As jmelli just reported, Markos, among other bloggers, was featured in part of a segment on tonight's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I've been writing about The Daily Show at length over the last month or so (here, here, and here) and try to watch it every night to both be entertained and to get some good analysis.

The Daily Show is clearly (and I believe admittedly) biased towards the left. That isn't to say that Jon Stewart does not have good conversations with conservatives like Bill Kristol or John McCain, or that he doesn't equally lampoon people on the right and the left; however, it's pretty clear that Stewart is left of center on many of his views.

Stewart and The Daily Show reach an enormous audience, especially given that the program is on cable late at night. I would imagine that his viewership is well educated, and I believe that ratings have shown that it is one of--if not the most--popular show in the 18-34 demographic. As a result, it has (in a sense) become a large part of the mainstream of modern liberal thought.

While the blogosphere is large and continuously growing, it still is relatively small compared to other outlets, especially The Daily Show. What is more, though politicians are beginning to realize the potential for connecting with the progressive grassroots base by advertising within the blogosphere and some media outlets gave some coverage to the fact that bloggers were given credentials to the Democratic National Convention, the vast majority of Americans probably are oblivious of what we are doing here.

I think the fact that millions of liberals and progressives watching The Daily Show got a glipse of Markos and heard even a small bit about blogs will go a long way in helping to make blogs more mainstream, at least within the progressive movement in the country. Even with the sparse network coverage given to bloggers, tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of more Americans have begun turning to blogs to get their information (my unique visitors here at Basie! last night were about 3 times the previous high for a day); I think this is all a good thing.

In the coming months, it will be our time to shine here in the blogosphere. We have made it into the mainstream, and now we must prove that we are worth the nation's attention. I know we can do it, but we need to endeavor to be more insightful, witty, and honest than the talking heads anyone can see on television or hear on talk radio. This year will not just mark the election of a new president--it will also mark the election of a new medium: BLOGS!

Many pundits believe that Oregon will be a "battleground" state in this election, and as such should be carefully watched by both people inside and outside of the state. I might disagree with them on the first point, but I certainly do agree with them on the second. With this in mind, here's a roundup of the way Oregonians (or at least the Oregon media) are reacting to the Democratic National Convention and John Kerry's acceptance speech.

The Oregonian, the state's largest newspaper, runs the AP story and the Dan Balz analysis on its front page this morning, though not at the top. It does not come as a surprise to this blogger that The Oregonian neglected to cover the story on its own as their out of state coverage over the years has waned to virtual non-existence.

The article that runs above the convention coverage today is perhaps more meaningful than any campaign story, as the paper leads with "Roadside explosion kills 20-year-old Oregonian." While the national media may continue to shun coverage of the many deaths Americans are still suffering in Iraq since the "handover" of power (we're still above two a day), you can be certain that local papers like The Oregonian--where many people get their news--are still letting their communities know each time they loose a young man or woman to the fighting.

The Salem Statesman Journal, which is increasingly becoming the paper of record in the state, at least in terms political coverage, runs three stories related to the DNC this morning. The first article, "Locals throw support to Democratic hopeful," details the reaction of Kerry supporters in Salem and their reaction to the nominee's speech. An entirely positive piece, it is worth reading if you are interested in politics in a so-called "swing state." The paper also runs an AP piece on Jim Rassmann, the man Kerry risked his life to save in Vietnam. The article is particularly germane to the state because Rassmann is a longtime resident of Oregon.

The last article the paper gives space to counterspin by Oregon's Junior Senator, Republican Gordon Smith. "'I am an example that a Republican can win statewide office in Oregon,' Gordon Smith said in a conference call with reporters covering the Democratic National Convention. 'I like President Bush’s chances in Oregon.'" The most interesting and actually newsworthy part of the article: "the Kerry campaign said it will station about 30 staff members on the ground statewide by Election Day to mobilize thousands of volunteers who want to deny Bush a second term."

The last piece I'll bring to your attention this morning comes from KGW, the NBC affiliate in Portland. The article contains three stories on lesser-known Oregon connections to the Democratic National Convention, all portrayed in a very positive light. The first short piece talked about "America’s Party," a short film created by two Oregon men that debuted last night at the Convention. The next story explains how "Dana Welty, a nurse at Oregon Health and Sciences University for the last 15 years," was one of six people across the country selected to address the convention last evening via satellite. Lastly, Retired Air Force chief of staff Merrill "Tony" McPeak, "a former registered Republican who led U.S. air forces during the first Persian Gulf War," was profiled. McPeak, a resident of Oregon, was one of the many retired military men and women who are supporting John Kerry.

from Yahoo! News

---

I'll write on Oregon's reaction to the speech ASAP.

Very good show tonight as Jon completely rips into MSNBC for bashing Al Sharpton. Also, if you have ABC News Now, check out the Ted Koppel interview with Jon Stewart... very interesting.

I'm going up to New York this weekend, so I don't know if I'll be posting much. I'll certainly try, though, so check in every once and a while and see what I'm writing.

I'm off to watch The Daily Show--I missed it at 11:00 as I was blogging! I'll be back though and might write some final thoughts before I bid you adieu for the evening.

I haven't had time to fully digest the speech, and because I was watching it along with other Democrats, I'm not certain that I am the best person to judge the speech. Nonetheless, here goes...

I completely agree with Howard Fineman, who said that the first line ("I'm reporting for duty") made the speech. It was an especially fitting opening given the speeches from Wes Clark, the Band of Brothers, and Max Cleland that preceded it. I'm no veteran (I'm barely old enough to serve if called upon); however, I think that Kerry genuinely has a shot at taking a good portion of the military and veteran vote come November, and a speech like this will go a long way to achieve this goal.

For the pundits and pollsters who say that Kerry has yet to define himself for the American people--that he has yet to flush out his plans--this speech laid out the broad range of initiatives that a Kerry Administration would pursue. I'm not sure if the speech was too policy-centric (and thus boring), but the talking heads can no longer say that Kerry has not laid out an agenda.

The speech was marked by a series of high points and low points. I was often impressed by the oratorical skills of John Kerry, but at times disappointed with his inability to maintain the same amount of energy throughout the entire speech. This had much to do with the fact that the nominee felt he was short on time, so he believed that he had to rush to keep the speech under an hour. Personally, I would have preferred a long speech to a hurried one. (Additionally, I think this anxiety as the speech continued was the cause of Kerry's perspiration)

This being said, I think the speech was nevertheless effective. Kerry was positive (and optimistic) for almost the entire speech, which will certainly contrast well with the increasingly negative and mean-spirited attacks by the Administration (especially from Cheney, but also from Bush himself). This is also true of the entire convention (I'm glad that the Dems learned from 1988 that although the "born with a silver foot in the mouth" comment was witty and memorable, it didn't help Dukakis at all, but rather hurt him). The "positivity" espoused by Obama, Edwards and Kerry will win over voters come November, even if Kerry was not the best orator of the three.

If I have to rate the speech, I would say that the positive and effective message trumps the occasional missteps in the speech. More clearly, although Kerry rushed at times, mispronounced some words and schvitzed*, I believe that his message of restoration--of our hope, of the middle class dream, of accountability in the White House, of our image in the world--will connect with the American people.

Much of the battle over the speech is yet to come. Spin masters on each side of the aisle will try to get the media to accept their set of talking points, lobbying the American people to hear their side of the story. In this regard, this is just the first true skirmish in the war that will rage over the next three months (with the Republican National Convention, the Presidential Debates and the last week of the election as the other key battles).

If the Democrats really want to win, they will have to get their hands a little dirty in the trenches. Nonetheless, they must endeavor not to stoop to the level of the Republicans. I do believe John Kerry when he called for both sides to run a clean and honest campaign, and if the Democrats are able to walk the fine line between keeping the media honest through fact checking and other spin tools, and not allowing this campaign to descend into a series of overtly negative and dirty attacks, Kerry will emerge victorious on November 2.

* - SHVITZ - v. Yiddish (SHVITS) To sweat heavily.

In the words of Chris Matthews, General Wesley Kanne Clark just gave "a hell of a speech." If I had at all forgotten why I joined the Draft Clark movement over a year ago, my memory has been restored.

Wes Clark, the 4-Star General turned Democratic Presidential contender, gave a riveting speech this evening that fired up the Fleet Center and rallied "the troops" around the nation. It was a classic Clark speech that evoked the immense patriotism that Democrats share with the rest of Americans (even if people like Sean Hannity will say they're unpatriotic).

Speaking about the Democrats' defense credentials and John Kerry's patriotism, Clark proclaimed that anyone who says that one party has a monopoly over defending America is committing "fraud on the American people." What's more, like Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, "repetition does not turn a lie into the truth."

During the speech, General Clark stopped to honor the troops with a long moment of silence--a truly moving point in the convention. Building up once again, he turned his deft rhetoric against Republicans who would call Democrats unpatriotic for questioning the President's leadership.

