New blog: McCain Hand Quotes

Check out McCain Hand Quotes to see how John McCain really thinks!


Inspired by McCain's "Quote HEALTH":

You tell me

Frankenstein & Bride of Frankenstein
OR
Robot McCains destroy New York City?

Tiebreaker? Obama tries to snag Omaha

For most of us regardless of political persuasion, I present a nightmare scenario:

<p><strong>><a href='http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008/pick-your-president/'>2008 Election Contest: Pick Your President</a></strong> - Predict the winner of the 2008 presidential election and enter to win a $500 prize.</p>

An electoral college tie, in which case (as long as there are no faithless electors) the House of Representatives will decide who fills the White House in 2009. We have not seen this situation since the Adams-Jefferson contest in 1800.

Yeah, yeah, I know this is unlikely. If you believe Pollster and other sources, Obama will comfortably win next month. But a tie is within the realm of the possible.

Let's suppose McCain and Obama win the states as shown above. You could have a situation where an electoral vote is pealed off in Maine or Nebraska, the two states that don't award all their electoral votes carte blanch. The Obama campaign has evidently put some resources in Omaha, home of the second congressional district. If Obama won the majority of the vote in Nebraska's 2nd, he'd get one more electoral vote and win 270 to McCain's 268. Nebraska awards 2 of its electoral votes to the statewide winner and 1 each for the winner of its 3 congressional districts.

Is that at all likely to happen? Short answer: Maybe. Omaha is more Democratic than the rest of the state, but this is still Nebraska after all.

In both 2004 and 2000, Douglas County (which contains 4 out of 5 voters in the district) voted for Bush by 18% and 16% respectively. Of course, compare that to the state as a whole, which voted for Bush by 30% and 34% margins respectively. The other part of the 2nd, with 20% of the voters, is a slice of Sarpy County. This part of the 2nd is more Republican and closely mirrors the rest of the state's voting.

For their part, the Obama campaign is being clear they're making an effort. They've opened an office in Omaha. Just today, the campaign snagged the endorsement of Lilibet Hagel, wife of the very popular and renegade Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. (Sen. Hagel, a former friend of McCain, has declined to endorse anyone.)

The Republicans aren't taking this lying down. Recently, Gov. Palin herself did a campaign stop in Omaha.

Can the Obama campaign pick up a third of the districts voters who supported George W. Bush and win the district?

No public polling has looked at the district, but a handful of statewide polls have come out. McCain is unsurprisingly in a comfortable lead by a 19% margin in the most recent poll. Using the statewide result as a starting point and assuming that the 2nd district will vote a fixed amount more Democratic, we can estimate some possible scenarios.

SCENARIO 1: Current Pollster statewide margin for McCain +22.3
This scenario assumes that the strong Obama organizing machine will increase turnout a bit more in the almost Democratic Douglas County than Repbulican stronghold of Sarpy (10% versus 7.5%). It assumes that Sarpy votes the same way as the state and Douglas votes with a margin of 15% towards the Dems (a change of 7.5% for each candidate). Using Pollster's most recent calculation McCain wins the state and the 2nd district comfortably (in red).

SCENARIO 2: Obama's best showing in the polls (way back in February!); statewide margin for McCain +3.0
Same assumptions as the first scenario. In this unlikely electoral shocker, McCain squeaks out a win statewide, but Obama grabs a hold of the 2nd by a 9 point margin. If this is the way it turns out on election day, we wouldn't be facing an electoral tie, but an unprecedented nationwide landslide. If Obama could get within 3 points of McCain in Nebraska, he's winning a lot more states overall.

SCENARIO 3: Election decided by less than one vote per 2nd district precinct; statewide margin for McCain +12.2
Could we have a national election won by a thinner margin than the several hundred (that were counted) in Florida in 2000? Here we have a situation where Obama takes the White House thanks to 122 voters that decided to turn out and vote for him in Omaha, Nebraska. Unlikely, sure, but possible. Only in America...

*****

Now, of course, the campaigns have much more sophisticated tools for analysis than this. The Obama campaign is probably counting on a bigger turnout of their voters, though one shouldn't automatically assume that the Republican voters won't turn out in force.

