This post may be a bit too local and parochial for the Donk, but many of the worst political ideas are ignited here on the Left Coast before burning a path of destruction across the rest of the country. Consider this an early warning of smoke on the horizon.

In any case, Oakland is likely to be in the national news again over the next couple of days. To the surprise of absolutely no one with a modicum of common sense, the City of Oakland will again be forced to roust the Oakland Occupiers from their encampment, with Occupy San Francisco not far behind. As before, it is likely that protesters will be injured, perhaps severely, when they provoke and resist police carrying out their assigned duties and responsibilities. This action in Oakland was made necessary by the Mayor of Oakland Jean Quan, who invited the Occupiers back into Oakland after ordering them rousted once before.

Some insight into how Jean Quan came to be in this position of authority:

One year ago, Jean Quan was elected mayor of Oakland. She never led in any poll at any time during the campaign. She always trailed front-runner Don Perata in every minute of the campaign from beginning to end.

On election day, 36% percent of Oakland voters said they wanted Don Perata as their mayor. Only 24% of Oakland voters said Jean Quan was their first choice to be mayor. In prior years, this would have triggered a runoff election and voters would have chosen between Perata and Quan in a head to head contest. Not this year. This was Oakland’s first Ranked-choice Voting election for Mayor. The other candidates on the ballot were eliminated and the second and third choice votes on their ballots were added to Quan and Perata’s totals. Jean Quan became mayor. Oakland saved the cost of conducting a runoff election.

Jean Quan ran a smart and innovative campaign. She asked Oakland voters for their second place votes. Why not? She is likable and her campaign employed fun YouTube ads. People like to give out consolation prizes. Why not give her your second place vote? What harm would it do?

Advocates for the ranked-choice voting system will tell you that if Quan and Perata ran in a runoff election, we would have seen the same result. They claim this was just a more efficient and less costly way to arrive at that result.

Matt Gonzalez is an RCV advocate. His op-ed in the SF Chronicle makes the case for RCV here in San Francisco. I’ll have more to say about his piece later, but this is what he says about the Oakland election:

It is Gonzalez that misses the point. The operative word in this quote is “should”: “Ranked-choice voting results should be identical to those of a traditional runoff…” Sure they should. We just don’t know if they are.

Gonzalez claims that Quan’s plurality of 2nd choice votes produced exactly the same result as we would have seen in a runoff vs. Perata. The truth is that he does not know that for a fact. No one does. It is just his opinion. My opinion is that Quan would never have beaten Perata in a one on one runoff. No one will ever know because Oakland never had that runoff election. The voters were denied the opportunity to make their choice clear. That is precisely the point. If no one knows whether Quan or Perata would have won, Quan’s legitimacy as an elected mayor is open to question and confidence in our democratic process is undermined. Yes – she won according to the ranked-choice rules, but no one knows if that truly reflected the preference of Oakland voters between Quan and Perata.

Now – all of this would be moot if Quan had proven to be a popular and competent mayor. That didn’t happen. So now Oakland voters are facing the question whether they legitimately elected an incompetent, or if they were denied the opportunity to vote for their preferred candidate for mayor.

Let’s take another look at the Matt Gonzalez case for ranked-choice voting:

Two things to note – First, he no sooner finishes claiming that ranked-choice voting yields an identical result to a runoff, when he offers an exception. If you have “big money” and a “polarized” race, well – he admits you might get a different result. In other words, Gonzalez is saying we cannot trust the voters to make a decision under those circumstances. “Big money” and “polarized” are subjective pejoratives. Others may substitute terms like “commitment” to and “support” for the candidate they prefer.

More astonishing is his claim that ranked-choice voting is somehow “better democracy”. Step back and think about what he is really saying here. He is asserting that having a real run-off election, letting the voters make a simple, clear choice between two candidates, vote if they want to, vote for the candidate they prefer, adding up the votes to yield an unambiguous decision where the candidates with the most votes wins, is somehow a less good democracy. It is an absurd claim on its face.

Trusting the voters to make a simple choice between the last candidates standing is not a good enough democracy for Matt Gonzalez. According to Matt, we need this New and Improved Ranked Choice Voting Democracy 2.0! A better democracy! Now in a convenient 16-Pack!

