“I will wholeheartedly support the GOP nominee against Barack Obama. I will contribute financially to the campaign to the extent I am able, contribute my time if I can, and publicly and enthusiastically support the nominee.”

Brad Smith

First, some caveats. State head-to-head polling is very iffy this far from the election. For example, President Obama has terrible approval numbers in Kentucky, 39/56 approve/disapprove. McCain beat him there 57.5% to 41.1%. Over the past three presidential elections, Republican have won the state by an average of 17 poitns. Yet in head to head match-ups, Obama currently leads all 2012 GOP candidates. Does anyone really think Obama is going to win Kentucky in 2012?

Thus, I tend to find that approval/disapproval numbers tell us more. Yet they also have their weakness – after all, candidates run against other specifically identifiable candidates. In an election such as we should expect in 2012, much will turn on whether voters see the race as a referendum on Obama, or as a referendum on the Republican nominee’s suitability. President Obama will spend over $1 billion to make it the latter, and have tremendous help from the national press corps. Space prohibits me from talking at length about the particulars of each state’s electorate, particularly as it may react to the various GOP candidates and the issues at the fore in 2012. I do believe that past election results, however, are quite useful – in states that typically voted Republican before 2008, and voted Republican again in 2010, there is a high probability that 2008 was an aberation. With that said, here we go.

Let’s start with likely GOP pick ups.

1. The Census: States won by McCain will have 6 more Electoral College votes in 2012 than they did in 2008. So if we are correct that all 2008 GOP states will hold for the GOP, we have the GOP +6.

2. Nebraska. Nebraska is one of two states (with Maine) that splits its electoral college votes – although that hadn’t actually happened until 2008, when McCain won 4 of 5. Obama got one vote by carrying one of Nebraska’s three congressional districts. That won’t happen this time. GOP +1.

3. Indiana. Indiana politics lean slightly Republican at the state level, but in national races the state has been reliably Republican – at least until 2008, when Obama defeated McCain 49.9 to 48.9. But George W. Bush easily won the state twice, with 56.7% in 2000 and 59.9% in 2004. Before Obama’s win, the state hadn’t gone Democratic since Lyndon Johnson’s 1964 landslide over Barry Goldwater. Obama’s approval rating in the state has been hovering around 40%. Outgoing GOP Governor Mitch Daniels is popular and Mike Pence, the likely gubernatorial nominee, and long-time Senator Richard Lugar will be a popular figures on the statewide GOP ticket in 2012. GOP + 11.

4. Virginia. McCain bailed on Virginia fairly early in the 2008 race, and the state went relatively comfortably to Obama, 52.6% to 46.3%. But Bush won the state by 8 points in both 2000 and 2004, and like Indiana, we have to go back to 1964 to find the last pre-Obama Democratic presidential win in the state.

In 2009, Bob McDonald ended 8 years of Democratic rule in the Virginia statehouse by crushing Creigh Deeds by 18 points. Republicans also won 61% of the vote for the state House of Delegates in 2009, increasing their margin by to 59-39 in that Chamber, and swept the statewide offices. In 2010, Republicans picked up 3 congressional seats in the Old Dominion. Democrats took over the State Senate in 2007 but will probably lose control this year. And U.S. Senator Jim Webb will be retiring, depriving the Democrats of a well-regarded incumbent on the statewide ticket in 2012. Governor McDonald remains popular, which should help the GOP in 2012, even though he won’t be on the ballot.

The latest polling – by the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling – shows Obama with slightly higher disapproval than approval, but in a statistical tie with Mitt Romney and leading the other GOP candidates. Despite this relatively strong head-to-head polling, when push comes to shove I don’t see Obama carrying the state. GOP +13.

5. North Carolina. Obama beat McCain by 14,000 votes in 2008, 49.7% to 49.4%. As in Virginia, Public Policy Polling has Obama in a statistical tie with Romney and leading the other Republicans, but his approval/disapproval stands at 46/50%.  Bush twice won with 56% of the vote here, and like Indiana and Virginia, North Carolina also voted GOP in both Clinton elections. Before Obama, the Democrats last victory here was Jimmy Carter in 1976. In the 2012 Governor’s race, polls show Republican Pat McCrory leading incumbent Democrat Beverly Purdue by 6 to 12 points. Unemployment exceeds 10 percent. This state looks awfully good for a GOP pick up right now. GOP +15.

This gives the GOP 46 of the 97 votes needed to flip the White House.

Lean GOP Pickup

6. Florida. In contrast to Indiana, Florida has become very Republican at the state level, with the GOP holding better than two to one advantages in both houses of the legislature, but only marginally Republican in presidential races. Obama carried electoral college giant 50.9% to 48.1% in 2008. The state has been very close in each of the last 5 presidentials, with Bush’s 5 point victory in 2004 being the closest thing to a blowout. But Obama’s numbers have plummeted in recent polls, to 44-51 positive/negative in the latest Quinnipiac Poll, down 9 points since May, and only 42% thought he deserved reelection. That poll also showed him, however, with a narrow lead over Mitt Romney.

