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}“

Election Season is an exciting time to cover politics, especially when you look at all the limelight players shifting in the winds. It may be subtle, but people who want to be involved in the next White House Administration on some level must be making bold moves to capture the national spotlight right now. They don’t want to “look like they want it,” but let’s face it: being asked to run on the Republican ticket would be a huge honor to anyone in politics.

On Friday, I took a look at who DOES and DOESN’T want to be the Republican VP nominee in Running Mate Roundup. (You won’t believe what Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich said this week!)

I also have a piece for you: A Closer Look At VP Prospect Herman Cain. (Learn more about Cain’s business acumen and educational background, as well as the shocking story about how he first became involved in politics!)

And if you love polls and history, check out this week’s VEEP Poll: Which VP Had The Hottest Wife? (Don’t forget to vote for your favorite on our Facebook page! PS… You can also read a few neat stories about the VP’s wives.)

Dylan Ratigan wants to get money COMPLETELY out of politics. Not just corporate money or soft money…ALL money. Pretty bold.

But when you consider his stat, which is the title of this post, it’s pretty sobering to consider how much of a vice grip money has on how our political system is shaped. Because it’s really not about the best ideas anymore, and that should have all of us concerned.

To find out out more, visit Get Money Out and consider signing their petition.

During the Fox News debate last night, the GOP hopefuls were posed one of our favorite questions during the election season:

“If you had to choose one of your opponents on the stage tonight to be your running mate in the 2012 election, who would you choose, and why?  And why would this person help you make the country better?”

Click here to read what they said!

Obama is baiting the trap and if the GOP candidate doesn’t take it in 2012, it could spell trouble for the Dems.

Last night the President said this…

I have no doubt that everyone will find something in this compromise that they don’t like. In fact, there are things in here that I don’t like — namely the extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and the wealthiest estates. But these tax cuts will expire in two years. And I’m confident that as we make tough choices about bringing our deficit down, as I engage in a conversation with the American people about the hard choices we’re going to have to make to secure our future and our children’s future and our grandchildren’s future, it will become apparent that we cannot afford to extend those tax cuts any longer.

We already know that tax cuts for the wealthy are wildly unpopular and polling shows this again and again. And the sentiment among Tea Partiers is that the deficit needs to come down, and quick. Since Romney (I’m assuming he’ll be the GOP’s choice) can’t attack Obama on healthcare since he enacted virtually the same system in Massachusetts while Governor, the “big spender” message is what he’ll shellac Obama with…and it’ll stick.

But here’s the thing…voters aren’t going to let the GOP have their cake and eat it too. They’re already seeing how they’re saying one thing and then doing another with this tax cut compromise. So, if Romney makes a campaign pledge to let those tax cuts expire due to the rising deficit, he could win. If not, I don’t see much hope for the GOP.

Three caveats to this.

#1 – If Sarah Palin somehow manages to win the nomination, I don’t think there’s anything she can do to actually win the White House. So this argument will be moot. Well, there is one really outside chance and it’s talked about in #2. So let’s get to that…

#2 – If Huckabee gets nominated, and I see him as Romney’s biggest challenge, he’s probably going to run on the FairTax plan, which makes the above moot as well. So if Palin adopts this idea, that could be good for her campaign.

#3 – As always, a terrorist attack changes everything.

Your thoughts?

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.

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?

In chronological order, it started with a September Washington Post poll (reinforced in October) that finds record levels of disapproval of Congress, with even greater disapproval of Congressional Republicans than Democrats. At the same time, Gallup and other polls consistently project large Republican gains in the midterm election.

This created a bit of cognitive dissonance in some left-of-center bloggers, who felt this can only be explained as a paradox or irrational voter behavior or both.

Kevin Drum at Mother Jones

” Americans trust Democrats more to handle the country’s problems, they think Democrats represent their values better, they think Democrats are more concerned with the needs of people like them, and they think Democrats deserve to be reelected at a higher rate than Republicans. They also think that George Bush is substantially more to blame for our economic woes than Barack Obama. And the result of all this? They say they plan to vote for Republicans by landslide numbers.”