What we have is a rough sketch of at what point Omaha becomes truly in play. Current polling suggests that it is still out of reach for Obama, but not necessarily a fools errand. If statewide polling for Nebraska shows it to be a 10-15% margin instead of the more recent 20% plus margin, pay attention, and start figuring out if you know anyone in Omaha who needs a voter pep talk before next month.

McCain's Plan B

As the New York Times told us yesterday, it has become increasingly apparent that the selection of Sarah Palin was a last-minute rush job. Not that any of us needed to be told that.

“They didn’t seriously consider her until four or five days from the time she was picked, before she was asked, maybe the Thursday or Friday before,” said a Republican close to the campaign. “This was really kind of rushed at the end, because John didn’t get what he wanted. He wanted to do Joe or Ridge.”

I had thought all the talk of Joe Lieberman and Tom Ridge were intentional diversions from the McCain camp with the purpose of keeping the media in the dark of the true running mate pick and signaling to moderates that McCain is such a maverick that he at least considered a "pro-choice" "Democrat." Evidently I was wrong. McCain really was hell bent on selecting Lieberman until the right wing honchos set him straight in the preceding week or two.

Responding to the media drawing the obvious conclusions that they didn't fully vet Palin, the McCain camp said, oh no no no, she got a full FBI check. Never mind that a campaign using the FBI to investigate a candidate would be illegal and the FBI denies it. But wait, they point out, she got a questionnaire that other candidates received that had 70 whole questions. If you ask if they followed up to verify any of Palin's responses you'll find that the McCain campaign people have quickly scuttled away.

What does this say about McCain besides that he may have poor judgment when it comes to picking quality people? For me it makes it clear that the campaign had absolutely no Plan B in place for the very real possibility that Lieberman and Ridge would not work out. If they thought that Romney and Pawlenty were too "conventional," certainly they could have had a couple more quality people in the wings they could have spent time vetting? But no! They were stuck and had to scramble to get their shit together at the last minute.

Haven't we learned the negative consequences of having a guy in the White House who doesn't see the value in planning any contingencies? Haven't we learned there is nothing noble about moving forward with plans without modification despite mounting evidence that it's not going to work? Haven't we learned, now marking the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, that you got to make sure people are up for the job before you give it to them?

John McCain, with 72 years of life experience and having lived through nearly 8 years of the Bush administration, hasn't learned these lessons. Will voters be able to do a better job and not repeat the mistakes of the past?

Praising the unworthy

Please check out Dr K's post Searching Myself for Praise of Sarah Palin.

Dr K had taken me up on my offer to make a wager on who Barack Obama would pick as his running mate. Biden was one of my three, so Dr K lost. The loser had the challenge of having to pen a post praising McCain's pick. Of course at that time, we were thinking it'd be someone like Pawlenty, Romney, or Crist--slightly easier targets of praise. Little did we know! But Dr K did what he could.

---

There's been some discussion on whether the recent news about Palin's 17 year old daughter will have a negative impact on the electorate and whether it is "fair game." Even though I was among some of the voices that said Palin's own family choices are relevant to her seeking the office of the vice president, I got to say that--duh!--her daughter is NOT fair game.

This is a young person who has not chosen to put herself in the public eye. It is an unfair and unhelpful standard to hold a politician accountable for the mistakes of their children--particularly for such a common mistake. My response to this news: whatever!

But will socially conservative voters respond to this? Are you kidding? These people didn't turn away from Bush-Cheney even though Cheney has a gay daughter as John Kerry inartfully reminded us. If that didn't change their vote, then the 2008 running mate's 17 year old daughter carrying a pregnany to term won't matter much. Except maybe to Alan Keyes.

McCain's VP pick is...

...still unknown as I write this. I've been tracking the rumors via the Drudge Report and elsewhere on the blogosphere. First, it's Lieberman! Then, it's Romney! No, it's Pawlenty!

McCain may want to pick Lieberman. He may have toyed with it. But he's not going to pick Lieberman. It would be lose-lose. The Republican base would be upset. It doesn't pick up swing voters.

And I've never thought McCain would pick Romney. He doesn't like him. And I don't see how a flip-flopper Mormon from Massachusetts does much for the ticket. Oh, he'll fix the economy because he used to be a CEO. Whatever. He's an elitist who doesn't appeal to middle class voters very much. Plus, McCain must know by now that if this election is run on the issue of the economy, he loses.

