Tom Readmond's blog

 Last week The Washington Post ran a story on veteran Republican operative Fred Malek and his role in one of the Nixon administration's many untoward activities, specifically memos Malek wrote singling out Jews in the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  As one who has always found the Nixon era of particular fascination, I can tell you this is just one of many examples of Richard Nixon's special paranoia toward Jews and other minorities finding its way into administration policy.  Along with Watergate, this aspect of the Nixon administration will always stain its place in history, marring a record that might otherwise have reflected significant accomplishment.

No one, including Malek, condones his actions nearly four decades ago, and he has long since apologized.  His contrition seems genuine, given his presence on the board of the America-Israel Friendship League.  He has been defended by no less a figure than Anti-Defamation League director Abraham Foxman, as well as Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA), a close personal friend of Malek's.

However, the Post story was clearly driven by Democrats, ostensibly because of Malek's appointment to Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell's budget reform committee.  Most interesting, though, is the prominent place accorded to Jon Vogel, executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC).  

Why is the DCCC interested in a decades-old sin by a state appointee?  Because Malek also happens to chair the American Action Network, a new 501(c)(4) the DCCC expects to spend $25 million to target Democrats in the fall.  The DCCC apparently hopes to damage the American Action Network's credibility, and probably also hopes that some of this will rub off on GOP House candidates, some of whom weren't even born yet during the Nixon administration, in a classic guilt-by-association ploy.

Some Democrats, including Virginia Senate Majority Leader Dick Saslaw, don't agree with this strategy, probably because it reeks of desperation.  Facing a national midterm election (i.e. a referendum on the Democrats) in a time of near-double-digit unemployment and record deficits, this is what the DCCC comes up with?  This may tell us more about the 2010 midterms than any poll or pundit ever could.

A Tale of Two Brackets

It is an axiom in presidential politics that national polls are meaningless (ask Rudy Giuliani) -- the states select party nominees, and the states elect the president.  However, since large slices of the political establishment buy into national polls, a candidate's standing there affects his or her ability to raise money and gain attention that can be translated into votes in the critical early primaries.

The national polls fall into something larger and deeper, though.  The rank a candidate holds in national polls is far less important than which of two brackets the candidate falls into: Bracket 1) the top three who net double digits, and Bracket 2) everybody else.

After an absence of over a year -- and what a year it's been! -- I've decided to begin writing again and, hopefully, contribute something to the discussion.

In the wake of Barack Obama's victory in 2008, "realignment" became the conventional narrative among talking heads, often combined with its sister narrative, the death of conservatism/the GOP/the Reagan Revolution (take your pick). The problem with conventional wisdom is it usually treats a snapshot in time as a summation of all that is, will be, and ever was. And that very problem creates false baselines by which conventional wisdom measures future events.

Coming off two narrow victories by George W. Bush in 2000 (271 electoral votes to 266) and 2004 (286-251), the common understanding of the electoral map was that the country was divided in two: red states and blue states, and that only a small handful of states fell into the "swing" category and determined the outcome. In other words, the map looked something like this:

Flip the "swing state" of Ohio and John Kerry would have been president.

Using those two elections as the standard, Obama's 365 electoral votes in 2008 look like a major diversion from the norm.

However, the truth is that Bush's two elections were the anomaly. Take a look at the last pre-Bush election (1996):

Not only have the "swing states" of OH and FL flipped, but an entire axis stretching through the midwest from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico (with the exception of MN) is in Clinton's column, as are the three western states of NV, AZ and NM and Appalachian states TN, KY and WV.

(Edit: to clarify, obviously MN is in Clinton's column too. I meant that it was excepted from the other states in that it's never been considered a "red" state)

The electoral margin of victory in the five "pre-Bush" elections also suggests something very different than a "divided America":

• 1996 (Clinton-Dole): 379-159 
• 1992 (Clinton-Bush): 370-168
• 1988 (Bush-Dukakis): 426-111
• 1984 (Reagan-Mondale): 525-13
• 1980 (Reagan-Carter): 489-49

In fact, to find a president elected with fewer than 300 electoral votes, you have to go back to Jimmy Carter's 1976 win over Gerald Ford (297-240). The next one that's even close is Richard Nixon's 1968 victory over Hubert Humphrey (301-191), and if one assumes that, but for the presence of George Wallace on the ballot, Nixon would have carried AR, LA, MS, AL, and GA, his victory jumps to 346-191.

