May 2005 Archive < Home
 I'm pleased to announce the beta release of the 2008 Presidential Wire, the first news aggregator and buzz tracker devoted to the next Presidential campaign.
Here's how it works. Throughout the day, the Wire goes out and scours blog and MSM feeds for news about 22 potential Presidential candidates, both Democrat and Republican. The result is a tool where you can not only read all the news about a particular candidate, but where these stories are compiled, analyzed, and tested against underlying trends. Who's the most discussed political leader on blogs right now? Who's the favorite of MSM journalists? Whose coverage is up 671% from yesterday?
The 2008 Presidential Wire enables us to know, in real time.
This has been a labor of love three months in the making. I suspected that it might be something useful when I found myself relying on it for news several times a day early on in the warts-and-all development phase.
The Wire is more than just a long list of stories. Just from the statistics on the Wire right now, you can see how the Hillary Clinton profile in today's Washington Post, Sam Brownback's interview with Right Wing News, and John Edwards' guest post on TPM Cafe have been the stories of the day. The Wire gives equal weight to new and old media, and breaks down stories by blog and MSM.
You might ask, "Why so early?" Good question. Actually, it's because a tool like this is most useful early in the process, when so little is known about many of the contenders, and we can get a glimpse into the Statehouse or the Senate office without being inundated by 24/7 cable news coverage and hundreds of versions of the same wire copy.
As a beta release, the Wire may have a few rough edges, including a tendency to pick up content that a human reviewer wouldn't. Let me know how you think this tool could be improved by e-mailing any suggestions to wire@patrickruffini.com.
Let the gratuitous browser refreshing begin!
Anklebiting galore in a "news analysis" in today's Post:
Through more than four years in the White House, the signature of Bush's leadership has been that he does not panic in the face of bad poll numbers. Yet many Republicans on Capitol Hill and in the lobbyist corridor of K Street worry about a season of drift and complain that the White House has not listened to their concerns. In recent meetings, House Republicans have discussed putting more pressure on the White House to move beyond Social Security and talk up different issues, such as health care and tax reform, according to Republican officials who asked not to be named to avoid angering Bush's team. …
Many experienced Washington hands believe that Bush has the opportunity to reestablish his clout if he focuses his efforts. "Every president goes through patches like this," Newt Gingrich, the Republican former House speaker, said in an interview. "[President Ronald] Reagan had a difficult patch in August '81, but he came back and was strongly successful. Clinton, if you'll remember, in June or July of '95 looked like he couldn't get anything done and then won reelection. These things come and go."
Without examining the client lists of said K Street Republicans, it's almost impossible to tell where they're coming from. But there's something to what Newt is saying here – many of the victories of this Administration, and indeed previous ones, seemed impossible just before they were won. And knowing that we tend to do better during frenetic periods of action, and knowing also that Congress has yet to take up Social Security in earnest, it's easy for highly speculative stories like this to get written – just before getting proven wrong.
I still stand by my previous analysis that once we build up enough momentum for doing something about Social Security in Congress, then personal accounts are going to start looking like a better deal politically. Fundamentally, Congress is in the business of creating new benefits for its constituents – and personal accounts are a new benefit in a land of curtailing pie-in-the-sky future "benefits." Better yet, they're a zero-cost benefit that actually build individual ownership and undermine the case for big government.
Social Security is and has for a number of years been the Big Kahuna of the domestic policy debate, and its prominence speaks to President Bush's refusal to get bogged down in flash-in-the-pan minutae that will be forgotten thirty years hence. Strategically, it makes little sense to focus our fire elsewhere since no other issue has the potential for bringing about lasting generational change. It turns a staple of the New Deal into a bulwark of enterprise Republicanism. Just how significant are we talking here? Think Souter and Stevens resigning tomorrow, and being replaced by Luttig and McConnell.
By comparison, any Supreme Court fight this summer will be about defending our home turf, not moving the ball downfield.
On Larry King Live, Vice President and Mrs. Cheney suggested the ultimate dark horse Presidential contenter. Yes, even better than Fred Thompson.
Hey, if they can run Hillary Clinton, we can run Laura Bush.
Click to Enlarge
The French are not immune to a good ribbing in these parts now and then, but the results of the French referendum on sovereignty even have Bill Kristol singing "Vive la France!"
The similarities between last November's election result and the French referendum result are also worth remarking upon, and I have produced a map that illustrates this. Many have already linked to this map posted on Power Line showing the red/blue divide; this map goes one better by highlighting the actual winning "Non" percentage in each area. I found the full data on the UMP party web site.
Of course, you've got the splotches of blue in a sea of red (Paris & Lyon, vice New York and San Francisco), and you've also got the anomalous blue region (Brittany, in the northwest, somewhat similar to New England). I haven't had time to delve into the regional divides too closely, but note that the most emphatic "Non" came from the northeast, which bore the full brunt of the Fuhrer's advance.
Kristol also makes this analogy, which makes a lot of sense at face value:
For Americans to grasp the character of the moment, it helps to think back to the early 1990s. Think of the collapse of New York city under David Dinkins and of liberal urban policies generally. Think of the House banking scandal, and the out-of-touch first Bush administration, and the Democratic party's ritualistic liberalism. Then think of 1992: The Perot phenomenon was akin to the revolt against the E.U. constitution--noisy, confused, but not meaningless.
The good news for America is that the discontent of the early 1990s produced a Rudy Giuliani to govern New York, a Bill Clinton to (temporarily) redefine the Democratic party, and a Newt Gingrich to revitalize the Republicans. In Europe today, there are signs of Clinton-Giuliani-Gingrich-ism in the rise of Nicolas Sarkozy in France, and of some fresh-thinking young (dare I call them) neoconservatives and neoliberals throughout Europe.
But so far the fresh thinkers haven't been able to break through. It is as if it were in 1996, and there had been no Clintonian redefinition of the Democrats, and Bob Michel were still leading the House Republicans, and there had been no Giuliani mayoralty in New York, and no welfare reform from Congress, and no American intervention in Bosnia--and the alternative news media were still in their infancy, and no academic counterculture had emerged. That's Europe today.
It's certainly the case that from 1965 to 1994, America suffered from a democratic deficit with regard to the Great Society; for most of that time, we elected Presidents who ostensibly stood for less intrusive government, but the welfare-on-demand culture became ever more entrenched. Europe suffers from a democratic deficit vis a vis the EU; even when European publics do favor integration, it's not very passionately, and that's a flimsy basis for as weighty a decision as surrendering national sovereignty. Underlying this is the elites' fabulist conceit that nationalism, and not dictatorship, causes war, and that all of Europe will once again be Auschwitz without the EU. But politically, you can't build a paradigm shift upon a claim that rings hollow to most people. Looking to history, is there one example of a supranational institution or agreement that has successfully kept the peace over the long haul? Not the Metternich system, which had its fair share of breakdowns even before World War I. Not the League of Nations. And definitely not the U.N. The only geopolitical sure thing there is that democracies never make war on one another. Seen in this light, President Bush's focus on expanding democracy seems a lot more "reality based" than European elites' insistence upon constructing a protectionist EU bloc.