I've gone back and forth over the months if he'd pick Pawlenty. At times I thought for certainty, at other times I thought no way.

But who else? Well, if he was smart, McCain would pick someone like Kay Bailey Hutchinson. She's a moderate that doesn't scare away the social conservatives. I don't think McCain will be that smart.

So maybe it will be Pawlenty. As I've written before, it puts Minnesota in the "more competitive" category, but is far from a sure 10 electoral votes for McCain. Pawlenty is high approval ratings in Minnesota, but he still barely won in 2006 by a 1% margin. Voters in Minnesota, like others, will still make their decisions on who is at the top of the ticket and that favors Obama.

I'm not going to say it will be Pawlenty announced tonight or tomorrow. I'm saying, maybe. Perhaps, though still unlikely, we'll hear the name Tom Ridge. I will, however, go out on a limb and say it won't be Romney,Lieberman, Huckabee, Rice, or Gingrich.

Electoral College Predictions

I love making political predictions. Sometimes I've got to pat myself on the back for my astute observations and ability to prognosticate the future. One of my best predictions was to say that Howard Dean was going to become a real force in the 2004 primary a full year before Iowa. One of my worse predictions was to say one week before the election that Tim Pawlenty would come in third in the open race for governor in Minnesota in 2002. (He won.)

Right now the polls are saying so many different things about the presidential election. I for one don't think much stock should be put in the polls until mid-September. Obviously, a lot of voters are waiting things out before firmly making up their minds. Still, it's fun to guess where things are going.

Obama clearly has the advantage this year. He's a better candidate than McCain. It is a toxic environment for Republicans this year. Obama has a huge money advantage. But that isn't to say it is going to be a blow-out or that even Obama has a lock on it. I've been saying for the past nine months that the race is going to be tight and we'd really have no idea who won until late on election night.

That being said, here's my stab 2 1/2 months out on what it will look like. If I'm right, the Washington Post will give me a $500 Best Buy certificate. I do think that Missouri, Ohio, and Florida will be close, but that McCain will edge out Obama. Obama wins by holding on to the upper Midwest and picking off some key Western states.

<p><strong>><a href="http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008/pick-your-president/">2008 Election Contest: Pick Your President</a></strong> - Predict the winner of the 2008 presidential election and enter to win a $500 prize.</p>

John McCain: One term pledge?

Over the past week rumors have resurfaced on whether John McCain is secretly planning or will publicly acknowledge a one term commitment. Operating under the assumption that the rumors are from the McCain campaign the logical question is whether this is for real or another attempt to grab attention like when they played Robert Novak for a fool regarding an imminent running mate announcement. I suspect this is for real and not a cynical ploy, because this is a dicey issue with which the McCain campaign will not want to screw around.

Earlier this year when news arose that the McCain considered the idea of a one term pledge, his campaign quickly moved to deny and downplay it as never a serious discussion. McCain himself is quoted as dismissing the idea "because I think then you’re the lame duck, you’re quacking on Inauguration Day."

Making a one term promise or even implying it is under consideration would be a bold move that would have an impact on voters' decision making. The McCain people wouldn't want these rumors to float out there unless they were really committed to it because it would lead to questions on McCain's own views on his fitness for the office and whether he was being honest with the American people. McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis responded to the question this last week with a "you're going to have to come to the Republican convention" and declined to discuss the matter further.

The thinking behind a one term pledge for McCain is that it would minimize ore even eliminate the age issue. It also can be used to portray McCain as a principled reformer who is not in the race for the White House for his own ego--as opposed to Obama. We'd hear arguments such as, "McCain is going to be a nonpartisan reformer who will be above the fray and get things done in four years." Sound familiar? And, "Not having to worry about reelection will mean McCain will have the freedom to be beyond politics and tell it like it is to Congress and the American people."

If this is the line of thinking for John McCain, he is mistaken. Making a one term pledge would not help him with most voters and would show how desperate his campaign is.

On the age issue, a one term pledge does nothing. The vast majority of voters who are concerned about his age aren't going to vote for Obama because they're worried he'll be 76 years old when he runs for a second term. They are going to be concerned that he'll be 76 years old as he finishes his first term. Most voters don't think about the hypothetical second term of the candidates. At least I doubt most swing voters do. The conventional wisdom with a one term pledge will be that it is being made because of John McCain's age, only underscoring that issue rather than sweeping it away.

