Smearing Franken

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Well, it's begun in earnest.

Not that the right has ever been soft on Al Franken -- it certainly wasn't soft during the campaign or the recount (or with respect to Norm Coleman's various legal challenges) -- but, now that he's set to take his rightful seat in the Senate (you know, because he actually won the election), the smear campaign has gotten personal.

And who is leading the smear campaign? Why, Fox News, of course.

Media Matters has the details:

After Norm Coleman conceded the 2008 Minnesota Senate race to Al Franken (D), several Fox News hosts expressed bewilderment, disappointment, and denial about the outcome. For instance, Glenn Beck said of Franken's victory, "[I]t shows how crazy our country has gone." He added: "[I]t shows that we've lost our minds." Sean Hannity claimed that Franken is "not all there," and later claimed, "I, in my heart of hearts, do not believe that Al Franken won that election." And Brian Kilmeade said he's "in denial" about Franken, who he said was "barely sane." Gretchen Carlson responded to Kilmeade by again falsely claiming that Coleman "won in the original election."

As Media Matters for America has documented, Fox News personalities have repeatedly promoted baseless claims of fraud in the Minnesota race and claimed that there was a lack of impartiality in the recount process to accuse Franken of "stealing" the election. However, in its unanimous 5-0 ruling, the Minnesota Supreme Court stated that "[n]o claim of fraud in the election or during the recount was made by either party" and that "Coleman's counsel confirmed at oral argument that Coleman makes no claim of fraud on the part of either voters or election officials."

Just in case you weren't quite sure, Fox News hates democracy. At least when the other side wins.

**********

Oh, yeah, The Wall Street Journal hates it, too. (It claims that Franken only "won" because his lawyers were "creative." Which, of course, is nonsense.)

And so, Minnesota's long national nightmare is over

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As I'm sure many of you have heard by now, the 2008 Minnesota Senate election is finally over. The state Supreme Court, which had become the locus on the ongoing fight, has ruled 5-0 in Franken's favour. And with Franken declared the winner, Coleman conceded.

While we covered the whole saga extensively here at The Reaction, -- including something like 15 updates on the recount -- I don't have much to add to what has already been said. What I will say is that I'm relieved, even if, to me, this outcome was not just long overdue but pretty much inevitable: Coleman may have "won" the first count, but Franken surged ahead during the recount, even if the margin of victory was astonishingly narrow, and it was just a matter of time until Coleman's legal challenge either ran out of steam or ran into a decisive decision against him.

And why did Coleman lose? Politico attempts to answer that question, explaining away his legal defeat by pointing to his "pocketbook," as well as to his "political future." But Politico's GOP/Coleman-friendly piece misses the crucial fact: Coleman lost because he didn't win as many votes as Franken did. All legal wrangling aside, that's all there was to it. Yes, yes, I know, it was all about those absentee ballots, about what ballots should have been counted, but it was clear that the recount was conducted fairly and that Coleman lost. This was confirmed by a unanimous ruling of the state Supreme Court.

And so, that's it. Once Franken is sworn in, the Democrats will have 60 senators -- and a possible filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. But will it make a difference? Not really. The 60 includes the likes of Lieberman (a non-Democrat), Specter (a pseudo-Democrat), Bayh and Nelson (quasi-Democrats), and various others who don't, and won't, vote strictly along party lines, including on key issues like climate change, energy, health care, and the economy.

Still, I'd rather not let my pessimism get the better of me tonight. It does mean something that the Democrats have achieved that magical 60, and perhaps, just perhaps, Franken's victory will encourage them to pursue a more ambitious agenda. Even if not, though, at least the 2008 Minnesota Senate race turned out as so many of us had hoped.

Welcome, Senator Franken. It's good to have you aboard.

A decision, a concession, a defection, an impression, and a question

By (O)CT(O)PUS

Nine months since the election, almost 3 million votes cast, after weeks of recounts and months of court appeals involving 10 judges, 142 witnesses, and over $13 million in legal fees, the Minnesota Supreme Court decided in favor of Al Franken and ordered that he be certified as winner of the election. Within moments after the decision, Norm Coleman offered his concession.

Minnesota finally gets its full complement of Congressional representation; and the Democrats, with Arlen Specter's recent defection, get a filibuster-proof Senate majority.

One would think the way is clear for a run of progressive legislation without Republican obstruction. But the Democrats are a fractious bunch, and Octopus is a pessimist.

Will the Dems mess up a golden opportunity? Will we finally get an alternative energy bill, new financial market regulation, universal healthcare, and more? Your thoughts.

(Cross-posted at The Swash Zone.)

