Primary reconfirms Obama's rural MO weakness

As I scoured the numbers from last week's "meaningless" Missouri presidential primary, I was startled to find that the real news was not in the hyped Republican contest but in the (technically meaningful) Democratic contest.

Overall, President Obama received a slightly underwhelming 88.3% of the vote in the Democratic primary against three little known vanity candidates and an option to send uncommitted delegates to the convention. Uncommitted, at 6.3%, was the most popular Democratic alternative to Obama. In contrast, incumbent President George W. Bush received 95.1% of his party's vote in an analogous Missouri primary in 2004. No Democrat wants to underperform Dubya!

However, it's the geography behind the numbers that should provide greater concern for the President and his strategists.

Obama was predictably strong in urban areas (the cities of St. Louis and Kansas City plus St. Louis County) where African American voters (Obama's strongest demographic) dominate the vote in the Democratic primary, plus Boone County, where faculty and some students at the state's largest college campus predominate. Obama polled a near-unanimous 96% in St. Louis and Kansas City, 93.3% in St. Louis County, and 92.8% in Boone County.

Unlike St.Louis County, Democrats in Kansas City's suburbs showed less love for Obama, with Jackson County (excluding Kansas City itself), Clay County to the north and Cass County to the south giving the President a little less than his share of the vote in the state as a whole.

But the President's numbers were more concerning in rest of the state. In rural and exurban areas (everything but St. Louis City and County, Kansas City, the rest of Jackson County and Boone County), 17.2% of Democratic Primary voters voted against their party's president. The non-Obama Democratic vote topped 20% in nearly half the rural counties, and over 30% in seven of them. In Reynolds County in the southern Missouri lead belt, it came within one vote of 40%. Even in relatively populous Buchanan County (St. Joseph and environs), the non-Obama Democratic vote was 24.3%.

Democrats have performed poorly outstate in recent November general elections, but the above numbers are from a Democratic Primary! Those numbers aren't significantly tainted by crossover votes, because nearly all of the Republican and independent voters who drive the general election numbers were most likely drawn to the highly contested and well publicized Republican contest, if they voted at all. The voting pool here would have been almost entirely true Democrats, and over a sixth of them in the rural and exurban half of the state said no to their President.

Not everyone who votes against his party's President in a primary votes for the other party's candidate in the following general election. But some (including many who chose not to vote at all in the primary) may exercise their frustration by not voting at all in November. That could adversely affect Sen. Claire McCaskill (who shares much of the President's record) and the rest of the Democratic ticket.

Republican Primary

The contest that I expected to analyze turned out to be pretty homogeneous. There was no significant urban/rural split, as former Sen. Rick Santorum carried every county, including the separately tabulated cities of St. Louis and Kansas City, defeating establishment-endorsed runner-up Mitt Romney by 30 points statewide. Santorum's success here was aided by the absence of conservative rival Newt Gingrich on the ballot, but Santorum also won caucuses the same day in two other states where Gingrich did compete.

Here are what few Republican patterns I could discern:

• Anti-war libertarian Ron Paul (12.2% statewide) ran strongest in the big cities, winning 20.3% in the City of St. Louis (compared to just 10.6% in St. Louis County) and 15.2% in Kansas City, although his best county was Mercer in northern Missouri, where Paul's 27.9% was good for second place over Romney. Paul had been expected to overperform in academic centers, but only Boone County (University of Missouri) met expectations with 18.2%. Paul ran marginally ahead of his statewide share in Phelps (Missouri S&T), Adair (Truman State) and Nodaway (Northwest Missouri State) Counties, but trailed in Johnson County (University of Central Missouri). Other campuses (e.g. Missouri State) are situated in counties in which their share of the vote is insignificant. Paul's relative strength appeared to come at Santorum's expense rather than Romney's.
  
• Romney performed relatively well (30%+) in the Kansas City and St. Joseph areas in western Missouri. Santorum's victory margin over Romney in Buchanan County was single digits. Romney also flirted with 30% (29.8) in St. Louis County, where he enjoyed fundraising success.
• Santorum's share (55.2% statewide) was quite consistent across the state. The biggest departure from the norm was Ralls County, south of Hannibal, which delivered 75.4% for Santorum. He topped 60% in some exurban counties (Franklin west of St. Louis, and Cass and Lafayette south and east of Kansas City), but not in others. He marginally underperformed his statewide share in urban areas, primarily due to Paul's relative strength there.
  