"That flag is ours, and nobody, nobody, nobody is going to take it away from us!"

Clark also reminded people that Democrats are a party that has always been strong on defense. He told the delegates that John Kerry will join "the great pantheon of Democrats who have defended America," such as Woodrow Wilson during the First World War, FDR and Harry Truman during World War II, JFK during the Berlin Crisis and the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Bill Clinton, who stopped the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans. "Democrats are leaders, and Democrats are fighters!"

---

While people rightfully credit Howard Dean with reinvigorating the Democratic Party, too few give Wesley Clark his just due for once again allowing Democrats to be strong on defense. What is more, Clark's constant embrace of the flag (a tactic he deftly used during tonight's speech) helped remind us that we are all Americans.

When the annals of this campaign are written in the months and years to come, I hope that historians will recognize the service Wes Clark provided to the Democratic Party. I cannot tell you how many people I met in the Draft Clark movement, and later when it became Clark for President, who had not participated in Democratic politics before, and the countless who had not voted previously. Though his detractors might say that he was merely a vanity candidate--a tool of the Clintons--and no more than a modern day Alexander Haig, I strongly disagree.

Wes Clark was an extremely positive force within the Democratic Party who changed the nature of the campaign--and thus the party--for the better. He made it OK for a Democrat to embrace the flag, to honor the veterans in the audience, and to attack the President on National Security (yes, some Democrats had done this before, but none had done so with the same credibility as a former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO).

I believe it would strongly behoove John Kerry to utilize Clark in the Midwest, and especially in rural areas (remember, he won the Oklahoma primary on the basis of his rural support, even edging out John Edwards), and I hope that General Wesley Clark remains a part of Democratic politics in the years to come.

The Political Wire is reporting that America Coming Together (ACT) has just finished a 4-minute video featuring Will Ferrell as George W. Bush. The extremely comical spot portrays Bush attempting (and failing) to create a successful campaign ad while on his ranch.

When I saw Ferrell on The Daily Show a few weeks back, I was surprised that I did not find him nearly as funny off the cuff than when he is scripted. Nonetheless, in this video, he is at the top of his game. I highly recommend you send this on to your friends--we just might have another jibjab.com on our hands! What's more, if this gets around the internet and eventually on to the cable news networks, ACT will get a bunch of free advertising and Bush will look like even more of a buffoon.

For those of us who have been fully inundated with Democratic National Convention coverage but would still like to read interesting articles about other topics, this week's edition of The New Yorker features an article on "the truth about free trade." In language that even a layman like me can grasp, John Cassidy's article explains that perhaps the outsourcing of jobs is not, as N. Gregory Mankiw says, "just a new way of doing international trade." First, the week's best cartoon:


Click here to order the cartoon.

Cassidy writes of how politicians are prone to attacking outsourcing because people worry about their jobs and possible loss of their livelihoods, and "politicians are paid to reflect these concerns." As a result, "it is left to economists to defend free trade."

The author writes about how Lou Dobbs (who some in the blogosphere are not huge fans of), often alone in his attacks on the issue, may be on to something. "While outsourcing isn't the only reason that businesses are so reluctant to hire American workers--rising productivity and a lack of faith in the recovery are others--it is certainly playing some role, a fact that most corporate executives are much more willing to admit than economists are."

After providing a walk through Economics 101, from Adam Smith and David Ricardo to Paul Samuelson and Mankiw, which explains why economists believe so strongly in free trade, even of jobs (I found this to be interesting, even if I had previously learned much of it in said class), Cassidy poses the key question that is not often enough raised: "How does the rise of potential economic superpowers like China and India benefit the United States? (italics added)

He answers this question by citing some theoretical models that economists develop--how "the winners from free trade--consumers and stockholders, say" compensate the losers (i.e. people who lose their jobs to outsourcing). In other words, it does not hurt us to lose these jobs because our economy will grow as a result of free trade and these gains can eventually be redistributed to the recently unemployed.

The problem with this model, Cassidy explains, is that it is indeed a model. Unfortunately, though it is implemented to a degree (through the federal Trade Adjustment Assistance program), but "a 2001 report by the General Accounting Office has shown that it is often ineffective, especially for older, less educated workers." What's more, some in the Bush Administration even "question the very idea of compensating the losers from trade."

(The article is not yet available online, but you can get it at any newsstand)

---

In all, I found this to be an extremely interesting and highly damning report on the causes and effects of outsourcing. Although The New Yorker is an admittedly liberal publication, I'm glad to see that some in the media (in addition to Dobbs) are tackling this highly nuanced and tough issue.

If you get a chance, read it either online (if it eventually becomes available), or pick up this week's copy of the magazine. I found that reading the Cassidy article (in addition to many others in this week's edition) were a nice break from the many, many blog postings, editorials and newspaper articles I've been constantly reading about the Convention.

Basie! has finally arrived into a new technological era with a search function provided by Google. You can click the link under "About Me" or click here to start scouring the archives.

Once again, The Daily Show's Convention coverage proved far superior to the other networks as Jon Stewart was both comical and interesting, both of which the other major broadcasts lacked this evening.

After last night's interview with Bill Richardson, Stewart topped himself with a stellar conversation with Joe Biden. Highlights included when Biden said he might have been President had it not been for the fact he accidentally lied about having a coal miner in his family (oops...) and when Biden said that the President doesn't read.

As I wrote in an earlier piece about Stewart, "he cuts through the BS that the mainstream media filters out and lays it down straight for his viewers." Additionally, I still stand by what I earlier wrote when I said that "I truly believe that textbooks and scholarly articles in media analysis journals in the future will devote whole chapters to the impact that The Daily Show has during this period of diluted, crappy television news. Viva la Daily Show!!!"

If you get a chance, check out tonight's show in a later iteration if you missed the first showing already.

Unsurprisingly, due to the Democratic National Convention and the increased number of people in the blogosphere, Basie! saw its largest traffic volume ever (in terms of unique visitors). The site had 59 individual readers yesterday, which doesn't seem like a lot; however, for a blog that had no readers not long ago, I'm pretty happy.

After the end of the month, I'll post the statistics on the site usage from July, the first full month I've been writing here. Check in early August for that.

I hope everyone is enjoying what I'm writing, and I'm really trying hard to keep the site updated with new content a few times each day. So stay tuned and keep on coming over to Basie! for political reporting and analysis from a left of center moderate.

---

PS: If you have any comments on the site, feel free to leave me a comment on any of the pages.

A very interesting article I just stumbled on in today's Oregonian written by columnist Margie Boule. Boule reports that the Discovery Channel will be debuting a documentary on D.B. Cooper on Saturday, August 7.

Who, might you ask, is/was D.B. Cooper? (You certainly have the right to ask this--unless you're from the Pacific Northwest!)

Boule writes that the Cooper is "the only man who ever hijacked a commercial airliner in this country and got away with it."

According to Court TV's Crime Library, "In 1971, D.B. Cooper hijacked and threatened to blow up an airliner, extorted $200,000 from its owner, Northwest Orient, then leaped from the airborne 727 with 21 pounds of $20 bills strapped to his torso.

He was never seen again—dead or alive. The crime was perfect if he lived, perfectly crazy if he didn't."

---

Boule writes that once the plane was diverted to Seattle, "Cooper was given the money, released the passengers and several of the crew, and directed the pilot to fly to Mexico. When the plane hit 10,000 feet, in a fierce storm, Cooper put on a parachute, opened the rear door, and jumped."

This story is particularly interesting to me as I grew up going to a summer camp not too far away from SeaTac International Airport. In fact, my camp was directly south of the airport, on the way to Mexico. As camp legend held, D.B. Cooper even landed on part of the camp property, and continues to terrorize the campers today! (I don't think this part of the story will end up on the Discovery Channel documentary). Whether or not this story is true, it is still handed down from generation to generation of campers. As a result, I thought it was thus my duty to pass it on to you...

The Democratic National Convention may have begun last night, but things didn't really get started until tonight when The Daily Show with Jon Stewart analyzed it.

Steven Colbert wrapped up the primary season that featured 10 candidates and 16 debates; he was hilarious.

The second segment of the show featured Jon Stewart rehashing the first day of the DNC. He was right on the money with his analysis of the speeches by Gore, Carter, and Clinton (certainly better than the meaningless oratory of the pundits on the other networks!), and was very funny to boot.

Rob Corddry summed up the city of Boston, where he grew up, in his report. I think it may have been the best segment I have ever seen on the show. For those of you on the West Coast, watch it in 2 1/2 hours, and for those of us on the East Coast who missed it, watch again at 1:00 AM or the other times the program airs tomorrow. The best part of the segment, in my mind, was when Rob went back to the hotel where he lost his virginity 18 years ago, though the whole shtick was amazing.

