Obama, the Democrats and the Chances of Another Popular Vote Victory and Electoral College Loss

In the looking-way-too-far-ahead department think about this: If Obama is the Democratic Party’s nominee he could convincingly win the popular vote and still lose the Electoral College in November. This split has happened three times before, the latest, of course, when Gore won the popular vote in 2000 but lost the election to George W. Bush.

Although Obama is likely to bring out significantly more voters than Kerry in 2004, this would mean little if the turnout is in states like California and New York which Democrats generally win anyway. Even much higher turnouts of blacks in South Carolina or Georgia, which have large black populations, will pad the popular vote but these states almost certainly will remain red states. So, although Obama could end up with a clear majority of the popular vote, he could do so and still have the same blue-state, Electoral College tally as Kerry.

If Obama is the Democratic nominee the all-important question is, can he win in a purple state like Ohio or Florida? Kerry didn’t, and if Obama does bring out significantly more voters than did Kerry and even wins the popular vote, can he? The March 4 primary in Ohio may give some idea but is unlikely to answer this question definitively.

In support of his argument that Obama would likely do well in the general election, Peter Beinart recently wrote in “Courting Joe Six-Pack,” http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1715282,00.html that the demographics have changed significantly since George McGovern and even Michael Dukakis lost as the Democratic nominees and, as a result of the shifts, Obama is unlikely to be hurt by the white conservative vote because, Beinart writes, “this fall, for the first time in memory, blue-collar whites may not constitute a majority at the polls.” The implication is that blacks, Hispanics, college-educated whites, and other voters more likely to vote for Obama can get him the win that was not possible for McGovern or Dukakis. The demographics certainly have changed since the days of those two but it matters more where they have changed for the general election and how in relation, say, to 2004, the last presidential election. In other words, it isn’t enough to look at the effect of demographics on the popular vote or even the number of states won but rather on swing states and the likelihood of a candidate winning these.

California and Washington State, for example, have changed greatly since 1972, the year McGovern was trounced by Nixon, adding especially more Hispanics to the total population in each state, but these are states that the Democrats have won for some time now. A demographic shift has also occurred in many states in the south that have more Hispanics and blacks relative to white males. These changes should add nicely to Obama’s popular vote but what about the Electoral College votes, and states likes Ohio and Florida which Kerry needed but did not win in 2004? Have the demographics changed so much in these states since the 2004 presidential election to make a difference; can the increase in blacks and Hispanics put him over the top? This would be a much better indication of how Obama will do in November.

Also, in contrast to the implication in Beinart's article, Obama is actually doing pretty well, especially in recent primaries, among those identify themselves as independents and conservatives, groups that have been voting for Obama recently and who are, despite what folks like Beinart imply, essential if the Democratic nominee is to win any of the swing states in November. And if Obama does win in the Ohio or Texas primaries, he almost certainly will do this with the help of conservative and even independent voters who can vote in both primaries. What must be troubling for Democrats, though, is that although these groups have been voting for Obama recently (most recently in the Virginia primary) and could help him in the Ohio and Texas primaries, his political views and voting record are almost certainly unknown to many of those currently voting for him. It is likely that they, like many in the media, appear, instead, to be caught up in all the excitement. As a result, if Obama is the nominee, his soaring rhetoric about change and unity won’t be as compelling when the Republicans draw him into a battle that, ironically, could be one of the most divisive in recent memory.

If Obama is the Democratic Party's nominee it is very possible that the new demographics will not, in fact, enable him to break out of the blue states. Similarly, as more independents and conservatives become aware of his record, courtesy of the Republicans, many of the voters that Obama is getting now may go instead to McCain. If this comes to be, and the 2008 election ends with the Republicans securing another four years in the White House, Democrats will wish that they paid more attention to the issues, the voting records of the Democratic candidates, and had scrutinized claims such as Obama's that wins in the caucus and primaries translate to victories in even red states in the general election. I also suspect that many in the media, who often write so uncritically about Obama's greater electibility, will have a similar wish.

Just the Facts, Ma’am

Hillary Clinton has a new website that may help answer, at least partially, the question I asked yesterday about what she will do should she not win convincingly in the upcoming primaries in Ohio and Texas.

The website (delegatehub.com) purports to include “five facts about Democratic delegates,” and politicizes the very issues that will probably make or break her campaign:
(1) whither the superdelegates, and (2) what to do with those poor disenfranchised voters in Florida and Michigan.

In true Clintonian fashion the “facts” as Hillary sees them are a somewhat heavy-handed, self-serving parsing of reality that might do more harm than good. I take a look at these below. For her full discussion of these issues see the website.

Fact: Pledged delegates and automatic delegates are the same—they each count for ONE vote.

Fact: Neither candidate can secure the nomination without automatic delegates.

Fact: Automatic delegates are expected to exercise their best judgment in the interests of the nation and the Democratic Party.

Fact: Florida and Michigan should count, both in the interest of fundamental fairness and honoring the spirit of the Democrats’ 50-state strategy.

Fact: There is a clear path to an overall delegate majority (pledged + automatic) for Hillary Clinton after all states have voted—with or without Florida and Michigan.

This is just about the extent of the site though it also includes a rotating group of links that when I was viewing included a letter by a black superdelegate urging other black superdelegates supporting Clinton to resist the pressure to move to Obama; some words from Howard Dean, the DNC Chairman, on superdelegates that is ostensibly in line with Clinton’s understanding of the issue; and links to other articles or sites that she believes confirm one or another of her “facts.”

This tiny site popped up like a mushroom overnight and prominently features at the top of the page a big button so that you can send this info to your “friends, family, and co-workers.” It indicates at the very least that Clinton is contemplating what could be a bruising late-stage strategy to fight like hell to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates and to stop not only the peeling away of especially black superdelegates but quash Obama’s attempts to pressure the Party and the superdelegates to go to the candidate with the most actual votes. It also appears to contradict the several dunderheads on the various television programs this evening who, in the wake of Clinton and Obama’s debate in Texas tonight, marveled at her “valedictory” (Keith Olbermann) or “conciliatory” (some other schlump) manner and whether it might portend that she is getting ready to mail it in or even signal her desire to be Vice President! (Olbermann, again.)

Although this indication that she will continue to fight is heartening for those who believe she is the most electible candidate, Clinton’s facts, which are so crucial to her possible late-stage strategy, just aren’t convincing no matter what you think of her candidacy.