He goes on to argue for the qualities that make ranked-choice voting a “better democracy.”:

None of these “better democracy” arguments are supported by empirical fact. All these “better democracy” claims can be distilled into this: Matt does not trust the voters in a runoff election to make the right decision. He fears voters might make a wrong decision in a polarized election. He is concerned voters might be unduly influenced by big money advertising. Matt wants” door-to-door” and “coalition building” candidates to win. Best not to take the risk that voters will choose the wrong kind of candidate in a real runoff. Net net – Matt believes the kind of candidate he prefers would have a better chance getting elected under RCV. Ranked-choice voting is a way to put his thumb on the electoral scale.

There is one and only one good rationalization for Ranked-choice Voting – cost. RCV saves the cost of a runoff election. That is certainly and unarguably true. But it is also unarguable that ranked-choice voting is less good democracy than simply trusting voters in a real runoff. It is utter nonsense to claim that there is a “better democracy” than giving voters a choice between two candidates, let them vote between the two candidates, and declare the one with the most votes the winner.

By utilizing ranked-choice voting, Oakland saved the cost of a runoff election in 2010. They are paying the price of incompetent leadership managing the Occupy Oakland protest now. Oakland will be paying for the additional cost of a recall election in 2012. One occupier paid with his life for Mayor Quan’s indecision. For Oakland, the cost savings of ranked-choice voting are illusory.

We just completed our first ranked-choice mayoral, sheriff, and district attorney race in San Francisco, along with our first public funding of the mayoral candidates. We have yet to learn the real cost of this electoral experiment here.

My suggestion for my comrades a here in San Francisco – If we want better democracy, there is a better way. Trust the voters. and scrap ranked-choice voting in San Francisco before it costs us like it cost Oakland.

^{X-posted from “Divided We Stand United We Fall}“

The motives of the coward who shot a bunch of people (including Dem Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords) down in Arizona earlier today are not known, but I think we can all agree that campaign literature like this certainly doesn’t help…

Yes, I’m talking about Sarah Palin. This was the tweet announcing the ridiculous image above…

This type of stuff is completely irresponsible. Especially when followed up with this from Giffords’ opponent Jesse Kelly…

Both of these images have been taken off of their respective websites, but h/t to FDL for rounding them up.

The last report is that Giffords is in surgery, but 5 are dead.

One additional piece of info…

In March, hours after Giffords voted in favor of health care reform, the front door of Giffords’ Tucson office was shattered, also a side glass panel.

More as it develops…

After the self-described “shellacking” Obama and the Dems got in November, the turnaround in this lame duck session has been nothing short of extraordinary. 5 major pieces of legislation were passed during a time when nothing usually gets done. And all of it was bipartisan in one form or another.

Let’s run down what they were able to accomplish in this lame duck session.

• Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. The moderate Clinton wanted to repeal, without doing the studies, so he had to make this compromise. This was one of Obama’s key campaign promises and he delivered a huge civil rights victory. At the same time he made John McCain look like a liar for saying he would support it if the studies showed a repeal would do very little harm to our military. They did, and he still didn’t back it. Oh well.
• Extension of Tax Cuts. Plus Obama got a new payroll tax holiday and new write-off rules for businesses that could generate a ton of new investment in every sector of the economy. A lot of Dems didn’t like that tax cuts were being extended for the rich (income and estate), but they were able to get unemployment insurance extended in a time when we need to make sure that money doesn’t dry up. Not only that, polls showed that a large majority didn’t favor extending the tax cuts for the wealthy, so the national/independent mood was right in line with where Obama was at. Trust that this will be used against Repubs in the coming years as they try to slash federal programs…while still trying to maintain those tax cuts. If they were smart, they’d let them expire in 2012.
• Ratification of the START Treaty. No small feat since Repubs had the votes to strike this one down, but ultimately their hand was forced when some Republicans started jumping ship and siding with Dems. Why? Because the treaty is solid and the reasons Repubs were going to vote against were very thin.
• Passing the 9/11 health bill. The administration owes Jon Stewart a big thanks for dedicating an entire program to this topic and putting it back on the media’s radar. Why Republicans voted against it in the first place is beyond me. Well, I know the reasons they cited…like saying it was a slush fund for special interests groups. Sure, if it were a massive health care bill for ALL first responders, that would have been understandable, but Repubs really overreached and made a huge strategic error.
• New Food Safety Bill. In much the same way the financial regulation legislation passed earlier this year was the most substantive since The Great Depression, so too was this. And it helped local farmers at the same time. Basically, big Agra needs to be more accountable and the FDA can demand recalls. Right now they have to rely on producers to do it. Local farmers are not subject to these new regulations and that’s sure to drive more competition for the increasingly local/sustainable markets.

