The Great and Powerful Name Dropper

---

---

"You're out of the woods
You're out of the dark
You're out of the night
Step into the sun
Step into the light"

---

For as long as I can remember, someone has been running around and whispering names of potential presidential candidates in the ears of anyone who would listen — and even some who wouldn't.

The great and powerful Name Dropper probably predates me, which tells me there must be a family of Name Droppers, not one individual. Maybe it's kind of like a family business with the younger generation taking over at some point.

If that is so, then the family business has really been booming in the last couple of decades, thanks to the proliferation of cable TV and the internet. I doubt that we'll ever be rid of them.

But there is never a shortage of prospective nominees. Most never leap to the next level and become presumptive nominees. But they serve their purpose. They reinforce the credentials of the great and powerful Name Dropper.

Every time you turn around, someone is dropping someone else's name. Then, before you know it, there will be an article in a newspaper or a magazine or on the internet or on cable news proclaiming someone to be an up–and–comer, a rising star. The buzz builds.

Rising stars seem to flame out rather quickly, though. Sometimes it is more like the flavor of the month, falling from favor almost as rapidly as it ascended. When that happens during a presidential election, it can be a disaster for a party. But when it happens at this point in the election cycle, it really doesn't mean anything.

You know how this works, don't you? The great and powerful Name Dropper mentions that [INSERT NAME HERE] is a possible presidential candidate — even if he/she is not really thinking about it. (Oh, I know, once they're in Washington, they all think about it at some point, even if only fleetingly, but they will really think about it when others start talking about them.)

When the buzz has been generated, he/she will be thinking about it, might even form an exploratory committee to look into it.

The formation of such a committee fuels more talk, and, before you know it, [INSERT NAME HERE] is showing up in public opinion polls. [INSERT NAME HERE] may have done little to encourage such talk and may only be generating a support level that falls within the poll's margin for error, but, as they say in show business, any publicity is good publicity.

---

---

Speculation always seems to be especially rampant at this point in the election cycle — the midterms — when all that the polls really reflect is name recognition, not whether Candidate A or Candidate B would be a successful nominee who connects with voters outside the party.

And that really is what both parties need, right? Their nominees can't win with their parties' votes alone, especially since more than 40% of voters self–identify as independent these days, so the parties need nominees with across–the–board appeal.

That doesn't mean that an insurgent can't win a party's nomination, but such nominees usually come from a party's extreme wing, and they take advantage of deep divisions within the party's mainstream to win the nomination. They seldom heal those divisions or win general elections. For every Ronald Reagan who wins in November, there is a Barry Goldwater and a George McGovern who got no traction after the convention.

There have been relative unknowns who went on to win the presidency — Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama come to mind — but, usually, the Frank Churches and Gary Harts of presidential politics fizzle out long before they can start working on an acceptance speech.

Vice presidents often seem to think they will be anointed as the successor for the president whom they have served, but that isn't usually how it works — at least, not for a couple of centuries. After Vice President Martin Van Buren was elected to succeed Andrew Jackson in 1836, the only vice presidents who succeeded the presidents with whom they were elected were the ones who were in office when those presidents died or resigned — until George H.W. Bush was elected to succeed Reagan in 1988.

Bush is still the only sitting vice president in nearly 180 years to be elected president — so, if I were Joe Biden, I don't think I would be looking to move to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. in January 2017.

Biden has another strike against him — his age. For a country that blatantly practices age discrimination in most professions, American politics does offer opportunities for older Americans. Many folks have been returned to Congress in their 80s and 90s, and Americans have valued seasoning in their presidents, too — up to a point.

Reagan was first elected president a few months before his 70th birthday, and he was re–elected a few months before his 74th birthday, but he was the historical exception. Since Reagan's presidency, only the first Bush, the one who succeeded Reagan, was over 60 when he was elected. The three presidents who have succeeded Bush were in their 40s and 50s when elected.

Hillary Clinton, too, will be pushing the historical age barrier if she runs in 2016. She will be 69 just before the election.

The great and powerful Name Dropper doesn't need to drop Clinton's name. After eight years as first lady, eight years as a senator and four years as secretary of State, she is familiar to Americans. She has sought the presidency before, and most people are assuming she will do so again, even though she has not made a formal announcement.

---

---

It does not benefit the great and powerful Name Dropper if there is no campaign, though, so Name Dropper has been trying to promote the idea that, whether Biden runs or not, Elizabeth Warren, the Democrat who took back Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in 2012, would make a plausible candidate.

A few problems, though. She is only a couple of years younger than Clinton so any age argument that could be made against Clinton could plausibly be made against Warren, too. The bigger problem, though, is that Warren doesn't seem to be interested in running — as Politico observed in a headline that said so many things.

For a long time, the pattern in presidential politics was that Democrats were more open to freewheeling races for their nominations than were Republicans, thus making it more likely that Democrats would nominate insurgents; Republicans had a tendency to award their nomination to "the next in line," whoever that was perceived to be.

These days, though, the parties have switched places. If Clinton does indeed win the nomination, she will be seen by many as being the next one in line.

Meanwhile, the Republicans seem to be setting themselves up for a Democrat–like free–for–all in 2016. Their 2012 standard–bearer, Mitt Romney, is mentioned by some as a possible candidate, but that can't be Name Dropper's doing. Romney is hardly an unknown.

Besides, once–beaten presidential nominees have rarely attempted it a second time, no matter how close they came to winning the first time. My guess — and I am sure it is Name Dropper's guess, too — is that Romney won't run.

Many of the names being mentioned on the Republican side are reasonably well known — Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush. At least one prospective candidate, outgoing Texas Gov. Rick Perry, sought the GOP nomination in 2012.

Some of the others from that campaign — Rick Santorum comes to mind — as well as other prominent Republicans are said to be considering a run in 2016. Name Dropper has had his/her hand in that, too, I am sure, but Name Dropper really excels when dropping names that few have heard.

As we embark on the 2014 primary season, there may well be candidates who spring from virtual anonymity and articulate the popular mood strongly enough that they win their party's nomination — and then the election — launching them into the 2016 conversation.

Then the great and powerful Name Dropper, fresh from a few months of restful observation, will leap into action and begin whispering in the ears of party leaders that so–and–so is an alternative to Clinton or that so–and–so can unite Republicans.

And the influence continues.

The Passing of a 'Giant' Among Journalists

---

---

"Before politics was fed into computers and moveable maps came out, Jack Germond had it all in his head."

Walter Mears
Former Associated Press reporter

---

Journalist Jack Germond, who died last week, was, in the words of colleague Jules Witcover, "a giant" of American journalism.

Many years ago, I read — for the first time — "Marathon," the book Witcover and Germond co–authored on the 1976 presidential campaign. I have read it several times since, each time with greater admiration.

The task was something of a marathon itself. The campaign was legendary at the time because the eventual winner, Jimmy Carter, had been running for a couple of years and, in that time, had risen from virtual obscurity to the presidency.

But you couldn't really tell the story of that campaign without going into a certain amount of detail on the Watergate scandal and the resignation of the man who won the previous presidential election, Richard Nixon.

So, whereas historian Theodore White had the luxury of writing about a single year — and, perhaps, a portion of another — in his groundbreaking accounts of presidential elections from 1960 to 1972, Witcover and Germond had to write about virtually the entire four–year period between the 1972 and 1976 elections.

They also had to write about something that was new in presidential politics at that time. Carter rose to prominence in large part because, unlike previous presidential hopefuls who chose to enter some primaries but not others, Carter ran everywhere. Germond and Witcover chronicled that development meticulously.

Nixon probably was the last president to take the traditional route to the White House. His campaigns in 1968 and 1972 were the transition from old–style presidential politics, in which nominations were decided by delegates who were handpicked by party elites, to modern presidential politics, in which the popular vote in primary elections tends to determine how a state's delegation will vote at the national convention.

