On Term Limits, Or, Rove Needs A New Puppet

Seasoned audiences of presidential scandal know that there's only one certainty ahead: the timing of a Karl Rove resignation. As always in this genre, the knight takes the fall at exactly that moment when it's essential to protect the king.
--Frank Rich, via the New York Times, July 17th, 2005

Karl Rove, in a move Sir Lancelot would be proud of, has announced that he will “leave the building” August 31st.

Does this mean Mr. Bush’s recent “colonoscopy” was merely a cover story for a procedure more closely resembling the removal of a hand from a puppet?

Don’t bet on it.

Consider it instead an evolutionary step in Rove’s career-and a chance to shut off some of the controversy created by his use of Republican National Committee email accounts.

Here’s what I mean:

Mr. Bush and Rove have been essentially “joined at the hip” since Texas days, but that’s now over, because of term limits.

Mr. Bush has reached the end of his political career (unless Laura decides to run), but Rove has no reason to retire-after all, why give up the power he worked so hard to get?

So where is Rove to go? He either has to “hitch his wagon” to a new Presidential contender, take over the Republican Congressional political command, or become an independent voice, much as Gingrich is today.

Despite today’s announcements that Rove would like to help get Congressional candidates elected, my suspicion is that he wants another Presidential candidate.

After all, who wants the irritation of trying to control the Republican National Congressional (RNCC) or Senatorial (RNSC) Committees? Those jobs have too much of a “frogs in a wheelbarrow” aspect to them-and why would a “unitary executive” guy take up with legislators?

And then there’s the money. Why would the current “commanders” of the RNCC or RNSC let Rove take over the distribution all those PAC donations? Those donations today are one of the major levers the Party uses to enforce discipline, and giving control to Rove would severely upset the Congressional apple cart.

On the other hand, a Presidential candidate-especially in this year’s Republican field-is much more easily drawn into the Rovian orbit. The message management and coordination issues are simpler as well-and the infighting is more readily controlled than in a Congressional environment. Not to mention the advantages of having to massage only one ego, rather than 535.

A reasonable person can imagine that Rove will be raising and spending most of the money for such a candidate; and by extension, directing that candidate’s message and image. This would seem much more attractive for a manager than the Congressional environment we just examined, and my guess is Rove feels the same way. Rove’s likely calculus reveals an additional advantage: the President’s political coordinator would be a likely head of the RNC, if Rove chose to accept the gig.

To me the real question is: has Rove selected his new pony-and has that pony yet made it to the starting gate?

It would be possible to lay out any number of scenarios, but here’s a quick five:

Rove rescues McCain.
Rove and the RNC have anointed Romney.
Giuliani has made an offer that has caught Rove’s interest.
Rove is the “missing link” that Thompson has been waiting for.
Gingrich thinks Rove can get him “over the hump”.

I’ll leave all this to the community to evaluate, so that we might take a minute to discuss Rove and his Blackberry.

Although Mr. Bush reports he never uses a computer and does not send emails, Rove Blackberries like crazy. An unknown number of those messages were related to White House business, and some were of a political nature. It is now known that many of those communications were made through an account operated by the Republican National Committee, and as we mentioned above there is considerable controversy as to the applicability of the Presidential Records Act and the Hatch Act over the contents of those accounts.

But much of that controversy disappears if Rove is no longer a White House employee. The legal issues remain, of course, but going forward the damage can be minimized, especially if the RNC servers have “accidentally” or “as a routine maintenance procedure” had the account records removed (“we’re shocked, shocked to discover the servers with those records had a catastrophic failure…we’re so disappointed we can’t prove Rove’s innocence”…). If this occurs, you can expect any investigation will be stonewalled beyond November 2008, with the hope no conclusion is issued in time to hurt the RNC, the Candidate, or Rove.

My impression is that this process is already underway.

Rove can’t be afraid of criminal sanctions, after the Scooter Libby “pardon”, suggesting, stealing from Shakespeare: “the stonewall’s the thing”.