To varying degrees, most elections have represented consensus on the part of the electorate (despite the protestations of the losing party and its followers), and 2008 simply returns us to that pattern. The 2000 and 2004 elections, rather than reflecting the "divided America" that was such a popular narrative (see the "snapshot" comment above), reflect more on the failure of Bush and his campaign to achieve consensus, rather than a unique level of division.

The point of all this is that in the long view, the reality is that "flexible independents" rule. By this I mean not just those who are not registered as Republicans or Democrats, but those who are generally inclined toward one party (and thus registered), but won't rule out voting for the other (think Reagan Democrats). These voters are largely working and middle class, and are particularly concerned with everyday-living issues such as jobs, education, and (when they feel it affects them directly, such as after 9/11) national security. One of the reasons Ohio goes with the winner so consistently is it represents a microcosm of these voters. They're not particularly ideological, and neither are the election results they produce, which is why both a very conservative (by 1980 standards) Reagan and a very liberal Obama can rack up such big wins. Once a "comfort threshold" is reached, the voters will hand them the keys to the White House, based on the belief that they're better equipped to manage those issues than the other guy.

It is within this prism that the question of "realignment" must be answered.  I don't know if anyone's ever established a hard and fast definition of realignment, but in my mind it represents a long-lasting shift in a segment of the electorate -- geographic, demographic or otherwise -- from general fealty to one party to the other.  Of course, the only way to measure if it's long-lasting is to see whether the shift holds through a string of elections.  The most obvious example would be the shift of a stripe of southern states (MS, AL, GA, SC, and NC) from a Democratic lock through 1960 to reliable Republican territory (with the exception of GA, which went for favorite son Jimmy Carter and also Bill Clinton in 1992) for the 48 years that followed, losing only NC in 2008.

Here's the 2008 map:

(Note Nebraska, which apportions electoral votes, also awarded Obama 1 vote, not reflected visually)

With the longer pattern in mind, the only earth-shattering wins for Obama are IN, VA, NC, and possibly CO.  I will leave to others to break down exit polls and try to read the tea leaves on whether Obama's wins in these states are indicative of a lasting lock by Democrats, but it seems unlikely.  Increased turnout among African-American voters -- who already vote for Democrats in excess of 90% -- was crucial to Obama's win in NC.  It's difficult to imagine the Democrats sustaining that turnout for just any Democratic candidate.

Much has also been made of Obama's success among younger voters, and indeed it was this success that allowed Obama to change the playing field and snatch the Democratic nomination from the "inevitable" Hillary Clinton, and at least in part helps account for the fact that in 2008 Obama netted the highest number of voters in American history.  But it also remains to be seen if these voters will continue to turnout for Democrats generally in future elections, or if their loyalties will remain constant throughout their lives.  It seems like a silly assumption that no 18-year-old Reagan voter in 1980 became a 30-year-old Clinton voter in 1992, or a 46-year-old Obama voter in 2008.  Similar assumptions about Obama's youngest voters seem equally silly.

So was 2008 a realignment?  In regard to a few states, the jury's still out, and will be until 2012 and beyond.  However, given the 2008 election's similarity to most other presidential elections, it seems unlikely.  Candidate Obama clearly sealed the deal for a consensus among the above-described "flexible independents", but the Democrats' string of losses in statewide elections in VA, NJ and MA since then suggest that his 2008 win isn't translating into large numbers of newly loyal Democrats.

It seems much more plausible that Obama ran a smart, effective campaign in a year when these "flexible independents" were already inclined to pass the baton to the Democrats, perceiving the Republicans as no longer competent to govern.  Such power shifts, particularly among these voters, are almost always based on perceived competence, not ideology, which probably explains why so many of these same voters have bristled at Obama's attempts to pursue a Great Society-esque program of social welfare and government intervention in the economy.

