How soon on election night will we know the winner

How soon on election night will we know the winner? When can we celebrate? Will it be mere minutes after the polls close in the East? Or are we going to have to brace for a late night like in recent elections?

On election night all those experts will have their fancy maps and go through scenario after scenario, plugging in the pieces of the puzzle as they trickle in. "ABC News calls New Hampshire for John McCain. This is what else McCain will have to win to get to 270..." blah blah blah.

I've made an election night cheat sheet to use yourself. When can the election be called?

The point is here not to predict when and how the media will call the election. Based on past experiences, they don't call states until the polls close there. So while we all know where California is going, the media won't put it blue on their nifty maps until after 11:00 PM EST. This is to help see when you yourself can feel confident to call the election ahead of the media.

First, we have a darn good idea how 34 states and the District of Columbia are going to go. Using Pollster's current weighed poll margins, I've preemptively put the states with 10 point or more margins with their candidate. (Notice the list doesn't include Virginia or even Arizona.) This is a hyper-conservative way to call the states.

OBAMA: 238 votes (ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, DE, MD, DC, MI, WI, MN, IL, IA, CA, OR, WA, HI)
MCCAIN: 123 votes (AK, ID, WY, UT, NE, KS, OK, TX, AR, LA, AL, TN, KY, SC, WV)

* - swing states

At 7:00 EST polls close in GA*, IN*, KY, SC, VT & VA*

• If the media calls Virginia for Obama, he's at 251 with about 12 swing states left to call.
• If the media calls Virginia and Georgia for Obama, he's at 266 with about 12 swing states left to call.
• If the media calls Virginia and Indiana for Obama, he's at 262 with about 12 swing states left to call.
• If the media calls Virginia, Georgia and Indiana for Obama, he wins with 277 already
• If McCain surprises by somehow winning Virginia, get ready for a longer night. That only puts McCain up to 136, but it might be indicative of how Pennsylvania and Ohio will go.

At 7:30 EST polls close in OH*, NC* & WV (We'll see how well the vote counting and exit polls go in Ohio!)

• If VA has been called for Obama, but not IN or GA, winning Ohio alone gets him to 271. He wins.
• If VA has been called for Obama, but not IN or GA, winning North Carolina but not Ohio gets him to 266 with a number of states still in question.
• If VA and IN have been called for Obama, winning either Ohio or North Carolina clinches it.
• If VA and GA have been called for Obama, winning either Ohio or North Carolina clinches it.
• If VA, GA and IN have been called for McCain, but Obama wins Ohio, he's at 258 with Florida, Missouri and a number of western states still in question.
  
• If McCain has swept VA, GA and IN, and then Ohio and North Carolina, he's only at 174 to Obama's 238. But it would appear that the remaining states in question could just about all break his way.

At 8:00 EST polls close in AL, CT, DE, FL*, IL, ME, MD, MA, MS*, MO*, NH, NJ, OK, PA*, TN, DC (We'll see how the vote counting and exit polls go in Florida!)

• If Obama is called to win Pennsylvania, he wins if any other previous or contemporary swing state is called for him (OH, NC, FL, MS, or MO). Otherwise, Obama is at 259 with PA alone. If McCain gets everything else called his way by this point, he'd have 241. (Obama would need to win CO and one more state, like NV or NM.)
• If Obama is called to win Florida, he wins if any other previous or contemporary state in question is called for him (OH, NC, MS, MO, or PA). Otherwise, Obama is at 265 with FL alone. (If McCain gets everything else called his way by this point, Obama just needs NM or CO or NV to win.)
  
• If Obama improbably wins Missouri, but not Pennsylvania or Florida, he's at 249 and we're going to have to wait for the western states.
• If McCain sweeps Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Missouri and Florida, after sweeping all the earlier called swing states (OH and NC), he's at 262. (McCain would then only need to secure AZ or CO, or the combinations of SD-ND-MT, or NV with any other state or NM with any other state.)