McCain was of course right that the one term pledge would make him a lame duck on day one. Many voters would realize this. In a day and age where voters truly want someone who can bring effective change, some will figure out that electing a single term Republican to the White House with a Democratic controlled Congress is a recipe for that old fashioned term, gridlock.

The pledge also introduces the question in voters' minds, "Well, why the heck are you running anyways if you're only going to do one term? Don't you want to be president?" This rational question also leads to wondering whether McCain really means a one term pledge or whether it is a cynical and dishonest ploy. Voters have experienced many politicians who have gone back on their term-limits promises. Maybe McCain is just like those other (typical) politicians?

I'm surprised the single term idea is resurfacing. It seems like such a bad idea. Then again, making conventional decisions aren't going to win the race for McCain. In 1996 Bob Dole realized he had to be bold and surprised voters by retiring from the Senate and taking off his tie. McCain probably knows he needs to go a bit further than Bob "Boldman" Dole if he's going to have a chance come November.

Welcoming Republicans to Minnesota

I've been checking out the website for the host committee for the Republican National Convention. Mostly, I want to see what businesses will be promoting themselves for special discounts to Republicans with the GOParty card. (Yes, it is called that. No, they haven't released the details yet.)

The website has some Minnesota trivia. I always like trivia, especially history trivia, so the first question caught my attention:

Click on image for larger size.

If you can't see, it says:

"WHO KNEW? The last Republican National convention held in Minnesota was in 1892. President Benjamin Harrison got the nomination. He lost in the general election."

If you are a superstitious Republican, this 116 year old fact isn't encouraging. I just love how this "fun trivia" just gives the bare facts so plainly. The reader can take his or her own meaning from the trivia item. Of course, the raging liberal in me would love to see John McCain's name a century from now as the answer to the question: "Barack Obama was the first African American to win the White House, but who opposed him as the Republican nominee in the lopsided election of 2008?"

In my fantasy, no one gets the answer.

McCain running mate thoughts

We all know that McCain hosted Charlie Crist, Mitt Romney, and Bobby Jindal and guests this weekend. A flurry of commentary followed on whether this was the short list.

Obviously not. I think we can take that these three may be under consideration, but McCain is still probably considering others.

One name that has been up on the top of various lists is Minnesota's Tim Pawlenty. The youthful, but experienced governor would appeal to social conservatives without alienating mainstream voters. Minnesota is allegedly a swing state.

Still, there's an argument against Pawlenty.

I remain doubtful Minnesota will truly be competitive, and I don't think that Pawlenty would help much here or any other swing state. Who knows who McCain will pick, but I think its less likely everyday that it will be the Minnesota governor.

Another Obama endorsement

Obama got another endorsement today. This time it is not from another Superdelegate, but from the political arm of the pro-choice movement, NARAL Pro-Choice America.

NARAL Pro-Choice America has waited out their endorsement decision for a bit, but it is clear as can be now: Obama is the presumptive nominee. Both Clinton and Obama are firmly pro-choice and NARAL was wise to stay out of the primary contest. (Edwards, Richardson, Dodd, Biden, etc were pro-choice too.) NARAL has rightly recognized now is the time to move forward and ready for the general election marathon.

McCain is a conservative Republican. He may buck the party on some hot issues now and then (immigration, campaign finance, etc). But the guy's entire career has been as a social conservative. He has voted 100% their way, including on abortion and birth control, even when he was calling evangelical leaders nasty names.

Here's NARAL Pro-Choice America's scrappy announcement:



NARAL Pro-Choice America has a site devoted to McCain's shameful record on women's reproductive options and health:


* Necessary disclosure: I formerly worked for NARAL, but have been out of their employ since June 2007.

Coincidence?

Is it a coincidence that the McCain campaign made this statement on Tuesday, when many Democrat and independent voters were paying attention to the Democratic contest in Indiana and North Carolina?

• McCain says he would appoint conservatives to Supreme Court

McCain holds up Bush appointees Alito and Roberts as model justices. McCain is taking a page from the Bush play book. First, talk in terms that your base can understand you but doesn't freak out the mainstream. Second, talk to your base when the rest of the country is paying attention to something else.