It seems to me that how Obama and the Democrats adjust their governance to the concerns of the "flexible independents" will have far more bearing on their future electoral fortunes than any perceived shifts in the electorate in 2008.

I think Sarah Palin is a great pick, for all the reasons cited here and elsewhere.  But there's another angle to why she's such a good move.  The media - particularly after Obama's convention speech - has made such a production of the fact that Obama is a historic candidate, that his presence on the campaign, and by implication his election to the White House, represents such a historic moment for the nation that we're somehow squandering an opportunity if we don't elect him.

Now, America makes history no matter who wins.  Maybe I live in a bubble, but most Americans I know, white males included, want to see women and minorities succeed.  Let's all admit that no matter how much we might dread an Obama presidency, some little piece of us would feel a sense of pride that the country has reached a moment when a black man can be elected president.  That's only natural, even if you believe, as I do, that Barack Obama is the wrong man for the job.

With Sarah Palin on the ticket, Americans - all of them - can feel a sense of pride no matter who wins the election.  This strikes me as a tremendously important dynamic that benefits McCain because there's no longer any guilt associated with not voting for Obama.  It's also a tremendous moment for the nation, regardless of whom you support.  No matter what happens in November, a glass ceiling will be shattered, and that's really something.

I'm not anywhere near the first or last to comment on Barack Obama's rightward tilt since clinching the Democratic nomination, but I think there's a messaging opportunity here that may resonate well on Barack Obama: he is just another politician. 

There is a subtle distinction here between this and calling him a "flip flopper."  John Kerry ran a muddled campaign without a central message, and provided some absolutely golden soundbites that played into the notion that he was a flip flopper, so the attack really stuck.  Say what you will about Obama, but he definitely has a message.  Ironically enough, that could be his central weakness now.

Obama's entire campaign is based on the idea that he represents a new kind of politics, one which departs from the back-slapping, word-parsing, focus grouped, slippery politics of the past.  There are hints of Jimmy Carter's "I'll never lie to you" campaign in 1976.  So the notion that Obama is a slick used car salesman who will say anything to seal the deal cuts directly against his message of big ideas.

Today's Bob Herbert column compares him to Bill Clinton:

But Barack Obama went out of his way to create the impression that he was a new kind of political leader - more honest, less cynical and less relentlessly calculating than most.

You would be able to listen to him without worrying about what the meaning of "is" is.

However, the key distinction between Obama and Clinton in my mind is that Bill Clinton never really pretended not to be a politician.  In fact, there was a sort of winking pride on Clinton's part in just how clever he could be.  Obama, on the other hand, has spent more than a year telling us he'd lead us out of the politics of cynicism.

The most recent example is Obama's "refining" his position on Iraq, and newfound problems with partial birth abortion, but a great example is his decision to forego public financing.  The "Declaration of Independence" from a "broken system," claims that somehow Republicans manipulate the public finance system, and that 527s are creature of the right (if only!) - a through the looking glass twisting of Orwellian proportions.

Bottom line, calling Obama a flip flopper is probably accurate, but suggests that Republicans have just dusted off the 2004 playbook.  Calling him "just another politician" lances his central message right through the heart, and Mr. Obama has graciously provided us with prime examples.  I suspect he will continue to do so through November.

Promoted. -Patrick

Twenty-eight members have signed onto a letter to Nancy Pelosi on members of Congress receiving preferential treatment in the "Friends of Angelo" program.

Thus, we demand that the House of Representatives undertake an investigation with open hearings to determine: (1) the validity of these charges, (2) whether the described practices were widespread, (3) the extent to which this scandal might have affected public policy, and (4) what steps might be necessary to assure the public that elected officials do not receive such preferential treatment in the future.

And later, they connect it to ordinary Americans:

At a time when millions of Americans are struggling to repay their mortgage debts while coping with $4/gallon gasoline and soaring foods prices, they will be outraged to learn that some Members of Congress may have personally profited from their official positions through secret sweetheart deals on their mortgages.