Lastly, we cannot forget the last segment of the program, an interview with Convention Chair Bill Richardson. The interview was highly comical (to say the least), but unsurprisingly, Stewart asked much more insightful questions than other anchors (for instance, he asked Richardson why each party is going after the few undecided when the "great unwashed masses" don't vote).

There is a reason why Jon Stewart and The Daily Show wins emmys, and why 21 percent of young Americans turn to shows like it for information. No matter what the pundits, politicians, or critics say, The Daily Show speaks to our generation, and as long as it continues to provide witty analysis of our nation and our politics, I and millions more will watch it night in and night out for the best coverage this side of PBS.

Charlie Cook has some very interesting comments to make in his latest article. The crux of the article is that "unless something happens to change the dynamics and circumstances of this race, Bush will lose." I'll let you read the article because at this juncture, he's a bit of a better writer than I.

Taegan Goddard over at Political Wire has voiced similar sentiments lately, quoting a Slate opinion piece by Chris Suellentrop that also echoes his feelings. Their feeling:

"The referendum on the incumbent is over. President Bush already lost it. This presidential campaign isn't about whether the current president deserves a second term. It's about whether the challenger is a worthy replacement."

At times during the Democratic Party's history, officeholders have been unenthusiastic about embracing the party label, rather choosing to promote their "independence." For example, when Fritz Mondale was the candidate willing to admit that he would raise taxes, many conservative Dems were unwilling to campaign at his side.

Although personal animosity has infrequently played a part in this, the real root of the aforementioned reluctance--which has at times bordered on self-hatred (read Zell Miller)--comes from the fact that some politicians have viewed previous Democratic presidential nominees as unelectable. As a result, down ticket candidates for offices (i.e. Congress) have been afraid to campaign with the nominee for fear that his unelectability would prove contagious (like Nixon in 1974, Carter in 1980, Reagan in 1986, et. al.). This phenomenon is evident even today, though to a lesser degree. What is more, the fact that some politicians in the most right-wing areas are reluctant to stand beside the party's nominee at this convention is more a testament to Republican gerrymandering in Texas than anything else.

Nonetheless, there is heartening news on this front. Senator Tom Daschle, a moderate from a state Bush won with more than 60% of the vote in 2000, has followed suit of his Congresswoman, Stephanie Herseth, and made a significant ad buy on at least three leading Democratic-leaning blogs (Political Wire, Eschaton, and MyDD). This ad buy is certainly notable in and of itself as it shows that blogs have become an integral link between progressive politicians and the multitude of grassroots supporters (when a centrist Senate leader embraces the new medium, anyone can). What's more important about the buy, however, is the content of the ad.

The primary image in Daschle's blog ad is of the Senator side by side with presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry; the text of the ad reads as follows:

Give Kerry the Senate
When John Kerry and John Edwards take office, they will need a Democratic Senate they can work with. It starts with Tom Daschle. Click here to make it happen!

The strong image and emphatic text of this ad indicate two important things. The initial point is that for the first time in a long while, the Democratic Party is sincerely optimistic about its potential to retake the Senate. More importantly, Democrats (with the exception of turncoats like Zell Miller) now believe that John Kerry will have substantial coattails if/when he wins the election on November 2nd.

Instead of shying away from their candidate and allowing him to be torn up by a skeptical media, the Democrats are rallying behind Kerry unlike they have for any candidate in years, in part to aide their nominee, and in part because they think it will help them win. As I've written before, this does not ensure that John Kerry will emerge victorious in three months, nor does it even necessarily show that the nation is swinging in the challenger's favor. Nevertheless, politicians like Daschle are very attentive to their constituents, and through pressing palms and polling can often judge voter sentiment better than any public pollster. As a result, when a Demcratic candidate for office in a heavily red state begins alligning himself with his party's (allegedly) liberal presidential candidate, it says a lot to both the Democrats chances at retaking the White House and the Senate.

New York State Attorney General Eliot Sptizer (L)
and Illinois State Senator Barack Obama (R) walk
to the Convention.

In many ways, I see this as the perfect Democratic Presidential ticket for 2012, or even 2020 (they'll both only be about 60 then). Obama, who will soon be the first ever African-American man to serve as a Democrat in the United States Senate, will deliver the keynote address for the Democratic National Convention tonight, clearly a signal that John Kerry and other Democrats see him as a future nominee. I won't completely restate his highly impressive biography, but suffice to say that he has one of the best resumes the party has seen in years. What is more, he is a very clear and articulate speaker who does well not only in urban areas where Democrats usually flourish, but also in the suburbs and rural areas.

Spitzer is another up-and-comer in the party. As Attorney General, he has actively pursued corporate malfeasance at a time when the Bush Administration and the SEC has been wary to act. Although his detractors would say that he is just a show-boat, trying to grab the headlines by indicting big names, I don't think this is an attack that holds much water. When most Americans hear the Republicans say that he is too active in fighting corporate fraud, there is no way they will fault him. What is more, with Chuck Schumer eyeing the New York statehouse for after Pataki's retirement, Spitzer could be a shoo-in for the Senate seat (otherwise, he's a lock for Governor).

I won't hazard a guess as to when these two will be on a ticket together, as there are many extenuating circumstances (i.e. if John Kerry wins, if he wins reelection, if Edwards is later nominated, etc.); additionally, I won't even try to speculate as to who will head the ticket and who will be the VP nominee. However, I truly believe that the future of the party is in these two men, and their generation of leaders (along with Jennifer Granholm, Harold Ford, etc.) will ensure that the Democrats are dominant in future years.

2004 might prove to be a great year for the Democrats with a John Kerry win and a Democratic Congress, but as Frank Sinatra sang, "the best is yet to come!"

After watching hours of coverage of the convention on ABC News Now, CNN, C-SPAN and MSNBC, the thing that has impressed me the most has been the ability of the Democrats to stay on message. In past years, the Dems have been plagued by infighting and mixed messages heading out to the media; this year, things have been different.

Larry King, whom I generally despise as a "reporter," spoke with former-Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell (D-ME) after the Carter speech this evening. The most interesting point that came out of the interview was when Senator Mitchell, an iconoclast who deftly led the Senate through middle of the road pragmatism , said that this was the most united he had ever seen the party. Later, during an MSNBC interview with the ultra-liberal Representative Dennis Kucinich, the Congressman voiced nearly the same comment. What is more, he emphasized his point by saying that although he did not agree with John Kerry on all issues, he was completely supportive of his party's nominee.

The Republican Party has generally been the party known for ability to spin the media the best, especially through the tactic of staying on message. As a result, it was quite refreshing to see the Democrats skillfully implementing this tactic as well.

I did not solely enjoy this for entertainment reasons. The on-target message began spilling over into the press as the evening rolled on. MSNBC's coverage (aside from uber-rightwinger Joe Scarborough) continued in its respectful (if not admiring) coverage of the Democrats. Over at CNN, even Bob Dole commended the speeches of Al Gore and Jimmy Carter as fair and not just "Bush-bashing" (though he admitted he didn't agree with anything they said).

Overall, because the Democrats are beginning to learn the lessons of Conventions past by staying on message, their positive message is being heard. No longer are all of the pundits simply saying that the Democrats are not offering up alternatives, only complaints. I'm not certain that this unity will continue indefinitely, but as I see things, the ever-repeated claim of complete unity is a self-fulfilling prophecy. As long as everyone in the party from George Mitchell to Dennis Kucinich continues to work together in common cause, rather than tearing each other apart along ideological cleavages, John Kerry's job is going to be a lot easier.

I've been watching ABC's new 24-hour news service, News Now, over the internet this morning. I must say that it is very neat to be able to watch live broadcast television over the internet, even if there are some noticeable glitches in this, the first day of the service. I would certainly say that it it worth the $4.95 I paid for the programming over the month.

With the dearth of coverage of the Democratic National Convention on traditional media outlets (the normal broadcast networks), and even on cable news, it is great to be able to watch gavel-to-gavel coverage live on the internet (I know I could watch on C-SPAN, but sometimes I like the extra speed given in commercial television). What is more, for someone who has grown up long after the time when the networks broadcasted each Convention in its entirety, I'm stoked.

Peter Jennings (in what I believe is his last Convention season) is now reporting, along with analysis from George Stephanopoulos and Mark Halperin.  George has become a GOP apologist in recent years, but Halperin is great (he is the chief political analyst at ABC News, and thus heads coverage on The Note, which is a must-read every morning).  Though it's still a few hours away from the beginning of the Convention, I'll be listening and watching as much as I can from my desk... oh, the life of a political news junkie!

I just finished watching more than four straight hours of MSNBC's pre-Democratic National Convention coverage, and I must say that I was surprisingly delighted. I know that a majority within the blogosphere enjoys bashing "MSGOP" when possible, especially when it attempts to be Fox News Jr.; nevertheless, I found the reporting tonight to be on the whole balanced, and I believe the network portrayed the Democrats and John Kerry in a relatively positive light.