Smearing Franken

By Michael J.W. Stickings

If you've been following the dramatic Senate recount in Minnesota -- and even if you haven't -- check out Joe Conason's welcome shredding of Franken's opponents over at Salon. Here's the gist of it:

If Al Franken were not a longtime public figure -- and thus severely handicapped by American jurisprudence -- he could file a powerful complaint for libel or slander against several of the most prominent wingnuts in the United States. From Rush Limbaugh to Bill O'Reilly to Richard Mellon Scaife, a chorus of familiar voices is loudly defaming the Democrat whose razor-thin win in the Minnesota Senate race will now be tested in that state's courts. Ever since Election Day, on radio and television, on the Internet and in print, they've screamed that Franken is stealing, rigging, pilfering, scamming, thieving and cheating his way to victory.

These media figures, some of whom occasionally pretend to be journalists, have spewed such accusations repeatedly, without offering any proof whatsoever -- in plain contradiction of the available facts. Not only is there no evidence that Franken or his campaign "cheated" in any way during the election or the recount, but there is ample reason to believe that the entire process was fair, balanced and free from partisan taint.

*****

Here's a challenge to all those lying liars. In essence, they have accused my friend Franken of a felony under Minnesota law. If they know of any evidence that would show he has stolen votes or violated any election statute, let them report it to the state law enforcement authorities. And if they don't, perhaps they will at last have the decency to shut up.

I have argued before that Coleman has every right to take his fight to the courts. But what Franken's opponents are doing is, as one has come to expect from them, reprehensible. They should just shut up, but they don't have the decency to do anything of the kind.

Minnesota Senate Recount -- update 11

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As expected, Minnesota's State Canvassing Board yesterday certified Al Franken's 225-vote lead over Norm Coleman in that state's Senate recount.

In response, Franken (rightly) declared victory.

Prior to the recount, Coleman had a 215-vote lead, which means that the recount saw a swing of 440 votes in Franken's favour.

But is it over? Well, not yet. Or, it depends whom you ask.

Harry Reid: "There comes a time when you have to acknowledge that the race is over. The race in Minnesota's over. Now it's only a little finger-pointing. The certification by the canvassing board, which has been in process for a number of weeks, now clearly shows that Al Franken has won... Coleman will never ever serve in the Senate. He's lost the election. He can stall things, but he'll never serve in the Senate." (But Franken won't be seated yet.)

Mitch McConnell: "The law in Minnesota requires certification from the secretary of state and that can't happen until the conclusion of all legal battles. It's not over."

Reid's "never ever" comment may have been a bit too strong, and, to be fair, if the roles were reversed, it would be the Democrats demanding that the 650 additional absentee ballots be counted. (It's easy to declare victory when your side is ahead.)

As the Star Tribune points out, the results were "unanimously certified" by the Canvassing Board. Still, Coleman intends to file a so-called "election contest" today, which "will prevent Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, under state law, from officially certifying Franken's election until the legal process has run its course."

And to be clear: "Ritchie made it clear that the board wasn't declaring a winner, just certifying the results emerging from the process of recounting about 2.9 million undisputed ballots, thousands of challenged votes and hundreds of wrongly rejected absentee ballots."

I am happy that Franken won, or appears to have won, or is ahead after the recount -- and I do think that in the end he will be certified the winner -- but at the same time Coleman should not be denied his rights to challenge the results (again, put yourself in the other person's shoes for a moment). Unfortunately, that means that the process, and with it the uncertainty, could drag out for some time, but that's the price to pay in a democracy, where getting it right is more important than getting it done quickly.

We on the Democratic side all wish they'd gotten it right in Florida back in 2000. The same standard should be applied to Minnesota in 2008-09.

Minnesota Senate Recount -- update 10

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Following up on my post from yesterday...

CNN: "A state election board on Monday will announce Democrat Al Franken has defeated Republican incumbent Norm Coleman in Minnesota's U.S. Senate race, state officials told CNN Sunday... The canvassing board on Monday will say a recount determined Franken won by 225 votes, Secretary of State Mark Ritchie told CNN."

Expect a challenge, or at least an initial show of defiance, even if Harry Reid wants Coleman to concede ASAP.

Minnesota Senate Recount -- update 9

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It's hard to believe that we're still talking about the 2008 elections, what with Obama soon to be inaugurated, an economic stimulus package on the horizon (and coming not a moment too soon), and a war ongoing in Gaza, but, alas, democracy needs to be allowed to take whatever long and majestic course it requires. And it looks like the long and not-always-majestic process in Minnesota will soon be over:

DFLer Al Franken won an impressive share Saturday of what may be the last ballots tallied in the U.S. Senate recount, boosting his unofficial lead over Sen. Norm Coleman to 225 votes heading into a Monday meeting where the state Canvassing Board will certify the final result of the race.