Sooner or later, European integration will out-run the lukewarm public enthusiasm for it, and the consequences for the political class won't be pretty. A small harbinger was seen in last month's U.K. results, where anti-Europe parties like the UK Independence Party continued to grow their support. One hopes that that moment has arrived with the French and (likely) Dutch one-two punch against the European constitution.
As it turns out, even the French have some shreds of dignity and self-respect left. If the last thirteen consecutive polls are correct, then the European Constitution will be voted down by the French in a referendum on Sunday. With Gerhard Schroeder down by 17 points ahead of next fall's elections, it has not been a good few weeks for the Axis of Weasels. And of what the leaders who stood on principle? Bush -- re-elected. Howard -- re-elected. Blair -- re-elected.
Of course, the Non victory on Sunday may be more Episode IV than Episode VI in the rebellion against the European Empire. The Times of London reports on Chiraq's plans to defy his people's Non, principally at the expense of our British ally. That shouldn't surprise us. Whenever a nation gives "the wrong answer" in a referendum on Europe, out-of-touch europhile elites call a mulligan and resubmit a "renegotiated" treaty before a weary public, who usually succumb.
Here's hoping this is not one of those times.
The graduation of the Class of 9/11 has been very much remarked upon, and nowhere does this passage resonate more than at the service academies. Today, President Bush delivered a moving commencement address at the U.S. Naval Academy, where he told the stories of some brave young men who sat in the crowd during his last visit, four months before 9/11:
The midshipmen I addressed here four years ago are now serving bravely in this struggle. The new officers who sat in the chairs where you now sit could not have known that their strength and character would be tested so soon. In the last four years, they've met every test, and overcome every challenge. And they are setting a lasting example of courage for the classes that follow.
Sitting in that crowd four years ago was Midshipman Edward Slavis. When I gave the order to liberate Iraq, he charged across the Kuwaiti border, leading a rifle platoon through 21 days of tough fighting into the heart of Baghdad. His battalion helped pull down the statue of Saddam Hussein. Ed says, "I will have time for myself later. Now I just feel privileged to spend my life doing something much larger than myself." He went on to say, "The mission will be a success, and 20 or 30 years from now historians will look back on the mission to Iraq as America's golden moment." Ed Slavis is serving his country with courage, and he's adding to the history of this Academy.
Sitting in the crowd that day was Midshipman Josh Glover. He would soon risk his life in the city of Fallujah, fighting through a half-mile of enemy territory to rescue a platoon of Marines pinned down by insurgents. Josh says: "They had casualties and a Marine who had been killed. We were shooting 360 degrees." Josh and his men recovered that fallen Marine, and saved the platoon, and helped us win a critical battle in the war on terror.
Sitting in the crowd that day was a Midshipman whose name I cannot mention, because he went on to join the secret world of Navy special operations. He would soon deploy to Afghanistan with his Navy SEAL team, where he conducted lightning raids that captured dozens of Taliban and al Qaeda fighters. He even helped protect a very distinguished visitor to Afghanistan: the First Lady of the United States. (Applause.) And if he's out there listening, I've got a message for that courageous Navy Frogman: thanks for defending America, and thanks for taking such good care of my bride. (Applause.)
True to his reputation as a hero of freethinking and dissent, the President offered the graduates this advice borne of experience:
This advice comes with a warning: If you challenge established ways of thinking, you will face opposition. Believe me, I know, I've lived in Washington for four years. The opponents of change are many, and its champions are few, but the champions of change are the ones who make history. Be champions, and you will make America safer for your children and your grandchildren, and you'll add to the character of our nation.
Indeed, the Academy's Class of 2001 has helped created a world where seemingly disparate events all over the world unite to form one thread: revolution.
And as you begin your military careers, proceed with confidence, because our citizens are determined, our country is strong, and the future belongs to freedom. Across the world, liberty is on the march. In the last 18 months, we have witnessed a Rose Revolution in Georgia, an Orange Revolution in the Ukraine, a Purple Revolution in Iraq, a Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan, and a Cedar Revolution in Lebanon -- and these are only the beginning. (Applause.) Across Central Asia and the broader Middle East, we are seeing the rise of a new generation whose hearts burn for liberty, and they are going to have it. America is standing with these democratic reformers because we know that the only force powerful enough to stop the rise of tyranny and terror, and replace hatred with hope, is the force of human freedom. And by extending freedom to millions who have not known it, we will advance the cause of peace and make America more secure. (Applause.)
In this moment of reflection, you can't help but draw the comparison with the current concern for the vicious terrorists sitting in Guantanamo Bay -- a concern that would have seemed dangerously misplaced on September 12th, when we actually had some perspective on how al-Qaeda should be treated.
"CBS Poll: Bush Out Of Touch" blares one headline (it's CBS, folks!), "Poll: Bush approval mark nears low" screams another. Some wonder whether 2006 could be the Democrats' 1994. You might call this the springtime of our discontent.
Well, relax.
The current political environment proves two things. The first is that you can't govern from Congress. I don't think it's any coincidence the Hill's unusually active and visible role these past few months has come at the same time as its approval ratings have dropped substantially.
Think about it. This is an institution where the word "cloture" rolls off the tongue like nothing doing, where voting for John Bolton before you vote against him makes sense in its own twisted way, where pulling the trigger one-eighth… no! one-quarter… no! three sixteenths of the way toward the "nuclear option" merits 36 point headlines.
The last four months, and especially the last four days, have been an object lesson in why those with no executive experience seldom make it to the White House.
Pushing an agenda requires consistency and it requires repetition. That's difficult to pull off in the Senate, where the ground is constantly shifting beneath your feet, where the constitutional option is a sure thing one day, and is tethered by an unholy deal the next. For those passionately committed to the cause, it looks like a sellout, particularly when they were promised the sun, the moon, and the stars. For those indifferent, Senate processes and procedures don't resemble anything like strong leadership.
What's become perfectly clear throughout the filibuster debate is that legislators are unusually nitpicky about process. But the American people care about outcomes – food on the table, jobs, security – and these are the interests that a President must represent.
The alien, process-driven, inside-the-Beltway culture of Congress has been unusually visible these last few months. From the Schiavo affair, to DeLay's doings, to the filibuster fight, and now the stem cell-out, Congress has been determined to assert a separate identity in Bush's second term, eclipsing an essential project like Social Security. Well, how's it been working out?
Recent developments are also consistent with something else I've observed about the Republican Party in the Bush era: we tend to do well in frenetic periods of advance, like the clarifying two months before an election, but less so in the long periods of consolidation in between, when the ankle-biters have time to gradually shift the goalposts (they're for the war, but against how it's being fought, etc.). The relentless push to invoke the constitutional option did yield three previously impossible confirmation votes, did it not? (My objection is that the conference as a whole stopped pushing too soon.) A direct analogy could be made to the April-June period of last year's campaign. Then, events in Iraq and the jobs count seemed to be overshadowing the doings of both candidates, and the consensus was that this did not help the President. It was looking as though Kerry might skate in as an invisible man on a tidal wave of bad news.
That political calculus was inherently unsustainable. At some point, the people would have to hear from the President and John Kerry. And that period, beginning paradoxically with the Democratic Convention in Boston, was a period of nearly unbroken advance leading to a larger-than-the-media-expected victory.