Let's not be more irrational than 'birthers'

President Obama's place of birth is much more than the controversy that will not die. It is a matter that is driving both the political right and the political left to make fools of themselves. It's time to chill already.

Even before Obama's election, some conservatives and Republicans (though notably not defeated Republican Presidential nominee John McCain) became obsessed with the idea that their conqueror was ineligible to be president because he didn't meet the constitutional requirement that he be born in the United States. This in spite of the fact that McCain's own candidacy was a bit of a stretch, his having been born in the Canal Zone, at the time a territory of the United States but never a state. It is admitted by all that Obama was born to parents who were attending college in Hawaii, then already a state. But the “birthers,” as they came to be known, contend that Obama's Kansas-born mother foresook the health and safety of American medical facilities and traveled halfway around the world to Kenya, the homeland of Obama's namesake father, to deliver her child in third-world conditions. The absurdity of the necessary assumptions that attend this scenario help to make birthers seem unreasonable to everyone else.

For his part, the President has taken steps to feed the controversy. Promptly releasing (or authorizing Hawaiian officials to release) his actual birth certificate would have ended the controversy. Instead, Obama belatedly released a modern-day abstract or summary of the birth certificate, which birthers contend to be fabricated. Birthers ask why not release the document issued contemporaneously with his birth, complete with signatures of the certifying government officials. They charge that he can't release what doesn't exist. They liken his refusal to a politician caught in a sex scandal defiantly refusing to dignify the charges with a comment.

A conservative friend of mine recently emailed me a pdf file of what purports to be a photo of Obama's Certified Copy of Registration of Birth from a hospital in Mombasa, Kenya. Such a document is easily fabricated with technology widely available to anyone with a computer. But because of the passage of time, the production of the actual Hawaiian birth certificate now would be subject to the same suspicions.

So, why did the President let this controversy fester? He may be trying to protect his deceased parents from the release of embarrassing private personal information that his birth certificate may contain. Whether or not that is true, I believe that Obama has learned that his refusal is leading his opponents to make fools of themselves, and to deflect their efforts away from other issues that might have greater negative impact on his reelection. He is playing this controversy masterfully!

But other progressives are not so masterful, and are embarrassing themselves as much as the birthers. Progressives following Saul Alinski's playbook by ridiculing the birthers are now going a bridge too far. A Facebook page called Ostracizing Birthers was launched this past week, with the stated mission “to purge Birthers from our social networks, online and in person, refusing to interact with known Birthers, with the goal of making Birtherism as socially unacceptable as possible.”

Excuse me, but this is really stupid strategy. The popularity of Democrats in general and the President in particular has improved markedly in the aftermath of the tragic Arizona shooting and subsequent appeals to civility. While my previous post disagreed with a civility movement that sought to repress legitimate public debate, this whole ostracization business is entirely different. The information page for this political organization urges people specifically to “avoid engaging Birthers in arguments about Birtherism or other topics” (my emphasis added) because “anyone who still believes that Obama is not a US citizen is a fundamentally unreasonable person, and a waste of our time and energy.” In promoting the refusal to interact at all with persons holding these particular views, on this or any other topic, it is itself a strategy that represses the free and rational exchange of ideas and political thought.

Moreover, ostracization is a form of bullying, which has recently become the subject of extensive legitimate criticism. That's not the way a political movement wants to be perceived.

Ostracization is also potentially very disruptive to everyday business and even family relationships, not the least because of how relatively prevalent birther views are. The organization's Facebook page linked to a Public Policy Polling poll that disclosed that birthers comprise a majority of all Republican primary voters. In view of the huge generational divide opened by Obama's 2008 campaign, this strategy will necessarily pit Generation X and Millennial children against their Boomer and older parents in many cases. Disagreeing over the dinner table (or, more realistically, at the keyboard) is healthy; ostracizing family members is not.

Progressives need to be smart, stop trying to suppress opponents who are defeating themselves, and avoid being even more unreasonable than those they oppose.

Need for civility: a dissenting view

Much has been said since the Tuscon shooting involving Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) about the need for civility in our discussion of political issues and people. From the President on down, both left and right, politicians are falling over themselves trying to look good by taking this “high road,” no matter how hypocritical it may be in the context of the speaker's own rhetorical past.