All of this begs a couple questions. 1) Did the election really diminish Obama? 2) Or has it helped him quickly move back towards the center to capture the spirit of his presidential campaign as we head a season where he’s sure to get attacked by GOP hopefuls?

What do you think?

Politico - Who really abandoned Dems?

The survey – “Droppers” and “Switchers”: The Fraying Obama Coalition“

66% of switchers say “too much government spending” was a major reason for their decision not to vote Democratic this year. This is the number-one ranked factor switchers gave in our poll.

• 64% of switchers say deficits are a “serious problem that are weakening the economy” (versus 32% who say “deficits are a concern but we have more pressing priorities”).
• 76% don’t think Democrats are “serious about reducing the deficit.”
• 78% don’t think Democrats are “responsible with taxpayer dollars.”

In fact, 68% of switchers say they would be more likely to support President Obama in 2012 if he offered a serious proposal to reduce the deficit.

Apparently President Obama and his political brain trust were diligently taking notes while getting schooled in the midterms. On Monday President Obama announced a federal employee pay freeze for non-military employees. On Tuesday he met with congressional leadership and assured the American people that he heard the voice of the voters:

I have one quibble with the President’s statement. While technically true that the American people may not have voted specifically for gridlock, and while he is also correct they would prefer bipartisan cooperation controlling spending, they did make it clear they’ll happily take gridlock over the kind of crappy and stupidly expensive steamrolled partisan legislation that passed in the last Congress. But, in the bipartisan spirit of taking a bipartisan hatchet to a slashed bipartisan budget, we’ll overlook that nit.

Minutes after the President’s statement, the co-chairs of his National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform had a press conference to announce that their final report on a deficit cutting plan will be delivered on Wednesday and voted on Friday. Regarding the vote, the Democratic co-chair Erskine Bowles said

“… whatever happens, the commission will have achieved “victory” by starting a national conversation about the federal debt. ‘The era of deficit denial in Washington is over,’ the North Carolinian and former Clinton White House chief of staff drawled.”

I agree.

Wednesday, the President’s bipartisan deficit commission delivered their final report. In three days, the top three stories out of Washington were all about fiscal responsibility, controlling spending and deficits. President Obama and the President’s commission are leading the charge. Real, meaty, substantial proposals are being put on the table. If it were not for wikileaks, this is all we would be talking about, and that is a very good thing.

To be honest, I am irrationally exuberant over these developments and in danger of losing my cynicism. I suspect hope that we going to make real progress on federal spending and the deficit this time. Let me hasten to add that I am not completely delusional. If done correctly, this process will be contentious, noisy, the air will be filled with partisan cries, lamentations and the bellowing of gored oxen. Undoubtedly I will be among those gnashing teeth, tearing hair, and complaining bitterly about whatever makes it out of the sausage grinder. But at least we appear to be starting down a path to some semblance of what passes for fiscal responsibility in Washington D.C.

I have one simple reason for my optimism: The President and his political advisers understand his re-election in 2012 depends on restraining spending and the deficit. Republicans in Congress understand their re-election and majorities in the House and Senate in 2012 depend on restraining spending and the deficit. Even some Democrats in Congress understand their re-election in 2012 depends on restraining spending and the deficit. David Axelrod thinks it important enough to ramp up the Audacity of Astroturf troops mere days after the mid-term.

Even as small a step as the President’s initative on the pay freeze has many on the left up in arms. Obiously still in denial, they found the President’s initiative to be vexing, a capitulation, an ineffectual ploy, bad negotiations, symbolic, doublespeak, blasphemy, stupid, gutless, cretinous, anti-union, pointless, a sellout and a blunder (among other things).

OTOH, those that “get it” understand exactly how damaging this chart was to Obama and the Democratic Party in the midterms. Private sector jobs were lost by the millions, but under this administration public sector jobs (that pay better with greater security than the private sector) were protected. Given the close relationship and massive financial support the Democrats and Obama received from public sector unions like SEIU, it just did not look good. Voters were angry. With the help of letter from a reader, even Ezra Klein gets it now (almost).

Republicans will predictably say that it is weak gruel, and does not go far enough. But, it is a start. Given the depth of the hole our representatives and leaders dug for us over the last ten years, this may be exactly the start we need now.

