What If John Kerry Had Won?

Here's an interesting thought. What if John Kerry had won Ohio in 2004, but Bush carried the popular vote. How would America look and where would we be today? Honestly, I think we would have just elected/re-elected Bush because having won the popular vote but lost the election because of Ohio, Bush would have come back.

Further, the banking collapse, the war (Kerry wouldn't have supported the surge), and Katrina would've contributed to major losses by the Democratic Party. Ironic that Rove's permanent Republican Majority would have come to fruition but for Ohio.

Grounds for Divorce

Not everyone's experiences were quite as earnest. During one round of election-fueled romance, says Eric Davis, 37, of Minneapolis, "my wife accidentally said, 'Oh, Obama!'" -- Newsweek article discussing the potential of an Obama baby boom.

All I know is that if my future wife shout the name of a political candidate during something like that, I'd get a divorce. Politics is important and all, but apparently some of you out there are taking this election thing a bit too seriouously.

Another Reason For Hillary As Secretary of State?

She would instantly be the favorite should Obama be popular enough to be re-elected in 2012 for 2016. The fact is Biden won't be running for President and a Hillary as Secretary of State allows her to be the front-runner in 2016. This time though, she'll have the entire Obama apparatus AND the Clinton machine behind her.

Team of Rivals

BTW, I want to put a plug in for Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals. Its honestly one of my favorite books (right up there with Theodore Rex and Taylor Branch's triology on the Civil Rights Movement). I think if Obama picks Hillary, you'll be hearing a lot more about this book so its best to go ahead and get in a good read. I actually don't think the book is great because of its focus on how Lincoln pulled all his rivals together, but its good because it focuses on the basic decency of Abraham Lincoln. I'll have to write a blog post on this, but some Presidents were good at their jobs but callow and cold and vain in person (FDR and LBJ come to mind) while others were bad at their jobs but good men (Rutherford B. Hayes comes to mind) but you have a few that were good Presidents and good men. Lincoln and Truman were such men.

Hillary Clinton For Secretary of State?

Lots of chatter about Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State and as my astute Republican friend and Chuck Todd pointed out, this would easily (1) reward Hillary Clinton supporters and (2) eliminate a once and future rival from contention in 2012. There is no stronger force in the Democratic Party (outside of Obama) than the Clintons. With Hillary in the Administration, she should want to do everything in her power to make it successful. Woodrow Wilson did the same when he appointed William Jennings Bryan as his Secretary of State.

What better way to neutralize a threat than to bring them into the tent and make them accountable for your successes and failures. Chuck Todd points out another reason..you don't want Hillary Clinton in the Senate serving as the voice of domestic policy. Plus, the Clinton name is still gold and she'd actually be a good Secretary of State. The downside obviously is that domestic policy is a lot harder than foreign and if Hillary scores some victories on foreign policy while Obama struggles on domestic policy, then she shines in any potential matchup in 2012.

Is Sarah Palin the President?

Okay, I've seen and heard more about Sarah Palin this week than I have Barack Friggin' Obama. Certainly more than John McCain and most definitely more than Joe Biden. Is Joe Biden still out there? Has he already gone into hiding in his undisclosed location?

Will 2009 and 2010 Look Better For the Republicans?

Yah I know most of you think I'm nuts to start handicapping elections for 2009 and 2010, but hey.in this day and age of fast pace bloggin', we all have to be on top of our game. For those who think I'm nuts, I'd like to point out that immediately after the 2006 mid-term elections, I began handicapping races for 2008. Lots of things can happen, President Obama hasn't even been sworn in, blah blah blah I don't care. I'm a political junkie and any true junkie is always looking for tomorrow. So here goes.

2009 Governor Races
There are only two races worth anything in 2009 and that is the Governorships of New Jersey and Virginia. In New Jersey, John Corzine will be running for re-election. Barring any major changes (and given his money and despite his low approval ratings) I fully expect him to be re-elected. The only person I think could give Corzine a real challenge would be US Attorney Christopher Christie. Christie has been a blockbuster US Attorney who has won major political corruption charges. Christie though has made some unfortunate remarks about immigration that will likely hurt him.

