This is from an online "who should be appointed to Job so & so" thing at ajc.com
Politics aside, how hard it would have been to have found a slightly more flattering picture of potential Defense Secretary Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI)?

Are you saying the AJC may have an agenda here? Hence selecting a photo that makes him look like a village idiot?

Yup. The AJC is a bastion of conservative thought. :)

Well, Sam Nunn is one of the other contenders for the job (in their little poll at least).

I am about half way through that great Newsweek issue and it has been a fun read. I despised Bill Clinton before and now I do even more.

He doesn't like ice cream??? commie!

Swing State Project has an interesting post that examines electoral shifts from 1984 to 2008. Surprisingly, there are 97 counties that were so Democratic in 1984, they went for Mondale in the face of a landslide, but have changed so much that they went for McCain in a 7 point loss. Here they are:

AL: Colbert, Jackson, Lawrence
AZ: Greenlee
GA: Crawford, Greene, Marion, McIntosh, Mitchell, Taylor, Telfair, Webster, Williamson
IL: Franklin
IA: Dallas, Davis, Monroe, Ringgold
KY: Ballard, Breathitt, Floyd, Harlan, Knott, Letcher, Livingston, Lyon, Magoffin, Marshall, Morgan, Muhlenberg, Perry, Pike, Union, Webster
LA: Allen, Pointe Coupee, West Baton Rouge, West Feliciana
MI: Keweenaw
MN: Anoka, Chisago, Jackson, Pennington
MO: Mississippi, Oregon, Reynolds
NC: Tyrrell
OK: Coal, Haskell, Hughes
PA: Armstrong, Beaver, Fayette, Greene, Lawrence, Washington, Westmoreland
SC: Edgefield
TN: Benton, Cannon, DeKalb, Franklin, Grundy, Henry, Hickman, Humphreys, Lake, Lincoln, Overton, Perry, Robertson, Smith, Stewart, Trousdale, Van Buren, Warren, White
TX: Cottle, Dickens, Fisher, Morris, Newton, Orange, Robertson, Stonewall, Swisher
VA: Buchanan, Dickenson, Russell
WV: Brooke, Clay, Fayette, Hancock, Lincoln, Logan, Mingo, Wyoming


They also list counties that voted for Dole in 1996, but went for Obama in 2008. There were 85 of them:

AL: Jefferson
CA: Alpine, Butte, Mono, Nevada, Riverside, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Trinity
CO: Arapahoe, Jefferson, La Plata, Larimer, Ouray, San Juan
FL: Orange
GA: Douglas, Newton, Rockdale
ID: Teton
IL: Boone, Carroll, DuPage, Kane, Kendall, McHenry, McLean, Sangamon, Stephenson
IN: Marion, Tippecanoe
MD: Charles
MI: Berrien, Clinton, Eaton, Jackson, Kent, Leelanau
MN: Olmsted
MS: Oktibbeha
MT: Lake, Lewis & Clark, Gallatin
NE: Douglas, Lancaster
NV: Carson City, Washoe
NH: Belknap, Carroll
NJ: Somerset
NM: Los Alamos
NC: Forsyth, Pitt, Wake, Watauga, Wilson
ND: Cass, Grand Forks
OH: Hamilton
PA: Berks, Chester, Dauphin, Monroe
SC: Barnwell, Charleston
SD: Brookings
TX: Dallas, Harris
UT: Grand
VA: Albemarle, Chesapeake, Danville, Fairfax, Fairfax city, Harrisonburg, Henrico, Loudoun, Manassas, Manassas Park, Prince William, Staunton, Winchester
WA: Island
WI: Calumet, Waupaca


It's surprising to see more Mondale/McCain counties than Dole/Obama counties, but not too strange when you figure out the total populations.

Mondale/McCain: 3,197,000
Dole/Obama: 25,846,000

If only I had known before election day!

SI

Muslims don't eat ice cream, they eat sand, camel livers, and infidels.

Go Kent County!

