When nonprofits come knocking, should you give?

Note: This post inspired by Lindsay Hoffman's unfortunate recent experience trying to work for social justice.

Note #2: This post's focus is how to give your political-orientated financial gifts. Of course there are other types of progressive causes. Any tips on evaulating the worthwhileness of union efforts, civil liberties, anti-media consolidation, good government, drug legalization, anti-death penalty, affordable housing, religious freedom, the separation of church and state, etc, are welcome.

And support non-political nonprofits doing key work in your community and around the world! My favorites are here and here.

*****

---

Progressives rejoice! Obama has been elected! We can plan our January 20th parties heralding a new age and take a well-deserved breather at the remarkable turnaround.

Except we can't.

Much work needs to be done. And much of it by the worthy organizations that helped get Obama and Congressional progressives elected. They have used up their resources for November 4th and now must start putting their agenda into actual action.

So, if you think you don't have to send in that $50 check to the local family planning clinic, think again.

The need is still there. It's overwhelming. Who deserves the money that you don't have? Don't fret, because I'm here to give you some unsolicited advice.

Give to the organizations that do real work. Sometimes they're the ones you've heard of, often times they're not.

If it is a national organization, find out what kind of grassroots organizing they do?.Do they spend your money on fancy fundraising consultants to ask you for more money? Do they spend it on a couple of high priced lobbysists? Or are they actually engage in grassroots organizing of the citizenry? If they can't tell you what they do in our state and community, bid them adiuex.

If they're a national organization that does work in your state, see if you can send money directly to the local chapter/affiliate instead. The local folks are usually more cash starved. Some national organizations will tell you they pass along your donation to the state level. If they're not lying, they do so after taking a heavy cut that goes to fancy DC consultants, lobbyists, or expensive, multi-color print-filled binders for Board members and fancy pens.

*****

---

Environmental groups. There are more environmental groups than there are people. How to figure that one out? I don't know what to tell you, except that you'll do better by going local. These big national and international enviros see your $50 check the same way: as an invitation to get a big donation from. They know that so many people out of 100 $50 donors will give them $5000 if asked enough. So, they'll spend a substantial portion of the $50 to resolicit you over and over and over again, even if you tell them not to. The smaller, local enviro will be ever so happy to put your $50 to good use.

GLBT organizations. Same thing. You might think that there is only one organization fighting for equal rights. But HRC is not alone. They could use some greater competition. Go check out the competition.

Reproductive health. (Moment of disclosure: I once worked for a NARAL affiliate but no longer have any connection to NARAL.) You can go two routes: political or direct services. If you want to protect the political right and support legislation that protects the right to choose and access to birth control and accurate sexuality education, give to your local NARAL affiliate (or the national organization). If you want to give to reproductive health services, Planned Parenthood is worthy, but there are many other sources that will put your dollars to even better use. Find out who the local independent family planning clinics are in your area. Give to one of many abortion assistance funds. I guarentee those funds will not go into fundraising or high-priced consultants.

UPDATE: These are the areas I know about. Does you have a perspective on nonprofits working on other progressive causes?

*****

---

What about that young person who comes knocking at your door? Should the canvasser from a worthy organization get your check? Should you take their literature and send it in? It depends.

First, ask them if they work for the organization in question or a contractor like the "Fund for Public Interest Research" or "Hudson Bay Companies." If they pause or admit to working for a third party entity, offer them a drink of water and a bathroom visit, but no money. Suggest to them that there are better canvassing operations that actually do grassroots organizing and that they often pay better.

Second, do they know what they're talking about? Are they passionate about it? Or is it clearly a script? Sometimes it's hard to tell, but sometime's it's easy. Especially be wary if they've created a false sense of urgency. I remember being told that "Congress is voting on this next week." It was August and I knew that Congress was on vacation and not voting on anything. You shouldn't expect a young canvasser to be a policy expert, but they should have some additional information that's not on their prepared script.

If they pass the test, then do give them money. Yes, they make a bonus off your contribution. But it's a well-earned bonus. (Figure you're only 6 of 60 people they talk to that night who actually give them a contribution.) If you sent the money in, the organization would simply spend a comparable amount for time resoliciting you by mail (even if you request not to be contacted). So instead of a cut of your contribution going towards paper and postage, have it going to a hard-working activist who is talking to your annoying neighbors about important issues over several hours each night.