If not for the unpopularity of Republican Governor Rick Scott, I would probably put Florida in the “likely GOP” column. One caveat: if Marco Rubio is the Republican VP nominee, as many suspect, then you can definitely move the state to the “Likely GOP” column. GOP +27.

7. New Hampshire. Obama carried the Granite State by a comfortable 54.1 to 44.5% in 2008, but the GOP struck back with a vengeance in 2010, holding a U.S. Senate seat with surprising ease and picking up both of the state’s congressional seats, plus flipping both houses of the state legislature. In fact, the GOP won its largest State House majority since 1984, and its largest Senate majority since 1962. A recent Gallup Poll shows Obama’s approval at a mere 40%.  Perry might not play well with the state’s electorate, and New Hampshire is not the reliably Republican state it was just 20 years ago (the Democrats held the Governor’s office in 2010), but it looks ripe for a GOP gain in 2012. GOP +4.

8. Ohio. Ohio is another state where Obama’s approval rating is upside down and falling, but where he holds his own in head-to-head polling with GOP candidates. A late July Quinnipiac poll had his favorable/unfavorable at 46/50, with the same 46% saying he deserved re-election (vs. 47% saying he does not). In August, Public Policy Polling had him at 44/52 approval/disapproval. But he leads Romney and Perry narrowly and the others by more in match up polling.

Like many states on this list, the GOP made big pickups in Ohio in 2010. New Governor John Kasich has pushed through public collective bargaining reforms and a serious budget that hits a number of sacred cows of the left, and that has hurt his rankings. But if the reforms work, he’ll look pretty good by November 2012. Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown will be on the ballot for re-election, and he also suffers from bad numbers.

Though I’ve put them all in “lean Republican,” Florida and New Hampshire look pretty good for the GOP. Ohio is where the really hard work begins. GOP +18.

That’s 49 electoral votes I think lean Republican, which added to likely pick-ups puts the party within two of the 97 vote pick up it needs.

Toss ups

Several states are GOP pick-up opportunities, but at this point I would rate them only as toss-ups – if you’re really cautious, you can move Ohio and even New Hampshire to this category:

9. Colorado. Public Policy Polling had Obama at 46% approval in early August, while Gallup puts him at 44%. Independents are 38% approval vs. 56% disapproval.

For a decade, progressive, Democratic activists and funders engaged in a careful, well thought out plan to convert this marginally GOP state into a Democratic bastion, and by the end of 2008, the effort had yielded considerable fruit. Obama carried the state by 9 points, easily the best showing for a Democrat since Lyndon Johnson in 1964, and the Democrats had captured both U.S. Senate seats, a majority of the Congressional delegation, both houses of the state legislature, and most statewide offices.

Republicans and the business community finally began to get organized after the ’08 debacle, and in 2010 the GOP narrowly reclaimed the State House (by one seat) while making marginal gains in the State Senate and winning the Secretary of State’s office. Republicans also gained a Congressional seat. Yet signs of GOP disarray in the state remained: Don Maes won the state’s GOP gubernatorial primary and was such a bad, scandal-ridden candidate that the Party disowned him – Maes finished 3rd in the race. Tea Party favorite Ken Buck won the party’s senate nomination but was a somewhat surprisingly weak general election candidate, allowing appointed first term senator Michael Bennett to narrowly hang on.

This is a rare state where the decisive factor in 2012 may be less the President than the state parties. Does 2010 show the GOP getting its act together, or did it just benefit from a great GOP year nationally? Will the progressive Democratic machine hold together after the disappointment of the Obama years? We shall see. Potential  + 9.

10. Nevada. Here’s another traditional swing state that went to Obama with surprising ease in 2008, 55.2% to 42.7%. Picking up the seven or so points needed to swing the state won’t be easy for Republicans. Unions remain strong here, and the state’s libertarian voters may not cotton to someone of Rick Perry’s open religiousity (although Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith may play well in this heavily Mormon state; Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is a Mormon). But Bush carried the state twice, and Obama was the first Democrat to crack 50% since Lyndon Johnson. Public Policy Polling, the Democratic firm, recently had Obama’s approval/disapproval at a horrendous 41/53, with Gallup having a slighly higher 44% approval.  Unemployment is 12.9%, highest in the nation. Potential +6.

11. Iowa. Iowa has gone Democratic in 5 of the last 6 elections, the exception being a very narrow win (49.9% to 49.2%) for Bush in 2004. Obama carried it handily, 53.9 to 44.4%, in ’08. Obama looks reasonably safe here. His 49% approval in Gallup is above his national average. Yet is doesn’t really feel like a Democratic state.  In 2010 the state’s voters sacked the state Supreme Court majority, primarily over its holding in favor of same sex marriage. Long-serving incumbent Chuck Grassley pounded out a two to one victory in the U.S. Senate race, the GOP picked up the governorship and the Secretary of State’s office, and Republicans won a majority of the state vote for the U.S. House, even though Democrats won three of the 5 seats.  Republicans hold a 58-42 edge in the State House, although Democrats hold the Senate 27-23.

