M

y Facebook friend Dan Chmielewki, a Dem with whom I happily can have intelligent conversations, informs me that 17 percent of this year’s electorate were 18-24 year-olds, and they went 68/30 for Obama.

Imagine that - a tiny six-year slice of the electorate, perhaps 10 percent of it or so in terms of demographics, making up 17 percent of the vote. And the other CSM is telling us Obama hasn’t left them at the polls; he’s still wooing them:

The president-elect gives every indication he will continue to solicit input from young voters – though not just from youth. His transition website, www.change.gov, asks visitors to “share ideas.” As president, he plans Internet “fireside chats” with the public and online town halls with the cabinet. From the millions of e-mail addresses that his campaign collected, one can imagine a mass mobilization when important votes come up in Congress.

The same article tells us this gen, unlike some of its predecessors, is actually turned on by government:

Encouragingly, this generation actually wants to interact with government, politics, and public service. That’s a reversal of the “bowling alone” years of 1990s civic apathy among youth. A fall pre-election survey by Harvard’s Institute of Politics shows that almost 60 percent of voters ages 18 to 24 are personally interested in doing some kind of public service.

Nearly half said that could include working for federal, state, or local government. A third of the total said they would consider working for a campaign, and a fifth said they would consider public office.

If nothing else, Obama is exceptionally gifted at understanding demographics, and using that understanding to connect where the connecting is most fruitful. It paid off in this election - he pulled in the poor, the young and the tired-of-it-alls and fired their engines with racing fuel, not regular.

But now comes the real test, particularly with the youth vote. Obama’s “Facebooking” them, inviting dialog, seeking input, heck, probably even posting photos. But this is a generation with a finely tuned phony-meter, and if Obama passes from grassroots to Astroturf roots, they’ll sense it and rebel against it.

Meanwhile, the always quotable (that is not a compliment) Gary Kamiya writes smugly today:

The painful truth for conservatives is that the dogs aren’t eating their dog food — and every national trend indicates that they will never eat it again. Which means the GOP faces a wrenching choice: remain true to its increasingly irrelevant and rejected ideology and fade into political insignificance, or remake itself as essentially a more moderate version of the Democratic Party.

Never say never, Kamiya. Remember, the last time youth turned out in similar numbers, 1984, they went overwhelmingly for Reagan, sending Mondale down to crashing defeat.

The Dems have the youth today, but they also have one of the most exceptional candidates in American history. Not exceptionally qualified, not exceptionally right, but exceptionally appealing. He made that appeal by promising almost everything to almost everyone, a tactic that cannot be delivered upon in the end. Someone’s bound to be disappointed - a whole lot of someones.  As Cliff May of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies so nicely put it:

Give Obama his due: It is an exceptional politician who can win the support of Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, and Kenneth Duberstein, former chief of staff to President Reagan; of William Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist, and Christopher Buckley, son of William F. Buckley, founder of modern intellectual conservatism; of Rashid Khalidi, an Israel-hater, and Edgar Bronfman, former head of the World Jewish Congress. Here’s a not-very-bold prediction: A year from now, someone is going to be sorely disappointed.

Combine that cold wake-up call with the risks inherent with trying to be cool and connected to several tens of millions of online friends, and you have a recipe for disappointment. Add to that the fact that in 2016, whether or not Obama wins reelection in 2012, the Dems are almost certain to nominate some old warhorse with “he’s next in line” charisma.

Meanwhile, we’ll get to study Obama from the sidelines, learning what works and doesn’t work without risking immediate consequences, and begin preparing for the return everyone but Kamiya knows is going to happen.

A

merican University’s Center for the Study of the American Voter has dispensed with all the rah-rah about this being a huge election.  You know, 10 million new registrants, a high water mark in a New America.  Not so, it found:

Despite lofty predictions by some academics, pundits, and practitioners that voter turnout would reach levels not seen since the turn of the last century, the percentage of eligible citizens casting ballots in the 2008 presidential election stayed at virtually the same relatively high level as it reached in the polarized election of 2004.

… the percentage of Americans who cast ballots for president in this year’s presidential election will reach between 126.5 million and 128.5 million when all votes have been counted by early next month. If this prediction proves accurate, turnout would be at either exactly the same level as in 2004 or, at most, one percentage point higher (or between 60.7 percent and 61.7 percent).