Anna Quindlen's current Newsweek column happens to assert the most important single decision a president can make is a Supreme Court pick.

Who do you want picking the next members of the Supreme Court?

Pandering

The Democrats have been pandering on free trade. Now it's John McCain's turn:

• McCain Proposes Gas Tax Holiday

Science Debate

Quote: Crowds are fickle!

My freshman high school English teacher taught me two things that I remember to this day. The first was the basic formula to write a paper: Intro paragraph with thesis, three body paragraphs each supporting the thesis, conclusion paragraph repeating thesis and summarized version of the body in three sentences.

The second thing was the theme of Shakespeare's Julius Ceasar. She kept on repeating it over and over through each of the five acts of the long play: "Crowds are fickle."

Mark Mellman, who was the lead pollster for Kerry for President way back when, reminds us how fickle the public at large can be. Mellman (who is not connected to either the Obama or Clinton campaign) dismisses the head-to-head polls of McCain vs. Clinton and McCain vs. Obama.

"People are very mediocre predictors of their own future behavior."

A helpful reminder indeed. I remember reading in 2002 when Bush's popularity was through the roof. Pollsters asked respondents not only did they approve of the job the president was doing, but who they voted for in 2000. One would assume that about 50% of the people would say they voted for Bush. But in poll after poll 60% or 70% of people said they voted for Bush. The most obvious conclusion is that a large number of people remembered voting for someone they didn't actually vote for. If people are that bad at honestly remembering the past, can we truly expect them to give us a useful picture of how they're going to act eight months down the road?

(In fairness, there were probably some afraid in those months after September 11, 2001 to give an answer that could be construed by some stranger as being unpatriotic. The caller could really by John Ashcroft.)

We also don't know what will happen in the world during the next several months that will undoubtedly shape the election.

Frankly, I don't think the argument of electability illuminates an obvious choice for Democrats. I've argued before that I believe Obama is more electable. I still believe that, but not overwhelmingly more electable. The same goes in the reverse. At most, one can credibly argue that Clinton has a slight, but not overwhelming, edge. The real question for the lucky, remaining Democrat primary voters is which candidate do you trust and will better promote your ideals in the White House?

Remember Mellman's words as you see the results of a new poll about next November. I wouldn't take any general election poll at much value until mid-September, a week or two after the conclusion of the Republican National Convention.

McCain running mate possibilities

Buzz continues on the running mate question for both Democrats and Republicans. I'm a little tired of the games from the Clinton campaign, with their Obama-can't-be-a-commander-in-chief-but-will-take-him-anyways message.

On the Republican side, McCain will be making a careful choice. He must get a running mate who will placate the social conservatives, but not scare off everyone else. (That's why Senators Brownback and Coburn are unlikely.)

First, I'll dispense with the usually suspects:

• Former Governor Mike Huckabee (Arkansas): Huckabee would be better positioned if he had dropped out earlier, but still is a possibility. His occasional habit of not being an iron clad economic conservative could be a sticking point, especially because even McCain acknowledges that is not his strong point either.
• Former Governor Mitt Romney (Massachusetts): Definitely has a strong conservative economics credentials. Although he was a moderate-to-liberal on social issues in a past life, he was somewhat effective in assuring social conservatives he was "born again" in the metaphorical sense at least.
• Governor Charlie Crist (Florida): Is likable and from an important state. Some rumors about his sexuality are floating out there. Setting that aside, he has the metrosexual look, which maybe a problem for Republican voters. (Yes, I used that term which I despise: metrosexual.) It's an open question how the social conservatives would receive him.
• Governor Tim Pawlenty (Minnesota): Pawlenty has several things going for him: he's young, is a true social conservative, he's from a state that could be made competitive (although it only has 10 electoral votes). On the negative side, he's not as popular in Minnesota as the national press made him out to be. He won the first time by a slim margin in a three-way race and won reelection by a mere 1 percent against an angry baffoon. Still, popularity in the state may matter little. It's the overall resume.
• Governor Mark Sanford (South Carolina): I don't know much about Sanford. He looks like a bona fide conservative, although like McCain, he occasional rankles some of his allies. Geographically, he would have little to offer.
• Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: Rice is liked by a lot of conservatives, but her spot on the ticket would underscore the horrible judgment that got us into the Iraq War. Plus, social conservatives are suspicious of her position on reproductive rights. If McCain somehow thought the election would ONLY by on national security, not the economy or any burning social issues, AND that voters would have a different mindset on the wisdom behind the Iraq War, she'd be a good choice.