And Witcover and Germond were there to report on it — for their contemporaries and the generations to follow.

"Jack was a truly dedicated reporter and had an old–fashioned relationship with politicians," Witcover told the Baltimore Sun. "He liked them, but that did not prevent him from being critical when they did bad things and behaved badly."

Journalists like Germond achieved a new influence on American politics during the transition of which Germond wrote. He was, in the words of NPR's David Folkenflik, "one of the reporters who helped to determine presidential winners and losers."

Howard Kurtz echoed Witcover's sentiment.

"Germond ... was a throwback in more ways than one," Kurtz wrote for Fox News, "a poker–playing, racetrack–dwelling, Falstaffian figure who would close down the bar at New Hampshire's Wayfarer Inn, then be up at 7 the next morning interviewing county chairmen."

Ah, yes, the horse racing thing. That is another passion I shared with Germond. I don't know how Germond came by it.

I've always enjoyed horse racing, but I discovered a true passion for it when I worked as a copy editor for the Arkansas Gazette's sports department.

I don't know if Germond ever did any better than I did at the track. I hope he did.

I do know that he achieved things in journalism I probably will never achieve. And I'm all right with that.

Because there aren't many Jack Germonds — maybe one or two — in a lifetime.

What About Bob?

When I was growing up in Arkansas, the Arkansas Gazette — which was, at the time, the oldest newspaper west of the Mississippi — would run editorials endorsing candidates in various races during the campaign and then would publish a list recapping those endorsements in the days just before the primary or election.

I knew people who would cut out that list and take it with them to the polls so they would know who not to vote for.

Now, I grew up appreciating the writing in the Gazette — and I was proud to work for the Gazette for nearly five years — but I would be the first to tell you that the Gazette's editorial board and its readers seldom saw eye to eye on the candidates and issues of the day.

Even when the candidates who were endorsed by the Gazette actually won, it often seemed that, when the voters went along with the Gazette's choices, they did so grudgingly — as if they really had no alternatives. That wasn't true, of course. There were almost always other choices, but sometimes they were so objectionable that even voters who habitually voted against the Gazette's selections really could not rationalize voting for them, even out of spite.

The Gazette went out of business nearly 20 years ago, and sometimes I wonder what some of those Arkansans do for political guidance now.

I can't provide them with a website or the name of a local publication that can fill that particular void.

However, if they are looking for a crystal ball in reverse, I'd like to point them in the direction of Bob Shrum, a Democratic political adviser.

In The Week, Shrum writes of his concern about "the emergence of a consensus that Barack Obama could lose next year."

Until recently, Shrum writes, his perception was that there was sense of "a gradually strengthening if not yet popularly perceived recovery" combined with "a weak Republican field most notable for those who opted not to run," all of which indicated that Barack Obama was on course to win a second term next year.

But some clouds have appeared on his sunny horizon — in the form of the latest unemployment report, an article in the New York Times that points out that no president since FDR has been re–elected when unemployment was 7.2% or higher and a Washington Post/ABC News poll that shows disapproval growing over Obama's handling of the economy.

But not to worry, Shrum assures his readers, even though he acknowledges that the "bump" in popularity that Obama enjoyed after the killing of Osama bin Laden disappeared almost as quickly as it came.

"[M]uch of the new mood is too instant, too superficial, and too casually ahistorical," Shrum writes.

And I will admit that he makes a good point when he says that perception is really what matters when voters go to the polls — not necessarily those troublesome facts.

When Ronald Reagan — who was re–elected with a 7.2% unemployment rate in 1984 — won his second term, Shrum observes, "joblessness was almost exactly the same — only one tenth of a point lower — on Ronald Reagan's 'morning in America' [as] it had been on his inaugural morning four years earlier."

In the interim, "the rate spiked to 10.8 percent; what Americans believed and felt when they re–elected him was that the subsequent decline proved the economy was on a steady upward trajectory," writes Shrum. "That's what counts, not any absolute benchmark for jobs or growth."

We'll see if Shrum is right. After all, this is the guy who assured Democrats last fall that they would retain control of the House.

And history tells you how accurate that prediction turned out to be.

Musings on Popularity

---

"The 2010 Colorado electorate was a total outlier (67 percent with a B.A. or more), while Ohio was a near–microcosm of the national presidential electorate. Every Midwestern state for which exit polls are available looked pretty much like Ohio."

William Galston
The New Republic

---

Gallup reports that Barack Obama's popularity is down across the board.

His highest approval ratings come from Hawaii, where he was born, and Washington, D.C., two places that are about as secure for a Democratic presidential nominee as any in the United States. Hawaii has supported the Republican nominee twice in its 50 years as a state; D.C. never has.

For a president who is midway through a term that began with approval ratings well into the 60s, those are the only places that exceed 60% approval less than two years before he must face the voters again — and, as high as the approval ratings are for Obama in those two states (84% in D.C., nearly 66% in Hawaii), they're still lower than they were a year ago.

Thus, if this was Election Day 2012, Obama presumably could count on at least seven electoral votes, needing a mere 263 to wrap up a second term.

In fairness to Obama, several states are reporting approval ratings that exceed 50% — right now. That may or may not be true in November 2012, but right now New York, Delaware, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, California, Connecticut, Illinois and Vermont give Obama approval ratings in the 50s — the state of Washington barely gives the president a majority.

(The flip side is that Obama's approval has dropped by more than 10% in seven of those states in the last year — and all the exceptions also report declines. If he keeps hemorrhaging support at that rate, many of those currently supportive states could be in jeopardy as well. )

If Obama carries all those states (most of which, it should be noted, are in the Northeast), that would result in a total of 144 additional electoral votes. With the ones from Hawaii and D.C., Obama would have 151 electoral votes — but that still leaves him needing 119 to win. Where will they come from?

That brings me to an intriguing article by William Galston in The New Republic about two possible campaign strategies for Obama — only one of which, he says, can succeed.

But, before I get into that, let me point out that those states currently giving Obama majority approval in Gallup's survey are states that have been inclined to support the Democratic nominee in recent years. The last time a Democrat did not carry California, Illinois, Vermont, Connecticut, Delaware or Maryland was in 1988. New York, Massachusetts, Hawaii and Washington last voted Republican in the Reagan landslide of 1984.

Anyway, back to Galston's article.

He starts off by observing that, in presidential politics, the economy tends to trump everything else — and, with unemployment still staggeringly high, gas in the $3–plus range and food prices surging, it seems all but certain that the economy will be the dominant topic in next year's election.

A whole bunch of things could happen between now and November 2012, Galston concedes.

"The economy could over– or under–perform current projections; the Republicans could choose a nominee who's too conservative or lacks credibility as a potential president," he writes.

"But it's more likely that both the economy and the presidential nomination contest will yield results in the zone where strategic choices could prove decisive. In that context, two recent events are alarming, because they offer clues to what may well become President Obama's re–election strategy."

One of those events, Galston says, was David Axelrod's remark that Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet's triumph in last fall's Colorado Senate race was "particularly instructive."

The other was the choice of Charlotte, N.C., over places like St. Louis, Minneapolis and Cleveland as the site for the 2012 Democratic National Convention.

These two events, Galston says, "focus more on the Democratic periphery — territory newly won in 2008 — than on the heartland, where elections have been won and lost for the past half–century."

This, he says, has the potential to be "a mistake of epic proportions" because the U.S. has much more in common with Ohio than Colorado.

True, Obama carried Colorado in 2008, but it was the second time in the last 15 presidential elections that Colorado was in the Democratic column. It may occasionally elect Democrats to statewide offices, but it remains, at heart, a red state, and I believe it is a longshot to support the president's re–election campaign.