But -- and it's a big, huge, massive BUT:

At least two things... still stand in the way of Franken becoming Minnesota's newest U.S. senator: the possibility of a ruling by the Minnesota Supreme Court that more wrongly rejected absentee ballots should be counted, and a legal contest that Coleman attorneys all but promised should Franken prevail.

Will the courts intervene, though? Unless the recount has been conducted in some unequivocally unjust way, I doubt it. Which means that Franken -- now firmly, if extremely narrowly, ahead -- will prevail.

Even Yogi Berra, I suspect, would say that it's just about over.

Minnesota Senate Recount -- update 8

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(Update 8? Something like that? See here.)

The latest: "Franken lead at 50 with absentees left to count," according to the Star Tribune. And a winner may be declared as early (late) as next week in what is "on track to go down as the closest Senate election in U.S. history. Franken's current lead is two one-thousandths of a percent. Put another way, that's one vote for every 58,395 cast."

Senator Al Franken.

Get used to it.

(Assuming that everything goes as anticipated from here on out. Franken's lead should expand with the counting of the unopened absentee ballots, but, of course, Coleman could -- and at this point likely will -- launch a court challenge.)

Year in Review

By Carl

OK, so it's the penultimate day of 2008.

I wait all year to use that word, "penultimate". It reminds me of the Parker ballpoint I got for graduating from junior high school.

Careful readers of my blog might recall that, back on January 4, I ran a special "Nobody Asked Me, But..." in which I predicted the top ten stories of 2008.

Let's look at those predictions again:

1) Sub-Saharan Africa - What can be said about what I picked as the most important story of 2008 except that I hate being right. Cholera and ebola outbreaks in Zimbabwe and the Congo, a stolen election in Zimbabwe that's threatening to overrun South Africa, tribal warfare in Nigeria, Somalia in chaos again... did I mention the pirates?

2) Global Warming - Well, what can I say? Two devastating wildfires in Santa Barbara, tornadoes at Christmas (!?), Hurricane Ike and five other storms touching down in the US as well as Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar (which killed 85,000 people, tho you never read about it), and 87 tornadoes on Super Tuesday. Apparently, God didn't like His choices much.

3) Oil - Crude futures averaged $100 a barrel this year, and that's with the high of $147 a barrel in June. This likely caused #7 below.

4) 2008 Elections - I'd say I was right about this being an important story. I'm tempted to say this should have been swapped with number 2 for importance. The Congressional races were, as I pointed out, the real story of the general election. Even now, the entire story has not been written, as Minnesota is taking its time announcing the winner of its senate race.

5) Biotechnology - Believe it or not, this was a big year for biotech. For example, despite the cool Spring temperatures and June floods, the corn crop was the second largest ever produced in America, thanks to biotech. Soy had it's fourth largest crop. And who can forget the Gardasil battle? The genes for lung cancer were identified. And the crowning achievement: the transplant of a patient's windpipe grown from her own stem cells.

6) Beijing Olympics - pictorial proof:

7) Economic disaster - Your 401(k) lost 40% of its value in 2008 alone, 50% since October 2007. The Bush administration, yet again, proved its inability to respond to any crisis that didn't involve sending troops in.

8) Nationalism - I put this forward as an economic issue, never imagining that when the US sneezed, the world might catch its flu. No one really stepped up to absorb weakened US companies. We saw Saudis invest heavily in Citigroup, but they already had sizable investments there. Nomura Holdings did buy Lehman Brothers, but any chance of GM or Ford being bought is in abeyance as the bailout program is rolled out. I'd take this one off the list.

9) Indonesia - Again, I focused on natural disaster in Indonesia. This was a bit of a gamble, to be frank. altho I couched it in terms of "near term". Java did suffer some landslides, and many other parts of the island chain had fires, floods and landslides as the year closed. Estimates are that some 500-1,000 people died as the result of these events. The prediction I made was for a catastrophic event to occur. These were mostly do to deforestation and bad land management practices.

10) Avian flu - Fewer human deaths this year than last, however the disease remains as virulent in the avian population as ever and is spreading farther afield now. However, this is pretty disturbing news.

I'll have my predictions for 2009 up on Friday. Tomorrow, I look back on the year passed with a bit more reflectivity.

That's right, I'll put on my tin-foil hat!

(Cross-posted at Simply Left Behind.)

Next year in Minnesota

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Minnesota Public Radio:

Minnesotans will not know whether Democrat Al Franken or Republican Norm Coleman won the Senate race until next year. Election officials, along with the two campaigns, have agreed on a framework for adding wrongly-rejected absentee ballots to the recount.

Franken is currently up by just 47 votes. (The Star-Tribune has him up 46 and has more on the latest developments here and here.)

It all comes down to the rejected absentee ballots. Once identified, the newly accepted absentee ballots must be sent to the secretary of state by January 2 and then opened and counted by January 4. Challenges will then begin on January 5.

