I was right?

When I went out on a limb on Tuesday and suggested Sarah Palin would make sense as McCain's vp pick, I was expecting to be wrong, as usual.

It seems I was right. Who thought it possible.

I think Palin is a brilliant pick for McCain. As I said on Tuesday:

In addition to the candidates I've named as possibilities for the spot, I'd like to add Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska. A lot may depend on the result of today's primary where the state's Lieutenant Governor, and Palin protogé, is running against the incumbent Republican for the right to run for the U.S. House of Representatives. Palin may be reluctant to accept the veep nomination if it means both her and Sean Parnell are running for national office which would mean, in the event they both won, control of the state would be handed back to the corrupt wing of the Alaska Republican Party she has recently defeated for control (UPDATE: This may not be as big of a concern, Palin's attorney general would succeed as governor, though this individual would arguably be more vulnerable than Palin or Parnell and the idea of both running for national office would still be a concern).

Palin is a strong candidate in a lot of ways. She is a reformer who has beaten down the corruption in Alaska which is so severe it would make most of the dirty tricksters in Washington blush. She is an outsider which will help provide credibility to McCain's argument that he would change how things are done. She is a woman who could help McCain make further inroads into the alienated Clinton voter and who has a compelling life story. The religious right would be totally energized by her candidacy and might turn out in similar-to-2004-numbers for a mother of five who is ardently pro-life.

If the Obama campaign or other Democrats want to criticize her for being inexperienced, McCain can say "I've served my country my whole life, first in the Navy, then in the House and then in the Senate. I want to be your president because I have always put my country first and through my experience, I think I can continue to do that as your president. Senator Obama, an outsider without a lot of experience, is criticizing Governor Palin's experience. Her experience is that of having battled corruption her whole time in public life and as serving as chief executive of a state. Senator Obama's experience consists of giving a popular speech in 2002, getting elected to the Senate in a race that was virtually non-contetested and after a year of few notable accomplishments there announcing his candidacy for president."

McCain's people will ask which is better - a change candidate without the experience to lead who needs to pick a Washington insider as his running mate in order to be sure he can govern or a change candidate with decades of service to country who is able to pick a less experienced running-mate, who has more experience (they could argue) than Obama, who can bring a real outsiders perspective to the West Wing.

According to Jonathan Martin, the Obama people are already mocking her lack of experience. But, I think the Obama campaign might want to note an old proverb about glass houses.

First, Sarah Palin is running for vice president, while Obama is running for president. There should be a higher threshold for the latter, but I think that the argument could be made that Palin is nearly as experienced as Obama.

Obama has no experience as a chief executive of any arm of government. Most of Palin's experience is at the executive level. The Obama campaign is mocking that she represented a community of 5-7 thousand people (it grew substantially during her tenure), but Obama's folks should note she led that community, not just represented it, while Obama's experience comes largely from being the non-executive representative of a Senate district with about 60,000 people. When one is discussing the leadership of a country of 300,000,000 people the difference between 6,000 and 60,000 is minute.

So let's do a little bit of a blow-by-blow comparison.

From 1992-1996, Palin was a non-executive member of town council, Obama had no political experience

From 1997-2004, Palin was the chief executive of her town, ran unsuccessfully for lieutenant governor and served for two years as Ethics Commissioner on the state utility regulator, Obama was a non-executive member of the Illinois Senate and ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. House of representatives

From 2005-2008, Palin continued as chief executive of her town until becoming governor in December 2006 where she has served since, Obama was a non-executive member of the U.S. Senate and after two years ran essentially full-time for president

Oops, I did it again

No surprise here folks, I got a prediction wrong. Though I had a good chance to nuance, I instead opted to double-down on my May prediction that there was no way Obama would pick Biden. As I often say at this stage, while wiping the egg away, my predictions are biased in terms of what I think would make the most sense and I have a hard time predicting that someone will make the wrong choice.

As potentially the biggest fan of Joe Biden in the world (or at least in Canada), it pains me to reiterate that I think he was a bone-headed choice for Obama. McCain launched within hours an ad using Biden against Obama. There is lots more roll around to do a series of ads. A candidate with Biden's strengths who didn't run against Obama and wasn't as tied to today's Washington (i.e. Sam Nunn) would have made more sense to me. It would have brought nearly as much to the ticket without doing collateral damage. However, in the end, I think the wisest choice would have been to double-down on change with Kathleen Sebelius.

The Obama campaign thought otherwise, and time will tell whether it works out for them.

In the coming days McCain will make his choice. I'll open myself up for another big fall: I think his floating the idea of Ridge or Lieberman (pro-choicers) is meant to show to the general electorate that he is not close-minded on that question and would not disqualify someone simply on those grounds, and will say so when he makes his announcement. However, in the end he won't actually choose a pro-choice candidate so as to keep the base behind him.

In addition to the candidates I've named as possibilities for the spot, I'd like to add Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska. A lot may depend on the result of today's primary where the state's Lieutenant Governor, and Palin protogé, is running against the incumbent Republican for the right to run for the U.S. House of Representatives. Palin may be reluctant to accept the veep nomination if it means both her and Sean Parnell are running for national office which would mean, in the event they both won, control of the state would be handed back to the corrupt wing of the Alaska Republican Party she has recently defeated for control (UPDATE: This may not be as big of a concern, Palin's attorney general would succeed as governor, though this individual would arguably be more vulnerable than Palin or Parnell and the idea of both running for national office would still be a concern).

Palin is a strong candidate in a lot of ways. She is a reformer who has beaten down the corruption in Alaska which is so severe it would make most of the dirty tricksters in Washington blush. She is an outsider which will help provide credibility to McCain's argument that he would change how things are done. She is a woman who could help McCain make further inroads into the alienated Clinton voter and who has a compelling life story. The religious right would be totally energized by her candidacy and might turn out in similar-to-2004-numbers for a mother of five who is ardently pro-life.

If the Obama campaign or other Democrats want to criticize her for being inexperienced, McCain can say "I've served my country my whole life, first in the Navy, then in the House and then in the Senate. I want to be your president because I have always put my country first and through my experience, I think I can continue to do that as your president. Senator Obama, an outsider without a lot of experience, is criticizing Governor Palin's experience. Her experience is that of having battled corruption her whole time in public life and as serving as chief executive of a state. Senator Obama's experience consists of giving a popular speech in 2002, getting elected to the Senate in a race that was virtually non-contetested and after a year of few notable accomplishments there announcing his candidacy for president."

McCain's people will ask which is better - a change candidate without the experience to lead who needs to pick a Washington insider as his running mate in order to be sure he can govern or a change candidate with decades of service to country who is able to pick a less experienced running-mate, who has more experience (they could argue) than Obama, who can bring a real outsiders perspective to the West Wing.

I'll slot her into my list and slightly re-jig it. Rob Portman's star has faded somewhat and I think McCain is more apt to pick some like Palin or South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford - people who can help him take some ownership of the change message through McCain's record on reform / anti-corruption-and-pork-barrelling.

1. Sanford (raised from third)


2. Huntsman (no change)


3. Palin (new addition)


4. Portman (bumped from first)


5. Dole (bumped from fourth)


6. Watts (bumped from fifth)


7. Jindal (bumped from sixth)

VEEP!

So we're getting really close now. I am still confident on my lists posted ages ago. I posted McCain's veep possibilities back in February and Obama's in May, though I amended them slightly in early July. The only subsequent change is that Edwards should be, for obvious reasons, struck from the Obama list.

It looks like Obama will announce his pick tomorrow morning and McCain will on his birthday on August 29.

My top ranked pick since July 7 (and previously #2 pick), Kathleen Sebelius, has seen her name drop off of the radar but I do think she has a strong shot at being the pick. This thinking was reinforced by this tip I received today:

OBAMA WILL PICK SEBELIUS

Text msg/email announcement at 7 a.m. Eastern, Wednesday.