Finally, a quick word about that “joined at the hip” thing: there’s no reason why Rove has to end his relationship with Mr. Bush’s Administration-all he has to do is place a “consigliere” in the White House to pass the messages back and forth, and the connection stays in place. And Mr. Bush still doesn’t have to use email.

I do expect an effort to create a new extension of “Executive Privilege” applicable to “non-employee advisors” of the Executive Branch.

All that being said, it’s time to get to the summary:

I suspect Rove feels he can simultaneously run a campaign and an Administration, and my guess is he’ll be trying to do just that-much to Cheney’s disappointment.

I further suspect a lot of today’s news is also based on a desire to contain the controversy over Rove’s emails-both their contents and actual existence-and that can be easily stonewalled from outside the White House.

And finally, I suspect that Rove will continue to be Mr. Bush’s close and trusted advisor-and that his freedom to act will be enhanced based on his new status.

On Evolution, Or, Political Robots Compared

Some of you may recall my previous exclusive reporting of the crash (and successful restoration) of the Hilary® Mark II Mod. 7 Robotic Candidate Device just before the start of Tuesday’s Democratic debate.

Because of the community interest, we will today expand upon that discussion by walking through some of the differences in design philosophy between the two major categories of political robots: the Robotocan™ .1 Series and .3 Series of Devices and the Democrobot Device Program robots.

The reader should also expect technical comments on the execution of those philosophies, and some consideration of the day-to-day funding, operating, and maintenance issues that impact the entire Robotic Political Device establishment.

Let’s start with design philosophy, shall we?

Those familiar with ballistic missile warhead design and targeting tactics will recall that there were two basic operational concepts for ballistic missile attack during the Cold War: the Soviet Union tended to rely on a single, large warhead-for example, an attack on Detroit might feature a single 30-megaton device fused for ground burst in the center of the downtown area. On the other hand, a US target package delivered on St. Petersburg might rely on a MIRVed delivery of perhaps 9 payloads of 500 kiloton size, dispersed over the city and fused for detonation at 1000 feet or so to accomplish a similar task.

As a result of the design decisions that went into the initial weapon designs each side has specific operating needs that drive the manner in which they direct and disburse their forces. The same is true for the Parties and their Robotic Programs.

The most important design differentiation-and the one that affects every element of campaign operations and strategic management-was the decision, starting with the Robotican™ v1994.1 and .3 series, to eliminate the autonomous speech and thought capabilities that were embedded in the Robotican™ OS kernel.

The Recent History of Democrobots

Perhaps because of their long-term Congressional successes, the Democrobot design parameters instead called for a fully autonomous Device-an adaptation of the “fire and forget” philosophy that defines many weapon systems.

Of course, what works well in Congressional elections might not work so well when dealing with a “big-tent” constituency in a Presidential race. Candidates such as a BarneyFrank or a BoxerBot were great in District and Statewide races, but they just could not get traction nationally-and this was evident to everyone with the failures of the DukakadroidCSE and the Mondaleotron.

Even the CarterSys Bicentennial Edition and The Al Gore Robotic Candidate Device Company’s Al Gore (so dull his model name was...Al Gore) were unable to achieve re-election. These models represented early experiments in applying “liberalism filters” and a new “political correctness” adapter, and it was clear that more work was required.

Democrobot designers were therefore extremely excited, to say the least, when the first pre-release testing data was returned for the two “BillBot” prototypes.

BillBot 1.0 and BillBot 1.0A both featured the two most important additions to a Democrobot Presidential Candidate Device in at least two decades-a new class of liberalism controls called a “center stabilizer service” that kept the ‘bot from veering off to the “left” too excessively; and an improved “revenue agitator”, which is designed to improve fundraising performance.

Both designs also included the newly updated WonkWare Enterprise application (now standard on all Democrobot Devices) with the Rhodes SCH snap-in installed.

The biggest difference between the 1.0 and the 1.0A was the “Carvilleator” add-on card used in the 1.0A, and it was this revolutionary device that created such excitement for Democrobot designers. This “everyman regulator” (reverse engineered from the Robotican™ RoboReagan v1980.3 after a nearly ten year effort) caused such behavior as fast food cravings, the ability to engage crowds, and a “Q” score higher that any Democrobot Candidate since KennedyCorp.’s legendary Model 109. When paired with the experimental “binary ‘bot” Hilary® Mark I, the system had extraordinary electoral and fundraising success.