--Pledged delegates and superdelegates do each count as one vote but the pledged delegates represent thousands of votes and are proportional, whereas one superdelegate has the same voting power without representing anyone other than him or herself. It may be the rules that superdelegates are given equal footing with pledged delegates and one can argue that they should "vote their conscience" or do "what's best for the nation" (whatever that means) but it is a specious argument at best to suggest they are the “same.”

--It simply isn’t fair to count Florida and Michigan at this point. Yes, it was dumb of the DNC to come up with this hare-brained punishment (which looks increasingly like self-flagellation), but all the candidates agreed to this and, as a result, could not campaign in these states; in Michigan Obama wasn’t even on the ballot. There is little legal precedent for overturning a Party’s rules even if that means disenfranchising voters, apparently, and at least one Florida challenge to the DNC was dismissed before the primary there. A do over makes more sense though it is fraught with problems of its own.

--And Clinton’s clear path to victory? Even her husband doesn’t seem to think it’s all that clear anymore. He, James Carville, and nearly anyone who can speak believe that Clinton must do very well in both Ohio and Texas to just stay in the race. So whatever some campaign hack writes on Clinton's behalf, the path to victory, while not impossible at this point, isn’t a clear one at all.

I haven't touched on all of the Clinton facts but they all aim at the general strategy I’ve outlined. What they share in common is something that both Clintons have become too well known for despite their accomplishments and abilities: a reliance on technicalities, procedural minutiae, and parsing of meaning. Clinton even wants to bend language to her will and her campaign has requested that henceforth superdelegates be called automatic delegates as if that will somehow make them less conspicuous and less a point of contention.

None of these parlor tricks will seat the Florida or Michigan delegates or freeze the superdelegates in their current allegiances though, if Obama continues to be ahead in delegates and the popular vote after March 4. Surely, Hillary Clinton must know this.

March 4 Muddle

As the Democrats lurch towards March 4 and the primaries in Ohio and Texas at least the questions, if not the answers, are becoming clearer.

Obama: Will he continue to be able to appeal to independents and conservative Democrats in the upcoming primaries, as has been the trend, and, if so, will these groups vote for him in November if he is the Democratic Party’s nominee?

Clinton: Will she withdraw gracefully if she loses Ohio and/or Texas, or even basically plays Obama even in these states, or push her campaign beyond this, perhaps even to the convention?

First, Obama. If he continues the trend and is able to appeal nearly across the board to all constituencies in Ohio and Texas, where independents can vote in either the Democratic or Republican races, there is nothing to indicate that he will maintain these voters in November. Common sense would suggest he will have problems maintaining these voters after the Republicans go after him but this can’t be measured either. As tantalizing as it is to plug in the demographics of a state and “compute” a winner, the promise of advance and exit polling and the relative successes there have been in identifying voter allegiance based on demographic information may be more like chasing a will ‘o the wisp, or a receding horizon than providing a satisfying metric for a candidate’s strength in November. Would be “scientists” are now reduced to humble prognosticators and shameless speculators when it comes to assessing November.

And Clinton? If she continues the campaign after losses or even lackluster victories in Ohio and Texas she is in serious danger of entering the quagmire that has sucked in so many politicians unable to accept the inevitable, whether enmeshed in a sex scandal as a congressman in a Bible Belt state or a Chief Executive burglar ransacking the Watergate. If Clinton does soldier on she could take the Party with her submersing it in the muck with legal battles over seating the delegates in Florida and Michigan and procedural and cultural battles over what to do with the Superdelegates.

We owe both questions to the convoluted, confusing, and inefficient system that is the Democratic nominating process, a hybrid of democratic elements such as access and transparency, and old-style party politics that are anything but. Many Democrats were praising the process when Clinton came roaring back in New Hampshire, opining that the process was intended to draw things out, ensure the vox populi would be heard, and that the best candidate to beat the Republicans silly would ultimately emerge. Now that its groaning superstructure has been thrown into relief, I doubt anyone is so sanguine about the process with its inaccessible and undemocratic caucuses, fickle superdelegates whose votes are greatly magnified over the hoi polloi, non-sensical state Democratic party rules for awarding delegates, and the DNC’s bright idea to disenfranchise voters in Florida and Michigan for thwarting its will.

And so after all this, we are not one bit closer to knowing who is the better candidate to take on McCain in November, whether Obama’s ability to attract independent and even conservative voters will carry into November. The caucuses, arcane methods of awarding delegates, and permitting independents to vote in some primaries but not others have helped make a nearly complete muddle of this. Neither do we know that Clinton or Obama, for that matter, will do if neither can establish a commanding lead in delegates. Will she battle to seat the delegates from Florida and Michigan, or wrest away his pledged delegates? Will he demand that the Superdelegates vote for him because he has the popular vote?

This time around, at least, the Democratic nominating process has neither ensured that the will of the people will prevail in determining the Party’s candidate or that the best candidate will go forward in November. It’s just created a lot of uphill slogging for the candidates, and is raising more questions than its answering.

It sure is exciting though.

Mitt for Obama?

A big win for Obama tonight in Wisconsin, no doubt about it. This is an all white state so the victory, by about 15 percent it appears, is all the more impressive.

There are still a few things that are troubling, if looking ahead to the general election. Among white voters 45 and older, which made up about 55 percent of all voters (Edison exit polling) in the Democratic primary, Obama lost to Clinton. He won handily among independent voters and Republicans, those identifying themselves as liberal, moderate, and conservative, atheists and snakehandlers, and just about everything else. Yipes.

I am still scratching my head over the independents, who voted 2-1 for Obama, and Republicans, 75 percent of which went to Obama. He seems to be getting voters like these on a regular basis now (He did this most recently in Virginia and Maryland) though I just can’t believe that he will continue to get such voters if he makes it to the general election. I am very skeptical, in other words, that these people will still be voting for him when McCain and his 527 friends publicize that Obama is more liberal than Castro and not nearly as experienced (a taste of which we got tonight in McCain’s victory speech). If he doesn't this is real trouble as independents and Republicans voting for Obama made up 28 percent and nine percent, respectively, of voters in the Wisconsin Democratic primary. Take these away, and he narrowly beat Clinton among Democrats.