Thank you Mr. President. If you stay on this path you may even get re-elected, and we can keep our happily divided government.

Cross posted from Divided We Stand United We Fall.

Edited to correct typos.

Source: Resurgent Republic

Buried under the mountain of navel gazing, finger-pointing, self-serving spin, and bitter invective in the left-o-sphere, we can still find a few gems of sparkling analysis, insight and useful advice. We’ll mine two examples of Progressive postmortems. One is a rich vein of solid gold analysis, but to get to it we must first separate and dispose of the slag.

Jonathan Chait of The New Republic cannot hide his bitterness and anger in this devastating dismantling of the straw man he props up for that very purpose:

Split Ends – The myth of divided government
(full text at The Cagle Post)

It apparently makes Chait feel good to monotonously apply the pejorative of a “fetish” to the divided government voting heuristic, but it does exactly nothing to further his argument (as I’ve noted before).

This might be a reasonable argument, if the reason that independents voted for divided government was with the express hope of ushering in an era of bipartisan cooperation, moderation and compromise. It wasn’t. Bipartisan cooperation may or may not happen in the next two years, but it has nothing to do with the reason why many independents voted as they did. They voted to restrain the excesses of this latest edition of One Party Rule (Democratic version). They voted in reflexive horror after witnessing two examples of mind-numbingly bad and jaw-droppingly expensive legislation – ARRA (Stimulus) and PPACA (Obamacare) – that were both made possible and steamrolled by One Party Democratic Rule.

Whether our impending divided government produces bipartisan cooperation or not, it remains a fact that true bipartisan cooperation is impossible when one party holds all the cards. For the last two years the Democrats held all the cards. If the divided government of the next two years does nothing else but prevent or moderate legislation like ARRA and PPACA, then it will meet the objectives of many independents that voted for it.

For an antidote to Chait’s toxic mix of bluster, logical fallacy, and dismissive ad hominem offered up as an explanation of the election, electorate and governance, consider Lee Durham of the Progressive Policy Institute. Durham presents some real data-centric analysis, offers real insight, and comes up with some good suggestions for Democrats and President Obama in:

“How to Understand the Independents (and how to win them Back)“:

I’ll leave it to the reader to compare and contrast these two very different progressive perspectives of the election, electorate, and, most importantly, the way forward. Consider which of the two is informed by common sense, logic and data and which is informed by rhetoric, sophistry and rage. I submit they are representative of two significant and incompatible constituencies within the Democratic Party. The schism has been there all along, but was papered over in 2006 and 2008 by the unifying principle of Bush Hate. Regardless of how skilled Axelrod, Gibbs, and Plouffe may be at “triangulation”, the Obama administration cannot simultaneously turn left and turn toward the center. I hope Democrats choose wisely, as I really don’t want to see us return to one party Republican rule in 2013. If they rely on Palin and Tea Party to hand the 2012 election to the Democrats, they just may be disappointed…

Again.

Portions excerpted and cross posted from Divided We Stand United We Fall

Daily Caller:

History will be made when Boehner becomes first orange-American Speaker of the House

“In January, America will pass another milestone on the road to full equality when Ohio Republican Rep. John Boehner becomes the first orange-American Speaker of the House.Boehner’s unique skin has made him a target of liberal mockery, and talk of his tan has often eclipsed discussion of what he actually says or does. Even President Obama has gotten in on the fun, joking at the 2009 White House Correspondence Dinner that he and Boehner “have a lot in common. He is a person of color—although not a color that appears in the natural world.”

Cartoonists, columnists, bloggers, pundits, and humorists get in on the fun, including Olivia Munn’s election report on the Daily Show (at the 4:00 minute mark):

I don’t want to fall into the trap flagged by the Daily Caller and lose sight of the content while caught up in the novelty of our first Orange Speaker of the House. In terms of the meaning of the election and the role John Boehner will play, I cannot say it any better than Jonathan Rauch on the pages of the New York Times:

Divided We Thrive – Jonathan Rauch

A GRAND victory for Republicans in the 2010 midterm election? Yes, of course. But also no. In all three of the most recent earthshaking midterm elections — 1994, 2006 and now 2010 — the same candidate won: divided government. That is not a coincidence. In the last two decades, a strong and persistent pattern has emerged, one that will dominate our politics for some time to come, because it is rooted in two important political realities. First, the public strongly prefers divided government. Second, it has every reason to…

But divided government, in today’s world of ideologically polarized parties, is the only way of attaining sustainable bipartisanship. And that is likely to remain the case for the foreseeable future. By promising to transcend partisanship in an all-Democratic government, President Obama, in 2008, promised something he had no prayer of delivering. Paradoxically, the three words that will do the most to help him deliver on his broken promise of bipartisanship — and, indeed, that offer him the best hope of governing from the center, broadening his support and stabilizing his presidency — are these: Speaker John Boehner.”