Despite the success of the design, the BillBot 1.0A M3.1002 (the actual Device that was elected) had certain idiosyncrasies which lead to the decisions to remove the Carvilleator and ultimately to rework the Al Gore design for 2000. All of this rethinking (and the Al Gore’s vote gathering success) eventually led to the introduction of the Boston Robotic Group’s McKerry in 2004 as an offshoot of the Al Gore architecture.

After 2004 it was evident that, despite the risks, a BillBot-class design would have to be reintroduced, at least in the primaries, so that the BillBot and Al Gore environments could be compared side-by-side in front of live voters.

As a result, the two front-running systems in the Democratic national polling today are the BillBot Group’s ObamaBot 2 (build M1.2245) and the most current incarnation of The Al Gore Robotic Candidate Device Company’s line (and the redesign of the aforementioned 1990’s “binary ‘bot”): the Hilary® Mark II Mod. 7.

That Al Gore lineage, as we well know, has created a vastly improved but highly “moderated” Candidate. After early testing of the Mods. 5 and 6 she was determined to need an update-and the Mod. 7 included personality emulator and Iraq War response software “tweaks”. Recent evaluations have suggested that this new code, while highly successful, may have contributed to the crash we discussed in the first installment of this story.

Meanwhile, ObamaBot engineers also appear to be in a “field development” process, with alterations to the aggression controls causing recent anomalies when trying to run the %root%\foreign_affairs.com program’s command set, among other issues. Because of the efficiency of the improved revenue agitator ’07 software and chipset, however, sufficient funding exists to ensure the program can continue to exist as long as is necessary. Downtuning of the reintegrated Carvilleator may occur in the future as well if the operators determine an increased “gravitas output” is required.

Robotican™ Devices considered

Earlier we had touched upon the decision to remove the autonomous speech/thought system from the Robotican™ operating system, and it is now time to explore this topic further.

It was well known that the speech/thought system had led to many duds and misfires of Robotican™ Congressional Candidate ‘bots (and a Democrobot majority in several Congresses) throughout the previous several election cycles leading up to 1994; and it was hoped that by adopting a “push” software/firmware update system and a new “talking point service” for the series a more consistent “ideological display” output could be achieved.

As a result, all Robotican™ Congressional Candidate Devices (the so-called .1 Series) include the capability to receive “push” updates through a simple SATCOM modem. Interoperability exists with the Robotican™ Murdoch series of Media Robots, meaning all Republican robotic assets can be software updated with the same “talking points” simultaneously.

The GWBmatic3000 v2000.3 Device Series, developed for the 2000 Presidential election cycle, is a variation on the highly reliable and robust Barbara6000 (there were motherboard issues, and a redesign was needed for Presidential Service); and features an additional “remote user” capability that allows for live operation of the Device by a connected operator.

The evolution of that capability is in itself amazing.

Robotican™ engineers were tasked with the development of an on-board chipset that would incorporate the capabilities of Harris Corp.’s AN/VRC-103(V)2 radio system-a unit often carried as a backpack by US Army troops today-to allow the remote operator 100% reliability of communication with the GWBmatic 3000 in any conceivable threat environment; particularly debates; with absolute system availability guaranteed by the installation of radiation isolated and redundant data busses emanating from redundant neck antennae.

To prevent Democratic political operators from “listening in” on the transmissions, the SINCGARS and Havequick I/II frequency hopping systems were included, along with Fascinator 128kbps support-unique among acknowledged military COMSEC systems. (Extensive encryption key storage, to support a variety of operating modes, is also provided for.) Additionally, should voice communications fail, the GWBmatic3000 can track and locate up to 12 SATCOM networks and download data via SATCOM modem, using the SATCOM Situational Awareness software.