In a time of low-intensity warfare, when 120 million voters have little to say, the media has reverted to cocooning mode where an anecdote here and a cherry-picked statistic there are enough to convince them that the tide really has turned against the social-neanderthal right. Last year it was bad news from Iraq/liberal anger/3 million lost jobs leading to headlines like "Kerry's race to lose." This year it's the CBS-sponsored poll on Social Security, the CNN-sponsored poll on judges, and the inherently messy din of legislation. We've seen this before.
How to move the ball forward from here? It may be time for a little bit of that first term mojo – the President leading the way on the policy agenda, with Congress working quietly and competently in the background to get things done. We've seen that wall-to-wall coverage of Senate procedure doesn't wear well under the klieg lights – though yes, we'll have to suffer through some more of it during a Supreme Court fight. And yes, fiscal conservatives may have a point that the more volatile social agenda may have run its course, inducing popularity-killing scrutiny of Congress. After the Court fight, it's time for Congress to get back to Social Security and be boring for a while.
The President has an inherent advantage with his ability to connect with the American people; he's the one who naturally should be driving the agenda. And Congressional Republicans have an inherent advantage in redistricting, such that the GOP brand name alone provides us room to grow 30 more seats in the House and 7 more seats in the Senate. This dictates that they use a lighter touch and let political nature take over. To the extent that 24-7 coverage and too many unusually high-profile fights introduce unwanted variables into this equation, they dilute the GOP brand.
Carlos Watson profiles five who could be "the next Karl Rove."
The Deal is one of those Washington occurences that's almost impossible to spin in left-right terms. Neither party's supporters have been served well by this agreement. And you know something is seriously out of whack when Robert C. Byrd is labeled a "moderate Senator."
It's a win in the sense: through the application of brute force, the Democrats have embraced something previously thought unacceptable: up or down floor votes on the most symbolic Bush nominees. But in the short run, it's anything but a win. Sausage-making is sometimes necessary in politics, but only when the outcome is seriously in doubt or if you are behind. You don't need to make sausage when a sumptuous filet of rare Kobe beef sits before you.
The constitutional option had the votes. No compromise was needed.
In a sense, the filibuster battle mirrored the war over our Constitution. What rules? The law, or tradition? The freedom to innovate, to experiment, to legislate within the broad bounds set by Constitution's actual text, or the straitjacket of some societal convention a Senator or Judge singlehandedly elevates to the Constitutional canon? Conservatives can come down on either side of this question -- we are not averse to governing on the basis of tradition or human experience. But we also recognize that not everything needs to be a law, that there is a place for freedom of action from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and from person to person. It may very well be that there is a God-given right to privacy. But there is no Constitutional right. What's wrong with a little flexibility, ambiguity, and yes, nuance on this question? Why must it be force-fed through Judge-made law?
In the end, the procedural taboo shouldn't bother us. What's worse, democratic body changing the rules by which it governs itself, as the Constitution explicitly authorizes it to do, or judges with unlimited power to write their whims into our nation's basic law?
Well, that wasn't any fun! Though the polls technically close at midnight, I'm going out on a limb and proclaiming Jacob Morse's Obi Dick the winner of the Star Wars contest, with 56.8% of the vote. Jostling for second are "Feels Good to Be a Jedi", "Patriotic Vader", and "Stormtroopers for Truth." I wonder how the winner would have fared against Bubba Darth? (Just kidding -- congratulations to Jacob!)
Just got back from seeing Episode III at the Uptown. Bottom line: staggering visuals, but the sense that Anakin et al. (with the exception of the brilliant Ian McDiarmid) are just going through the motions of Lucas's limp script. I probably would have been blown away had I not known how it ended... Depending on your outlook, leading off with the first three movies was either brilliant or self-defeating. Brilliant in that it fuels curiosity as to how it began, but self-defeating in that there was no real suspense in this film. Assuming you could toss aside Episodes I or II, would Episode III have been a good lead in to a second series of films thirty years hence?
* Slight spoiler *
Also, this strikes me a bit of a fundamental problem: Before his disfigurement, Palpatine cut an imposing, convincing figure -- one who could have won democratic election in his own right, inspiring legions of followers (which in fact he did). Yet it's only after seeing Darth Sidious ravaged and nearly vanquished that a conflicted Anakin finally decides to join him. I mean, shouldn't it be the other way around?
Now that we've thoroughly laid the smackdown and otherwise mocked to death to George Lucas' comparisons of Bush's America to the Empire, it's time to vote. (Perceptive you are, Master Pejman.) Here are the five finalists -- Bubba Darth will not be competing. Voting will proceed through Sunday, and each visitor is allowed one vote per day.
Results.
This blog, and the Bubba Darth design, made it onto CNN's Inside the Blogs segment this afternoon. Watch the video, also starring VodkaPundit and Chrenkoff.
Not long ago, the Inside the Blogs segment was pummeled mercilessly in these pages for its breezy, patronizing treatment of the blogosphere. But hey, thanks anyway!
When I get around to building a testimonials page, this one most assuredly will be at the top of the list:
When I look around for humor blogging, Patrick Ruffini doesn't immediately spring to mind. Ace? Sure. Allah? Absolutely? Frank J? Yup. But Pat Ruffini? He's more like a younger Michael Barone. Wonkish and smart, but not funny.
**** THE FINAL 5: CAST YOUR VOTE ****
** SEE EXTENDED ENTRY FOR TOP SUBMISSIONS & NOMINATE YOUR FAVORITES **
George Lucas and company seemed determined to ruin whatever chance Revenge of the Sith has of ever entering the pantheon of great epic filmmaking, if this is any indication:
''In terms of evil, one of the original concepts was how does a democracy turn itself into a dictatorship,'' Lucas told a news conference at Cannes, where his final episode had its world premiere.
''The parallels between what we did in Vietnam and what we're doing in Iraq now are unbelievable.
''On the personal level it was how does a good person turn into a bad person, and part of the observation of that is that most bad people think they are good people, they are doing it for the right reasons,'' he added.
Way to go, pissing off 62 million potential ticket-buyers!
In his own drably predictable way, the Hack pounces too.
But is the comparison all that unwelcome? Not if you read Jonathan Last's indispensable 2002 classic, The Case for the Empire, contrasting the scandal-plagued, U.N.-like Republic with the brutal but effective Galactic Empire. What to do then, with the America-as-The-Empire meme?
Embrace it.
And here's my small contribution to this effort:
View Large Version
Got any other creative depictions of Darth Vader as a Republican? Or any other favorite Star Wars characters as Republicans? E-mail your creations to photoshop@patrickruffini.com, and we'll kick off the whole Photoshop contest thing.
Click Read More to see the top entries.
Read More
Yesterday, some of the all-stars from the Bush-Cheney and RNC eCampaigns were up in New York City for the Personal Democracy Forum Conference. I couldn't be there, so check out the live-blogs from Hugh Hewitt, Alarming News, SlantPoint, Culture Kitchen, and others.
For all the liberal Newsweek enthusiasts hell-bent on assuming the worst about the United States of America, and in disbelief about Newsweek's retraction, I offer this simple test.