Two Speakers, one coming in, one going out, characterized differently in the press. MSM reporting on one focusing on a reputation for toughness, ideological inflexibility and hardball partisan politics. MSM reporting for the other focusing on appearance and a penchant for emotional outbursts. I cannot help but wonder how the public and media would perceive the two if these reported characteristics were reversed. Would Nancy Pelosi get the same media treatment if she had a reputation for weeping on camera?

It is interesting to speculate how John Boehner will be covered by the media during the midterms four years hence. Perhaps a hint can be seen by recalling how Speaker Pelosi was perceived when she won the gavel four years ago.

First, a tip of the hat to a couple of regular Donk commenters – Cranky Critter for introducing me to a field of study I had heretofore been unaware of – Comparative Political Demonology™ – a phrase coined and defined by Tully some years ago. This subject is bit too broad for me, so I will focus here on a more specialized subset – Applied Relative Demonology as it pertains to the Speaker of the House in 2006, 2010 and 2014 mid-term elections. There may be a PHD thesis in there somewhere.

A great deal of electrons and ink are being spilled over the role Nancy Pelosi played in the 2010 election outcome and the political wisdom of her continuing to lead the Democrats in the House of Representatives as minority leader. She was demonized by Republicans as a San Francisco liberal steamrolling a progressive agenda over the objections of our center-right country. Indeed, as it turns out, being a reliable vote in the House of Representatives for Nancy Pelosi was a career limiting move for many Democratic Representatives. Pundits on the right and left inform conventional wisdom that she is a political poison of such devastating toxicity that her leadership of the minority Democrats would virtually guarantee Republican victories in 2012 and 2014. Color me unconvinced.

It is not like Nancy Pelosi has changed her politics since 2006. She was hardly an unknown quantity after serving 19 years in the House as representative and minority leader, and was not perceived politically any differently in 2006 by the electorate than she is today. She was demonized by Republicans in 2006 as a San Francisco liberal, yet that did not stop voters from sweeping Republicans from the majority and installing her as the first woman Speaker of the House, complete with her “San Francisco Values” baggage:

There were some differences between then and now. There was a Republican President, and the Democrats had a much bigger target to demonize in 2006. A Liberal Speaker of the House steeped in San Francisco Values does not sound so bad when the alternative is a corrupt political hack that “would not meet the moral standards of one of the most corrupt 1906 political participants of the most corrupt political organization in the history of the United States.” Hence “Relative Demonology”. After serving as Speaker of the House for two years, voters increased the Democratic majority in the House in 2008, dealing Pelosi an even stronger hand as Speaker. She didn’t change, but in 2006 and 2008, the Republican demons were worse.

For many Americans, John Boehner is more of an unknown today than Nancy Pelosi was in 2006. They know he is politically conservative, cries on camera, and is orange. That’s about it. What we will learn about him in his role as Speaker, how he will be perceived by the electorate in 2012 and 2014, and who is elected President in 2012 will be bigger factors in those elections than whether or not Nancy Pelosi continues to lead the Democrats in the House. Today, Boehner gets the benefit of the doubt from the electorate. Under the more intense and extended media scrutiny in his new role, the weeping everyman shtick could wear thin and even raise doubts about his fitness to lead.

Pelosi was widely credited with Democrats winning the House in 2006. She was an effective Speaker in 2007-8 when acting to restore some balance with a Republican administration. She was an even more effective speaker in driving the Democratic agenda set by the Obama administration through the House of Representatives in 2008-10.

If Democrats want effective, competent leadership in Congress, they should stick with Pelosi. We won’t see her crying on the floor of the House, and by 2014, an orange hued basket case weeping over tax cuts may very well be perceived as the relatively greater demon.

Cross posted from “Divided We Stand United We Fall”

Nate Silver reveals the ugly truth:

The 105 polls released in Senate and gubernatorial races by Rasmussen Reports and its subsidiary, Pulse Opinion Research, missed the final margin between the candidates by 5.8 points, a considerably higher figure than that achieved by most other pollsters. Some 13 of its polls missed by 10 or more points, including one in the Hawaii Senate race that missed the final margin between the candidates by 40 points, the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight’s database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998.