Who knows. Maybe these independents and Republicans who are voting for Obama aren't supremely ignorant but rather are so pissed off at George Bush and all his dirty tricks they are looking to send a message even in the general election.

One thing is for certain, though. if Clinton doesn’t win in Ohio and Texas on March 4, we will surely get a chance to see just what it is these voters are up to and maybe even whether that old opportunist, Mitt, has jumped on the bandwagon as an...Oromneycan.

Campaign 2008: Superdelegates and Mitt Romney's Underwear

In response to my Midnight for Mitt entry, a commenter wrote that I should stop blogging about trivialities and start writing about something important like the superdelegates and Obama’s attempt, the writer claimed, to do a kind of end run around the rules to get them. Frankly, I don’t see what could be bigger than Mitt’s dropping out of the race (at least I didn’t write about his magic underwear or affinity for corpses), but the superdelegates as well as Obama’s wiley ways are certainly important issues, probably bigger, even, than Willard Mitt Romney’s underpants.

Here are the opening paragraphs of the anonymous commenter:

Who cares whether Mitt Romney is out of the race. There is more interesting stuff to blog about. For example, yesterday, the Obama campaign accidentally released (leaked) a memo to the press projecting the delegate count at the end of the primary process. It’s not clear how they came up with the numbers, perhaps wishful thinking, perhaps a crystal ball. Either way, the campaign seems to be lamenting the fact that the nominee will be decided by the super delegates. Apparently, Obama believes that this does not bode well for him. Naturally, he would like the press to take up this issue and cry foul on his behalf. And so they did.

The issue was discussed on all the political talk shows and before long, the country will be convinced that allowing the super delegates to determine the outcome of an election will be a great calamity akin to the Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore.

The writer goes on to say that Obama is making, in his or her mind anyway, a brazen and unfair play for the superdelegates by putting the DNC on notice that the superdelegates should go to the candidate with the popular vote, that the press sucks for being not only receptive to but magnifying such hogwash, and that I should be outraged at Obama’s naked political grab instead of writing about Mitt’s Underoos. Or something like that.

I certainly see why someone supporting Clinton, as the writer clearly does, would want the superdelegates to cast their votes for the candidates they currently support. In a NY Times article yesterday which identified the superdelegates and their allegiance to Clinton or Obama based on the candidates’ own lists, Clinton retains a healthy lead. Many of these delegates had pledged their support well before the race was tight and no doubt Clinton has based at least part of her overall strategy on getting these (and perhaps foregoing a real play at some of the caucus states).

I also see why Obama would do what he is doing. Why wouldn’t he put these party dandies on notice? He wants to win, doesn’t he? And if he does win the popular vote and is ahead in pledged delegates won fair and square in the primaries and caucuses he would have a pretty good argument that the superdelegates should go for him. So, it makes perfect sense to me that Obama would make a public play for these superdelegates and let them know that Obama voters anyway aren’t going to let their candidate win the pledged delegates and the popular vote only to let the party operatives deliver victory to Clinton like gods from the machine.

In the end, Obama’s public courting or even threatening of the superdelegates isn’t any different than Clinton’s attempting to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates or any of the other strategic maneuvers the candidates are making. Like all the Democratic candidates, Clinton agreed that she wouldn’t campaign in these states, and that their votes would not be counted. In short, both candidates are doing what they can to win the primary. At this point their battles are reasonable and do not threaten the Party in any significant way. This could change, though, and, in a worse case scenario, there could be a legal challenge about the disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan voters (the DNC’s treatment of these states amounts to nothing less than this) and Obama or his surrogates could drive his supporters into an acrimonious and divisive battle over the superdelegates. In either case the only people profiting would be the Republicans.

None of this addresses the question as to whether Clinton or Obama is the most electable candidate, a concern of the commenter who apparently fears that the manipulation of the superdelegates by Obama could leave us with a candidate ripe for trouncing in November. Electability should be an issue, but you certainly can’t blame Obama for wanting to have his head be the one on the chopping block.

Sometimes it’s just more fun to write about Mitt’s under garments.

Truth or Consequences: Perception and Reality in the Chase to be the Democratic Party's Nominee

Although the media and the candidates themselves often live by the notion that perception is reality, carrying on about “momentum,” “change,” “comebacks” and “solutions,” while talking little about the issues important to voters, perception isn’t, in fact, reality. Frequently voters don’t get this until it is too late, something Democrats seem especially prone to, when they choose nominees like McGovern or Dukakis that have little chance of winning the Presidency. Anyway, in recognition of this phenomenon, to which Republicans are not immune, detailed below are some frequent perceptions associated with the Democratic and Republican presidential races and the realities.

Perception: Obama’s victories in red states such as Idaho and Utah are meaningful as it indicates his ability to possibly win these states in November’s general election.

Reality: Democrats will win these states in the general election when hell freezes over.

Perception: Clinton must win Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania, and by wide margins, in order to beat Obama and eventually win the Democratic party’s nomination.

Reality: Clinton must do well in these states but barring a sweep of these states by high margins in all, neither candidate will have anywhere near the number of delegates to lock up the nomination. Also, it is increasingly likely that something will happen with the delegates in Florida and Michigan, states Clinton won handily and which she would be the favorite to win again if, say, there were a “do over.”

Perception: If either candidate wins more states and/or the popular vote, the superdelegates should go to that candidate.

Reality: Winning more states is meaningless unless it results in winning these states in November. Idaho and Utah, which Obama won, are out of reach for Democrats in November and many of the states he has won are caucuses which attract party activists only and thus are not representative of how voters in these states will vote in the general election. Similarly, someone could even win the popular vote and still be the weaker of the candidates in the general election. Obama, for example, could win the popular vote even after losing California, Florida, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas. This is exactly the kind of scenario in which the superdelegates have meaning as they could give their votes based on the one thing that matters at the point: who is the candidate most likely to beat John McCain?

Perception: Independent voters are more likely to support Obama in the general election than they are McCain.

Reality: Many of the independent voters Obama is now getting will not be voting for him in the general election. Incredible as it may seem, many of these voters appear to be unaware that Obama has one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate (number 1 in 2007 according to a National Journal assessment of senate voting records). And conservative Democrats? Seventy percent of voters in the Virginia primary who identified themselves as conservative voted for Obama! (Edison exit polling). How many will be there after McCain and the 527 groups desconstruct his voting record?

Perception: Obama is beating Clinton across all demographic groups.