I had to wiki Keweenaw County, but like I suspected, it's in the upper peninsula.

Flip Flopper!







He appears to have a Mint Chocolate fetish.

He is obviously willing to do things he doesnt like. this bodes well for our future and is in stark contrast to the presidents of the past who will stand steadfast for what they believe in even in the face of unending criticism and objection :)

You mean like Harry Truman? ;)

I keep hearing about the Democrats eying to reform 401k tax breaks and such. Any more info on this?

Go back a few pages. There was some subcommitte testimony and Miller and McDermott may or may not be interested, but nobody else has come out in favor and there and no plans to revoke the tax break.

Wow. So, Clinton is going to take Sec of State. I would have never guessed. I would think she would be much more powerful staying in the Senate.

I concur. I would have preferred her to keep her Senate role, where she could rise to even more prominence.

/tk

it'd take 3 terms more at least before she had the seniority to do anything but be the Junior Senator from New York.

Ugh. Looks like Palinmania will continue to run wild, as she's expected to get $7 million for a book deal. Ah well.

And in other election news, Huckabee throws Romney to the wolves:

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Huckabee settling old scores? « - Blogs from CNN.com

Huckabee sharply criticizes the former Massachusetts governor for shifting positions on key conservative issues shortly before he decided to run for the White House, saying his record was "anything but conservative until he changed the light bulbs in his chandelier in time to run for president."

sounds like the battle between the fiscal conservatives and the religious conservatives is opening up with the first shots being fired by the religious side.

Well smart on Huck's part. Romney has enough money to change Huckabee's name and religion if he wants.

And after what the LDS folks did with Prop 8 in California, they're showing their muscle.

Speaking of Huckabee, did you see where he just signed on to do twice daily radio commentaries for the same syndicator (ABC Radio) that handles Paul Harvey?

They stopped considerably short of calling him a replacement for the venerable legend but along with Fred Thompson, they're definitely positioning themselves for the inevitable official end of Harvey's show.

Clinton must have known she didn't have the support to unseat the Nevada Gangster. At least that's my best guess.

Obama was for ice cream before he was against it before he was for it?

And Libermann's chair is saved:

Lieberman Keeps Chairmanship - NYTimes.com

And yet again the Dems show a lack of sack.

At least I'll be able to vote against him next time he is up for re-election.

Romney's not a fiscal conservative. He's not anything really.

So what happen to "change" with Obama? Seems like he stacking his cabinet/team with familiar DC people.

That's to a point because you don't want a new group flailing about when the nation is in a crisis, apparently. Obama seems to think he can't afford in a lot of cases to "grow people into the role"

I don't have any problem so far with how Obama has been setting up his cabinet. Since people on the right seem to be upset at the "no new faces" and people on the left seem to be upset at the "lack of balls" then he must be doing something right :)

That said, I think Jimmy Carter helped prove that you can't just bring a bunch of people who are strangers to Washington in and expect everything to go smoothly. You need to have people that are familiar with the ins and outs.

I like how supposedly Obama has been reaching across the aisle to look at some posts, as well as from what I understand he was one of the people who pushed for the Democrats to back off a bit on Lieberman as well. I'm not holding my breath any or anything, and I didn't vote for Obama this election (I voted for Barr).. but so far at least I am not terribly upset with how the pre-election period has gone.

I'm sure that will change some point around March (or even earlier) however :)

Big winner of the election (other than Obama): Nate Silver: Apparently he just signed a two book deal with Penguin Group USA, for an advance in the range of $700,000.

The books apparently are: One about the art of prediction and the other a Freakonomics-style guide to the mechanics of electoral politics.

And that goes to show you kids, making up stats can someday get you a book deal.

Making up stats?

Particularly when Obama himself is so inexperienced.

They know in detail about Sarah Palin's pregnant teenage daughter, but they don't know which party controls congress, who Harry Reid is, or who Nancy Pelosi is. They know that Sarah Palin said "I can see Russia from my house", even though it was Tina Fey who said it. They think it was Palin who said she campaigned in 57 states (even though Obama said it). They think that the candidate who is a former plagiarist must be John McCain. Just a few-- the list goes on and on.

