I found this incredibly honest /and/ brutal. Frum takes Maddow on about her show, /on her show/, and neither of them back down at all for a full 10 minutes. I find Maddow's sarcastic partisanship a bit over-the-top sometimes, but Frum managed to draw out her intelligent side in this clip. I think she did a decent job of engaging him while remaining in the reality-based community and being reasonably polite to a guest, and that Frum was a bit of a douche. Thoughts?

Up until the Republican convention, observers of this election had been told that this election is going to be different, that the winner is going to "redraw" the electoral map.  After all, between 2000 and 2004, only three states switched sides (New Hampshire, Iowa and New Mexico).  It really was time for a change, and we heard some variant of this idea from really smart guys, like Chuck Todd and Larry Sabato.(1);You know the refrain: close elections are the exception, not the rule; and rarely has the electoral map showed so much long-term equilibrium.  The Cleveland-Harrison map of 1884-1892 was remade by McKinley in 1896; Truman's upset did not resemble the Roosevelt victories of 1940-1944.  So, the "theory" goes, we can discard our preconceived notion of blue and red states, as there are several states that can potentially switch sides.  

    Then came the selection of Sarah Palin, and the race tightened--primarily due to an energized Republican base.  Just like that, we were back to the traditional swing states: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio and Florida.  This CW lasted about two weeks, until the onset of the current financial meltdown; in its wake, we are told that Barack Obama is once again poised to redraw the map.  The idea seems plausible--but it is probably wrong.  This essay will suggest that, in addition to polling data or economic statistics, there are four sociological factors to consider when modeling voter behavior in so-called swing states (including, of course, the potential for a Bradley Effect).  

Full Disclosure: I am a Democrat, but I know the first rule of the social sciences is to recognize the difference between normative and positive--between how we would like the world to work, and how it really works.  Which is another way of saying: the idea that Obama ever had a serious shot in Georgia, or that he still has a real shot in Montana, is seriously misguided.  It is one thing for pundits to engage in speculation; all it does is to annoy the informed reader or viewer.  But this lack of tough-mindedness can have serious strategic implications for determining where a campaign allocates its resources.  

I had a strange dream on Saturday night.  It was Election Day and Obama was losing because of an unexpected "hate" vote turnout in Virginia, Ohio, and other places.  Rather than gloating against the DNC a la, "well that's what they get for being so stupid," I felt very sad.  When I woke up, I was asked if I had been crying.  It was a very vivid dream and I remember feeling this awful pit in my heart and wishing something could be done to make us win the election.  I think subliminally it was also a throwback to Election 2004 when I felt so devastated by these unequivocal rejections from states and counties I thought we would have won.  

Republicans are jumping ship on the McCain campaign at an ever increasing pace.

Jed and I decided to document the process with the ever increasing list of ship jumpers.

DIGG it up here

Last night, Matt Drudge could barely contain glee as he splshed across his site the evening's tracking poll numbers giving Barack Obama a mere four point lead. Tonight, that lead expanded to six points with Obama nearly breaking 50%. And, to his credit, Drudge is acknowledging it.

ZOGBY TUESDAY: OBAMA 49%, MCCAIN 43%... DEVELOPING...

Considering that he still refuses to post the 10-point ABC margin, this is a small step toward being honest about the state of the race. It's so easy when polls diverge chrry-pick the one you like. But when they are all in the same range, there is not much you can do besides admit it, or say nothing at all. As much as it must hurt Drudge, at least he is coming around, and that is a lot for a Republican.

Gary Pritchard is running for California State Senate in the 33rd district.  The 33rd is located in Orange County, CA, birth place of Richard Nixon and home of John Wayne Airport and Ronald Reagan Federal Building.

The 33rd Senate District includes Anaheim, Anaheim Hills, Fullerton, Villa Park, Orange, Laguna Niguel, Laguna Woods, Laguna Hills, Mission Viejo, Rancho Santa Margarita, Aliso Viejo, Buena Park, Tustin, Silverado, Irvine, Santa Ana, Lake Forest, Coto de Caza and Foothill Ranch.

A new KATU/SUSA poll has Oregon Senate candidate Jeff Merkley ahead of Republican Gordon Smith 46-41. The last SUSA poll taken from September had Merkley up 44-42, which was within the MOE. Progressive Democrat Jeff Merkley clearly has the momentum going into the final weeks of the campaign. This does NOT mean we can let up on this race, not even for a second. It's more important than ever that we rally behind Jeff and make sure that we have a progressive voice representing all of us in the Senate.

It's always flummoxed me that the National Review is considered, for some reason, a "respectable" media outlet. From their history of virulent racism, to their strangely illiterate current crop of editors, I really see no reason that these people are taken any more seriously than your average wingnut blogger.

However, The Corner has been a source of much fun for me in the last few days. It's like a reality show, where the object of the game is deny reality for as long as possible. Every few days, now, someone lets a little bit of objective reality in, and gets voted off. I'm biting my nails, wondering who will be next; who will be the next person whom the Cornerites decide they never really liked in the first place?