Reality: Clinton is consistently winning geezers and white lunch bucket democrats, two groups critical to a Democratic victory in November.

Perception: Obama is more electible than Clinton.

Reality: It is Obama’s mantra that he can get Clinton’s voters but she cannot get his. The truth is likely otherwise. If she is the Democratic nominee she will take all of Obama’s constituencies other than perhaps young voters which make up a small percentage of overall voters anyway. She will take back blacks and white liberals and combine these with the constituencies supporting her now: latinos, older women, and moderate to conservative Democrats.

Perception: Obama’s “change” candidacy means that he will be more likely to vote his conscience and eschew the kind of political casuistry typical of other pols.

Reality: Despite his opposition to the war in Iraq he has voted to continue its funding. In addition, he recently did not vote on the reauthorization of the FISA bill instead of voting one way or another out of fear that Republicans would say he was soft on terrorism.

Perception: The wheels have come off Clinton’s campaign and epic strategic blunders have led to her current state at the edge of the abyss as she approaches the Wisconsin primary on February 19, and the March 4 primaries in Ohio and Texas.

Reality: Clinton has a lot of baggage that she needed to lighten to even challenge to be the party’s nominee and she has done that by appearing more moderate; letting Bill run interference in especially the red states where white males believe she is the devil incarnate; focusing on the big delegate-heavy states; and, most important, recognizing the role that Florida/Michigan could ultimately play, and locking up as many superdelegates as possible from the beginning. This doesn’t mean that there haven’t been missteps—she should have put more effort into contesting the caucus states, for one—just that the blunders aren’t nearly so big in comparison to what she has accomplished.

Perception: Obama will do more to unite Republicans and Democrats than Clinton.

Reality: Uniting Republicans and Democrats is a myth and, in fact, is not something to be wished for as such unity leads to things like the War in Iraq. As soon as more is known about the liberal Obama’s economic, health care, and security policies, he will be demonized by the Republican attack machine as just another liberal Democrat like McGovern, Dukakis, and Kerry. So much for the hope of unity. Ironically, and for better or for worse, Clinton has worked closely with Republicans on many important issues, from war to security matters.

The Clinton Obama Identity Politics Game

There’s a game that’s a lot of fun right now. Anyone can play, and it involves little more than going about your daily business, being interested in 2008 Presidential race, and taking a cursory look at the exit polls from the completed Democratic primaries and caucuses.

The game works basically like this: visit Starbucks or Dunkin’ Donuts; your greengrocer or Safeway; your BMW dealer or Jiffy Lube; your dad’s family in Mississippi or your mom’s in Newport, Rhode Island; or just think about any of the places you frequent and try to guess before visiting them if they are Clinton or Obama supporters.

Just one example: As my wife and I drove up to a local coffee roaster this weekend we both exclaimed, without knowing anything about the owner other than his relative youth, and scraggly goatee, “Obama supporter.” And sure enough, before we had even purchased the freshly roasted Panama Boquette, exquisitely laced with civet cat droppings, he was asking if we were supporting Obama. Before we could respond, we espied a white middle-aged woman with steel grey hair stirring in the corner, who momentarily interrupted her inspection of a ceramic coffee cup emblazoned with the roaster’s business name to listen. My wife and I looked knowingly at one another and, sure enough, she put down the cup and came over to announce that…she was a Clinton supporter. A raucous but happy debate followed, with others in the store joining in, until with the help of the black assistant roaster and, you guessed it, Obama supporter, we finally made it back to our car with our coffee.

Although there are many variations—you could make this a drinking game or a travel game—in the end it’s kind of boring because it is so easy. The Democratic primary is all about “identity politics,” as some call it, or voters whose allegiance, almost deterministically, appears to be driven by class, race, and gender, and age all those things that Americans don’t like to talk about, let alone admit frequently drive their decisions and the way they live their lives. It is somewhat ironic given that unity is a major theme of one of the candidates but inevitable, too, with the two Democratic candidates that matter of gender and race would, arise. Class is also playing a role and even the age gap, so demographics, identity politics, whatever you want to call it, is as the exit polls confirm at the front and center of the Democratic race in a way that it never has been before.

This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. The Democrats have a diversity and potential pool of voters that the Republicans can only drool over. By the same token, such diversity can be messy and even divisive if one or more blocks of voters feel somehow betrayed. The controversies over the superdelegates and whether to seat the delegates in the Florida and Michigan primaries are two instances of how this could happen. The Democrats cannot afford to let the campaign become divisive, however, and I don’t believe that either Clinton or Obama will permit this to occur.

The bigger issue is whether the Democrats will be able to sustain in the general election the excitement that is apparent at the local coffee shop or hardware store, and if the eventual Democratic nominee, whether Clinton or Obama, can get the kind of turnout they are now seeing in the caucuses and primaries. If they can do this, and if they can turn out blacks and white lunch bucket Democrats, the young and old, and all the other constituencies one or the other of them is getting now the Democratic nominee will win in November—hands down. And If Democrats are ultimately able to energize and unite their diverse constituencies and thrash McCain then the messy, imperfect, and possibly disastrous process they use to select a nominee may even have some vindication.

Alternative Reality: Florida, Michigan, Superdelegates and the 2008 Race for the Democratic Nomination

Unless something pretty odd happens--either Clinton or Obama punches the other out in Ohio and Texas on March 4th—both will remain for a long time nearly deadlocked in their race to be the Democratic party’s nominee. If they do remain deadlocked things will get really weird: fights over superdelegates, battles to seat the (now) token delegates of Florida and Michigan. While the former battle could be disastrous if not handled properly, at least it is within the control of the party. The latter battle, though, may be out of the hands of the party and, like Bush v. Gore, could be another political and legal thriller, replete with David Boies and Ted Olson (well maybe not Olson) reprising their famous roles.

But there may be an alternative: Clinton and Obama could come to an agreement regarding both issues. She would agree not to fight to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates, and he would agree not to go after the superdelegates other than by conventional means--wooing them. Both decisions would be consistent with the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) procedures and rules on these issues and with which both candidates agreed, at least before the delegate count became so tight.

In announcing their decision Clinton and Obama could make a great show of unity, ensure that both candidates were treated fairly, and perhaps save the party from what could be disastrous infighting should either issue be decided in any other way.