At 8:30 EST polls close in AR

At 9:00 EST polls close in AZ*, CO*, KS, LA, MI, MN, NE, NM*, NY, RI, SD*, TX, WI, WY (If we don't know already, we'll likely know the winner once these states are called.)

• If McCain has swept every swing state thus far, Arizona or Colorado or the New Mexico-South Dakota combination wins it for him.
  
• If McCain has swept every swing state thus far, except PA, Colorado or Arizona plus either New Mexico or South Dakota wins it for Obama. CO is a must win for Obama if the election is still up in the air. In this situation, if McCain wins AZ, CO, NM, and SD, McCain would be one state shy of winning. If Obama takes CO and McCain takes AZ, NM and SD, Obama has 268 and would need just one more of the remaining 3 swing states.
• If McCain has swept every swing state thus far, except OH, it's virtually the same situation as the previous scenario. (OH has 20 electoral votes and PA has 21.)
  
• If McCain has swept every swing state thus far, except VA, how these four states break would make a big difference. Either candidate getting both Arizona and Colorado puts them within one state of winning (SD, NM, NV, MT, or ND). In the most likely scenario that Obama takes Colorado and McCain takes Arizona, whoever takes three of the remaining five states provided that one of the three is NV or NM, will win. (In the unlikely scenario of McCain taking NV and NM, and Obama taking ND, SD, MT, we'll have a 269-269 tie.)
• If McCain has swept every swing state except VA and MO (or IN), Colorado or Arizona wins it for Obama If McCain gets Colorado and Arizona, Obama getting New Mexico puts him at 267, needing South Dakota to win, or to wait to snag ND, NV, or MT to win. If McCain gets Colorado, and Arizona, and New Mexico, and Obama gets South Dakota, Obama would be at 265 (to 262), needing to get NV or MT-ND to win. If McCain gets all four states (CO, AZ, NM, SD), he'd have 265 to Obama's 262. (McCain would win unless Obama got NV as well as either ND or MT.)
  
• If McCain has swept every swing state thus far, except FL, Obama would be at 265 and only need Arizona, Colorado or New Mexico. Obama could lose all three and still win with South Dakota plus one more state (MT, ND, or NV). If McCain wins all four states, he'd still be trailing with 262 to Obama's 265 electoral votes. (Obama could win with NV or MT-ND.)

At 10:00 EST polls close in IA, MT*, NV* & UT

• Montana and Nevada matter if McCain has swept just about every swing state and we're close to an electoral vote tie. In most scenarios (see in the previous state entries), Obama wins with Nevada or needs Nevada to win with Montana or the yet-to-close-their-polls North Dakota.
  

At 11:00 EST polls close in CA, HI, ID, ND*, OR, WA

• Could North Dakota decide it? Maybe. If McCain swept every swing state except FL and MT (or SD), we'd be looking at Obama at 268 and McCain at 267. North Dakota's three electoral votes determine the winner.
• If McCain sweeps every swing state except CO and PA (or OH), we have the same electoral vote set-up. This is not an entirely implausible situation.

At 1:00 EST polls close in AK

*****

Of course this exercise assumes some accuracy in the current understanding of the electoral map. If either candidate wins a state seen as solid for the other, all bets are off. Most likely that means a landslide either way. If McCain wins Michigan, he's probably going to win the election handedly. If Obama wins Tennessee, he's probably going to win the election handedly.

The assumption also is that states will be called by the media in the order they finish voting. We can guess that contentious swing states might take some time before they're called. Some states like Ohio and Florida might have some trouble counting their votes in a timely manner.

My suggestion for election night would be to go over to 270towin.com with their interactive map. Color all states that are solid McCain or Obama ahead of time, and then complete the swing states as they are called throughout election night. You don't need to listen to the "experts" with their fancy graphics--you can do it yourself.

Aren't I smart?

