideologically and logistically. Perhaps it’s time for Wolf Blitzer and the cats at CNN to ask a question about human trafficking, mandatory minimums, restricted access to civil courts, wire-tapping, or racial discrimination…

The Bush precedent has hopefully taught all of the candidates two lessons: first, that a multi-dimensional DoJ cannot be taken for granted, and, second, that effective policymaking largely hinges on the competency of the choice for Attorney General.

I think a join a good number of people in arguing that Eric Holder, President-elect Obama’s choice to be the next Attorney General, is just the sort of competent and experienced legal mind needed to restore the Justice Department to its Clintonian roots as a civil rights watchdog. A lot of what I wrote in that post was a reaction to a piece in that morning’s New York Times, which drew attention to the fact that the Bush DoJ seemed to be pushing civil rights litigators out the door in favor of so-called “holy hires” who specialized in religious advocacy. The Times indexed a number of consequences of what it called a “mission change” in the Bush Justice Department:

[Increased intervention] in federal court cases on behalf of religion-based groups like the Salvation Army that assert they have the right to discriminate in hiring in favor of people who share their beliefs even though they are running charitable programs with federal money.

Supporting groups that want to send home religious literature with schoolchildren; in one case, the government helped win the right of a group in Massachusetts to distribute candy canes as part of a religious message that the red stripes represented the blood of Christ.

Vigorously enforcing a law enacted by Congress in 2000 that allows churches and other places of worship to be free of some local zoning restrictions. The division has brought more than two dozen lawsuits on behalf of churches, synagogues and mosques.

Taking on far fewer hate crimes and cases in which local law enforcement officers may have violated someone’s civil rights.

Sharply reducing the complex lawsuits that challenge voting plans that might dilute the strength of black voters. The department initiated only one such case through the early part of this year, compared with eight in a comparable period in the Clinton administration.

Again, Holder seems like just the right choice to reframe civil rights as a departmental priority. As a 1L at Columbia Law School in 1974, Holder worked at the NAACP’s Legal Defense and Educational Fund, a civil rights organization with a reputation for community-based change. A vocal critic of the warrantless wire tap program, Holder is also on the record railing against the USA PATRIOT Act. He told CNN:

When you look at some of the things that have done under the spirit of the [Patriot Act], where you detain citizens without giving them access to a lawyer, where you listen in on attorney-client conversations without involving a judge, these are the kinds of things that have been done in the name of the Patriot Act by this administration that I think are bad ultimately for law enforcement and will cost us the support of the American people…

In short, my argument is that we now have a near-perfect candidate, uniquely equipped to restore the Justice Department’s critical role in protecting civil rights. I think that if you had asked Neil Lewis, who wrote that article for the Times, to give you the name of someone who could lead the DoJ back to its core mission, he might very well have said Eric Holder.

This is especially good news considering that it now appears as though Senate Republicans, after first signaling that Holder’s nomination may be derailed by the Marc Rich pardon, have now acquiesced to the appointment. Expect Holder to be confirmed shortly after the Inauguration, and the DoJ’s policy priorities to begin radically shifting not long after.

Related posts

• Reflections on my First Live Oral Arguments – Ricci v. DeStefano (April 25, 2009)

A lot of people have been making a big deal out of this, arguing that referrals of dead-end citizenship cases by conservative Justices could be interpreted as a slight on Obama. Nia-Malika Henderson of Politico even speculated that Thomas’ referral of Donofrio might just be his way of

returning the favor — putting through a case that questions whether Obama should be president, after Obama said [at the Saddeback Forum that] he wouldn’t have picked Thomas for the high court.

We here at the DailyWrit admit that we got caught up in all the drama, even speculating that the conservative bloc might be tacitly participating in a game theory model called “cheap talk signaling” by using these referrals to remind Obama that they still have Judicial Review over the legislation he pushes through a very Democratic Congress. But after reading one too many stories about the referrals, Kedar realized that bloggers might be reading too much into this – mapping partisan politics onto a situation of routine Court procedure. Curious, we sent an e-mail to SCOTUSblogger Lyle Denniston, one of the top SCOTUS authorities in all the land. He graciously responded:

[Donofrio] was a routine referral. The Court formerly allowed repeated applications, even to all nine Justices separately. Because of perceived abuses of that approach, the Court now follows the practice — no matter which Justice gets the second application — to have it go to Conference, to end the Justice-shopping.

The fact of referral in the New Jersey case was totally without significance. The more telling fact, in each of these cases, is that the Court does not even ask for a response. That indicates it believes they are totally frivolous — as anyone who reads the papers will quickly discern.

Sorry, no political intrigue here.

Regards, and thanks for reading the blog,
Lyle D.

This should lay to rest all the rumors that Justice Thomas has an ax to grind with the president-elect. It turns out that the referral was a simple procedural matter of routine. When a petition is denied by a liberal Justice, it is not uncommon for the petitioner to then refile the application with a Justice who is more conservative (and vice-versa); to prevent the petitioner from simply resubmitting again and again, the second petition automatically triggers a referral to conference from the Justice who received that resubmitted application. It just so happens that the Donofrio and Wrotnowski were resubmitted to Justices Thomas and Scalia; thus, it is simply coincidence and nothing more that the cases were referred for Court review by conservative Justices.

But what truly shocked us here at the DailyWrit was how many media outlets – large and small, local and national – dropped the ball on this story. Among those who gravely misinterpreted Court procedure were: Kate Phillips at the Caucus (a blog of The New York Times), Elie Mystal at Above the Law, Earl Hutchinson at The American Chronicle, Les Payne at Newsday, a number of the good folks over at DailyKos, James Wright at New American Media, bloggers at ProgressPolitics, and, as we mentioned, Nia-Malika Henderson at Politico.

Who got it right? Well, Robert Barnes at the Washington Post, Eugene Volokh at his blog, Mr. Denniston, Ben Smith over at Politico, and Wikipedia!

Related posts

• Supreme Court Rejects Question of Obama’s Citizenship (December 8, 2008)
• President Obama and the Future of the Supreme Court (December 4, 2008)
• The In Vogue Word Of The Day: Stare Decisis (June 28, 2007)

I don’t think Team Obama should get too comfortable with the Court’s denial of [Donofrio] since [Wrotnowski] IS distributed for Dec 12 conference.