Event in Wichita, Kansas at 8 a.m. local (9 a.m. Eastern). Wichita is the birthplace of Obama's mother.

Obama and Sebelius will then fly to Virginia for an event at 11:30 a.m. and proceed on a tour of red states that may swing to Obama including Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, Colorado.

What About Biden?

Anyone that reads this blog, knows that it is no secret that I am a HUGE fan of Joe Biden. Unfortunately though, despite the hype, I don't think Biden is a likely pick. As I wrote in May:

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE)
I am a big fan of Joe Biden. I think he would have been an excellent presidential candidate this year but his campaign was DOA. Those who argue Biden would make a good VP candidate for Obama cite his many years of experience. He was elected to the Senate in 1972 before turning the required-to-serve-age of 30. He was considered to be almost certainly the Secretary of State had John Kerry won in 2004. He has served as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and currenly serves as chair of the Foreign Relations Committee. His plan to bring peace to Iraq has been lauded and was endorsed by a bipartisan super majority of the Senate. Some have even suggested, sort of sarcastically, that Obama needs a racist as a running mate and that Biden fits that bill from his comments about Obama when Biden entered the presidential race.

However, I don't think Biden is the right guy for Obama. Though he needs someone with experience, he needs it in the form of someone who can also be credibly billed as a "Washington outsider". Obama's whole campaign, particularly when postured against McCain, is that McCain has served in the Senate too long and is out of touch with America. Biden has served almost twice as long as McCain, so his candidacy would make no sense.

In any event, exciting political times these next few months. I'll try to ramp my posts back up to cover it.

Obama veep update 2

NBTaxpayer's pick, and my 4th ranked pick, Jim Webb has withdrawn his name from consideration.

So, to update, here is my current list:


1. Katherine Sebelius (moved up one due to Clark being dropped down)


2. Sam Nunn (moved up one due to Clark being dropped down)


3. Wes Clark (dropped from 1st)


4. Howard Dean (new addition)


5. Lincoln Chafee (no change)


6. John Edwards (no change)


7. Hillary Clinton (no change)


8. Blanche Lincoln (no change)


9. Evan Bayh (no change)

More veepstakes

Very simple but smart historical-to-present veep possibility comparison.

Obama veep update

Back in May, I wrote about my thoughts for the Obama veepstakes. The most likely candidate in my view was Wes Clark, who has probably knocked himself down the ladder a bit over the past few days making sensible but politically incorrect statements about John McCain's military service vis-à-vis qualifications for the presidency. Though some argue it may help him.

In my view, it hurts him a bit, but Clark is still a compelling vice-presidential choice for Obama. I would move him down from the number 1 slot to 3rd or 4th (behind Nunn or Webb).

This is however a name I didn't consider before that I should throw in there.

Howard Dean

This sounds very irrational at first glance, but Howard Dean is a lot different than the caricature that has been drawn by the media.

Dean governed Vermont as a moderate and the Progressive Party grew stronger under his tenure due to his weakness on the left. Did you know that was endorsed eight times by the national rifle association? He also said he wanted to be the candidate for "guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks". This could be helpful in the Mountain West where gun control is the one thing holding Obama back and in the winnable states in the South (Virginia primarily but also North Carolina, Arkansas, Florida).

He was also a fiscal conservative who insisted on balanced budgets. Anti-pork much in the same vein as McCain.

He is an outsider and reformer which fits Obama's message and has already been vetted by the national media. He and Obama share a 50-state competitiveness goal for the Democratic Party.

Dean could be a real outlier in the veepstakes. Watch for it.

Morons

I am a little flabbergasted at the short-sightedness of the CBC on potentially dropping the Hockey Night in Canada theme apparently due to an inability to afford it (h/t Kits via Spink About It)

The last time CBC tried to drop an icon because of budgetary concerns there was chaos. No offense Ron, but I think the HNIC theme is even more iconic than you. Watch out CBC, trouble is a comin'.

Barack H. Obama Junior Veepstakes

As I promised way back on February 20, and delivered for John Sidney McCain III on February 24, here is my take on Barack Obama's likely vice-presidential candidate candidates and the selection process therefore.

As I said in looking at McCain's choices:

It is often said that the vice president serves two purposes: 1) to balance the ticket, 2) DO NO HARM! (to win more votes than he or she would lose).

What does Obama need for balance? Region, age, experience, race and party unity could all come in to play. A lot of parallels have been drawn between Obama's campaign and that of Bill Clinton in 1992. In that case, Clinton largely doubled down on the balance question by presenting another young southern centrist, though one with more federal and foreign experience. Obama might chose another young reformer, to reinforce his message of changing Washington while running against a man who has worked on Capitol Hill since the late 1970s. On the other hand, when running against a well experienced, older war hero, he might opt for a more traditional balance choice in chosing someone older, more experienced who is either a war hero or who has military credentials.

I'll lay out all of the candidates I've been able to find listed, and add some of my own, and give a brief run down on my thoughts. I'll then give you a final ranked list of who I think is most likely.

Without further ado, in alphabetical order:

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN)
Bayh is an attractive candidate having served for eight years as governor of Indiana, a traditionally Republican state which some have argued could be in play under the right circumstances, and as its senator since 1999. After briefly considering his own run for the White House, he endorsed and has been a very strong supporter of Hillary Clinton and thus could bring unity to the ticket. He has served on both the Armed Forces and Intelligence committees in the Senate giving him national security credentials, however he has never served in the military.

On the other hand, Bayh is noted as being not very charismatic and has likely tarnished his creditials in terms of being able to swing Indiana in favour of the top of the ticket after Clinton barely won his state despite demographic favourability and momentum coming out of Pennsylvania.

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE)
I am a big fan of Joe Biden. I think he would have been an excellent presidential candidate this year but his campaign was DOA. Those who argue Biden would make a good VP candidate for Obama cite his many years of experience. He was elected to the Senate in 1972 before turning the required-to-serve-age of 30. He was considered to be almost certainly the Secretary of State had John Kerry won in 2004. He has served as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and currenly serves as chair of the Foreign Relations Committee. His plan to bring peace to Iraq has been lauded and was endorsed by a bipartisan super majority of the Senate. Some have even suggested, sort of sarcastically, that Obama needs a racist as a running mate and that Biden fits that bill from his comments about Obama when Biden entered the presidential race.

However, I don't think Biden is the right guy for Obama. Though he needs someone with experience, he needs it in the form of someone who can also be credibly billed as a "Washington outsider". Obama's whole campaign, particularly when postured against McCain, is that McCain has served in the Senate too long and is out of touch with America. Biden has served almost twice as long as McCain, so his candidacy would make no sense.

Mayor Mike Bloomberg (I-NY)
For all of the opposite reasons that Biden doesn't make sense, Bloomberg doesn't make sense either. Obama is going to be painted by the Republicans as an out-of-touch liberal. Bloomberg makes the cariacture complete. Besides, I can't imagine he would be interested in being vice president anyway.

Fmr. Sen. Bill Bradley (D-NJ)
Bradley makes a lot of sense on paper. He has many years of experience in Washington, yet is viewed as an outsider. His chances however would be somewhat damaged due to his left-wing campaign for president in 2000 in which he abandoned some of his previously moderate positions. The fact that he has endorsed Obama and opposed the establishment candidate Gore in 2000 would make it difficult for him to help unify with the Clinton wing of the party.

However, he would have an outside chance of being nominated as a candidate who meshes with Obama, has an outsider image and has experience.

Sen. Bob Casey, Jr. (D-PA)
This name has been floated, as near as I can tell, only because Casey was the senior Pennsylvanian to support Obama. However, he has been in the Senate for barely a year and is pro-life. I can't imagine him being picked.