The most passionate voices of both the right and the left have come under fire for their rhetoric on subjects unrelated to Giffords or her shooting. Keith Olbermann, the most inspiring, uncompromising voice of the left, was canned by left-leaning MSNBC (though ostensibly for reasons unrelated to his rhetoric). That move led many progressives (e.g., Democrat strategist Mo Elleithee and State Rep. Rich DiPentima (D-NH) in Politico's discussion in The Arena) to press right-leaning Fox News to shed rhetorical flamethrowers Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and even opinionated moderate Bill O'Reilly, and for individual stations to disconnect the Rush Limbaugh radio program.

I respectfully dissent.

I'm a big-time First Amendment guy. I view all attempts to stifle free expression of ideas with great suspicion. While courts have extended First Amendment protection to such things as sexually explicit artwork, it is undeniable that speech on political topics is at the very heart of the amendment's protection. It is also undeniable that physical violence is not a protected expression of free speech.

Many politicians and media personalities have seized on the Arizona tragedy to suggest that the incident was the result of predictable reaction to heated political discussion. That's nonsense. And even if it were true, the occasional tragic response of an irrational sociopath to controversial expression is a small, necessary price to pay for our broader fundamental freedoms. After all, traffic accidents cause thousands of deaths every year, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be allowed to drive automobiles.

The fact is, the most virulent expressions of opinion are often the most effective. Displaying photographs of coffins of dead soldiers, though offensive and insensitive to some, is a legitimate, effective way to promote ending war. And I must admit that Sarah Palin's characterization of the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research as “death panels,” though offensive and insensitive, is legitimate and effective in promoting the arguments of health care reform opponents. Those who seek to stifle so-called “toxic” speech are really seeking to suppress the effective, persuasive communication of ideas that they oppose.

Certainly responses to disagreeable expressions of ideas are equally protected and encouraged. Outrageous expressions should not go unchallenged, lest acquiescence be inferred from the silence. Unfortunately, today's society prefers suppression of ideas they don't like over vigorous, reasoned debate, as illustrated by popular culture's favorite retort, STFU. Censorship is wrong, unless there is a clear and present danger to national security. While the First Amendment only limits the government from interfering with free speech and does not prohibit private citizens from doing so, bullying speakers into submission with orchestrated public outcry is just plain wrong.

We don't need to monitor our “tone.” We need more ideas, not fewer. We need to return to the richness of their unintimidated expression. Self-imposed "civility" won't get us there.

Koster should return Comcast contribution

Jake Wagman of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that cable giant Comcast Financial Agency Corporation contributed $2,500 to the reelection campaign of Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster (D, former R) on Wednesday of this week, one day after Koster (on behalf of the state) joined in a settlement that allows Comcast to merge with over-the-air television network NBC.

The FCC approved the merger shortly after the settlement was reached. This dispenses with anti-trust concerns about the resulting creation of an entertainment conglomerate.

The contribution came to light so quickly because new Missouri ethics rules require immediate disclosure of large donations made during the legislative session. Comcast's donation was more than double what had been allowed under Missouri's former contribution limits.

Wagman quoted a spokesperson for Koster's office trying to explain away the apparent conflict of interest by distancing Koster from the negotiations' heavy lifting. But Wagman, ordinarily an apologist for establishment Democrats like Koster, observed insightfully, "So, in other words, it must be a coincidence that an out of state company with limited operations in Missouri gave Koster a campaign contribution the day after he signed an agreement pivotal to their [sic] future growth."

Since Missouri law allows campaigns not to report contributions which the campaign rejects within 10 business days after receipt, Koster's reporting of the contribution means his campaign accepted it.

This sure smells like "pay to play." At minimum, the contribution represented a reward for playing along. In addition, the ethical rules that apply to Koster's conduct as an attorney require him to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Koster should cleanse himself as best he can and return Comcast's contribution as soon as possible.

3 saved Dems' seat at MO redistricting table

When a commenter to an earlier post mentioned the impact of next year's congressional redistricting in Missouri, I noted that Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon could veto any gerrymander by the Republican General Assembly, and that Republicans would need to win 20 net Democrat house seats (out of the 74 current Democrat seats) to gain the two-thirds majority necessary to override the veto. That seemed pretty safe.

But Republicans, who haven't controlled redistricting in Missouri since 1921, came damned close. They knocked off 10 Democrat incumbents and picked up seven Democrat-held open seats without losing any of their own incumbents or open seats, for a 17-seat net pickup. They also increased their senate majority (where they already had a two thirds) by three seats and now hold a three-quarters majority. Wow!