Moreover, Rasmussen’s polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average. In just 12 cases, Rasmussen’s polls overestimated the margin for the Democrat by 3 or more points. But it did so for the Republican candidate in 55 cases — that is, in more than half of the polls that it issued.

If one focused solely on the final poll issued by Rasmussen Reports or Pulse Opinion Research in each state — rather than including all polls within the three-week interval — it would not have made much difference. Their average error would be 5.7 points rather than 5.8, and their average bias 3.8 points rather than 3.9.

As many of you know, I was very pro-Rasmussen during the 2008 election because they produced reliable daily results, but we can’t ignore the analysis. Somewhere along the way something went wrong.

How did the poll get steered into the ditch?

Well…

Rasmussen, for instance, generally conducts all of its interviews during a single, 4-hour window; speaks with the first person it reaches on the phone rather than using a random selection process; does not call cellphones; does not call back respondents whom it misses initially; and uses a computer script rather than live interviewers to conduct its surveys. These are cost-saving measures which contribute to very low response rates and may lead to biased samples.

Rasmussen also weights their surveys based on preordained assumptions about the party identification of voters in each state, a relatively unusual practice that many polling firms consider dubious since party identification (unlike characteristics like age and gender) is often quite fluid.

Also, it wasn’t like the writing wasn’t on the wall early on…

The discrepancies between Rasmussen Reports polls and those issued by other companies were apparent from virtually the first day that Barack Obama took office. Rasmussen showed Barack Obama’s disapproval rating at 36 percent, for instance, just a week after his inauguration, at a point when no other pollster had that figure higher than 20 percent.

Just saying…

Dino Rossi conceded about an hour ago and gave Patty Murray her 4th term in the Senate.

From The Seattle Times comes the reality:

As of Thursday evening, Murray was leading Rossi by more than 45,000 votes, taking 51 percent to Rossi’s 49 percent. That’s up from a 14,000-vote lead on Election Day.

According to a Seattle Times analysis, Rossi would need to get about 54 percent of the estimated 591,000 uncounted ballots statewide to overcome Murray’s lead.

But nearly 264,000 of those ballots are in King County. Murray’s already commanding lead there has only expanded since Election Day. She took 68 percent of the 69,000 King County ballots counted Thursday.

And there it is. Washington stays with the Dems.

The race is now divided by 2% or 27,000 votes. That doesn’t seem like much, but Murray’s lead was just 14,000, so that’s a big jump when you consider how much ground her challenger, Dino Rossi, would have to make up.

In fact, The Seattle Times thinks it’s a done deal:

Rossi’s vote percentage slipped from where it had been on Election Day in 18 of 22 counties that had reported new totals as of 7 p.m. Wednesday.

The most significant drop came in King County, home to nearly a third of the state’s registered voters. Rossi received about 33 percent of the King County votes counted Wednesday, down from 38 percent on Election Day.

“The King County numbers are devastating for Rossi,” said Matt Barreto, political-science professor at the University of Washington, who said he felt even more confident in his election-night analysis predicting a Murray win.

More as it develops…

He wasn’t supposed to win a month ago, but he pulled into the lead late and was able to hold.

From Denver Post:

Appointed U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet will be elected to the U.S. Senate after pulling ahead of challenger Ken Buck this morning.

Long after most Coloradans — including the candidates and their supporters — had gone to bed, returns from Denver and Boulder moved Bennet past Buck and into the lead, 47.5 percent to 47.1 percent.

A recount would be required if the difference between the two candidates’ vote totals is less than one-half of 1 percent of the highest vote total, or about 3,900 votes based on current tallies.

Bennet leads by nearly 7,000 votes with an estimated 30,000 still to be counted in Boulder County.

This was also a big deal for Obama because he backed Bennet, while former President Clinton backed a different primary candidate, Andrew Romanoff. Lots of political capital working behind the scenes here.

So this, along with Patty Murray’s likely win in Washington, means Dems are at the 51/49 mark in the Senate. They still have a majority…but barely.

She’s leading 41% to 34% right now with 76% reporting. Not an insurmountable lead, but things would really have to start going Joe Miller’s way in order for him to overtake the incumbent.

