So who exactly started the culture war?

Though the first presidential election I remember was 1976, the first presidential campaign I remember was 1992. It was the first time I actually followed it every day, doing my best to wrap my head around issues of all stripe: taxes, federal spending, abortion, health care, etc. One of my many enduring memories of that year's campaign is of Pat Buchanan scaring the bejeesus out of lots and lots of Americans by promising a cultural war at the Republican convention. (He was the keynote speaker because he had gotten 38% of the vote in the New Hampshire primary, finishing second and fifteen points behind Papa Bush. Oh, and also Papa Bush was too much of a gentleman to step on his neck and tell him to sit down, shut up and color.)

It was the first year I got to hear of the mainstream media's liberal bias. Though I am still inclined to think that blaming the media is a sure sign a candidate is grasping, I am for the first time also beginning to think there's something to this. For my unabashedly liberal friends, a few caveats before you get too excited:

• Yes, there are now plenty of conservative options on the mainstream media menu--Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, and plenty of others.
• Yes, all of these news outlets and commentators claim to be not part of the mainstream media themselves, but instead a response to it.
• Yes, it's tripe.

The simple fact is that if you're getting your news or commentary from people, there's some kind of bias to it. Jim Lehrer once told Stephen Colbert in this hilarious Colbert Report interview that his report added only "the flavor of neutrality." Apart from Lehrer and the late great Tim Russert, I can't name too many people I've seen doing TV journalism whose biases weren't very apparent after just a few minutes. Print journalism's record isn't much better lately. The short explanation, as I see it, is that too many people simply ignore facts that don't support their bias--or position--on an issue. The liberal and conservative mainstream media are equally guilty.

So what does this have to do with the "culture war?" Regardless of whether you like or dislike the Sarah Palin pick, the public reaction to it has been revealing. Conservatives of nearly all stripes--wary of McCain on his own merits--have rallied to his cause and been stalwart defenders of Palin's credentials. Check out this clip from The Daily Show for a great example. Liberals, or progressives if you prefer, have pitched a very high quality fit in the public square, not only dismissing her qualifications to serve but going so far as to assert that her acceptance of the nomination must mean she is not sufficiently dedicated to her responsibilities as a mother. Can you imagine the same left that stormed the barricades for women's rights a generation ago now trying to tell us that it just shouldn't be this woman? Fortunately, you don't have to. It happened last week right in front of you. Don't believe me? Read this article by Michelle Cottle, or this one by Margaret Wente.

While some of the the conservative response to the liberal coverage has been just as ridiculous, some of it has also been quite reasonable, and could be instructive if the liberals turn down the volume and listen a bit--both to conservative commentators and to some of what their own side are putting out. Here are a few samples, one from Bill Kristol, one from Clive Crook, and one from Michael Graham. (The Clive Crook article is particularly good--certainly worth the trouble of obtaining a free login at FT.com.) Truth be told, I'm not even certain Graham is conservative from reading his article. If he's not, his article is only that much more instructive. Finally, for my view of all this, try this article by Kay S. Hymowitz, in which she argues we'd all be well served by calming down and just evaluating Palin on her merits.

By the way, FactCheck.org is a great source for checking on both sides. They'll give you the facts and the context straight up. They appear to be keeping a running tally on the sliming of Sarah Palin . . . as well as the sliming by Sarah Palin.

Proof that chickens can learn politics

Got this joke from my aunt and had to share.

John was in the fertilized egg business. He had several hundred young layers (hens), called 'pullets,' and ten roosters to fertilize the eggs. He kept records, and any rooster not performing went into the soup pot and was replaced...

This took a lot of time, so he bought some tiny bells and attached them to his roosters. Each bell had a different tone, so he could tell from a distance, which rooster was performing. Now, he could sit on the porch and fill out an efficiency report by just listening to the bells.

John's favorite rooster, old Butch, was a very fine specimen, but this morning he noticed old Butch's bell hadn't rung at all! When he went to investigate, he saw the other roosters were busy chasing pullets, bells-a-ringing, but the pullets, hearing the roosters coming, could run for cover. To John's amazement, old Butch had his bell in his beak, so it couldn't ring. He'd sneak up on a pullet, do his job and walk on to the next one. John was so proud of old Butch, he entered him in the Renfrew County Fair and he became an overnight sensation among the judges..

The result was the judges not only awarded old Butch the No Bell Piece Prize but they also awarded him the Pulletsurprise as well. Clearly old Butch was a politician in the making. Who else but a politician could figure out how to win two of the most highly coveted awards on our planet by being the best at sneaking up on the populace and screwing them when they weren't paying attention.