Last August, before John McCain picked Sarah Palin, and right before we learned Barack Obama picked Joe Biden, I made a back-of-the-envelope electoral college prediction.  In the following weeks I've watched states change back and forth at pollster.com and felt mighty stupid--especially with my prediction that Montana would go to Obama.  But now let's compare my prediction two months ago with pollster.com's map two weeks out:

If all the states that Pollster.com rates as toss-up break to McCain as he throws the last minute Ayers and Wright dirt at Obama, except for the enlightened people of Montanta, I'll have predicted each state's vote perfectly. If the good people of Omaha, Nebraska and suburbs vote for Obama, that additional electoral vote will match with my crazy prediction of Obama winning with 290.

Sure, sure, a lot can change in the next two weeks and we don't know how the toss-up states will break. I'm just saying I don't look as crazy as I thought I looked myself a short time ago.

Post script: Let me be clear, in any case I'd much prefer a wider margin Obama win. My ego could take being drastically wrong.

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.

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.

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.

Waiting for Clinton

On March 3rd, I predicted the imminent end of the Clinton campaign. I asserted that "at the very latest" Clinton could hold out long enough for a unlikely win in Pennsylvania.

Shows what I know.

Still, after yesterday's results in Indiana and North Carolina, it's hard to see how Clinton could stay in. Clinton has begun to argue more forcefully for the inclusion of Michigan and Florida delegates from their unauthorized primaries. Looking at the Slate's Delegate Calculator, even with the inclusion of Florida, Clinton would have to have substantial wins in the remaining primaries and pick-up a bunch more superdelegates than Obama.

Members of the media have essentially declared her candidacy over. One doesn't want to put too much stock into what Tim Russert says, but in this case he might be right.

I say even odds, Clinton will be out by the end of the week. If she doesn't withdraw by next Monday, I don't know what the heck to expect. Most likely scenario is that we'll get an announcement late Wednesday or on Thursday.

Slate also doesn't have a lot of faith in Clinton's ability to pull anything off:

McCain/Obama/Clinton administrations: Minnesota personnel

We've talked about the running mate odds already. Let's get even more ahead of ourselves and discuss which Minnesota politicians may be snatched to serve in the next administration.

First off, in the unlikely, but unfortunately possible, scenario of a McCain presidency. A lot of high profile current and former Republicans are off the table because they lack experience or have been discredited. It's difficult to see Michele Bachmann or Rod Grams serving in an administration.

• Tim Pawlenty - Conventional wisdom continues to build that Pawlenty is at the top of McCain's running mate list. If the governor does not become McCain's running mate, don't count a Governor Molnau out. Pawlenty could be a cabinet member; particularly but not necessarily the Secretary of Health and Human Services or Secretary of Education.
• Jim Ramstad - I don't know how Ramstad and McCain regard each other, but both have a reputation of bucking the party line in Congress. McCain, while a "maverick," is still a by-and-large conservative. Ramstad is a true moderate, particularly on social issues. Ramstad is retiring from Congress. His appointment wouldn't put a Republican seat in danger (it already is). Ramstad might not be a cabinet level appointment, but still in line for some administration job. Ramstad could serve the administration in a health care capacity or perhaps law enforcement.
• John Kline - Kline may or may not be out of a job come January. The Republican congressman has been a steadfast supporter of the war and is a consistent conservative. Whether or not he is reelected this fall, Kline could be a pick to serve as a higher-up in the Department of Veterans Affairs or perhaps in the Pentagon.
• Norm Coleman - Should Coleman lose election this fall, but McCain wins (an unlikely combination), he might be able to get employed in some capacity in a McCain administration. Perhaps with his 5 years working on foreign relations in the Senate, Coleman could be appointed an ambassador. Perhaps ambassador to the UN, but McCain would probably want someone with more experience and intelligence in that position. If Coleman wins in the fall, he's probably not an attractive enough person to vacate a Senate seat, even if a Republican would be appointed to replace him by a Governor Pawlenty or Molnau.

(Here's a scary scenario. Remember that once upon a time Pawlenty wanted the U.S. Senate seat before Dick Cheney "persuaded" him to run for governor. Should McCain win the presidency with Charlie Crist as his running mate and Coleman win reelection too, but vacate the post when appointed the ambassador to the EU or something. Pawlenty could then resign and Gov. Molnau appoint Pawlenty to serve out the six year Senate term. It's been done before, albeit without good results. Setting that aside, who would a Gov. Pawlenty or Molnau appoint to fill an empty Coleman seat?)