Matthew Yglesias at Think Progress

“I’ll take this as an object lesson in the limits of spin. If I were working with Nancy Pelosi on “message,” I’d be hoping to persuade people that (a) Democrats are better-equipped to handle today’s problems, (b) you share Democrats’ core values, (c) no matter how much you may dislike Democrats you dislike Republicans even more, and (d) therefore you should vote for Democrats. But as we see here (a), (b), and (c) aren’t sufficient to drive conclusion (d).”

Andrew Gelman (author of Red State Blue State) explains that it is neither paradox nor irrational:

“Those 10% or so of voters who plan to vote Republican–even while thinking that the Democrats will do a better job–are not necessarily being so unreasonable. The Democrats control the presidency and both houses of Congress, and so it’s a completely reasonable stance to prefer them to the Republicans yet still think they’ve gone too far and need a check on their power.”

Shankar Vedantam (author of The Hidden Brain) finds that explanation unsatisfactory and is happier with the thesis that voters are irrational:

“One explanation for our paradox is that Americans want divided government. If we have gridlock with one party in charge, perhaps we would have more legislative movement if power in Congress were divided? This might make sense as a national storyline, but it doesn’t make sense in the real world, because wanting divided government doesn’t tell an individual how to vote. If you are a voter in, say Pennsylvania’s 8th District, would you vote against Democratic incumbent Patrick Murphy in order to get divided government if you weren’t sure how people in all the other congressional Districts were going to vote? If you liked Murphy, would you say you are going to vote against him just to get divided government? For one thing, if people in other districts voted against Democrats, you could get divided government even if you voted for Murphy. Wouldn’t it make more sense to stop worrying about how everyone else votes and simply pick the candidate you like?…

That may not make sense, but the hidden brain is not in the rationality business. When we are stuck in a bad place, whether that bad place is a marriage, a traffic jam, or a weak economy, it is very tempting to try something new. Psychologists call this the action bias—and it turns out to have surprisingly broad ramifications.”

Andrew Gelman rebuts:

“…in his eagerness to explain undesirable political outcomes as the product of irrationality and “unconscious bias,” Vedantam is missing the point. To start with, a small swing of 10% of the vote would result in a large swing in the political outcome. To take the example above, if you like Patrick Murphy, you can vote for him, and if you prefer his opponent, you can cast your vote the other way. No problem. But there are lots of people in the middle. Preference for divided government may be only a small factor, but it can be enough to swing some votes…

I’m not saying that preference for divided government explains all or, necessarily, even most of the anticipated vote swing in 2010. But don’t be so quick to dismiss the idea. What disturbs me in Vedantam’s otherwise interesting article is the oh-so-quick move to explain away uncomfortable political trends with psychological explanations. Whether the argument is that whites voted for Obama because it made them feel good about themselves, or that people are planning to vote Republican in 2010 because “our unconscious bias favors action over holding steady, regardless of whether that makes sense,” my response is: Maybe so. But let’s consider some more direct explanations first.”

I’m with Gelman. In my mind, the most irrational vote is a vote based on any variation of the construct -“My party is good and the other party is bad.”

Occam’s razor suggests we do not need to invoke “unconscious bias” to understand a straightforward preference for divided government. If you prefer the spending restraint, greater oversight, and better legislation we get as a direct consequence of a divided government state, the most rational vote is the vote most likely to create that state. Even if you sometimes have to vote for candidates you don’t trust in a party that does not make you comfortable.

I’m good with that. I’ll vote straight GOP this cycle to secure divided government, and if the GOP takes either or both houses, I’ll vote to re-elect Barack Obama in 2012 to keep it.