From NY Times:

The Murkowski campaign had used unconventional means to wage her unconventional campaign — from wristbands to homespun jingles and omnipresent advertisements showing how to spell her name. Now lawyers from both Republican campaigns are standing by to contest ballots. The only standard that Alaskan voting authorities have announced is the ability to determine “voter intent.”

As the lead for “Write-In Votes” expanded through the night, Ms. Murkowski was swarmed. She grinned. She laughed. She hugged. She pumped her fists. She embraced her husband and two teenage sons, one of whom wore a campaign T-shirt that said, “Too legit to quit.”

As noted previously, a write in candidate for Senate hasn’t won since Strom Thurmond did it back in 1954, so this is pretty historic stuff.

Also, this certainly calls into question Palin’s pull, who backed Joe Miller early and forced this three way race. Of course she did quit on Alaska to be a media personality and reality TV star…so I’m sure there’s a lot of scar tissue there and this could be one way Alaskans are giving her the one finger salute.

One thing’s for sure…if Sarah is running in 2012 (and we’ll probably know in a few months if she is), I doubt she can count on Murkowski to back her.

More as it develops…

It wasn’t the squeaker that was once reported. Looks like he’ll win by 5%, which is a pretty big swing from what the polls were projecting. But we all know it wasn’t a matter of Reid being good. Angle was just that bad.

From the LA Times:

Reporting from Las Vegas — Democratic Sen. Harry Reid bested Republican upstart Sharron Angle to win the U.S. Senate contest in Nevada, a costly, closely watched brawl that pitted one of President Obama’s top lieutenants against a “tea party” favorite.

Outside groups poured millions of dollars into a race that many political observers saw as a referendum on Obama administration policies, which Reid had guided through the Senate. Angle bashed the policies throughout the campaign as doing little to help bring down Nevada’s stubbornly high unemployment rate.

Reid, 70, the soft-spoken, sometimes-prickly Senate majority leader, suffered from dismal approval ratings and a deep-held resentment of his sway over state affairs.

Looks like the Senate will end up 51/49, with Dems keeping control.

Maybe.

It doesn’t look like it’ll even be close.

From TPM:

As the Republican wave spreads across the country, it’s time to say goodbye to one of the big-name progressive champions of the past 18 years: Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), champion of campaign finance reform and longtime opponent of the Patriot Act, has gone down in defeat against Republican businessman Ron Johnson. It marks the first time since 1986 that Republicans have won a Senate race here.

With 30% of precincts reporting, Johnson leads by 57%-42%, and has been projected as the winner by NBC News and Fox News.

I doubt this is the last we’ll hear from Feingold, but, as mentioned, this is a big blow for progressive everywhere.

Also, I think this signals that Wisconsin is definitely not a sure thing for Dems come 2012.

This is one seat that the Dems probably won’t get back any time soon.

From LA Times:

Lincoln, who reluctantly voted for Obama’s healthcare insurance overhaul, carried the flag for Democrats but often disagreed with her more liberal colleagues. For example, she was one of the few Democrats to vote for the Bush administration tax cuts.

As a crucial vote in the Senate, she bargained for perks for her state before voting with the Democratic majority. She was disliked by some liberals and during the primary was targeted by unions, but she narrowly defeated Lt. Gov. Bill Halter in a June runoff.

This gives the Republicans a +3 for the night so far in the Senate.

One! Two! Three!

With less than 1% or precincts reporting, Blumenthal leads by 62%-36%, and has been projected as the winner by Fox News and NBC News. (Keep in mind that with so few precincts in, the margin is likely to fluctuate considerably throughout the night — the current numbers are not final.)

McMahon apparently spent over $50 million on the race — which was parodied quite effectively on Election Eve by her husband, WWE Chairman Vince McMahon — but to no avail in the end.

Lots of money there. And all for nothing.

Dems hold.

This one was close for a while, but Manchin started to pull away after he made some ads that targeted Obama and his health care bill. That apparently helped him with independents and moderate Dems.

Here’s more from TPM:

We now have a result in a key red state — where Democrats have been saved the loss of the seat that was previously held by the late Dem Senator Robert Byrd since 1958 — as Democratic Gov. Joe Manchin has defeated Republican businessman John Raese.

With 12% of precincts reporting, Manchin leads by 54%-43%, and has been projected as the winner by NBC News and Fox News.

Byrd’s passing this past June opened up a Senate seat in a state where President Obama only won 43% of the vote in 2008, and where his approval ratings have consistently been well below the national norm.

