The Court Supreme and the Election

In the past two weeks, the Supreme Court handed down four decisions that could affect the dynamic and rhetoric of the Obama-McCain matchup. From the landmark Second Amendment ruling in D.C. v. Heller to the less-noticed tweaking of campaign finance law in Davis v. F.E.C., all four rulings broke from the Roberts Court's recent trend and reverted back to the five-to-four, liberal-v.-conservative bloc rulings of the past. Anthony Kennedy cemented his position as the new O'Connor-ite swing vote, Nino Scalia finally got to write a binding manifesto for the conservative movement, and Samuel Alito struck a blow for millionaires everywhere.

All four decisions broke 5-4, with the liberals (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer) opposing the conservatives (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito) and with Kennedy swinging liberal twice and conservative twice. In today's political world, of course, the candidates will probably be helped most by the decisions they opposed: nothing strengthens a call for new blood on the Court like giving rights to terrorists or declaring a sacred right to own a gun.

Protocol analysis of the decisions and their possible effects on the election below the fold.

In declining order of importance:

1. D.C. v. Heller
The decision: In a 5-4 opinion by Scalia, the Court for the first time interpreted the Second Amendment to guarantee an individual right to bear arms unlimited by the requirement of a state militia. The federal government cannot ban the ownership of any gun traditionally used for self-defense, and faces an as-yet-unspecified level of scrutiny on any restrictions it seeks to impose. Scalia carefully hedges that certain types of "unusual and dangerous" weapons may be banned, and that restrictions ownership by felons, minors, and the mentally handicapped would be allowed. For all its radical historical importance, the ruling itself is quite narrow: it explicitly leaves unaddressed the question of whether the Second Amendment is incorporated to apply against the states as well as the federal government.

The political fallout: McCain on offense, Obama on effective defense. Gun control has long been a hot button issue for the right, less so for the left. Obama's official position on gun control (stashed away in "Sportsmen" under "Additional Issues" on his website) has been consistent: he supports the individual right interpretation but leaves room for restrictions. He did say that he believed the D.C. handgun law was constitutional. McCain, despite his C+ from the NRA and staggering F- from Gun Owners of America, signed the amicus brief on Heller's behalf and has attacked Obama for flip-flopping on the issue.

Protocol Advantage?: Obama. His position was carefully tailored to blunt the impact of the decision: he knows it's political poison in these United States to oppose a Second Amendment right to bear arms. The decision will likely cement his support among those who fear a full-on right-wing Court under McCain, but his vaguely moderate gun control position won't turn off the great middle.


2. Boumediene v. Bush
The decision: In a 5-4 opinion by Kennedy, the Court held that all detainees held in Guantanamo Bay have the habeas corpus right to be informed of the charges against them and freed if evidence to support their detention is lacking. The Court, and not the Executive branch, is the final arbiter of "enemy combatant" determinations, Congressional legislation to the contrary notwithstanding. Protocol analysis here and here.

The political fallout: McCain responded cautiously at first, but then realized that Boumediene plays directly to his self-portrait as the only candidate serious about the War on "Terror" and called it "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.” (Probably after an aide read it and found Scalia's gift: "[this decision] will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.") Obama's statement supporting the decision hit some strong notes--"this is an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus"--which were then promptly undermined by some pure bullshit: "this Administration's position is not tough on terrorism." Really?

Protocol Advantage?: McCain. The hard right, already deeply suspicious of McCain's conservative bona fides, hates Kennedy and sees Boumediene as an unconscionable act of aid and comfort to the nation's enemies. In an election where McCain's success may depend on his ability to turn out the footsoldiers, his promise to appoint more Scalias and Alitos will only seem more vital.


3. Kennedy v. Louisiana
The decision: A 5-4 Court, again led by Kennedy (no relation, we hope), struck down a Lousiana statute allowing the death penalty for child rape. Interpreting the "cruel and unusual" language of the Eighth Amendment, the Court held that the ever-changing meaning of those words currently forbids the death penalty for any crime other than murder. Civilized people rejoiced; bloodthirsty revenge-mongers groused angrily.