At about 6:45, I began watching as Chris Matthews was interviewing Al Franken, giving the humorist and radio host almost free-reign to talk about whatever he wanted. Matthews even kindly (though incorrectly) noted that Franken had beaten Rush Limbaugh in the ratings in New York (Al let everyone know that although Rush barely beat him, Al crushed Bill O'Reilly).

The seven o'clock hour featured a long prerecorded interview with Teresa Heinz Kerry in which Matthews allowed the (possible) future first lady to speak at length on a number of issues. Although some might complain that Heinz Kerry was a bit longwinded, I found it refreshing to hear a politician's wife who is so articulate on such a broad range of issues. Kudos must be given to Matthews for not cutting of Teresa's nuanced and thoughtful answers.

At 8:00, Matthews sat down Tom Brokaw to discuss convention politics over the last 44 years (also a taped interview). I thought the piece was extremely interesting, and I was particularly moved by the montage of Kennedy appearances dating back to 1956. With the archival video and Brokaw's memories of the nine sets of conventions he has covered for NBC over the years, I thought the program provided exemplary historical background on the significance of nominating conventions.

John Kerry's post-Vietnam experience was detailed in a documentary hosted by future NBC anchor Brian Williams at 9:00 PM. Kerry's appearance in front of the Senate and his leadership within the VVAW were highlighted very positively. The most intriguing part of the program examined Richard Nixon's feelings towards John Kerry and his attempts to silence the anti-war veteran. Showing the presumptive Democratic nominee as a righteous fighter maligned by Nixon certainly will not hurt Kerry.

The final program I watched was a look at 20 battleground states at 10:00. The show, hosted by Chris Jansing, detailed the Democrat's chances in these key states, as well as their strategies to win. With good interviews with Dee Dee Myers, Terry McAuliffe, and Bill Richardson, among others, the piece showed an assertive Democratic Party that is both willing and able to fight this election, tooth and nail. I particularly enjoyed the second to last segment of the show that highlighted Democratic efforts on behalf of Kerry-Edwards in Kennebunkport, ME, home of the Bush family compound; a highly positive segment, it showed that the Democrats will take the fight even to Bush's backyard.

Maybe this positive coverage by MSNBC will be short-lived, solely a consequence of the fact that the Democratic National Convention is being staged this week. I think it's possible, however, that this is indicative of the changing perception within the media that John Kerry actually has a shot at winning this election.

MSNBC, which is in many ways a weathervane judging the current political winds, was solidly behind the President for the year and a half following 9/11 (like much of the population). Since the Democratic primaries, though, they have been trending back towards the middle in their coverage (with the notable exception of right wing nut Joe Scarborough). If MSNBC continues this development after the convention through the election (that is to say if they continue to portray John Kerry in a positive light), Kerry's chances at election will be enhanced substantially.

Very few people watch MSNBC, however. If other networks and media outlets also begin to believe that John Kerry is the favorite to win this election, this may become a self-fulfilling prophecy as their optimism in Kerry's chances breeds increased optimism among the general voting public. It's far from certain that this will happen, but if the Kerry media team handles this convention well and continues pushing the media to accurately and fairly judge their campaign (and thus positively cover Kerry), Kerry's shot at winning in November will be greatly enhanced.

Below, I have charted the amount of cash on hand held by each party's candidates* in each "battleground state."** This can provide some insight into the status of the election, and additionally can indicate how much money a presidential candidate will have to invest in a state to make up for his party's deficit.

Leans Democrat

Deleware (No Senate race)
Democrats: $39
Republicans: $1,223,343

Maine (No Senate race)
Democrats: $899,560
Republicans: $329,999

Michigan (No Senate race)
Democrats: $2,274,095
Republicans: $4,913,566

Oregon
Democrats: $7,420,414
Republicans: $1,570,897

Washington
Democrats: $10,815,640
Republicans: $4,406,961

Tossup

Florida
Democrats: $12,856,358
Republicans: $17,586,336

Iowa
Democrats: $954,903
Republicans: $8,014,164

Minnesota (No Senate race)
Democrats: $1,795,823
Republicans: $3,312,234

Missouri
Democrats: $2,698,171
Republicans: $9,104,437

Nevada
Democrats: $6,430,976
Republicans: $1,887,210

New Hampshire
Democrats: $296,282
Republicans: $2,748,156

New Mexico (No Senate race)
Democrats: $1,051,318
Republicans: $2,232,647

Ohio
Democrats: $4,621,973
Republicans: $9,437,012

Pennsylvania
Democrats: $6,431,954
Republicans: $8,460,946

Wisconsin
Democrats: $5,897,241
Republicans: $5,253,373

Leans Republican

Colorado
Democrats: $3,460,382
Republicans: $4,967,663

North Carolina
Democrats: $7,251,497
Republicans: $9,581,192

West Virginia (No Senate race)
Democrats: $2,007,464
Republicans: $890,247

Methodology
All statistics from Political Money Line.
* - In the case of primaries, I chose the candidate with the most funds (i.e. in the FL Senate race I used numbers from Peter Deutsch and Mel Martinez, though Betty Castor, Alex Penelas, or Bill McCollum could be the nominees). Additionally, I did not count cash on hand for incumbent Senators who are not up for election.
** - As determined by Charlie Cook of the non-partisan Cook Political Report.

---

What do all of these numbers mean, aside from statistical noise?

The first point to note is that these numbers reflect incumbency; in states with more Republican Congressmen, the Republicans should have more cash on hand. Also, candidates often spend much of their cash on hand, but they rarely spend it all. The second important point to note is that although cash is extremely important in elections, it does not mean everything. The candidate who spends more money generally wins, but this does not always prove true (in 1998, Senator Al D'Amato outspent Congressman Chuck Schumer by a $24 million to $16 million margin, but still lost). Lastly, although down-ticket advertising can have some effects on the Presidential race and the funds Congressional candidates put into coordinated campaigns are important, it is still important for a Presidential candidate to spend heavily in a state if he wants to win. These points aside, we can learn a lot from these numbers.

The most important point I garner from this information is that the Democrats are in a better monetary situation in the three Republican-leaning states than the Republicans are in the five Democratic-leaning ones. As a result, John Kerry is already at an advantage when it comes to picking up red states relative to George W. Bush.

This doesn't mean that John Kerry is sure to win in Colorado, North Carolina, or West Virginia. Nonetheless, if Kerry is able to parlay his slight advatage into a win in one of these three states, it will be that much harder for President Bush to win another four years.

As ABC' Noted Now reports, The Sunday New York Times features an interesting article on George W. Bush's political situation which attempts to gauge the President's electoral chances by looking at historical analogies. A nice short read, it sums up American history pretty well. More importantly, it shows that the New York Times can occassionally have a spine and stand up to the President.

Michael Oreskes writes about how the President's situation mirrors that of Harry Truman in 1948 and Jimmy Carter in 1980: that he is "an incumbent facing a dubious electorate that could tip either way." He also writes:

"For Mr. Bush, the country is about evenly divided on approval of his presidency, according to the latest poll. But there are some ominous signs that Mr. Bush is beginning to suffer from a Johnson-style 'credibility gap' after sending the country to war to root out weapons of mass destruction and links to Al Qaeda, and being unable to prove either one. When asked by The New York Times and CBS News in June whether Mr. Bush was being completely honest about the war in Iraq, 20 percent of voters said he was mostly lying and 59 percent said he was hiding something. Only 18 percent thought he was telling the entire truth."

I am a big fan of analyzing history to draw comparisons to the present (I employ this tactic often, most notably in this post on Presidential debates and in this post on Oregon politics), so I like this article a lot. Specifically, I think the comparision between Bush and Johnson is dead on (though I don't think there is much comparision between this war and the Vietnam War), and I believe the linking of Bush's chances with Jimmy Carter's 24 years ago really fits. It's when Oreskes tries to bring up Harry Truman, however, that I get a bit skeptical.

I am a huge fan of Harry Truman, having read David McCullough's masterpiece Truman a few years ago. I have been an admirer of his presidency since I saw Gary Sinise portray him in the HBO movie Truman (which I saw in about the fifth grade).



Like Oreskes, I think there are some similarities between Bush 43 and Truman, though different ones than he mentions. Truman became President at the dawn of a new era in international relations (the beginning of the Cold War) just like Bush saw the beginning of the War on Terrorism, and both were seen by many as serving without a real political mandate (Truman because he was merely Vice President, Bush because he did not win the popular vote). I think this is just about where the analogy end, though.

Harry Truman was seen as a distinct underdog against a candidate who had faired relatively well against Franklin Delano Roosevelt four years earlier. Truman also faced defections from his party on the right (Strom Thurmond) and on the left (Henry Wallace). Neither of these can be said about Bush.

Truman was one of the great grassroots politicians of his time, and with Alben Barkley as his running mate, he had one of the Senate's most respected leaders at his side ensuring the South did not entirely defect. This cannot be said about Bush (Cheney is not even in the same ballpark as Barkley).