1. Go to your local independent bookshop, and find a paperback version of the Koran.
2. Walk over to the discount books section (oh, I forget, independents don't have those) and find a book that is very similar in size and weight. Take a digital picture of it next to the Koran. Put the Koran back, and buy the book.
3. Go home. Drop your newly purchased book into the commode. Take a photo.
4. If you're a conservative who really wants to try this, make sure the facilities are spotless before you begin. Otherwise, proceed regardless.
5. Flush. Take a photo.
Oh, to be a plumber in Haight-Ashbury tonight!
Legal Disclaimer: This web site is not responsible for any property damage that may occur as a result of this test.
If you're mopping up the bathroom floor at the end, just remember, it's not like we haven't seen this before:
Or, of course, you could argue that the detainees at Gitmo have access to the most advanced toilets known to man. Kind of hard to square with the claims of inhumane living conditions, but if that's what it takes to make the case...
Newsweek has now retracted its anonymously-sourced story about U.S. personnel at Guantanamo Bay desecrating the Koran. File this one under "Actions Have Consequences": 15 people died because of this story. I wonder if the Peshawar daily will bother to run a blurb on their corrections page? You don't need to answer that question. The damage that's been done is irreversible.
What kind of subculture generates these kinds of mistakes -- mistakes that conveniently tend always to fall in one direction? The same news media that was willing to believe this about U.S. troops was also willing to believe that they were deliberately targeting journalists. Had these reporters spent even one day in their formative years around the active-duty military, would we be seeing the slanted coverage we do today?
Apparently, this subculture is content to live and breed in a handful of closed-minded Eastern company towns, never interacting with the military they must cover so closely.
UPDATE: A test for the Newsweek-loving Left...
The Pew report setting out a new political typology for the United States has proven to be a veritable treasure trove of information, resulting in some savvy expert analysis in the comments. In this post, I'll delve further into the political behavior of the Pew groups going forward, their reactions to political figures, and opportunities to swing them from one side to the other.
David Brooks' column on Sunday provides the perfect segue to this discussion:
These affluent people are pretty well represented by their parties, are not internally conflicted and are pretty much stuck in their ways.
But poorer voters are not like that. They're much more internally conflicted and not represented well by any party. You've got poor Republicans (over 10 percent of voters) who are hawkish on foreign policy and socially conservative, but like government programs and oppose tax cuts. You've got poor Democrats who oppose the war and tax cuts, but are socially conservative and hate immigration. These less-educated voters are more cross-pressured and more independent than educated voters. If you're looking for creative tension, for instability, for a new political movement, the lower middle class is probably where it's going to emerge.
Brooks' answer to why Republicans have done so well with working-class voters (the "What's the matter with Kansas?" syndrome) is that people vote their aspirations. One of the unintended side-effects of caricaturing the Republicans as the party of the wealthy is that people associate the Republicans with wealth – and the Democrats with poverty. If you don't have a lot of money, which works better for you?
But Brooks also notes something else that sticks out like a sore thumb from the Pew study: Bill and Hillary Clinton are unexpectedly popular with downscale Republicans – the Pro-Government Conservatives of Pew's survey. For lack of a better term, these are the soccer moms – the strongly observant Christians who are agnostic at best on economic issues – the "people who work hard and play by the rules" who were squarely at the center of Clinton's '92 and '96 campaigns. They're the soft social conservatives open to persuasion by a Democrat who speaks their language, and they surged from Clinton to Bush in 2000 after the Democrats forsook them for dot-com suburbanites– handing Bush huge swings in states like Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky, and West Virginia.
This table tells the story:
| | Ents | SCs | PGCs | UpB | DA | CDs | DDs | Libs |
| Bush vs. Kerry | +91 | +82 | +49 | +49 | +21 | -51 | -80 | -79 |
| WOT/Use Military Force | +83 | +52 | +31 | -1 | -9 | -15 | -70 | -83 |
| No Gay Marriage | +82 | +72 | +59 | +36 | +39 | +55 | +18 | -65 |
| Bush Fav/Unfav | +93 | +84 | +79 | +43 | +50 | -15 | -82 | -80 |
| |
| Bush Fav | 96 | 91 | 79 | 71 | 72 | 41 | 9 | 9 |
| Rudy Fav | 90 | 75 | 69 | 69 | 53 | 53 | 37 | 47 |
| Condi Fav | 97 | 83 | 80 | 76 | 53 | 50 | 28 | 33 |
| Bill Clinton Fav | 21 | 32 | 53 | 50 | 49 | 89 | 85 | 88 |
| Hillary Fav | 10 | 24 | 51 | 44 | 34 | 88 | 77 | 83 |
| Kerry Fav | 11 | 18 | 23 | 38 | 23 | 74 | 86 | 78 |
| |
| Bill minus Hillary | +11 | +8 | +2 | +6 | +15 | +1 | +8 | +5 |
| Hillary minus Kerry | -1 | +6 | +28 | +6 | +11 | +14 | +11 | +5 |
Bill and Hillary Clinton enjoy a 53 and 51 percent favorable rating with the Progocons. Contrast that with John Kerry's 23 percent. The Progocons aren't buying a lot of brie at the supermarket – but the dynamic remains the same as it was in the '90s when Clinton received many of their votes, and Gore and Kerry utterly blew off this success. Any conservative who believes that beating Hillary will be a walk in the park should talk with some Progocons for whom even the softest family-friendly rhetoric satisfies the values requirement. Also examine the Clintons single-strongest group – Conservative Democrats – who provide the last vestige of a Democratic swing vote in the South. Creating a wall of separation (politically, of course) between Hillary and Bill will be an absolute imperative with these voters.
Looking at the favorables of political leaders, President Bush clearly has the most mature and efficiently distributed favorability curve – maxing out with conservatives and garnering hardly any kudos on the Left where there are no vote; Rudy and Condi's favorables in the 30s on the political left would go away should the spotlight be focused squarely on them; the same is true for the Clintons, though they have less room to fall. On the right, Condi Rice has the next most Bush-like favorability curve, nearly maxing out with conservative voters, squeezing a few extra points out of the blogosphere-centric Upbeats where Hillary is weak, but fading with the Democratic groups.
Rudy has an interesting curve. He does exceptionally well with the Enterprisers (or Ents), but falls off with the Socos and Progocons relative to Bush and Condi (John McCain does worse). He rises to Bush levels with the Upbeats, grateful for Bush's optimism and resolve, but falls off with the Disaffecteds, where everyone except Bush seems to do poorly. You see a blip upward with Conservative Democrats; the key here would be to paint him as a tough, working class hero while isolating Hillary from Bill. Rudy's level of support on the left is probably unsustainable, but creates a potential base motivation problem since this isn't Hillary's strongest bloc.
As for Hillary, and the Hillary vs. Bill and Hillary vs. Kerry divisions, here they are. Both Hillary and Kerry are cellar-dwelling with the Ents, but Bill does somewhat better. Socos have a similarly polarized view of Hillary, docking her eight points from her husband's score, and as discussed above, the Progocons closely associate the two while despising Kerry. In my judgment, the Clintons are underperforming with the Upbeats, with a rating marginally better than Kerry – but that seems to be the case amongst all the educated groups (this makes sense, since Clinton's appeal was always more emotional than rational). Disaffecteds are favorably disposed to Bill but not Hillary. The couple enjoys very high levels of support amongst Conservative Dems that’s a cut above where Kerry was, but it's unclear what room they have to grow since Bush received only 14 percent of their votes in 2004. And among hardcore Democrats, the ratings for Kerry and the Clintons are statistically indistinguishable.