I raise with this:

Such a contrast to the many videos of highly educated Sarah Palin supporters that were all over the Internet in the run-up to the election.

edit: semi-beaten by cartman who posted a classic

SO FEW people are qualified to discuss politics in any meaningful way, for the rest of us it's just bias and spin and hopes and fears.

That's an interesting thing about the world to me - people much, much, much smarter than anyone posting here can disagree on this stuff. So doesn't that make all of our opinion shit?

But as entertainment, I love the stuff about dumb people on either side.

Howard Stern had a bit where he sent someone up to Harlem to describe McCain's policies to Obama's supporters. Except he told the Obama supporters that the McCain policies were actually Obama's, and of course the Obama supporters thought the policies were great ideas.

Ah yes, more "our side lost but look how stupid the other side is and what a bunch of sheep they are for voting for their guy! At least we're not that stupid!" videos.

Never a waste of time.

Nothing shocking. Simply a very well played campaign by the DNC.

Agreed. Obama's campaign was obviously very well funded and they did a great job of getting their message out and painting the other ticket in a negative light.


To be fair, you obviously haven't watched the video or the interviews of the producer of that video. He specifically states that the Obama supporters that were interviewed are not stupid at all. They are a product of the coverage and misrepresentation by both campaigns that creates such a flurry of soundbites that most Americans totally get lost in the facts behind each campaign. It's an indictment of the current political campaign process, not the voters who display the symptoms of the true problem.

The guy making this video had an interview with the fivethirtyeight guys, which is up on their site. Hilarious.

I'd have to disagree (at least I do if I'm interpreting what you're saying correctly).

The current process works, in part, because there's a lot of voters who simply aren't all that bright. Those voters aren't suddenly rendered stupid because of the process, most of them start out that way & don't bother to improve the situation.

I agree wholeheartedly with Jon. This campaign (not the result per se) would have look a lot different if the targets of the campaign were not willfully/unwillfully uninformed.

Heh that was great. Nate Silver <3

So Al Qaeda thinks that Obama is a house slave/Uncle Tom????? Good lord.

FOXNews.com - Al Qaeda No. 2 in Video Calls Obama Dishonorable - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News

Then he should have run on a platform of experiance, like Hillery.
He just burned up all his goodwill and he hasn't even been sworn in yet....

Change???
Hiring everyone from the Clinton administration is not change.

Right now I feel coned.

Just to be a little defensive, I believe Obama was running on change compared to the last 8 years, not the last 16. I believe that's how most of his supporters saw it as well. Granted, he ran on "change" against Hillary as well, and I'm sure that is your retort. Having said that, most dems aren't going to mind a few Clinton people in the white house, they still have a lot of supporters.

for once and in contrast to the spectacularness that was the Bush campaigns.

I was hoping he'd choose Joe the Diplomat.

I'm pretty sure Al Qaeda has never said anything that wasn't completely outrageous.

Or they must still be really bitter about the McCain loss! :D

Well, when he ran against Hillery on a platform of "change", I didn't think it was change back to the Clinton administration. Judging from the amount of heat he is getting, I do not think I am alone.

In the big picture, it is no better or worse then anyone else. I just feel gullible that I thought he might be different. It still might, but it sure does not look like it.

Who else is he going to pick for his starting Cabinet? For 20 of the past 28 yeasr, there has been a Republican in the White House. The only ones to pick from right now are ex-Clinton White House folks. There is usually a high rate of turnover for Cabinet members, so it is not really surprising that he's picking these Clinton ex-es to start with.

I'm confused about the criticism. Who should Obama be picking for Secretary of State? I was joking about Joe the Diplomat, but is that what people want? Someone who has no Washington experience as SoS?

Just a side question, but are you intentionally misspelling her name?