After all, Colorado voted for Bill Clinton in 1992, but it opposed his re–election in 1996.

And I wouldn't necessarily say that there was anything especially instructive about the Senate race in that state. Republicans nominated a terrible candidate; even so, a shift of 15,000 votes (out of nearly 1.8 million) would have altered the outcome, and many people believe the candidate who lost the GOP nomination, the state's lieutenant governor, would have captured the seat.

In what was clearly a Republican year, Democrats really dodged a bullet in Colorado.

What's more, Galston observes that (according to Gallup) people who lean Democratic or identify with Democrats have declined in every state since 2008.

"The median loss was 6.1 percent," he points out. "And every Midwestern state was at or above the median."

(That includes an 8.2% drop in Obama's home state of Illinois.)

The Democrats' base is shaky at best.

"The Midwest is home to large numbers of white working–class voters, who accounted for nearly 40 percent of all voters nationwide in 2008," Galston writes. "Obama has never done very well with this group, losing them by 2 to 1 against Hillary Clinton in the primaries and by 58 percent to 40 percent against McCain in the general election. And they turned against Democratic candidates in the vast majority of 2010 House and Senate races."

Thus, those 151 electoral votes are not exactly in the bag yet. And, even if they are, I ask again, where will Obama get the other 119?

Then 10 states with the highest disapproval rating for Obama — Wyoming, Idaho, West Virginia, Utah, Oklahoma, Alaska, Kentucky, Montana, Arkansas and Kansas — all voted for John McCain in 2008. They also voted for George W. Bush twice.

If Obama asked me for my advice, I would tell him to avoid spending much time or money in any of those states. But my guess is that this was already going to be part of the plan. It wouldn't be much of a change from last time, though, since he spent little to no time or money in any of them in 2008.

Arkansas, Kentucky and West Virginia last voted for a Democrat in 1996. The others haven't voted for a Democrat since Lyndon Johnson in 1964.

Gallup says Obama's approval rating in Colorado is currently 45%, approximately the same as Texas and below Mississippi and Georgia, three states with large minority populations that haven't voted for a Democrat since Jimmy Carter 35 years ago.

Obama's 2008 triumphs in places like Florida, North Carolina and, especially, Virginia raised some eyebrows, but they were clear exceptions to the rule in the South. With Obama's popularity sinking, I doubt that he can expect to retain them, particularly if Republicans nominate a strong candidate next year.

(That might not be imperative. Gallup recently reported that Obama is running even with a generic Republican nominee.)

Back to the question. Where ya gonna get those 119 votes?

Well, let's go back to that strategic question posed by Galston, the tug–o–war he sees between Colorado (and the recently acquired territory) and Ohio (and states that have been voting primarily for Democrats for the last 20 years).

Apparently based only on political considerations, he favors an agenda that is directed at the working–class white, modestly educated voters in Ohio as opposed to the more intellectually inclined voters in Colorado.

Some folks would say that is playing to the lowest common denominator, but Galston thinks it makes sense — and so do I.

Obama swept the Midwestern states by generally wide margins two years ago, but Gallup's numbers show him in a precarious position there.

If approval ratings are any guide, only Illinois would be likely to vote for Obama today. Michigan (49% approve) would be close; so would Minnesota (48%) and Ohio (47%), but Indiana (44%) appears poised to resume voting for Republicans. Barring a dramatic development, I think you'll see Indiana voting for the GOP nominee next year.

The Democrats' decision not to hold their convention in St. Louis may have been a wise move. Now, personally, I love St. Louis, but I don't think Obama can win the Show–Me State, where only 41% approve of his performance as president. There wouldn't have been much to gain there.

Well, he didn't win Missouri last time, anyway. And he did win North Carolina. That is true, but I don't think he will be able to hold North Carolina, even with the convention being held in Charlotte.

What about the other states that voted for Obama?

Those states are torn. If Monday had been Labor Day 2012 instead of Presidents Day 2011, Obama would have had a lot of ground to make up and not a lot of time to do it. His biggest problem is that this is not confined to a single region. It's all over the map — New Mexico's approval is 49%. Nevada's is 47%. Oregon's is 48%. So is Iowa's. Pennsylvania's is 46%.

I guess 2011 will be the year Obama will have to earn his salary.

And a good way for him to keep earning that salary would be to do whatever he can help unemployed Americans start earning salaries, too.

The Mother of All Cliffhangers

---

---

Back in January, I observed the 50th anniversary of John F. Kennedy's announcement of his candidacy for president, and I called it "The Birth of Camelot."

But that wasn't really accurate.

It probably would have been more accurate to say that, in early January of 1960, Camelot was conceived — although experts on Kennedy's life and presidency probably would tell you that the idea of that Kennedy — or any Kennedy — seeking the presidency was conceived many years earlier.

But the idea didn't bear fruit until 50 years ago today.

Well, perhaps it would be more accurate to say 50 years ago tomorrow because it wasn't until Wednesday, Nov. 9, 1960, that Kennedy was declared the winner of the closest presidential election in more than a century.

But it was 50 years ago today that the voters went to the polls.

"It was invisible, as always," wrote historian Theodore H. White of the process of democracy. "[I]t is the essence of the act that as it happens it is a mystery in which millions of people each fit one fragment of a total secret together, none of them knowing the shape of the whole."

In the end, it was closer than anyone could have expected — out of approximately 69 million votes, about 100,000 separated the two men.

---

---

It was excruciating, for the winners as well as the losers. In his book "The Making of the President 1960," White wrote of observing Kennedy as Nixon addressed his supporters late in the evening, steadfastly refusing to concede. Kennedy, he wrote, bore an "expression showing faint distaste" at the spectacle of the "twisted, barely controlled sorrow" of Nixon's wife at his side.

That was the kind of thing the sophisticated, elegant Kennedy would never allow, White wrote.

In an election that close, it should surprise no one that there were accusations of irregularities.

I guess there will always be those who will dispute the results in some of the states — at least until the time comes when no one still living is old enough to remember that night.

My grandfather, for example, a Texas Republican at a time when that was still something of a rarity, always insisted that Kennedy "stole" the 1960 election — or, more accurately, his daddy "stole" it for him, pulling some strings in some key places.

Well, Grandpa was biased. He never cared for Kennedy's running mate, Texas Sen. Lyndon Johnson. He called him "Landslide Lyndon" — a derisive nickname hung on Johnson after an extremely narrow victory in the 1948 runoff for the Democratic Senate nomination.

There have always been rumors about that election, too.

But Johnson's victory was certified, in keeping with state law, and history tells us he served in the Senate for the next 12 years — until Kennedy chose him as his running mate, in large part, so they say, because it was believed Johnson could deliver Texas to the Democrats.

And, if that was the reason why Kennedy chose Johnson as his running mate, LBJ held up his end of the deal. The Democrats won Texas (and its 24 electoral votes) by 45,000 popular votes out of 2.3 million cast.

In his book, White protested that he didn't know the truth, that it appeared that even those closest to Kennedy did not know the truth, about Johnson's selection. At the 1960 convention, White wrote, Kennedy's advisers were under the impression, when Kennedy went to bed the night before giving his acceptance speech, that the two men at the top of his list were Stuart Symington of Missouri and Henry Jackson of Washington, senators from two other states that were expected to be evenly divided, as indeed they were.

But emphasis on electoral considerations ignored — as White did not — the fact that, weeks before the convention, Kennedy had told an interviewer that, other than himself, he thought Johnson was the man most qualified to be president.

It cannot be dismissed that Kennedy made his choice based not on what his running mate could do for him but on what his running mate could do for the country if he became president.

Many things (most of them unpleasant) have been said about the vice presidency over the years, and most of them have been true.