Democrats can thank these three candidates for winning tough contests. These are the Democrats that prevented Republicans from gaining a full veto-proof General Assembly:

State Rep. Sara Lampe (D-Springfield) held on to win reelection by a single percentage point (103 votes), Democrats' narrowest house win. (An independent candidate won over 5%, but I don't know which major candidate his campaign hurt.)

State Rep.-elect Jay Swearington held the open seat vacated by Rep. Trent Skaggs by winning 51.3% of the vote, a 2.6% margin.

State Rep. Ron Casey (D-Festus) defeated a former state rep. to win reelection with 51.9% of the vote, a 3.8% margin, while Republicans were winning most other contests in Jefferson County.

Honorable mention (for the next two closest Democrat house wins) goes to State Rep. Jeanne Kirkton (D-Webster Groves), who won the traditionally Republican district by 4.3 points, and to State Rep.-elect Mary Nichols of Maryland Heights, who held an open seat that many thought would go Republican without someone named Liese on the ballot.

Democrats aren't necessarily home free on redistricting, though, if Republicans can do enough horse trading to persuade three Democrats to vote to override Nixon's veto. As a preemptive tactic, Nixon might dangle some juicy appointive jobs to sitting Republican legislators (e.g., a high paying, prestigious term on the Missouri Public Service Commission) to entice them to resign prior to the veto session.

In the absence of Democrat defections, Nixon's ace in the hole is that the courts will draw the new map if the legislature and governor cannot agree, and most expect these judges to be Democrat-friendly. That prospect gives Republican legislative leaders an incentive to negotiate a redistricting compromise with the governor's representative to produce a new map that a majority of legislators will support and the governor will sign.

Nixon wouldn't be in this position of strength if Democrats had lost three more house seats that the final results demonstrated were in play.

Final forecast for the 2010 midterms

When I wrote in September, the Democrats appeared to be in position to ride out the storm and maintain its control of Congress. Wow, have things changed!

House

In September, Congressional Quarterly projected Republicans leading in 178 districts, no change from what they hold right now and just two more than they led in at the start of the year. With another 28 seats rated as tossups, Democrats were then in a position to maintain control of the House just by winning the seats where they are still ahead, even if Republicans swept every tossup contest.

But now, on the Friday before the election, Republicans lead in 199 districts, a gain of 21 seats. But Democrats only lead in 195. The remaining 41 seats (all but one of which are currently held by Democrats) are rated as tossups, and Democrats now need to win over half of them to keep control of the House. Moreover, 24 of the districts in which Democrats lead are only rated as "leaning" their way. At the start of the year, a Republican sweep of all seats in which they led, all tossup seats and all seats leaning Democrat would have produced a 33-seat gain, but left them five seats short of control. By September such a Republican "run of the table" would have given them a 57-seat pickup (bigger than the 1994 revolution) and control of the House. Such a feat now would pick up a staggering 86 seats.

While such a "run of the table" is unlikely, the final result is still bad news for Democrats. A more realistic forecast of a Republican “wave” would give that party all of the seats in which CQ now finds them ahead, a 2-1 advantage in tossup contests and 40% of the contests currently "leaning" Democrat. That would give them 52 new seats and control of the House, comparable to 1994. And that assumes Democrats keep every seat that CQ rates as either "safe" or "likely Democrat" (such as Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-MO)). Surprises could pad that total.

In Missouri, the seat of 34-year veteran Democrat Rep. Ike Skelton, which had been rated "safe" at the start of the year and which was "leaning Democrat" in September, is now rated as a tossup. And within the past week, CQ moved Carnahan from "safe" to "likely Democrat."

Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball now predicts that Republicans will pick up 55 net seats (up from 32 in September. The Rothenberg Political Report has 48 current Democrat seats either favoring, leaning or "tilting" Republican (offset by 3 GOP seats turning Democrat) and 17 more Democrat seats (and one Republican open seat) rated as "Pure Tossup."

The Oracle is pessimistic. Throughout the year, these nationally known forecasters have been behind the curve and slow to react, so the actual results will probably be worse. I'm expecting Republicans to pick up 75 seats. In Missouri, Skelton's 34-year career will come to an end, but Russ Carnahan will hold on with a mere plurality. Like I said, I'm a pessimist.