Fmr. Sen. Lincoln Chafee (I-RI)
A former liberal Republican senator from New England who, after being defeated for being a Republican, became independent and endorsed Obama's presidential candidacy could actually be an interesting choice for Obama. One of the biggest challenges that Obama faces will be McCain's ability to attract Rockefeller Republicans who have voted Democratic in recent elections, particularly in states like Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut and New Jersey which I believe McCain puts in play. Chafee, unlike McCain, is a real liberal Republican and could neutralize that effect. And, indeed, Chafee is a strong liberal (by American standards) like Obama so they would mesh well on policy issues. However, due to his having been a Republican senator until 2006, he would be prevented from being painted as too far left. This could be a real darkhorse choice for Obama.

Ret. Gen. Wes Clark (D-AR)
Notwithstanding his poor showing in the 2004 Democratic primaries, Wes Clark is likely a frontrunner, or at least should be, for the veep slot on the Obama ticket. Clark has oodles of military experience to bring to the ticket without Washington baggage and has been a strong Clinton supporter who could help unify the party. Moreover, a southern White former general goes a long was to neutralize John McCain's military credentials and the fears of southern White traditional Democrats who are reluctant to support Obama.

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
This makes so little sense and so much sense all at the same time, that Politico.com actually posted a piece by the same authors arguing both sides of the issue.

I don't think that Clinton would be legitimately interested in this route. And her long standing divisive role in Washington politics takes away from Obama's central message. Obama would be better served to nominate an outsider like Clark who supported Clinton but doesn't have her baggage.

That said however, Obama will face a lot of pressure to offer the slot to Clinton and Clinton, if she truly believes Obama is going to lose either way, would be smart to run with him so as to innoculate herself against claims that she tried to sabotage his campaign and thus enable her to get the nomination in 2012.

Fmr. Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD)
Back in January, I floated his name for this gig. However, the more I think about it, the less likely I think it is. Daschle was the ultimate insider (Senate majority leader), yet had little play on military and foreign policy issues while in the Senate. He has been a long time Obama supporter and thus cannot unify the party. The Republicans have ample anti-Daschle research done and proved effective from their successful campaign to defeat him in 2004. Not a wise pick.

Fmr. Sen. John Edwards (D-NC)
John Edwards would be a good choice. He appeals to the same rural white voters that Clinton has been beating Obama for, but much more so. In fact, had Edwards not dropped when he did, I wonder if he might be running second now and Clinton third. Edwards proved a very able candidate both in the nomination in 2004 and 2008 and as the vice-presidential candidate in 2004. John Kerry supporters lament the fact that he was not loyal enough after Kerry threw away the 2004 campaign but, afterall, Kerry threw away the 2004 campaign. [Much of this post, including this blurb on Edwards has been in the works for a while. I wrote about Edwards before he endorsed Obama. I think that that endorsement makes Edwards a less likely veep pick because he alienated Clinton supporters by trying to strong-arm her out of the race with his strategically timed endorsement of Obama. He would however remain a very strong choice for the reasons stated here.]

Fmr. VP Al Gore (D-TN)
The fact that this totally unlikely scenario gets any ink makes me laugh. Gore might top a ticket with Obama as veep if there was a brokered convention (which there won't be) but he certainly won't run for a third vice-presidential term. Period.

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
Barack Obama is against the Iraq War. Chuck Hagel is against the Iraq War. On every single other issue imagable, the liberal Democrat and conservative Republican strongly disagree. This idea has little basis in reality and, like Gore, ink should not be wasted on the proposition. Hagel is a likely pick however for an Obama cabinet were he to win the presidency.

Fmr. Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-IN)
Lee Hamilton, as former vice-chair of the commission on the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, certainly has strong national security credentials. However he is old, frail looking and without charisma. Obama could get as good (or nearly as good) credentials by looking elsewhere.

Gov. Tim Kaine (D-VA)
Tim Kaine may be the only person on this list with less-to-equal experience compared to Barack Obama. Kaine has four years as lieutentant governor and about two as governor. Obama has six years as state senator and about three as federal senator. Kaine would certainly reinforce the outsider image presented by Obama but it would also reinforce his image as lacking depth on national security and so forth. Moreover, it would hand the governorship of Democratic-trending Virginia over to the Republican lieutentant governor.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
Senator Lincoln is from Arkansas and has strong appeal to rural, southern Whites. She is female and a supporter of Hillary Clinton from the former Clinton home state. These factors make her a possibility, but her lack of foreign policy experience does not help Obama balance the ticket.

Gov. Janet Napolitano (D-AZ)
No national security experience. No charisma. Villain of the right for having represented the infamous woman who accused Clarence Thomas of being sexist during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings. I can't imagine she would be being considered if she weren't a female governor.

Fmr. Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA)
Nunn mused about running for president himself if a "post-partisan" candidate didn't emerge. Nunn and his co-conspirators (Bloomberg, David Boren, etc) now seem to have settled on Obama as their candidate. This would seem to make Nunn a good fit. Add to this the fact that Nunn has impeccible national security credentials and has been gone from Washington long enough to make him a plausible outsider and he starts to seem a very good fit. Moreover, if Obama is serious about making a play in Georgia and the Carolinas, this is the man to help him.

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)
The only time I saw this floated was in reference to an odd plan in which Hillary was convinced to drop out in exchange for the Senate leadership and Reid was convinced to give up the Senate leadership in exchange for the vice presidential nomination. That doesn't make a lot of sense. However, Reid is a compelling candidate for other reasons. He is a popular moderate from the Mountain West which Obama wants to put in play. Carrying Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico is key to an Obama victory plan.

Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM)
Richardson on the surface seems a compelling candidate. A former presidential contender himself with virtually unending experience in all things government who has (or had before endorsing Obama) close ties to the Clintons. Another plus, he is the governor of a swing state that Obama probably needs to win and a strong leader among Latinos where Obama needs to do some work. However, Richardson has a lot of baggage including lying for decades about being drafted to MLB and allegations of sexual harrassment.

Fmr. Rep. Tim Roemer (D-IN)
Roemer served in Washington for a number of years but was never considered an insider. He has considerable national security experience having been the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee and a member of the commission on the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Roemer would not be necessarily very palatable to Democrats due to his pro-life and general moderate-to-conservative stances on a number of issues.

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS)
Unlike the other female governor on this list, Sebelius has a real shot at being on Obama's ticket. Sebelius is a rising star in the Democratic Party and has been twice elected governor of Kansas despite being a liberal-to-moderate on issues such as gay marriage, abortion and capital punishment. She would bring strong executive experience to the ticket without diminishing its credential as being "outside the beltway". She also brings advantages to the ticket being a native Ohioan (her father was in fact that governor of that state) and having summered her whole life in Michigan - two large states that Obama needs to carry. Though it would be unlikely she could put Kansas in play, she could be helpful in critical states like Iowa and Missouri. Finally, she is a Catholic and Obama has struggled with that key demographic in the primaries.

The only drawbacks to a Sebelius candidacy would be her lack of foreign policy experience, which the ticket needs, and superficially her awkward last name.

Gov. Ted Strickland (D-OH)
Strickland is the governor of a key swing state and was a big Clinton supporter. These are the only real advantages I can see him bringing to the ticket. He has been governor for barely a year and prior to that was in Congress where he didn't have any roles relating to national security.

Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D-MT)
Though Schweitzer is very charismatic and comes from a state carried by Bill Clinton in 1992, he is not a very attractive candidate for vice president. He is a conservative Democrat who would not be embraced by the convention and Montana will not be in play - Clinton only carried it due to high numbers of votes received by Ross Perot at the expense of George H. W. Bush.

Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA)
Though Webb was just elected to the Senate in 2006, he has lots of experience to make him an attractive candidate for Obama. He is a veteran and served in the Reagan administration in senior defence roles before switching from Republican to Democrat in recent years. He is an authentic and popular southerner. However, he does not do a lot for party unity.

Ret. Gen. Anthony Zinni (D-VA or PA)
Zinni has no real political experience and Wes Clark could bring as much to the table in a more effective manner.