Obama is at just 45% approval in Public Policy Polling August poll, yet as in so many other states, he leads his potential GOP opponents in head-to-head match ups. Even Romney trails Obama by 10. There are no other statewide races in Iowa in 2012, so this will be a straight Obama referendum. Potential +6.

12. New Mexico. New Mexico is a state where George W. Bush’s inroads with Hispanic voters helped him to a narrow win in 2004, after a narrow defeat in 2000 (Gore won the state by 367 votes). The state is basically Democratic at the local level, but Republicans have long been competitive at the presidential level and at times in other upper echelon offices. Obama won easily here in ’08, 56.9% to 41.8% (the first Democrat to get 50% since LBJ), as the Republican share of the Hispanic vote plummeted. But the GOP bounced back in 2010 state elections, with Susanna Martinez taking the Governor’s office and Republicans gaining 8 seats in the State House. Republicans also picked up a Congressional seat.

Hispanic voters here are more conservative than Hispanic voters nationwide. It will be interesting to see if Marco Rubio, if he is the GOP Vice Presidential nominee, helps the GOP, not just here but in Nevada (which also elected an Hispanic-Republican governor in 2010) and in Colorado, which both have a substantial hispanic voting population. (Rubio, of course, is of Cuban ancestry, whereas most western hispanics  are of Mexican or Central American heritage.) And don’t think it out of the question that Governor Martinez, or Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval could end up as a surprise pick for the GOP ticket, too. Either would probably pull both states, and perhaps Colorado, too, firmly into the GOP camp.

Gallup has Obama’s approval rating here at 46%. Potential  +5.

13. Wisconsin. Obama carried Wisconsin by 56 to 42% in 2008, after very narrow victories for Al Gore in 2000 (47.8 to 47.6%) and John Kerry in 2004 (49.7 to 49.3%).  Republicans made enormous gains in 2010, however, retaking the Governorship for the first time in 12 years, taking both houses of the state legislature, and defeating Senator Russ Feingold. Walker’s controversial collective bargaining reforms have knocked the GOP’s numbers down a peg, but not enough for Democrats to retake the state Senate in the summer’s recall elections, or to win an election to the state Supreme Court, despite an enormous investment of time and money in both.

I suspect that by next fall the controversy over Walker won’t matter – the bitter-enders would vote for Obama anyway, and independents will be looking at the Presidential race on its own merits in this swing state. With that, note that Obama has a relatively healthy 50% approval rating in Wisconsin (per Gallup), a less enticing 45/51 approval/disapproval from Public Policy Polling. But PPP also has him leading all of the GOP candidates, Romney narrowly, the others by double digits. Potential + 10.

That’s 36 toss up votes.

Lean Democrat

14. Pennsylvania. The Republicans have made major efforts here for each of the last several presidential campaigns, only to come up short, sometimes by considerable margins. Obama carried the state 54.5% to 44.2%; Kerry by 50.9% to 48.4%; Gore by 50.6% to 46.4%. Bill Clinton carried the state by nine points in each of his races. 

So, can the GOP really turn Pennsylvania in 2012? Well, let’s see: a Quinnipiac poll in early August had Obama’s approval at an upside down 43/54, with a “deserves reelection” number at 42%. A Muhlenberg College poll late in the  month delivered worse news for the President: a 35% approval rating, one of his worst in the country – what you’d expect to see in Alabama or some such deep red place. And while Democrats have a huge registration advantage in Pennsylvania, they tend to be culturally conservative voters. Republicans hold a comfortable majority in the state senate and regained control of the state house and the governor’s office in 2010. But so far Republicans have not come up with a top challenger to Democratic Senator Robert Casey, Jr., who ought to be vulnerable, so that help Democrats a bit.

I’m sorely tempted to put Pennsylvania into at least the “toss-up” camp, if not the “lean GOP” camp; but the GOP’s poor history in presidential races in the Keystone state lead me to keep it in the lean Obama column. Potential +20.

15. Oregon. Oregon? Oregon hasn’t gone Republican since the Reagan landslide of 1984. Obama carried it by 16 points. But Republicans should be expected to make a charge here. The state is not hopeless for the Grand Old Party – the State House is deadlocked 30-30 and the State Senate is just 16-14 Democrat. Democrats have won the last three gubernatorial races without reaching 51% of the vote. Outside of progressive Portland, the capital of Salem, and the College town of Eugene, the state leans Republican, and much of the eastern state is as deep a red as any place in Idaho or Utah. PPP has Obama at 49% approval, but Gallup gives Obama just a 44% approval score. A July poll from Survey USA mirrored Gallup, with a 44/53 approval/disapproval. Oregon has a 9.5% unemployment rate.