New senators are scheduled to be sworn in on January 6. Needless to say, this won't be over by then. There's a long and contentious way to go.

**********

Update: From Eric Kleefeld at TPM Election Central:

In a unanimous decision handed down just now, the state Supremes denied Coleman any relief in a lawsuit he was waging to deal with allegations of double-counted absentee ballots, which his campaign says have given an illegitimate edge to Al Franken. The Coleman campaign was seeking to switch 25 selected precincts back to their Election Night totals, which would undo all of Franken's recount gains in those areas and put Coleman back in the lead.

The court, however, sided with the Franken camp's lawyers in saying that a question like this should be reserved for a post-recount election contest proceeding, as the proper forum to discover evidence -- and which also has a burden of proof that heavily favors the certified winner.

Simply put, Coleman is in very big trouble right now. With Al Franken leading by 47 votes, this lawsuit was Coleman's best shot at coming from behind. And it just failed, making a Franken win nearly a foregone conclusion when this recount finishes up in early January.

But it's still far from over. If he's behind at the end of the recount, Coleman will undoubtedly challenge the results in court. But it would nonetheless be a huge victory for Franken, who would have the advantage of being ahead going into any such challenge, and of being deemed the winner, if still unofficially.

Permanent minority

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Noam Scheiber summarizing an interesting Ron Brownstein column from last Friday:

It's hard not to see the GOP's opposition to an auto industry bailout as suicidal, given that the industrial midwest -- where a bailout is obviously popular -- is one of the few swing regions they had some hope of recapturing. If you write off the Midwest, you're talking about a mostly regional party that's confined to the South and a few plains and western states. Not exactly the foundation for a new majority.

I think this is right -- and I think it was right before the auto bailout came up. The Republican Party has become not the permanent governing majority Karl Rove envisioned but essentially a national minority party with regional strength in the more conservative parts of the country.

Take a look at the presidential, Senate, and House election maps at CNN.

Not so long ago, it was widely believed -- thanks to successful Republican spin and a media establishment more than willing to play right along -- that the country was solidly Republican, with the Democrats a regional, minority party that did well along the Pacific coast, in the Northeast, and in the Upper Midwest. This wasn't the case, but the 2000 and 2004 presidential maps suggested just such a divide, and so a narrative was born.

But look at those maps now: "Red" America is now a band that runs from Utah and Idaho east through Wyoming and the Dakotas, down through Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, and east again into the Deep South. I don't include Arizona, which the Republicans won mostly because it's McCain's homestate. Obama did extremely well in the Southwest, as well as in swing states in the Midwest (Ohio, Indiana, Iowa) and in the less deep parts of the South (Virginia, North Carolina, Florida).

The House map shows greater complexity, but the trend is pretty much the same. Republicans won the much less populous parts of the West (inland California, Oregon, and Washington), as well as much of the Midwest (Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois), and even much of central Pennsylvania, but the Democrats won almost all of Arizona and Colorado, all of New Mexico, the Dakotas, the border districts of Texas, most of Arkansas, and even much of the Deep South. It is more difficult to discern a clear red-blue divide here, but, again, the country seems to be tilting heavily towards the Democrats.

Now, nothing is permanent in politics. Many of the Democrats' Congressional wins came in conservative parts of the country that could easily flip back to the Republicans in future elections. Furthermore, the Democrats did well in large part because of Obama. The Democrats may control both ends of Capitol Hill, but there are questions as to how united they are and whether they will be able to sustain themselves in the majority over the long term. The more conservative among them will likely look to their own political futures and frequently cross the aisle, and, of course, a rejuvenated Republican Party will eventually -- later, if not sooner -- eat into the Democratic majorities and threaten to take back the White House, reddening the electoral map once again.

But rejuvenation hardly seems likely, at the moment, for a party that is not just regional but rigidly ideological and increasingly extreme on issues from abortion to taxes to energy and global warming. Republican positions are still popular, perhaps, in the reddest of the red states (e.g., Utah, Idaho, Oklahoma), but the party is far to the right of most Americans on most issues. No, the Democrats didn't do so well electorally in 2006 and 2008 simply on the issues -- there were, as always, multiple factors at work, including a deeply unpopular president and his deeply unpopular war -- but there is no denying that the Democrats' positions on the issues, positions more mainstream than those held by the Republicans, have allowed them to make significant gains in traditionally Republican parts of the country.

Republican opposition to the auto bailout just proves the larger point: The GOP is ideologically extreme, regional in focus, and, to more and more Americans, simply repellent. Republicans won't be a permanent minority -- not with the way politics works -- but they could be in the minority for a long time yet.