The political fallout: Eh. Sad to say, the American public seems to have found its consensus on the death penalty--which Justice Kennedy, with his O'Connor-esque nose for public opinion, conveniently reflected in his decision. Obama made a lurch to the center by stating his public opposition to the holding, presciently warding off any gotcha debate questions along the lines of "so if your daughters were raped, you wouldn't call for the rapist's death, what kind of fuckin man ARE YOU?"

Protocol Advantage? Wash. The death penalty just isn't an issue either side gets too worked up about anymore. Obama's triangulation on the issue leaves him well-protected from those on the right who really really want to kill child rapists (and I mean, who kinda doesn't), and the left won't abandon him over it.


4. Davis v. Federal Election Commission
The decision: In yet another 5-4 opinion, this time by Alito, the Court struck down the Millionaire's Amendment of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act. The provision allowed the opponent of a candidate who poured his own money into a race to receive extra donations to offset the millionaire's effect. Alito's opinion, mostly on First Amendment grounds, continued the Roberts Court's gutting of McCain's pet project by holding that the government cannot interfere with money-as-speech, even in the context of a public election.

The political fallout: Not a lot. The average voter doesn't get too worked up about complicated pieces of campaign finance reform legislation, and neither McCain nor Obama probably wants to play this up much. McCain's efforts to reform campaign finance outraged the right, who saw the law as an act of rank treason against Republican interests. If the Court had upheld the provision, he might have wanted to use it to play toward the middle's widespread disgust with corrupt politicians--but what's the point in highlighting a right-wing Court's full-on dissing of his law? And Obama won't want to remind voters that McCain made his bones in the public eye largely as a maverick outsider who vowed to clean up the system--and who passed the most comprehensive campaign finance bill since Watergate. Both candidates will probably let this one lie.

Protocol Advantage? Slight McCain--any play this decision will get among voters will only remind them of McCain's credentials as a reformer. The right will be pleased that the provision was struck down, and since they already hate him for the act in the first place, they're not gonna hate him more now.

Millionaires, child molesters, gun owners, and terrorists all have their appointed roles to fill under the October Protocol.

Read More...

Summary only...

General Bethlehem in The Times

Paul Villarreal, The Protocol's favorite delusional PUMA general, is at it again, getting his name dropped in the NYT as part of a new generation of freelance dirty tricksters. The Gray Lady soft-pedals his achievements, though, calling them a "harsh series of spots that attack Obama and make some claims that have been widely debunked." He is, in fact, batshit crazy:

My adversaries rightly fear me. They constantly seek to marginalize me and they expend vast amounts of energy trying to get others to ignore me. Because my foes cannot hope to compete with me head-to-head, theirs is a sound strategy and one I have become used to over the years. I imagine Custer, similarly, had a gameplan heading into Little Bighorn. This is how I feel about my opponents' tactics. I don't concern myself much with what they do and instead focus on what I need to execute vis-a-vis my own battle plans.

The labored military metaphors, the sense of destiny and entitlement, the evidence of a somewhat sad life spent dreaming of martial glory . . . you could only make this shit up in one of the worst movies of all time:

GEN. BETHLEHEM

If he wishes to rise above mere thuggery, a military commander must be classically educated. Philosophy, history. Even a sense of the dramatic. (a beat) Do you know what I did before the war? Do you think I was in the army? I sold copying machines. I was a salesman. The talent to lead men and devise and execute a battle plan were locked away inside me. If Nathan Holn hadn't come along, I'd still be selling copying machines. Can you imagine the wasted life? Can you imagine the magnitude of it? But war... War gives men like me a chance.

What's stranger, this clown making the Times or dozens of studio executives watching The Postman and saying, yeah, that's pretty good, audiences will love it? Only The Protocol knows.

The October Protocol hands out hope like candy from its pockets.

Read More...

Summary only...

Where the Nation-State Fails

This is a map of the "top" 60 countries in Foreign Policy's Failed States Index for 2008. FP gave countries a 0-10 rating across 12 indicators of instability, with "0" indicating highly stable and "10" indicating highly unstable. Some of the indicators included Demographic Pressures, Refugees and Displaced Persons, Economy, and Human Rights. A country's final score was the aggregate of these 12 ratings. The darker green colors on the map indicate a higher final score and, thus, a greater state failure.

Click the above link for the full chart sortable by each of the 12 indicators.