Can Republicans win Oregon in 2012? Hell, yes. Potential + 7.

16. Michigan. Think of Michigan as a slightly smaller Pennsylvania. As in Pennsylvania, many registered Democrats are quite conservative culturally. As in Pennsylvania, Democrats have won the last 5 presidential elections here. As in Pennsylvania, the GOP has put a lot into Michigan in the last several presidential elections, but in the end the Democrats always win, often going away. Obama won here 57.3% to 40.9%. Obama’s approval has also held up pretty well here, at 50% per Gallup.

But maybe Michiganders are fed up. Republicans made huge gains in 2010 to capture both houses of the state legislature, and won the Governor’s office in an 18 point blowout after eight years of the glamorous but utterly incompentent Jennifer Granholm (remind you of anyone?). Then there is the 10.9% unemployment.  And while the Romney name isn’t magic in Michigan – since the popular George Romney left office in 1969, Ronna Romney, Lenore Romney, and Scott Romney have all lost bids for statewide office – if Mitt Romney is the nominee, you have to think there will be more than a little nostalgia for the golden age when Mitt’s father was Governor. Potential +16.

17. Maine CD 1. Like Nebraska, Maine awards individual electoral votes for winning congressional districts. The GOP made huge gains in Maine in 2010 (see below) and could well take the electoral college vote for the First Congressional District, even while losing the state. Potential: +1

Total Lean Democrat: 44.

Others:
There’s not much point to analysing a “likely Obama” category – suffice to say that the GOP has some other potential targets, but if they can win them, it probably won’t be necessary – they’ll almost certainly have picked up the needed electoral college votes in the states above. However, among those possibilities:

18. Maine: Obama ’08, 57.7%; Approval 50% (Gallup); Unemployment 7.7%; Republicans gained 23 house and 6 senate seats in 2010 to take control of state legislature; won governship. As noted, Maine splits its electoral votes. If the Republican candidate wins the entire state, that would 3 more votes, in addition to the one discussed above. Potential +3.

19. Minnesota: Obama ’08, 54.1%; Approval 52% (Gallup); Unemployment 7.2%. Republicans gained 25 house and 16 senate seats to take state legislature in 2010. Don’t count on Michelle Bachmann winning her home state if she’s the nominee. Potential + 10

20. Washington: Obama ’08, 57.3%; Approval 50% (Gallup), 47/50% (SUSA); Unemployment 9.3%; marginal GOP gains in 2010. Potential +12.

21. New Jersey: Obama ’08, 57.1%; Approval 54% (Gallup). Only if Chris Christie is on the ticket, or the bottom falls out for Obama, could New Jersey be in play. Potential +14.

Is there any state where Obama might make a gain? I’ve assumed not, but if I were to pick one, it might be Arizona, with it’s burgeoning Hispanic population. McCain carried his home state with just 53.4%; Republican legislative gains were unimpressive in 2010; and for all the fuss about immigration, Arizona’s unemployment is high but not out of control compared to the rest of the country- 9.4%. Obama’s Gallup approval number is 44% in Arizona.

In this analysis, I’ve assumed here that the Republican candidate will be reasonably traditional – probably Romney or Perry. With a Palin, Paul, or Bachmann candidacy, for example, we’d almost have to say all bets are off (which is not to say those three, or others, can’t or shouldn’t win, just that their nominations would seem to totally scramble traditional thinking about how the election might go).

So, if we exclude Arizona and the four “likely Obama” states, we can figure that the Republican nominee – assuming reasonable competence – begins with 179 electoral votes: the 173 won by McCain, plus the 6 votes those states have gained as a result of the census. From there he or she will need another 91, from a potential pool of 169 possible. Or to put it another way, he or she will need to carry those by 91-78 or better. Is that doable? At this point, I’d say it is more probable than not.  But remember, it is going to be a very nasty campaign, and a very hard slog.

Cross posted from Division of Labour.

Not all states report data by party.  Right now, Professor McDonald has partisan breakdown data on early voting for Iowa, Maine, North Carolina.  Note that these are not actual votes – merely the registration data for those casting early ballots.  Democrats may vote for Republicans, and vice versa.

In Iowa, the breakdown of voter registration for ballots returned so far this year is 42.1% Democratic, 28.9% Republican, and 28.9% Independent.  In 2008, final early voting registration in Iowa broke 46.9% Democratic, 28.9% Republican, and 24.2% other.  Those numbers are for ballots returned.  According to the Chicago Tribune, the Democrats also have a narrower margin this year in ballots requested by their registered voters than they have had in past in early voting. 

In Maine, the breakdown on ballots returned so far this year, by party registration, is 36.3% Democratic, 37.6% Republican, 24.5% Independent, and 1.5% Green.  In 2008, the final count on early voting, by registration, was 41.1% Democratic to 27.7% Republican and 31.2% other.