That was indeed an amusing interview, particularly "You think I'm going to tell you that? When you've already shown yourself to be the enemy?" It's like ripping an exchange between a professional interviewer and someone who takes his cues on dialog and etiquette from the Something Awful boards.

SI

The Republican Party is fucked if this is even close to accurate.

"Since the potential for additional Republican gains among married white Christians appears to be limited, Republican leaders will need to find ways to reduce the Democratic advantage among voters who are not married white Christians in order to maintain the party's competitive position. However, given the generally liberal views of this group, this will not be easy. In 2006, according to data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, 57 percent of these voters supported a woman's right to choose an abortion under any circumstances, 66 percent opposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage, and 71 percent favored a single-payer health care system. Any attempt by Republican leaders to significantly increase their party's support among voters who are not married white Christians would therefore require changes in some of the party's longstanding policy commitments -- changes that would clearly upset a large segment of the current Republican base."

When I read that response, I thought he was interviewing Jon in Middle GA.

This is how I saw this. I saw it as a "change" from Washington politics. I don't mind having a few experience people in cabinet. However, it seems like he's just plucking everyone from the Clinton cabinet. Why not just elect Hillary if this the case? I want new, fresh ideas and management. Not just a re-hash of Clinton ideas and management.

Then don't run on a platform of being an outsider and changing the culture if you're just going to bring lots of lobbyists and former insiders onto your staff? Of course this is the same candidate who went back on his pledge to run a publically financed campaign the instant it became apparent he could out-fundraise McCain, so what did everyone expect?

Hey Vic - I am pretty sure I could cherry pick ten dumbfuck conservatives and get an equally hilarious video.

I don't know what happened to you, but it isn't good.

I don't think you even try to go after these groups if you're the GOP. You just start chipping away at the middle and try to move it back towards you. You don't try to go make a grab from pretty far to the left- that's just fool's gold.

SI

Why not go with Richardson over Clinton?

Looks like Kerry is going to have a lot influence on Obama's foreign policy, taking over for Biden on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Kerry expected to get top foreign affairs panel post - 2008 Presidential Campaign Blog - Political Intelligence - Boston.com

Are there any polls on this? What kind of weights are they using?

Would they lose more of their base than they would gain? I vote R more often than not, but I support a woman's right to choose in most circumstances, oppose a constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage and favor a single-payer health care system (if I understand what that means properly). I think this move might solidify some who are not solid members of either party. And what would happen to the religious right portion of the Republican party? They aren't going to vote Democrat. They might stay home on election day, but that isn't necessarily a loss. If Rs steal enough votes from Ds to lower the D votes sufficiently, that would be another path to victory.

You shouldn't have to worry about losing your base if you more accurately represent the will of the majority of people.

With that being said, the Republican party may have to somehow shed its image as a party only for white conservatives. When the population trends are suggesting that white people will only make up 50% of the population by 2050, it could be a losing proposition long-term for the Republicans to continue to define its focus so narrowly.

Agreed- I had a line about catering hard to Hispanics but then took it out as it didn't fit with the rest of my paragraph. You want to build a nice coalition for your party for the future, figure out how to get a huge % of their voting block without alienating a huge chunk of your base.

SI

LOL
No, I was not.
I suck at spelling in general and was not paying attention.
(in other words, the spell checker did not catch it.)

It is the classic, classic bait and switch.

Personally, I think I'll wait until we see what the policy changes are going to be before playing this card. I agree with you that "change" is more of a campaign slogan than anything else, but I think it's a little early for the inevitable disappointment.

OK. :) Some people do such things as an intentional slight, so I wanted to differentiate.

Yeah, if it was an intentional slight, it would be "Hellary Klinton" or something like that.

Speaking of which, I remember back in the 90s that a lot of the anti-Clinton Identity/militia fringe always referred to the Clintons as the "Klintons". I always assumed that it was a KKK reference or something. But then, many of the writers in that movement were white supremacists themselves, so the KKK wouldn't be considered a bad thing by that crowd.