John Garner, Franklin Roosevelt's first vice president, famously said the vice presidency was "not worth a bucket of warm ****." Garner, who served as speaker of the House before accepting the second spot on the Democratic ticket in 1932, also said, "I gave up the second most important job in government for eight long years as Roosevelt's spare tire."

But, for Johnson, it was not an eight–year detour to the trivia books. It was a stepping stone to the presidency. He succeeded Kennedy when Kennedy was assassinated in 1963.

And, ironically, exactly five years later, on this day in 1965, journalist Dorothy Kilgallen was found dead in her apartment. To this day, it is rumored that she was murdered to prevent her from revealing what she knew about the assassination of President Kennedy.

It is one of the many enduring mysteries of the 1960s.

Going Rogue

---

rogue (noun)

1. vagrant, tramp


2. a dishonest or worthless person : scoundrel


3. a mischievous person : scamp

Merriam–Webster Online Dictionary

---

The other night, a high school classmate of mine made an interesting observation on Facebook.

Referring to Sarah Palin's new book, "Going Rogue," my ex–classmate posted the Merriam–Webster link and wondered, "So, which of these definitions does Sarah Palin think best describes herself?"

He confessed that "ever since the book was announced I've been very puzzled by her choice of titles."

Another former classmate tried to clarify the point, saying, "She is using the term that McCain's staffers used about her."

The first classmate responded, "So she wants to emphasize the fact that the people whose job it was to sell her to the public thought she was unstable and irresponsible? If I were managing her 'brand' I would counsel her to reconsider. Maybe this is all part of being a 'maverick' ..."

I wasn't a Palin fan last year — in the interest of full disclosure, I wasn't an Obama fan, either — and she never seems to make it easy on people like me. This is the 24th post I have written in which "Palin" has been listed as a label, and I have tried — or, at least, I feel that I have tried — to give her the benefit of the doubt.

When it comes to Palin, I rarely agree with her on anything, but I do try to be fair. Her book hasn't hit the store shelves yet so I haven't read her side of the story, but I am unaware of any lobbying that she did (or that anyone did on her behalf) to encourage John McCain to pick her as his running mate.

In fact, Dan Balz and Haynes Johnson wrote, in "The Battle for America 2008," that, although McCain had been reviewing possible running mates since securing the nomination in the spring, Palin's name wasn't added to the list of prospects until about a month before the Republican convention — when the McCain campaign "became alarmed at the size of Obama's lead among women."

If it turns out that Palin waged an active campaign to be chosen, I would feel differently. But the Balz–Johnson account tends to confirm what I have suspected all along — that she was not chosen because of her political views but because of her gender.

McCain, I have contended, believed that the majority of Hillary Clinton's supporters could be persuaded to support his campaign if he had a female running mate. But, while Clinton's supporters undoubtedly were disappointed that she came up short in her bid for the Democratic nomination, it turned out they were driven more by ideology than gender.

McCain might have been more successful in winning their support if he had chosen a centrist woman to be his running mate — but I have seen no indication that ideology played a key role in Palin's selection.

Once she was on the ticket, campaign officials may have experienced "buyer's remorse" when it became clear that she was in over her head — but it should be noted that McCain was the buyer. He may have felt remorseful at times, but I think that was overridden by his desire to avoid appearing indecisive in what was perceived to be his first presidential–level decision.

The role of the campaign staff was to be supportive of the ticket and try to help shore up any weaknesses, like the fact that she came across as inexperienced and uninformed in her interviews with Katie Couric. If she was ill–prepared for the national spotlight during the fall campaign, it was in part because the campaign does not appear to have made much effort to address her deficiencies.

It was legitimate, for example, to question Palin about the leaders of foreign countries and America's relationships with those countries because, if elected vice president, that was the kind of knowledge she would need if she eventually became president. But five vice presidents had been elected since the last time a sitting vice president ascended to the presidency, and such knowledge wasn't strictly part of the definition of the job for which she was a candidate. The vice president presides over the Senate. In modern times, the vice president has been dispatched to represent the United States at the weddings and funerals of foreign dignitaries so familiarity with the governments of foreign countries is a good thing to have, but it is not a constitutional requirement.

The vice president is next in line for the presidency, but it has been nearly 50 years since a vice president became president following the death of a president, and it has been 35 years since a vice president became president following the resignation of a president. As I observed before either running mate was chosen, we're overdue — historically — for such a thing to happen, but, in a lifetime of studying the presidency and presidential campaigns, I have seldom come across an instance in which a prospective vice president was chosen because he (or she) was believed to be the most qualified to take over as president if that became necessary.

I have seen running mates who were chosen because their presence on the ticket, it was believed, would heal political wounds and unify the party (i.e., Ronald Reagan's choice of George H.W. Bush, his main rival for the 1980 Republican nomination, and John Kerry's selection of John Edwards as his 2004 running mate). I have seen running mates who, like Palin, were picked because it was believed they would appeal to certain demographic groups (i.e., Walter Mondale's choice of Geraldine Ferraro in 1984).

I have even seen people who were mentioned frequently as potential running mates primarily as lip service to shaky supporters.

Perhaps my classmate was right. Perhaps McCain's staffers did view Palin as "unstable and irresponsible." If so, they weren't the only ones. But it was their task, as my classmate also observed, to "sell" her to the voters. And they failed.

I'm inclined to believe Palin is right when she says she has been made a scapegoat for McCain's defeat. As objectionable as she may have seemed to many voters, I don't believe any running mate could have salvaged the Republican ticket after the economic meltdown occurred.

Having a running mate who went "rogue" did not cost McCain the election. No matter which definition one takes for that word.

Future Shock

In my life, I've often wondered if, during times of economic distress, comedians feel torn.

Do they vote for a candidate because he/she will be good for their country? Or do they pick a candidate because he/she will be good for their business?

On the eve of a new presidential administration, I wonder if there are some Republican politicians who feel somewhat the same way.

If the new administration's policies to battle the recession are successful, a lot of people can be spared a lot of pain. But that could also mean a real windfall of good will and support at the ballot box for the majority party in 2010.

For Republicans, the year 2012, when Democrats must defend the White House and 24 of 33 Senate seats, is the proverbial pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. But the storm isn't over yet. "Republicans first have to get past the 2010 races that, at first glance, would appear to put the GOP at a disadvantage for a third straight cycle," say Charlie Cook and Jennifer Duffy in the National Journal.

And, after taking a beating in the elections of 2006 and 2008, the Republicans won't be anxious for a three-peat.

But that just might be the alternative.

Cook and Duffy observe that, because of the gains Republicans enjoyed earlier in this decade, they will go into the 2010 Senate elections with more seats to defend than the Democrats.

Republicans hold 19 seats that will be up for election in 2010. Democrats hold 15. However, two of those Democrats will be appointees, chosen to replace Barack Obama and Interior Secretary-designate Ken Salazar for the last two years of their terms. Those are the seats that are up in this phase of the naturally recurring election cycle.

There also will be special elections for the remainder of Hillary Clinton's and Joe Biden's terms, which will be filled for the next two years by appointees. Thus, the Democrats will have 17 seats to defend in 2010, and four will be held by appointees.

"Ultimately, not all of the appointed senators will find themselves in competitive races, but these 17 seats are all at more risk than they were a month ago," Cook and Duffy write. "With potential retirements still unknown, one other very vulnerable Democratic seat is that held by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, whose poll numbers are somewhat anemic."

If Barack Obama and the Democrats can preside over a clearly recovering economy, they will have a real opportunity to claim the "veto-proof majority" that just barely slipped through their fingers this time.

Two Republican incumbents that I know of — Florida's Mel Martinez and Kansas' Sam Brownback — have announced that they will not seek re-election. Republicans probably can expect to retain Brownback's seat, but Martinez's may be different.