In this economy, you're helping someone keep a job too! Give them at least $20. A good canvasser will try to "bump" you up from that level. Don't be insulted. Just be clear on the amount you are willing to give. (I usually say "$10" and then "allow" them to talk me up to $20 or $25.)

So, give the canvasser a check and tell them not to contact you (unless you want newsletters, etc.) There's only a 50% chance the organization will respect it, but it's better for everyone if you take your name off the list unless you're going to give regularly scheduled contributions. Otherwise, they're losing their money on you.

If your request to not be contacted isn't respected, don't blame the canvasser. They don't want the organization to resolicit you either. They know that they themself or a colleague will be knocking on your door one year later and want you to give the check to them, not mail it in. Sometimes organization development directors ignore those requests. More often, organizations' data entry isn't perfect. We're talking about volunteers here.

*****

---

The real world of nonprofit fundraising might make you cynical and say "screw it." That's the easy way out. Nonprofits have to be aggressive if they're going to fund their important work.

Donors are increasingly fickle. It takes an average of seven contacts before someone gives. You can be responsible by deciding the small number of groups you're going to give to, and give on a regular basis so they don't waste time chasing you. Tell other groups not to contact you if you're not going to give. Know that $100 to one group probably does more than two $50 contributions to two groups.

How to start class warfare

We live in a capitalist country, where all aspire to be rich. In political campaigns, the charge of inciting class warfare is effective because most Americans, regardless of their class, don't want to go down that road.

But if real class warfare is to occur, this is how:

Regents discuss beer sales at new stadium

Minnesota Public Radio - November 14, 2008

"University of Minnesota president Robert Bruininks is asking the Board of Regents to allow the school to sell beer and wine at its new TCF Bank football stadium.

"But drinks would only be available to fans in premium seats that range in price from $1,800 to $3,000 a season, or in private suites that cost up to $45,000 a year.

"Regent John Frobenius says he's concerned how the public will view the arrangement.

"'We're going to a new stadium, and the message is high-spending supporters have access to alcohol, medium-spending supporters do not,' said Frobenius. 'And that is a little gnawing at me that makes me a just a little uncomfortable with that.'" [emphasis mine]

Yes. Ya think people might have a problem with that?!? The people in the cheap seats don't even have the luxury of over-paying for watered down beer? But those in the corporate-sponsored boxes, they'll be able to get liquored up. And I'm sure it won't be with the cheap stuff.

The Board of Regents delayed taking action on the proposal for now; but they have to know this isn't a sustainable solution. People will be up in arms. The proposed alcohol divide is all in the name to keep the evil corrupting influence of alcohol out of the hands of the underage students who are forced to sit in the poor seats.

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.

Won't get fooled?

In an effort to keep my electoral optimism in check, I present "Won't Get Fooled Again" from The Who.



I'm not really as cynical as this song. But it does underscore how difficult true change is.

Lyrics to Won't Get Fooled Again

We'll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgement of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again

The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the foe, that's all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they all flown in the next war

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
No, no!

I'll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
For I know that the hypnotized never lie

Do ya?

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

There's nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

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.

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>

Getting bent out of shape for the wrong reasons

Plymouth, Minnesota is a large, financially well-off suburb of the Twin Cities. In fact, it was named Money magazine's #1 place to live in 2008.

In this idylic corner of America a problem is brewing. People are angry. The city hall's phone system has been overloaded. What is the crisis?

The city might change their recycling vendor!

That's right. While we are at war and the economy tanks and civil liberties are but a memory and our schools are falling apart and in Minnesota frickin bridges are falling apart and gas is expensive and we're having a bad mosquito year, this is what the good citizens of Plymouth have chosen to get enraged about.

Why, you ask? Two reasons. Citizens are going to be asked to separate their recyclables by the new vendor. (The old vendor asked recyclables to be separated but evidently didn't do anything about it when people shoved their office paper, empty beer cans, and peanut butter jars all together.) And, due to rising fuel costs, the new contract will cost the city nearly 50 cents a month per household!

I mean, my goodness! A community where the median family income is $111,631 is being prayed upon by nasty politicians who want to pry $6 a year out of their hands. I mean, that's a whole 0.005% of their income. A giant five thousanths of a percent! Much is at stake!

For six dollars a family would, um, well...

Well, they might have to do two less visits to Starbucks.

They might have to forego a popcorn at least once a year when they go to the movies.

They might have to say no for once to one of their children's request for a crappy plastic toy at Target.