An Obama presidency:

Minnesota Democrats hold more congressional and statewide seats than Republicans, but most are relative newcomers. However, some DFL politicians stick out for an opening in an Obama administration.

• Jim Oberstar - It would be hard for Oberstar to give up his chair of the House Transportation Committee. It looks like he has just gotten started there. That is, except for maybe the possibility to become the Secretary of Transportation. The resulting special election would be competitive, but Democrats would still probably be able to keep that northern Minnesota seat.
• Lori Swanson - Swanson has been tarnished in recent months with allegations of ethical breaches and union busting. At this point, the charges probably don't rise to the level to stop Swanson from being appointed a federal judge. State Democrats would probably be resistant to the idea, since the governor would have the power to appoint a successor for the attorney general.
• R.T. Rybak - The Minneapolis mayor was an early and strong supporter of Obama's. It is not too far fetched to see Rybak serving in the Department of Housing and Urban Affairs.
• Betty McCollum - McCollum's departure wouldn't worry Democrats too much. McCollum has been steadily climbing the Democratic caucus leadership ladder since elected in 2000. She may not wish to throw that away. Still, McCollum might be an attractive fit in a number of administration posts within the Department of Health and Human Services or the Department of Education. McCollum might also be the type of person appointed to the National Endowment for the Arts.

A Clinton administration:

It is doubtful, although an outside possibility that Clinton will be elected the next president. In that scenario one can assume many of the first Clinton administration loyalists would return. Clinton would undoubtedly bring in some new blood out of need and a desire to make her own mark.

Under a Clinton administration, Oberstar, Swanson, and McCollum may all still be potential candidates for appointments despite Oberstar's and McCollum's endorsements of Obama. Rybak would be out of consideration in all likelihood. Two additional names:

• Chris Coleman and Susan Gaertner - The St. Paul Mayor and the Ramsey County Attorney, respectively, have both endorsed Clinton. Coleman has also served as a public defender and prosecutor in Hennepin County. Both are top names for a gubernatorial run in 2010, but one or even both could be persuaded to take a post in Washington, DC. Either could be good fits for a Department of Justice or federal judiciary post.

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.

Eh, predictions, shmedictions?

So, I asserted a couple times that the days were numbered for Clinton. Whoops. She still has quite an uphill battle though. The media, loving the back and forth drama, again exaggerated the meaning the the results by implying a 180 degree turn-around for Clinton. It was a victory for Clinton. The race truly could have been over for her Tuesday night. But Obama is still in the lead in terms of delegates and raw primary votes. Pennsylvania is the next big prize. Here we go!

I've also pooh-poohed the notion that an Obama-Clinton ticket is feasible or desirable. What do I know? As the race goes further along and as the Democrat Party becomes further fractured, that may very well be seen as necessary. This morning, Clinton gently suggested that possibility. I agree with an NPR commentator I heard today who theorized that may have done more to create a tone of conciliation from Clinton rather than a bona fide commitment to that idea. Still, the more that is put out there, the more the supporters of whoever is not on the top of the ticket will expect it.

Most Obama or Clinton supporters who say that they'll vote or stay home on election day if the other becomes the nominee are full of it, whether they know it or not. Still, division and nastiness within the party close to the election will not help the Democrat nominee against McCain.

Clinton says she's going nowhere

I suggested recently that Clinton will be out of the presidential contest within a week of tomorrow's primaries/caucuses. She has suggested that she's going nowhere, regardless of Tuesday's results.

Even with her fighting words, I still don't see Clinton in the race for very much longer. April at the longest, hoping for a win in Pennsylvania.

Talk of a brokered convention is heating up, but I still don't see it as being at all likely. Unless Clinton defies expectations tomorrow, we're going to see more headlines like this one:

Pressure raised on Clinton to bow out

It will get to a point where she won't be able to ignore it. Supporters will continue to peel off and it will become inevitable before the convention is here.