Truman was sitting atop the most dominant party the nation had seen in generations, the Democrats' New Deal coalition. Bush didn't even win the popular vote.

Truman had a Republican Congress to campaign against, as Dewey ran as a moderate while Truman forced Robert Taft's conservative majority to block all of Dewey's possible platform. Bush has no Democratic Majority to blame for the nation's ills.

I could go on and on with this, as I am such a Truman-phile and do not want his legacy tarnished by comparisons to George W. Bush. This is beside the point, however.

Despite my disapproval of the Truman analogy, this is an important piece to read as it is a clear signal that the media has become completely skeptical of the President, and more importantly his chances at reelection. The "Credibility Gap" comment linking Johnson and Bush particularly underscores this.

A professor of mine told me that he began to be pessimistic about Jimmy Carter's chances at reelection when the President lost the trust and support of the media in 1979-1980. It appears as though this is once again happening today. If George W. Bush is unable to overcome the media's skepticism this time around, he will go down in history along with Carter, his father and the others who were ignominiously turned out of office after just one term.

As I wrote in a comment on DailyKos, Senator Ron Wyden in generally willing to spend a lot in his campaigns, even when facing sparse competition. Here are the numbers from Political Money Line:

In 1998, Ron spent 87% of his funds ($2,865,378 of the $3,298,468 he raised) against a very week candidate in John Lim (who spent a mere $413,187). In 1994, the last year he ran for his extremely Democratic House district, he spent 75% of his funds ($437,586 of the $585,256 he raised). The numbers for his other reelection campaigns are 153% in 1992 (he had cash on hand left over from previous cycles), 98% in 1990, 48% in 1988, 90% in 1986, 90% in 1984, and 65% in 1982.

Someone just made me aware of Oregonians for Kerry, a website I highly recommend you check out if you're an Oregonian. I'll also post it now in my links section under Oregon Campaigns to Watch.

One more brief note on the political climate in the State of Oregon following last weeks series of posts on the state (on Historical Trends, History, The Senate Race, David Wu's Reelection Campaign, and Darlene Hooley's Reelection Campaign).

Of course we've all seen the recent poll from the American Research group indicating that John Kerry is leading in Oregon by a 50-42 margin, which is certainly a healthy lead. The Oregonian (the state's largest newspaper) even runs a story on the poll and what it might mean, in one graf writing that "Tim Hibbitts, an independent pollster in Portland, also gave the advantage to Kerry."

While polling at this juncture is important, it is not as key as cash on hand, an area in which candidates' spending up and down the ticket helps one another out. According to PoliticalMoneyLine.com, Democratic candidates for federal office in the state now have an immense lead when it comes to cash on hand. Currently, Sen. Ron Wyden, Reps. David Wu, Earl Blumenauer, Peter DeFazio and Darlene Hooley, and challeger John McColgan have a combined $7,420,414 on hand to the $1,570,897 on hand for Rep. Greg Walden and challengers Al King, Goli Ameri, James Feldkamp and Jim Zupancic. In a state in which 1,532,968 people voted in the Presidential race in 2000, this translates into an advantage of $4.84 per voter to $1.02 per voter.

It is true that money does not mean everything in an election, but history has shown that the side that is able to spend the most money generally wins. It appears essentially impossible for the Republicans to overcome this deficit, even if President Bush decides to pump substantial funds into the state before the election. This also means that although John Kerry will have to spend money in the state, he will be able to divert at least some funds out to help out in states he might pluck away from the Republicans, like Missouri, Colorado, Ohio and Florida. In 2000, the state may have been GOREGON, but this time around, Oregon's Kerry Country!

Charlie Cook once again has some interesting things to say about the state of the campaign over at his website, CookPolitical.com. Last week, Charlie indicated that although the race is far from over, he does not envy the position the President is currently in--which means a lot coming from the nation's top non-partisan poll analyst.

After debunking Matthew Dowd's 15-point bounce myth, Charlie again indicates that Bush is in a very precarious situation. He writes:

"This is certainly not to predict that Bush is going to lose, that this race is over or that other events and developments will not have an enormous impact on this race. The point is that this race has settled into a place that is not at all good for an incumbent, is remarkably stable, and one that is terrifying many Republican lawmakers, operatives and activists. But in a typically Republican fashion, they are too polite and disciplined to talk about it much publicly.

In a funny way, if this race were bouncing around, it would probably be a better sign for President Bush. It would suggest that there was some volatility to the race and that public attitudes had not yet hardened, and were thus still an eminently fixable situation. The dynamics of a presidential race usually do not change much between July and Election Day. This year, however, the race is much more stable than usual, which is ominous for an incumbent under these circumstances. The bottom line is that this presidential race is not over, but the outlook is not so great for the players in the red jerseys."

In one of my posts on Wednesday, I wrote about the relative inaccuracy of polling (based upon a Hill newspaper article), and how polls don't necessarily indicate the actual status of the campaign. I think Charlie emphasizes this point perfectly.

Although the race may seem static right now at 45-45--and thus tied--in all reality, it's John Kerry's race to lose at this stage. As I wrote on June 10 analyzing the LA Times Poll,

"The 44% of voters who are now in the Bush camp are probably there to stay, as are the 44% solidly in the Kerry camp. However, it is foolish to believe that this is the same thing as 50-50. Because people's impressions of Bush are unlikely to change over the coming months, his 44% could realistically mean only 44% support in November (Yes, this could mean 56% for Kerry)."

The Democrats certainly cannot let down their guard at this stage, and I think John Kerry is on the right track by opening up more to the public and exhibiting his charm to try to woo voters. If Kerry continues to present himself as a suitable alternative while staying out of the way of the Bush Administration as it crumbles before our eyes (like Reagan did 24 years ago), he could score a stunning victory come November.

As "ronbeas" reported over at DailyKos, Ralph Nader has once again failed to make it on to the ballot in Oregon. Although he might be able to scrounge up the 15,000 signatures necessary for ballot access in the state (with the help of the GOP, of course), it remains to be seen if he will make a significant difference in the state or even in the national race.

I know many people are currently fretting Ralph's egomaniacal run for President, fearing that he will ciphon votes away from the presumptive Democratic nominee, John Kerry. Although I'm certain he will garner a fair share of votes come November, I think we are all overstating our concerns.

Why might I say this?

2004 is not 2000. Although Al Gore (arguably) had better liberal credentials than John Kerry (and he was certainly the most environmentally conscious major party candidate since Theodore Roosevelt), the base was not fired up about him for a number of reasons, key among which was that they thought there was no way he could lose. [While canvassing in North Portland four years ago on election night, I talked to countless voters who decided to vote Nader rather than Gore solely because it appeared as though Gore had the election wrapped up (with wins in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida)]. I truly don't believe such voters will once again choose Nader.

A more important point to note, though, is that George W. Bush will face competition from his right in the form of Libertarian and Constitution Party nominees Michael Badnarik and Michael Peroutka, respectively. Both parties have strong right wing followings: in the case of Badnarik, among fiscal conservatives; in the case of Peroutka, among Christian conservatives. Badnarik is even trying to garner the support of the left (like Ralph's unholy coalition with the right) by advertising on MyDD.

Such candidates may seem to be frivolous to us, but they could be just as troubling to the Republicans as Nader is to the Dems. Clearly, minor right wing parties can make a difference. In 1998, the Constitution Party's nominee for Pennsylvania Governor, Peg Luksik, got 315,761 votes, or 10.4%! 2002 saw Oregon Democrat Ted Kulongoski narrowly defeat Republican Kevin Mannix by only 36,219 votes out of 1,260,497 cast in the Gubernatorial election as the Libertarian candidate Tom Cox received 57,760 votes. There are many other similar cases in which Libertarian and Constitution Party candidates have made a difference.

Though Mr. Nader might make a difference in the race by wooing potential Kerry voters, if a similar number of people in swing states vote Constitution or Libertarian instead of Republican, Ralph very well could be counteracted. As a result, though we should fight Ralph Nader and his right wing buddies this time around, I don't think we should worry about him quite as much as we did four years ago.

The Economist magazine has just released its third weekly poll of the campaign season, and I think it has a lot of good news for the Democrats and John Kerry.

The Economist/You Gov Poll

As of now, what do you think you are most likely to end up doing on November 2?

Vote for George W Bush 44%
Vote for John F Kerry 47%
Vote for Ralph Nader 3%
Vote for someone else 3%
Not vote at all 2%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way President George W. Bush is handling his job as president?

Approve 41%
Disapprove 53%
Don't know 6%

Who would you prefer to be in control of the CONGRESS after the next election?

Democrats 43%
Republicans 37%
Don't know 20%

MoE: +/- 2%
Fieldwork 19-21 July 2004
Total Sample: 1731
"Registered to vote": 1433
"Will definitely vote": 1310

------

I think the key aspect of this poll to watch is the anemic approval rating. Additionally, Americans are dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time by a 54%-37% margin. Although the current margin for Kerry isn't so high, things are looking awful for the President.