It’s important to remember that the “safe harbor” deadline–the date when Secretaries of State can begin constitutionally locking their states’ Electoral College votes–is today, December 9th. Thus, there is no reason for the Obama team to be anything less than totally comfortable: as long as the case is not heard and ruled upon by the end of business today (which it won’t be because it is not on the docket), the Court will concretely guarantee Obama 365 electoral votes. Game over.

Related posts

• Supreme Court Rejects Question of Obama’s Citizenship (December 8, 2008)
• Fishing for a Story: How the Media Is Reading Too Much Into Referrals of Obama Citizenship Cases by Conservative Supreme Court Justices (December 9, 2008)
• Court Appears to Deny Stay in Donofrio v. Wells (December 6, 2008)

The Supreme Court’s decision to deny review functionally ends the viability of any conspiracy theory concerning Obama’s citizenship. Even if the Court were to have accepted review, the case would have to have been heard and ruled upon before the “safe harbor” date for Electoral College votes, which is this coming Tuesday, December 9th. The other possibility was that the Court could stay the meeting of the Electoral College, slated for December 15th, pending review.

The denial means that there are now no legal barriers to stop Obama from locking in his 365 Electoral Votes on Tuesday, en route to becoming the 44th President of the United States.

Related posts

• Today Is “Safe Harbor” Day 2008 (December 9, 2008)
• Supreme Court Rejects Question of Obama’s Citizenship (December 8, 2008)
• Fishing for a Story: How the Media Is Reading Too Much Into Referrals of Obama Citizenship Cases by Conservative Supreme Court Justices (December 9, 2008)

Biden’s first major test as Chairperson came in June 1987, when President Reagan nominated Robert Bork, then sitting on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, to replace the retiring Justice Lewis Powell. Within the hour, Senator Edward Kennedy had taken the floor of the Senate to share his infamous vision of “Robert Bork’s America.” Biden’s Judiciary Committee kept the pace, asking tough questions about privacy and the separation of powers. Bork’s candid testimony before the Committee earned him a reputation as an extremist, and the ACLU bolstered this idea by recommending for only the third time in its 67-year history that a Supreme Court nominee by rejected. The Judiciary Committee concurred, and recommended by a vote of 9-5 (Biden in the majority) that Bork be rejected. Shortly thereafter, Bork’s nomination failed by a floor vote of 42-58, with Biden voting nay.

Bork, who felt slighted by the media and by the Senate, resigned the Fifth Seat on the DC Circuit in 1988; Ronald Reagan soon nominated a veteran of his administration, Clarence Thomas, to fill this vacancy. In the summer of 1991, Biden would face his second test as Judiciary Chair when Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court. The hearings [Biden-laden transcripts here] were notably divisive, colored by Anita Hill’s allegations of sexual misconduct. Like the American Bar Association, the Judiciary Committee was divided on Thomas’ qualifications; and, like the ABA, the Committee ultimately chose not to make a recommendation and silently sent the nomination to the full floor. Thomas was then confirmed by a vote of 52-48, with Biden again voting nay.

Beyond his Constitutional role in providing advice and consent , Biden used his position on the committee to push through quite a bit of legislation. Some of these bills have been legally dubious. (The Violence Against Women Act of 1994, for example, was ruled in part unconstitutional in United States v. Morrison 529 U.S. 598 (2000).) However, most of his legislation in this committee an elsewhere has been marked by an earnest desire to improve the lives of everyday Americans.

I would suggest that Joe Biden is one of the finer legal minds in this country, and certainly was the finest on Obama’s shortlist (although Tim Kaine did teach law at the University of Richmond for some six years). And so I guess my point is that, if elected, Biden would be an interesting asset to President Obama if he’s tasked with filling vacancies on the high court. Considering the likelihood that Obama could have as many as six nominations, maybe even liberals should be reading a little more closely into Biden’s record.

Related posts

• President Obama and the Future of the Supreme Court (December 4, 2008)
• Which Justice Will Author The Medellin Opinion? (March 19, 2008)
• Updated Humor Statistics (March 7, 2008)

WARREN: Which existing Supreme Court Justice would you not have nominated?

OBAMA: That’s a good one. That’s a good one. I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. I don’t think that he…I don’t think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation, setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretation of a lot of the Constitution.

And then to Senator McCain:

WARREN: Which existing Supreme Court Justices would you not have nominated?

McCAIN: [Pause] With all due respect…Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Souter and Justice Stevens.

The discussions generated by this question provided a rare and candid window into how these men regard the nomination process. Obama argued throughout his discussion of the Judiciary that jurists ought be nominated on the basis of merit and experience. McCain, on the other hand, argued that nominations

should be based on the criteria of proven record of strictly adhering to the Constitution of the United States of America and not legislating from the bench….some of the worst damage has been done by legislating from the bench.

A discussion of Chief Justice Roberts then presented the opportunity for both men to contrast their ideal Justice with one who was currently serving. McCain mentioned that Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito were among his “most recent favorites.” He lauded both men as “very fine” and said that he was “proud of President Bush for nominating them.” Senator Obama voiced a slightly different opinion of Chief Justice Roberts:

WARREN: How about John Roberts?

OBAMA: John Roberts….I have to say was a tougher question only because I find him to be a very compelling person, you know, in services individually. He’s clearly smart, very thoughtful. I will tell you that how I’ve seen him operate since he went to the Bench confirms the suspicions that I had, and the reason that I voted against him and I’ll give you one very specific instance, and this is not a stump speech.

WARREN: All right. When I pick this up it means –

OBAMA: Exactly. I’m getting the cues. I’m getting the cues. One of the most important jobs of…I believe the Supreme Court is to guard against the encroachment of the Executive Branch on the power of the other branches, and I think that he has been a little bit too willing and too eager to give an administration – whether it’s mine or George Bush’s – more power than I think the Constitution originally intended.