Since Vedantam seems puzzled by how a preference for divided government could be applied in the real world, I thought it might help to offer a practical guide on “How to Vote for Divided Government”:

First take a clear eyed look at pre-election partisan mix of the executive and legislative branches, then vote in the manner that is most likely to achieve a divided government. To show how easy this really is – here off the top of my head are two decades of divided government votes including the current and next cycle (and election results):

2012 – Barack Obama (TBD)
2010 – Straight Republican ticket (TBD)
2008 – John McCain (L)
2006 – Straight Democratic ticket(W)
2004 – John Kerry (L)
2002 – Straight Democratic ticket(L)
2000 – Al Gore (L)
1998 – No divided government vote (NA)
1996 – Bill Clinton (W)
1994 – Straight Republican ticket(W)
1992 – George H Bush (L)

You win some, you lose some, and there can be circumstances where there is no specific divided government vote, such as in 1998 (there was no realistic likelihood of single party rule in that election).”

Looking this list over, I cannot help but think how much better off this country would be today if some of those L’s had been W’s. It would not have taken a lot of votes.

Cross pollinated from Divided We Stand United We Fall

Looks like the Tea Party folks are getting a lot more push back from the GOP then they were expecting. First Mike Castle won’t endorse Christine O’Donnell in Delaware and now Lisa Murkowski is literally trying to win while not being on the ballot.

From Anchorage Daily News:

Murkowski said she agonized over the decision to run as a write-in and that, as of Thursday night, she still didn’t know if she was going to do it. She said she kept hearing from Alaskans who felt they couldn’t vote for either Miller or the Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate seat, Sitka Mayor Scott McAdams.

“They told me that we cannot accept the extremist views of Joe Miller,” she said. “We can’t accept those views and, equally, we can’t accept the inexperience of Mr. McAdams,” she said.

So, does she have a shot? Well, as the story notes, the last time a write in campaign was successful was in 1956 when Strom Thurmond won in South Carolina. That doesn’t mean it can’t happen again, and Alaska is a very different type of state. If Murkowski can effectively paint Miller as a radical and McAdams as inexperienced, that could bode well for an independent run.

Still, McAdams is the mayor of Sitka, a small Alaskan town with roughly the same population as Wasilla. I’m not saying that McAdams should make the comparison to Palin, but there is a parallel.

Looks like Murkowski is already getting ahead of anything Palin will say to effectively neutralize her endorsement with a more populist message…

Former Gov. Sarah Palin, whose support for Miller drove hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from the Tea Party Express his way, called Murkowski’s effort futile. Murkowski offered a response to Palin, who resigned as governor last year, and to others she described as “naysayers” in Washington D.C.

“Perhaps it’s one time they met one Republican woman who won’t quit on Alaska,” Murkowski said, receiving a huge standing ovation from her supporters.

So, can she do it?

Cue Nate Silver:

Can Ms. Murkowski win? Sure she can. There is plenty of precedent for write-ins being elected to the Congress, although fewer have done so successfully in recent years. Meanwhile, a poll by Public Policy Polling found Ms. Murkowski getting 34 percent of the vote against Mr. Miller’s 38 percent and Mr. McAdams’ 22 percent. Private polling has also shown Ms. Murkowski running closely with Mr. Miller, according to The Hotline. [...]

Finally, Alaska has a large number of independents. A plurality of 42 percent of Alaskans identified themselves that way in exit polling in 2008, one of the highest percentages in the country. Thus, an independent candidacy like Ms. Murkowski’s has a natural constituency of sorts.

As the saying goes, “May you live in interesting times.”

USA Today highlights an interesting trend that may be good news for the centrists, indies, moderate repubs and moderate dems out there.

A taste…

WARWICK, R.I. — Lincoln Chafee comes from a long line of Rhode Island governors, three in the previous four generations, all of them Republicans. Now the former Republican senator and mayor of Warwick is running for governor himself.

As an independent.

No independent has been elected to lead a state for more than a decade, since pro wrestler-turned-politician Jesse “The Body” Ventura became governor of Minnesota in 1999.

But this year there are three credible independent contenders for governor — a record. [...]