The likely picks, in order of likelihood in my view:

1. Wes Clark


2. Katherine Sebelius


3. Sam Nunn


4. Jim Webb


5. Lincoln Chafee


6. John Edwards


7. Hillary Clinton


8. Blanche Lincoln


9. Evan Bayh

U.S. politics: Prospects for November

I have written before that I think Hillary Clinton is a far stronger candidate in the fall than Barack Obama. I have also written before that Obama has already wrapped up the nomination and Clinton's recent win in Pennsylvania doesn't change that.

But, in case I'm wrong, and if the "superdelegates" want to change things, here is the picture I see of how the race could unfold for either of the candidates. I expect that McCain would win in the fall against either Democrat. McCain's ability to appeal to moderate voters puts California and New England in play. I am not saying McCain will win in either (the former state or the latter region) but his ability to put them in play will distract the Democrats from expanding beyond their base from the 2000 and 2004 elections which means, to me, their likely best hope is status quo (a narrow Republican win). A lot of outside observers forget that moderates and conservatives make up the vast majority of the American electorate; unlike in Canada and Europe there is no large base of liberals. A Republican who can draw out large numbers of conservatives can win on that basis alone (see Bush, George W. and Rove, Karl), one that can appeal to moderates and still draw significant conservative support is unstoppable.

Now mind you 2008 is a far different animal than 2000 or 2004 and, certainly, in theory, the Democrats have lots of opportunities to expand. However, my view is that they'll have to leave those opportunities on the table because they'll be too busy defending their own turf from a McCain assault.

Thanks to the handy tool at 270towin.com, I have created six electoral college maps. For each of the two remaining Democratic candidates, I have created a worst-case, best-case and likely-case scenario based on my analysis of the race.

Barack Obama vs. John McCain

This is the race we are likely to see play out. The biggest problem Obama has is that the Democrats' two biggest states (California and New York) may be in play in an Obama vs. McCain race.

Obama has a problem with Hispanic voters. McCain was the principle sponsor of immigration reforms that are very popular with Hispanics. McCain comes from a state that has many Hispanics and he won among them by a 3-to-1 margin in his 2004 Senate race. Hispanics are a key voting bloc in California. Despite conventional wisdom, the Democrats are not unstopable in California. In 2000 and 2004, George W. Bush, perhaps the most unpopular Republican in the history of that state, lost by only 12% and 9% respectively. McCain, who can count on some fairly strong Hispanic support and the enthusiastic support of popular governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, would only need to swing 5% of the Democratic vote his way to win. It is not all that likely that McCain could pull this off, but to prevent it Obama will have to spend a lot of time and money in the largest, most expensive state.

In New York, the Democrats tend to win by larger margins, but a recent poll shows that McCain would narrowly defeat both Clinton and Obama. Clinton has a natural base there and could recover more easily from the brusing primary fight to defeat McCain in the fall. Obama, on the other hand, would have a lot of work to do to make up a deficit in the second largest and second most expensive blue state.

Keeping this in mind, I would envision the following as the likely scenario in a McCain vs. Obama fight:


In this scenario Obama actually picks up three states from 2004: Iowa (where he is very popular and McCain is not), Nevada (where McCain's long support of using Yucca Mountain for nuclear waste storage will hurt him) and Virginia (which is trending Democratic and would be pushed over the top by enthusiasm among Black voters).

However, he is heavily damaged by losing the following: Michigan (McCain is popular and well-known here from strong primary campaigns in 2000 and 2008; Obama has written off this state time and time again in the 2008 primary process), New Hampshire (New Hampshire hearts McCain), New Jersey (this is a Democratic state that always seems to be on the verge of going Republican in recent elections [Kerry by only 7% in '04], McCain's appeal to moderates should push it over the edge), Pennsylvania (Obama has just proved that despite out-campaigning and outspending an opponent he can't seem to win here).

All of the above sounds fairly reasonable, no? The electoral college result in such a scenario: McCain 318 over Obama 220 in a landslide.

Now for the best case scenario for Obama:


In this scenario, Obama holds everything from 2004 and expands into Colorado, Iowa, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio and Virginia. Three of these states I had him win in the likely scenario, under this best case scenario he also wins Colorado (trending Democratic and Obama polls well there), New Mexico (this is a real stretch, but it is a competitive state having gone for Gore in 2000 and Bush in 2004 and Obama could keep the teeter-totter going), Missouri (always a close race and has gone with the winner in every election since 1904, save one), Ohio (the economy is bad and Obama could manage to tie McCain to Bush). Under this scenario he would also hold Michigan and Pennsylvania (for the same reason he won Ohio), New Hamphire (the Democrats did so well in 2006 they have a strong institutional advantage) and New Jersey (McCain gets tied to Bush and deemed too conservative to attract moderates).

The result would be an Obama landslide similar to that I project for McCain in the likely scenario: 325-213. However, that is the very best case and I think no more likely than the worst case I'll lay out below which would be a total electoral blow out.



Under this scenario, an admittedly worst-case for Obama, the Democrat would win only his home state of Illonois, liberal Vermont and ultra-Democratic Washington, D.C. The electoral vote total would be 511 to 27. Ouch.

This may sound totally unrealistic to you but this is not a totally unheard of result for a Republican candidate. In 1972, the not-to-popular Richard Nixon crushed George McGovern 520 to 17. I've often compared Obama to McGovern as they both have the same base: enthusiastic anti-war youth. I drew out this map and began writing this post before I read this intelligent piece which draws the comparison as well. A similar result was seen in 1984, when Ronald Reagan was re-elected with 525 electoral votes to 13. Indeed, even in 1980, when Reagan (who is similar to McCain in his style and appeal to moderates) beat an incumbent president by an electoral college margin of 489 to 49.

So Obama's best-case scenario is to beat McCain by the same margin that McCain is likely to beat Obama by. His worst case scenario is to be crushed horribly. While I still think Clinton would likely lose to McCain, I'll lay out why I think it would be closer and how she could prevent the crushing defeat that Obama might face and indeed would have a better chance to win.

Hillary Clinton vs. John McCain

Running this race out is like playing fantasy baseball because it is so incredibly unlikely that Clinton can win the nomination. I would say that Barack Obama at this point has at least an 80% chance of winning the nomination and Clinton is probably in the neighbourhood of 10%. Right now, I think if for some reason Obama seemed unpalatable, a compromise candidate at the convention would be as likely as Clinton taking it. (See Thatcher vs. Heseltine for an example of the scorced-earth result Clinton could face by tearing down Obama).

Anyway, Clinton's unliklihood of winning the nomination is quite different from her strength as a general election candidate. Clinton's base in New York keeps that state out of play and she doesn't have a Hispanic problem thus preventing any realistic appeal from McCain to this group. This in and of itself means that, with Clinton as the nominee, the Democrats would not have to waste resources to hold their two biggest states totalling an astonishing 84 electoral votes (31% of the total needed to win the election) between them. Even if we assume that Clinton would trail Obama in fundraising prowess in the general election by as large a margin as she does in the primary (which is unlikely, though Obama could likely still raise more, it wouldn't be as stark a difference) this factor alone erases any monetary discrepency.

In the meantime, Clinton (and her husband, the campaign-surrogate-in-chief who would be much better suited to campaign against a Republican than a fellow Democrat) would be far stronger in the "rust belt" allowing her to hold Michigan and Pennsylvania and put Ohio in play for the Democrats. This strength would also put Florida into strong contention, a large state tha Obama has zero hope of winning. Also, Arkansas, which has become a reliable Republican state since the Clintons left office, would be strongly in the Democratic column.

This is the main difference. In an Obama vs. McCain race, McCain plays offense. In a Clinton vs. McCain race, McCain plays defence.

Despite this, I think McCain's overriding strengths would still allow him to win, though by a narrower margin.



The result I predict would be a nail-biter of 275 for McCain to 263 for Clinton (compare with 318 to 220 in McCain vs. Obama).