Virginia will be a real test. Basically, the Republican Party in Virginia has lost virtually every major race since 2002. Lucky for them though, they have a strong "farm" team in Lt. Governor Bill Bolling and Attorney General Bill McConnell. There is also a chance George Allen could make a run again. Democrats have former DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe, State Senator Creigh Deeds, and State House member Brian Moran. I think this race slightly favors McConnell, but if Deeds gets the nomination, I think it'll slightly favor him. I'd give it to Deeds because he's already run once and given he's from Richmond, I think he'd have a better shot at putting together a winning coalition. Moran is far too much Northern Virginia to win and McAuliffe has barely any connections to Virginia. Should be a marquee race though that will test whether Virginia is really a blue state or whether the past decade has been an aberration.

2010: Senate Races: Karl Rove thinks things will be better in 2010. Then again he said the same about 2008. Karl cites history, but looking at actual Senate seats, I don't know what he's smoking. I know this sounds insane, but Republicans are actually in worse shape in 2010 than they were in 2008 in terms of Senate seats.

Its entirely possible that Democrats have hit their highest in the House (I fully expect Republicans to make marginal gains in the House and take back a few seats) but in the Senate, Democrats look poised to make even bigger gains and push their majority to the mid-60 range. After the 2010 cycle though, Republicans will be safe again (barring a successful Barack Obama Presidency). Here is an early look at the Senate:

North Carolina: Republican Senator Richard Burr is a member of "Cursed" Senate seat. This seat has changed hands every term since 1972. Burr has been invisible in the State leaving him with a low approval rating and a bevy of challengers itching to take him on. Given North Carolina's fast demographic changes, its likely this state will be even more Democratic by 2010. The most likely candidate is Democrat Attorney General Roy Cooper. If Cooper decides to take a pass, I'm sure Mike Easley, Elaine Marshall, Brad Price, or a long list of Democrats who are currently kicking themselves for not running in 2008 will challenge him.

Arizona: If McCain runs, he should win re-election, but there is a chance he may retire. If so, this state is trending Democratic and its likely any of the House members or even current Governor Janet Napalitano will take the seat. There was a poll done that tested McCain vs. Janet Napalitano and it showed Napalitano winning.

Louisiana: Remember Republican David Vitter? The guy with the mistresses and diapers and stuff? If you forgot, you will be reminded over and over again soon enough. Given Louisiana's population loss though, I think Vitter is in better shape than most people realize. I think he has a better shot of surviving than either McCain in Arizona or Burr in North Carolina only because his likely competition will be weak. I doubt any Democrat will give up their safe seats for him, but I could see former Democratic Senator John Breaux or former Congressman Don Cazayoux taking him on.

Missouri: If Republican Kit Bond doesn't retire, he may be in for a fight against either member of the Democratic Carnahan family. He may race either Robin or Russ Carnahan or even Dick Gephardt. Polls taken recently show that either would be able to challenge Bond.

New Hampshire: New Hampshire has slowly become less of a swing state and more like its New England neighbors. Hard to imagine that George HW Bush won this state with 60% of the vote in 1988. If Republican Judd Gregg chooses not to retire then current Governor John Lynch would likely defeat him. If Lynch doesn't run though, either Democratic Congressman (Paul Hodes or Shea-Porter) could take on and defeat Gregg.

Ohio: If Republican George Vonovich chooses not to retire (and that's a big if) he's looking at a tough (if not impossible) race against Democratic Congressman Tim Ryan. I think Ryan has the edge in this race given Vonovich's low approval ratings.

Florida: Republican Mel Martinez barely won a close race in 2002 against Betty Castor. Since then his approval rating has been anemic and plenty of Democratic Congressman will line up to take him on and tap Obama's vast network throughout the state. I could even see African-American Congressman Kendricks Meeks taking on Martinez for a marquee Senate race.

Iowa: Iowa, like New Hampshire, looks less and less like a swing state with each passing year. If Republican Chuck Grassley retires, then I expect this seat to be picked up by the Democrats. Even if he doesn't retire, I expect former Governor Tom Vilsack, any of the Democratic Congressmen, or even some random Democrat to give Grassley a serious challenge.

Kentucky: Republican Jim Bunning barely survived re-election in 2002 because of his age. He'll be 80 by 2010 and has already said he'll run for re-election in 2010. I got my doubts he'll actually do it, but if he does a bevy of Democrats including Lt. Governor Dan Mongradio (who nearly defeated him last time), Bruce Lunsford, or Brad Chandler may take him on. If he retires, expect a free for all for his seat.