The other two are Tim Cahill, and indy turned Dem who’s running against incumbent Dem Gov Deval Patrick in Massachusetts, and Eliot Cutler, a Dem (who was briefly registered with the GOP) turned Indy who’s running for Governor in Maine. Cutler was a former Carter administration energy official who also helped craft the Clean Water and Clean Air acts while he was a legislative assistant under Senator Edmund Muskie of Maine.

Also, let’s not forget Charlie Crist, who’s now leading in a three way race in Florida for that Senate seat.

I think we all realized that this was coming sooner rather than later, especially with the Joe Lieberman situation. He was one of the first to switch to the middle after his party rejected him…and it seems like he’s been having a pretty good time in the middle. True, a lot of hardcore Dems hate him, but he still toes the party line a majority of the time so Dems might want to wise up. Especially since it’s likely that Romney will be the Rep candidate in 2012 and Lieberman could easily support Obama under those circumstances.

But to get back to the point…

Again, this writing has been on the wall for years. People hate party politics. And even though Fox News and the far right wing have co-opted the Tea Party, what we’re seeing as a result of these primaries is that people don’t want to go with the status quo. 2010 is a bad year for incumbents, be they Dems or Repubs. Most likely this will hit the Dems more because they make up the majority, but the mood is universally “throw the bums out.” Voters see the inherent flaws in being tied to this ideology or that, because politics has always been about the art of the compromise, and these newly minted independent politicians could actually deliver a new path forward.

But will people actually vote for an Indy?

Well…

Sixty percent of those surveyed in the latest USA TODAY/Gallup Poll say they are very or somewhat likely to vote for an independent candidate this fall, signaling at the least an openness to the idea.

“These are bad economic conditions and an extreme public disenchantment with the major parties,” says Darrell West, director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution and a former political science professor at Brown, in Providence. “That creates an opportunity for independent candidates.”

What’s unfortunate is that the Tea Partiers would be electing people who are far more likely to just be another cog in the right wing machine, as opposed to true independent thinkers. Well, let me back up. It’s not unfortunate because, as mentioned, the net effect may be politicians who are now not tied to any party and can make the best decisions.

Still, we’re not naive. We know that palms will still be greased and backs will still be slapped, but at least it appears we’re moving in a better direction.

So…who will you be voting for in the Fall?

First it was the wishy-washiness of the civil rights act repeal and now it’s criticism of the administration being tough on BP?

Watch the video…

Here’s the thing…yes, accidents happen on offshore oil rigs. However, most damage is mitigated by appropriate safety measures being put in place to keep spills to a minimum.

However, recent reports have revealed that BP didn’t spend the appropriate time, money or energy to ensure that an accident couldn’t turn into a catastrophe. And now the Gulf is paying the price with 2M+ gallons being pumped into that ecosystem every single day.

Do know I’m genuinely sorry to see Rand suffer these slings and arrows. I liked how earnest his dad was, but that doesn’t make up for being so green. In other words, Rand really has nobody to blame but himself. He just isn’t ready for the national stage and this week has been evidence of exactly that. Maybe he’ll recover, but I think we all have serious doubts.

More as it develops…

Forgive me, but right now all I can think of is this.

You can almost hear the meeting that this was cooked up in…

“All those in favor of paying homage to a terrorist to rally the anti-government right so they’ll vote for us in November say aye!”

Now, before you claim the same thing that many on the right are saying…that the allusion to Fawkes wasn’t intentional…yeah, I’m sure they weren’t paying any attention to Ron Paul supporters in 2007. I’m sure they didn’t check Google for the words “Remember November”. And none of them saw that movie or read the comic either. All completely innocent…nudge nudge wink wink…sure.

Also, the claim that young staffers did this in house…sure. As long as those staffers spent hundreds upon hundreds of hours learning After Effects and Final Cut Pro. Certainly not impossible, but the suggestion that this was just slapped together by some interns is ludicrous. You don’t entrust novices and cross your fingers when creating something that the entire world will be paying attention to.