This shows a lot.  Big, phony surges in registration don’t lead to big, real surges in turnout.  Obama’s supporters were confident in his victory.  For many, the urge to vote didn’t overcome the fact that It was cold and lousy and lines were long in many precincts.

Republican voting was down 1.3 percent, a sign either of surety Obama would win, dispondency over the McCain selection or worry over the Palin selection.  Or cold, lousy weather and long lines.

Dem voting was up 2.6 percent, clearly attributable to Obama, especially if you look at states with high black populations, like NC and GA, which had record turn-outs.

But most significant is that the Dems increased their votes cast for the seventh straight election.  For a GOP that needs to throw out everything and start anew, one team should be breaking down Dem registration and voter turn-out strategies.  We don’t want to be - indeed can’t be - a new version of ACORN, but we can do better. 

And we have to come up with a candidate that can move the masses.

I

n Philly, Ground Zero of Election 2008, two black men in Black Panter garb - one “brandishing” a night stick - were found standing at the door of a voting both.  When a white voter approached them, they closed ranks, forcing him to squeeze between them.  They were subsequently asked to leave by police.

Who intimidates voters?  Democrats intimidate voters!

hat-tip: Yid with a Lid

S

hould Barack Obama emerge victorious on Tuesday - or whenever the election is finally settled - this just might turn out to be the most important quote of the election season:

“We’ve got 49 Blue Dogs, maybe 61 after the election,” said Rep. Mike Ross of Arkansas. “We don’t need much persuasion. We’ve got the votes.”

Ross and his Blue Dogs represent one side in a Dem leadership split detailed in today’s WSJ, a side that will play the role of the heavy in upcoming Congressional debates.

Ways and Means chair Charlie Wrangle represent another side of the fractious Dem party, the Old Bull liberals.  Asked about whether a costly social agenda can still move forward in light of the economy, he told the WSJ:

“For God’s sake, don’t ask me where the money will come from. I’m going to the same place [Secretary Henry] Paulson went.”

Wrangle thinks Obama has to start fast on his biggest, most liberal programs - revolutionary national heath care, high-cost efforts to prematurely rush America off oil, and shamefully undemocratic legislation that would allow unions to organize through Stalinist fear and intimidation rather than by good old American democratic principles.

Then there’s the moderates, voiced by House majority whip, James Clyburn:

“It’s better to let things evolve than to revolve. Revolutions are dangerous,”

Of Clyburn’s position, Rangle said, “he doesn’t have the slightest clue what he’s talking about.”

And finally, the swing state governors, who want in on the decision-making as well.

Democratic governors have been pushing for input as well, taking advantage of their positions atop regional vote-delivery machines. “I’m a swing-state governor. I’ve talked to this guy probably more than my own parents,” quipped Colorado’s Bill Ritter, who got Sen. Obama to adopt his “new energy economy” mantra verbatim.

Even if Obama is gifted in bipartisanship - which we have seen no evidence of throughout his minuscule career - it won’t be enough. He’ll have to be quadripartisan just to corral his own party, even before he wanders over to the GOP side. The article describes early efforts of the Dem leadership to come together to plan transition and first term strategies have been tense, with splits emerging.

Wrapping it all up, reporter Jonathan Weisman writes:

Senior Obama advisers say the senator has given no commitments to any of the camps. Without a chief of staff, without a formal policy apparatus to make such decisions, he can only take in the different arguments and await Election Day, they say.

After that, however, he won’t have the luxury to put off decisions: If elected, his budget plan will be due by early February.

And that will be quite a challenge for the junior senator from Illinois who’s biggest decisions thus far in his career have been whether to start his next narcissistic campaign before having the opportunity to gain experience and wisdom from his previous win.  And he’s always chosen to rush it, putting his faith in his ability to fool the people.  Should he win, he’ll be playing fool the Congress, and it will be a different game indeed.

B

arrack Obama and Joe Biden are both lawyers, as are Hillary and Bill Clinton. Oh, and Michelle Obama is a lawyer, too. That takes care of the top of the Dem party.

Moving on, John Edwards, the disgusting former Dem candidate for president, is a lawyer, and so is his poor suffering wife, Elizabeth, who ought to sue him. In fact, an email I received recently revealed that every Democrat nominee since 1984 went to law school (although Gore did not graduate).