A chart of the Top 10 scores after the jump:

Top 10	Failed State Score
Somalia	114.2
Sudan	113
Zimbabwe	112.5
Chad	110.9
Iraq	110.6
Dem. Rep. of Congo	106.7
Afghanistan	105.4
Cote d'Ivoire	104.6
Pakistan	103.8
Central African Rep.	103.7

Read More...

Summary only...

Another perspective on Heller

In the midst of all the hoopla, I was reminded of a beautifully written essay by Garret Keizer that appeared two years ago in Harper's (which, unfortunately, doesn't make its archives available to the ragtag viewing public).

Keizer makes the progressive argument against gun control, and, coupled with the questionable efficacy of local gun bans, it's one that I find quite convincing. A choice excerpt:

As the living embodiment of progress itself, a progressive is beyond rage, beyond "the politics of yesterday," and certainly beyond anything as retro as a gun. More than I fear fundamentalists who wish to teach religious myths in place of evolution, I fear progressives who wish to teach evolution in place of political science. Or, rather, who forget a central principle of evolutionary thought: that no species completely outgrows its origins.

Like democracy, for example. What is that creature if not the offspring of literacy and ballistics? Once a peasant can shoot down a knight, the writing is on the wall, including the writing that says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident."

...

If the Second Amendment is a dispensable anachronism in the era of school shootings, might not the First, Fourth and Fifth amendments be dispensable anachronisms during a "war on terror"?

Read More...

Summary only...

Virginia Polls: SUSA and Rasmussen 2008

Both SUSA and Rasmussen poll between 500-600 voters for each survey. Rasmussen polled likely voters in Virginia, while SUSA polled registered voters. If SUSA's more recent polls in other states are any indication, the next VA poll will also be of likely voters.

Read More...

Summary only...

Quote of the Day

With age comes wisdom:

"If I was a kid, I'd be into those shoes with wheels..." - Philip Brooks, my father.

Read More...

Summary only...

SUSA in Ohio

More exciting than Missouri, that's for sure. All polls surveyed between 527-629 voters. All were registered voter populations until the June poll which was likely voters.

Read More...

Summary only...

SUSA in Missouri

Not a whole lot of change over the course of the year. A lot depends on which way those Undecideds migrate.

(The sample size of most of the polls was between 536-562 voters. The exception is the May 18th poll which sampled 1523 voters. The first four polls surveyed registered voters and the last two surveyed likely voters.)

The Protocol will be keeping tabs on battleground state polling throughout the General Election.

Read More...

Summary only...

This Week in Polling

Last week was a tough polling week for Sen. McCain. Rasmussen reported yesterday that from 6/13 to 6/20 on the spectrum of "Safe GOP" to "Safe Dem" they moved 8 states closer to the "Safe Dem" side. (Scroll down past Balance of Power chart for the History of Changes chart.) The only state that moved toward "Safe GOP" was Colorado on 6/20 moving from "Leans Dem" to "Toss Up" and that was merely a retraction of the 6/19 move from "Toss Up" to "Leans Dem."

It's only June (I mean, the Cubs still have the best record in baseball, so we know we have a ways to go till the fall), but look for Team McCain to adopt some changes in strategy.

There is no doubt about the Balance of Power within the Protocol.

Read More...

Summary only...

Barack Obama: So Deep Summer Tour '08

According to Ben Smith, Obama will be focusing his resources on campaigning in 18 states; 14 won by Bush in 2004 (AK, CO, FL, GA, IN, IA, MO, MT, NV, NM, NC, ND, OH, and VA) and 4 won by Kerry (MI, NH, PA, and WI). Consider this a memo to McCain from the Obama campaign stating, "Our fundraising jimmy runs deep, so deep, we put the Upper West to sleep." See map below.




In the following map, the more nuanced color gradient from blue to purple to red, reflects the 2004 margins of victory in each of these 18 states. The redder states indicate a larger margin of victory for Bush in 2004. The bluer states . . . well . . . don't look too hard, there aren't any among these 18 states, would've reflected large Kerry victories, while the purple color reflects state contests that were close in 2004.



What these maps show is that Obama's sizable war chest is allowing him to reach into traditionally Republican states and, at the very, very least, force McCain to play defense.