As a final fail-safe, a “remote emergency boot/operate” receiver mode exists which can exercise Device control using a second program that runs above the Robotican™ Operating System (similar to the relationship between DOS and the Windows 9x. OS programs). This will allow a remote operator to call and execute programs, services, and functions of the GWBmatic 3000-even if the OS has “frozen” or cannot be otherwise operated. Unfortunately, it is not possible to immediately transfer between program modes, a failure that has been noted under certain emergency conditions.

A last minute design compromise was the external emergency battery pack used on the GWBmatic 3000 v2004.3 Debate Edition, which is not present on the GWBmatic 3000 v2004.3 COMMAND/POTUS Edition. By hot-swapping the battery just before the debate it was guaranteed that all system functions would be maintained even in the event of onboard primary and secondary power system failures.

And the future?

Besides the issues we have just addressed, a major problem for both sides has been the Uncanny Valley factor, which is driving research for both sides.

Additionally, as we all know, the massive effort on both sides continues into finding the solution to the Holy Grail of political device execution-a reliable, effective “Truth Enhancer” that will allow for the more effective dissemination of political concepts and positions.

So that’s our story for the weekend-a tale of two groups of researchers, maintenance technicians, and customer-operators working hard to create ‘bots that inspire, motivate...and keep you in a constant state of suspended disbelief until the morning after Election Day.

After which, the cycle begins again.

On Immigration, Or, How To Turn Purple Blue

Those of you who have been reading my work for a while have likely observed that my interest in electoral politics extends beyond this electoral cycle; and that my focus is often three or more cycles distant.

With that in mind, let’s talk immigration.

The face of immigration in America has changed the past generation or so, the Pew Hispanic Center tells us in their new report “Growing Share of Immigrants Choosing Naturalization”.

Here are the four biggest changes:

--Immigrants are more likely today to become citizens than at any time since World War II ended.

--Hispanics and Asians are the largest groups of immigrants today, replacing Europeans and Canadians.

--Immigrants today are more likely to be less educated, and therefore lower on the economic ladder than in the recent past.

--A larger proportion of immigrants are eligible for deportation (the “illegal immigrants”) than in the past.

These changes, combined with the recent expansion of immigrant communities into new parts of the country, means the Democratic Party has an opportunity to change purple, and even somewhat red states, into blue states for years to come.

These changes also create a “worst of both worlds” situation for Republicans-a population becoming more and more defined by immigration; and a base not supportive of immigration-at least not when it’s from Mexico, or points south.

So who are the immigrants?

Today, naturalized citizens represent about 12.8 million of our population. Another 11.8 million are legal permanent resident who are not yet citizens. The total of all foreign-born residents, including temporary visa holders and “deportable immigrants” totals 36 million.

Where they come from, however, has changed dramatically. This “fourth wave” of immigrants is not based primarily on European and Canadian migration. Today about 2/3 of immigrants are Asians and Hispanics.

There is a greater diversity among Asian immigrants than Hispanic-about half of all Hispanic immigrants are from one country (Mexico), which is not true of Asian immigrants.

Legal status? In 1995:

--about 20% of immigrants were undocumented (“deportable”).
Today that number is 33%

--47% were legal permanent residents.
Now that’s down to 33%.

--30% were naturalized citizens, and today that’s up to 35%.

Economic status? Trending downward, even amongst legal immigrants. 38% of today’s newest citizens earn income below 200% of the poverty level. That number rises to 52% of residents eligible for citizenship, but not yet naturalized; and 58% for those eligible in the next six years.

Immigrants are becoming less educated, as a community.

--37% of naturalized citizens hold college degrees, and 15% are not high school graduates.

--Eligible, but not naturalized citizens graduated 22% of their number from college, and 38% did not graduate high school.

--There is an improvement in this trend for legal residents not yet eligible: 35% college graduates, and 27% not high school graduates. These numbers are still below the levels for naturalized citizens, however.

It is important to note that immigrants from Mexico (as opposed to other Hispanic immigrants) have a major impact on these numbers-over 60% have not graduated high school, and 37% of Mexican immigrants are under 18.