Salazar to Interior, plus Cillizza's stupid spin

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It looks like Colorado Senator Ken Salazar, one of the more conservative Democrats in the Senate, is Obama's choice for interior secretary, and so the question turns to what his departure means in political terms. According to Chris Cillizza, it " presents Republicans with a prime pickup opportunity in a swing state, an early sign that their fortunes may be turning after two disastrous elections in which the party lost a combined 13 seats in the Senate."

Really?

Salazar's replacement will be appointed by Democratic Governor Bill Ritter. He or she will then have two years of Salazar's term left before the next election for that seat in 2010. Cillizza sees this as a potential opening for the Republicans. And yet, two of the leading candidates for the position are fairly popular figures in the state, Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper and Salazar's brother John, currently representing the state's 3rd District in Congress. Even with less than two years in office before the 2010 election, either one would have a distinct advantage over any Republican challenger, and especially, as Cillizza notes, if that challenger is right-wing wacko Tom Tancredo.

Furthermore, as Steve Benen points out, this development could turn out be an "improvement" for Democrats in the Senate. For example, "if [Hickenlooper] gets the nod, the party may find a more reliable vote on progressive issues." There is still the question of how the conservative Salazar will do in "a not-especially-glamorous cabinet post" but a hugely significant department in terms of the environment, but "if [he], as a popular former senator, can leverage his stature and ties to Obama effectively, he can make a difference at the agency. And if he's replaced by a more progressive successor in the Senate, this may be a win-win opportunity for everyone."

A win-win for the Democrats, that is, not for the Republicans.

And yet, once again, as he did in similar fashion upon the victories of Chambliss in Georgia and Cao in Louisiana, Cillizza is hyping some non-existent Republican comeback. And why? Surely he doesn't actually believe his spin, or does he? Maybe he's so caught up in in-the-now, divorced-from-context punditry that he can't help but make much ado about nothing, that is, sensationalize about the unsensational. He needs to write about something, after all, so why not make something up, fabricate a narrative out of nothing at all?

I just can't help thinking, though, that there's a double standard at work here, as there is with many in the Beltway establishment. Obama isn't in the White House yet, and the new Congress, with expanded Democratic majorities hasn't begun sitting yet, and yet we're supposed to believe that Republicans are already on the rise again, that, for all intents and purposes, the Democrats won't last long in power? Huh.

But what if the roles were reversed? What if the Democrats had just suffered two straight resounding defeats in congressional elections and the Republican had soundly defeated the Democrat to regain the presidency? Would Cillizza and his ilk, in that case, be fabricating some narrative about a Democratic comeback with scant evidence to back it up? Hardly. They'd be babbling on endlessly about Democrats being lost in the wilderness and having to rebuild and be more like Republicans. Even any Democratic victory akin to Chambliss's or Cao's -- which do not point to some larger shift but are reflections of local conditions (an incumbent winning a run-off, a challenger defeating a corrupt incumbent in a low-turnout run-off -- would be spun as somehow confirming the narrative of Republican ascendancy and hegemony.

There is the spin, though, and there is the reality, and the reality is that there is no Republican comeback and that, for now, Salazar's seat will remain safely in the hands of the Democrats.

Don't believe the pro-Republican hype.

Minnesota Senate Recount -- update 6

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The Star Tribune has Coleman up by 192, while Minnesota's secretary of state has him up by 687. Why the significant difference? The former's count includes the pre-recount totals from Minneapolis Ward 1 Precinct 3, where 133 ballots are missing, whereas the latter's count excludes the 1,965 ballots from that precinct, where Franken did well.

As TPM's Eric Kleefeld reported earlier today, though, things are now looking much brighter for Franken:

Al Franken's chances of winning the Minnesota recount may have just gone up astronomically.

The state canvassing board just voted unanimously that absentee ballots that were initially rejected because of clerical errors -- and the current estimate from the hearing is that there could be nearly 1,600 of them, based on some extrapolation -- should be counted, probably the single biggest issue that the Franken campaign has been hammering ever since this recount began, and which really seemed up in the air going into this hearing.

The board can't directly order the county officials to do the counting, only making a formal request to go back and count the votes and then submit amended totals. But many counties have already begun or finished the process of sorting the rejected absentees at the board's request, and board members did castigate any election officials who wouldn't do so, with some of them even leaving open the option of seeking a court order if necessary.

Because of all that, it seems very likely that the vast majority of these ballots will be counted before this is over -- and it could possibly seal the deal for Franken. Pre-election polling showed him winning the overall pool of absentee ballots by a solid margin, so it seems pretty reasonable to assume that the newly-counted votes will break for Al. If that proves to be correct -- and if Norm Coleman is unable to stop it through further litigation -- Franken will probably pull ahead of Coleman and win the election.

Of course, there will likely be "further litigation" regardless -- UPDATE: the Star Tribune is reporting that the absentee-ballot issue will go to the state Supreme Court -- and so this whole process is far from over.