Cook and Duffy agree that Florida is vulnerable. They also suggest that Republican seats in Kentucky and Louisiana are in "immediate danger." And, they write, GOP senators in Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio and Pennsylvania "could face difficult races if Democrats recruit the right challengers."

However, numbers from the last 10 midterm elections (going back to 1970) indicate an average net loss of 2.7 seats for the party in power, they point out.

"[I]t's hard to think that national dynamics won't be at work, one way or another," they write. "New presidents often make missteps, and their honeymoons can end quickly. If that happens this time, a few of the vulnerable Republican seats would likely become less so, and a few of the Democratic seats that appear relatively safe would come into play.

"On the other hand, if Republicans are still 8 or 9 points behind in party affiliation, if their 'brand' hasn't been repaired, and if they are still facing a competence gap — an attribute they used to own — this could be yet another very painful cycle for them."

Is The End in Sight for Stevens?

The Anchorage Daily News reports that there are 24,000 ballots left to be counted in the U.S. Senate race in Alaska. The state hopes to be finished counting those ballots on Tuesday.

Mark Begich, the Democrat who is hoping to replace Republican Sen. Ted Stevens, widened his lead on Friday — but his advantage is a mere 1,022 votes. There are still far too many ballots uncounted for Begich to claim victory.

Once those ballots are counted, more may be resolved than simply an election.

McClatchy Newspapers observed that this may have been "the worst weekend of [Stevens'] professional life."

The senator, says McClatchy, "faces only bleak prospects: maybe losing the U.S. Senate seat he has held for 40 years, and a secret vote by his colleagues on whether to oust him from the Senate's Republican conference."

Such a meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, but McClatchy suggests the vote may not take place that day because some senators are saying they want to wait for all the votes to be counted.

If Begich wins the election, any such action by the conference would be unnecessary.

Begich Takes Lead in Senate Race

The Anchorage Daily News cautions that Alaska must "count roughly 35,000 more ballots over the next week" — so, presumably, anything could still happen — but Democrat Mark Begich has taken the lead over Republican Ted Stevens by a little more than 800 votes in the Senate race.

The latest tally, which was reported at 7:30 a.m. (Eastern), showed Begich with 132,196 votes and Stevens with 131,382 votes.

That is where things stand after the state Division of Elections added roughly 60,000 "absentee, early and questioned" ballots to the total on Wednesday, the Daily News reports.

It appears that it will be next week — at the earliest — before the final result is known.

The Daily News quoted the state elections chief as saying that "most regional elections headquarters will count their remaining ballots on Friday. But the most populous region, based in Anchorage, won't count its ballots until either Monday or Wednesday."

Even so, a spokesperson for the Alaska Democratic Party told the newspaper that Begich's supporters are "cautiously optimistic" about the lead.

Alaska is one of three states with an as-yet unresolved Senate race. In each state, a Republican incumbent is seeking a new six-year term, and each one was leading after the votes were initially tabulated on Nov. 4.

If Democrats win all three seats, they can put together the three-fifths "filibuster-proof" majority they openly desired during the campaign.

Assuming that Begich is able to hold the lead, then, in order to reach the number Democrats desire, Al Franken must overtake Sen. Norm Coleman in the recount in the Minnesota race, and Jim Martin must win a Dec. 2 runoff with Sen. Saxby Chambliss in Georgia.

If Begich, Franken and Martin all emerge victorious, Democrats will need to keep independent Joe Lieberman and socialist Bernie Sanders in their caucus to achieve the three-fifths majority.

But if they fall short of their goal, Democrats will have to decide what they want to do about Lieberman, a former Democrat who has caucused with Senate Democrats for the last two years (allowing them to maintain a somewhat brittle majority) but supported Republican John McCain in the presidential race.

Politico.com reports that some Democrats in the Senate have been making behind-the-scenes efforts to permit him to keep the chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

An ironic angle to the story, write Ryan Grim and Martin Kady in Politico.com, is that Lieberman is backed by his home-state colleague, Chris Dodd. In the 2006 Senate election in Connecticut, Dodd supported Ned Lamont, who won the Democratic primary over Lieberman, forcing Lieberman to run (and eventually win) as an independent.

One Senate Democratic aide told Politico.com that Democrats "don’t want to start off a new era with retribution," but other Democrats apparently aren't as conciliatory.

The 2000 Democratic vice presidential nominee reportedly has told the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, that he will leave the Democratic caucus if he is stripped of his chairmanship.

Politico.com says "a number of options are being considered that would allow [Lieberman] to keep his chairmanship and remain in the caucus but still suffer some sort of penalty."

On that matter, John Nichols says, in his blog in The Nation, that it would be "smart politics" to keep Lieberman in the Democrats' caucus — for now.

Lieberman remains valuable to the Democrats, Nichols suggests, until such time as the three-fifths majority is no longer possible.

That would be the prudent thing to do. The fate of the "filibuster-proof" majority could be up in the air until nearly Christmas.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that the recount in Minnesota could drag on until mid-December.

"Recount junkies will be able to view updates daily on a website the secretary of state's office will construct," the Star Tribune reports, "and all recounts will be conducted in public places."

Another Historic Achievement

---

---

America has elected a president 56 times.

Even if the outcomes of some elections have been similar, even if some of the outcomes have appeared to be identical, each election has been unique.

Certainly, the early elections were conducted entirely differently from the ones we have today.

The most telling difference, of course, has been the fact that ordinary eligible voters were given the authority to choose the presidential electors in every state in 1824; up to that time, state lawmakers still made the decision in many states.

In three elections — 1876, 1888 and 2000 — the candidate who received the most electoral votes did not receive the most popular votes. Such outcomes have, inevitably, led to heated debates over the future of the Electoral College, with its detractors claiming that it isn't representative of the wishes of the people.

Over the years, there have been many arguments for and against the continued existence of the Electoral College — but there's only been one real attempt to abolish it.

The 91st Congress, which convened immediately after the contentious 1968 campaign, proposed an amendment to the Constitution that would have eliminated the Electoral College and replaced it with a system in which a presidential ticket would be chosen by popular vote.

To put things into historical context, this amendment was proposed after Richard Nixon had emerged as the winner in a brutal three-way race against Democrat Hubert Humphrey and independent George Wallace.

Nationally, Nixon won the popular vote over Humphrey by less than 1%, but both candidates fell far short of 50%. Wallace received more than 13% of the popular vote and carried five Southern states.

In the Electoral College, Nixon received nearly 56% of the vote.

Due to the discrepancy between the winner's share of the popular vote (roughly 43%) and the electoral vote in the most recent national election, the amendment included a provision stating that a candidate had to receive at least 40% of the popular vote to win without being forced into a national runoff with the runner-up.

The amendment sailed through the House Judiciary Committee and was overwhelmingly approved by the full body of the House in September 1969.

Shortly thereafter, as the Senate Judiciary Committee prepared to consider whether to recommend the measure to the state legislatures, Nixon gave his endorsement to it, and the New York Times reported that it had the support of nearly enough state legislatures to be ratified.

But the amendment died on the floor of the Senate in September 1970, when a filibuster forced the majority leader to move to set the amendment aside so the Senate could take up other business. The amendment was never brought up again.

In truth, though, the Electoral College never really has been "representative" — although I presume that the real complaint hasn't been that it's not "representative" but that it isn't "proportional."

I'll give you a more extreme example of what I mean than the 1968 election.

In 1984, Ronald Reagan was re-elected president with nearly 59% of the popular vote. By winning 49 of the 50 states — and receiving all of the electors from those states — Reagan ended up with nearly 98% of the electoral vote.

If the electoral vote had been in proportion to the popular vote, Reagan would have received 316 electoral votes instead of 525.