Coming up next: The issues that could make these groups move.
For us election junkies, Pew's political typology of the United States is manna from heaven, a rare bone to chew on in a lean month equidistant from either November. I could spend several days digging through its results, and I probably will. Not having had a chance to take the yellow highlighter to the full 116 page report, I'll share a few impressions in areas that caught my eye.
Classifications
The Pew Report divides the nation into nine groups; three Republican, three independent, three Democratic. The three Republican ones are as follows: Enterprisers (educated, well-off, economic conservatives; 11% of the electorate), Social Conservatives (financially secure, religious conservatives; 13% of the electorate); Pro-Government Conservatives (lower-to-middle class values voters, these voters likely switched in large numbers from Clinton in '92 and '96 to Bush in '00 and '04; 10% of the electorate). The independents: Upbeats (as best I can figure, moderate, Thurston Howell Republicans; 11% of the electorate), Disaffecteds (working class, removed from politics; 9% of the electorate), and Bystanders (nonvoters, 10% of the general public). Finally, on the Left we've got: Liberals (self-explanatory, 19% of the electorate); Disadvantaged Democrats (a.k.a. minorities; 10% of the electorate); Conservative Democrats (tradition-minded New Dealers; 14% of the electorate).
Any typology like this is to some extent arbitrary. Where are the Security Moms? The South Park Conservatives? The Liberals Mugged by 9/11? Or that newly ubiquitous of creatures, the Al Davis Republican? The Pew typology makes sense more than most, but will likely be overridden when some pop psephologist decides to create a new typology du jour.
First of all, I share Gerry Daly's concern that the Pew typology doesn't quite capture the partisan divide in America. The Pew sample is three points more Democrat than Republican, but the Democrat groups account for 41% of the electorate, and the Republicans just 29% -- while "independent" groups that are hardly at all Democratic are portrayed as swing voters won by the President this time but up for grabs next time. I'm sure that's a comforting thought to Democrats, but it doesn't bare analytical scrutiny given our "closely divided" electorate. Either group the Upbeats with the Republicans, or take Gerry's suggestion and put the Conservative Democrats in the center.
What the Pew survey does well is reveal how few truly "independent" voters there are these days, and those that are aren't very likely to vote – the only group that's evenly split is nonvoters. The groupings ring true to someone like me who's been looking at this stuff for a few years, and there's evidence from the blogosphere of all places that supports some of the study's key conclusions. In fact, the study is pretty close to being dead-on if you concede that the Upbeats and Disaffecteds are really de-facto members of the Republican coalition.
Who's More Unified?
On the face of it, the Pew survey flies in the face of conventional wisdom and overrules some of the more impressionistic assumptions about American politics in recent years. Remember when we were told that swing voters would "break for the challenger" in last year's election? That they were closeted Democrats? Well, you can probably chalk that up to too many Disaffecteds and Bystanders in the sample – groups that have less faith in public institutions overall, including the Presidency, and tend not to vote as much as dedicated partisans. Now, the Pew study tells us they're overwhelmingly soft Republicans, easily picked off by a Hillary Clinton. But the truth is probably somewhat more nuanced: there were likely small contingents of swing voters embedded within each of the four center-most groups. My read on the e-mail anecdotes from the campaign indicated to me that there were quite a few Pro-Government Conservatives (PGCs) coming home in the last few weeks, but we also know that if you were a Conservative Democrat in Queens or Providence or Southie, you were probably liking the President a lot more than you did four years ago.
All this leads to the question of who's more unified? At first blush, the Democrats seem to have consolidated all their voters safely within their base groups. The Republicans are more spread out, dominating five groups. But again, how much of this is real consolidation, and how much is this where the Pew people decided to draw the lines? In most polls, conservatives are a higher percentage of Republicans than liberals are of Democrats, and the "moderates" and "independents" tend to side with the Democrats. So, you'd think there would be more bargaining going on within the Democrats' interest-group driven coalition. The Pew study reflects those findings for the major parties, but flips independent allegiances from Democrat to Republican. This tends to support the notion that the newly forged Republican coalition is high-maintenance and hard to sustain over the long term.
But Is It? Lessons from the Blogosphere
If that last bit is true, then Republicans have a problem, but it's a good problem to have when compared to the Democrats' predicament. Democrats find themselves dominated increasingly by liberals, who have grown to become the largest group at 19%. The liberal camp is now the default choice of newly minted Democrats; nobody aspires to be a "disadvantaged Democrat" though some may be born into it (despite the secular decline of the urban inner-city voting bloc). And aging Conservative Democrats aren't exactly accepting new members either.
Complicating matters is the decline of the New Democrats, nixed as a category in the Pew typology this year: they're all Liberals now. You can see this playing out in the blogosphere. When they first arrived on the scene, Kevin Drum, Oliver Willis, and Matthew Yglesias were considered sensible, New Republic-style Democrats, "patriotic liberals" with whom the pro-choice, libertarian-leaning InstaPundit reader could do business. But now there is no light between them and the MoveOn crowd. The Bush Presidency has had the practical effect of robbing the Democratic Party of its center.
Plus, there's evidence that the Democrats will have to rely predominantly on persuasion, and not natural increase, to garner new adherents in the next generation:
The Republican groups also have higher proportions of married people with children living at home. Four-in-ten Enterprisers are married and have children under age 18 living at home, as do 34% of Pro-Government Conservatives and 28% of Social Conservatives. Among Democratic groups, 28% of Disadvantaged Democrats, 23% of Conservative Democrats, and just 20% of Liberals are married and have children living at home. Conservative and Disadvantaged Democrats are just as likely as Republican groups to have children living at home, but larger percentages are single parents (14% and 19%, respectively).
How are they going to be persuading these new members? Just say: "Vote for us – ain't gay marriage swell?" They may use the campuses to switch over some sheltered Social Conservatives – and they could win some converts. But in the end, liberalism and secularism will still be the only game in town, and you don't win swing voters that way.
The media – old and new – likes to think of the blogosphere as a microcosm of America, or at least its news junkie squadron. But in fact, the blogosphere is a microcosm of three groups representing no more than 40% of America: Liberals, Upbeats, and Enterprisers. What they all have in common is a college education and upward mobility, and the study confirms that they're the three groups most likely to go online for news. The Liberals flock to Kos, Atrios, and the Dean Meetups; there weren't many honest to goodness supporters of Gephardt, or Sharpton, or for that matter, Kerry, to be found in the blogosphere in 2003. The Upbeats are moderate, pro-choice, and pro-war; in this site's poll last month, they flocked here from blogs like the Volokh Conspiracy and InstaPundit. They frequent blogs like OxBlog, Joe Gandelman, Roger L. Simon, and Daniel Drezner. The Enterprisers provide the balance of the InstaPundit readership, likely dominate The Corner, and were the ones to abandon Andrew Sullivan in droves over his single issue obsession. As another upscale, influential group, Social Conservatives are a gathering force, as demonstrated in the Blogs for Terri movement, but my poll, perhaps in contrast to broader opinion, relegated social issues a distant third in terms of blogosphere priorities. (Plus, when Michelle Malkin comes out as a pro-immigration Enterpriser, you know they've got work to do!)