They might have to stop playing the slots at the Grand Casino Mille Lacs fifteen minutes earlier than they otherwise would have.

Instead, the government will take $6 of their hard earned money for that dirty word: recycling.

Over thirty seven years ago President Kennedy told the nation: "And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man."

Obviously no one ever made JFK sort his recycling. The line has to be drawn somewhere.

Shady politics: Al Franken

Norm Coleman and the Republicans have been blasting Al Franken with negative ads.

Al Franken hasn't been shy about returning the fire. His latest ad:



The first part is a response to this Coleman ad attacking Franken for his tax and accounting troubles. Franken is smart to respond to these charges and not ignoring them. Ethical concerns are taken very seriously by voters. Is this an effective response? If the best you can say is, "It was an honest mistake," you're making a pretty weak case. Fair or not, phrases voters generally don't like to hear from politicians include, "it was an honest mistake."

Moving from defense mode to attack mode within the same ad is probably a good strategic move, especially when it is also on the issue of ethics. Senator Coleman lives in a mansion in DC practically given to him for a mere $600/month by his lobbyist-related friend? That sounds pretty bad.

At best, though, Franken is playing loose with the facts. While there are legitimate ethics issues with Coleman's rental arrangement that was first revealed by the National Journal in June, it isn't to the scale Franken describes. Coleman is living in a small basement studio apartment for $600. It's been a few years since I lived on Capitol Hill, but I remember lots of what are referred to as "English Basements" in the row houses on Capitol Hill. Usually they went for at least $900/month then. But living in a $600 basement apartment is a bit different from an entire "mansion."

I'm no fan of Norm Coleman. He's a slimy, unprincipled, political opportunist without a single ounce of integrity. Alas, Al Franken appears to be stooping to his level.

In fairness, here's another of Coleman's prominent nasty ads that's been covering the Minnesota airwaves for the last two weeks.

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.

GO Party!

The Republicans are coming! The Republicans are coming!

In a matter of weeks, the Republican convention will be coming to Minnesota. Republican delegates and candidates will take over our communities. Even worse, the lobbyists and members of the media will descend upon us like a cloud of hungry locusts consuming everything in their path.

The Minneapolis-St. Paul Welcoming Committee is facilitating their stay and doing everything they can to use the convention as an opportunity for the chamber of commerce members to cash in. I can't blame them for that.

In order to welcome visitors and enable them to part with their money, the welcoming committee has established the GOParty Card. The card will give Republican delegates the opportunity to enjoy significant discounts on services and goods at participating businesses. Over 300 businesses have signed up for the privilege of giving the privileged a good deal.

I was very curious who would be flocking to serve the Republicans. Some non-surprises. The Minnesota Orchestra is offering 10% off tickets. The Mill City Museum offers $2 off admission. Restaurants range from Stella's Fish Cafe and Oyster Bar to Sawatdee Thai Restaurant to IHOP. And when you are minutes from the Mall of America, you can't help to go shopping! The GOParty card gets you deals at American Eagle Outfitters, Dressbarn, Express, QVC, Ultra Diamonds, the Red Balloon Bookshop in St. Paul, and the Lake Wobegon USA store at the MOA. Ahhh, Garrison Keillor would be spinning in his grave--wait! He's still alive!

Then there are the surprises:

• Patrick's Cabaret: Let's just say this about Patrick's Cabaret. It's a great performance space for hippy, artistic types and it has the largest pride flag in the city sticking off the top of the building. You can see the flag a mile away. It's a great landmark.
• Manny's Torta's: Shit man. I can't even go to my favorite Mexican sandwich shop without fear of encountering masses of Republicans?
• Northern Sun Merchandising: OK, this is a riot. The tagline for Northern Sun is "Products for progressives since 1979." Have you seen a button, a t-shirt, a canvass bag, a bumper sticker, or a flag recently that has liberally-inclined message? Northern Sun probably sells it. They have a section on their website of gear specifically for the March on the RNC. Perhaps a Republican delegate can stop by and purchase a yard sign to support the troops.

Circling the wagons around Al Franken

I know it's ancient news now, but the DFL endorsed Al Franken at last weekend's convention on the first ballot. It was unclear what was going to happen after the week's developments of prominent state Democrats criticizing Franken for past attempts at humor that were regarded by some as being in poor taste.

Doug Grow wrote at Minn Post of Franken's endorsement: "It was so complete that it may have closed the door on any possible primary challenge from former candidate Mike Ciresi, or any other DFLer who might have thought Franken would be beatable."