Still, the key in terms of public perception will be to be in the lead when the recount is completed (and prior to the inevitable litigation over challenged ballots). In that respect, Franken may soon be in the best position he's been in yet.

For our past posts on the recount, see here.

Symbols of delusion: Chambliss, Cao, Boehner, and the future of the Republican Party

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Yesterday at WaPo's The Fix, Chris Cillizza asked if Republicans are "on the march" and concluded that the recent Republican victories in Georgia (Senate) and Louisiana (House) "give Republicans something to rally around" and "lay the foundation for at least the possibility of a comeback in 2010 and beyond."

Oh... really.

While I do not deny that things can change quickly in politics, and that the GOP could make a comeback within the next few years, I'm not sure that any sort of pre-comeback should be read into what happened in two of the reddest states in the country:

Georgia: Saxby Chambliss held on to his Senate seat in last week's run-off election. No surprise there. He was ahead in the polls leading up to the (first) election and he almost reached the 50% threshold the first time around. The fact that a libertarian was on the ballot, and won about 3%, cost him the outright win. True, he expanded his lead in the run-off, but the Republicans poured far more money and resources into the run-off campaign than the Democrats did, with the likes of Sarah Palin stumping for him. In the end, the incumbent won. So what?

Louisiana: Disgustingly corrupt Democratic incumbent William Jefferson lost his bid for re-election in the state's 2nd District to Republican challenger Anh Cao on Saturday. In response, House Minority Leader John Boehner wrote that "[t]he Cao victory is a symbol of our future." True, Cao is untraditionally Republican (he will be only the fourth visible minority in the GOP House caucus, joining three Cuban-Americans), and, true, the 2nd District (which includes New Orleans), where Jefferson (the first black to represent Louisiana in Congress since Reconstruction) has been firmly and comfortably ensconced since he first won the seat way back in 1990, is overwhelmingly Democratic, but was it a win for Cao or a loss for Jefferson? Surely the latter much more than the former. Indeed, according to an analysis of the vote reported by the Times-Picayune, "Jefferson's downfall was largely a product of apathy and confusion among black voters." Had black voters turned out as they did on November 4, Jefferson would have won. Some voters may simply have had enough of Jefferson, at long last, but it was the turnout, or lack thereof, that gave the vote to Cao.

So... that's the "symbol" of the GOP's future? Capitalizing on low turnout against a corrupt incumbent? That's not much of a future.

And... Republicans can "rally around" these two wins? Well, they can rally around whatever they want, including their own delusions, but the two wins don't really "lay the foundation" for anything. Will the new Boehner-inspired strategy be for GOP incumbents like Chambliss to hold on to their seats in tight races and run-offs and for upstart no-names like Cao to topple disgustingly corrupt Democratic incumbents in low-turnout run-offs?

That's not much of a strategy, and certainly not much of a winning one. Then again, maybe it's all the Republicans have.

Grown-ups in charge

By Carol Gee

For a time prior to November 4 of this year, I was afraid to hope for a set of healthy-sized Democratic victories. Eight years of things going wrong with elections had worn my hopes thin. Then the positive numbers began to come in and I could breathe more easily. The grown-ups were going to take charge again. The adolescent was on his way to Texas.

For a time following the election, I was hopeful that Democrats would have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Two years of near-impotence in the face of Republican leaders' obstructionism had worn out my faith in the Senate's Democratic leaders. Now the numbers are in and I must reckon with the necessity of bipartisanship to get anything substantive done in the 111th Congress. Grown-ups in both Executive and Legislative will rebalance their power. The bully on the see-saw has left the playground.

For a time following the official transition into the "Obama Transition," I was optimistic about a standard set of Progressive nominations fitting my agenda. A month of leaked names, intros and announcements has tempered my wide-eyed optimism. On the scale of left to right the numbers fall more toward the center than the left. Grown-up leaders can inhabit the Center and we will still be OK. Childish ideologues will be replaced with pragmatic over-achievers.

For a time after the world economic crash and attacks on Mumbai, I was anxious for the world's well-being. As the weeks have passed and I am out and about in my community, I see for rent signs in stores, empty parking lots, and fewer help wanted ads in bankrupting newspapers. And I hear tension in my grown-up children's voices as they ask without saying, "Am I grown up enough to handle what's coming?" While Bush president fiddles their Rome is burning.