Explaining Political Weirdness (or, Why is the Media So Out to Lunch?)
The Pew study highlights a few areas where one key group stands athwart history, yelling stop! The Liberals are weird for their distinctively anti-war position and a fanatical insistence on purging all religion from the public square. The Enterprisers are alone in actually believing in small government, spending cuts, and policies that favor entrepreneurship. The liberals are paying the price for their weirdness right now; the Enterprisers paid the price in 1995-6, during the Gingrich Revolution.
Liberal eccentricity poses some interesting questions about the role of the media in our society. Howie Kurtz is the first to admit that it's threats to social libertinism that gets the media all hot under the collar; witness the barrels-blazing attack on Pope Benedict. But the media is alone in many of these positions. Liberals favor gay marriage 80 to 15 percent; every other group, save for Disadvantaged Dems (opposed by 18 points), is against it by at least 36 points. On abortion, there's a 54-40 consensus against it among the Republican groups; a 50-37 split the other way in the middle, but an 88-10 thumbs-up among Liberals. When the news media effectively presents its social views as holy writ, you've got to wonder: who's really imposing their radical agenda on the other 80% of America?
And I've only gotten through about fifteen pages of the report! Coming up: who will swing in 2008?
I appreciate the 10 to 15 extra readers a day I get from being on Arianna's blogroll, I really do.
But recent days have witnessed the birth of an immensely enjoyable blood sport: putting our finger on what is just, well… off… about the Huffington Post, and gleefully scouring the target-rich environment that is its blog.
To me, it boils down to this. At its best, the blogosphere is a conversation, and it brings the most serendipitous and previously opaque encounters out into the open – the political pros sitting in the smoke-filled corner of The Caucus Room handicapping the candidates; the uniquely productive meeting of the minds at the scholarly conference. These are contexts where information matters, and it doesn't really matter if it's communicated verbally or in print. (You could say the same about potty humor.)
What real world experience does Arianna aim to re-create with the Huffington Post? Simply put, the world she knows best: the vapid dinner party conversation at Laurie David's or Sally Quinn's. The obsequious tut-tutting after an important guest opens his mouth ("Oh, Walter, what an absolutely marvelous idea!"). The Huffington Report will fail because it won't be true to its Hollywood self, where what matters is seeing and being seen, not the exchange of information. Is this Quincy Jones observation on Michael Jackson supposed to be of any value? "When we made 'Thriller', he was the most beautiful person in the world."
Gag me.
There's also a whiff of Pauline Kael here. Zack, I admire Tony Blair's skills too, and Alistair Campbell is my hero, but by what standard was Labour's victory on Thursday "kicking ass?"
On the other hand, this Richard Bradley post about the decline of the box office and the rise of personal entertainment is a rare gem… odd, because Bradley is one of a handful of HP writers I hadn't heard of before.
And about the Huffington Post's home page, what else can be said but: Andrew Breitbart joins the Dark Side of the Force. Except without the cool masks!
The HP front page headlines are surpassingly lame. Like Air America lame. There's little basis to do the direct compare-and-contrast with Drudge yet, but so far, even the watered-down 2005 Drudge beats Arianna by a mile. Drudge's headline tonight: "START ME UP, I AM ONLY 62: STONES ANNOUNCE NEW TOUR." HP's? "KING TUT REVEALED." Drudge's headline for this lame-ass story is more crisp and click-worthy: "REVEALED: Face of Egypt's King Tutankhamun..." HP's headline-writing is otherwise poor – no new spin is put on the stories it links to: "Gallup: Americans Think Congress Doing Bad Job, See Ethics Problems," "Frist Plans to Use 'Nuclear Option' on Nomination of Owen," "Lou Dobbs Accused of Excessive Fear Mongering." This is milquetoast.
A final word about the minimalist design style. Minimalism can work, when there's a powerful offsetting feature, like the feeling of typewriter ribbon touching the screen on Drudge. The Huffington Post's design is bland for the sake of being bland. It makes me NOT want to visit the site. Wonkette has long since jumped the shark – who is this Beato punk anyway? – but at one point, it was the best-designed blog out there.
The difference? Nick Denton is a savvy businessman. He recognizes this isn't all about him. Substance aside, he knows it's about style and a good product, not bloviating B-list celebrities who love watching themselves blog.
Can't get enough of the raging controversy on this site? Well, you're not alone. They're spilling over into distant corners of the blogosphere, and in one case, mainstream media.
Chris Suellentrop brings this blog to the op-ed pages of the L.A. Times with his piece on Senator George Allen.
Commenter JP points me in the direction of a very interesting psephological study by the EU Referendum blog on the "UKIP effect." On Thursday, I noted how the euroskeptic U.K. Independence Party had increased its support -- from 1.47% in 2001 to 2.38% in 2005. Had all UKIP voters gone Tory, it would have been enough to overturn the results in 28 constituencies and take out 19 additional Labour MPs, reducing Tony Blair's majority to 28. That's less than what John Major was re-elected with in 1992, and on the eve of his catastrophic defeat five years later, his majority had been whittled down to zero after a string of by-election defeats. 2.38% is a serious number, especially when it would have brought the Tories within a half point of winning the popular vote. What do the rules in Britain say about electoral alliances?
And everyone's favorite blogging pollster, Marc Blumenthal, sort of echoes my point about overly convoluted poll questions that don't measure opinion, but manufacture it:
Judicial filibuster is an example of the type of issue that makes pollsters lives miserable. The underlying issue is both complex and remote. Few Americans are well informed about the procedures and rules of the Senate, and few have been following the issue closely (only 31% tell robo-pollster Scott Rasmussen they are following stories on the judicial nominees "very closely"). So true "public opinion" with respect to judicial filibusters is largely unformed. When we present questions about judicial nominees in the context of a survey interview, many respondents will form an opinion on the spot. Results will thus be very sensitive to question wording. No single question will capture the whole story, yet every question inevitably "frames" the issue to some degree.
If I ever go into polling, I'd change a lot of what is now standard practice. First, I would err towards simple, gut-check, yes-or-no questions that mirror the way people receive and process information about politics -- in seven second increments or less. I would never try to introduce information that was not common knowledge in a poll question, unless I was specifically trying to test how a certain message would go over. The problem is that pollsters ask the latter type of question all the time, but disguise the results as gospel in their analysis. Secondly, I'd always try to measure intensity -- how strongly does the respondent feel about their support or opposition? My guess is that a gay marriage or immigration question would produce much more intensity than a question on bankruptcy legislation, and hence we should weight the results of the former more strongly than the latter.
All along, my support for the Labour Party in this election was premised on two conditions: one, that Blair's victory be decisive enough to be considered a staggering rebuke to the terrorists, and to the doubters; and two, that it bring the Tories to a place where they were once again ready for power. This election failed on the first count, but succeeded, perhaps beyond our wildest expectations, on the second.