I think that may be going a little far. Though it is clear that many party delegates are feeling the need to circle their wagons around Franken if they want to beat Norm Coleman. A nasty fight at the convention might not help. They may be right.

Had the convention been unable to endorse, or had endorsed Franken after a drawn out fight, you would have certainly seen several Democrats jump on the primary contest. Franken's unexpectedly quick endorsement means he will not be challenged by many other Democrats. It is still possible that a well-funded candidate could challenge Franken in the primary. Of course, that would mean Mike Ciresi remains a possibility.

I've been pretty critical of how Franken has handled some of his problems this spring. But I'd still need some persuasion on why Ciresi would be a better pick.

I leave you with one apt quote from my own city council member, Gary Schiff: "We have to do a better job of vetting our own candidates. Our candidates should not have been put in a position of being surprised by any of this.''

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.

Quote: Joe Biden

Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) said this on national television on the Today Show:

“Twenty percent of our party really is anti-war almost under any circumstance, just like 20 percent of the Republican Party is probably ready to go to war on any circumstance."

It's probably not the most politically savvy thing to say--and right before Memorial Day to boot--but I'd guess he isn't too far away from the truth. I may even suggest the number is a little higher on both sides.

The more things change

One will find widespread agreement to the assertion that the Republican Party of today is a very different beast than the one of 100 years ago during Teddy Roosevelt's era. The same could be said of the Democrat Party.

And yet, here's a snippet from the beginning of the Democratic Party Platform in 1908:

We rejoice at the increasing signs of an awakening throughout the country. The various investigations have traced graft and political corruption to the representatives of the predatory wealth, and laid bare the unscrupulous methods by which they have debauched elections and preyed upon a defenseless public through the subservient officials whom they have raised to place and power.

The conscience of the nation is now aroused to free the Government from the grip of those who have made it a business asset of the favor-seeking corporations. It must become again a people's government, and be administered in all its departments according to the Jeffersonian maxim, "equal rights to all; special privileges to none."

"Shall the people rule?" is the overshadowing issue which manifests itself in all the questions now under discussion.

Thank goodness we no longer have to worry about politicians making government "a business asset of the favor-seeking corporations" and we can have faith that we are free of "debauched elections."

Oh wait a minute.

The platform goes on to address:

• the Republican mismanagement of the economy
• the abuse of power of the Republican Speaker of the House
• the federal budget deficit under Republican rule
  
• Republican misuse of patronage
• campaign finance reform
• the rights of states
• tariff reform
• trusts reform (a call to break corporate monopolies)
• railroad and banking regulation
• calling for the federal income tax
• labor and legal injunctions reform (including "We favor the eight hour day on all Government work")
• the merchant marine
• the Navy
• the right of U.S. citizens abroad
• civil service
• pensions
• the establishment of a federal health bureau
• the establishment of agricultural and mechanical colleges
• the popular election of Senators
• Oklahoma is welcomed as a state
• support for the ongoing Panama Canal
• regulations of federal grazing lands
• federal management of navigable waterways
• federal aid for maintenance of post roads
• regulation of the telegraph and telephone industries
• conservation of natural resources ("the enforcement of which Mr. Roosevelt has vainly sought from a reluctant party")
• the Philippines ("We condemn the experiment in imperialism as an inexcusable blunder which has involved us in enormous expense, brought us weakness instead of strength, and laid our nation open to the charge of abandoning a fundamental doctrine of self-government.")
• "Alaska and Porto Rico"
  
• Pan-American Relations
• Asiatic Immigration ("we are opposed to the admission of Asiatic immigrants who can not be amalgamated with our population")
• Foreign Patents

Hey, with just a couple minor changes, the Democrats can reuse this 100 year-old platform for 2008!

Clinton's numbers

Clinton says she has the popular vote lead.

First, the popular vote doesn't matter. The party uses delegates. This is another clear attempt to change the rules not even mid game, but in the closing seconds. It's like if a losing basketball team says seconds before the buzzer, "Wait! we shouldn't count points, but number of baskets."

Second, the so-called popular vote win includes Florida and Michigan (where her opponent wasn't even on the ballot), and it excludes Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington! Because caucuses don't count! (See the breakdown here.)

So when Clinton recently said that the nomination shouldn't be determined by 48 states, what she secretly meant is that it should be determined (with new rules) by 46 states.