The problem, of course, is that some voter in Florida or Michigan may muck up this happy scenario and bring a lawsuit against the DNC, anyway, arguing that he or she was disenfranchised when the DNC refused to seat the delegates. Clinton and Obama would have little control over this, and as creepy as it sounds it is possible that once again Florida and the courts could play a dramatic role in the political process.

With respect to especially the Florida and Michigan delegates all this begs the question--what was the DNC thinking?

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

For a preview of how either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will respond to security issues and even the War in Iraq if they are the Democratic party’s nominee, yesterday's Senate vote to reauthorize and expand the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), is instructive. The new portions of the Act, generally recognized as unconstitutional, not only permit spying on Americans without first obtaining warrants, but in section 408 of the Act would even immunize from liability companies which, since September 11, 2001, have helped the government in such spying by providing telephone or Internet records.

In yet another embarrassing show of weakness by Democrats, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), ensured that the new provisions would not be held up or challenged in any way in coming to the floor. His Democratic colleagues then joined with Republicans to seal the odious deal and the Act was easily passed 68 to 29. As one might expect, McCain voted for the FISA expansions. And Clinton and Obama? Both withheld votes—that is, neither voted either yea or nay—presumably so that Republicans can not use this issue against the Democratic nominee later, and so Democratic rank and file won't be incensed. Obama was there for the vote, apparently, and did nothing; Clinton didn’t even show up.

So for everyone who says that a new day has come, that the Democratic nominee will confront Republicans on security and other issues where Democrats in the past have feared to tread, here again is indication that on this issue, like the Iraq war, Democrats will be playing defense, back on their heels once again.

And what of Obama’s fearless stand against the war in Iraq before he was in the Senate? Yesterday's vote also gives a pretty good idea what he would have done when he believed his political future was on the line. Votes like the FISA vote and to continue funding the war in Iraq blunt the distinction that Obama has always touted: that he is”pure” on the war in Iraq and, thus, unlike Clinton who voted to give Bush authorization to go to war, in a better position to go after McCain on this issue.

The truth is that Democrats haven’t been “pure” or courageous on major issues facing this country for a long time, and neither Clinton nor Obama look like they have any backbone either.

The Potomac Primary: Why Obama's Victories May Spell Trouble for Democrats

A couple of things jump out at me in the exit polls from Barack Obama’s victory last night in Virginia over Hillary Clinton. In a contest in which he bested Clinton in nearly every category—from male voters to female voters, rich to poor, he (1) lost to Clinton among white Democrat voters 56 percent to 44 percent and (2) he won voters who identified themselves as conservative by a 73 percent to 24 percent margin.

Although CNN, MSNBC and other news organizations commission these exits polls (these figures are from the CNN.com website), not one of the talking heads mentioned these figures. Instead, the refrain was that Obama had broadened his coalition even beating Clinton in white voters (52 to 47 percent for Obama). The latter figure, which wasn’t clarified either, included independent voters, who are permitted to vote in Virginia’s open primary.

While independent voters have been going to Obama up to this point and may well do so in Ohio and Texas, which permit those not affilliated with either party to vote in either the Democratic or Republican races, there is much to suggest that the independent voters are not now aware that Obama is one of the most liberal Democrats in the Senate, something that Republicans will be sure to make clear if he is the party’s nominee (a recent National Journal article based on its assessment of his voting record in the Senate identifies him as the #1 liberal in the Senate for 2007; in the same article Clinton is ranked #16).

If the exit polls are correct and over 70 percent of the voters that identified themselves as conservative did, in fact, vote for Obama, these voters are either completely ignorant of Obama’s position on issues or political miscreants trying to create mischief. In any event, when the general election takes place these voters are most unlikely to vote for Obama if he is the Democratic party’s candidate. Also, while there is probably some overlap between the independent voters (which made up 16 percent of voters and voted about 2-1 for Obama) and those identifying themselves as conservative (12 percent of voters), many of those independents who voted for Obama last night are less likely to do this in a general election. Take these groups away from Obama last night and things don’t look as good.

Which brings us to Ohio and Texas. Based on past primaries, white middle class Democrats are more likely to vote for Clinton. Given the demographics of this state (Ohio voters are 86 percent white, 10 percent black, according to statistics from the 2004 general election) and his performance in states with similar demographics it is unlikely that Obama will win either state, though with the help of independents he may be able to get enough delegates and ultimately win the party’s nomination. If he does get a lot of these puzzling independent voters or Ohio and Texas voters simply become swept up by the juggernaut that is Obama’s campaign at this point, the party could have some real difficulties in November when Obama’s experience and liberal voting record are front and center of Republican attacks. Guess who independents and conservatives will be voting for then.

If this happens, all the talk of momentum and how Obama appeals to all voters—whether liberal or conservative; rich or poor; Democrat or independent; or even Republican—could seem like talk from a distant past and the very pundits now stoking this fire will shake their heads and ask one another how those silly Democrats could have been so misguided.

Waiting for the Exit Polls: Primary on the Potomac

The so-called Potomac Primary is tomorrow and if I can wipe the sleep out of my eyes and stand the sleet and freezing rain will trudge down to the firehouse before braving the Beltway so that I can get to work. Otherwise, it will be off to the polls after work with a hungry belly, a thirst for a beer, and a desire to knock the wife around a bit. Sounds like just the demographic of a Clinton supporter. I’ve even got hairy knuckles and holes in my shoes.

It should be exciting, though Maryland, like the rest of the primaries tomorrow, won’t have a lot of drama unless Obama happens to lose one of the states. The only real drama left has to do with states like Ohio and Texas in March and Pennsylvania in April where HC is the odds on favorite to win. And, of course, what will happen if the two are essentially deadlocked come April. If Obama can take these later states the nomination is as good as his; if not, he, HC, and about 800 of their best (superdelegate) friends will have some real fun.

One other thing will be as inevitable as death and taxes tomorrow: The media will squawk and belch about momentum, firebreaks, how many states Obama has won; and Clinton swimming upstream. Just the latest narrative being breathlessly pushed by talking heads and scribblers whose paychecks are probably paid by People Magazine. And if Clinton wins, beginning in March? They will shamelessly say they knew this would happen all along; HC, the comeback kid (recycling a previous narrative); the Clinton machine was certain to grind Obama into the ground; caucuses are meaningless because only party activists and people who don’t work attend them; long live the Queen.

