Fivethirtyeight.com

Not to toot the horn of other political blogs, but fivethirtyeight.com is a pretty good one.  It's operated by Nate Silver (an editor of Baseball Prospectus) and brings a surprisingly and frustratingly rare mathematical and research-based approach to interpreting political polling.  Just as Baseball Prospectus is the best source for baseball information in a world filled with ridiculous conventional wisdoms and opinions based on no research, fivethirtyeight.com is a beacon of saneness in an otherwise confusing and difficult to navigate political world.  I urge you to check it out.

Veepstakes: 8/15 (GOP)

Not to post four straight posts here, but I'm going to post four straight posts here. Yesterday we looked at the Democratic VP possibilities; today the Republicans!

10. Former Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR) [Last: 9]
9. Congressman Eric Cantor (R-VA) [Last: N/A]
8. Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) [Last: 5]
7. Former OMB Director Rob Portman (R-OH) [Last: 6]
6. Senator John Thune (R-SD) [Last: 8]

5. Governor Bobby Jindal (R-LA) [Last: 4]
Jindal's stock has dipped a bit over the last month, largely due to the McCain campaign's realization that Jindal is a) too conservative; b) too young; and c) too weird. Also, saying he is "staying as governor whether you like it or not" doesn't really leave much room for McCain to name him to the ticket. Still, nobody's stock was higher than his about a month ago, and the base does love him. But does McCain actually have base problems like we thought he would? For more on that, see picks 4 and 2.

4. Senator Joseph Lieberman (ID-CT) [Last: 10]
Ah, Senator Lieberman. Democrats hate him with a passion, Republicans love him. That in and of itself is surprising, considering Lieberman has a "Liberal rating" of 57.5, which puts him more to the left than six other members of his party. But Lieberman probably tilts even more right than that. Excepting the War in Iraq, Lieberman votes squarely with the Democrats on everything; yes, that includes the always popular issue of abortion. Lieberman is popular with the Republicans for the sole reason that he makes Democrats' heads explode. Would they like him on their ticket? Not likely. But everybody likes bipartisanship, and the story of McCain having Al Gore's VP nominee on his ticket would be a press coup. Lieberman's a masterful fighter dog, the running mate's primary occupation, but he seems more likely to assume a Zell Miller-esque role at the Republican Convention than be the VP nominee.

3. Former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) [Last: 1]
Romney's stock hasn't fallen, it's just faded. It's no secret that Romney and McCain don't like each other much, and the common wisdom at the beginning of the veepstakes was that it would take a miracle for Romney to be named to McCain's ticket. His negatives (flip-flopper, slick politician, Massachusetts roots) are glaring, while his positives (he's conservative?, he brings in money) are more questionable. Romney's main draw was always his fundraising prowess, something that the McCain ticket no longer needs so much of. And, while Huckabee might not be the VP, he and his base still have some say, so stories like this aren't so favorable to the Mittster's chances. But, as much as people may rant and bluster, Romney was good in the debates (especially when attacking the other candidates), and is able to effectively portray the role of a conservative, even if that's not really him. He, like Pawlenty, is a safe pick, but the safe qualities he embodies might not be needed anymore.

2. Former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge (R-PA) [Last: N/A]
Ridge has it all. He was the popular governor of a swing state that the Democrats so desparately need to win; he was the first secretary of homeland security, which would beef up the McCain ticket's foreign policy credibility; and he has spent the past few years in business, which only highlight his already impressive economic knowledge. So why wasn't this guy named to the ticket months ago? The answer is very simple: he's pro-choice. When McCain floated the idea a few days ago that he would consider naming a pro-choice running mate, the religious right doesn't like (and see here) that concept much. There are plenty of adequate pro-life candidates, they say, so why name a pro-choice one? It is well known that, if McCain had his way, Ridge would be on his ticket. And he just might be, but he'd have to be prepared to deal with the fallout from the voters that elected (and re-elected) George W. Bush. Is it worth it?

1. Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) [Last: 2]
Pawlenty's somewhat of a safe pick, which is why his name has kind of faded recently. While the Democratic buzz has been all about the boring guys (Bayh, Biden, Kaine), the GOP buzz has turned to the edgy picks of Ridge and Lieberman. But recent developments don't cancel out the fact that McCain and Pawlenty are good friends, and the recent statement by McCain that Republicans are "really going to like Pawlenty." The one problem with Pawlenty is that he doesn't really bring much geographically, although the GOP thinks he does. Contrary to their thinking, neither Minnesota, nor Iowa, nor Wisconsin are in play this November. Michigan might be, but it's hard to see how Pawlenty helps there (Romney's the guy if the aim is to win the Great Lakes State). Still, he's conservative, fairly popular, and wouldn't hurt the McCain ticket one bit. But one wonders if, in light of Obama's lead in the polls, it would help the McCain camp if they shook things up. Picking Pawlenty would certainly not do that.

A thought

This probably isn't anything, but I was musing around the Democratic National Convention's announced list of speakers (seen here) and noticed one very glaring exception: former Vice President Al Gore. Granted, the full slate of Thursday speakers hasn't been announced, and Josh rightly points out that Gore would be a prime person to introduce Obama, but it's still something to think over. You would assume that somebody who apparently is "likely to star at [the] convention" (c/o Reuters UK) would be one of the first announced, and most publicized, speakers.

Yet here we are, exactly two weeks before Obama is to accept the Democratic nomination, and one of the party's elder statesmen is not on the agenda. In 2004, former Georgia Senator Max Cleland introduced John Kerry. This appearance was announced at least 12 days before the start of the convention (see here). The start of this year's convention is but 11 days away, and an announcement has to be made soon.

If Gore is not slated for any of those Thursday spots, that would lead me, and probably many others, to the obvious conclusion here. It's unlikely, and has been denied by Gore himself before, but could an upset VP pick be in the making?

Veepstakes: 8/14 (Dems)

It's been a month since we took a look at the potential VP candidates on each side, and a lot has changed since then. John Edwards admitted to having an affair, Russia invaded Georgia, and the energy crisis turned into a GOP sideshow. To see what kind of an impact those events had on the veepstakes (Democratic today, Republican tomorrow), let's turn to the rankings:

10. Former Vice President Al Gore (D-TN) [Last: 10]
9. Senator John Kerry (D-MA) [Last: N/A]
8. Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM) [Last: N/A]
7. Former Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA) [Last: 8]
6. Governor Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS) [Last: 3]

5. Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) [Last: 7]
For the 99.9% of all Americans who haven't heard of Senator Jack Reed, he is a quite liberal senator from Rhode Island. Those last two qualifications alone would seem to dismiss any chance he has of landing on the backside of "Obama/," but think again. He served in the Army from 1971 to 1979, is one of the leading Senate voices on matters of both foreign and domestic importance, and, as a Catholic, has strong roots to the working class demographic that Obama has had trouble tapping into. He also accompanied Senator Obama on his highly publicized trip to the Middle East, for what was widely seen as Reed's VP audition. The fact that he doesn't immediately add any new state to the Obama column is certainly a drawback, but then againLyndon Johnson (1960) was the last VP pick to actually swing any state, so geography might be a tad overrated. Stay tuned, he could be a major sleeper pick.

4. Governor Tim Kaine (D-VA) [Last: 4]
Ever since his name came out as one of Obama's VP hopefuls, Governor Tim Kaine has played the veepstakes in a very odd way. Instead of dampening buzz, as per usual, Kaine has made no pretense that he's not interested in the job, stating "[Obama's VP list] seems to be getting shorter. And I'm still being mentioned." This has widely been seen as a headfake to get the mediat to run to Kaine, only to be completely be surprised by who Obama actually picks. But if he is seriously up for the job, his good looks, youth, and hailing from a swing state are pluses. His poor record as governor and rather moderate views on a number of key issues (labor relations, faith-based opposition to abortion), however, make him a risky pick.

3. Former General Wesley Clark (D-AR) [Last: N/A]
After Clark made some not-so-false (but oh so controversial) comments in early July, he went from veepstakes darling to somebody Obama shouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole. So it is with great surprise that, with an announcement from Obama seemingly less than a week away, Clark now resides near the top of this VP list. The first clue, which may even be too obvious, to Clark's ascension (not just here, but within actual political circles as well) is the fact that the DNC has announced that the theme for Wendesday of the Convention, the night the VP is announced, is "Securing America's Future;" three words which just happen to also be the name of Clark's political action committee. Although he's short on elected experience, and his only field of expertise is foreign affairs, Clark has proved his mettle as a more than capable attack dog. The recent Georgia crisis has just accentuated the need for foreign policy gravitas, and finally people are remembering why Clark was such an ideal pick in the first place.

2. Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) [Last: 1]
After the much ado about nothing that was Obama's joint appearace with Senator Bayh on August 6th, and many false predictions about that event, moderate Evan Bayh of Indiana finds himself slipping a place in these rankings. It was widely seen that, if Obama was going to pick Bayh, that date last week was the time to do it. Since then, the Bayh speculation has surprisingly not dampened, but rather grew. There is word out now that Bayh's chances are "better than 50/50," but that should be taken with a grain of salt. A major backlash from the liberal blogosphere, combined with a rather biting New York Times article that does not paint Bayh in an all-too-positive light, seem to have excluded Bayh from serious consideration. Yet here we are in mid-August and he's still hanging tight. The #2 ranking might be more of a perception thing than what will actually happen, but Bayh is certainly not to be counted out.

1. Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) [Last: 2]
It is surprising how little coverage Biden's VP chances are getting in the media, be it blogospheric or mainstream. After over thirty hugely respectable years in Washington, with two unsuccessful presidential campaigns under his belt, nobody knows the ropes more than Joe Biden. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Biden's authority on foreign policy matters is unquestioned, and his longtime chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee gives him serious knowledge of domestic issues. He's one of the most talented debaters and speakers around (see: Noun+Verb+9/11=Rudy Giuliani's sentences), and would absolutely serve as the aggressive attack dog that Obama would need him to. And unlike Bayh or Kaine, Biden is the one frontrunner with truly progressive views, so he would be palatable to both the base and independents alike. He's not a sure thing at this point, but he is certainly the frontrunner.

People don't do such things!

Yes, the title is a reference to Hedda Gabler, but rest assured that the rest of this post won't be spent dissecting Ms. Elvsted's relationship to Hedda. No, the topic of discussion here is much more interesting and, frankly, much more important. In case you haven't heard (and you probably haven't, thanks to the media), John McCain said on national TV the other day "In the 21st century nations don't invade other nations." Some might be thinking that McCain here is reversing his policy on Iraq, or American might in general; but that would be too easy. Senator McCain is admonishing Russia, a favorite pastime of his, for their seemingly unprovoked attack on the Republic of Georgia.

I'll give you a second to chew this one over.

Done with that? Okay, good. Just to break it down, Russia is one of the largest countries in the world, and is a key ally (or cool partner in peace, at least) in the diplomatic world. Vladimir Putin, the de facto head of state, is know for being a brilliantly calculating politician; someone with whom the next president will have to work productively.

Insulting his [Putin's] foreign policy moves, blunderous as they may be, with a statement that reeks of hypocritical self-righteousness is not the way to go about cementing the important US-Russia relationship. America is viewed internationally as a brutish, pompous, mean superpower: an image that is not ill-deserved. By continuing to further this stereotype, Senator McCain does not do any favors for the USA's worldwide approval.

If Senator McCain really does not believe that, in the 21st century, it is right for one country to invade one another, then perhaps he would like to take an admirable lead on quickly and safely ending the conflict in Iraq. But, of course this will not happen. Instead, he will go back to the campaign trail: a place where he can make all the arrogant and dangerous statements he would like, and never once get called on them.

John Edwards

I'm sure everyone knows just what happened with regards to the recent outing of his affair.

I am simply starting a thread of discussion on the matter.

Personally, this episode has just reinforced my belief that politicians are such egomaniacs that they believe the rules of society simply do not apply to themselves. Now more than ever, we are seeing politicians succumb to the lure of promiscuous sexual activity. Do these men truly believe that they are above the potential scandal created when they go ahead and fool around?

Heres a question that many of our congressmen should ask themselves before diving into anything mischievous (and this includes shady political decisions as well, not just sex [cough..ted stevens...cough]): is the risk worth the reward?

McCain's New Ad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mopkn0lPzM8

And thus, the McCain campaign becomes a parody of itself. And of so many other things...