Pennsylvania: Republican Arlen Specter has said he'll run for re-election, but given his current battle against cancer and his advantaged age, I have my doubts he'll go through with it. If he doesn't retire, I expect either MSNBC commentator or even Philly Mayor Mike Nutter to take him on. If he does retire, I expect a long list of Democrats to jump into this race. I doubt Democrats will waste a challenge though for this seat on Arlen Specter (the way Minnesota wasted a challenge to Norm Coleman on comedian Al Franken).

Kansas: The only way this seat is competitive is if current Governor Kathleen Sebelius runs for it. If not, the seat is Republican Jerry Moran's to have.

Nevada: Harry Reid should race a challenger, but given that the Republican Party in Nevada has essentially imploded under the weight of the corruption of current Governor Jim Gibson. While current Congressman Dean Heller or former Congress Jon Porter could put up a fight, its unlikely they will be able to compete with Reid's money or Obama's residual organizational pull.

Indiana/North Dakota/Arkansas/Colorado/Wisconsin: These seats are the "only ifs" seats. Basically, if Republicans had a stronger farm team in these respective states they could take on these Democratic incumbents. The only one that may be competitive is in North Dakota if current Governor John Hoeven runs against Bryon Dorgan. I think its unlikely he'll take the plunge and thus these Democrats that should be challenged will likely go unscathed.

Historically, 2010 should be better for Republicans, but they have such a weak fields and organizations in each of these states that I have my doubts. Barring an Obama meltdown, it appears Republicans may lose yet another 5-8 Senate seats giving the Democrats as much as a 66 seats to 34 seats for the Republicans.

Why Can't Obama Campaign For Jim Martin?

John McCain, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, and just about every big name in the GOP is coming out to campaign for Republican Saxby Chambliss. So why won't Obama campaign for Jim Martin? Well there is the obvious reason that Obama doesn't want to be roped into a likely losing battle in which a Martin loss is seen as a "setback" for the incoming Obama Administration. Second, I think Obama is hesitant to be a Bush-like figure who swoops into every Senate and House battle. He seems averse to being the political fighter in chief. Third, I think Obama sweeping in there will only contribute to Martin's defeat.

The way for Martin to win is if the GOP attacks Obama mercilessly. That does nothing but drive up the African-American vote, but it has no real effect on the white vote. This is similar to what happened in the special Congressional races in Louisiana and Mississippi last year where Republicans spent so much time attacking Obama in ads that all it did was drive up the black vote.

But the problem is once Obama gets personally involved and campaign, that does motivate white conservatives. Its an interesting phenomena that we political junkies watched in several statewide races. Basically, whenever there appeared to be (1) long lines of African-Americans or (2) significant appearances by Obama, Obama's poll numbers in at least three states: North Carolina, Georgia, and Virginia, actually tightened. That was especially true in North Carolina where the harder Obama competed, the more McCain-Palin signs I saw and the tighter the result became. I think when Obama personally appears or campaigns, it sets off a mini conservative white backlash. Hence, Martin needs Obama's team, but likely not the candidate to win.

AK Sen: Begich Takes the Lead

After 8 days, the Alaska Elections Board finally decided to count the 90,000 absentee, early, and "questioned" Ballots. A 3000 vote lead for Republican and convicted felon Ted Stevens has now turned into a 814 lead for Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich. Nate Silver does the math and finds out that most of the questioned ballots are from Democratic districts. There are still about 30,000 ballots to count and this race will likely have a recount no matter who is ahead, but things look promising as Begich looks likely to be the 58th Democratic Senator.

How Did The Predictions Turnout

Well 2008 elections are over and the votes are largely counted. So lets take a look at how I did. Here were my predictions:

Obama wins 52.9% to McCain's 46.1% Electoral college: 349-189

Democrats should pick up 7 seats in the Senate for a 56-42-1-1 (2 allocated to the Democrats) so 58-42.

Democrats pick up 27 seat pick up for a 263-172 House advantage or a 91 seat majority.

Democrats should pick up 1 Governorship (Missouri) for a 29-21 victory.

For House predictions I was way off. Probably one of my worst ever. I thought Democrats would pick up at least 27 seats, but the "wave" didn't materialize. Why didn't it? Could have been multiple factors, but I suspect plenty of people didn't feel comfortable with voting straight ticket. Plus, I think lots of GOP incumbents and party organizations learned the lessons of 2006, doubled their efforts and took nothing for granted. Also, I've come to realize that District polling is worthless. Its almost impossible to poll a district and that's something I'll remember in the future. On Governorship races, I was spot on, correctly predicting all the close ones including Bev Perdue's victory over Pat McCrory.