Vote carefully this year, the bells are not always audible.

Holy $#*t! McCain by 54-44? Really?!

Okay, this is interesting. According to the summary of national polls on Real Clear Politics, a USA Today/Gallup poll taken over the weekend showed likely voters preferring McCain over Obama by 54% to 44%. 1022 adults were polled, 959 of whom are already registered to vote; the margin of error was +/- 3%. Here's a link to the USA Today article that describes the poll.

Now, don't start panicking if Obama's your guy. Likewise, don't start planning McCain's inauguration just yet either, at least not on the strength of one poll. Why not?

• McCain just came out of his convention. While the Democratic convention might have been the more interesting of the two, Sarah Palin's speech was the single most interesting event offered by either convention. Lots of folks are just starting to get to know her, and she certainly delivered in her speech in St. Paul. Now she has to start interviewing. The moment she starts doing that will mark the end of the honeymoon.
• By definition, the poll is an outlier. Neither candidate has polled more than seven points ahead of the other before now. McCain, in particular, hasn't polled more than a few points ahead of Obama. Much more often he's been behind, and by a margin larger than the margin of error. If you see a few more like this one, we'll call it a trend. Then we can talk.

That said, should Obama fans be worried? Absolutely. McCain is showing signs of having simultaneously pulled off two magic tricks in a week: retooling his own campaign from "experience" to "change," and co-opting Obama's message (again the change angle). Sarah Palin, no matter what you think of her positions, is formidable. She didn't get where she is by accident, so Democrats ought not be expecting her to fold. Finally, McCain has shown himself to be quite a bit more agile than Hillary Clinton.

No, "more agile than Hillary" is not in fact a particularly high bar to get over. Two months ago, however, everyone thought Clinton was the toughest thing Obama would face, and he never quite convinced everyone that he'd shaken her. And yes, Democrats can thank the Clintons and their loyal minions for perpetuating the myth that Obama barely beat her. This line of thinking always required, to borrow a coined phrase, "willful suspension of disbelief." But plenty were buying, and now it's coming home to roost. Remember this when Hillary is running again in 2012 . . . because she has already started.

Who wants to go to electoral college?

So I'm looking at state-by-state polls, and it looks like it's going to come down to about eleven states, with a total of 147 electoral votes among them. According to this electoral map on the Real Clear Politics web site, Obama is sporting a theoretical electoral vote lead of 238-174. This includes Pennsylvania in Obama's category, according to an averages of polls taken in August showing Obama with a 5-point lead. I consider Pennsylvania to be one of the eleven states in play. I think it will tighten up considerably for a few reasons:

• Obama hasn't reached 50% in any of those polls, indicating many Pennsylvanians are keeping their powder dry.
• All the polls concluded no later than August 26th, three days before McCain named Palin to be his running mate. The Palin pick--her speech at the convention in particular--has significantly energized the Republican base.

For now, let's put Pennsylvania in Obama's column, if for no other reason than for simplicity's sake. (You'll appreciate this more the longer you read.) Of the other ten, all classified toss-ups (defined as polls showing less than a 5-point difference) by Real Clear Politics, three look fairly solid for McCain--Florida, Indiana, North Carolina. Those three states would Bring McCain 53 electoral votes, bringing him up to 227. Two others--Michigan and New Mexico--look fairly solid for Obama. 22 electoral votes if he secures those states, bringing him up to 258. Keep an eye on Michigan. Kwame Kilpatrick, the Democratic mayor of Detroit, recently pleaded guilty to felony charges and resigned as mayor. Michigan Democrats may struggle to turn out voters in Detroit, so this may tighten up also, or even just be an election night surprise. Again, for simplicity's sake, we'll keep Michigan in Obama's column. So right now, we're calling it 258-227 for Obama.

First to 270 wins, so it would seem McCain would need to essentially draw an inside straight to win this. But he might do exactly that. The five remaining states (with corresponding number of electoral votes) are Nevada (5), Colorado (9), New Hampshire (4), Virginia (13) and Ohio (20). Of those five, only one--New Hampshire in 2004--voted Democratic in either of the last two presidential elections. New Hampshire and Colorado are both showing Obama with leads that are very slim and shrinking. Nevada and Ohio are showing slim leads for Mccain, one point or less. Virginia is showing not just a lead within statistical margin of error, but a dead heat.