In North Carolina, the breakdown on ballots returned by party registration so far is 42.2% Democratic, 40.2% Republican, and 17.5% Independent.  This compares to a 2008 breakdown of 55.9% Democratic, 27.1% Republican, and 17.0% Independent. 

There are several other states that ultimately report early voting data by party registration, but they’ve not yet checked in.

Again, these numbers really are just for fun.  I wouldn’t put much stock in them as a harbinger of forthcoming Republican success, and if they turn south, I wouldn’t worry much, at least not until a lot more votes are in.  But they’re fun to look at nevertheless.

This new regulation would extend the document retention requirements to electronic communications.  So, because the state requires a candidate to retain a copy of campaign brochures or bulk mail for a year (which is annoying but doable) it must now retain a sample of each electronic media advertisement, text message, or other social media communication.  The copy must either be a paper copy, or an electronic copy that can produce a paper copy of the message.  …

Interestingly enough, representatives from Google, Yahoo, Facebook and AOL supported this rule.  Apparently they believe that the disclaimer requirements will reassure political advertisers and protect their advertising revenues.  Sure – these providers don’t have to observe the retention requirements, and in any case wouldn’t be a party to any violations. …

This isn’t the end of the story.  The State Board will hold a future hearing and vote on a final draft in the coming months.  By that time, one hopes the Board comes to its senses and concludes that this requirement does little that is good, and abandons the false analogy that electronic communications need further regulation.

Read the whole story here. 

So-called “Reformers” don’t like to admit it, but they’ve never been comfortable with political speech on the internet, and they aren’t comfortable with it now.  Vigilence is constantly required to keep the internet an outlet for unfettered political speech.

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Bob Menendez said so this morning on ABC, and the President himself has made the claim,  “even foreign corporations may now get into the act.” 

Really?  No, not really. 

Senator Menedez said that Citizens United allows foreign corporations to spend in American elections because “a corporation is a corporation is a corporation.”  Nonsense. What the Supreme Court said is that you cannot prevent a corporation from speaking simply because it is a corporation.  Therefore, the justices struck down part of 2 United States Code Section 441b.  But a separate section of the law, 2 USC 441e, prohibits “foreign nationals” from contributing.  This section of the law wasn’t even at issue, let alone overruled.  Foreign nationals are prohibited from contributing because they are foreign nationals, not because they are corporations.  “A foreign national” is defined to include any “partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other combination of persons organized under the laws of, or having its principal place of business in, a foreign country.”

Now, this does leave open the possibility of a foreign owned company incorporating and locating in the United States, and then spending money here on politics.  But the definition of foreign national also includes non-resident aliens. And the FEC’s regulations (11 CFR 110.20(i)) provide that:

A foreign national shall not direct, dictate, control, or directly or indirectly participate in the decision making process of any person, such as a corporation, labor organization, political committee, or political organization with regard to such person’s Federal or non-Federal election-related activities, such as decisions concerning the making of contributions, donations, expenditures, or disbursements in connection with elections for any Federal, State, or local office or decisions concerning the administration of a political committee.

In other words, no foreign national can play any role in decision about political spending and activities.   

So what is left?  Well, conceivably a group of foreigners could form a corporation in the U.S., headquarter it here, and then hire some permanent legal resident aliens (“green card” holders) to make decisions about spending its money.  That doesn’t seem to likely to be a successful strategy (and remember, wealthy aliens who live in the U.S. as lawful permanent residents are already able to make personal expenditures, and even direct contributions to candidates), but suppose it is – suppose a few corporations slip through the cracks?*

If this were really a worry, it could be addressed legislatively simply by broadening the definition of foreign national to include corporations with majority (or even some minority percentage of) foreign ownership.  Such a law might also be challenged on Equal Protection or Due Process grounds (aliens located in the United States do have certain rights) but if such a challenge were successful – a big if - it would be that case, not Citizens United, that opens the door to foreign money, and that case has yet to be filed, let alone decided.

So, does Citizens United open the door to foreign contributions?  No, not really.

When you hear the hysteria, take it with a grain of salt.  And remember, the government’s position was that under McCain-Feingold and the U.S. Constitution, the government could ban distribution of political books over Kindle, political movies distributed by video on demand, and the publication of books by Regnery and their sale by Barnes and Noble.  Really?  Really. 

Surely the Court got this one right.

*This is the unlikely, worst case scenario I was referring to in this little piece, which I found very disappointing for the author’s failure to catch my major point, that contributions by foreign corporations are already prohibited by other sections of the law.

Many other links to coverage of Citizens United v. FEC, can be found at the Center for Competitive Politics, www.campaignfreedom.org.