As for me, I'll be waiting for the exit polls.

The Spirit of 1969—Part 2

So if the 1960s and 1970s were so formative and influential what happened to the Pat and Bay Buchanans, the Rush Limbaughs of this world? The latter two were in there 20s and Pat Buchanan was in his late 30s, an age not beyond redemption, despite the phrase that has become so associated with the times. Were they under a rock during this period, snoozing like right-wing Rip van Winkles for decades as the nine-pins thundered all around them?

While this question is a difficult one to answer, we are getting a glimpse into the way they and younger acolytes such as Ann Coulter think as they respond to—horror or horrors—the possibility of John McCain as the Republican Party’s nominee.

To listen to them talk, McCain is the second coming of George McGovern, the liberal Democrat who went down to defeat against Nixon in the 1972 Presidential campaign, a man more dangerous than a serial child molester. Coulter said recently that if McCain is the party’s nominee she will even campaign for Clinton. Limbaugh spends his days whipping his moronic listeners into a frenzy, bellowing that McCain represents the end of the Republican Party and all that it stands for. And Bay Buchanan thunders that if McCain doesn’t pander to conservatives by at least featuring Romney prominently as a speaker at the Republican convention (the dead horse she was advising until his recent withdrawal), they’ll make him pay by undermining his campaign and not voting for him.

It is really something to see the Republican unity, and Republican values, isn’t it? The “if I don’t win, I am taking my marbles (or pet candidate) and going home” crowd. In addition to the sour grapes expressed by Buchanan, et. al., someone on conservative talk radio inanely said the other day that sometimes it doesn’t hurt to lose an election, so that people will see just how terrible things can be (under a Democrat). Fine values, all, to teach the youngsters. Because George Bush and his administration are also spiteful, selfish, and mean-spirited, it appears that the right-wing fringe has made the mistake of thinking that it is mainstream, that its views are, in fact, as Bay Buchanan furiously croaked, the “pillars” of the Republican party.

And so the real answer, it seems, to the question, “where were these neanderthals in the 1960s and 1970s,” is that they were exactly where they are now--looking out only for themselves, oblivious to what is going on around them, and trying mightily to show their relevance to a party that has never needed them and which may be moving on without them.

The Spirit of 1969--Part 1

The race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is fascinating on several levels, not the least of which, to me, is that it brings back some old memories and reminds me that the idealism, ferment, and activism of the 1960s and 1970s continues to influence this country. When I see Clinton and Obama battling it out for the Democratic nomination, I get a glimpse of the society that Clinton and others like her envisioned, a society where racism, gender equality, and uncritical acceptance of the actions of those in power were vigorously challenged.

In 1969, when Clinton was a senior at Wellesley, my dad was a professor on the other side of the country in Washington State. Like a lot of colleges and universities, there were cell groups, earnest discussions about politics and authority, and some silly behavior too, but by and large students were energized, active, and idealistic. After what seem now like almost quaint battles over whether women could pants in class and whether colleges and universities could exercise almost parental authority over their students, the protests became a genuine cultural movement with people refusing to allow race or class or the way they were brought up to be proscriptive, working to undermine these through politics or on a more personal level through travel, spiritualism, alternative lifestyles, drugs.

Motivated primarily by a desire to transform society instead of making money or climbing the corporate ladder, many of those baby boomers, became journalists, activist lawyers, doctors, teachers, and politicians. Others continue to live lives based on goals quite different than those of their parents and grandparents. Many remain active and committed to their ideals and have transformed American society by heading up local community improvement projects to running for President of the United States. My parents weren’t radical and they weren’t hippies but they ended up as transformed as many of my dad’s students, often working with people as dedicated and indomitable as Hillary Clinton to end the war in Vietnam to bring about civil rights for blacks, and to focus attention on poverty.

Clinton isn’t free from the less noble desires that drive other politicians, and she sometimes practices the kind of politics she probably abhorred as a college student or young lawyer advocating on behalf of children. That said, I feel like I know something about her or her motivations, anyway. I know less about Obama, but all indications are that he is driven by many of the same things as Clinton, though has taken a somewhat different path to get there. He, too, has been at the head of the class in most everything he does and, like Clinton, who went from Yale Law School to a non-paying position advocating for children, Obama went from Harvard’s law school to organizing people on the mean streets of Chicago. He also has some experiences that Clinton does not--living abroad and navigating racial obstacles in this country—that should inform his domestic and international policies in a way that would be good for this country.

So when I see Clinton and Obama rushing around to get caucus votes in my native state of Washington today, I will think of my dad, who took me to my first caucus years ago, and who died last year, and how happy he would have been to see these two candidates seriously competing for the Presidency of the U.S. He would never have said it himself but he too, could be proud, of his role, however small in something that, if not a revolution exactly, continues to bring about some profound changes in this country.

Midnight for Mitt

Mitt, We Hardly Knew ‘Ya.

And that is a good thing, I guess. Mitt Romney announced today that he is out of the Republican race and I’ll admit to having mixed feelings. Not because I am especially fond of the brilliantined dandy, but because he has added a bit of character to a generally boring Republican race, and I’ll miss him for that. I’ll also miss the heated emails or animated responses to posts about Romney on the web from my brother who had a genuinely outsized loathing for Mitt and all he stands for, or doesn't stand for, or maybe stands for. There is hardly a website string featuring Romney that my bro has not responded to, eloquently and analytically skewering the man o’ plastic for opportunistically changing his position on nearly everything and it has been a lot of fun stumbling on his rants. But I will miss Mitt most because he would have been a great punching bag for the Democratic nominee. Alas, it isn’t going to happen now and the Democrats will have to deal with McCain and perhaps his “sidekick,” Mike Huckabee, a potential VP and pall bearer for the rich and famous if ever there were one.

As he slumbers while others are campaigning, Mitt will be seeing the former Arkansas Governor in his nightmares, that’s for sure, though it is unlikely that Mitt would have gone all the way or even done particularly well in the southern Super Tuesday primaries even if the Huckster hadn't been there to poke him in the eye. American politics are odd though and just as Nixon once famously said that American voters wouldn’t have him to “kick around” anymore, only to infamously return to the scene as President some time later, we may well see Mitt on the political scene again sometime, somewhere, transfigured perhaps as a cross-dressing liberal from SF or whatever form it takes to get him into the game, even for a little while.