In this scenario, Clinton would pick up a lot of turf from the Republicans. Adding to the 2004 Democratic totals, she would win: Arkansas (Clinton home state), Missouri (swing state with fond memories of Clinton), Nevada (McCain has a Yucca Monutain problem), New Mexico (ultra-close state where Clinton doesn't have a Hispanic problem), Ohio (fond memories of Clinton) and West Virginia (Clinton appeal to rural white traditional Democratic voters).

McCain would make history, becoming only the second president since 1904 to lose Missouri and win the White House and, I believe, the only Republican to ever win the White House without carrying Ohio. He would do this largely due to his strength among voters who like "mavericks" and Clinton's weakness in that area. On top of 2004 states for the Republicans, McCain would carry: Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Wisconsin.

This race would be a tremendous one with close races in Florida (narrowly lost by Clinton), Missouri (narrowly lost by McCain) and Oregon (narrowly lost by McCain).

I can't underline enough how much better a scenario this is for Democrats than with Obama as the nominee. In an Obama-McCain race, I give McCain a 70+% chance of victory. In a Clinton-McCain race, McCain's odds are more like 55% or a bit less.

Now, here's how Clinton could win big:


This map may look familiar to you because it is a lot like the maps we saw in the 1990s under her husband. Indeed, by coincidence, though the map isn't exactly the same, the electoral college result precisely matches the 1996 race between Bill Clinton and Bob Dole.

In this race, vs. 2004, Clinton would hold all of the Democratic states but she would also pick up: Arkansas (see above [wins it even in the likely scenario]), Florida (even under the likely scenario, Clinton would come close here), Iowa (neither Clinton or McCain are popular here, but it would swing her way if she was winning big), Kentucky (the Clintons' experience in Arkansas has taught them how to campaign in a state like this), Louisiana (thanks to Katrina, this one would be pretty marginal but she could skid through if she was doing well overall), Missouri (see above), Nevada (see above), New Mexico (see above), Ohio (see above), Tennessee (see Kentucky), Virginia (this state is trending Democratic and though it doesn't favour Clinton as much as Obama, she could win it if she ran strong) and West Virginia (see above).

That sort of outcome should make Democrats' mouths water.

And even in the worst case scenario, it's not that bad...


Ok, it is pretty bad for the Democrats. But compared to Obama's worst case it is ok. She would lose by a large margin of 395 to 143.

Here Clinton would still manage to pick up Arkansas, but McCain would sweep through many of the remaing states. The only thing saving Clinton from the Obama wipeout scenario is her ability to hold California and New York under all scenarios.

The moral of the story? McCain is a very formidable candidate. While Obama has the potential to open new doors for Democrats in states where they've not recently been strong, this is not the election to try such a strategy. It would have been great against Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole or George W. Bush. But Republicans like Reagan and McCain have such a strong appeal to so many people that the only way to beat them is to focus on your own strengths.

A shocking statistic

We all know that Barack Obama has been picking up more than his fair share of the Black vote in most states but the results of the CNN exit poll in the deep south state of Mississippi give one pause:



Clinton takes 3/4 Whites and Obama takes 9/10 Blacks. A real stark contrast; one that makes me very grateful that (at least I'd like to think) we live in a country where racial tensions pale in comparison.

U.S. politics: So now what?

Last night gave me two consecutive humiliating losses in the prediction game. After being way out to lunch in Alberta, Hillary Clinton blew the lid off of my projections. She managed to win Rhode Island by a far larger margin than I guessed, won Ohio, won Texas (which I said she might do) and may even win the Texas Caucus - with only a third of the results counted, she trails Obama by 4 points, about the same margin she trailed him by when that number of primary votes had been counted.

Hillary Clinton had a very good night last night. In fact, if she pulls off a win in the Texas caucuses, it may well be the best possible night she could have had. That said though, it is still over for her and she will take her surge last night and use it to really painfully drag out the inevitable.

Right now Obama can rightfully point out that, since Tsunami Tuesday, he has won 12 states and Clinton has won 3. Let's look at what's coming up:

Saturday - Wyoming Caucus
Tuesday - Mississippi Primary
Six Tuesday's later - Pennsylvania Primary

Obama has won a plurality of delegates in every single caucus to date. With the exception of Nevada, he has won them all convincingly. Indeed, if you don't count Nevada or Iowa (which was a three-way race), he has won them all by 20 points or more, in many cases much more. Even if Clinton goes into Wyoming and campaigns hard with a huge surge of momentum, Obama will win by at least 10 points. And she isn't likely to focus too much time there.

Obama repeated his feat last night, which we've seen over and over, of winning almost 90% of the Black vote. Mississippi has the largest proportion of Blacks of any state; he will carry it hugely.

So, after next Tuesday, there will be a six week unfettered slog fest in Pennsylvania during which time Obama will be able to tout a record of 14-3, which is pretty good. Clinton may or may not be able to win Pennsylvania. Let's assume she does, the journey thereafter isn't impossible but still is not an easy one for her:

Indiana (Clinton favoured), North Carolina (Obama favoured), West Virginia (Clinton favoured), Kentucky (Clinton favoured), Oregon (Obama favoured), Montana (toss up), South Dakota (toss up)

It is now mathematically impossible (barring one of the candidates dropping out and allowing the other one to sweep the remaining primaries by huge margins) for either candidate to win enough delegates to clinch the nomination without the support of superdelegates. Regardless of what happens, Obama will go into the convention with an edge among pledged delegates. Therefore Clinton can only win by winning a very large majority of superdelegates. The only way she can do that is to a) run the table, beating Obama in states he is expected to win, thus giving superdelegates the view that Obama was a fad that cannot last; b) for Obama to be engulfed in a huge scandal. Neither of these outcomes seems likely to me.

Moving on to the Republican race. Last night, John McCain accrued enough delegates to convince the media to call him the de facto nominee. Mike Huckabee withdrew from the race and George W. Bush is set to endorse McCain at the White House today. I am not sure what McCain's plan is, but if I were advising him, I would send him out on a big campaign tour. The reason why I have said that John McCain will win the general election easily is that he can put states in play that have not been in play for the Republicans since at least 1988. He may not win many, or even any, of these states, but by campaigning there he will force the Democrats to do so as well, leaving the "swing states" unattended and thus in the Republican column.

McCain should go on a straight talk 50-state tour and visit, if even only briefly, each of the 50 states to hammer home the message that he plans to compete across the board. During this tour, he should focus very strongly on Democratic states that he can win or at least put in a good fight:

The swing states that have gone for Democrats in recent years: New Hampshire, Iowa, New Mexico and Pennsylvania. States that have been consistently Democratic but the Republicans do well: Michigan, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Minnesota. And then some strong Democratic states where McCain can play: Connecticut (where he leads in the polls over both Obama and Clinton!), California, Oregon, Maine, Maryland, etc.

This will scare the living daylights out of Democrats and probably lead to an even bloodier Democratic primary where elders supporting each candidate will loudly try to force the opposite one out of the race so that McCain will not go unanswered in those states they have won and need to win.

Regardless, it should be interesting.

This week's predictions

Monday in Alberta:

• Ed Stemach's Progressive Conservatives: 47 (majority)


• Kevin Taft's Alberta Liberals: 26


• Paul Hinman's Wildrose Alliance: 5


• Brian Mason's NDP: 4


• Others: 1

Tuesday in America:

• Texas: Clinton may win the popular vote in the primary but not necessarily the delegates; Obama will win the most votes and most delegates in the caucus. Confused? It's complicated.


• Ohio: Obama will win narrowly.


• Rhode Island: Clinton will win by single digits.


• Vermont: Obama will win by double digits.

If Clinton manages to win both Ohio and Texas (I doubt she can win Texas outright, but it could be enough of a moral victory for her to move on if she wins the primary), Clinton should beware the Ides of March(ish) as she is sure to lose BIG in both Mississippi and Wyonming on March 11. I am not sure how she holds on for the six week campaign in Pennsylvania if she has lost 14 out of 17 contests in a row, fought one to a draw and won only two (this would assume a win in Ohio and Rhode Island and a win in the Texas primary but loss in the caucus and delegate total). As I wrote a couple of weeks ago, it is all over for Clinton, it is just a matter of when. If she is smart, she will go gracefully and politely after Tuesday, which will still allow her to either a) have a good shot at the nomination in 2012; or b) become Senate Majority Leader, which has always seemed to be her "plan B". If she sticks in much longer, I think she loses both of those fall back options.