Also receiving a shot out from Obama was Justice Scalia:

OBAMA: I would not nominate Justice Scalia although I don’t think there’s any doubt about his intellectual brilliance because he and I just disagree, you know. He taught at University of Chicago, as did I in the Law School.

I was pleased to see Obama acknowledge that Justice Scalia is “intellectually [brilliant]” and that Chief Justice Roberts is “clearly smart, very thoughtful,” even though these Justices’ interpretations of the Constitution are hardly in lock-step with his own. McCain, on the other hand, listed every single member of the Court’s liberal contingent (with special disgust for Justice Souter) when asked who he wouldn’t nominate.

But Senator McCain really caught my attention by speculating that, during the next four years, “there will be two, maybe three vacancies” on the Supreme Court. In a recent post I argued via a regression model that the next president would have exactly this many vacancies to fill in the next four years, so it’s good to know someone’s listening. But I think McCain was trying to scare the audience by using a number instead of a phrase like “several” or “a few”; by underscoring just how important the next president is going to be in deciding the future direction of the Court, he is endearing himself as a “best of the worst “option to right-wingers who might not be so hot on some other elements of his agenda. Nevertheless, by so prominently promising to nominate originalist jurists, McCain is backing himself into a corner. And I hope that doesn’t mean that he’ll overlook qualified jurists as a matter of process.

For those intrested, the full transcripts from the event are available here.

UPDATE: A lengthier discussion of these exchanges is available in tomorrow’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, courtesy of their shockingly conservative Editorial Board.

Related posts

• President Obama and the Future of the Supreme Court (December 4, 2008)
• Updated Humor Statistics (March 7, 2008)
• Unity Defined (June 11, 2007)

I would wish that I could take my vote back. But is there a constitutional claim imbedded in my (hypothetical) buyer’s remorse?

On cursory inspection, the Constitution appears to answer this question by reserving the dating of elections as a power of the states. Article 1, Section 4 provides:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

But in 1999, the Voting Integrity Project brought suit against the Secretary of State of Texas in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, alleging that portions of Texas Election Code pursuant to early voting violated 2 USC 7, which states:

“Tuesday next after the 1st Monday in November, in every even numbered year, is established as the day for the election, in each of the States…of the United States, of Representatives and Delegates to the Congress…”

In Voting Integrity Project v. Bomer (99-20757), the District Court denied VIP’s motion for summary judgment and, on appeal in 199 F.3d 773 (5th Cir. 2000 00:00:00), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court declined to review the decision.

The Fifth Circuit’s decision is a fascinating read that draws heavily on Foster v. Love 522 U.S. 67 and U.S. v. Classic 313 U.S. 299. The decision provides three basic reasons why early voting is not de facto unconstitutional.

First,

Because the election of federal representatives in Texas is not decided or “consummated” before federal election day, the Texas scheme is not inconsistent with the federal election statutes as interpreted by the court in Foster.

Second, the Court could not

“logically hold that Texas’ system of unrestricted advanced voting violates federal law without also finding that absentee balloting–which occurs in every state– violates federal law.

And, finally, the Court could not

conceive that Congress intended the federal election day statutes to have the effect of impeding citizens in exercising their right to vote.

There is certainly a lot of room for debate here, and I would be very curious to see what the Supreme Court would have to say. Clearly the bulk of the decision is in the Court’s first point. The second reason occurs to me as something of a cop out, not really speaking to the issue at hand. The third reason seems backwards: is it not true that the right to vote is best exercised when the most information is available? If not, why not just vote in all states on a rolling basis? After all, having an “election day” or even an “election period” (ie: an election day preceded by two weeks of early voting) inherently impedes the right to vote by making it impossible to vote outside of these temporal boundaries.

The Court’s first justification rests entirely on Foster’s definition of “election”; specifically it calls into question whether the act of voting is completed upon the casting of a vote or upon its counting. If the Court had interpreted the act of voting to be complete upon its casting, then I firmly believe they would’ve overturned the District Court. This surely would’ve generated a lot of media attention, and might have given the case a better chance of being heard by the SCOTUS. The stare decisis inherent in the Circuit Court’s deferral to Foster is palpable, and, at times, the decision itself seems to beg for higher review. For example, the entire crux of the decision depends on an interpretation of “the final act of voting,” yet the majority opinion itself notes that

there is room for argument about just what may constitute the final act of selection within the meaning of the law [emphasis mine]

For now, most of the debate surrounding early voting is happening in the states. In 2006, a Maryland Circuit Court Judge for Anne Arundel County ruled that early voting violated a provision of the state constitution that called for all elections to be held on the same, “election day.” Connecticut has had similar debates, and a few people on the internet have recently been calling for a cases similar to VIP to be filed in other states. I, for one, think something like the hypothetical I described earlier would bring some much needed attention to the issue. But unless Obama’s been unfaithful to Michelle, this is just an interesting what if.

Related posts

• Today Is “Safe Harbor” Day 2008 (December 9, 2008)
• Supreme Court Rejects Question of Obama’s Citizenship (December 8, 2008)
• Fishing for a Story: How the Media Is Reading Too Much Into Referrals of Obama Citizenship Cases by Conservative Supreme Court Justices (December 9, 2008)