Bradley Smith served as Commissioner and Chairman of the Federal Election Commission from 2000 to 2005, and is now Chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics and Blackmore/Nault Designated Professor of Law at Capital University Law School

It’s easy for those who have never had their name on the door to chide and scold, to second guess and to quarterback from the easy chair.  But let’s face it – Republicans don’t have the votes, and they don’t have the ability to buy people off to get them.  Republicans lost this fight when Mark Begich (endorsed by Red State) defeated Ted Stevens; when Al Franken wrested away the Minnesota Senate seat; when the Washington Post pulled out all the stops to defeat George Allen in 2006; when Bob Smith lost a close one in Oregon in 2008; when Arlen Specter (cheered on by many on this site) crossed the aisle or, to go further back, when the GOP establishment helped him hold off Pat Toomey in 2004, since Toomey probably would have won the general election that year;  when John Sununu lost in New Hampshire; and when Kay Hagan defeated Liddy Dole (yeah, we got rid of a RINO!).  

McConnell (and John Boehner) have done much better this year than most any of us would have predicted at the start of the year, and more importantly, than just about anyone else might have done.  They simply don’t have the votes.  It is pointless to sit around second guessing when there are still opportunities to be fighting this bill.  There may be people who could have done better, but I doubt there are many, and I don’t think there are any in the GOP caucus.  I am sick and tired of GOP infighting, blaming, and recriminations. 

There are still chances to stop this bill.  Stay focused on the task at hand.

“Maligned by all the “right thinking” people, denounced by Democrats and liberals as ignorant and racist, abandoned by much of the conservative intelligentsia, these ordinary Americans persevered, devoting their personal time, standing in the cold and rain, to stand up against the massive government power grab now underway. In doing so, they gave the Republican Party courage enough to offer at least some reasonable resistence to the statist juggernaut, and they reminded America of its better part: the part that yearns for freedom; that despises the crony capitalism of the current administration; that seeks only to be left alone rather than to rule; that is law abiding and peaceful even when the Administration is full of tax cheats; that maintains its decency and manners even as the high-browed, ruling class falsely accuses it of fomenting violence and hatred.

“These people represent America at its best, dedicated, involved, and prepared to defend their freedoms from the arrogance of power in the face of unending ridicule and overwhelming odds. These are the descendents of the people who won American independence. Those who mock them would most assuredly have been Tories.”

Under federal civil service rules, it is illegal to discriminate in hiring based on political affiliation.  In late 2008, the 4 EAC Commissioners (2 Republicans and 2 Democrats) agreed to hire the complainant as the Agency’s new General Counsel.  After that, according to OSC, two Commissioners (presumably the Democrats), discovered through their own research or from “contacts” that the Complainant was a Republican, and then nixed the appointment. 

One of those Democratic Commissioners, Gracia Hillman, is slated to become the EAC’s Chair in 2010.  The EAC, not to be confused with the Federal Election Commission, implements the Help America Vote Act, adopts voting system guidelines for local and state election officials, and certifies voting systems for use.

This might not look like fertile ground for a Republican takeover in 2010, but times may be a-changing.  Republican Ed Mangano appears to have narrowly defeated a two-term incumbent Democrat in the County Executive race this month, with the recount expected to conclude on Monday.  Had a spoiler Conservative Party candidate not claimed over 9000 votes, the race would not even be close.  Republicans also won a majority on the County Legislature for the first time in a decade, and unseated the Democrat County Controller.

Against this background, Frank Scaturro, a young, energetic, across-the-board conservative with the pragmmatic, problem solving style of Virginia Governor-elect Bob McDonnell, is challenging McCarthy in the 4th Congressional District race in 2010.  McCarthy’s last rating from the American Conservative Union was an 8.  Her lifetime rating is 20.  The NRA, not surprisingly, gives her an “F.”  Her last rating from the left wing Americans for Democratic Action was a 20.  McCarthy was first elected as a moderate former Republican, but has drifted steadily left in 13 years in Congress. In the current Congress she has voted the Democratic Party line more than 98 percent of the time, according to the Washington Post.  She voted “no” on the Stupak Amendment to the House version of the Obama-Pelosi healthcare bill, and then voted yes on the final bill.  This district is simply not that liberal, and McCarthy could be far more vulnerable than past election results suggest.

Scaturro was formerly Republican counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee, a position in which he helped shepherd through the supreme court nominations of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito.  He is currently an Assistant Professor at Hofstra law school, teaching Constitutional law.  Human Events’ John Gizzi recently profiled the race.  You can donate or get involved here.

Scaturro can put this seat back in the red column, especially if, as now appears likely, 2010 is a strong Republican year.  This is the type of race Republicans need to get involved in early, stretching the Democrats defense to the breaking point.  Remember, early fundraising dollars matter most.

The Democrats have to know that NY-23 was a fluke – they can’t count on gross Republican miscalculation in 2010.  Meanwhile, Democratic efforts to write off the New Jersey and Virginia losses by blaming them on bad candidates simply don’t ring true. 