When the opposition is the Kennedy-Galloway axis, you fight, no matter who's in the trenches beside you. All night I was stunned by the defeats the Lib Dems dealt Labour, either directly or by proxy through the Conservatives. In seats where there was a fighting chance of removing Labour, within a 15% margin in 2001, Labour voters gravitated like a magnet to the Lib Dems, defying conventional swing analysis which focuses only on the very marginal seats. This is the instability of a primary smack dab in the middle of a general election. In the end, Britain's MoveOners were not easily controlled. The silver lining is that they don't necessarily spead for Middle England; last night was leftist self-immolation more than anything.
The worst part? Fascism rearing its ugly head in Bethnal Green and Bow. And apparently, not without some help from ex-Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. For shame.
Here's where the bad news turns good. Leave aside Iraq, the reason we in the States were pulling for Blair. Labour's scare campaign on the National Health Service and against a Tory tenure that's now eight years distant just flatlined -- and this against an opponent who was around for the most difficult of the Tories' eighteen years in power. Those of you who still feared Labour's socialism can take solace in this: waving the red flag of socialized medicine didn't work. I can see it now: Gordon Brown in '09, thinking he can try this scare tactic again because he doesn't have Iraq to deal with, and blundering his way out of power against a modern Tory leader who was barely out of University when John Major was Prime Minister.
Also last night, Labour and the Lib Dems sealed their divorce. The Lib Dems are now an anti-Labour party; the same game of footsy that was played between the two parties to generate massive anti-Tory swings in 1997 and 2001 was used with a vengeance against Labour. Now that Labour MPs are Charles Kennedy's most attractive targets, it's easy to see a more popular Tory riding into power on a Labour-Lib Dem split.
Timing is supremely important in the business of politics, and twelve years of one party is very difficult to sustain. You get sloppy; the lines of attack that worked time and time again get old; the Opposition's past sins fade into irrelevance. With Tory-hatred falling flat, and the Labour-Lib Dem alliance that sustained it falling apart, a Conservative government is a lot easier to envision in 2009.
But who to lead it? The coming Conservative leadership contest will be the party's most important since Margaret Thatcher defeated Ted Heath in 1975. The next Tory leader must have presence, and not just be a placeholder like the last three. He or she must look like a Prime Minister, with the iron will of Thatcher and the rhetorical dexterity of Blair. Just as timing matters in politics, urgency matters too. The leader's demeanor, his manner of speaking, the way his personal qualities fit the moment, must collide to form a singular thought in the voter's mind: "NOW." The difference between the leader who has NOW and the one who doesn't is this: the lowly speechwriter who pours his guts out at 2 a.m. and loves it, or the one scratching his head to come up with the illest-fitting of cliches, like "Reporting for duty!" If the Tories honestly do not feel they can come up with someone like that this year, then they ought to take a page from the Cardinals and elect a caretaker for a couple of years, so that the cream from the Classes of 2001 and 2005 may have a further chance to rise.
That said, the chances of a dynamic, young leader emerging look pretty good, provided the current frontrunner, David Davis, can be shoved aside.
There's Dr Liam Fox, who can claim some success as Michael Howard's campaign manager:
Or David Cameron and George Osborne, who are fancied the Blair-Brown equivalent:
 
And providing valuable front-bench support, what about Adam Afriyie, the Barack Obama of British politics, or the blogging Boris Johnson?
 
Labour majority no more than 72. - 12:21 a.m.
Ivory tower revolt. 11.8% swing to the Lib Dems in Oxford East and Lib Dems just picked up Cambridge on a 15.0% swing. - 12:17 a.m.
Approaching 5 a.m. in London, and Labour has lost 39 seats. Given the automatic reduction due to Scotland's reapportionment, this means there will be no more than 363 Labour MPs in the next Parliament, a majority of 80, assuming they lose no more seats. - 11:57 p.m.
But... Labour manages to hold Margaret Thatcher's old seat with a majority of 741. - 11:50 p.m.
Long faces at the Labour Club in Hammersmith & Fulham, where I was enrolled as a Labour leafleteer courtesy of Zack Exley & Co. 7.3% swing to the Tories. - 11:48 p.m.
Maybe I'm thinking too much like an American here, but in terms of the massive Labour bloodletting we are seeing in the South, I'm guessing that Blair joining himself at the hip with Gordon Brown, a Scot, wasn't helping any. - 11:42 p.m.
324: LABOUR HAS PASSED THE WINNING POST. - 11:28 p.m., 4:28 a.m. BST
The suspense was killing me!! Michael Howard holds Folkestone and Hythe! Lord Toby Jug of the Monster Raving Loony Party pulls a respectable 175 votes, and presumably appeared at the count. I can't be sure, since C-SPAN2 pulled the plug on its BBC coverage. In the Prime Minister's Sedgefield constituency, MRLP standardbearer Boney Maroney Staniforth pulled 137 votes.
Trippi and a bevy of Democratic strategists flocked to London in the last few days. But can they really be credited for a win when Labour's "Vote Lib Dem, Wake Up with Michael Howard" campaign failed so miserably? - 11:19 p.m.
Based on where we are now, it's looking like Labour 34.7%, Conservatives 32.2%, Liberal Democrats 22.4%. So Labour wins by less than three, and yet is expected to nearly double the Tories' take in Parliament.
Don't shed crocodile tears for the Tories. In a first-past-the-post system, it's a seat-by-seat race, and all parties run their campaigns accordingly. U.S. candidates gear their campaigns to the electoral college, and it's perfectly fair to judge them by that measure alone -- even when the electoral vote doesn't accord with the popular vote. - 11:11 p.m.
It's always fun to watch the Wikipedia activity on fast-moving events like this. It looks like someone's in there manually keeping tabs on every seat. - 11:05 p.m.
Defying conventional wisdom, which dictated that there weren't enough marginal Labour-Lib Dem to make much of a difference, the Lib Dems are picking off Labour MPs right and left, as this Lib Dem target list makes clear. This isn't tactical voting; it's kamikaze voting, with Labour voters switching away from their party in a vengeance where it can do the most harm. - 10:56 p.m.
Tories elect an MP in Scotland. The seat? Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale. - 10:52 p.m.
Bucking a trend, the Tory Shadow Chancellor, Oliver Letwin, narrowly expands his majority over the Lib Dems in Dorset West on a 0.9% swing. - 10:47 p.m.
Labour is now the third party in the South of England. - 10:43 p.m.
5% swing to the Tories in London; 3.2% nationally. - 10:39 p.m.
Tories are gaining solely because of the Lib-Lab split. They've gained no ground in their own right. Michael Howard needs to go.
Labour will probably lose 40 seats, and the Tories will be lucky if they're responsible for 30 of those. - 10:31 p.m.
Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy picks up 14.7% in winning his home district. Kennedy represents one of the most striking landscapes in the world, the Isle of Skye and the Western Highlands. His rising stock might be occasion for a "fact-finding mission" to Scotland. Quick -- who's the MP for St. Andrews? - 10:28 p.m.
Word on the street is that it's looking like a majority of 80 for Labour. That's what I predicted earlier in the day before looking at last minute polling and revising the prediction upward to 120. I should trust my first instincts more.