Wisconsin presents an interesting case: it’s a state with a large middle and lower-income electorate, a large rural population, and a state without a substantial African-American vote (unlike South Carolina, Louisiana, Maryland, D.C., and Virginia). On paper, one would expect Hillary Clinton to handily win this state. Many polls even had her up by 10 points the week before the Wisconsin primary. And yet the Clinton campaign (and even many major news sources) played up Obama’s supposedly huge advantage in the state: it neighbors Illinois, Obama has a huge fundraising advantage, and, most importantly, Obama has momentum on his side. There was even talk that Clinton would regain the momentum if she could pull off an “upset” by winning Wisconsin. The expectations game, as shown by Wisconsin and other states that voted this month, is always played using the most immediate data and never in the context of the broader election process. If expectations are established within the 72 hours before any vote, people begin to lose focus on the big picture. Obama’s win in Wisconsin (by 17 points, no less) should hardly be expected, nor should it be credited solely to his momentum. Expectations in Wisconsin should have been based on the previous months’ worth of data from polling as well as a look at the demographics. Viewed through this lens, Obama’s February victories should hardly be expected. March 4th will be the most important day in Hillary Clinton’s political career. There’s a general consensus in the media that Clinton needs to not only win both Texas and Ohio, but win them by convincing 20 point margins simply to stay in the race. But polling data is showing that the race in both states is narrowing quickly. RealClearPolitics has compiled and averaged the results of polls from both Ohio and Texas, and they show 9 and 1 point leads for Clinton, respectively. Obama is closing in quickly with still a week to go. After a month of 11 straight losses and continuous excuses for those losses, the Clinton campaign needs to actually dig in to have a shot at the nomination. But will they? If their past strategy is any indication, they’ll downplay the importance of winning by big margins in the days before March 4th. They’ll cite the most recent polls and argue that even a slim 5 point win by Clinton is reason enough to stay in the race. Some might even dare say that a narrow victory in both states somehow gives Clinton the momentum. Let me make it as clear as possible: Hillary Clinton must win both Ohio and Texas, and must win both by 20 point margins to remain a credible candidate in the Democratic nomination race. Do not be tricked into the crazy expectations games that will inevitably be played in the coming days. With the odd rules and disproportionate allocation of delegates in Texas, anything short won’t be enough to reverse Obama’s momentum.

Related posts

• Today Is “Safe Harbor” Day 2008 (December 9, 2008)
• The Obama Rama Party (August 2, 2007)
• The In Vogue Word Of The Day: Stare Decisis (June 28, 2007)

Of course, leave it to the Republicans to monkeywrench a Florida election again. It turns out that Republican majorities in Florida and Michigan (which wants to have its electoral bonanza on January 15th) voted to move up the dates, apparently against the will of Democrats in the state (I say “apparently” because Dems could just being using this as an excuse).

Regardless of who is to blame…

Many argue that Florida will benefit from an earlier primary date because candidates will directly address the issues of the Florida electorate. I’m not entirely sure that will be the case. It’s not like the candidates will change or alter their platform to appeal to Florida voters. And empirically the issues brought up in Iowa, New Hampshire, and other early primary/caucus states haven’t been the top legislative priorities for presidents post-election.

The argument that states like Florida lose electoral clout by not having an early primary are absurd. States with large numbers of votes in the electoral college (Florida, California, etc.) seem to be the ones wanting earlier primaries, and yet they’re also the states that get the most attention in the months leading up to the election. In fact, the whole point of having Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada host early primaries is that they won’t be getting any attention during the final straightaway.

There’s also the race to the bottom front argument, where states will try to beat each other to the earliest primary date. In fact, I honestly don’t know why Michigan doesn’t move its primary date to tomorrow. Or maybe January 15th can be the primary for the 2016 election, yes?

Last note: this may be the most frightening picture of Hillary ever taken. If this doesn’t kill her campaign, nothing will.

Related posts

• YouTube 4 President (June 14, 2007)
• WSJ Op-ed on Judicial Elections (March 22, 2008)
• When Mitt Met Hillary (July 5, 2007)

1) Engage Foreign Leaders- As our policy stands now, we ignore countries that are ‘bad’ until we need them to do something for us. Well, we’ve usually ‘ignored’ (alienated) them for so long that they are usually more than hesitant to cooperate. The next President needs to keep the line of communication open with countries, not use negotiations as a bonus for nations that appease us.

2) Increase Foreign Aid- The next President needs to push Congress to increasing financial and humanitarian aid to the developing world. As we throw away money on the Conflict in Iraq, China and other competing nations are developing relationships with smaller nations. Foreign aid helps us develop spheres of influence around the world that will come in handy the next time we need help. The best thing for America right now would be a paradigm shift away from unilateral wars and towards common, consensus-building endeavors.

3) Diversify Our Energy Supplies- This isn’t a strictly foreign policy issue, but it would have a profound effect on our foreign policy. The next president needs to provide funding for alternative energies. Regardless when we reap the benefits from the investment, the foreign nations that have oil-inflated egos are going to find themselves in a precarious position with America on the path to energy independence.

4) Pull Out of Iraq (Mostly)- The War in Iraq is not going to get better with more troops. If the next President can’t pass legislation that would remove us from Iraq in the first year of his presidency (meaning a withdrawl the next year, or 2010), I would say that his legacy will be mired by Iraq the same way the current President’s has. Other nations are becoming more and more openly hostile to the notion of an Imperial Empire taking over the Middle East and if the President can’t get support domestically, how can we expect any potential to do the same in their country? I would expect the next President to the troop level in Iraq by at least 75% in order to achieve any level of success on the Iraqi issue. Pulling out of Iraq is the first step towards pressing other countries on issues that are important to us.

5) Re-engage the UN- International Organizations may or may not be effective, but our participation in them is an important indication of our standing amongst the international community. The first step in improving our relationship with the UN would be to appoint a nominee that can get strong support domestically (ie. not another Bolton-esque hack). The next step is to increase our activity outside the hallowed-halls of the Security Council. This is a daunting task for any administration, but we need ignore the War in Iraq and forge a coalition with other nations in the broader war against poverty and disease.

6) Ratify the Kyoto Protocol- It’s irrelevant whether the United States’ economy can handle joining Kyoto (which it probably can). The US economy has proven itself resilient time and time again, and arguments against Kyoto are all tainted with the bias of big business. The act of signing on to Kyoto would be a huge win for the global environmental protection movement. Seeing as how the United States is the only major developed country not to have signed Kyoto, it’s rather embarassing that we can even talk about countering global warming.

7) Repeal the Mexico City Policy- Quick synopsis: the Mexico City Policy is known as the Global Gag Rule, and outlaws US foreign aid to any international family planning organizations that condone (or even don’t speak out about) abortion. This policy is the centerpiece of the New Right’s campaign to export its twisted conservative Christian agenda and impose it on the developing world. Ironically, the Global Gag Rule increases abortion, and especially unsafe abortion, as women have no access to family planning counseling and contraceptives. As long as the Global Gag Rule is in place, the United States will be seen as a country willing to play games with women’s lives in order to climb on its moral pedestal.

8) Ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court- The ICC was created to prosecute war criminals. This may be why President Bush seems particularly hesitant to join the ICC. The Bush Administration argues that joining the ICC would open the legal floodgates to thousands of charges against US soldiers and military officials. One must ask, though, why the US would resort to such an excuse: perhaps it already knows its own guilt? As long as the US remains outside the jurisdiction of the ICC, the preemptive strike doctrine, torture, and other Bush Administration hobbies will stay legitimate, and the international community will continue to question our leadership.

9) Stop Being Complicit in Torture – Call it “enhanced”, “invasive”, or just downright human-rights violating, but the current interrogation tactics legitimated by the US military/intelligence services are not only immoral but also impractical. On ethical grounds, it’s hypocritical and counterintuitive for the President to claim that everyone deserves human rights precisely because they’re human, and at the same time, designate captured terror suspects as “enemy combatants” not prisoners of war. As a result, the Bush Administration attempts to rhetorically side step the Geneva Conventions by literally denigrating terror suspects to subhuman status. So, on moral grounds, we violate the universalizing ethic of human rights by excluding who can be fully human and therefore claim full human rights. On practical grounds, torturing suspects in Gitmo/Abu Grahib/Eastern European Prison, or handing them over for Jordan/Syria/Egypt to torture them undermines our ability to project our soft power into the Muslim world. After all, a pyramid of naked prisoners cowering in fear at an attack dog doesn’t exactly project benevolent intentions.

10) Rethink the Free Trade Mantra – Basic macroeconomic theory tells us that if two nations specialize in different goods such as guns and butter, and they trade with each other, the result is mutually beneficial. Too bad the US and China don’t just make guns and butter. What’s happening today is that US manufacturing companies are outsourcing manufacturing jobs to the rest of the world where labor costs are minimal and tax breaks and investment opportunities are provided by the foreign government. As a result, unfettered free trade is exerting downward pressure on US living standards and wages. The next administration needs to include labor rights concerns and environmental guarantees into its future trade agreements with other countries in an effort to equalize the disparities in manufacturing conditions from Flint, Michigan, and Bangalore, India.

Kedar wrote the first five suggestions, Yao wrote the next three, and Gary wrote the last two. Gary very specifically wanted me, Kedar, to remind everyone that he totally disagrees with suggestion #4 regarding our pullout from Iraq. Gary wrote at great length about his views here but I totally disagree. We’ll discuss this later.

Related posts

• Supreme Introductions (December 20, 2008)
• Supreme Court to Promptly Release DC v. Heller Oral Arguments (March 6, 2008)
• Supreme Court Grants Cert. In Important Second Amendment Case (September 30, 2009)

Hilary Clinton- A-: She kept her lead and didn’t mess it up. If you call that a victory, then she got an A-, if you consider a victory a performance that will sway voters to her side, she got closer to a B+ or B.

Barack Obama- B+: Good, but not as he needs to take overtake Clinton.

John Edwards- B: Edwards didn’t take the initiative that he needed to in order to creep into the top tier of candidates. He might have held is ground, but I would truly be surprised if he gains a lot of supporters from this performance.

Mike Gravel- B-: Even though he sounded angry the whole time, he had some answers that really pandered to the radical liberal base. I think he answered the questions in ways that might help him grab some primary vote, but it certainly won’t be enough to push im into the top or even second tier.

Dennis Kucinich- C+: He was silly but that’s his thing. I still keep trying to look for the ‘one ring, to rule them all’ on his hand.

Joe Biden- C: He had a perfectly mediocre performance. In my school, a ‘C’ was considered average, but it certainly wasn’t enough to to catch up to the top tier candidates.

Chris Dodd- C-: He behaved a lot like Biden but didn’t have the the same understated charm. He was brash and his attitude made it hard for me to take him seriously.

Bill Richardson- D: That was the way a desperate, desperate candidate sounds. He looked like he had practiced so hard on his answers the he actually ended up being really stiff and insincere.

Related posts

• Today Is “Safe Harbor” Day 2008 (December 9, 2008)
• The Obama Rama Party (August 2, 2007)
• The In Vogue Word Of The Day: Stare Decisis (June 28, 2007)

Just yesterday, Rudy Giuliani unveiled his ‘Judicial Advisory Committee.’ He’s always had a ‘firm’ policy about ‘strict constructionist‘ and when I went to his site a minute ago, a banner related to the issue took up no less than 1/3 of my screen. His ‘Judicial Advisory Committee’ certainly sounds like a good idea and he packed the committee with some serious judicial minds. One of them even declared “Judges are meant to judge – not make laws. Under Rudy Giuliani, it will stay that way.” How would a democrat counter that kind of rhetoric? The Republicans have framed their side of the story in such a way that the democrats now have a reputation for being everything that the Republicans don’t claim to be- and thats not going to be good for the Democrats in 2008.

The only way for Democrats to ‘take back’ the federal courts is to win elections, and most specifically the President. I don’t expect the democrats to play dead on the judicial issue, and I don’t think they should, but whoever the democratic nominee for President is, they would be ill-advised to make a big deal out of Republican Judicial nominees without seriously reconsidering the rhetoric they use.

Related posts

• Originalism Reconsidered (August 9, 2007)
• If I Hear One More Word About Clarence Thomas And Originalism… (July 12, 2007)
• Surprisingly Candid McCain and Obama Discuss Current SCOTUS Makeup, Nomination Process at the Saddleback Civil Forum (August 17, 2008)

Because voters are not required to make a decision until election day, they remain open at this stage in the race to new information, alternative perspectives and late-breaking developments — all of which render today’s poll results, to one degree or another, meaningless.

Consider this: More than two-thirds of the Democrats who voted in the 2004 Iowa caucuses didn’t decide who to vote for until a month before the caucuses. Four in 10 decided in the last week. In 2004, 54% of New Hampshire Democrats decided within a week of the primary. It’s no surprise, then, that in the 2004 election, John Kerry was lagging in third place until only a few weeks before the Iowa caucuses. Kerry then more than doubled his vote in Iowa and nearly quadrupled it in New Hampshire — all in less than 20 days.