It may also be surprising to learn that Asians are also, in large numbers, working at the bottom of the economic ladder. C.N. Le, at Asian Nation, offers an excellent examination of the data and explains that even entrepreneurial immigrants often work long hours at relatively low hourly wage self-employment, or have unpaid family employees, or both, which can depress family incomes.

Le’s data shows about 60% of Hispanics work in “Skilled Blue-Collar” or “Sales, Operations, and Support”. With the exception of Asian Indians, a plurality of all Asian immigrants also work in one of those two categories, but there is wide ethnic variability-for example, over 70% of Cambodians, Laotians or Hmongs fit into these two categories, but only 37% of Chinese work in these fields. (The plurality of Asian Indians, 25.8%, are computer workers, with the two categories we’ve been discussing being second and third.) The Census Bureau tells us janitorial, maintenance, and laundry workers, receptionists, and jail workers are included in the category.

Here's another fact that matters:

Hispanic households are more likely than non-Hispanic White households to be single female parent households.

What is required to become a citizen?

Generally, the Pew Center tells us, legal permanent residents must do the following to become citizens:

--be 18 years old.

--live in the US for five continuous years.

--demonstrate the ability to read, speak, and write basic English.

--pass the background check.

--demonstrate attachment to the US Constitution, and take and oath of allegiance to the US.

--pay a fee that can range from $225 to $330, but which may increase to a range of $460 to $595.

Which immigrants are most likely to become citizens?

About half of foreign-born residents become citizens today (52% in 2005), which is a trend that has lasted about 25 years. It is a decline from the peak of 79% in 1950.

Without going into a lot of facts and figures, it’s fair to say the longer you’ve been in the country, and the higher your income, the more likely you are to move from legal permanent resident to citizen. You may recall that Mexican-born residents tend to be less educated, and as data from 1995 to 2006 suggests, they are also about half as likely to become citizens. This trend is also affecting Asian immigration, as the ethnic mix of immigrants grows to include all Asian nationalities, as opposed to times past, when Japanese and Chinese nationals represented most Asian immigration.

So now to the good part-how do we apply this data to expanding the Democratic voting base?

First, look to the population distribution:

Here’s an excellent map, again from Asian Nation, showing, county by county, the change in pattern of Asian immigration from the 1990 to 2000 Census tabulations.

Note that areas of greatest increase are in Western States, and in States along the Atlantic Coast.

Over half (54.7%) of all Asians live in six US cities: LA, New York, San Francisco, Honolulu (with 64.9% of the total US Asian population), Washington DC/Baltimore, and Chicago.

This map shows that areas of the US where Asian populations are above 2% in a county include Iowa, Ohio, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and a belt of real estate that stretches south from Nebraska to the Gulf of Mexico (Eastern Texas!)

90% of Hispanics live in or near metropolitan areas.

Here’s a map from the Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service showing Hispanic population distribution outside metropolitan areas. Note that the areas of greatest population gain are, again, in the West and the Carolinas-but note the increases in the Midwest.

Ironically, greater geographic dispersal does not equal greater integration. There is a phenomenon known as “residential segregation” that points to the tendency of this community to create enclaves, if you will.

So let’s recap.

At this point we have the two most important immigrant groups, well dispersed in purple States, and representing potentially 10% of US population; who might be disposed to vote Democratic more or less forever with a lot of outreach and an introduction to D Party values-helping America’s poor become middle-class, and more, through education and economic opportunity, fighting discrimination, and a concern for the dignity of all of America’s citizens.

How do we take advantage of this situation?

Here’s the tough part: finding a way to engage insular communities with language issues. Here are some ideas...

--Help citizens become citizens. Find a way to involve prospective citizens in Democratic Party politics that doesn’t involve fundraising (remember Al Gore’s Buddhist Temple incident?)-maybe sponsor a mock Convention with immigrant groups, or mock primaries. Actively seek the advice of immigrants before platforms are set. Find ownership opportunities for new citizens in the Party-then let the fundraising begin!

--Do what Democrats have done for 70 years-look out for the American worker. Promote worker rights, continue to push minimum-wage legislation; continue to advance efforts to educate more Americans.