This from the same guy who predicted Bush 286, Kerry 252, with every state right, and didn't bother to tell anyone! - 10:23 p.m.
Based on the seats currently in, Labour is down a full 6 points from 2001, the Tories even, and the Lib Dems up 4.5. Extrapolating out to the whole country, which is hard do to given the heavy Labour skew this this sample, the final result could be Labour 36%, Tories 32%, Liberal Democrats 23%.
Ironically, the Tories will have made less of a gain in vote share than they did in 2001, when they made absolutely no headway in seats. The story of the night is the growing animosity between Labour and the Liberal Democrats setting the stage for a more popular Tory to divide and conquer in '09. - 10:21 p.m.
Rumble on the Hard Right? Between them, UKIP and the hardcore nativist British National Party have doubled their vote share.
Guildford and Weston-Super-Mare: Two new Tory seats taken from the hide of the LibDems. - 10:11 p.m.
The BBC is keeping tabs on the 80 top seats Labour needs to defend to keep its majority. As you can see, there's no hard and fast number under which Labour is losing and the Tories/LibDems are winning. The results seem to be more varied than the generic Swingometers would predict. The Tories can claim the scalp of the MP from Wimbledon, 51st of 80 on the Labour defense list, on a 9.3% swing. But they win their closest seat from 2001, Dumfries and Galloway. - 10:09 p.m.
Is it something in the London water supply? Enfield Southgate, Michael Portillo's old seat, goes Tory again on an 8.7% swing. - 10:02 p.m.
In Battersea, Conservative target #120, Labour holds on by the skin of their teeth with a majority of 163. The cuprits in this urban London seat? Not even the Lib Dems: the Greens. - 9:40 p.m.
Romford, one of the pleasant surprises from 2001 (when I was rooting for the Tories) is a rare seat with a strong Lab to Con swing. -9:33 p.m.
With 258 of 646 seats, Labour loses 11, Tories and Labour up 5 apiece. And most of the safe Labour seats were counted earlier in the night. - 9:26 p.m.
Tories gain Ilford North from Labour. Here's where the basic swing number falls short: the Labour losses are actually deeper than the swig indicates. In the Tory pickups, the Labour loss is usually about twice the Conservative gain, with the balance going to the LibDems.
Also, the Eurosceptic U.K. Independence Party seems to be doing quite well, despite Europe being well in the background of this year's campaign, and the Tories taking a hard line on immigration. - 9:14 p.m.
Southern strategy? Reader e-mail: "Casual observation indicates Tories are gaining south of Birmingham, not in the north of England." - 9:10 p.m.
Kensington & Chelsea, in the heart of London, one of the safest Tory seats in the country, comes back as expected, with a minor swing to the Liberal Democrats. K&C is the treacherous keep where they put Tory leaders where they can't afford to lose. In 2001, it was Michael Portillo (once the young Thatcherite rising star groomed to be Prime Minister, who fell to a 17% shock swing to Labour in Enfield Southgate in 1997, coining the signature phrase "Were you up for Portillo?"). In keeping with the Tories' back to the future strategy, in 2005, it's Malcolm Rifkind, a Scot who was John Major's last foreign minister. - 9:08 p.m.
Based on what's come in so far, I wouldn't be surprised if the final result were something more like Lab 36, Con 30, LD 24. Labour's just getting hammered by the Liberal Democrats in their heartland seats, often by a 10% swing or more, and less so by the Conservatives, with about a 3% swing. The Conservatives have on the whole been flat in Labour areas where the left-wing vote is splitting, and losing ground to the Lib Dems in the "wet Tory" seats. - 9:00 p.m.
Signing off for now. Keep discussing in the comments. - 7:53 p.m.
Tories gain Putney, a marginal, with a swing of 6.5%. If repeated all over the country, the Tories would win the national popular vote by 3%. - 7:43 p.m.
Huge swing to the LibDems, collapse for Labour in Rotherham. But these are all safe seats for Labour, like the Greens taking Democratic votes in Marin County. What will happen in the swing seats? Will the Labour Party pay in seats for the scenario they feared: protest votes for the LibDems? - 7:31 p.m.
Pardon the geek speak: The BBC's Flash election map, where one can zoom in and out on seats just like a CG jockey in the control room, really rocks. (I have to take notes on how they integrated the the map with the shapefiles and the live data.) It compares favorably with CNN's '04 election night site; the navigation was terrible. - 7:25 p.m.
Labour just lost 9% in Barnsley Central seat, from 70% to 61%. On the Beeb, they're wondering where all the Labour voters went. Lord knows I was with them this time, but it seems like the media elites' predictions of a Blair romp in the final days were out of touch with blue collar voters in the Labour heartland. - 7:20 p.m.
BBC: Ba'ath MP George Galloway said to be ahead. Ugh. - 7:16 p.m.
Exit poll: Lab 37%, Con 33%, LibDem 22%
Lab Majority 66, down from 160
If the exit polls bear out, and we know how that worked out last time, then we're looking at a disappointing result indeed: Michael Howard stays as Leader of the Conservative Party, denying the Tories the modernizing leader they need. And it's a real question whether Tony Blair stays the whole four year term.
Watching the BBC on C-SPAN2, particularly Peter Snow and his Swingometer. Watch for Labour to run up the score early as their urban seats come in first; in Britain, there are no media projections, just official counts from each constituency.
Early seats, all in Labour strongholds. 4.3% swing from Labour to the Conservatives. And a big swing to the LibDems in safe Labour seats. The problem for Charles Kennedy here is that there aren't a lot of close Labour seats the LibDems are within striking distance of.
Rutherglen & Hamilton West (Lab Hold): 5.4% swing from Lab to LibDems
Houghton & Washington East (Lab Hold): 7.2% swing from Lab to LibDems
Sunderland North (Lab Hold): 5.1% swing from Lab to Con
Sunderland South (Lab Hold): 3.9% swing from Lab to Con
These are good numbers for the Conservatives. But remember that in 2001, Labour was in freefall in its safe seats, but did well in swing seats. - 7.12 p.m.
In politics, the side that confidently controls the agenda usually wins, and the side that must resort to desperate claims unmoored in fact usually loses. That's why a statement out of Nancy Pelosi's office tonight is music to Republicans' ears:
WASHINGTON, May 4 /U.S. Newswire/ -- House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today on President Bush's misleading Social Security plan, which will slash benefits for Americans with disabilities:
"President Bush's Social Security plan just doesn't add up for Americans with disabilities. The plan appears to drastically cut the benefits of Americans' with disabilities, even though the President says it won't. Mr. President, which is it: a huge benefit cut for Americans with disabilities or a misleading plan that does nothing to solve the long-term solvency of Social Security?
"Americans with disabilities and the middle-class have earned their Social Security benefits. The President and Republicans in Congress should not turn these guaranteed benefits into a guaranteed gamble.
"Democrats stand ready to work with Republicans to strengthen Social Security so that all Americans get the guaranteed benefits they have earned. Democrats will not support proposals that gut benefits for disabled Americas and middle-class families and that place retirees at the mercy of the stock market."
Ap | 
blog
scotus wire
'08 wire
research
about
photo gallery
portfolio
resume
books