For the time being I understand the recession has spread to my own, and my turf. My hope that the downturn is time-limited and finite is buoyed by my own history as a "Depression baby." I am grown up now and so are my children and most of my grandchildren. Our change-leaders are having to grow up fast as they face the worst challenges since the Great Depression. And we have grown desperately tired of Bush 43, the neocon's darling, manipulatable, boy wonder from Texas.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Minnesota Senate Recount -- update 5

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The more or less official tally has Coleman up by 316 (an increase of 101 since the start of the recount), but Franken's lead lawyer announced Wednesday afternoon that his candidate is actually in the lead by 22. How so? TPM's Eric Kleefeld explains:

The Franken camp's methodology involves taking down the opinions of the local election officials regarding the challenged ballots, and assuming that all the challenges will result in those local officials being upheld by the state canvassing board. As such, we are dependent on the Franken camp being complete and accurate in their homework, and also on their underlying assumption proving to be correct.

And how about those "mystery votes" in Minneapolis, 133 votes that have just disappeared (to the detriment of Franken)?

Quite the controversy-laden drama, this recount.

(For our previous updates on the recount, see here.)

Chambliss wins in Georgia, Coleman maintains lead in Minnesota

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I've been busy this evening writing an article that I hope will soon be published -- more on that if and when -- but I just thought I'd post quickly on the Senate races in Georgia and Minnesota.

Georgia: The run-off was held on Tuesday (today until about 45 minutes ago), and Republican incumbent Saxby Chambliss defeated Democratic challenger Jim Martin. And it wasn't close. With 99 percent reporting, Chambliss is up 57 to 43. (He won the initial vote last month 50 to 47 -- or, rather, just under 50 to 47. Why the expanded win? Republicans came out en masse for Chambliss, with the likes of Sarah Palin stumping for him, and it may be that they just wanted it more than the Democrats did. Of course, it could also be that incumbents tend to do well in run-offs. And, of course, Georgia is still a solidly Republican state.)

Minnesota: The recount continues... Democratic challenger Al Franken picked up 37 votes in Ramsey County today, when 171 votes were found to have been uncounted "due to a combined machine malfunction and human error," according to the Star Tribune. Still, with 93 percent of votes recounted (and with more than 6,000 ballots challenged), Republican incumbent Norm Coleman leads by 303. (The Franken camp claims Coleman's lead is just 50.) According to Eric Kleefeld at TPM Election Central, the momentum may be swinging back to Coleman. However, Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight says that his "statistical models," which recently projected Franken the eventual winner, "now show Norm Coleman as the favorite to retain his senate seat, although with a high degree of uncertainty and without accounting the effects of potential rejected absentee ballots."

For my previous updates on the Minnesota recount, see here, here, and here. For all our posts on Minnesota, see here.

With the Republican win in Georgia, the Democrats won't make it to 60 seats in the Senate. But as I and many others have pointed out, though, 60 is something of an artificial threshold (given the obsession with the filibuster). Very few votes in the Senate are strict party-line, and the Democrats should be able to pull over one or two, or more, Republicans on any given vote. But, then, the Democrats will also lose votes. Even with 60 senators, they would hardly be guaranteed of having a filibuster-proof majority on any given vote. The point is, whether it's 58 or 59, the Democrats will have a huge majority in the Senate. If they, and Obama, are able to reach out across the aisle to the few moderate Republicans left, they should be able to get stuff done (not least because there's a huge Democratic majority in the House as well).

Minnesota Senate Recount -- update 3

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Well, it goes on... and on... and on...

With 82 percent of ballots recounted, Norm Coleman has a lead of 231 votes over Al Franken. (Check out the Star Tribune's recount news page here. County-by-county results are here.)

And it's a long way from being over. So far, there have been 3,626 ballot challenges (1,853 by Coleman, 1,773 by Franken).

And there's still the question of rejected absentee ballots. This morning, the State Canvassing Board "unanimously voted... to deny the Franken campaign's request that rejected absentee ballots be included in the recount." However, "the board members stressed that they weren't rejecting the merits of the arguments made by Franken's attorneys. They also made it clear they expect the issue to be litigated separately from the recount procedure."

In other words, there's the recount... and then the litigation. Ultimately, this race may very well be decided in the courts.

(For our previous posts on the recount, see here.)

**********

This photo from the Star Tribune seems to capture the whole process: "Ramsey County election judge Ann Berres took a moment upon hearing her table would need to count again."

Thank goodness for Democrats

By Carol Gee

What I love about Dems:

Democrats are more sloppy than Republicans. Sloppy voters may help Al Franken win in the Minnesota U.S. Senate recount, according to Politico.com. To quote:

“Democrats are [thought to be] more creative, free-spirited, so the idea is they’re more likely to make a mistake that the optical scan won’t pick up,” explains Hentges. “But when they recount the hard copy, those votes will be counted for Franken. If you talk to Republicans, they say it will be Franken’s advantage, because Democrats are stupid and will screw up ballots more often.”

