On the eve of the West Virginia (5 electoral votes) primary, Sen. Clinton said "that Democrats don't get elected president unless west Virginia votes for you. And everybody knows West Virginia has picked presidents pretty accurately over the last years."

Well, she's partially right. From 1972-2004, West Virginians voted for Jimmy Carter (first go round) and Bill Clinton (both times). But they also voted for Carter when he lost to Reagan and Dukakis when he lost to Bush the elder. The past two elections, West Virginians have voted for the Republicans.

Sen. Obama is expected to lose West Virginia, which is not representative of the rest of the nation. It is overwhelmingly white (94.9% v 80.1%); less educated (high school graduates, age 25+: 75.2% v 80.4%); and poorer (percent below poverty, 16.2% v 12.7%).

I was pondering the Presidential Results by State, 1972-2004; Democratic Primary Results, 2008 chart ... and started counting. There are 11 (!) states (63 electoral college votes) that consistently voted Republican since 1972; this means that the odds that they will vote Democratic in 2008 are slim to none, even though the voters may not like Sen. John McCain as their candidate. Conversely, there is only one "state" that has consistently voted Democratic: the District of Columbia (3 electoral votes); the converse holds.

In the primary/caucus contests, Sen. Barack Obama won DC as well as 10 of these "Republican" states (all but Oklahoma). They are key to his leading Sen. Hillary Clinton in pledged delegates (those determined by state caucuses and primaries), but will they help ensure a Democratic win in November? Unlikely.

The states are overwhelmingly western/rural (not overwhelmingly "southern" - which may come as a surprise to some):

Read more...

As noted here last week, the Democratic Party isn't alone in failing to anoint a consensus candidate as the primary race comes to an end. The Republican Party, not split asunder as the Democrats are, also faces factions. Ron Paul supporters have convention mischief in mind, and the conservative evangelical based of the party is also unhappy with assumed nominee Sen. John McCain.

.... when you count electoral votes.

Voters in traditional (read on for definition) Democratic states aren't as divided as the Democratic party as a whole seems to be this primary season, based on an analysis of presidential elections since 1976 (when Jimmy Carter beat Gerald Ford).

Recall that VP Gore would have taken the White House had he been declared the winner in Florida, a key state that holds 27 electoral votes in 2008. If we look at popular vote counts in the states that voted for the Democratic candidate for President in two of these four elections (1976, 1988, 1992, 2000), Sen. Clinton trumps Sen. Obama by 224 electoral votes to 133 electoral votes. Reduce that to three of the four elections, and Sen. Clinton beats Sen. Obama by 68 electoral votes to 51 votes.

Read more...

The FBI has withdrawn a secret demand that the Internet Archive provide details of a registered user's personal information. This is reportedly only the third time an organization has succeeded in challenging a National Security Letter (NSL). The enormity of this success: the NYT reports that the "FBI issued nearly 200,000 NSLs between 2003 and 2006."

With a national security letter, the FBI can "require businesses such as libraries, internet service providers, banks, hospitals or telephone companies to provide customer records on request -- no court order (warrant) required." Courtesy of the US Patriot Act.

Read more...

No, this is not going where you think it is.

Lots of pundits are writing off Sen. Clinton because she lost NC and didn't win IN by as big a margin as they think she needed. This post does something different: I'm comparing North Carolina and Indiana to the rest of the country. Which state is the more likely proxy for the nation?

Read more...

Who knows if it's the result of campaign weariness, campaign rhetoric or social media technologies ... but today's America seems the most divided that I have seen in my adult lifetime.

The Democratic Party still has no clear nominee (set super-delegates aside for the moment). Significant numbers of supporters (Sen. Clinton, Sen. Obama) on each side would feel disenfranchised should their candidate lose in Denver. So disenfranchised, in fact, that they say (today) that they would vote for the Republican candidate, Sen. John McCain, in November.

The Republican Party seems no less divided, it's just that they aren't hanging their dirty laundry out in public. Read more...

Democrats -- who are historically a minority voice on presidential election day in these two states -- take to the polls Tuesday to express their opinion on the party's nominees. Like Pennsylvania, North Carolina hasn't played a substantive role in the run-up to the convention since 1976. And Indiana takes center stage as much for the recent Supreme Court decision on voter ID as for the primary.

Bruce Ackerman and Jennifer Nou write at Slate that Court forgot about the "24th Amendment, forbidding any 'poll-tax or other tax'" as a pre-req for voting. They cite the example of Virginia's poll tax, struck down in (!) 1965:

Read more...

The UK Telegraph has published its list of the top 10 US political pundits: (10) Mark Halperin of ABC's The Note; (9) David Brooks, NYT columnist and regular on PBS NewsHour; (8) Jon Stewart, Comedy Central's most enduring political satirist; (7) Tim Russert, Meet The Press; (6) Matt Drudge, master of 'publish first, fact check later' "journalism"; (5) John Harris & Jim VandeHei, exiles from the WaPost who started Politico.com; (4) Rush Limbaugh, king of "talk" radio; (3) Sean Hannity, FOX News and radio (second to Limbaugh); (2) Chris Matthews, MSNBC Hardball; and (1) Karl Rove, FOX News, Newsweek and the Wall Street Journal (the newest kid on this "journalistic" block).

What's interesting to me? They're all male (51% of the US voting population is female); they're all white (8-in-10 Americans are white); eight represent TV and radio -- media known more for soundbites and emotion than reasoned argument; five might be better classified as "shouting heads"; and the newest kid is ranked as the most powerful.

Who is missing? Who should not be here?

In the Democratic campaign for the nomination, the ongong saga of Sen. Barack Obama and his minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright continued to play itself out in media headlines and television soundbites this week.

A Rasmussen poll of likely voters suggests most of us (6-in-10) believe that Obama's "denouncement" of Rev. Wright this week was a move of "political convenience." Most (5-in-10) believe Obama was not surprised "by the views of his former Pastor." (Wright has recently retired.)

Color me among those who believes all of the events of the past week were orchestrated for political convenience. Let's flashback, shall we, to April 2007, and the closing two paragraphs of this New York Times article (empahsis addd):

Mr. Wright, who has long prided himself on criticizing the establishment, said he knew that he may not play well in Mr. Obama’s audition for the ultimate establishment job.

“If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me,” Mr. Wright said with a shrug. “I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen.”

And now it has. A reversal of Philadelphia.

Read more...