We still don't know the results of the Senate races, but so far I did pretty good correctly calling Oregon, Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina. I'm somewhat angry at myself about the Alaska race, because I had thought Stevens was going to pull it out originally, but I couldn't ignore polls showing Begich up by 22%. Votes are still being counted today so we'll see. As for Minnesota, I may end up being wrong (I predicted a Coleman victory), but right now that's holding (though I'm skeptical Coleman will win the recount).

As for the Presidential race, right now Obama leads 52.6% to McCain's 46.1%. I unfortunately low-balled the third parties who are garnering about 1.3% of the vote. When the popular vote is all said and done, I think my prediction model showing a 6.8% victory for Obama will will be a lot closer to the actual result than most prognosticators I followed. My prediction was Obama 52.9% to McCain's 46.1%. I was off only 0.3 which is better than any poll I saw and 0.1 better than the great Nate Silver himself. My popular vote model (yes I do have a dorky model too!) predicted Gore 48% to Bush's 47% in 2000, and predicted in 2004 a 50.5% to 48.0% victory for Bush (actual was 50.7% to 48.3%). Alas, I did a bit worse this time around. I was off only 0.1 in 2004, but this time I was off 0.3. As votes continue to be counted, I'm rooting that Obama's totals inch up.

[UPDATED EDIT: The National totals have just been updated showing Obama with a52.7% to 46.0% lead. That means Obama's margin is now 6.7% meaning I'm only 0.1% off the mark of my 6.8% prediction]

As for the electoral college, I figured Obama would win either Missouri or Indiana, but I thought Missouri was more realistic (because he had won it in the primary) but Indiana was the one that did it. I was wrong on North Carolina (which I'm really happy about), but I figured a mini conservative backlash against Obama that I saw on the ground would push McCain over the top. It didn't.

National Enquirer Strikes Again

With alleged photos of Cindy McCain cheating on John McCain. I don't buy it. Plenty of people kiss each other in a friendly manner.

Obama Should Follow Bush?

John Hinderacker, the most influential conservative blogger and all around Bush worshipper has this piece of advice for Barack Obama:

Obama thinks he is a good talker, but he is often undisciplined when he speaks. He needs to understand that as President, his words will be scrutinized and will have impact whether he intends it or not. In this regard, President Bush is an excellent model; Obama should take a lesson from his example. Bush never gets sloppy when he is speaking publicly. He chooses his words with care and precision, which is why his style sometimes seems halting. In the eight years he has been President, it is remarkable how few gaffes or verbal blunders he has committed. If Obama doesn't raise his standards, he will exceed Bush's total before he is inaugurated.

h/t Josh Marshall.

John of course had this wonderful quote a few years back:

It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can't get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile.

Ayers, Wright, and Obama

Funny story one: Reverend Wright gave a speech a few nights ago at Northwestern University and William Ayers showed up to hear. The two actually met. That must have been an interesting discussion involving which hated America more and how they voted for the McKinney ticket. Though in reality Obama has garnered them more fame and a bigger platform than ever.

Funny story two: Obama dodged a SERIOUS election day bullet. William Ayers and Louis Farrakhan both voted at the same precinct as Obama but Obama had voted a few minutes earlier. Imagine if all three or even one of them had showed up at the same time as Obama? That would've dominated Tuesday news coverage and likely swayed many a vote.

Senate Democrats Idea of "Change"

Robert Byrd, 90 year Senator and former Klansman, has been asked by his Democratic colleagues to step down as Chair of the Appropriations Committee. Given his advance age and the election of Obama, his fellow Senators felt that they needed "new" more vibrant blood than that of a wheelchair bound 90 year old man.

So who do they pick? Try an 84 year old Hawaii Senator Daniel Inouye who has had his own bouts of pork spending, corruption, and who recently crossed the aisle to campaign for his BFF, Ted Stevens. Yes as a Democrat, Inouye crossed the aisle, went to Alaska and fundraised for Ted Stevens because despite all the corruption, they are a part of a "band of brothers."

Ten Myths About Election 2008

A year is an eternity in politics, but Barack Obama proved so many things wrong that I think its worth recounting. The fact is we were wrong. All of us. In a nation of 300 million people, we've all formed antiquated, old, and down-right ridiculous assumptions about our countrymen and projected those ridiculous assumptions onto Barack Obama's trip to the White House. Take a trip with me down memory lane.