Well, sort of...

Being the vain person I am, I was searching for myself on Google once again when I happened upon a site a friend of mine created some time ago.

While I was in high school, I had the distinct honor of playing with one of the nation's finest young jazz guitarists around, John Storie, and the group we subsequently created with a couple of friends became known as the "Tyme Quartet."

The CD we created at the end of our high school careers, entitled "Concepts in Tyme," went on receive an outstanding performance award in Downbeat Magazine, which was pretty exciting.

Although my playing this summer is relegated to plucking around on my mom's old folk guitar (rather than my upright bass, as I could not transport it cross country--twice), I'll always fondly remember my days as a straight ahead jazz musician, playing a lot of bop.

PS: You can still order the CDs. Just email me and we'll figure something out.

Another interesting article out in today's Hill newspaper. Democratic pollster Mark Mellman, who has worked for Senator John Kerry, among others, debunks the myth that polling is an exact science, but rather a methodology not understood by many.

The article is a must read (I know I've had a lot of must reads lately, but bear with me) as it passes along a lot of important information. Although journalists and pundits alike love quoting polls ad nauseum, most do not possess sufficient understanding of statistics to properly analyze, let alone read the multitude of polls that come out each month. What is more, Mellman explains that though there is significantly more polling available today than at any previous time, more doesn't necessarily mean better or more exact.

The two main critiques made by the author are as follows. First, there is disagreement over use of "likely" or "registered" voters (or if there is a significant difference between the two). The second, and I think more important point is that people do not understand what the margin of error means in polling (i.e. that there is a MOE for each candidate, not the poll itself). Selected quotes follow:

On the proliferation of polling:

"In 1948 and 1956, Gallup conducted seven national horse-race polls on the presidential election between March and July. In 2004, during those same months, 92 different surveys measured the race between Kerry and Bush. That is an average of nearly five per week."

On "likely" v. "registered":

"Some would argue that while some polls survey likely voters, others focus just on registered voters.

Studies show no systematic differences in the accuracy of so-called “likely voter” polls compared with polls of registered voters. Others point to the shoddy workmanship of some survey organizations."

On margins of error:

"Not to go statistical, but the margin of error exists on each number (the Bush vote and the Kerry vote, independently). Thus, the margin of error on the 'margin' between the candidates is twice the margin of error for the poll. For example, a poll with a margin of error of four points will have a margin of error on the margin between the candidates of plus or minus eight points."

I think this last quote is the gem of the entire piece. Although I had learned this in a college class my freshman year, most Americans (and more importantly and unfortunately most pundits) don't understand that the MOE is for each candidate, not just for the poll. At best, this is a good point to bring up in conversation, especially when some talking head begins professing that one candidate is surging ahead in the polls after a shift of a couple points; at the least, it is good fodder for my skeptical mind.

Today I received my edition of The New Yorker, which is certainly not news in and of itself (though one of the major perks of being on the East Coast this summer is receiving the magazine about a week earlier than I do out in California or Oregon). After going through my weekly routine of perusing the magazine, focusing on whose playing in New York's finest jazz clubs this week (Eartha Kitt, of original Catwoman fame, and drummer Lewis Nash, among others) and of course the comics (the week's best is below), I stumbled upon an extensive article on John Kerry.



I didn't get a chance to read the piece until I went to the gym tonight, and reading it occupied the better part of an hour on the elliptical machine (the slowness of my reading, my propensity to bounce while on the machine and the sheer length of the article surely extended the reading time). Though it is surely slanted in a liberal direction (is any of The New Yorker not slightly slanted?), I would certainly recommend it as a must read.

The article is highly nuanced, somewhat longwinded, extremely thorough and at times equivocal... like John Kerry himself. It portrays John Forbes Kerry who in both a positive and negative light, contrasting his strengths (he is a masterful politician, as evidenced by his ability to claim the nomination after "he was trailing Al Sharpton in some polls") with his weaknesses (his propensity to complicate issues, or at least not thoroughly explain his positions). Focusing primarily on his biography and his foreign policy stances, it is a great pre-convention read.

It also reminded me that there is an even more important read on John Kerry's foreign policy to occupy your time before the DNC in Boston. Joshua Micah Marshall, of Talking Points Memo fame, thoroughly details Kerry's international relations stances in this month's Atlantic, and specifically how his views bear a striking resemblance to President Bush... that is to say, George Herbert Walker Bush.

Utilizing the same extensive research he provides us daily over at TPM, Marshall provides a Kerry vision of multilateralism and quasi-"Scowcroftian middle ground." The article is significantly shorter than its New Yorker counterpart (it doesn't pay the same attention to Kerry's childhood or Vietnam experience), but it is nonetheless the quintessential primer to Kerry's foreign policy.

It appears as though I am coming to the end of the road with this series of articles analyzing the current political climate in the state of Oregon, and specifically, how a number of mitigating factors (Historical Trends, History, The Senate Race, and David Wu's Reelection Campaign) will affect John Kerry's chances in the state. Taken as a whole, I think they provide at least a snapshot into federal politics as they stand in the Beaver State.

2004 will see two competitive House races in districts currently held by the Oregon Democrats. Although they do not show up on the "10 races to watch" lists compiled on a number of political sites, they are nevertheless important seats for the Democrats to retain in this election if they indeed wish to regain control of the House for the first time in 10 years. As a result, the highly-contested attempts of Representatives David Wu (OR-1) and Darlene Hooley (OR-5) at reelection will almost certainly serve as the bellwethers of John Kerry's chances at winning the state.

In this post, let's look at the fifth district, which covers a number of Portland's southern and western suburbs, and also areas out to the Pacific coast. A moderate Democrat representing a somewhat right-of-center constituency, Darlene Hooley has been targeted by Republicans ever since she defeated first-term Representative Jim Bunn in 1996. Though her opponents have tried to brand her as a liberal out-of-touch with her district, such attacks have failed to substantially hurt the Congresswoman, a self-described "independent voice for Oregon." What is more, her more than able caseworkers have ensured that she maintains a good relationship with her constituents.

During the last two election cycles, the district's Republicans nominated rancher Brian Boquist to attempt to reclaim the fifth district; in 2000 and 2002, Hooley won by somewhat comfortable margins of 37,684 and 24,272, respectively. These wins, in which Hooley garnered 57% and 55% of the vote, are to a degree remarkable given that her district voted 48.5-47.0 for George W. Bush in 2000.

Boquist appeared to be a shoo-in for renomination this spring until the Lieutenant Colonel in the Special Forces was called to duty by the Army Reserves. As a result, an open primary was held between Jim Zupancic, a member of the school board of Lake Oswego (one of Oregon's richest cities), and Jackie Winters, a member of the state Senate. The Republicans, when confronted with the choice between the extremely conservative Zupancic and the moderate African American woman Winters, unsurprisingly chose the former, arguably the less electable of the two. Though Zupancic is an able fundraiser with more than $700,000 raised so far, he was forced to run almost non-stop attack ads during the primary, and as a result has only $173,262 on hand as of the June 30 filing deadline (according to politicalmoneyline.com). Accordingly, the Republican nominee will face a tough uphill battle in the coming months.

Darlene Hooley, on the other hand, is both a prolific fundraiser and possessor of a large war chest. Like her fellow Oregon Dems Ron Wyden and David Wu, the Congresswoman is an able and avid fundraiser, pulling in close to $1.3 million so far in this cycle; in contrast to Wyden and Wu, who get more than half of their money from out of state, Hooley receives just shy of 80% of her contributions from Oregon residents, signalling a widespread support for her across the state. As it currently stands, Hooley ranks 34th out of all candidates for the House in terms of current account balance with $1,294,230 on hand, according to politicalmoneyline.com.

With neither the political acumen nor the financial resources at hand, it appears as though Jim Zupancic will not be able to knock off the incumbent, Darlene Hooley. Although no public polling is currently available in the district, the Congresswoman's proven track record of winning in a slightly Republican district against far better challengers than Zupancic leads this author to believe that Hooley should just about coast to reelection. This is not to say that Hooley will not work extremely hard to be reelected. Though she has only spent about $360,000 this term (staying quiet while the Republican candidates duked it out for the nomination), as we get closer to Election Day, watch for Hooley to make good use of her superior resources and fundraising abilities to ensure her reelection.

Now for the implications the contest in District 5 might have on the Presidential race in the state. With Darlene Hooley spending upwards of $2 million on television ads, grassroots organizing and Get Out The Vote in the state's key swing district, John Kerry's shot at winning the state is certainly good.

Al Gore carried Oregon in 2000 by only four tenths of a percent while losing the fifth district by a 48.5-47.0 margin; this would lead one to believe that Kerry will need to keep the race close in the district in November in order to aid his chances at winning the state's seven electoral votes, and consequently the Presidency. To do this, he will need to continue to cultivate his relationship with the independent-minded Hooley to enlist her help in the district.