In Virginia, Creigh Deeds was not a bad candidate.  In the primary, despite being vastly outspent, he hammered the powerful Terry McAuliffe.  He had the endorsement of the Washington Post, which argued that of three strong Democratic primary candidates, in the general election, “Deeds’ moderate platform would have the broadest appeal.”  On liberal blog sites, Deeds was the overwhelming favorite as the best candidate, the one most likely to win the general election.  

Jon Corzine was not a bad candidate, either – he could self-fund his race, an enormous advantage, and outspend any opponent 3 to 1, as he did to Chris Christie.  He had been elected statewide twice before.  What Corzine was, was a bad governor.  And why was he a bad governor?  Because he followed the same type of policies that the Democrats are now pursuing on a national level.  Maybe someone will notice that.

It has been noted lately that the Democrats plan to hold on next fall is to go negative, and to do so early – to “vaporize” opponents, as Harry Reid says.  But that is exactly what both Deeds and Corzine tried to do.  Corzine, who won by 11 points in 2005, lost by 4 this year.  Deeds, who lost to the same man in the attorney general race 4 years ago by fewer than 350 votes, this time lost by 18 percentage points.  Meanwhile, President Obama embraced and campaigned with both men.  Yet McDonnell won by the biggest margin for a Republican ever, and Christie by the largest margin for a Republican in 24 years.  Thus, the Democrats’ two key strategies to hold on in 2010 (other than pray for a better economy) failed miserably – Obama couldn’t save them, and relentlessly negative campaigning couldn’t save them.  These men were not bad candidates, as their past success and praise for them suggests – rather, they were running on bad issues in a time in which Democrats are increasingly blamed for the nation’s difficulties.

In the other Congressional special election, California’s 10^th District, Lt. Governor  John Garamendi won by 11 points after heavily outspending his opponent in a district won by his predecessor in 2008 by 34 points, in which Democrats have an 18 point edge in voter registration, and which Obama carried by 31 points.  Not much to crow about.

Down ballot, in races for lower offices, including state legislatures and mayors, it gets worse.  Republicans rolled to easy double digit victories in the Virginia Attorney General and Lt. Governor races.  In the Lt. Governor’s race, Bill Bolling, who won by just 1 percent in 2005, won by 12 points.  Republicans gained 6 seats (pending one recount) in the State Assembly, giving them a 61-37-2 majority.  Republicans gained a seat in the New Jersey House.  Republicans took control of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and won six of seven statewide races in the Keystone State.  Republicans gained in the heavily populated New York City suburbs , taking control of both Westchester County and Nassau County for the first time in a decade.  They even gained a couple seats on the New York City Council (in addition to the re-election of their sort-of Republican Mayor Bloomberg).  In Michigan, in a special election for a state  senate seat that had gone Democratic by 61-39 when it was last up in 2006, the Republican flipped the landslide around and won 61-36.  Republicans also flipped a New Hampshire state house seat in a special election. 

When the Republicans are rolling up victories in the northeast corridor and in Michigan, the Democrats have to be worried.  But Republican successes weren’t limited to such recent Democratic stomping grounds.  In liberal Washington state, a Republican captured 58 percent of the vote to win a state House seat controlled by Democrats for 22 years, and Republican candidates steamrolled to landslide victories to easily retain seats in two other special elections for state house. 

We might also note that the Republicans picked up two Democratic seats in special elections last month, winning a previously Democratic state house seat with 63% of the vote in a special election in Tennessee last month, and also picking up a formerly Democrat held state house seat in Oklahoma.    

Even in the safest of Democratic bastions, the Democrats underperformed.  In a special state house election in Missouri, for example, Democrats held a safe Democratic seat with 61 percent of the vote.  Sounds impressive, but in 2008, in what was also an open seat race, the Democrat carried the district with 69 percent of the vote .   This year’s showing, in fact, was the worst for the Democrats in the district since at least 1994. Meanwhile, Republicans romped to victories in safe Republican state legislative seats in South Carolina, and two races in Georgia.

Democrats held most of their big city mayors, but Republicans did to as incumbent mayors did well throughout the country, in what were mostly non-partisan races.  But a few offices changed party control, however, usually away from the Democrats, and many in the battleground Midwest and in the northeast, where the GOP is supposed to be dead. 

Toledo elected independent Mike Bell, ending 20 years of Democratic control.  An independent also defeated an incumbent Democrat in Dayton.  Republicans picked up the Mayor’s office in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.   In an open seat race in Manchester, New Hampshire, Republican Ted Gatsas kept the Mayor’s office in GOP hands with the best showing by a Republican in the city in more than a decade.  In another open seat Mayor’s race, in Norwich, Connecticut, Republican Peter Nystrom easily won election to an office previously held by a Democrat.  Republicans also won the Mayor’s office in Stamford for the first time since 1993, winning 55 percent of the vote in a city with a 2-1 Democratic edge in voter registration.  A Republican ousted the Democrats from the Mayor’s office in Stratford, Connecticut, and the GOP picked up council seats throughout the state.  You have to wonder if Chris Dodd was watching. 