If McCain wins all five of those states, he scores 278 electoral votes and takes the oath of office as president next January. If he wins all of them but Colorado, he and Obama tie with 269 electoral votes each. This assumes Maine casts all 4 of its electoral votes for Obama and Nebrasks casts all 5 for McCain. These two states are not winner-take-all, but instead assign electoral votes by congressional district, with two additional votes to whoever wins the statewide popular vote. If either McCain or Obama can "steal" a vote in the other's state, then it's a 270-268 win. I don't actually think this is likely.

So if it's 269-269, then what? It goes to an immediate vote in the House of Representatives, where each state gets one vote. (The last time this happened, by the way, was 1825.) I make two assumptions in assessing how it will probably go:

• It will be a straight party line vote.
• The balance of the states' House delegations won't change.

If each of these assumptions hold up, who wins? Obama does, 27-21 with two states that could go either way. Arizona and Kansas each have equal numbers of Replicans and Democrats in the House. You can look at the delegations here, on Wikipedia. If this scenario plays out, several states would have gone one way in the electoral college and the other in the House of Representatives.

Confused yet? Hang on, it's just starting to get interesting. The two assumptions above are both exceptionally flimsy. Why? A few reasons:

• There are two very Republican states--North Dakota and South Dakota--who send only one representative to the House. And in both states, it's a Democrat. Would a Democrat from a state that went for McCain in the electoral college buck his/her party and vote for McCain, or would he/she buck his/her state and vote for Obama? Dunno, but my guess still tends toward party line vote, therefore Obama.
• The electoral votes are counted on January 6th, three days after the new Congress is sworn in. While the Democratic North Dakota and South Dakota at-large seats in the House look reasonably safe, there are also several states in which the House delegation only favors one party or the other by one seat. States like this that lean Republican are Georgia, Louisiana, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah. States that lean Democratic by one seat are West Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, New Jersey, Colorado, Indiana, Iowa. So thirteen of the states are one seat change away from a potentially different vote for President if it goest to the House.
• In addition to North and South Dakota, there are four other states with only one seat in the House of Representatives: Delaware (R), Montana (R), Wyoming (R) and Vermont (D). Wyoming's representative is retiring, and the seat is vulnerable. Montana and Vermont look safe for their respective parties. Delaware's representative has been in office for 16 years and previously served as Lt. Governor and Governor of Delaware; he was re-elected in 2006 by a comfortable margin, but one that was reduced from those of previous years. Delaware a state which will certainly go Democratic in the electoral college, is another potentially interesting vote if the Republican retains the seat.

In other words, anything could happen. "Great," you're thinking. "All of this so-called analysis and he's not even saying who he thinks is gonna win." Well, I'm hoping it's McCain, for reasons we'll discuss in another post. It's an uphill climb for him, though, just to get into position to draw the inside straight on election night. Palin has almost certainly improved his odds.

By the way, the Senate chooses the vice president in the event of an electoral college tie. If this were to happen, I'd expect Biden to win the vote in a Senate in which Democrats expect to gain roughly five seats. Among those voting in this election would be John McCain, Barack Obama, Joe Liebermann . . . and Joe Biden. So it's entirely possible we could end up with a President McCain and a Vice President Biden.

Note: This post has been sponsored by amendments XII and XX to the United States Constitution.

Now the GOP has a rock star too!

Dont' know if you saw Sarah Palin speak last night. I, for one, thought it was a home run. Not one that just barely gets over the fence either. Tape measure shot.

Yes, she'll have a few remarks she'll have to defend, which in all likelihood don't square completely with the truth. But I think she's up to it. If nothing else, she's got a lot less to defend on this front than anyone else in the mix--she's the only one who hasn't been running for president for (at least) two years.

Launch!

I've seen this done elsewhere before, and I'm going to give it a whirl. I've created this blog for people who, like me, are hopelessly addicted to politics and absolutely not interested in finding a 12-step rehab program for it.

Okay, the truth of the matter is I need to move discussions out of the e-mail realm before some friends start deserting.

Naturally, some discussions will wander into areas other than politics, and that's fine by me. As for politics, partisan is fine. If there is no issue you think is worth taking sides over, this is probably not the place for you. Please do, however, keep it respectful. If I had a nickel for every blog I've seen--particularly on politics--that was a perfect hybrid of an echo chamber and a feeding frenzy, I could retire. Not interested.

Looking forward to solving all the world's problems. If we get busy now, we should be done in a few weeks, don't you think?