--Democratic candidates come to unions for support, and now it’s time for payback. Make unions and the help they provide workers a daily conversation on the campaign trail. Today the Party is reaching out to help the efforts of the SEIU in organizing. Why not run voter registration and union awareness campaigns in coordination with each other?

Every Democratic event should be a Union awareness event, as well. Help a worker make the job better, and that worker remembers you at election time. For decades, if you handle the relationship well.

--Economics matter, and home ownership and education matter most in American’s personal economics. That means we need to help immigrants buy that first house, and find the education they and their kids need. Suggesting expanding adult education could pay big dividends.

--Continue to reinforce the perception that D candidates will support immigrants-and that R candidates want to deport them.

To wrap all this up, Democrats have an historic opportunity to “lock in” a voting bloc for a generation or more-a bloc that equals about 10% of US population, is theoretically inclined to vote D anyway, and who, with outreach, would likely be happy to come along for the ride.

So let’s look around, find Hispanic and Asian communities in these purple States, and help them find their way to the American political process; then let’s welcome them aboard, now and for the future.

To quote Dr. Peter Venkman: “Lenny, you could be saving the lives...of millions of registered voters...”

Editorial Note: A great deal of today’s discussion was based on the work of the fine folks at the Pew Hispanic Center (and big thanks to you!), and comments unsupported by other links are based on data derived from the Pew Center’s report.

Advice From A Fake Consultant: Is "Plaza Fiesta Carolinas" Senator Dole's Kryptonite?

Much like the entertainer at a piano bar, I’m taking a request today.

James Protzman, who’s known as “Anglico” at the BlueNC site (for those of you not reading this at the BlueNC site) asked me to offer some ideas for NC Senate ’08.

What I’d like to do is bring some thoughts to the table, and see if the community might help flesh the thing out. So here we go…

Is Elizabeth Dole vulnerable in the ’08 Senate election?

I think she might be.

Here’s why:

First, it seems North Carolina has experienced a considerable growth in urban population, and that a substantial portion of that growth is Hispanic population.

Who goes to Carowinds?

Lots of folks.

Who goes to that outlet mall across the street?

As it turns out, no one does.

That’s why the same company that developed the Plaza Fiesta mall in Atlanta is going to redevelop the place into Plaza Fiesta Carolinas.

Confirmation of Hispanic population growth is found in Census Bureau data sets. Check out the data for Mecklenburg, Union, Chatham, and Wake counties as examples-each has much higher than average population growth, and higher than State average Hispanic populations. In 1980, Hispanics represented 1% of the State’s total population.

Dole seems to be vulnerable to an “anti-immigrant” attack-based on her own website, for starters. Go to the site, and search for “Hispanic”, and this is what you get: a visit to a credit union and efforts to make sure illegal immigrants get out faster. There’s nothing about education or health care or the minimum wage legislation efforts, which are issues that matter to Hispanic families. (Searching for “Latino” only yields the last two results from the first search.)

This comment from unique at the BlueNC site is a tiny bit of anecdotal evidence to support the new voter point as well.

Another point of vulnerability seems to be the war and the treatment of veterans. Because of the issue of “Democratic ownership” that may appear as a result of efforts to end the war, I would concentrate on the treatment of veterans. As it turns out, there is an excellent geographic dispersal of VA facilities in the State, suggesting voters in rural Eastern and Western counties, who might not view Latino immigration as a positive for the State, could be captured with a “Why wasn’t Dole looking out for our troops?” argument.

How would a D candidate respond to an anti-immigrant voter segment, especially in a county such as Madison? An answer might be found in the Census data.

Did you know there seems to be an association between having a larger Hispanic population in your county and your county having a better economy? Check out Madison County’s income measurements, and percentage of persons in poverty, which are underperforming the State as a whole. Is it because of the geography? Perhaps. But look around the State: Bertie, Columbus, Buncombe (especially the city of Asheville), and Macon counties all reflect the same trend.

Which brings us back to Plaza Fiesta. The response to anti-Latino voters is that immigration is how you bring new jobs to your dead-broke town. Yes, it is going to change the community. But Latino families are often churchgoing, just like rural NC’s current residents; and in a family values State, Latino families with kids have the potential to be a strong voting bloc who share similar values with the folks who already live in small town North Carolina.