Ironically, the authors of the article in question are Mike Murphy and Mark Mellman, two widely connected and respected pollsters. To them, polling at this stage is futile and only serves the interests of political elite (read donors). For more enlightening commentary on this article, see respected poli sci PHD candidate/blogger Jay Cost who manages to talk about physics, business school, Foucault, and the LA times article in the same entry. But for now, Murphy and Mellman miss a few empirical counter examples. First, the two pollsters overstate their thesis a bit when they write

Millions raised, then spent, thousands of staffers, all the early spin, all the early endorsements, and all the early everything else consists mainly of campaigns trying to create metrics by which the media can measure their progress.

For instance, Howard Dean, was not the establishment candidate in 2004 yet his compelling anti-war message resonated. Coupled with his innovative use of the internet as a fund-raising tool, his early swell of support can’t really be attributed to elite’s talking among themselves. Also, even state wide elections have shown how real grass-roots democracy can have large scale political impacts. Jay Cost argues that elites serve to narrow down the choices of available candidates in an election and that’s a good thing. However, that hypothesis can’t explain how Ned Lamont was single handily able to drive Joe Lieberman to the right and essentially force the Democratic party to exile him. Largely supported by the left-wing blogosphere, Lamont won the Democratic Primary in Connecticut in 2006 but lost the general election because his only issue was getting out of the war in Iraq.

Interestingly enough, Cost writes

Elites of all stripes – journalists, pundits, Washington power brokers, donors, and even the well-informed who chime in via the blogosphere – are actively engaged in determining the agenda for the 2008 election, i.e. who shall and who shall not be a candidate worthy of the average voter’s consideration.

So is Dailywrit complicit in this? =O

Related posts

• No related posts detected.

Unlike the Republican Party which has one person leading in the first primary states and one person leading in the general election, the Democrats have one person in the lead for both: Hillary. Hillary has a sizable lead in New Hampshire and is a frontrunner in the Iowa Caucus. The biggest benefit that comes with a huge lead in New Hampshire is that she can afford to pull a bit of money from her New Hampshire bid and put it towards Iowa. Barack Obama is polling 2nd in the national polls but has struggled in the first two primary states and John Edwards has done the opposite.

What Will It Take For Clinton To Win?

First (and in no particular order), Mrs. Clinton will have to play Mr. Clinton very well. Mr. Clinton has the potential to serve as a lightning rod of criticism because he is in the public eye more than any of the other candiate’s spouses (see: Sopranos controversy). Not only is he in the spotlight now, but his past actions in office have given Mrs. Clinton 8 years worth of policy decisions to justify (see: an interesting take on Clinton’s midnight pardoning.) A lot of people have commented on his past extra-marital affairs and that has taken a lot of the policy message that Mrs. Cnton was trying to push. The more she lets the media talk about her marital status, the more her administration is going to sound like a 4-year long episode of General Hospital.

Second, Senator Clinton needs to appear moderate to conservatives and liberal to liberals. Conservatives think that she wants to make abortions mandatory and liberals (legitimately) contend that she is either too conservative or too willing to sacrifice her true liberal persuasions if she has them. Recent attention to her personal faith has helped her to this end.

Third, Hillary needs to shed her image of being a rigid politician. She’s taken a few steps in the right direction with her Sopranos video. If she can develop the same cult of personality that Barack Obama has, she is going to build some serious grassroots firepower.

Forth, Hillary needs to act like a frontrunner. In my opinion, she did this excellently during the latest democratic debate. She spoke a lot, but not too much, and she kept a low profile by saying what people wanted to hear and not a word more. If she can cruise to some early wins, she’ll have the momentum it takes to do whatever she wants.

James and I think that Hillary has about a 60% chance of getting the nomination of Al Gore stays out of the mix (as he is increasingly likely to do.) If Gore does throw his hat into the ring, Hillary has a 50% chance of becoming the democratic nominee.

Related posts

• Today Is “Safe Harbor” Day 2008 (December 9, 2008)
• The Obama Rama Party (August 2, 2007)
• The In Vogue Word Of The Day: Stare Decisis (June 28, 2007)

Romney has since grown into a giant. Our Election 2008 Tracker indicates that he currently holds strong leads in Iowa and New Hampshire, and has been trending solidly uphill in these states for over six months despite his miserable numbers in national polling:

In terms of policy, Romney (now) favors the Death Penalty and chartered schools, but is opposed to comprehensive abortion rights and civil unions. As I mentioned in a blogging here, Mitt is very electable at the top of a ticket when a more experienced moderate (such as Giuliani or McCain) is placed at the bottom. Those of us familiar with any government textbook every written are very acquainted with the concept of “the big mo” – and thus find it easy to imagine the chain reaction that strong Romney victories in early primaries will begin. But what will it take for Mitt to carry this momentum to a victory in the General? In my opinion, not much:

First, the obvious point: Romney must be the healthcare candidate. Romney’s unconventional reforms of the MA healthcare system reduced abuse of the emergency rooms while quickly ushering the middle class into a new era of affordable alternatives. Our new pals over at Dry Fly Politics are really more authoritative Romney supporters, so check here for a more comprehensive analysis of Romney’s healthcare plan and a rather innovative Q-and-A about the Mormon faith.

Second, Romney needs to hold in Iowa and New Hampshire. Self-explanatory. Fortunately, Iowa will want to lead towards Romney as time goes on. This is a state with a rich dark horse history, and one that cares deeply about the environment. Luckily, Mitt is in favor of regulating greenhouse emissions. Perfect!

Third, Romney needs a clearer explanation of his immigration position. His ideas about needing to defer to “the rule of law” rather than “deals” will hit home with many Americans of both parties IF they can ever get an explanation this simple.