(10) Barack Obama Can't Debate

One of the reasons why I refused to support Barack Obama back in 2007 was that I was convinced that in the "big" debate in October 2008, that he'd blow it. That wasn't a bad assumption. We all had seen his debates with Hillary Clinton and he seemed to dither and lose them (sometimes big). But what we didn't realize is that those debates were with Hillary Clinton, who was the most meticulous and detail-oriented person in the world. John McCain is many things, but in terms of attention to detail and focus on minutia of economic pain, Hillary Clinton he ain't.

(9) Barack Obama Can't Win Black Votes

Ugh.. does anyone remember this??? Really?? There was actually a time when political commentators noted that Hillary Clinton was well ahead among African-American voters and endless stories were written (some by me I'll admit) about how black voters would be resistant to Obama because he wasn't "black enough." What the blue hell was that?

(8) Barack Obama Can't Win Hispanics

Remember during the Democratic Primary we were all told that given Obama's struggles with Hillary Clinton that Obama couldn't win Hispanics? That Hispanics and blacks "hated" each other and Hispanics would never vote for a black man. Woops. Obama won Hispanics by the largest margin of any Democrat in Presidential history. Hispanics made the difference for Obama in several states including North Carolina, Florida, Nevada, Colorado, and several states. Obama did just as well among Hispanics as Hillary Clinton would have. So many people assumed blacks and Hispanics would never form coalition when in fact that is simply not true. Blacks and Hispanics have a history of forming coalitions.

(7) Barack Obama Can't Win Big States

So because Obama didn't win California or New York (or Ohio, and PA for that matter), he obviously couldn't win them in the election. Wow. There were people who really thought Obama would have to struggle to win California in the general election.

(6) Barack Obama Can't Win Michigan and/or Florida because of some DNC fight

Haha. Remember how during the primary we were told that Obama's "disenfranchisement" of Florida and Michigan 's Democratic delegation somehow could cost him both of these states? Do you remember this? No? Then imagine how the people in Florida and Michigan think about it. Shessh.

(5) Barack Obama Can't Win The Jewish Vote

Obama's struggles in New York and the Florida primary was an "indication" that he couldn't win the Jewish vote. Also, his alleged (and non-existent) Muslim ties meant that Jews would reject him. Well Obama won 77% of the Jewish vote which was higher than Kerry and nearly equal to Gore's total.

(4) Barack Obama Can't Win Working Class White People and/or Bradley Effect

Blah blah. Obama can't bowl! Obama can't hunt! Obama's a Negro! He lost Ohio! He lost Pennsylvania! He's done! He said they cling to their guns! They cling to their religion! Blah blah blah.

The fact is Obama won the highest percentage of the vote of any Democrat since Lyndon Johnson. Obama won Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and several traditional blue states by larger margins than Bill Clinton in either of his elections. Further, Obama won states that haven't for Democrats in 30 or even 44 years (Indiana and Virginia). I think those states *may* have plenty of working class white people in them who seemed to have oddly voted for Obama. Go fig.

(3) Hillary Clinton Would've Been The Better Nominee

There was an interesting debate among political analysts as to whether Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would've been the better nominee. I think this election resolved that. I do believe Hillary Clinton would've won in the end, but her margin and window for victory would have been smaller. Hillary Clinton would not have competed in Colorado, Nevada, North Carolina, Virginia, or let alone Indiana. The fact is, she would've thrown all her eggs at winning Florida and Ohio. She simply wouldn't have bothered competing in the states that Obama won because she didn't bother competing in them during the primary.

She believed (as all Democrats did) that those states were out of reach. Granted that Hillary would've made West Virginia and Arkansas competitive, but I'd trade those anyday for Colorado, Virginia, and the winning coalition that Obama. One striking thing is that Obama ended the election having the highest favorability rating of any Presidential candidate in a generation. This despite six months of attacks. The fact is Hillary Clinton couldn't have withstood six months of Republican attacks with her favorability as high as Obama's. In fact, she likely would've garnered the same high unfavorability ratings that both Kerry and Gore had.

(2) Barack Obama Can't Win Women

Despite the Palin pick, Obama won women by large margins. But but..I thought only Hillary Clinton could win women voters?? I thought only... Shessh.

(1) Barack Obama Can't Seal The Deal

I'm sure plenty of people sitting at the January inauguration will be debating why Obama can't seal the deal.