Check out Thomas Brock’s comments regarding NC’s House Bill 91, which would allow Election Day registration and voting. As he mentions, this will garner youth votes in the college and military communities-but it should also be effective at empowering Hispanic voters in the State as well.

What about Black voters? About 15% of NC's population is Black and of voting age. There seems to be a good possibility that the Rs will not carry a huge number of voters in this community, so participation in voting seems to be the way to harvest the most votes from this group.

Black folks tend to be represented in the military, especially the infantry, in disproportionate numbers to the general population, and they will soon be a growing proportion of the VA client population as well. Remind mothers that their kids need them to vote. Remind black churches to turn out for their kids. Dole has not been there for the veterans, and they need to look out for their family’s veterans now. Mothers Opposing Bush, an organization referenced by Thomas Brock, is an example of a group for a D candidate to associate with.

There seems to be a Katrina problem for Dole as well.

Her management of the Red Cross, in 2002, was not successfully exploited as an issue. But since Katrina, the opportunity has reared its ugly head again.

How many who suffered after Katrina from an inadequate Red Cross response are aware her development of an unwieldy board has hurt the agency to this very day?

Since 2006, she also apparently has a fundraising problem. The New York Times ran an article titled “In G.O.P. Fund-Raising, Dole's Star Power Dims” in July of last year, and I’ll be digging deeper into the question as we move along in this process.

So let me suggest some strategy we might apply.

First, association with Veteran’s and Latino organizations; with the goal of attending the Labor Day picnics of these new friends as a strong supporter.

Next, hit the returning college students with voter registration, using the Election Day option only as a fallback. Try to get them to volunteer to join other activists in rounding up unregistered Latino and Black voters.

This puts you in a position to enter the end of ’07 hustling votes, and from here you can begin to talk about Dole’s record to an ever-widening audience. The ’08 Presidential primaries will be heating up in a big way, and the War (and its effect on Veterans) will be a giant issue for Dole to have to explain away.

Economic opportunity, and why NC is falling behind, is the next issue to exploit, and you have 7 to 9 months of ’08 to build the discussion before the last push to the debates, and then the voting.

So there’s my first attempt at a strategy.

Feel free to add some ideas to the conversation, and let’s see if we can develop something that can take Dole out in this cycle.

On 800 Pound Gorillas, Or, Wanna Win This Thing?

I don’t usually make direct statements without some qualifications, but I believe I can safely say that unless Gore gets in the race, we have our 3 choices on the D side, and that’s about it.

I’m looking at a March 8th American Research Group poll suggesting no candidate other than Clinton, Obama, and Edwards currently attracts more than 2% of likely D primary voters. That same poll shows Clinton and Obama statistically tied (34 and 31%, respectively, with a 4% margin of error).

Rasmussen reports 34/26/15% for the same three, in the same order, on March 5th, and reported a 3% Clinton slip from the previous week. (Most likely voters, 4% margin of error.)

An average of polls shows about 36/25/12, with Obama moving sharply upward.

Unfortunately for Hillary, her trend is going the wrong way-a Quinnipiac poll taken February 13th-19th, asking “for whom would you vote today?” showed her at 38%/23%/6% (Clinton/Obama/Edwards, 3.8% margin of error).

Unless somebody does something more severe in their lives than Giuliani has done so far, the top three seems pretty much in place.

Our conversation yesterday addressed the Puppy Factor (for those who missed it, I posit that a percentage of the voting public will not, for any reason, vote for Clinton), and its effect on Hillary. The entirely unscientific poll connected to the diary suggests the Puppy Factor is real, and, if in any way applicable to the larger public, that big trouble lies ahead for the Senator.

John Kerry had to lose a Presidential election before he realized he was of more value in the Senate, and I worry that Clinton’s lack of electability could put us in the same boat in ’08.