With Darlene Hooley by his side, John Kerry should have less trouble winning over the sometimes fickle swing voters that reside in the district, and thus will be one step closer to winning the state. Accordingly, because of Oregon's unique political climate at this moment, especially due to the clout of Congresswoman Hooley among the state's moderates and independents, Oregon should not be the center of national attention as a battleground, and John Kerry should invest his time, money and energy in closer swing states to ensure his victory.

This is the fifth and final piece in a series of two articles on the race in Oregon (the series has been expanded, though I think it's done... for now). Stay tuned to Basie! for more posts on US and Oregonian politics in the coming days, weeks and months.

Bob Novak, whom I believe is one of the worst human beings in this country, has an op-ed out today echoing sentiments I wrote not too long ago on my blog: that Bill Frist is a miserable failure as Senate Majority Leader. Though I rarely agree with Novak, this is one instance where I think he is partially right.

The main point that Novak tries to impart in the reader is that Frist has been terribly ineffective as Majority Leader. While Bob and I think this is bad for different reasons (he thinks it's bad because he's a rabid, right-wing ideologue, I believe it's bad because he's tarnishing the bipartisan legacy of the Senate), I think his premise that Frist is no good is correct. The two prime examples Novak cites are the Class-Action reform bill and the FMA, both big losses for the Republicans; he believes that both were caused by Frist's inability and the relative strengths of the Democratic leadership.

This is one point that I also agree with. Although some of us in the blogosphere like to attack Mssrs. Daschle and Reid for their moderation, they have proved to be an effective team. Even if they were unable to stand up to the extremely popular post-9/11 Bush (you can fault them, though I wouldn't), credit must be given to the Democratic leaders for capitalizing on the shift of popular opinion away from the President in recent months, with the successes of blocking judicial nominations, getting on conference committees, blocking the unfair Tort reform, and stopping the FMA serving as just a few examples of their successes.

They might not be the greatest leaders the Senate has ever seen, but they have been doing a commendable job as of late. As a result, let's be happy we have Daschle and Reid rather than Frist and McConnell!

Due to a myriad of issues--predominantly internet access, but also slow campaign finance reporting--this post is coming a bit later than its three predecessors (here, here and here). Taken as a whole, I think they give a good basis of insight into the current status of the presidential campaign in the state of Oregon based upon history, historical trends, current polling, and the state's Congressional and Senatorial races.

Although the current balance of power might not indicate it, Oregon has been a highly competitive state in recent cycles. Though Democrats control the state Senate (which is technically tied 15-15), every statewide office other than one Senate seat (held by the very wealthy Gordon Smith), and four out of five congressional seats, results in elections contested by both parties have been much closer than outsiders might otherwise imagine (2002 saw Democrat Ted Kulongoski defeat uber-rightwinger Kevin Mannix by only 36,219 votes out of 1,260,497 cast as the Libertarian candidate Tom Cox garnered 57,760 votes). Nevertheless, the once-Republican stronghold has voted Democratic in the last four presidential elections and is trending Democratic in many respects.

2004 will see two competitive House races in districts currently held by the Democrats. Although they do not show up on the "10 races to watch" lists compiled on a number of political sites, they are nevertheless important seats for the Democrats to retain in this election if they indeed wish to regain control of the House for the first time in 10 years. As a result, the highly-contested attempts of Representatives David Wu (OR-1) and Darlene Hooley (OR-5) at reelection will almost certainly serve as the bellwethers of John Kerry's chances at winning the state.

In this post, let's look at the first district (where I vote), which covers the northwest corner of the state. Wu, a self-described "New Democrat", has represented the district for nearly six years and hasn't faced a real challenge since his first run in 1998 against Molly Bordonaro in which he won 119,993 to 112,827 (also the only race in which his heavy spending was nearly matched, $1,627,959 to $1,367,154, according to PoliticalMoneyLine.com). The Congressman, born in Taiwan, "is the first and only Chinese-American to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives" (link), and as a result raises a great deal of his money from the Chinese community around the nation (about two-thirds of his money comes from out of state). A centrist with strong ties to the technology sector, his most memorable moment this term was when he chose to withhold his vote on the Medicare Prescription Drugs bill until the Republicans had sufficient votes on their side to triumph, and only then voted in favor of the bill (the vote stood 218-216 for about two and a half hours that morning--trust me, I watched it).

For the first time since Wu was initially elected, though, the Republicans believe they have a real shot at taking over the seat. Republicans are in fact so keen on their nominee that that NRCC chairman Tom Reynolds (NY) has labeled her "one of nine Republican challengers deserving the backing of national Republican groups, and the only candidate on the list west of the Rocky Mountains."

Goli Ameri is surprisingly similar to Wu when he first ran; an Iranian-American woman with no previous political experience, Ameri derives much of her support from the Persian community around the nation (like Wu, about two-thirds of her money comes from out of state). If elected, she would become the nation's first and only Iranian legislator. Also like Wu, she has roots in the region's technology sector, which is proudly known as the "Silicon Forest" (the district is home to Intel's largest base of operations, for example).

Without the benefits of extensive polling, the easiest (and admittedly crude) method of gauging the race is by looking at current cash on hand and overall fundraising. As of June 30 (the end of the last filing deadline), both candidates had raised respectable sums of money ($1,576,817 for Wu and $1,309,101 for Ameri). The cash on hand snapshot is significantly different from total fundraising, however, as Ameri was forced to participate in a hard-fought, three-way race for the nomination, culminating with her 48% of the May 18th primary. Currently, while Ameri has $441,755 on hand (a decent amount of money for a challenger at this juncture), the incumbent Wu has a whopping $1,547,431 (a lot for a small state like Oregon).

Wu is not extremely popular in the district, so his situation is somewhat tenuous. Nevertheless, he holds an immense lead in cash-on-hand and is still raising money (over $360,000 in the last quarter). The kicker, for Wu, is that his district went for Gore by nearly 7 points in 2000 in a state decided by about four tenths of a percent. As a result, although he will certainly have to work hard, David Wu should be reelected relatively easily.

Now for the implications the contest in District 1 might have on the Presidential race in the state. Although it appears as though David Wu should win another two years by a healthy margin, the Congressman has never been one to leave things up to chance. Two years ago, during a good cycle for Republicans, Wu faced a weak challenger in Jim Greenfield, whom he beat by about 78,000 votes; nonetheless, Representative Wu invested over $1 million in the race. As a result, we can expect Wu, who has already spent close to $750,000 over the past year and a half, to use at least $2.5 million in his campaign against Ameri.

All of this money spent will surely galvanize the district's Democrats and liberals come November, and every dollar Wu uses for Get Out The Vote and grassroots organizing in the district (not to mention big money towards advertising purchases) is a dollar that John Kerry can invest in another part of the state, or more likely in another state like Colorado or North Carolina that he intends to make competitive.

David Wu's generous use of campaign funds will certainly not make Oregon a shoo-in for Kerry, but it will make the Massachusetts Senator's life much easier over the next three and a half months. Accordingly, because of Oregon's unique political climate at this moment, especially due to the large wallet of Congressman David Wu, the state should not be at the center of national attention as a battleground, and John Kerry should invest his time, money and energy in closer swing states to ensure his victory.

This is the fourth in a series of two articles on the race in Oregon (the series has been expanded)

My internet here has been down for a while, so I haven't even been able to read the news lately, let alone write analysis. Luckily, almost all of the second quarter fundraising totals are finally in, so later tonight I'll have a final wrapup of the state of the presidential campaign in Oregon... for now.

Sorry for the relative dearth of posts here at Basie! I had been trying to write 1-2 articles a day this week, but I just didn't have it in me today.

Tomorrow, the fundraising numbers for the second quarter come out, so I'll write about those. Specifically, I'll talk about the effect of money on Oregon's congressional races, and in turn, the effect of the races on the Presidential race. If anything else newsworthy comes up, I'll write about that as well.

For the readers who still want to hear about my weekends in NYC and Central Oregon, your time will come soon...

Blogger (a.k.a. blogspot.com) informs me that it is planning to have 2 hours of downtime tonight, July 13, between 8p-10p (Pacific Time). Blogging should resume as normal after 10p.

Sorry for the inconvenience!

The reason I initially began to write these posts stemmed from some recent news on Oregon politics (regarding the Bush Administration's attack on the Doctor Assisted Suicide law). As the number of readers on this blog increased after my first two posts on Oregon politics, I thought it would behoove me to welcome the positive response by writing more on Presidential politics in Oregon. So here goes...

In my two previous posts (here and here), I looked at some of the historical trends that might impact the Presidential contest in Oregon. In short, it is my supposition that Oregon--like Illinois, for example--has been trending Democratic over the last decade and a half, and that this trend will continue with a Kerry victory in the state in November. My second thesis is that Bush's attempts to overturn the Death With Dignity law--in effect, an attack on the state electorate as a whole--while shoring up support among the most conservative in the nation, will do little to garner the necessary majority in the state.