Rube Goldberg (D-US)

Rube Goldberg, misguided Democrat. At least the Democratic nominating process certainly appears to reflect his handiwork: a big clunky apparatus which ensures a convoluted and tortuous path to what should be a pretty straightforward end. On the one hand, the assigning of delegates based on proportional representation would seem to assure that all votes count, unlike the Republican nominating and Electoral College processes, in which the winner takes all delegates in a state. On the other hand, the super delegates and even the caucuses make the proportional representation meaningless and permit the process to drag on for no reason. Or at least this is the case in very close races.

Last night confirmed that Clinton and Obama will likely be in a tight race for some time. Despite Clinton winning California and New York, Obama’s crack strategy of taking most of the delegates from the caucus states, states with a high percentage of black votes, and gouging into Clinton’s leads in places in blue states by nabbing generally, wealthy suburban liberals is keeping him in this race. For at least the next month or so Obama and Clinton will be trading victories—Obama likely winning Maryland and the District of Columbia, and the caucus states of Nebraska and Louisiana over the next two weeks, and Clinton probably winning Ohio and Texas in early March. It is very possible, then, that the superdelegates will ultimately decide this race, making a mockery of the notion of proportional representation and that every vote counts.

As undemocratic as the scenario may be, Democrats may want the super delegates to save them from themselves. The voting last night was as close as can be as are the current delegate totals, but there are some very troubling signs for Democrats should Obama make it through the primaries and become the party’s nominee. Troubling, because his support was primarily from liberals, blacks and younger whites, constituencies that cannot alone put him over the top in November.

Obama won all of the caucus states yesterday, where only the most motivated and generally liberal of the Democratic party turn out, and states like Georgia and Alabama which have high percentage of black voters. In other conservative states that do not have a high percentage of black voters, such as Arkansas, Arizona, Oklahoma, and Tennessee, Clinton won handily. In Tennessee, for example, Clinton won 71 percent of white voters age 45 and older (44 percent of all voters and well over 50 percent of the same age group in Oklahoma). This is an important distinction because whoever the eventual Democrat nominee is, he or she is going to have to have at least some appeal to these kinds of white voters—more conservative, less educated, and making less money otherwise Obama will do no better than McGovern or Dukakis, other liberal Democrats that won the party’s nomination only to be trounced by the Republican nominees. Except for Utah, where the name “Clinton” is synonymous with “plague” there was little indication last night that Obama appealed to the party’s more moderate Democrats in any of the other primaries.

And that is why Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas will be so important. If Obama can expand his appeal and win one or more of these states, which have more conservative or lunch bucket Democrats and fewer blacks, or least do very well against Clinton, he might have a shot of winning in November. As has been the case in the last couple of elections, it will almost certainly be necessary for the Democratic nominee to take Ohio or Florida in November and/or get some combination of Pennsylvania, New Mexico, and Colorado, other tossup states in past which Democrats (and Republicans) are sure to target.

Obama is fond of saying that if he is the nominee, he will end up getting Clinton’s votes while she would be less likely to get his. Although Clinton might not get some of the young voters that Obama is currently attracting, she would almost certainly end up with most of the other constituencies voting for Obama. Does anyone really think that blacks, or suburban liberals will either not vote in significant numbers or vote for McCain instead of Clinton, simply because Obama is no longer in the race? While it is pretty clear that Clinton will, in fact, get most of Obama’s voters, what isn’t clear is whether Obama will get the moderate white voters, the kind of voters that will turn the tide in the crucial states mentioned previously, or even the Latino or women’s vote (older women, especially, are voting for Clinton over Obama). If he does not get such voters, but does win the nomination, Obama will be just another sacrificial lamb for the Republican slaughter and all those that voted for him can contemplate this for at least four long years.

Maybe Rube Goldberg wasn’t a Democrat after all.

Run-Up to Super Tuesday: Trouble in Paradise

I was in the Los Angeles area recently to visit family and when I landed at Burbank’s Bob Hope Airport, as always, I couldn't help marvel at how exotic the place is, especially in comparison to chilly Maryland where nary a palm tree sways and not a mountain or hill even is to be found ringing the area’s airports. And that ineffable California light! My steps quickened when I emerged from the terminal and into what seems like a movie set (the opening shots of MASH, and many other Hollywood movies were filmed down the road in Malibu Creek State Park) and the chatter of people from Iran, Mexico, the Philippines, the South Pacific. A person can’t be blamed for thinking that this may really be the heart of the American dream.

And a lot of people do believe this. In California—southern California, especially, there isn’t anything that can’t be improved upon, nothing seemingly that can’t be had, nothing that is impossible as you zip down U.S. 101 through Woodland Hills, Calabasas and Malibu, along the highways and byways that take you from mountains to surf in minutes (if traffic permits). Enclaves and redoubts in Santa Monica, Pacific Palisades, the botanical gardens of the Huntington Library in Pasadena, where you'd swear problems can't exist. And if this isn’t good enough, there's the movie industry with its perfect stars and starlets, Disneyland, and the excesses of Forest Lawn Cemetery where even death can be improved upon, or the better-than-real recreation of the Italian villa that is the Getty Museum. There can be no doubt that California is, in fact, for dreamers.

Although it is easy to forget amidst the natural and unnatural splendors, California is also for those who simply want to work to buy a home, educate their children, and purchase affordable health insurance. Like many of the states in the southwest—Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, and Texas—with which it shares much in common California is growing by leaps and bounds. From 1980 to 2006 the state’s population moved from 23.7 million to 36.5 million (U.S. Census Bureau)--people in search of sun, open space, and the promise the west has always held. The proximity to Mexico, well-paying jobs, and established communities of immigrants also exert a big pull. Because of all this California is smack in the mix of the some of the most important issues of the day—immigration, education, health care, and housing. The subprime mortgage mess has hit nowhere harder than California where whole blocks of cities show signs of the crisis—numerous homes for sale, foreclosures, real estate developers and taxpayers left holding the bag on all the unsold tract homes that cropped up overnight when everyone was flush with easy money and there were mortgages aplenty.