Ds have a unique advantage this election cycle-gap voters are falling into the D camp in far stronger numbers than ever before.
Don’t believe me?
Here’s Charlie Cook:

But the real jaw dropper is when independents are asked which party they lean toward. This is important because historically, independents who lean toward a party tend to vote almost as consistently for that party as those who identify themselves with the party. There are just some people who like to call themselves independents but, functionally speaking, are really partisans.

In this category of leaners, Democrats had an advantage of 1.3 points in 2001. The parties were within the margin of error in 2002, when four-tenths of a point separated them and in 2003, when there was just a one-tenth of a point difference.
In 2004, Democrats had a 2.7 point advantage, and it grew to 4.4 points in 2005.

But in 2006, this category exploded to a 10.2-point advantage for Democrats: 50.4 percent for Democrats, 40.2 percent for Republicans. The remaining 9.4 percent did not lean toward either party.

This 10.2-point advantage is the biggest lead either party has had since Gallup began tracking the leaners in 1991.

And there’s the 800 pound gorilla-the candidate with the most money, the deepest connections, and a politically brilliant President to offer her counsel is not likely to win, nor is she likely to go home quietly.

Why do I think Hillary is in so much trouble, besides this very rudimentary polling analysis? Because I saw both the Selma speeches. In their entirety. And to be blunt, Clinton looked disconnected, forced, and, well...fake.

Obama, on the other hand-comfortable, strong, accessible-he just looked exactly like a President. And his ability to “preach” better than Hillary will get him a piece of the “Joe Wood” vote. And it’ll drive Conservatives nuts.


Edwards, who I admire, has yet to take off. But he is a white male, and history suggests white males win, so I wouldn’t discount him too quickly. Unfortunately, while trending upward currently, he’s less popular now in the average of polls than he was in 2005.

So these days, here’s what I’m wondering: there will come a point, if trends continue, where it will be time for Hillary to go. This poses two questions:

1) How can Hillary be convinced to gracefully step aside and let Obama and Edwards work it out? Options include Hillary as a Vice President (then run in 2012 or ‘16?), or convincing her to become an activist Senator in an all-D Executive and Legislative environment.
2) Edwards and Obama, or Obama and Edwards?

I’d prefer Hillary in the Senate more than VP, but that’s mainly because of math- Clinton, Edwards, and Obama, all in office, is better than any two of the same group being in office. And then there’s the Puppy Factor. Even as VP-which I’m not convinced she wants-she has a good chance, in my opinion, of hurting the D opportunity to win this thing.

Her Senate Committee memberships currently are Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee; the Environment and Public Works Committee; the Special Committee on Aging; and on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Her biography also reports she’s the only Senate member of the Transformation Advisory Group to the Joint Forces Command.

So a deal to convince her to stay in the Senate might include a juicy Armed Services Subcommittee chairmanship, and more juice in force transformation (10th Mountain Division is New York based, so it helps her long-term at home); and additionally, a conversation about term limits and how they don’t apply in the Senate, but do at the White House.

With a good deal in place, Clinton should still remain a motivated D evangelist, and might choose to fundraise and spend in support of D causes.

The Clinton supporters will want to see what the February “national primary” has to say, but the current trends suggest next year may be too late-that opinions might have hardened before votes are cast.

So what about question 2?

At this point, I suggest more people around here can articulate an understanding of Edwards’ positions more easily than Obama’s, but I suspect that will become more even as Obama’s campaign gets into gear.

Obama, on the other hand, has come out of nowhere, quickly, in a way Edwards has not. He’s, ironically, filling the “Great Looking Guy” brand that Edwards occupied in ’04, and he has a great television presence. His lack of specificity on issues might or might not hurt him-we shall see. (No positions means fewer enemies, but I suspect he’ll want to express himself, and that often leads to positions, which leads to opposition...)

Perhaps the best answer to question 2 is: wait and see.

If Gore stays out, I would suggest that, just like Iraq, Edwards probably has 6 to 8 months to move into a position to seriously consider Obama as his VP. Otherwise, Obama/Edwards could be pretty tough to beat.

So there we are. Sometime between now and January we might have to have a deal in place, and by the third week of February the nomination race might well be over.

Let’s hope this time it’s the Republicans who tear each other apart.