But the historic assumption is that, if a presidential candidate wins the popular vote in a state, whatever the margin of victory may be, he receives all of that state's electoral votes. Usually, that's how it works out. There have been a handful of "faithless electors" in American history but very few.

Clearly, in states where the vote is close — the best example of that this year is Missouri, which remains too close to call five days after the election — those voters on the losing side tend to feel — somewhat justifiably — disenfranchised.

However ...

Not all states employ the winner-take-all method. A couple of states — Maine and Nebraska — have passed state laws that follow what is called the "Congressional District Method."

At this point, it may be helpful to reflect on how electoral votes are allocated. They are allocated on the basis of a state's representation in Congress. A state receives one electoral vote for each House district it has — and congressional districts are based on the population figures from the most recent census.

Each state also receives an electoral vote for each senator it has. Every state has two senators.

In Texas, where I live, we have 32 House districts. That means we have 34 electoral votes (32 + 2).

Simply stated, in Maine and Nebraska, the candidate who wins the statewide vote receives the two electoral votes that a state receives for its delegation in the Senate. The remaining electoral votes are awarded based on the outcomes in each congressional district.

Therefore, it has been theoretically possible since those laws were passed for a candidate to win the state but not win all of the electoral votes.

Maine has had this law on the books since 1972. Nebraska has had it on the books since 1992. But neither state has ever had to divide its electoral vote because one of its districts voted differently from the rest of the state's population.

Until now.

Traditionally, Nebraska votes Republican. In fact, Nebraska has supported the Republican nominee in every election except one since 1940. On Tuesday, it did so again.

But the difference was that the Second Congressional District voted for Barack Obama.

Words cannot express how significant it is that one of Nebraska's congressional districts supported a Democrat for president.

Obama's margin over McCain in the Second District was a mere 1,260 votes. But you have to put it into historical perspective to get an idea of how remarkable it is for a Democrat to win even a single electoral vote in Nebraska.

Four years ago, the Second voted to re-elect George W. Bush, 60% to 38%. In 2000, the district supported Bush over Al Gore, 57% to 39%. In 1996, it supported Bob Dole over President Clinton, 52% to 38%. In 1992, it voted for George H.W. Bush over Clinton, 47% to 32% (with Ross Perot receiving 20%).

Not only has the district joined the rest of the state in supporting Republican nominees on a regular basis. It also has been represented in the House by Republicans for all but 10 of the last 58 years.

Granted, the Second is where Nebraska's largest city — Omaha — is located, and large, metropolitan areas tended to support the Democratic ticket. But the Omaha World Herald endorsed Republican John McCain. So did the Lincoln Journal Star, the Grand Island Independent and the McCook Daily Gazette.

I am unaware of any newspaper endorsements that Obama received in Nebraska.

But the endorsement that counted in the Second District was the one the voters gave him.

Kudos to the Crystal Ball

You may have seen Larry Sabato on TV.

He's the director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics. He also runs a website called the Crystal Ball, which assesses congressional and gubernatorial races — and presidential races every four years.

Sabato also shows up, from time to time, as an analyst on TV networks like CNN.

And the next time I go to the horse track, I want Sabato at my side.

I've been looking at his final election projections, which were posted November 3, the day before the election.

• In the presidential race, he appears to have predicted nearly every state correctly.
  
  At this point, Missouri is the only state left that is too close to call. Sabato predicted it would vote for Barack Obama — according to the latest results I've seen, it is leaning to John McCain. If that holds, it will be only the second time in a century that Missouri has supported the losing candidate.
  
  Sabato also predicted that McCain would win Indiana. That's understandable, given Indiana's long history of supporting Republican presidential nominees. But Indiana voted for Obama.
  
  Nevertheless, Sabato correctly predicted that Obama would win Florida, North Carolina and Virginia. He also predicted the Democratic victory in Nevada. All four states voted for Bush last time — as did Ohio, which voted for Obama this time. Sabato predicted that one, too.
  
  Even if Missouri stays with McCain, Sabato will have a success rate of better than 95%.
  
  And, in the Electoral College, he could be a single vote from being right on the money. He predicted Obama would win 364 electoral votes. Currently, Obama has 365 electoral votes — but, if Nebraska observed the traditional winner-take-all system for distributing its electors, he would be at 364 (I'll be writing more about this soon). Both Indiana and Missouri have 11 electoral votes so if Missouri stays with McCain, it's an even swap for Sabato.


• There are three races that are yet to be decided in the Senate. Republicans currently hold all three, and they currently lead in all three. But, as I mentioned in my earlier post, circumstances do exist in each race that could reverse the outcomes.
  
  At the moment, the Democrats have a lead of 57-40 over the Republicans (including the two senators who are independent/socialist who currently caucus with the Democrats), which is a gain of six seats.
  
  Sabato predicted that the Democrats would gain seven or eight seats, falling just short of the "filibuster-proof" three-fifths majority.
  
  His prediction included Elizabeth Dole's defeat in her campaign for re-election in North Carolina.
  
  What about the three races that are up for grabs?
  
  Well, in Alaska, Sabato predicted that Sen. Ted Stevens would be defeated. He has a narrow lead that could be overturned when some 50,000 absentee and uncounted ballots are added to the mix.
  
  In Minnesota, where the law requires a recount, Sabato predicted incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman would prevail over comedian Al Franken.
  
  And, in Georgia, Sabato correctly predicted the general election would not produce a winner and would end up in a runoff. Beyond that, he didn't predict who would win. Perhaps he'll post a prediction at some point.


• And in the House, Sabato predicted the Democrats would pick up 26 seats, bringing their total to more than 260.
  
  He may have been overly optimistic about Democratic gains in the House, but it's still a little early to tell.
  
  His actual projection stated that Democrats would hold 262 seats when Congress convenes in January. At the moment, Democrats appear to hold 255 seats with six races still too close to call.
  
  So mathematically, Sabato could be almost right on the nose in the House races as well. In many ways, I think that is the most remarkable of the predictions, considering the localized nature and sheer number of the House races.
  
  To be that accurate requires in-depth knowledge of more than 400 congressional districts.

All in all, an impressive performance.

Another Senate Pick-up for Democrats

Oregon's Sen. Gordon Smith has conceded to his Democratic challenger, Jeff Merkley, who has built a lead of about 50,000 votes with more than 90% of the ballots counted.

Counting independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who have caucused with the Democrats for the last two years, the Democrats have a 57-40 advantage with the outcomes in three Senate races still undetermined.

Here's how things stand at the moment in those three races:

• Alaska — Incumbent Republican Sen. Ted Stevens, who was convicted in his corruption trial a week before the election, leads his Democratic challenger, Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich, by less than 5,000 votes.
  
  That's with 99% of the precincts reporting.
  
  However, the Anchorage Daily News reports that "[s]till to be counted are roughly 40,000 absentee ballots, with more expected to arrive in the mail, as well as 9,000 uncounted early votes and thousands of questioned ballots."
  
  Clearly, a 4,000-vote lead might not hold up if about 50,000 ballots haven't been counted yet.


• Georgia — Incumbent Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss leads with nearly 50% of the vote, but state law says he has to receive 50% plus one vote. With 99% of the precincts in Georgia reporting, Chambliss is less than 8,400 votes from his objective.
  
  The fly in the ointment for Chambliss was an independent candidate who received about 3% of the vote. That translates to more than 125,000 votes. Chambliss led his opponent head to head by just under 120,000 votes.
  
  So, even though Chambliss leads Democratic challenger Jim Martin, he's apparently going to have to win a Dec. 2 runoff to retain his seat.
  
  It is likely that some of the independent's supporters will not vote in the runoff. It is also possible that some of the people who supported Chambliss or Martin the first time won't participate the second time.
  