Every Democrat vice-presidential nominee since 1976, except for Lloyd Bentsen, went to law school, as did Harry Reid. The email said both Congressional Dem leaders are lawyers, but I don’t find evidence that Nancy Pelosi is. What law school would accept her? What the heck; it’s an almost perfect sweep for the Dems.

Not so for the GOP. President Bush and Vice President Cheney are not lawyers, but businessmen. John McCain was career military and Sarah Palin’s degree is in journalism.

Mitt Romney has a Juris Doctor, but he’s also got an MBA. Mike Huckabee put his religion degree to work as a pastor. I’m not sure how Ron Paul’s BA degree in biology has played out for him, but he does seem to be surrounded by a lot of smarmy stuff. He went on to become an OB/Gyn, delivering oodles of babies (as commenter Rich pointed out; thanks.)  The other three primary contenders, none of whom won much approval from GOP voters, were all lawyers - or played one on TV: Rudy Giuliani, Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson.

The leaders of the Republican Revolution were not lawyers. Newt Gingrich was a history professor; Tom Delay was an exterminator; and, Dick Armey was an economist. House Minority Leader Boehner was a plastic manufacturer, and former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is a heart surgeon.

Who was the last Republican president who was a lawyer? Gerald Ford, who left office 31 years ago and who barely won the Republican nomination when he ran in 1976 against Ronald Reagan, who was most decidedly not a lawyer.

In short, the leadership of the Democratic party is made up overwhelmingly of people who’s business is writing and applying laws and regulations. The GOP’s leadership is made up overwhelmingly of people who have tried to make a living despite all those laws and regulations.

Who do you trust more to fix the economy? The party of lawyers, or the party of business people?

W

e all remember Mark Foley, the Republican with a fondness for male pages, and the damage he caused the GOP in the last election. So ask yourself this question: How up are you on Tim Mahoney?

Hint: Google Blog Search only turns up a paltry 445 hits for “Rep. Tim Mahoney affair.”

Affair, you say? Well, yes. The Dem who defeated Foley by running on a holier than thou ticket is a serial adulterer. ABC broke the story, and Fox is building on it. This is from Fox:

According to ABC News, Mahoney, who is married, started an affair with Patricia Allen while campaigning against Foley on a morality platform. Allen came on to his staff after he won the election in 2006, but when complaints about the alleged affair surfaced, Mahoney moved Allen to the campaign staff, aides told the broadcast network.

ABC reported Allen tried to break off the affair after learning Mahoney was supposedly cheating on her and his wife with other women. In response, he threatened her job, ABC reported.

“You work at my pleasure,” Mahoney told Allen in a taped Jan. 20, 2008, telephone call played for Mahoney staffers, ABC reported.

Lovely, and so very old school - dropping trou for any skirt that’s handy and beating down any complaints with threats based on control over the woman’s livelihood. This from the party that promises change you can believe in.

In Mahoney’s defense, he did come up believing in change. Instead of continuing to threaten Patricia Allen’s livelihood, he offered her $121,000 to shut up and go away. If that was campaign money, Mahoney’s troubles have just begun.

It’s said that Mahoney faces stiff opposition in his re-election campaign. I should say so.

House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel spoke to Mahoney in early 2007 about the affair and apparently has been working to keep the story downplayed in order to get Mahoney re-elected - this from the party that was so very morally offended by Foley. And don’t give me that “Well, Foley was gay, at least Mahoney’s straight” line - the Dems are supposed to love their gay constituents, viewing homosexuality as no different from heterosexuality.

Over 18 months after the DNC learned of the affair, the jig is finally up. Recent coverage has forced it into the open, and today NanPo called for an investigation.

“I just learned today about the serious allegations concerning Congressman Tim Mahoney,” Pelosi said in a statement. “These charges must be immediately and thoroughly investigated by the House Ethics Committee.”

Just learned today? Anyone believe that? She’s either a lousy speaker or a lousy liar.

I

n the rush of everything that’s been going on since McCain suspended his campaign and Obama kept talking and talking and talking and talking, I managed to miss this, but Brian Goetti at The Conservative Edge didn’t:

Two weeks ago, when the financial crisis hit home, the Senate Majority Leader, Democrat Harry Reid said that “no one knew what to do”. Since that time, proposals have been made to solve the problem.

None of the proposals have come from Democrats. The Bush Administration proposed a bailout that Harry Reid, Nanci Pelosi and Barak Obama signed onto.