The real surprise from this area may not be Carnahan challenger Ed Martin, but Terri Newman. Who? The underfunded and largely unknown Republican opponent of entrenched Rep. Jerry Costello is running in a district that is 4 points less Democratic than Carnahan's. No national pundit thinks this seat is even in play. But the uninspiring top-of-the-ticket candidacies of Gov. Pat Quinn and Democratic senate nominee Alexi Giannoulias in the shadow of the impeachment of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich will depress Democratic turnout while rural Republican turnout surges. A Green Party candidate is poised to take the votes of those who are unhappy with Costello's votes against health care reform and cap and trade. Other voters who like Costello but are angry about how things are going will think it's safe to cast a protest vote for Newman. If Newman had campaigned more visibly, those voters wouldn't take that chance. This is exactly the kind of contest in which a surprise can occur. It will be close.

Senate

Prospects for Democrats are a little brighter in the Senate. CQ projects Republicans leading in 22 contests, up 5 since September and 7 since January. Six other seats (all currently held by Democrats) are rated as tossups, and two Democrat seats are merely “leaning” that way. Formerly vulnerable Republican-held seats (including Missouri) have firmed up, even with weak Republican candidates. (The Republican nominee may lose in Alaska, but the winner would be the GOP incumbent, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, running as write-in candidate, who has said she would continue to caucus with Republicans.) A Republican sweep of every tossup contest and all in which they lead would give them control. But California is the Democrats' firewall, where the ballot measure to legalize marijuana will draw ordinarily poor-turnout pot smokers to the polls, and they will save arrogant Sen. Barbara ("Please call me 'Senator'") Boxer from defeating herself. Assuming Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal can close the deal against former pro-wrestling CEO Linda McMahon and GOP's controversial senate nominee in Delaware is unable to cast a spell over that state's reliably Democratic voters, Democrats can retain control by winning any one tossup contest. West Virginia, Illinois and Washington are the best candidates to hold off the GOP. But Democrats' hopes of regaining their former filibuster-proof margin are dead and gone.

Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball currently predicts a net Democrat loss of eight senate seats, while the Rothenberg Political Report pegs the expected senate loss at 6-8 seats. In both cases, that's up just one since September and short of the 10-seat swing necessary to change control. The Oracle sees Democrats keeping nominal control, but having to change its leadership, with Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) replacing the defeated Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) as majority leader.

Save the Libertarians in Missouri

While the Libertarian Party has been a fixture on the Missouri ballot for a couple of decades, its ballot status is in jeopardy this year. In order to remain on the ballot without a new statewide petition drive, at least one of a party's candidates must get 2% of the vote at least every four years (two election cycles). The party regularly met the 2% test every election for several years, until 2008. That year, none of their candidates got 2% in any of the seven statewide contests, perhaps because they had to share the votes of disgruntled conservatives with the Constitution Party. That means that Libertarians must meet that test this year or be off the ballot, and this is a year in which there are only two statewide contests in which they can qualify. Other contests (such as the 9th District congressional race in which no Democrat filed) don't count for statewide ballot qualification.

We need to help save the Libertarians by voting for their statewide candidates. They are Jonathan Dine for U.S. Senate and Charles Baum, CFP for State Auditor.

I don't belong to the Libertarian Party. They and I have a fundamental disagreement over the proper role of government, but I do like their civil libertarian and anti-war stands, as well as their consistent support for reform of drug laws. They also make positive contributions to political discourse. More manipulative types also believe that Libertarians siphon votes away from Republicans, but I don't believe any party is entitled to anyone's vote.

I know it's hard to cast a vote like this when it means not voting for your own party's candidate. That's easier when the contest is not close and your vote won't affect the outcome. Unlike usual contests for U.S. Senate in Missouri, this year's match between Robin Carnahan and Roy Blunt looks like a blowout. Moreover, neither one of them really deserves our votes! Dine favors the civil libertarian and drug reform policies that I like about Libertarians. His non-interventionist foreign policy positions are better than those of any of his opponents (including Carnahan) and, for that matter, better than the war policies actually put in place by President Obama. With the seat realistically out of reach for Democrats, Libertarian Jonathan Dine deserves our votes for U.S. Senate.