If she stays in past March, I'll be wondering about her motivation. Despite my belief that she wouldn't want or accept a running mate spot with Obama, maybe that is what she is angling for?

Or, what is probably beyond even the Clintons, one might think that her drawing this out might weaken Obama enough to lose the general election, enabling Clinton to be the nominee to challenge a President McCain in 2012.

Clinton drop-out countdown

When will it happen? It could be after next Tuesday's contests. Or she might consider going for a long-shot win in Pennsylvania in a April. My guess is that it will be in the days following next week's primaries, even if she does a little better than expected. There are rumors of Gore and Pelosi and others working behind the scenes to secure a nominee soon. I predict they will be successful and Clinton will withdraw within a week of next Tuesday. My current guess, Thursday, March 6. Or it's possible she'll wait until Sunday.

Running mate possibilities

The Washington Post's The Fix blog has begun to run weekly predictions on likely running mates on the presidential candidates. Right now I'm going to look at Barack Obama's most likely choices.

To start, The Fix lists former North Carolina Senator and presidential hopeful John Edwards, Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia, retired general and head of the U.S. Central Command, Tony Zinni.

I agree that Kaine, Sebelius, and Zinni would be good bets for the short list, but I would be surprised with Edwards or Webb. First, they are both from the Senate and aren't long in the experience realm. In 2000, George W. Bush "assured" voters with the implication that he surrounded himself with experienced experts from his dad's administration, so we wouldn't have to worry about him not knowing who the prime minister of Canada or Pakistan was. Second, they wouldn't do much to deliver either of their states (Virginia or North Carolina). I do think Obama can be competitive in both states in the fall, but neither of those two men do a lot to improve his odds. Gov. Kaine, however, is more highly respected in and out of Virginia and could give a boost.

Obama is not going to offer a second spot to Clinton and she wouldn't take it either. It wouldn't be smart politics. Obama needs a vice president that underscores what his candidacy is about in the general election and maybe shore him up in some way. Geography is clearly a component, but not of the utmost importance. The last running mate who probably made a difference in winning their home state would be Carter's running mate Mondale. One could argue Gore helped Clinton in the south. Though Clinton himself is probably primarily responsible for winning southern states.

Obama needs a running mate with serious foreign policy credentials or someone with leadership experience on important domestic issues. Sebelius and Kaine would fit in the latter manner, with the added benefit of making their small and medium-sized states competitive. Zinni of course helps in the former way. (Where is Zinni from, Virginia?)

I'd also add the following names:

• Bill Richardson - Is a double-whammy of foreign policy cred and a governor working on healthcare and economic solutions. He is both an insider and outsider at the same time and would probably help make New Mexico, Colorado, and maybe even Nevada competitive
• Jim Doyle - As the second-term governor of Wisconsin, Doyle is a respected centrist who could help shore up the Midwest possibly.
• Janet Napolitano - The Arizona governor is a tough-as-nails, centrist westerner. If the Republican nominee was not John McCain, I would put her at the top of the VP list. As it is, she was unable to deliver Arizona to Obama in the primary and is less likely to be able to deliver the state in an Obama-McCain contest.
• Tom Daschle - The former senate minority/majority leader has been an early and close adviser to Obama. He is respected, experienced, a centrist, and his quiet manner means he would not outshine Obama. He might not deliver his home state of South Dakota, but may help in western and plains states.
  
• Ed Rendell - The Pennsylvania governor is a Clinton supporter. Still, he is a two term centrist governor from an important electoral state. If Obama wants to try to patch things up with the Clinonites, Rendell might be a good pick.
  
• Joe Biden - Strong on foreign policy and a good campaigner. On the other hand, he is a senator, a Washington insider, and someone who wouldn't bring additional states to the table.
• Eliot Spitzer - The New York Governor is a Clinton supporter, but he is another tough centrist who has prosecuted all sorts of bad guys: white collar criminals, drug traffickers, human traffickers, violent criminals, and terrorists. He'll probably run for president himself in 4 or 8 years.
  