Fourth, Romney needs to get an answer to the flip-flop line quickly. All of us who continue to believe that there is justice in the world are waiting for Iowa to become so saturated with “flip-flop Romney” that he will never get a chance to explain anything else. The problem? Unlike Kerry, who “flip-flopped” on Iraq, Romney’s major flip-flop was on abortion. The Progressive Truth recently dug up some debate footage of Romney in 1994 that shows his tendency to backtrack (embarrassingly). It thus seems that his shaky stances could not only ostracize potential donors, but it could leave voters confused ahead of the Primaries in states where Romney has spent less time (see our calendar here). Also? He’s a(n alleged) porn hypocrite. Explained here by Hendrickson’s Haven. Just click it.

Fifth, Romney needs to stop saying he supports No Child Left Behind. You can support it, Mitt – just keep it to yourself.

Sixth, stop being stupid about stem cell research. Take a lesson from the one thing Bill Frist ever did correctly. This can swing a huge number of voters away f handled incorrectly, and can also cement him in the shadow of a Bush administration with a less-than-stellar record on social policy.

Seventh, and most importantly, manufacture some foreign policy credentials. One of the few lessons Bush has imposed on us is the clear non-sequitor between Texas Governor and “war president.” Democrats have been pandering frantically for months to become documented, “caring” experts on major international issues: Obama in Darfur, Clinton is Israel, Richardson in South America, and Biden in the larger Middle East. Admittedly, such a move is substantially easier from the seat of a Senator than from the position of a non-position-holder such as Mitt. Still, I would like to see Romney earn some foreign policy credentials. If the General Election debates follow the same format as they have recently, at least one will be entirely devoted to international issues. At this point, almost any Democrat currently polling at or above 1% could make Romney look absolutely goofy.

All in all, Kedar and I agree that Romney is the undisputed favorite (70%?) for the RNC nomination. Ultimately, he could easily cough up this advantage if he gets used to the “least bad” mentality explored here by the Blog of the Moderate Left.

(Those of you with a keen eye will note the curious omission of the religion issue. As I touched on here, I believe that his faith will prove far less important than most political pundits think. But we shall see.)

Related posts

• YouTube 4 President (June 14, 2007)
• When Mitt Met Hillary (July 5, 2007)
• Updated Presidential Polls (June 28, 2007)

‘I think he’s done a wonderful job in holding New York together, and quite possibly making the rest of the country feel like New Yorkers at this time. I heard someone say he looks like our next president. As a Democrat, frankly I don’t know about that. I wonder how Bush feels.’

Now, Rudy faces questions not about his marriage but about whether or not he can win the Republican nomination and more importantly, the presidency. According to DailyWrit’s election tracker (courtesy of James), Rudy’s polling in the high teens in the Iowa caucus among Republicans.

On the bright side, Rudy is the only leading Republican contender to raise more money in his second quarter than in his first as Robert Bluey notes. However, Rudy still faces some hurdles within the party base and with his organization. Recently, Thomas Ravel, Giuliani’s SC campaign chairman was indicted not for corruption but rather cocaine peddling…TPC underscores how this scandal could erupt in the pivotal SC Republican primary.

Ultimately, I don’t think Giuliani will win the Republican nomination but if he does, he’ll have to do two things…

1) He has to make the electability argument as Powerline does so eloquently. He has to make it early to frame the primary in the minds of voters. Framing is really crucial and the candidate who does this the most effectivly will win Democrat or Republican. For example, in the 2004 election , John Kerry and his team wanted to frame the election as a referendum on Bush. Consequently, they paid a lot of attention to right track/wrong track polls an Bush’s approval ratings. However, the Bush team wanted to frame the election in terms of Bush vs Kerry, not just Bush vs any other alternative candidate. As we all know, Bush won the framing debate and the presidency. In order for Giuliani to win, the people who are willing to take 4 hours out of their evening to attend the caucus in Iowa HAVE to make their choice based on how the Republican nominee does against Hillary, Obama or Edwards. By framing the choice among Republican primary voters in those terms, he can overcome his past stances on abortion and gay rights. After all, this is not the picture of himself Rudy wants in the minds of many Republicans (with the exception of log cabin Republicans).

Moreover, John Kerry’s argument in the primaries to voters was largely based on how his biography as a Vietnam War vet would inoculate him from criticisms of being weak on terrorism. Obviously it worked for Iowans…in the primaries. Moreover, Rudy has to make the electability argument often. Only then, can he frame the choices among Republican primary voters. What can’t happen though is if the Republican primary becomes who is the next Ronald Reagan or who is the most conservative. If that’s the race, then either Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney takes it hands down. However, Rudy can’t make the electability argument overtly because it makes voters feel cynical ie, he cannot say “alright guys, we disagree on abortion, gun control, and etc, but vote for me because if you think I’m bad…wait till you see Bill and Hill in the Oval Office. Alright thank you Charleston!” Most political scientists agree that voters don’t approach the ballot box with a checklist of issues and match them up robotically with the candidate who agrees with them the most. Things like character and other intangibles go into play as well.

2) Rudy has to find another defining issue(such as fiscal discipline) aside from his alleged strength on terror. Today’s Boston Globe does a nice job discussing how Rudy’s wrapped 9/11 around himself.

“He really defined leadership in the aftermath of 9/11, and that is something that is uniquely his own,” said John Zogby , an independent pollster based in upstate New York. “But he does need a second act, possibly even a third act. This is where we get into uncharted waters.”

However, by centering his campaign around 9-11, Rudy opens himself up to attacks from numerous organizations that undermine the leadership he showed on that day. Firefighters for example allege that Rudy underfunded them and did not provide them with adequate equipment. Moreover, it’s harder to link Rudy’s performance in the days following 9-11 to his foreign policy expertise specifically with how he would deal with our involvement in Iraq. Arguing that we have to “stay on the offense” against terror doesn’t exactly show foreign policy credentials. For instance, Rudy hasn’t even been to Iraq yet and he left the Iraq Study Group because of scheduling conflicts (he was busy making speeches for upwards of $50K a pop). TPMcafe does a nice job of exposing Rudy’s responses to these allegations.