  However, because Chambliss came so close to the votes he needed the first time — and I presume a voter will only be eligible to vote in the runoff if he/she voted in the general election — I think Martin will have to persuade some of Chambliss' original supporters to switch to him if he is going to have a chance of victory.
  
  Perhaps Martin can accomplish that by arguing that, with the Democrats in control of the White House and both houses of Congress, Georgia needs to elect a Democrat to the Senate in order to have any real voice in the federal government.
  
  The Atlanta Journal-Constitution anticipates that both John McCain and Sarah Palin — who carried the state on Tuesday — will come to Georgia to campaign for the senator during the runoff. I expect the Democrats to make a similar effort on Martin's behalf.


• Minnesota — Incumbent Republican Sen. Norm Coleman leads comedian Al Franken by 221 votes out of nearly 2.9 million counted. An independent candidate drew 15% of the vote.
  
  Coleman's margin was so small that it will apparently trigger a state law that requires a recount. "Recounts are required in races with a winning margin of less than one-half of 1%," reports the Minneapolis Star Tribune.
  
  Less than one-half of 1% would be about 14,000 votes — which means that Coleman's lead clearly is narrow enough to trigger a recount.

So there you have it.

Three Senate races in which Republican incumbents lead narrowly — and in which circumstances exist that could hand victory to their Democratic challengers.

When the final results are known, a decision apparently will need to be made by the Democrats about what is to be done with Joe Lieberman.

Ryan Grim writes at Politico.com that Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell — who narrowly survived in his own bid for re-election on Tuesday — has been trying to get Lieberman to join the Republican conference.

Lieberman apparently has been bargaining with the Democratic leadership over his future as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. Chairmanship assignments will still be the domain of the Democrats, whether they win those three remaining seats or not.

Lieberman, of course, was once a Democrat and, although he supported John McCain in the presidential election, he did so almost exclusively because he supports the Iraq war and he is a close personal friend of the Arizona senator.

On most issues, however, Lieberman agrees with the Democrats, so he has continued to caucus with them, even after switching to independent status when he was rejected for re-election by the Democrats in his state two years ago.

Grim warns that Democrats may hold a secret vote on Lieberman's future in their caucus. Such a vote, I'm sure, won't occur until we know more about the Senate races in Alaska, Georgia and Minnesota.

Following the 2006 elections, Democrats needed Lieberman and Sanders in order to establish a majority in the Senate. Will they still need him — to achieve greater control over that legislative body?

With a sweep of those last three races, the Democrats could achieve the "filibuster-proof" three-fifths majority they've been coveting — but they can only do so if Lieberman and Sanders continue to caucus with them.

But if even one of the Senate seats remains in Republican hands, the Democrats will fall short of the three-fifths majority.

And then Lieberman may not be viewed as necessary.

To be continued ...

The Blame Game

In the aftermath of a presidential election, there's almost always a certain amount of blaming and finger pointing that goes on within the party that comes up short — which tends to be exaggerated, to a certain degree, by the media.

The scapegoat in 2008 appears to be Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

At least, that's the impression one gets from reading Ari Berman's article in The Nation.

"Angry McCain aides, who believe the Alaska governor harmed the GOP ticket, are going to do their best to make sure Palin gets the blame," Berman writes.

"Already," Berman continues, "word is emerging that Palin

• "'didn't know that Africa was a continent rather than a country,' reported Fox News's Carl Cameron, based on conversations with McCain aides;


• "didn't know which countries were in NAFTA and


• "didn't prepare for her disastrous interviews with Katie Couric."

But is that really fair?

Was the election a mandate for Obama? Or was it a repudiation of Palin?

I guess that comes down to whatever the motivation was for each person's vote. People are unique and, therefore, what motivates them to vote one way or another is unique as well.

I have heard some people say that Palin was a factor for them when they voted — that they didn't like her views on issues or they didn't feel she had enough experience. Those are legitimate concerns, ones that voters on the opposite side of the spectrum could (and, in fact, some did) express about Obama.

But I don't think any of the Obama supporters who expressed such concerns about Palin said that they would have voted for McCain if she had not been on the ticket with him.

And I think Berman may be failing to recognize what motivates the McCain staffers who insist on trashing Palin.

While I think it's clear that Palin brought much of the derision on herself, I also think you have to keep in mind the source of the complaints — McCain staffers, who probably would like to work in other political campaigns in the future and would prefer to see someone else take the fall for losing this election — while they remain comfortably above the fray.

One conservative isn't blaming Palin — Ann Coulter.

"Indeed, the only good thing about McCain is that he gave us a genuine conservative, Sarah Palin," Coulter writes. "He's like one of those insects that lives just long enough to reproduce so that the species can survive. That's why a lot of us are referring to Sarah as 'The One' these days."

It's obvious that there's no love lost between Coulter and McCain. But Coulter makes the same mistake (albeit in reverse) as the Palin bashers. Both give Palin more credit than she deserves.

Palin was elected governor two years ago, and she's never served as much as a single day in Congress. She didn't introduce or help pass any of the legislation that either authorized George W. Bush to give the green light to the invasion of Iraq or led to the economic meltdown.

She is not culpable for any of the problems that are linked to Bush and the Republican Party.

She may have been — and may still be — a supporter of most or all of the policies that were rejected by the voters. But she supported or opposed legislation in the same capacity as anyone else — as a citizen.

I'm not saying that there isn't a cause-and-effect relationship between policies and the results in elections. Clearly, there is.

But is it fair for Republicans to blame Palin for John McCain's defeat? McCain, after all, has been in Congress for more than 20 years. During the campaign, Obama frequently observed that McCain had supported Bush's legislative policies 90% of the time.

When voters elect a president, they focus on the candidate at the top of the ticket — not the running mate. McCain was too closely linked to an administration that the voters judged to be a failure.

Palin didn't bring in the disaffected female voters who supported Hillary Clinton in the primaries. That was the main thing the McCain campaign hoped for.

But, while Palin energized the conservative base of her party, she was unable to attract most centrist and progressive women because they disagreed with her on issues.

I'm inclined to think those voters would have responded in the same way to a male running mate with the same political philosophy as Palin.

Which underscores the real problem that McCain was never able to overcome. He should have been able to count on his conservative base. He should not have felt compelled to appeal to it through his choice of a running mate.

The problems that plagued the Republican Party during the mid-term elections two years ago and again in this year's presidential election simply were not of Palin's making.

This defeat was John McCain's. Palin may have cost the ticket some votes here and there.

But the responsibility for persuading the voters always rests with the presidential nominee.

It is a test of that nominee's leadership. And this was a failure of McCain's leadership.

In all fairness, not everyone is making Palin the GOP's scapegoat. Indeed, a certain segment of the population insists that we haven't seen the last of her, that she will be a candidate for president in 2012.

But Palin insists, in USA Today, that she "cannot even imagine" seeking national office four years from now.

That's OK. Some people are doing the imagining for her.

Loose Ends

Votes are still being counted in the election, but we're almost through that process and most of the decisions have been made.

• This morning, Barack Obama is the president-elect of the United States. That much has not changed, nor will it change.
  
  Obama has about 11 weeks to prepare to take the oath of office on January 20. But he can begin to implement the promise of "change" almost immediately by naming his top advisers and his choices for his Cabinet — and conferring with them on the issues that deeply and directly affect Americans right now.
  
  Those who are tempted to sit back and smile with smug satisfaction over the election of a black man as president have missed the whole point.
  
  To his credit, Obama appears to see beyond the symbolic importance of the election. He "gets it" — or, at least, his words in his victory speech imply that he does.
  
  "This victory alone is not the change we seek," he said last night, "it is only the chance for us to make that change."
  
  True democracy guarantees the right to participate — not the right to succeed.


• Now that the votes have been cast — and most have been counted — can it honestly be said that it made a difference which candidate the Democrats nominated for president?
  