Sure, the usual suspects are on the list (Florida, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania), and changing demographics are pulling new states into play (Colorado, Nevada, and Virginia), but Montana, Indiana, Alaska, and North Dakota, states that Bush won by 20, 21, 25, and 27% respectively, really? . . . that's just an excuse to show off.

Obama (slowly tapping steepled fingers under chin): "David, have the Intermint print me another 10 million Obamabucks, I want to play in Ketchikan."

Plouffe (face buried in Blackberry, trying to sell Florida Election Commission on idea to switch to a caucus for the General, mouths to Obama) "Consider the memo sent."

Hope you like fly fishing, and Buffalo Burgers, Sen. McCain, because Obama and his Scrooge McDuck-like money bags of "Fuck you" cash are dropping into a fly-over zone near you.

The Protocol would like you to know that today was a good day.

Read More...

Summary only...

Boumediene Part Two: Who do ya trust?

The Supreme Court held that the writ of habeas corpus applies to all the Gitmo detainees, as they are being imprisoned in territory under sovereign American control. Justices Kennedy and Scalia quibble over the meaning of sovereignty—Cuba technically “owns” the place but the U.S. practically “is the unanswerable boss of it”—but the real issue is this: who do you trust? The executive says, “trust us, Lakhdar Boumediene and his pals are wild-eyed terrorists who want to kill Americans.” Congress says, “we trust the executive to make these determinations, mostly because we’re political cowards.” The Court says, “fuck y’all, we trust ourselves.”

Scalia’s dissent is mostly spittle and spite, but his strongest argument against the decision is his invocation of the political process. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2004), both Breyer and Kennedy claimed that the habeas-less military trials erected by the Bush administration were unconstitutional because they lacked express Congressional approval. Boumediene challenged, and overturned, the law Congress then passed to authorize the tribunals. The Court is playing one-on-two here: overturning an interpretation of the Constitution and a system for trying alleged terrorists that was explicitly supported by the only two branches of government that represent the voice of the electorate. [Note: whether or not you agree with Boumediene is probably a function of how you view the word "alleged" in the previous sentence.]

But that’s the point. Every power system needs a failsafe, a loophole, an escape hatch—especially democracies. The politics of Boumediene will focus on the war on terror, the ruling’s implications for Osama bin Laden (if captured, would he have habeas?), and Scalia’s gift to the McCain campaign: “it will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.” McCain seems to be banking on the idea the footsoldiers of the right will be galvanized by the ‘activist’ Court into enflaming their tepid support for his candidacy. Sure, they might. But the great middle that McCain has set his sights on seems to support giving at least habeas rights to the Gitmo detainees, and won’t be drawn to his candidacy merely because the most-respected branch of government decided to extend the basic protection of American law to a bunch of prisoners in Cuba. Whoever they trust to decide what to do with the Gitmo crowd, it sure ain't the Bush Administration.

This divide between the center and the right, and McCain’s schizophrenic attempts to court both, probably explains his initial responses:

“It obviously concerns me . . . but it is a decision the Supreme Court has made. Now we need to move forward. As you know, I always favored closing of Guantanamo Bay and I still think that we ought to do that.”

And the next day, after having apparently gotten the memo:

"The Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”

You know who to trust.

Read More...

Summary only...

Boumediene Part One: Who's the king around here?

Last week’s Supreme Court decision in Boumediene v. Bush has enflamed the passions of both the left and the right. “Oh noes! The out-of control Court has betrayed America in her war on the Islamofascists!” cry the wingers at RedState, shaking with rage and muttering about treason and impeachment. “An all-too slim defense of the Constitution from the fascism of President Bush!”crow the Left at Kos and MyDD. Under the Protocol, as usual, neither and both.

The Bush administration argues that its decisions about who is a terrorist must be trusted. The case revolves around the so-called Algerian Six: a guy in Bosnia with Bin Laden’s phone number and five of his acquaintances. Citizens of Bosnia, they were arrested by Bosnian police after American authorities detected increased chatter following Sept. 11, 2001. The Bosnian Supreme Court ordered him released for lack of evidence; instead, the Bosnian police handed Algerian Six over to the American military, who flew them to Gitmo. The Bush administration has declared them unlawful combatants. They have demanded that the Bush administration charge them with a crime or release them.