Other possibilities:

• Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (Texas): Hutchinson has generally run as a moderate Texan Republican and her votes on social issues has been of the moderate to conservative part of the spectrum. She may or may not be good enough to social conservatives. She is a decent campaigner and fairly likable. Her presence on the ticket may make it safe for many centrist voters to go with McCain even while they are nervous about his temper and hawkish ways.
• Senator Joe Lieberman (Connecticut): The selection of Lieberman would encompass a whole different strategy. McCain would be betting that he could make up enough additional centrist votes to account for the loss in social conservatives who'd stay at home. If Clinton and Obama slug it out enough and fracture the Democrat party, Lieberman may entail a certain amount of logic for McCain.
• Governor Sarah Palin (Alaska): Palin is a reform-minded conservative who has been mentioned as a long-shot. Last week, she told constituents she is pregnant and will have her fifth child in May. Even though she has a record of returning to work after giving birth, that might put a damper on her long-shot chances.
• Governor Matt Blunt (Missouri): The 38 year-old governor is a recent veteran and a bona fide, bona fide social conservative. He'd placate social conservatives, but is probably too conservative for centrist voters. Plus, his short tenure as governor hasn't been a raging success.
• Former Senator Zell Miller (Georgia): The then Democrat Senator Miller came out to support George W. Bush's reelection and spoke at the Republican National Convention. His name has come up here and there as a potential McCain running mate. But he's old and doesn't bring much. The only advantage is that by comparison, McCain would seem like a gentle, emotionally stable guy.

We're still a few months off and who knows what will happen. First and foremost, what the Democrats end up doing over the next few months will probably impact McCain's calculations.

Quote: McCain and Roe v. Wade

Robyn E. Blumner writes that we should take McCain at his word that he is a true conservative. Indeed, in some important areas he is a solid, far-right kind of guy. Blumner wrote yesterday a commentary in the St. Petersburg Times called Why McCain should worry women. In truth, McCain should worry men as well.

She writes, in part:

"You want to know what's coming with a McCain presidency? How about the overturning of Roe vs. Wade. I'm not kidding. The latest case to reach the U.S. Supreme Court on abortion made it clear that the two newest justices, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, will vote for substantial incursions into abortion rights, if not their outright elimination. It turns out that Roe isn't a "super-duper" precedent after all. It's now hanging by the thread of 87-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens' continued vitality."

She goes on to reproduce part of the exchange I wrote about here that linked to Cristina Page's essay on McCain and reproductive rights.

Testy McCain

I like the reporter's closing at the end.



As far as I know, McCain still hasn't been directly asked if it is true that he first approached John Kerry in 2004 about becoming Kerry's running mate. Last year, Kerry implied that McCain came to him. The previous understanding is that Kerry approached McCain about being on his ticket and McCain declined. Who approached who is of significant consequence.

I hope that this encourages the press to, ahem, press this question further. I say there are even odds whether this will provoke them to inquire further on this point, or cower away, afraid of being the object of McCain's old-man-style, testy ire.

Quote: McCain and Bush

On Wednesday, McCain said the following when he received Bush's endorsement at the White House:

“I hope the president will find time from his busy schedule to be out on the campaign trail with me. And I will be very privileged to have the opportunity being again on the campaign trail with him."

I'm looking forward to this and other quotes resurfacing in September and October.

Quote: Answering the phone at 3 AM

Today's quote comes courtesy of Salon's article, Military leaders on John McCain's temperament. The picture painted of McCain is that despite his war hero resume and military credentials, he very well may not be the personality you (or the military) wants as commander in chief. McCain's reputation for rashness and temper come into play.

Retired Rear Adm. John Hutson, who has been a Republican his entire adult life, but who now supports Obama, put it this way about facing a national security crisis: "When everybody else goes nuts, the president of the United States needs to get cooler and cooler."

Makes sense to me.