Democrats do not keep secrets as well as Republicans. Politico's headline, "Schumer: $500 billion to $700 billion stimulus," lets the cat out of the bag about the true cost of what Congress might do to help the economy. Investigative journalism's non-profit ProPublica revealed a related story about the size of the Fed's loan portfolio. To quote the Schumer story:

In an interview with ABC's "This Week," Schumer said, "I believe we need a pretty big package here." He added that Congress is working on getting the economic package to President-elect Barack Obama by Inauguration Day. "I think it has to be deep. In my view, it has to be between $500 and $700 billion, and that's because our economy is in serious, serious trouble."

Democratic women make gutsy leaders, willing to be innovative to negotiate power struggles. For example, Nancy Pelosi's power reigns supreme, according to Politico.com, though she did not openly participate in the recent battle for leadership of a key House committee. Democrats are not afraid to outsmart each other, but they are also willing to try to work to achieve peaceful solutions to intra-party fights. In this case it finally came down to a vote. California Representative Henry Waxman's strategic support to certain Members who might vote for him to replace Congressman John Dingell as Chair of the House Energy and commerce Committee. Politico has the story:

Dingell, who now uses a cane, is a holdover from the era when chairmen ruled Congress with an iron fist. He has rallied support from conservative Blue Dogs and influential members of the Congressional Black Caucus eager to uphold the seniority system that has controlled power in the Democratic Caucus for more than a century.

Waxman, still a wily, energetic reformer, has a natural base among liberals — which may explain why he felt the need to reach out financially to new members, many of whom are more moderate even if they ran for Congress under a post-Watergate mantle of good-government reform.

Democrats try hard to keep their promises, but don't always succeed. Rahm Emanuel revealed in his first interview after being named as Obama's chief of staff that a middle-class tax cut will be on the agenda of President-elect Obama's first proposals to Congress after taking office. Yesterday the President-elect demured about how long rich Dems would get to keep their Bush tax cuts. But it is clear that it will not be forever. The exchange is an indicator of how much the President-elect and Congress will be partners in the quest for change, even though there may be some rather painful disagreements.

Democrats are willing to gamble according to this neat Congressional Quarterly story about Congressional newbies' office space assignments. This year's elections will affirm that Democratic candidates often gambled that they could beat very popular Republicans, including one of my favorites, Christopher Shays, the Congressman from Connecticut. I must add that I have also loved a number of these Republican moderates, and worry about them becoming extinct. To quote Shay's poignant farewell e-mail to his consituents (including me, a Democrat from Texas) :

November 21, 2008

Dear Friend:

I am sending this last e-newsletter to express my heartfelt appreciation for the opportunity to serve you and other residents of the Fourth Congressional District for the past 21 years as your representative in Washington.

You and your neighbors have helped educate and guide me through letters, e-mails, calls, office hours, visits, individual conversations and community meetings. The incredible wealth of knowledge you have shared with me has enriched my life and helped make me a better member of Congress.

While this is the last e-newsletter we are sending you because we are required to move out of our Washington office by November 21, I look forward to our paths crossing again soon. All the best.

Christopher Shays
Member of Congress

Congressional Democrats, warts and all, must play a part in "cleaning up the mess" that will be left when our current president leaves the White House. We already see the outlines of the upcoming issues, legislation to be introduced, hearings that will be required, and possibilities for bipartisanship. Some Dems I love, individual leaders, will be fun to watch. Though these are incredibly difficult times, I look forward to some good days for the Dems. They deserve it after this long time in the wilderness.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Minnesota Senate Recount -- update 2

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(For some good links, and more detailed analysis, see Update 1 from last Friday.)

The recount continues. According to the Star Tribune, Coleman currently has a lead of 180 votes over Franken, with 68 percent of ballots recounted, up from a Friday lead of 120. What explains the increase? "Some of that may be attributed to the increased number of Franken ballots challenged by Coleman's campaign, which removes those ballots from the count."

Even after the recount is completed, there will no doubt be a tense battle over those challenged ballots, as well as over thousands of rejected absentee ballots.

**********

Although the number of challenges from each side is about even, Nate Silver proposes that "[v]ery probably, a majority of the challenges are coming from Franken's pile. This is somewhat irrespective of which campaign actually instigates the challenge, since... a potential Franken undervote could be the subject of a challenge from either campaign depending on the initial ruling of the local elections judge."

Furthermore, Nate shows mathematically that there is a "strong" relationship between the number of challenges in a precinct and how well Franken is doing: " What this means is that Franken is actually "a very slight favorite" to win the recount. "Nevertheless, there is good reason to believe that the high rate of ballot challenges is in fact hurting Franken disproportionately, and that once such challenges are resolved, Franken stands to gain ground, perhaps enough to let him overtake Coleman."

Nate predicts that Franken will win by 27 votes.

Read his post. It's complicated.

I'll be back with more soon.