John S. McCain the Third Veepstakes

It is often said that the vice president serves two purposes: 1) to balance the ticket, 2) DO NO HARM! (to win more votes than he or she would lose).

For balancing purposes, McCain needs to do two things: a) choose another conservative who hasn't irked the Republican base as he has - so as to unite the party, b) someone with stronger credentials on the economy.

The Democrats will use, to some success, the infamous 2005 quote where McCain said he didn't know much about the economy. He could use his vice presidential candidate to help fight this.

I will start by, irrespective of the requirements, naming two pet possibilities:

Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-NC)
Fmr. Gov. Jeb Bush (R-FL)

Why? Because every Republican ticket since 1952, save one, has had a Nixon, Dole or Bush on it and I am amused by such historical oddities.

Dole would probably satisfy all of the requirements I set out. She is a solid conservative (ACU rating of 96) and, as a former labor secretary, has knowledge of the economy. She is also a classy lady who would warm voters hearts and certainly not lose votes. Her main disadvantage is that she is the same age as McCain and he'll probably want to balance the ticket with age as well. Moreover, she is running for re-election this year (and will be nominated in May) so that could make her an awkward veep candidate, though didn't stop Gore from choosing Lieberman in 2000.

Bush satisfies the conservative and economic qualifiers but, by virtue of his surname would probably cost McCain votes especially in that he would aid the Democrats in painting the Arizonan as Bush III.

Now on to others, (in alphabetical order):

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Brownback is certainly a conservative (ACU rating of 87), and even more especially a social conservative. After abandoning his ill-fated bid for the presidency he endorsed McCain which might be viewed as a plus. However, his support of McCain's immigration reform doesn't make him a very good candidate for bringing in the base. Moreover, he doesn't have much economic experience.

Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC)
An early supporter of McCain, Burr is a strong conservative (ACU rating of 92). He is young and has some experience but little focused on the economy. He voted on both sides of the immigration bill but unlike McCain and Brownback was not an unabashed supporter of it.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Though he is certainly a solid conservative (ACU rating of 100!), this former physician has been to the far, hard right on a number of issues which would likely turn off McCain. Moreover, he lacks experience on the economy.

Gov. Charlie Crist (R-FL)
Crist's endorsement of McCain on the eve of the Florida primary may have pushed the Arizonan over the top and that win in Florida is what sealed the nomination, thus some favours are certainly owed here! However, Crist doesn't have a strong record as a conservative and Florida is likely to vote Republican with or without him on the ticket.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
A fairly solid conservative (ACU rating of 83), Graham was a strong backer of immigration reform and doesn't have a lot of depth on economic issues. He doesn't balance the ticket.

Fmr. Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR)
Huckabee was for a long time considered a favourite for a VP candidate, however, McCain is distrusted by some economic conservatives as is Huckabee. He would not be a good fit for McCain.
Gov. Jon Huntsman (R-UT)
Huntsman, a Mormon and governor of Utah, bucked many of his fellow members of the LDS church and fellow Utahans by packing John McCain over fellow Mormon Mitt Romney. He has foreign policy experience (a former ambassador) and economic experience (a former deputy U.S. trade representative and a successful governor overseeing a booming economy). He is young and conservative and could be a surprise choice by McCain.

Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA)
A former congressman and freshly elected governor, Jindal is a solid conservative (ACU rating of 92) and particularly a strong social conservative. He is only 36 and thus barely eligible for the vice-presidency (one must by 35) but has a remarkable amount of experience for his age. He was in the Louisiana cabinet at 25, ran a
national commission on medicare at 27, was named president of the University of Louisiana at 28 and was appointed as an Assistant Secretary in the federal health department at 30. He has had tremendous success in health care issues and the Democrats will be trying to make that a major issue in the election. Moreover, his multiculturalism could be the Republican answer to Barack Obama. Like Huntsman, he is another darkhorse.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN)
This fellow seems to be the darling choice of the media. Pawlenty was the strongest and steadiest supporter of McCain through the dark period of 2007 when the latter's campaign seemed to be over. However, he is not a strong conservative and therefore would be a poor choice for ticket balance.

Fmr Rep., Int'l Trade Amb. and White House Budget guy Rob Portman (R-OH)
Portman isn't a household name, but he has lots of experience. He was a congressman for 8 years (getting an ACU rating of 88 in his last year) and served for 2 years as a junior member of the Bush cabinet (first as International Trade Representative [essentially the U.S. trade minister] and then as White House budget director [eseentially a finance minister in a minority government, with less leaway]). He is highly regarded among Washington insiders and is attractive and charismatic. Moreover, Ohio will be a key state (as it was in 2004) and he could help keep it in the Republican column.

Gov. Sonny Purdue (R-GA)
Purdue is only 10 years younger than McCain, has no national profile, no international experience and no tremendous economic record to present. Why he has appeared on some lists as a potential pick escapes me.

Fmr. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge (R-PA)
A former congressman from and governor of Pennsylvania, the current Democratic governor of the swing state (which went Democratic by small margins in 2000 and 2004) said Ridge would push the state into the Republican column. Though he is not a solid conservative (he got a 61 rating from the ACU his last year in congress), he is well regarded for his stewardship of the terror file by conservatives and is a key Bush ally. He has supported McCain since day one and seems close to the Senator and delivering Pennsylvania would almost guarantee a victory for the Republicans. (See "UPDATE" below)

Gov. Mike Sanford (R-SC)
A solid conservative (ACU rating of 92) and a compatriot of McCain in the anti-pork spending crusade, Sanford could be a good way to balance the ticket and to please McCain.

Fmr. Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN)
Thompson is a solid conservative and an old friend of McCain's from the Senate and from the latter's 2000 presidential run. Had he not run for president, or run and done better, I would imagine him as a frontrunner for the McCain VP nod. However, owing to his disappointing performance when he was running to be at the top of the ticket, I dought he would be tapped to run at the bottom.

Fmr. Rep. J.C. Watts (R-OK)
Watts, one of view Black Republicans ever elected to national office, is a strong conservative (ACU rating of 96) and was always considered a rising star before he opted to honour his committment to only serve three terms. Still relatively young, he could be a good fit for McCain.

No way Jose: The following names have been mentioned but would never be pick

First, McCain is on the record saying that he doesn't expect that the
party would nominate a pro-choice VP candidate. That rules out the
following who are sometimes mentioned:

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)
Fmr. Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY)
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT)
Fmr. Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA)*
Fmr. Secretary of State Colin Powell (R-NY)
Sen. Olympia Snowne (R-ME)
Fmr. Gov. Christie Todd-Whitman (R-NJ)

Secretary of State Condi Rice (R-CA) may or may not be pro-choice, but her closeness to the Bush administration and unknown performance is true political arena would prevent her from being chosen.

*- Although Romney is now pro-life his previous positions on this and
many other issues would violate the "do no harm" principle

The likely picks, in order of likelihood in my view:

1. Portman


2. Huntsman


3. Sanford


4. Dole


5. Watts


6. Jindal


NOTES: ACU ratings for the most recent year of service have been used; the list contains all names I have been able to find on veep lists + some of my own (Thompson, Dole and Watts).

UPDATE: An earlier version of this post included Tom Ridge as the #4 most likely pick, however I have since learned he is pro-choice and thus not so likely. (h/t Jonathan Martin)

Pre-debate predictions

March 4th is still aways away and there could be a knock-out punch or two thrown in one of the two Democratic debates to come (including one tonight), but here are my predictions for next week.