House Republicans put forth their own plan as well. So where is the Democratic leadership on this crisis? No where to be found as far as I can tell.

With the Dems now convinced they’ve got their election-winner, they won’t lift a finger to help. They might want to adapt McCain’s slogan and make it their own: Self-Interest First.

I

n securing the Democratic nomination, Barack Obama pulled off the political miracle of our lifetime. He beat the Clinton machine, covered up his radical roots with a false empty suit, ran away from this paltry record, and kept the rhetoric soaring enough to dazzle the special delegates and steal the nomination.

Most people get this, and realize that the man is not as grand as his image, that he’s a poll who just barely pulled off an unexpected win. That’s why most people are getting more and more turned off to Obama/messiah imagery, and it’s why Obama’s world tour hurt him in the polls - particularly the grandiose Berlin speech.

But people who realize this aren’t Obama, and they’re not Obama insiders. Barack, Michelle and the senior campaign staff appear blind to the criticism that Obama is playing too grand a hand, that he is acting too much like president and not enough like a candidate acting presidential.

They could pull back the imagery and rhetoric now that Hillary’s done with and the nomination is in hand. But they don’t get it. They don’t see it. In fact, they’re so oblivious to the public’s negative reaction to their “The One”-engendering imagery that they’re out to trump it tomorrow night when BO speaks to the multitudes again. Reuters reports that we need to batten the hatches; another flood of Obama the One symbolism is headed our way:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s big speech on Thursday night will be delivered from an elaborate columned stage resembling a miniature Greek temple. …

Some 80,000 supporters will see Obama appear from between plywood columns painted off-white, reminiscent of Washington’s Capitol building or even the White House, to accept the party’s nomination for president.

He will stride out to a raised platform to a podium that can be raised from beneath the floor.

The show should provide a striking image for the millions of Americans watching on television as Obama delivers a speech accepting the Democratic presidential nomination.

Yes, it sounds like it certainly will provide a striking image. We can spend the speech wondering if Obama things (a) he is a god, (b) his is already president or (c) all of the above.

His campaign has seen how effectively the McCain camp has been able to repackage Obama’s own grandstanding to hurt him. They’ve seen how the Berlin imagery, packaged with Paris and Brittney, singlehandedly stopped their juggernaut in its tracks. But they are so caught up in the Grand Mystique that they simply can’t dial it back, they can’t reinvent their candidate as someone more human.

So tomorrow night the McCain campaign should get a free truckload of new visuals it can show to raise even more doubts about this strange Dem concoction of a candidate, allowing them to launch a new ridiculing ad just as McCain announces his VP choice, thereby minimizing any convention bounce for Obama.

If you ever needed a case study in why vanity is a sin, you’re looking at it.

“Suppose for example you’re a voter. And you’ve got candidate X and candidate Y. Candidate X agrees with you on everything, but you don’t think that person can deliver on anything. Candidate Y disagrees with you on half the issues, but you believe that on the other half, the candidate will be able to deliver. For whom would you vote?” - Bill Clinton in Denver today

I

think the right answer is “Hillary,” but I’m open to other interpretations.

Gosh, the way things are going, Clinton night at the convention might actually, against all odds, turn out to be interesting.

The Hill, from which the quote comes, provided this clarifying bit of additional info:

Then, perhaps mindful of how his off-the-cuff remarks might be taken, Clinton added after a pause: “This has nothing to do with what’s going on now.”

Not to worry. Clinton insider Paul Begala said of his boss, “He’s totally for Barack.” Concerned that perhaps that wasn’t convincing enough, he added, “He’s totally for Barack.” Just for reference, check out Could You Repeat That?

Super Nan Readies For Denver Showdown

L

est you think this week’s Democratic convention in Denver will be just a showcase for the pontificating and grandstanding leaders of the party that knows what’s good for us even if we don’t, Nancy Pelosi stands ready to set you straight. This is no small deal.

“We’ve got a planet to save. Nothing less is at stake other than civilization as we know it today.” (source)

Thank God we’ve got a proven, capable Dem savior like Barack Obama to get us through the fight with the super-nemesis, Maverick Man.

And Joe Biden? The perfect sidekick for The Mighty O and Super Nan, sez Madam Speaker:

“Joe Biden is the all-American boy.”

I’m sure he looks great in tights, too.

hat-tip: Urgent Agenda