This afternoon's post focuses more on current politics, rather than historical trends, as I examine the possible effects Oregon's Senatorial race on the presidential race in the state.

Just below the Presidential race on the ballot, Democratic Senator Ron Wyden is a clear favorite to win reelection. With close to $3.5 million in the bank as of the last filing deadline (which was three months ago, so he has more now), he would be extremely tough to beat by anyone other than perhaps a Mark Hatfield (whose 30 years in the Senate was sufficient in his mind). Additionally, Wyden, a moderate who appeals to the state's bipartisan history, is an extremely able campaigner.

Nevertheless, it's puzzling that the Republicans were so reluctant to run any real competition against the senior Senator. Although Wyden defeated his 1998 challenger John Lim by close to a 2-1 margin, the Republicans did not even try to field an up-and-coming candidate to raise name recognition for a future election. Oregon's GOP ended up selecting Al King in the May 18 primary to run against Wyden; as of the June 12 filing deadline, King had $209 available on hand. Not $209,000... $209!!!

So why are the Republicans not trying to defeat Wyden--a Democrat in a "battleground state"--when the Senate is on the line?

If there is no impetus--no obvious reason--for Wyden to actively campaign, (why should he spend $3.5 million when he could save it for another day when he really needed it?), it is most likely that he will choose to either keep his money for later or distribute it to other Senatorial candidates across the nation to aide any future run for party leadership.

As noted above, Wyden is an able campaigner with a lot of money to spend in the state, for both advertising and GOTV (get out the vote). These two costly activities, if implemented in earnest by Wyden, would undoubtedly aide the state's Democrats up and down the ticket. What is more, if undertaken by Wyden rather than Kerry, which would save Kerry money to spend in actual battleground states. If the Republicans are able to lull Wyden into thinking he is a shoo-in for reelection--as they may have with the uninspiring King--they may believe it will be easier for Bush to steal the state.

Regardless of Karl Rove's machinations and theories about the effects of competitive Senate races on close elections, I don't think the Presidential race in Oregon is tight enough for Wyden's lack of spending to make a real difference. Though it would certainly be helpful for Kerry if Wyden unloaded a sizeable chunk of his warchest to ensure high Democratic turnout around the state, I don't think Oregon's Senate race will affect the Presidential outcome (unlike in Colorado, where Ken Salazar's lead in the polls has turned a Republican-leaning state into a possible pickup for Kerry). As a result of this, and other reasons, I think Oregon will remain safely Democratic in 2004.

This is the third in a series of two articles on the race in Oregon (the series has been expanded)

The reason I initially began to write these two posts stemmed from some recent news on Oregon politics. I thought the two would stand better apart as two separate posts--one historical, one current--rather than one mish-mashed post. So here goes...

The AP reports today that the Bush Administration is once again actively pursuing the overturn of the state's Doctor Assisted Suicide law.

"The Bush administration asked a federal appeals court here Monday to reconsider a May decision that upheld Oregon's assisted suicide law and prohibited federal charges against doctors who prescribe overdoses.

The administration wants the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to set aside its ruling backing the nation's only law allowing doctors to assist in hastening the death of patients. [...]

The three-judge panel in May ruled that, under the state's voter-approved law, Attorney General John Ashcroft cannot sanction or hold Oregon doctors criminally liable for prescribing overdoses."

President Bush is skating on very thin ice in Oregon (I know... there is no ice in Oregon now. It's actually just about the most beautiful part of the nation this time of year. I digress).

In an extension of his strategy to pander to his uber-Right wing constituency to shore up his rapidly dwindling national poll numbers (most notably with the FMA), Bush is gravely risking turning Oregon into a solidly Blue state--a la neighbors to the north and south, Washington and California.

It's not enough that the state Republican Party has refused to nominate any candidates near the middle of the political spectrum since Hatfield or Packwood (or maybe Norma Paulus). Now, the head of the national Republican Party--President George W. Bush--is actively campaigning against the voters of the state. If this doesn't turn off Oregon voters, I'm not sure what can!

Oregon has a highly democratic view of democracy. The previous sentence may seem redundant, but it is not meant to be. While America's founding fathers were concerned about a direct democracy (read Federalist #10), Oregon's early leaders preferred it to representative democracy. William U’Ren, a political reformer, pushed through sweeping democratic reforms in the early 1900s that gave the state the initiative and referendum by 1902. The entire package of constitutional reforms, known as the "Oregon Plan," included direct primaries by 1904, direct elections of US senators by 1906, the recall of public officials by 1908, the presidential preference primary by 1910, and woman's suffrage by 1912 (link).

In recent years, this legacy has thrived with statewide vote-by-mail, which ensures close to the nation's highest voter turnout. Oregon's initiatives have come from left and right alike, with everything from anti-tax and anti-homosexuality measures to school reform and the legalization medicinal marijuana. However, no bill epitomizes Oregon's staunch quasi-libertarian belief in direct democracy as much as the Doctor Assisted Suicide law.

In 1994, and again in 1997, Oregon voters chose rightly or wrongly to allow terminally ill patients, with less than six months left to live, to have the right to terminate their lives. Only "after two doctors confirm the diagnosis and determine the patient to be mentally competent to make the request" (link) can the patient die, and only 171 have chosen to do so over the last six years.

Nevertheless, President Bush is ignoring the popular view of Oregon voters (especially interesting given the reasoning behind the FMA--that "unelected" "radical" judges are subverting popular will on Gay Marriage). Acceding to his AG (Ashcroft has long hated Oregon's bill), Bush believes that he can effectively win the state by garnering the votes of the extremely conservative. This is a poor strategy, to say the least, given that anti-gay bills and other such socially conservative measures have failed in the past (albeit by unbearably miniscule margins, at times).

The oft-noted Zogby Battleground Poll--conducted before release of this story--puts Senator John Kerry ahead of Bush by a wide margin: 51.6%-42.4%, well outside the margin of error. Given the historical trend in the state away from the Republican Party and possible (and probable) voter angst over Bush's attempt to subvert their will, the state should not even be close in November. For this reason, and others I will continue to detail, I believe Oregon should not be labeled a "battleground state," but rather a Democratic stronghold that will only defect in a Bush landslide.

This is the second in a series of two articles on the race in Oregon (perhaps I'll write a few more over the next week, though)

The basic rubric for determining the "battleground states" for the 2004 election, according to the pundits, are close results from four years ago. Judging by various estimates, there are between 15 and 19 "swing states" that will determine the outcome of this years election; one of these is my home state, Oregon.

In the 2000 campaign, Vice President Al Gore defeated Texas Governor George W. Bush in the state of Oregon by a paltry 6,765 votes out of 1,533,968--a mere four tenths of a percentage point. Although the race was not as close as Florida or New Mexico, which were decided by a few hundred votes each, the Presidential election in the state of Oregon was just about as close as they come.

Using the aforementioned methodology, clearly Oregon should be labeled a swing state, no?

No.

Although Oregon was once the bastion of Western Republicanism--it was known as the "Vermont of the West" when Vermont was still solidly GOP also--today, the state parties are similarly unbalanced. While just a decade ago liberal Republican Senators Mark Hatfield and Bob Packwood--Chairmen of the Appropriations and Finance Committees in the 1990s, respectively--were all-powerful in the state and epitomized the rogue, bipartisanship that the state admired, today it is the Democratic party that holds all statewide elective offices (other than Sen. Gordon Smith) and four out of five House seats.

What possibly could have caused all of this change? (I recommend Robert E. Burton's Democrats of Oregon: The Pattern of Minority Politics 1900-1956 for a good historical background on the subject)

In 1988, the year Vice President George H. W. Bush won the popular vote by 7,000,000 and the Electoral College by a 426-112 margin over Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis, the Democrat garnered 50,000+ more votes than Bush the Elder. This must have seemed like quite the stunning achievement given the fact that Oregon had voted Democratic in seven of the 32 presidential elections in the state's history to that point (if you take out FDR, it was three out of 28!). Perhaps the 1988 vote was an aberration, some pundits wondered.

As history would show, this was not a freak incidence, but rather the "watershed" election that realigned the parties in the state. In each proceeding presidential campaign the state has become increasingly Democratic, voting twice for Bill Clinton and for Gore in 2000 (as noted before). As a result, it appears as though 2000--not 1988--was the anomaly for the state.

So what happened in 2000?

I'm sure the issue has been thoroughly analyzed by political scientists far wiser than me. However, the main reasons (like across the country) were Gore's lack of charisma and the Nader factor (I experienced reactions to both of these when I canvassed north Portland on election night 2000).

As a result, Gore's abnormally low results in the state should not necessarily lead people to think that Oregon is a battleground.

This is the first in a series of two articles on the race in Oregon.