So, what's the deal with the "Klinton", anyway?

Hmm... If they want to continue on the "social conservatism" track in the short-term, perhaps the Republicans can try to exploit some of the "family values" issues that seems to have resonance with minority voters (many of who voted for Obama)...

To go off on a slight tangent, I have always considered intentionally misspellings to be one of the more immature forms of mockery. It is probably a quick way to express your distaste for someone, but it just seems childish to me. Not that anyone asked...

And I think it's the type of thing that adds to the shallow understanding of politics documented above. Things like nicknames and tag lines become a short hand, and then they become the entire content being passed along. Soon you get to the point of having people who know about Fey's SNL Palin routines, or know about Obama "the socialist" bbut that's the entirety of their knowledge. They might wink knowingly at some intentional misspelling, and be part of the club, but haven't done the homework that's supposed to back up that shorthand.

Now that Missouri has been officially called for McCain, I have a question for MBBF (if he is still reading this thread).

Are you happy that your state went for your guy, or upset that Missouri's reputation as THE bellweather state has suffered a blow? Or both? Or neither?

They actually talked about it last night on the local news. I think most people are irritated that the bellweather state reputation took a hit. It was still ridiculously close, but I'm sure we'll recover. :D

Who knew that fililng in bubbles could be so hard?

MPR: Challenged ballots: You be the judge

I can't imagine this surprises any election official anywhere. Really doesn't surprise me a whole lot either.

Maybe it's close enough to "Klingon" to persuade devout Trekkies to vote against the Clintons.

Hmm, at my precinct which also uses optical scan, the guy who voted ahead of me had his ballot rejected by the scanner because he filled in too many bubbles. The poll worker simply made him go back and fill out a new ballot. The problematic ballot got rejected right off the bat, and the voter still got to fix his mistake.

Maybe a lot of these challenges would not have to happen if questionable ballots were caught early and not accepted in the first place.

Does anyone give McCain a serious shot at taking Pennsylvania? That seems to be the lynchpin of his strategy. Seems like a big risk to me.

Damn that Ralph Nader!

Uber timestamp bug?

A time-warp bubble would be my guess.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) cruises to a 59-41 lead with 90% of precincts reporting (including most of the large metro ones) to retain his seat.

Turnout tells the tale. Give or take, roughly half as many votes were cast today as on Nov 4. Chambliss retained roughly 60% of his original vote total, Martin managed only 44% of his (plus whatever votes are still outstanding for both).

edit to add: Early voting statistics made this outcome pretty predictable.
In Nov, there were just under 2.1 million early votes cast in person or by mail, 34.5% were from black voters.
In the runoff, there were about 533,000 early votes cast, only 21.8% were from black voters.

Yeah, no surprise. There wasn't much of a shot Martin could win a run-off. Those first-timers weren't going back, but the old school Republicans were sure to.

In other news, we elected a stone-cold hotty to the court of apeals.

:: Vote Sara Doyle ::

Shitty deal for Sheffield though, poor guy literally can't seem to win for losing.

Those words, I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

I guess it is small comfort that one party did not get 60 seats in the Senate.

Does stone-cold hotty mean lesbian?

Man, I hate Saxby.

As do I, but I hate 60 Democrats in the Senate more (and the Coleman-Franken race is still up in the air).

Interesting to see another Obama campaign talking point go away due to market forces. He won't be implementing the 'windfall tax on oil profits' because there's no huge revenues to tax anymore. I won't complain about the cheap gas.

While studying our county's votes, I saw something amazing. We have 300,000 registered voters in our county. 275,000 voted for a 91+% turnout. All three camps (R, D and I) had larger turnouts than in previous elections. Was it like this in other counties?

That's great and all, but let's get to the serious business: Will Obama make good on his campaign pledge* to force the NCAA to adopt a football playoff system?

*OK, not actually a campaign pledge.

With this troubled economy we can't take the risks that would come with such drastic changes to the bowl system.