Okay, well, I take that back.

By the way…TIME says this about the vid…

One other note, RGA message wizards have intentionally not circulated this video on YouTube or made an embed version of it publicly available. (Swampland asked for, and was granted, special dispensation.) They want people to view it on their site, RememberNovember.com, in the hopes of building a grassroots army.

Ummm…well, here’s the publicly available link to the video. Not too hard to find.

Tip for the wizards…free technology exists where you can host videos on your own site so nobody can embed them on theirs. It’s like magic…only without any actual magic!

This moment from the Massachusetts Senate debate is getting a lot of play:

“It’s not Ted Kennedy’s seat. It’s not the Democrat’s seat. It’s the people’s seat.”

If Brown wins, this may be the moment that put him over the top. Over a million dollars flowed into his campaign coffers in the 24 hours after the debate. The Democratic party establishment took note and sent out a call for cavalry. Of course Big Union is riding to the rescue. But in the meantime, while Coakley is measuring the drapes in Washington D.C., Brown is on the ground in Massachusetts.

Watching from afar out here on the left coast, I have a hard time believing that Massachusetts would elect a Republican to finish Ted Kennedy’s term in the Senate. It seems as unlikely as unseating my Representative Nancy Pelosi or Senator Barbara Boxer in the upcoming mid-terms. Just not a good bet.

There were some interesting insights on this election in the comments to Frank’s post on the race. In terms of prognostications, I’ll defer to our man on the ground and agree with Kranky. The Dems may get a scare, but on election night Martha Coakley will prevail. As Nick points out, all this national attention and the tightening polls should serve to motivate the rank and file Democrats to get out the vote. Excitement about their candidate being heretofore the very thing that is missing from the Democratic campaign. Scott Brown is givng them the gift of panic excitement.

That said, Scott Brown is doing some very smart things. Challenging Massachusetts voters to rethink the notion that this senate seat is an entitlement of the Democratic Party was exactly the right thing to do. In addition, he is soft pedaling the commitment required by voters, noting there are only three years left in the term. Saying in effect – Just try it out for while. If you don’t like it you don’t have to buy. Very smart salesmanship – first deal with the objection, then make it easy to sign on the dotted line.

It will still be a miracle if he pulls it off, but if he does I’ll have to change my prediction for 2010. Who knows? If the GOP can pick up this seat, four more seems reasonable, and if Joe Lieberman gets tired of his abusive relationship with the Democrats, well, that means a new majority in the Senate in 2011.

Dare I even dream the impossible dream? Replacing Barbara Boxer with Carly Fiorina?

If Brown can win in Massachusetts, anything can happen.

^{cross-posted at Divided We Stand United We Fall}

But last week the undead meme was walking again:

The GOP’s Best Weapon In 2010
History Makes The Case For Divided Government
By Gary Andres

Morris Fiorina is a political scientist that wrote the definitive text on Divided Government, titled appropriately enough – “Divided Government“. His comment in this piece goes directly to the raison d’être for my blog. To seek an answer to this never-ending question – “Rather than trusting the partisan balancing choice to a subconscious impulse, would we not be much better off if a few percentage of the electorate simply voted consciously for divided government?” And to promote that divided government voting heuristic.

On that topic, two more recent articles on the same general theme:

Swing time is coming for Dems, GOP
By: Noemie Emery Examiner Columnist

THE REAL REASON AMERICANS ARE ANGRY
It’s the big government, stupid.
by Matt Welch

A side benefit of watching the undead specter of divided government haunt the media again – We are no longer hearing about how the United States is really a “center-left” country.

It may be a bit early for these proclamations and conclusions. We are still more than a year away from the midterms. I still think it will take until 2012 to get there, but when Chris Dodd, Arlen Specter, and Harry Reid are all in trouble, we can safely say that divided government is rising from the grave.

Cross posted from “Divided We Stand United We Fall“