Clinton wins Texas and Rhode Island
Obama wins Ohio and Vermont

Clinton drops out.

ALSO: More on that McCain thing, I wrote a pretty bold headline last night after watching this on CNN:

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: Folks, we can talk about a lot of things here tonight but with this story breaking, and the accusations against Senator McCain suggesting, intimating, a relationship with this woman going back eight years ...

GOODWIN: Well --

DOBBS: I just don't see how we can go beyond this. I think we've got to focus on this and try to understand this as best we can.

GOODWIN: Also, Lou, if the allegations are correct it's an affair but it also involves she's a lobbyist and according to "The Times" and involves doing favors for her clients. So there's not just a personal life issue. There's a governmental issue, particularly for McCain and the sense of rectitude that he conveys.

DOBBS: The instinct here is to say this is the man's personal life, why deal with it, but in this instance, the suggestions are quite a bit stronger and broader.

HALPERIN: Well, I think there's a couple of things and I think Michael hit two of them very smartly. One is McCain's greatest strength is this public image of rectitude, that he's a man of honor. And this is a potential problem for him in that respect.

And then the other is, not the personal, but the fact that because she is a lobbyist, because she has clients with business before the committee that there's a potential for reporters to look more than "The Times" has into the question of whether her clients ever got special favors from Senator McCain. The story suggests that, talks about it. It's denied in the story but that does present a potential problem for him.

SHEINKOPF: And the campaign gifts or the other gifts that may or may not be illegal of private flights with someone who is not supposed to be there necessarily, how often did it occur, what else did they give him, all of the stuff will start to percolate.

DOBBS: And the journalism involved here coming out as it has before the paper is printed on the Web site, with the suggestion again that this has been in the works for awhile. Is the "New York Times" endorsing Democratic candidates and having done so for decades, is that timing suspect on the part of the journalistic organization in your mind?

SHEINKOPF: Not suspect in that way. Look, these are good reporters at "The New York Times." Some of them are terrific reporters. Jim Reutenberg is a very good reporter, someone I've known probably for most of the last 20, 25 years.

DOBBS: Me too.

SHEINKOPF: He's a good reporter, honorable and did his job.

Having seen the McCain story reported today, can you believe they were reading the same thing as us? Way over the top.

BREAKING NEWS: McCain scandal?

This NY Times story for tomorrow's print just broke on CNN. I am reading it myself now, but the allegation is McCain is having an affair with a lobbyist, and has been for years, and has done favours for her clients.

This would be the antithesis to McCain's whole political persona and might be the "miracle" Huckabee was looking for. More after I've read...

UPDATE: Much ado about nothing? Hearing Lou Dobbs and friends talk about this at the top of the hour, I thought that this was a huge deal. Reading the article makes it appear it is a regurgation of allegations made back in 2000. No prove of any affair and not really a direct allegation, some allegations about favouritism but nothing over the top. False alarm.

I'll go back to working on my McCain veepstakes piece.

Long time, no write

Sorry for the delay folks, I have been a bit busy.

A hat tip to NB Taxpayer who won TTTT and is accorded the top link to the right. NBT - if you want that link pointing elsewhere, let me know.

Its been an interesting few weeks. Obama's essentially even showing on Tsunami Tuesday followed by 10 straight wins is making him all but inevitable. I had been holding out some hope for Clinton, but the loss in Wisconsin last night was large and went deep into her core areas of support - some of which she lost and others she "won" by the margin of error.

I would now expect her to lose one of Ohio and Texas (if not both) and drop out shortly after March 4.

This all but guarantees President McCain will be sworn-in in January 2009. Clinton would likely have lost to McCain as well but would have made it more of a race. I have always said, and maintain, that Obama is far more susceptable to attack than John Kerry was in 2004 and will likely be totally obliterated by attacks. I did a quick state-by-state gut projection of a McCain-Obama race last week and the electoral college was 397-141.

McCain's allies will be able to use Obama's own words from "Dreams from My Father" (the non-politically correct book pre-politics Obama wrote in the 90s), the recent statement of his wife that she only became proud of America in this election year, and may other instances where Obama has spoken in an idealistic and not pragmatic way.

Calgary Grit made an apt comparison between the McCain-Obama race and the fictional Vinick-Santos race of The West Wing a while back. But remember, in that alternate reality, Vinick was looking to win all 50 states until his campaign was derailed by an "October surprise".

This fall could turn out similar. Indeed, I would think McCain takes Florida totally out of play and his immigration stand would lock up New Mexico for the Republicans and could even put California in play (though I am not sure if he would win it, the Democrats can't win without California and would be forced to campaign there big time, thus losing ground in countless other states).

States like Maine, New Jersey, etc which have been Democratic locks for several elections would certainly be likely McCain pick ups. Even if McCain lost the economic big three (Michigan, Pennsyvania and Ohio), which I suspect he will, he could still win by a large margin.

My prediction now is that McCain wins the electoral vote by at least 100, likely much more.

I love predicting things, so I will move on to the veepstakes for these two candidates shortly. Let me know your ideas.

Tsunami watching guide

Before I start to point to what I see as the races to watch on Tuesday, here are a few other tidbits I thought I would share with you:

• In all of the hub-bub over the voting on Tuesday, the poor Maine Republican caucuses have been left in the dust. They are not being held simultaneously but over the course of the weekend. I link to the CNN results page which I assume/hope will start showing some results today (virtually all of the caucuses were today but some were Thursday and Friday and some will be Sunday and later in the month).


• I compiled my estimates for delegates by state based on my predictions, you can find thim in this shared Google spreadsheet.

Now, on to the main event:

Here are some things to watch on Tuesday to see how the race is breaking...

Among Democrats there are no real winner-take-all states and most delegates are awarded proportionally by district, with a relatively smaller number awarded proportionally at the state-wide level. Each state and district has a 15% threshold to be eligble for delegates. Some districts have only 2 or 4 delegates and others have 6 or more. There is a huge disparity in terms of voting power in districts with an even number of delegates as opposed to an odd number. For instance, in a district with 3 delegates, a candidate getting 15% of the vote would get one delegate, even if another candidate got 85% of the vote - giving him or her 2 delegates (or twice as many for almost 6 times as many votes). Similarly, a district with four delegates could award 2 to a candidate getting 38% of the vote even if another candidate got 62%. The LA Times has a great piece explaining this (h/t Ben Smith). The moral of the story? There will be no run-away winner in the Democratic primary. If one of the two candidates were to get 60% of the delegates that would be a dramatic landslide, it is more likely that there will be no more than 10 points between Clinton and Obama (55%-45% or closer).

Two key states to watch are the big ones: New York and California. Clinton should do very well in both, if she wins New York by less than 10% she is probably in trouble. If Obama manages to win California, same story. If both happen then that is bad news. Other states to watch to see if Obama is faltering are those holding traditional caucuses: Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota and Montana. Obama should win all or most of these, if he doesn't, he may be having a bad day.

Finally, another key state on the Democratic side to watch with be Oklahoma. This was Edwards' strongest state and Obama consistently ran third in polls here. If Obama manages to hold Clinton to 10 points or less or even wins here that means he is picking up more than his fair share of former Edwards supporters which could push him over the top in a lot of sates.

In terms of the Republicans, there are a number of pure winner-take-all states, but most are hybrids with about half of the delegates winner-take-all and then each district's delegates winner-take-all as well. A few states are done by proportional representation. Key states to watch are Missouri and Georgia. In Missouri, McCain may well place third, but Romney, who will face a challenge from Huckabee, needs to win here if he has any chance fo moving forward. In Georgia, McCain could win if Romney gets enough votes to split the conservatives with Huckabee and allow McCain up the middle, if this happens, then it could be a near sweep for McCain. Another state to watch is Massachusettes. Romney was elected governor of the state just over 5 years ago, it will be a tight race with McCain and if McCain wins it will damage Romney in terms of the media's eye even if he has an otherwise good night.