  In an election in which the Democrats appear to have won the White House by about 6-7 million votes and expanded their advantage in both the House and the Senate, did it matter whether a black man (Obama) — or a woman (Hillary Clinton) or an Hispanic (Bill Richardson) or a white Protestant (John Edwards) or a Catholic (the vice president-elect, Joe Biden) — occupied the top spot on the ballot?
  
  I'm inclined to say no — that, in 2008, it was much the same as it was in 1992. Perhaps, with the economic meltdown in September that was practically foretold the month before when job losses were one-fifth greater than expected and the creaking economy lurched toward collapse, it became a foregone conclusion that the Democrats would win.
  
  It's still the economy.
  
  And that always tends to favor Democrats.
  
  Was there anything John McCain or Sarah Palin could do to reverse the outcome?


• The Senate races have produced some astonishing results.
  
  As expected, the Democrats have made gains, and they will remain in the majority — whether independent Joe Lieberman and socialist Bernie Sanders caucus with them, as they have for the last two years, or not.
  
  But the oft-stated goal of achieving a "filibuster-proof" majority in the Senate appears to be out of reach now.
  
  None of the four races that I wrote about last night have been resolved yet, but it looks like the Republicans are leading in all of them, and only one — the race in Oregon — appears to have a significant number of votes still to count.
  
  Republican incumbents in Minnesota and Georgia may have survived by razor-thin margins — but Republican Sen. Norm Coleman may be facing a recount in Minnesota, and Sen. Saxby Chambliss may have been forced into a December runoff with his foe in Georgia.
  
  Alaska's Ted Stevens, who was convicted in his corruption trial last week, may have been re-elected, but it's not quite over.
  
  Late polls indicated that Stevens' opponent enjoyed a comfortable (for a Democrat) lead, but it's possible that, while the rest of the country was making history by electing a black president, Alaska voters may have made some history of their own.
  
  Even though Alaska's governor was not elected vice president, it is my understanding that this could be the first time in American history that a senator has been convicted in federal court and then re-elected by the voters of his state. With 99% of the precincts reporting in Alaska, Stevens leads by less than 4,000 votes.
  
  But, reports the Anchorage Daily News, "Still to be counted are roughly 40,000 absentee ballots, with more expected to arrive in the mail, as well as 9,000 uncounted early votes and thousands of questioned ballots. The state Elections Division has up to 15 days after the election to tally all the remaining ballots before finalizing the count."
  
  We may have to wait awhile longer before we know if Stevens has been returned to the Senate.
  
  Perhaps, in the final week of the campaign, Alaska's voters grew tired of being laughed at, had enough of seeing their governor ridiculed and then being told they couldn't re-elect an 84-year-old senator who had been convicted of corruption charges.
  
  So, perhaps, those voters have sent their own message of "Yes, we can."

Election Night Prep

If you have a few minutes to spare before you settle in to watch the election returns tonight, I urge you to read Carl Cannon's article in Reader's Digest.

In it, he presents four "scenarios" that could occur. I suppose they're the most plausible scenarios.

Until the votes are counted, anything is mathematically possible.

Anyway, Cannon says the four scenarios are:

• Barack Obama wins a close election over John McCain, the nation's "fifth in a row if you factor out the muddying presence of Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996."
  
  It's unclear, to me, what, in Cannon's opinion, qualifies this scenario to be "close," since he suggests that Obama will receive 52% of the vote and 350 electors.


• McCain turns things around in the closing days, "eking out narrow victories in Pennsylvania and Florida, and winning in Ohio by the same margin as George W. Bush did in 2004."
  
  In this scenario, McCain gets 49.5% of the popular vote, and Obama receives 48.5%.


• The "Republican doomsday scenario" is that Obama and the Democrats enjoy a reversal similar to the one Ronald Reagan and the Republicans brought about in 1980 — as Obama "attracts the passionate support of all those in his own party, nails down the late-deciding swing voters, and proves a magnet to first-time voters, many of them young Americans going to the polls for the first time."


• Obama wins "handily" in the popular vote, but loses in the Electoral College.
  
  That sounds reminiscent of the 2000 election, which Cannon acknowledges, but he takes it a bit farther.
  
  "This time, the numbers could be much more undemocratic," he writes, "a result that would be disenfranching to a clear majority of Americans and would generate ill-will that would have an explosive potential."
  
  If you don't think it could happen, read Cannon's scenario.

Hopefully, when the voters hand down their verdict, it will be decisive.

The last thing this country needs is another election that hangs in the balance over hanging chads.

Is It a Sign?

The residents of Dixville Notch, N.H., voted at midnight last night — as they do in every election.

And, for the first time in 40 years, the Democrat won the small New Hampshire hamlet. Barack Obama received 15 votes, John McCain received six.

That's not necessarily a good thing.

Dixville Notch doesn't have a history of picking the winner.

In the Democratic primary back in January, when Hillary Clinton revived her campaign after losing the Iowa caucuses, Dixville Notch's Democrats gave Obama seven votes, John Edwards two votes and Bill Richardson one vote. Clinton received no votes at all.

In the 2000 Republican primary, when McCain was en route to a big victory over eventual nominee George W. Bush in New Hampshire, Bush edged McCain in Dixville Notch, 12 votes to 10.

During the 1990s, Dixville Notch rejected Bill Clinton both times.

When he was being elected the first time in 1992, Clinton ran fourth in Dixville Notch, with two votes, trailing George H.W. Bush (15 votes), Ross Perot (eight votes) and Andre Marrou (five votes).

When Clinton was re-elected in 1996, his challenger, Bob Dole, received 18 votes in Dixville Notch. Clinton received eight. Perot and Harry Browne received one vote apiece.

Nevertheless, for a Democrat to win Dixville Notch in the general election is clearly an unusual event. And it may well be an omen.

We'll have to wait until tonight to see.

It's Almost Over ...

Actually, it seems to me that the real work begins after the votes have been counted.

After the long political campaign, there's a natural tendency to feel a sense of relief as Election Day arrives.

"Whew!" we all say individually. "I'm glad that's over!"

But, aside from the fact that we'll know who won and who lost — if not Tuesday, then hopefully by Wednesday — and the talking heads on TV will have to find something else to occupy their time, what else will be different?

The new Congress must convene and the new president must take office in January. At that time, the elected leaders need to start earning their salaries and focus their energy on resolving the problems facing this country.

History tells us that real change doesn't come from within the system.

Even when Franklin D. Roosevelt and Democrats from across the country were elected to go to Washington and deal with the Depression, it took pressure from the outside to achieve real, lasting change — and some of those efforts, like the one to implement the Medicare amendment to the Social Security Act, took decades to achieve.

To mark the occasion, Lyndon Johnson signed the legislation at the Truman Library, in the presence of former President Harry Truman (pictured at right). Truman was in the Senate when the Social Security Act was passed 30 years earlier.

The conventional wisdom today is telling us that Barack Obama is on his way to an historic victory over John McCain tomorrow.

But the conventional wisdom is not always right.

Whichever kind of change you desire, it's not going to happen if you don't do your part. Decisions are made by those who show up.

Vote.

And it's worth remembering — today of all days — that

• it was 60 years ago today that the Chicago Tribune published its famous edition with "Dewey Defeats Truman" as its banner headline, and


• today is the 75th birthday of Michael Dukakis, the man who was nominated by the Democrats 20 years ago — and looked like he had an almost insurmountable lead over George H.W. Bush ...
  
  ... until he took some time off from the campaign to attend to his duties as governor of Massachusetts (giving Bush the opportunity to set the agenda for the general election campaign), and then was captured on film riding around in a tank, wearing a helmet and generally looking silly.

Both President Dewey and President Dukakis would advise you not to take anything for granted.