Dems holding this one was important and Manchin knew what it took to win.

The question is now…will he be siding with Repubs for repealing the health care bill?

Kit Bond’s old seat stays with the Republicans.

Robin Carnahan ran a very anemic campaign and she never really felt like a leader. This is no surprise, but at one point some thought this could be a pick up.

Done and done.

So far the Tea Party candidates are 2 for 3 when it comes to the Senate. To me, Rubio’s win is much more important to the Tea Party than Paul’s. Especially since Rubio is so young, from a very populous state and is much smarter than Paul. Keep your eye on him.

Christine O’Donnell, yeah, is anybody surprised? Goodbye. Good riddance. You’re done.

Well, of course the answer is no and Nate Silver offers five reasons why. I’ll summarize here, but you should really check out this blog post. It’s pretty long, but a great read. Of course it will all be null and void in about four hours.

Reason #1 – The Cell Phone Effect:

This one is pretty simple, really: a lot of American adults (now about one-quarter of them) have ditched landlines and rely exclusively on mobile phones, and a lot of pollsters don’t call mobile phones. Cellphone-only voters tend to be younger, more urban, and less white — all Democratic demographics — and a study by Pew Research suggests that the failure to include them might bias the polls by about 4 points against Democrats, even after demographic weighting is applied.

Reason #2 – The “Robopoll” Effect:

Automated surveys, while they have performed fairly well in the past (although in the past, importantly, they did not show these systematic differences from regular surveys), have a number of potential problems that essentially boil down to extremely low response rates, which could potentially bias the samples. For instance, it may be that only adults who are extremely engaged by politics (who are more likely to be Republican, especially this year) bother to respond to them.

Reason #3 – Gallup’s Methodology:

Gallup’s traditional likely voter model has consistently shown terrible results for Democrats this year, having them down by around 15 points on the generic ballot, which could translate into a loss of 70 to 80 House seats, or maybe even more. The Gallup poll and the Gallup poll alone is probably responsible for much of the sense of impending doom that Democrats feel and the (premature for at least 24 more hours) sense of triumphalism that Republicans are experiencing.

Reason #4 – Dems Superior GOTV Operation:

This is always what a party says when it’s about to lose an election: our amazing turnout operation will save us! Still, Democrats probably do have an edge in this department with the voter lists and infrastructure they built up during Barack Obama’s campaign, and which have been perpetuated to some extent by Organizing For America. John McCain, by contrast, eschewed his ground game, devoting almost all of his money to advertising.

Reason #5 – Polls May Be Flawed:

It seems like the evidence that Republicans will win the House is very rich, redundant and robust. Look at this generic ballot poll! Look at this other generic ballot poll! Look at how badly Democrats are doing among whites. Look at how they’re doing among independents! But all of these indicators are, in fact, highly correlated with one another. They’re all rooted in the polling, and they’re all dependent on the polling basically being accurate. There’s not much diversity at all: it’s just different manifestations of the same thing.

By the way, I don’t think this is going to happen. Nor is this some wet dream of mine. But I think the cell phone argument is more compelling this time around.

Your thoughts?

From Michael O’Brien at The Hill:
GOP would ‘welcome’ party switch by Joe Lieberman

Cornyn, the head of Senate Republicans’ campaign efforts, floated the possibility that the GOP might target Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.), an Independent who caucuses with Democrats, or another Democratic senator if Republicans come close to winning a majority but fall short.

“I think he votes like a Republican on those areas, and we would certainly welcome him or any other Democrat who wants to switch sides of the aisle and caucus with us,” Cornyn said of Lieberman during an Election Day appearance on Fox News…

The GOP might look to other Democrats like Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) or even an incoming Democratic senator like West Virginia’s Joe Manchin, should he prevail, to cross over to the other side of the aisle.

Those Democrats have sometimes tangled with their party’s leaders on big issues like healthcare reform and climate change legislation. Lieberman was almost stripped of a key chairmanship after having supported Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the 2008 presidential election.

If the GOP picks up 8 seats to leave the Senate with a 51-49 Democratic majority, the game will be afoot.

With four Democratic Senators in play, and only two needed to flip the majority, these Senators will be on the horns of a classic Prisoner’s Dilemma. As long as all stay Democrat, they’ll retain their chairmanships and privilege. But the first two to switch can guarantee their chairmanships, and two laggards will be out in the cold. What to do???