Justice Kennedy’s long opinion asks two questions: does the writ of habeas corpus extend to non-citizens held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and if so, are the military tribunals an acceptable substitute? To find out, he narrates the evolution of the writ from a key expression of a king’s power against his rowdy nobles (“show me who you got locked up, damn it, who’s the fuckin king around here?”) to a key check on the sovereign’s power to imprison people without cause (“sorry Mr. Rumsfeld, we ain’t just gonna take your word for it”). This section is only interesting if you swoon at the mention of things like The Case of Three Spanish Sailors, (C.P. 1779). A thrill just ran up my leg.

The key question, according to Kennedy, is really this: is the U.S. “sovereign” over Gitmo? Technically, Cuba owns it, and the U.S. leases it under a 1903 agreement giving it “complete jurisdiction and control.” Traditionally, common-law habeas writs only run to the limits of the sovereign’s territory. Kennedy holds that the U.S. is the de facto sovereign, in the sense that it is answerable to no other power for its actions there. Accordingly, the writ reaches the detainees and since the military tribunals set up by the Executive (and approved by Congress) aren’t an adequate subsititute for habeas protection, Boumediene and his fellow prisoners have the right to demand habeas relief.

In contrast to Chief Justice Roberts’s calm, lawerly dissent arguing that any habeas rights the detainees might have had not been violated anyway, Justice Scalia’s opinion sputters with rage. He briefly and deftly dodges Kennedy’s argument about sovereignty—asserting that the U.S. may be sovereign over Gitmo but Gitmo is not sovereign U.S. territory—and uses that distinction to launch attacks on the motives of the majority and the consequences of the decision. Shorter version: you’re more concerned with judicial supremacy than with American lives, Tony, and this decision will take more of them.

So what now? Kennedy doesn’t really say; in fact, he punts the issue to the lower federal courts. The judicial branch has asserted its review over the Executive’s military tribunals, but Kennedy leaves it up to lower Courts to figure out the scope of the review. Last Friday, the D.C. Circuit exercised its new power and overturned a Gitmo detainee’s designation as an enemy combatant.

The October Protocol is the fuckin king around here.

Read More...

Summary only...

Hispanic Population as % of State Population

The map shows what percentage of a given state population is of Hispanic or Latino origin. The darker the shade of green the higher the percentage of Latinos in that state. The table below references the exact percentages for the top 5, and bottom 5 states. (All numbers taken from 2006 estimates.)

Top 5	Hispanic pop. as % of state pop.
New Mexico	44
California	35.9
Texas	35.7
Arizona	29.2
Nevada	24.4
Bottom 5
Kentucky	2
Mississippi	1.8
North Dakota	1.7
Vermont	1.1
Maine	1.0

Read More...

Summary only...

AA's as percentage of state populations

The map shows what percentage of a given state population is African-American. The darker the shade of green the higher the percentage of AAs in that state. The table below references the exact percentages for the top 5, bottom 5, and the two swing states with significant AA populations not in the top 5. (All numbers taken from 2006 estimates.)

Top 5	AA pop. as % of state pop.
Mississippi	37.1
Louisiana	31.7
Georgia	29.9
Maryland	29.5
South Carolina	29
Swing States
North Carolina	21.7
Virginia	19.9
Bottom 5
Maine	0.8
North Dakota	0.8
Idaho	0.7
Vermont	0.7
Montana	0.4

There is no map to the source of the Protocol.

Read More...

Summary only...

Can the AA vote turn Georgia for Obama?

Updated to include June numbers.



This line chart reflects the Obama campaign's chances of closing the gap in Georgia based solely on registering and motivating AA voters to turnout in November. The solid orange line indicates the growing number of active registered AA voters in Georgia. The dashed orange line is the projected total of active registered AA voters for each month if 20,000 new AA voters are registered each month until the election (an exceedingly optimistic figure given the trend of the last three months). The red, green, and blue lines indicate the active registered voter thresholds the Obama campaign would have to reach given each of the three turnout scenarios described to the right of the chart. As you can see the dashed orange line falls short of the 90% turnout threshold-the wildly optimistic threshold for Obama.