Super Tuesday!

The day is here! Super Tuesday! It's like a holiday. Made even more exciting is the fact that no one knows what's going to happen.

I'm going with the conventional wisdom and say that we're not going to have any candidates drop out tomorrow. On the Republican side, McCain will likely do very well, but I think Romney will do well enough to be in it. The Republican who wins California will probably win the nomination and that looks like John McCain right now. Huckabee will draw his standard 10-20% in each state and will stay around a bit longer despite his very long odds. I doubt Ron Paul will break 10% in any state.

Clinton and Obama will both do well enough to keep on going. The main question is who will end the day with more delegates. The momentum will go to the candidate who has the most delegates.

I suspect that neither contest will go to the respective convention. Neither Clinton nor Obama will want to wait that long and would come to some sort of agreement, even if they have enough delegates to contest it. That being said, I see no advantage to the Democrats in having a known nominee before the Republicans. A known Democratic nominee only helps John McCain, especially if the Democrat is Clinton. Even if Romney does well enough to stay in the race after today, he faces an uphill battle in the remaining states and will have to drop out within a few weeks. Who knows what Huckabee will do, but I don't think he'll be a factor in the primaries after Super Tuesday.

The next question will be, will Mike Bloomberg enter the race? And if so, when? If the Republican nominee looked to be Huckabee, I think Bloomberg would have a chance with an independent run. But if the nominees of the two parties are centrists, which is how Clinton, Obama, and McCain are presenting themselves in a general election, why would Bloomberg get much support? Maybe if it looks like Super Tuesday will solve nothing in either party and that there will be a slugfest to the conventions, that would entice him. But at this juncture I think it is unlikely.

New Hampshire: Wrong again

So, I, like the majority of the pollsters and political reporters, called New Hampshire's primary wrong. The story now is the big boost Clinton's and McCain's respective wins give them. I had predicted, like some polls, Obama winning the Democratic primary by at least five points. Instead, with 95% of precincts reporting, Clinton won 39% to Obama's 36%. Edwards and Richardson got 17% and 5% respectively. I had also said that Edwards would be lucky to break 10%.

The Democratic side

What bothers me is the inflated media response. To be sure, Clinton's victory is a surprise and a boost to her. But the language out there is a bit much. Washington Post reporter Chris Cizzela described Clinton's win as "one of the most stunning comeback victories in modern American politics" in his Tuesday night blog post.

Clinton had been leading in the polls in New Hampshire by double digits for months. Her defeat in Iowa brought her numbers down drastically and over the weekend many New Hampshire polls had Obama with a good lead. The fact she bounced back for Tuesday with a slim, but real win, isn't the most stunning comeback victories. It is simply a surprise.

I would argue that McCain's win, although predicted by the polls, represents a more stunning turn around when you consider where his campaign was a couple months ago. John Kerry's resurrected campaign in 2004 was also more stunning than Clinton's victory.

Still, even without the media's self-fulfilling prediction of this lifting Clinton from the brink, it's clear the New Hampshire Democrats have a lot of faith in her. The Democrat side is now a 2.5 person race. It will be interesting to see how the half, Mr. Edwards, will impact the other two in South Carolina and Nevada and maybe even on Super Tuesday.

The Republican side

If the Democrat nomination contest is now a 2.5 person race, the Republican one is a 3.5 person race. It's McCain, Huckabee, and Romney, with Giuliani as the half. I still don't see Giuliani getting the nomination. In New Hampshire, he came in fourth, narrowly avoiding embarrassment by beating Paul by one point. He's not completely out yet, and can make some interesting things happen, particularly in Florida. Romney has been badly hurt by the results in Iowa and New Hampshire, but with his skill, funds, and ambition, I wouldn't count him out yet.

If it comes down to McCain versus Huckabee, which looks most likely, I think McCain will be the nominee. It is strange to think, as political analysts and commentators have pointed out in recent days, that the Republican establishment could quickly find themselves rallying around McCain because they are worried about Huckabee, both for his economic populisms and presumed unelectability. The irony that McCain, who used to have his name always preceded with the word "maverick," would be an establishment Republican would have been difficult to foresee a short couple of years ago.