Although Clinton had a big lead in California, the race appears to be tightening, with Obama looking like he can pick up a lot of delegates from the State at the very least. There is no doubt that he is an inspirational candidate but the only question California Democrats should be asking is who is most electable in November, and who will be able to best deal with the problems confronting California and this country. Like all those southwestern states California must deal with burgeoning populations, dwindling resources, and cooling economies. Add to this a broken health care system, the war in Iraq and a foreign policy in complete dissaray and it is clear that much is at stake not only for California but the rest of this country when Californians vote tomorrow. It will be interesting to see if in this state of dreamers, Democratic voters will cast their votes for the candidate they believe not only is best able to deal with these problems but most likely to win the Presidency, or whether they will cast their votes based on something less tangible but perhaps more compelling.

Follow the Money

Follow the money, isn’t that what they say? Well, you can do this to your heart’s desire at the Center for Responsive Politics (http://www.opensecrets.org). There is information on individual and political action committee (PAC), and other contributions for 2007 for congressional races and the campaign for President. There are many specifics that one can’t track down on the site because of bundling and the bewildering vagaries of campaign finance laws but you can see that the top two Democrats—Clinton and Obama—have many more donors and are making a lot more money than McCain and Romney. Clinton and Obama together earned an incredible $217 million in donor or PAC contributions in 2007 to $89.8 million for McCain and Romney over the this period (does not include the $ that Romney contributed to his own campaign). You can even see what your neighbor or boss has/has not contributed.

The difference among money raised for the remaining Democrats and Republicans is astounding and for January 2008 will be even greater. These figures haven’t been reported formally to the Federal Election Commission yet but Obama’s staff is saying informally that his campaign took in approximately $1 million a day in January of 2008. Clinton has said nothing about her totals for January but she won’t be too far behind that number. As for McCain and Romney? According to the site, Ron Paul earned more money than they did over the last 3 months of the year, and, was, in fact, the top earner of donated dollars (Romney beat him over this period because he poured (at least) $35 million of his own money into his campaign). McCain was on life support for nearly all of 2007, even having to take out a $3 million loan in November, just to keep the “Straight Talk Express” from becoming silenced forever. Things no doubt are changing as we speak and he certainly should have more money once it is clear that he will be the Party’s candidate.

The differences in number of contributers and total dollars that Democrats are receiving over Republicans, coupled with the much larger voter turnouts Democrats are getting should be important indications of how Democrats will fare in November, both in the Presidential and congressional races. I’ll look at such numbers more closely throughout the various campaigns but for now here are some fun, if perhaps meaningless, facts from the site (all dollar amounts are for 2007):

--Ron Paul earned more contributions over the last three months of 2007 than any other Republican candidate.
--Rudy Giuliani earned more contributions over 2007 (approximately $60 million) than any other Republican and received exactly one delegate
--Caroline Kennedy contributed $2300 to Hillary Clinton in June, before contributing the same amount to Obama in September. Is she hedging her bets or does this reflect her switch in allegiance (she now publicly supports Obama)?
--Henry (“Hammerin' Hank”) Aaron contributed $2300 to Hillary Clinton.
--Peyton Manning contributed $2300 to Fred Thompson (don’t let this guy wager your money on tomorrow’s Super Bowl victor).
--Billie Jean King gave Clinton $2300.
--Sidney Poitier and Ellen Pompeo each gave Obama $4600.
--Susan Sarandon spread the wealth around contributing to Obama, Edwards, and Bill Richardson (remember him?), giving Obama the most money—a total of $2000

What may be most interesting is who didn’t contribute in 2007. Where are all those personal donations from cash-heavy celebrities who so conspicuously voice their support for the candidates?

If you take a look at the site and find anything interesting—like George W. Bush contributing $ to Hillary Clinton, or who Dr. Phil is betting on—let me know.

Proud to be an American

I'm proud to be an American--we got two chickens in
every garage
And I wish every other kid could be one--in my country,
the medium is the massage'
Cause it's impossible to give
Equality and justice to inferior foreigners
too jealous to trust us

Gimme your weak and your homeless
How 'bout checkin' the oil ah, fella?

I'm proud to be an American

The Tubes


Jingoistic, flag-swinging self-described patriots are generally morons, so don't get me wrong, I am in no way associating myself with the "boot up your ass," "love it or leave it" swill that dishonor this fine country.

That said...after seeing last night's Democratic debate in LA I felt a lot of pride as both an American and a Democrat when I saw a woman and a black man debating to be the Democratic party's nominee and possibly the next President of the United States. There is a ways to go until we have a President, but history will be made when either Clinton or Obama is elected the party's nominee.

It would speak volumes if this country, especially after its long night of racial inequality, could not only seriously consider a black candidate but entrust to him the what is probably the most powerful position on Earth. It would say nearly as much if Clinton were elected. What is certain, is that this country would have at the helm an executive with a different background and a different perspective to view the American and international landscape.

After years of the Bushes and, before that Ronald Reagan, it is positively delicious to contemplate the possibility of a President who spent some of his youth outside the United States (Indonesia), has navigated black and white cultures (his father was Kenyan) in a way most Americans have not, and is familar with patrician Harvard as well as his father's ancestral village in Kenya. He is someone who obviously loves the United States and what it has to offer but who is aware of how it is often perceived abroad and the reasons for this. Obama's personal experiences are certain to inform his policies in a way that that could be transformative.

And Clinton? For anyone with a mother, wife, daughter or friend with XX chromosomes, it is difficult not to root for her, a candidate who also represents the possibility of a President with a perspective different than any in the office previously. It is nearly as tantalizing to think of what she might do if elected to the White House.

While gender and race are part of the Democratic campaign in 2008 for better or for worse, what makes these candidates more than mere novelties is their talent, past accomplishments, and visions for the future. Both have a mastery of the issues and have laid out clear visions of what they will do and how they will do it whether it be abortion, the Iraq war, or reintroducing our country to the international community. Both have run extraordinary campaigns, thus far, something that gives voters an idea, anyway, of how they will govern.

It isn't completely clear who the most electable candidate is--though I think it is probably Clinton for the reasons I've mentioned before. One thing is clear, though. Democrats can be very proud of the party's last two remaining candidates. They may also rest assured that the eventual nominee would approach the Presidency with rich life experience, insight, and knowledge--a few things that are sorely lacking in the current resident of the White House.

There is little difference between Clinton and Obama on the issues most important to Democrats. We pretty know what we will be getting with either one and it will be good, especially if there are Democratic majorities in both bodies of Congress. Because of their political similarities, this campaign may boil down to whose experiences and perspectives move you most. And this may not be such a bad thing.