Roughly 2000 new AA voters were registered in Georgia in the last month, a number far below the previous months' totals and further below what the campaign was targeting. What is becoming increasingly clear in Georgia is that Obama will need a lot more than registering and motivating the AA vote to close the Bush-Kerry '04 gap. Paging Bob Barr . . .

Further explanation of the numbers provided in the chart is here.

Spending a day learning html in order to produce charts that are web-compatible is encouraged under the Protocol.

Read More...

Summary only...

Obama and the African-American vote in Georgia.

Using President Bush's margin of victory in Georgia in 04 (roughly 550,000 votes) as a baseline, and if we control for the state's population growth over the last four years (9.2%), we can project that Obama will need to close a 600,000 vote gap in November. (This projection assumes that the demographic and political identification breakdown of the increased population is similar to the demographics of the voting population in 04.)

Much has been made of the Obama campaign's voter registration drive, specifically how they are targeting African-Americans. Can the Obama campaign close the gap in Georgia solely through registering and motivating AA voters to come out in November?

The number of AA voters in the 2004 General Election was 820,101. Of that total 88%, or 721,689 AA voters, voted for Kerry and 12%, or 98,412, voted for Bush. In the 2008 Primary, 96.6% of AA primary voters voted Democratic and I would expect the percentage of AA voters voting for Obama would be closer to this 97% than the 88% that voted for Kerry. For these projections I am assuming that 95% of AA voters in November will vote for Obama. If we were to retroactively apply this 95% figure to the 2004 General, Obama running as the Democratic nominee would've received 779,095 votes or 57,407 more votes than Kerry. Additionally, these votes are migrating from the Republican candidate to Obama so they count double when applying them to the 600,000 deficit. So as a result of our prediction that Obama will receive 95% of the AA vote versus Kerry's 88%, the deficit reduces to 485,186. Based on these calculations, 1,264,282 AA voters will need to cast votes for him in November (95% of AA vote in 2004 + 485,186 additional votes), for Obama to close the gap on the strength of AA voters alone.

The most recent voter registration numbers in Georgia (6/1/08) indicate that there are 1,314,755 registered AA voters. This number is 50,473 registered voters more than the Obama campaign's target number, so it closes the rest of the deficit, right? Well, no. The chance that all AA registered voters will actually show up at the polls is slim, but what percentage will? In 2004, 70% of AA registered voters turned out. If 70% turn out in November, the Obama campaign will only reach their target number (1,264,282) if 1,901,176 AAs are registered. Is it possible to register 600,000 new AA voters by November? Recent voter registration trends indicate no. In March, 41,084 new AA voters were registered. In April, that number dipped to 18,574, and in May, it dropped further to 12,840. While these numbers are impressive they fall well short of getting the total number of AA registered active voters to 1.9 million.

A 70% AA active registered voter turnout seems a bit conservative to me. Certainly the Obama candidacy will boost AA turnout to at least 80%, which was the rate at which non-AA active registered voters turned out in 04. If 80% of AA active registered voters turn out to the polls in November, the Obama campaign would need 1,663,529 AAs registered to vote in November to reach his target number of votes (1,264,282). Is 1.66 million registered AAs plausible? There are five months until the election. If the Obama campaign registers 30,000 new AA voters per month (less than March, more than April and May respectively), that would total 150,000 additional AA registered voters. These 150,000 additional voters would bring the AA registered voter total to 1,464,755, still 200,000 voters short.

How many registered voters would the Obama campaign need if 90% of AA registered voters turned out in November - a longshot scenario for sure? He would need 1,478,692 registered voters, or about 13,000 more than he would have if 30,000 new voters were registered each month between now and November.

Keep in mind, this analysis is solely focused on the AA vote. It doesn't consider the possibility of Evangelicals sitting out (as compared to the number that voted for Bush), the Bob Barr/Ron Paul effect (Georgia had the highest percentage of Libertarian voters in 2004 when compared to the other states considered "in play" this election cycle, Barr represented Georgia's 7th Congressional District in Congress for 8 years, and Ron Paul took 3% of the primary vote.), or general disillusionment with the Republican brand. By the same token, this analysis also doesn't account for any Appalachia effect benefitting McCain, or any of the 10 commenters on hillaryis44.com that may live in Georgia.