While the GOP house isn't exactly in order on corruption, the Democrats have traditionally put them to shame when it comes to shady backroom deals.  Democratic corruption was one of the paths to power for the GOP in 1994, and if we can get serious about our own ethics, we may yet again gain the high ground.

I'm curious to hear others' thoughts.  Each election of the 21st century has been partially defined by a candidate who embraced a new media to exceed expectations.  Clearly 2008 goes to Obama for his use of social networking; 2004 was the blogger election, between Howard Dean's use of that media and the debunking of the Bush National Guard memos.

What will the next generation be?  While we obviously can't predict how technology will progress four years from now, I'm sure there are some educated guesses.  What do you believe will be the next phase of new media to change a political outcome?

This is a very worthy point and one worth pondering. -Patrick

We spend a lot of time here and on other blogs lamenting all the progress the Left is making on the web, and how many Republican candidates don't "get it."  I personally have experienced this when dealing with a number of campaigns, and I've come to a realization.

Lots of Democrats didn't "get it" either, until Howard Dean came along.  And then, many still didn't get it, because his poor showings in the 2004 primaries were justification that at the end all this stuff didn't translate into electoral success.  But MoveOn.org enjoyed a resurgence largely thanks to the Iraq War, and Barack Obama raised untold millions and slayed a dragon for his party's nomination.  Now, lots of them "get it."

On our end, we have a lot of wonderful people blogging about the need for the Right to get moving, but we don't have a success to point to as evidence that the party and ideological elites will understand (see my earlier posts about our ideological elites being Reagan and Goldwater-era holdovers).  Someone is just going to have to do it, the same way that Howard Dean and Barack Obama did.

On the activism end, sites like this are a great start, but so much of these sites are inside baseball, and not grassroots.  There is going to need to be a push on a single hook issue (the 111th Congress will no doubt provide many opportunities) that engages not just political junkies, but truck drivers and secretaries.  And again, someone (probably not a political professional) will need to just do it. 

So, let's get to work.

(promoted by Soren. I think that this is tremendously important and that there is more for our party to gain by figuring out how to embrace Ron Paul supporters, although I confess to not knowing what that will really mean. Again, looking for thoughts.)

We all know the kind of success Ron Paul had during the presidential primaries: he organized a legion of followers with unparalleled levels of commitment and passion, not to mention outfundraising nearly every other Republican candidate.  By the same token, he never translated his organization into electoral victory.  But it's become apparent to me recently that the Ron Paul revolution is alive and well, and the implications could be far-reaching for the GOP. 

Last weekend, at the Virginia state GOP convention, unknown delegate Bob Marshall came within just a few votes of defeating former Governor Jim Gilmore for the nomination to run for U.S. Senate.  While some of Marshall's success stemmed from Gilmore's less-than-pure abortion stance, and far better organization on Marshall's part, Marshall also capitalized on the under-the-radar efforts of the Paul campaign to take over state, district and county parties.  As a voting delegate to the convention, I received mailers from Marshall attacking Gilmore for his ties to the Council on Foreign Relations, and he also implied that Gilmore supported a "North American Union."  Nothing in Marshall's career suggests that he's ever been active on those sorts of issues, but he clearly saw them as a way to stimulate the Paul followers and it paid off.  Gilmore, who went in expected to walk away with a 60-65% victory, won the nomination by less than 1%.

In VA-8 (my district), Amit Singh, who has been endorsed by Ron Paul and reaped benefits financially, faces social conservative Mark Ellmore in a primary this Tuesday, June 10th.  Needless to say the results of this primary are worth watching.  While it's unlikely either candidate will be able to defeat Jim Moran in November, the primary will be another indicator of whether the Ron Paul revolution may in fact change the Republican Party.

Paul is a little out there for me, but I think it's fair to say that Ron Paul Republicanism is just about the only kind of Republicanism that's thriving at the moment.  Has Ron Paul reshaped the party?  Will Ron Paul-lite candidates succeed in 2008 and beyond?  Does the GOP only borrow a few thoughts from the Paul crowd and discard the rest, or return to its pre-internationalist past?  The world wonders...