Tsunami predictions galore

I predict that next Tuesday Clinton and Obama will roughly split the delegates with a slight edge to Clinton and that the race will continue until at least March 4 if not to the Pennsylvania primay on April 22 or beyond.

I predict that next Tuesday John McCain will win over half of the delegates at stake and all but wrap up the nomination, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney will split the remaining delegates about evenly with a slight edge to Huckabee. Romney will withdraw and Mike Huckabee may or may not continue, briefly, to compete in the southern states to follow.

With respect to my TTTT contest, I will not actually be competing but, for the sake of interest, here are my guesses for each category and, therefore, my broader predictions for next week:

EASY [order of national finishers in number of delegates]
Republicans: McCain, Huckabee, Romney, Paul, Thompson, Giuliani
Democrats: Obama, Clinton, Kucinich, Edwards, Gravel

MEDIUM [order of national finishers in percentage of of delegates]
Republicans: McCain 53%, Huckabee 24%, Romney 22%, Paul 1%, Thompson 0%, Giuliani 0%
Democrats: Clinton 53%, Obama 47%, Kucinich 0%, Edwards 0%, Gravel 0%

HARD [top three in each state] / REALLY, REALLY HARD [percentages of all candidates in each state]

Alabama:

> Democrats:
Obama 48%
Clinton 44%
Edwards 7%
Kucinich 0%
Gravel 0%

> Republicans:
Huckabee 44%
McCain 26%
Romney 19%
Thompson 5%
Paul 5%
Giuliani 1%

Alaska:

> Democrats:
Clinton 55%
Obama 41%
Gravel 4%
Edwards 0%
Kucinich 0%

> Republicans:
Romney 29%
McCain 27%
Paul 22%
Huckabee 15%
Thompson 5%
Giuliani 1%

Arizona:

> Democrats:
Clinton 56%
Obama 31%
Edwards 9%
Kucinich 1%
Gravel 1%

> Republicans:
McCain 67%
Romney 14%
Huckabee 11%
Paul 8%
Thompson 0%
Giuliani 0%

Arkansas:

> Democrats:
Clinton 62%
Obama 28%
Edwards 9%
Kucinich 0%
Gravel 0%

> Republicans:
Huckabee 51%
McCain 32%
Romney 14%
Thompson 2%
Paul 1%
Giuliani 0%

California:

> Democrats:
Clinton 48%
Obama 41%
Edwards 6%
Kucinich 4%
Gravel 1%

> Republicans:
McCain 45%
Romney 22%
Huckabee 18%
Paul 7%
Thompson 5%
Giuliani 3%

Colorado:

> Democrats:
Clinton 49%
Obama 47%
Edwards 4%
Kucinich 0%
Gravel 0%

> Republicans:
McCain 38%
Romney 34%
Huckabee 21%
Paul 5%
Giuliani 1%
Thompson 0%

Connecticut:

> Democrats:
Clinton 59%
Obama 40%
Gravel 0%
Edwards 0%
Kucinich 0%

> Republicans:
McCain 58%
Romney 29%
Huckabee 6%
Paul 4%
Giuliani 3%
Thompson 0%

Delaware:

> Democrats:
Clinton 49%
Obama 48%
Edwards 2%
Gravel 0%
Kucinich 0%

> Republicans:
McCain 65%
Romney 15%
Huckabee 15%
Giuliani 3%
Paul 2%
Thompson 0%

Georgia:

> Democrats:
Obama 54%
Clinton 40%
Edwards 5%
Gravel 0%
Kucinich 0%

> Republicans:

Huckabee 39%
Romney 30%
McCain 26%
Thompson 3%
Paul 2%
Giuliani 0%

Idaho:

> Democrats:
Clinton 61%
Obama 37%
Edwards 2%
Gravel 0%
Kucinich 0%

Illinois:

> Democrats:
Obama 61%
Clinton 37%
Edwards 2%
Gravel 0%
Kucinich 0%

> Republicans:

McCain 44%
Romney 38%
Huckabee 9%
Paul 7%
Giuliani 1%
Thompson 0%

Kansas:

> Democrats:
Obama 66%
Clinton 28%
Edwards 6%
Gravel 0%
Kucinich 0%

Massachusetts:

> Democrats:
Obama 55%
Clinton 42%
Edwards 2%
Gravel 0%
Kucinich 0%

> Republicans:

McCain 44%
Romney 38%
Huckabee 9%
Giuliani 4%
Paul 3%
Thompson 0%

Minnesota:

> Democrats:
Clinton 47%
Obama 40%
Edwards 9%
Kucinich 2%
Gravel 1%

> Republicans:

McCain 47%
Romney 31%
Huckabee 13%
Paul 6%
Giuliani 2%
Thompson 0%

Missouri:

> Democrats:
Obama 49%
Clinton 42%
Edwards 9%
Kucinich 0%
Gravel 0%

> Republicans:

Romney 39%
Huckabee 33%
McCain 24%
Thompson 2%
Paul 2%
Giuliani 0%

Montana:

> Republicans:

Huckabee 41%
Romney 39%
McCain 20%
Thompson 0%
Paul 0%
Giuliani 0%

New Jersey:

> Democrats:
Clinton 49%
Obama 47%
Edwards 3%
Kucinich 0%
Gravel 0%

> Republicans:

McCain 71%
Giuliani 10%
Romney 8%
Huckabee 8%
Paul 2%
Thompson 0%

New Mexico:

> Democrats:
Clinton 62%
Obama 33%
Edwards 4%
Kucinich 0%
Gravel 0%

New York:

> Democrats:
Clinton 58%
Obama 40%
Edwards 2%
Kucinich 0%
Gravel 0%

> Republicans:

McCain 61%
Huckabee 20%
Giuliani 9%
Romney 6%
Paul 3%
Thompson 0%

North Dakota:

> Democrats:
Clinton 62%
Obama 35%
Edwards 2%
Kucinich 0%
Gravel 0%

> Republicans:

McCain 41%
Romney 33%
Huckabee 23%
Paul 2%
Thompson 0%
Giuliani 0%

Oklahoma:

> Democrats:
Clinton 46%
Obama 40%
Edwards 13%
Kucinich 0%
Gravel 0%

> Republicans:

Huckabee 36%
McCain 30%
Romney 29%
Paul 4%
Thompson 1%
Giuliani 0%

Tennessee:

> Democrats:
Obama 49%
Clinton 48%
Edwards 3%
Kucinich 0%
Gravel 0%

> Republicans:

Huckabee 40%
Romney 29%
McCain 22%
Thompson 8%
Paul 1%
Giuliani 0%

Utah:

> Democrats:
Clinton 51%
Obama 48%
Edwards 0%
Kucinich 0%
Gravel 0%

> Republicans:

Romney 67%
Huckabee 17%
McCain 12%
Paul 4%
Thompson 0%
Giuliani 0%

West Virginia:

> Republicans:

McCain 51%
Huckabee 32%
Romney 17%
Paul 0%
Thompson 0%
Giuliani 0%

A busy day in U.S. politics

Today Rudy Giuliani (once considered by some shortsighted folk to be the Republican frontrunner) and John Edwards (the 2004 presidential primary runner-up and vice-presidential nominee) are dropping out of the race.

I was very pleased that my predictions for Florida were essentially on the mark (a rare day for me!) but owing to the fact that Edwards and Giuliani (and Thompson and Kucinich) have all dropped out, I am going to extend the deadline for TTTT until Friday, February 1 at 5 p.m. This will allow folks to digest the final two pre-Tsunami debates as well as the changes in the dynamics of the race.

Please make sure to get your entries in by e-mail or by commenting including your email address, choice of difficulty level and predictions by that time.

Hit me with your best shot

As you are using your federal child tax credit to pick up some beer and popcorn for tonight's Florida primary, make sure that you don't forget to take a shot at TTTT. For those who are new or missed it, it is my contest in which you can predict the winners for Feb. 5.

Check out all of the details right here. The deadline is noon tomorrow (January 30).