Republicans picked up Mayor’s offices out west, too.  In a non-partisan race in Washington’s 4^th largest city, Republican Tim Leavitt defeated labor-backed, 14 year incumbent Royce Pollard, saying, “My opponent seems to think government creates jobs. Creating jobs is done by the business community. Where government can help out is by getting out of the way.”

The Democrats did pick up one mayor’s office of note, in Charlotte, North Carolina, but Republicans returned the favor by taking the Mayor’s slot away from the Democrats in Greensboro.  Democrats were left to find solace in such holding actions, such as not losing as many state assembly seats in New Jersey as they had thought they might. 

Republicans ought not, and probably cannot, sit around and hope they can ride into office in 2010 merely on a bad economy and Democratic ineptitude.  For one thing, the economy is resilient enough, and the Democrats and the Fed have thrown enough money into it, that the economy and the unemployment numbers should be improved and improving a year from now.  We need to press forward with common sense solutions to everyday concerns, and be explaining now why the President’s economic policies are retarding, rather than helping, the economy to recover.  And we should keep emphasizing the value of freedom.  But we can’t just expect 2010 to fall into our laps.  That said, Tuesday was a very good night for Republicans, and the more one looks at it, the harder it is for Democrats to claim otherwise. 

After Christie led all summer, this race has essentially become a deadheat, thanks to New Jersey’s Democratic electorate and Jon Corzine’s millions.  Corzine has outspent Christie about 10-1 over the summer, and is still outspending him about 3 to 1.  The polls are now showing this even.  Quinnipiac has Corzine up a point, his first lead in any poll this year.

A win for Christie is important, not only because he’d be a better governor than Corzine, but because a win will help in candidate recruitment, fundraising, and voter enthusiasm for the GOP.  The more signs there are that 2010 looks good, the more donors open their wallets, and potential candidates step up (meanwhile, the opposite happens to our friends on the Blue side of things).  So a Christie win is important for more conservative candidates in other races. 

Go here

Me:  Did you go to the speech?

V: No, I decided I did not want to hear Obama.

Me: How many kids went?

V: I would say most.

Me: What did the kids who went say about it after?

V:  Most of them just wanted to get out of class.

Some parents don’t like the idea of the President beeming his image into every school in the country on Tuesday.  I think a lot of people have gotten carried away with criticizing the president on this, but I’ll admit that I dislike it, too.  I dislike it not because the President’s speech is too political, but because it is not political.  As I note here, the President really has  nothing to say about government policy.  Here’s the speech in a nutshell:  “Welcome back to school.  Stay in school, work hard.”  

My kids don’t need to hear that from the President.  This is a President who once again shows that he has no idea of the proper role of government.  If the President wants to talk about governmental affairs, great.  I’d love for him to stop by our school to do so.  That would be a great experience for the kids.  But I do not want the President trying to raise my children.  When people ask, “how can you object to the President urging kids to stay in school,” I ask them what they’d think if I stopped by their house one night, uninvited, to tell their kids how to behave.

But Marty Peretz takes the cake.  You know what Peretz thinks?  He writes, ”it is almost disloyal to refuse any children the right to hear him.  Disloyal and nutty.”  Well gee, Martin, thanks for the “almost,” at least on the first try.  

Where’s Hillary when you need her?

This is a Corvette that looks to be in pretty good condition.  Black, pretty sharp car.  I’m sure there are a lot of young men crammed into 2001 Nissans who would have liked this car.

In this video, a ’98 Cadillac DeVille with less than 80,000 miles meets its end.  Just 68,000 miles on this Chevy Caprice wagon.

A nice looking 2001 Mazda light truck with 75,000 miles bites the dust here.  Here’s a good looking Volvo prematurely destroyed.  This SUV would look at home in any tony U.S. suburb.

Really, you ought to look at at least a couple of these videos, and the hundreds more like them on YouTube.  Are these “clunkers?”  Can it really help the economy to destroy perfectly good assets?  Are the people running the government the most economically illiterate bunch since FDR ruled the roost?  Or are they dumber?

Following up on the popular “cash for clunkers,” the government has created a plan to save the restaurant industry while attacking America’s growing obesity problem.  It’s called “Rebates for Recipes.”  Under the program, individuals can take a meal to a restaurant.  If they order a new meal at the restaurant that has at least 20 percent fewer calories, the government will provide a rebate of between $3.50 and $4.50 (depending on the savings in calories) for any entre priced at $45 or less.  The restaurant is required to destroy the trade in meal (which must be edible at the time you enter the restaurant) by putting it down the disposal.  Presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs said, “there is no end to cross subsidies with catchy slogans that we can create.  And destroying perfectly good assets seems to be a proven way to improve the economic health of the nation.”

Senate sources say they expect the projected cost of the program to treble within a week.