Realistically turnout among AA active registered voters will probably be near 80%. If the Obama campaign were able to register 30,000 voters per month, then he would still need to close a gap somewhere between 150,000 and 200,000 voters. Keep an eye out for the June registration numbers in Georgia, usually reported here a few days after the month ends. As the summer numbers come in we should have a better idea of whether the Obama voter registration drive is a force to be reckoned with or merely another talking point. Perhaps the aggregate of the above-listed "effects" would close anything within that range. Either way, AA voters have an opportunity to swing a state significantly closer toward Barack Obama, and, possibly, with truly historic voter registration and turnout, could push him over the top.

The Protocol does not discriminate based on race, color or national origin, pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d.) and Bylaw XII of Protocol Inception Act (III.ii PIA 2008).

Read More...

Summary only...

Shortlists getting shorter

Lots of talk about Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal as a possible VP pick for McCain. He’s young, well-spoken, deeply Catholic, and bears a certain big-eared resemblance to another prominent minority in the Presidential race. (Not that these would be reasons McCain is considering him, of course.) In addition to being a six-month governor, he also exorcises demons! (And you know you’re in trouble when the dudes at The Corner aren’t feelin’ it . . . although reliable hack Kathryn Jean Lopez mounts a half-hearted defense.)

And in other removing-themselves-from-a-possible-McCain-administration news, it looks like one judge on the Protocol shortlist probably won’t get picked by a Republican president. If hardcore originalist Douglas Ginsburg got borked for smoking weed, what ever will they do to Alex Kozinski for posting Internet porn? While conducting an obscenity trial, no less?

There may or may not be a hidden porn page on The October Protocol.

Read More...

Summary only...

What she gonna do?

Clinton, tonight, that is. Her camp's been sending out mixed signals all day, and the campaigns's message discipline has faltered as of late. (Which makes perfect sense. When the campaign ends, Ed Rendell will still be governor of Pennsylvania and Terry McAuliffe will still be Terry McAuliffe. Harold Ickes and Howard Wolfson are losing prime shots at sick White House status points. It's not hard to guess why they're sending the signals they are.)

Under The Protocol, she's got a couple of options.

1) She concedes and endorses. Most likely to happen if his supposed cache of superdelegates collectively informs her campaign this afternoon or evening. Against the advice of the most loyal, she congratulates Obama and ends the campaign. This last detail is important--she has the Nixonesque need to believe she's making the decision alone, in the best interests of something larger, and against the advice of those who are helplessly loyal.

2) More realistically, she "acknowledges" his lead in the pledged delegate race, but holds up the fallacious parallel of her (disputed) lead in that non-metrical metric, the popular vote. "He's leading in one metric, I am in the other." This will allow her to justify suspending, instead of ending, her campaign, and her non-endorsement of Obama. Sadly, this will mean that she needs an excuse to keep going--fundraising and paying off debt and all that--so she'll probably trot out her appeal of the MI/FL decision to the Credentials Committee and suggest that she's waiting for superdelegates to stab Obama by switching to her at the last minute. (Which, of course, they are technically free to do.)

3) She ignores Obama's passing the threshold, delcares Paul "General Bethlehem" Villarreal (my nickname, not his) her new campaign manager, and declares Stage III of the campaign: All Out War. On to Denver! You'll pry this nomination from my cold dead hands! Did you know Obama is a muslim crackhead who got head from a male hooker in the back of a limousine?

Throwing the coins in accordance with Protocol guidance reveals Option 2 as most likely. It's tough to give up the dream. She'll use any argument she has, no matter how tenuous. It seems obvious to most observers that, should she continue, her chances of wresting the nomination from Obama are tiny while those of torpedoing the party are huge. But ambition and isolation work strange effects on highly public figures whose power plays work out across vast canvasses. To succeed at the level Clinton has succeeded at requires a kind of doublethink, a comfort with cognitive dissonance: you've got to convince yourself first, even if all external indications point against you. I will be the nominee.

Before Clinton concedes to Obama, she'll have to concede to herself.

Fuck the I Ching. The cosmic forces abide by The October Protocol.

Read More...

Summary only...