Pluses and Minuses of a McCain nomination

I have mixed feelings about McCain. His newfound ability to pander isn't endearing. He is even more of a hawk than George W Bush (but at least probably would expect competency). He's a true social conservative despite conservatives' long-held distrust of him. He is also an angry, unstable person. Even so, due to his stature and reputation and political profile, he is probably the most electable of the GOP candidates. I once thought that of slippery Mitt Romney, but his recent failures to run a primary campaign make me fear him less in a general election.

Another McCain irony would be that a general election with him as the nominee wouldn't be all about trumped up, imminent threat of immigrants. McCain is the lead proponent in the Senate on immigration reform, but does not approach it like the Republican base. To listen to the other Republican candidates, immigration is not only the defining issue of the race, it's the only issue.

I disagree with McCain on most of the major issues. I would still be delighted with some of the issues he'd bring to the campaign. I would love to hear him resurrect talk on a national service program and ethics reforms. He would talk about solutions to the economy and health care reform. He'd continue to be against torture and for a return to the rule of law. These would all be good things for a Democrat who fills the White House to be able to fulfill their own (better) solutions to these issues. If a Republican candidate succeeds in making the election all about immigration and taxes, there are no real issue-based mandates that the victor carries into the White House.

McCain would be a disaster in the White House. This is a guy who thought it was funny to joke about bombing Iran. You would think a former POW would regard armed conflict as less than funny. But I've never been a POW in North Vietnam, so I can't rightly judge how any former POW should and shouldn't find something humorous. I think of all the candidates, McCain is the most likely to lead us into unnecessary armed conflict. Clinton might be second on that front. (Oh wait, there's Giuliani!)

More Presidential Primaries Predictions

Okay, so it was several days ago, but I must admit that I was a bit off in my predictions of the Iowa caucus results. At least on the Democratic side. As we know, Clinton did NOT win by a double-digit margin but came in a close third place. So, I got it backwards. On the GOP side, I was right about Huckabee, but that was no real surprise.

Still, I'm going to barrel ahead and make predictions for tomorrow's primary in New Hampshire. I've only heard a little of the polls and some of the coverage. That won't stop my half-informed self from prognosticating though.

As the cable news channels tell us, the key in New Hampshire is the independent voters who can vote in either primary. (It's an open primary state.) I saw one poll last week that claimed that 60% of independents would vote in the Dem primary. If true, that should help Obama and harm the "moderate" Republicans.

Here it goes!

Democrats
Obama will win New Hampshire by at least 5 points. Edwards will be lucky to break 10%. Edwards will probably not drop out of the race yet. Richardson will have to withdraw after New Hampshire. It will be interesting to see who Richardson or Edwards will endorse, if anybody, after they withdraw. And no, I'm not going to even bother talking about Dennis Kucinich.

Republicans
Who the heck knows? It's all in flux. Either Romney or McCain will win. Whichever one wins here becomes the Republican front-runner in a three way race with Huckabee and Giuliani. McCain won the primary in 2000 with the help of lots of independent voters. Unfortunately, many of those independents will be voting Democrat, or could be pairing off to support Giuliani, Thompson, and Paul. Still, I'll predict McCain will win New Hampshire narrowly over Romney. Romney will stay in the race but his time is about done. Giuliani needs to come in 3rd or a narrow 4th to look competitive going into other states. My guess is that Giuliani, Paul, and Huckabee will be clustered around 10 percent each and Thompson will be less. One hopes that Thompson will end the charade and drop out after New Hampshire.

Another item on the horizon is whether high-profile independent Michael Bloomberg jumps in the race. If the Republican nominee appears to be Huckabee, I think that gives Bloomberg a great opportunity. If it is Giuliani or McCain, that is less possible. If he does enter, I think it could be as early as Monday, February 11th: one week after Super Tuesday. I remain doubtful that Bloomberg candidacy would amount to anything more than a spoiler candidate.