Despite Rudy’s impressive fundraising, he has to be able to minimize the differences between his past policy positions and his present ones in such a way as not to open himself up to charges of pandering and flip flopping. After all, if the 2004 election taught us anything, the American public values their perception of a candidate’s character over the candidate’s stance on a list of issues. At the same time, he has to make Republican primary voters vote pragmatically rather than ideology. If he doesn’t win the republican nomination, look for him to continue to rake in the cash as a lobbyist or a speaker. If he does win the Republican nomination, Democrats better look out because he’s their worst nightmare provided the Republican nomination fight didn’t damage his character too much or force him so far right that he’s unable to triangulate his way to the center.

Related posts

• YouTube 4 President (June 14, 2007)
• When Mitt Met Hillary (July 5, 2007)
• Updated Presidential Polls (June 28, 2007)

The Clinton camp, while surging in almost every poll, seems to be struggling with some logistic issues that are preventing it from simply demolishing Obama before the game even begins. Namely, Bill Clinton seems to be overshadowing her at joint-appearances. Even worse, his ongoing political commentary (such as his outburst on the Libby issue, criticized here by Gribit’s Word and contextualized beautifully by Between the Links here) is showering the wrong kind of attention on her camp. Still, she has put together a more effective frontrunner’s campaign than GOP counterpart John McCain (explore Gary‘s take on his implosion here).

One great aspect of an effective primary campaign can be the momentum it brings a candidate once we roll past the conventions. Don’t believe me? Check out these graphs, which show that Clinton’s pattern of ups and downs in Iowa (top graph) nearly mirrors her pattern in national polling against Giuliani (bottom graph):

Those trendlines tell me that Clinton is controlling the tone in the General Election a mere 484 days before it is to be held. It further tells me that, despite the fact that Obama is a better campaigner (analysis here by Comments from Left Field), she isn’t worried. But most importantly, while Rudy is cruising in the National Primary, he is drastically losing his once formidable lead against Mlle. Clinton. She has all the power. But, of course, with great power…

Related posts

• YouTube 4 President (June 14, 2007)
• Updated Presidential Polls (June 28, 2007)
• Today Is “Safe Harbor” Day 2008 (December 9, 2008)

In 2004, Edwards secured 32% support among Iowa caucus-goers – a strong second to Kerry’s 39%. Edwards, unlike many of the other candidates, had gained substantial steam leading into late in the game. This victory over Dean (at 12%) secured him prodigious media attention, and he later proved to be the last major challenger to Kerry. He withdrew on Super Tuesday after poor showings in the east, and, of course, later lost the General Election to Bush/Cheney.

I believe Edwards, 54, will win the Iowa caucus in January (DailyWrit’s full timeline of the 2008 Primaries, Caucuses, and Conventions here). Even though Hillary has been closing the gap (see graph below), I think Edwards will prove more likeable and moderate to Iowans. The ultimate problem will come when Clinton wins Nevada and New Hampshire the following week, as I imagine she probably will. You can check our models below and draw your own conclusions (click each graph to enlarge via lightbox, or see my data here (.xls file) if you’re looking to save a copy of a graph):

What will it take for Edwards to win?

First, he should finish in the top two in each of the early primaries. This will force lesser candidates to withdraw and will earn him a second look from voters frustrated with the perennial choices.

Second, he needs to emphasize his unconventional healthcare plan.

Third, he needs to begin courting demographics. He’s well on his way after hiring Kate Michelman for women’s outreach.

Fourth, get a reputation as a moderate. This will be hard with a clear pro-choice agenda and copious senior staff that used to work for NARAL, but, hey! It’s possible. His position on gay marriage is a step in the direction of electable.

Fifth, be the immigration candidate. This could make the difference. It’s relatively easy to be the candidate of record on a particular issue. All it really takes is a link to the candidate’s stump speech (immigration blends beautifully with Edwards’ “two Americas”) and redundant attention in the debates. He desperately needs to be an economic authority, and part of that is understanding that the economy can’t be your soundbite (beautiful explanation here from Hang Right Politics). Part of this is also overcoming a reputation of “pandering” on the economy, discussed here by Michael Wilt.

Sixth, make a decision about the word “populist.” John, you might want to consult our friends at Below the Beltway for some suggestions.

Seventh, tell me something about you except that you don’t like poverty. Check Partisan Chaos for an amusing observation to this effect.

Eighth, don’t pretend like you know anything about Foreign Policy. It will backfire, Johnny. Trust me.

Further, I don’t think Edwards will be the Democratic VP nominee for several reasons. First, I think that Obama is the frontrunner for this position assuming Clinton or Gore wins the nomination. Second, DNC strategists may have a problem with the fact that they already tried that bit. Finally, Edwards is incapable of adding any regional or demographic diversity to a ticket. The exception to this rule may come if Obama is nominated. Both Obama and Edwards preach of a divide between our “two Americas,” and are more ideologically similar than any other pair of candidates. However, the improbablity of being considered for VP means Edwards can speak his mind about all the other candidates in debates and appearances, instead of waiting to attack as he did last year with Kerry. Also, an unfortunate variable to consider: Mrs. Edwards – who would be an absolutely fantastic First Lady – has breast cancer that the family calls “incurable.” This may pose a problem if her condition worsens later in the campaign, but I think all branches of the media (fake and real) join me in hoping that this doesn’t happen.

A part of this little exercise in prediction will be oddsmaking. Kedar and I conclude that Edwards’ chances of securing the nomination are 10% if Gore stays out and less than 5% if he decides to roll the dice.

Related posts

• YouTube 4 President (June 14, 2007)
• You Can’t Filibuster the Glory OR Liveblogging the Filibuster (July 18, 2007)
• When Mitt Met Hillary (July 5, 2007)

Bad news for Romney: 63% “haven’t heard enough” to form an opinion, which is 11% more people than “hadn’t heard enough” to form an opinion last month. That’s intriguing to me, because quite a few Iowans are feeling more and more informed about ol’ Mitt. With that state’s caucus quickly approaching (DailyWrit’s full calendar of 2008 Primaries, Caucuses, and Conventions here), Romney has pulled into a comfortable lead:

New Hampshire, too!

Look at those trendlines! Looks like Gary’s prediction about McCain could be right on.

Related posts

• YouTube 4 President (June 14, 2007)
• When Mitt Met Hillary (July 5, 2007)
• Updated Presidential Polls (June 28, 2007)