We might also consider Charles Baum for State Auditor. The state is best served if the auditor is from a different party than the governor. Incumbent Democrat Susan Montee was a good choice when elected during the Republican administration of former Gov. Matt Blunt, but she has turned into a lapdog for fellow Democrat Gov. Jay Nixon. That could conceivably make a case for Republican Tom Schweich (who, at least, is from the moderate Danforth wing of the Republican Party), but what happens if Republicans unseat Nixon in 2012? Since a Libertarian governor is highly unlikely any time soon, a Libertarian auditor would be an ideal check against any governor, be she Democrat or Republican. Our votes probably won't elect him, but we can sure help him top 2%.

It's hard to tell which Libertarian is more likely to get 2%, so I suggest voting for both of them. Then go ahead and vote for your usual party down ballot.

A 'Jeff Smith guy' voting for Ed Martin

Back in the Republican sweep year of 1972 (the year George McGovern picked Missouri Sen. Tom Eagleton for vice-president and then dumped him), a young Democrat named Tom Villa, son of legendary 11th Ward Alderman Red Villa, waited in the wings to launch his political career. His home turf had just been redistricted into a state rep district represented by 24-year incumbent Joe Beckerle. But an incredible thing happened. Joe Fendler, cousin to Democrat Bud Fendler in a neighboring district, filed against Beckerle as a Republican and beat him. Then, two years later, Fendler mysteriously retired after just one term, and the open seat became easy pickins for the young Villa. The district (situated entirely east of Morganford, including most of Villa’s 11th Ward) was hostile turf for a Republican even in 1972. I can’t verify it, but rumors persist that Fendler had the secret support of the Villa organization to eliminate Beckerle, so that young Villa could avoid having to face him in a primary.

Fast forward to 2010. Missouri’s 3rd congressional district is a Democratic bastion represented by Russ Carnahan, an embarrassing scion of a Rolla-based political dynasty. He is the Democrat version of George W. Bush: impressively educated thanks to family connections, yet dumb as a box of rocks. His progressive voting record is the result of his doing what he’s told. (House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls him “low maintenance.”) Democrats desperately need an articulate defender of the merits of the legislation this Congress has passed, and the 3rd District is a safely Democratic platform from which to do so, but Russ isn’t capable enough to do that. In at least two personal appearances, his gaffes have drawn spontaneous audience guffaws that were embarrassing enough to be aired nationally on Fox News. Repeatedly. One of the reasons that the U.S. Senate campaign of his sister, Robin Carnahan, is doing so poorly against a seemingly vulnerable Republican is that Russ has damaged the brand of both the Carnahan name and the Democratic Party.

It’s time to “pull a Villa.” Democrats will never unseat an incumbent Carnahan in a primary. But what if Republican Ed Martin were to ride the building Republican wave to upset Russ this year? Martin would be a one-termer, because he won’t stand a chance with the very different mix of voters that will likely reelect President Obama in 2012. The overwhelmingly Democratic complexion of the district (which Obama won by 21 points over John McCain) means that a Martin win here would not represent the magic 39th seat that Republicans need to seize control of the House. Even with progressive “help,” a Martin win would still only be possible if it were part of a Republican wave that capsizes at least 75 Democrat seats. That now seems possible.

I admit, I supported progressive firebrand Jeff Smith over Carnahan when the seat was open in 2004. Carnahan later reported Smith to the Federal Election Commission to start a series of events than regrettably led to Smith’s conviction and incarceration, but that old sore isn’t my reason for picking a Republican over him now. (Although many progressives hold “snitches” in low regard, I don’t subscribe to that tenet.) It’s just a matter of voting strategically. Carnahan is a terrible representative and getting worse, and this year is realistically our last chance to use Republicans to knock him off. Demographic changes will keep the GOP in the minority for years to come starting in 2012, so we have to clean house now.

That’s why the Oracle will cast a strategic vote for Ed Martin for Congress on November 2. In the privacy of your voting booth, please join me.

California candidate arrested to prevent debate attendance

California has intensified its war against independents and third parties with this latest atrocity. This report is from the California Green Party:

SAN RAFAEL – Green Party gubernatorial candidate Laura Wells was arrested here Tuesday as she was attempting to legally enter – with a ticket – the Governor's Debate at Dominican University. Private security arrested Ms. Wells, handcuffed her and held her against her will until San Rafael Police intervened.

Ms. Wells, based on the citizen arrest by Barbier Security agents for allegedly trespassing, now must appear in court.....ironically, on Election Day, Nov. 2.

"Republicans and Democrats will go to any lengths, even arresting candidates, to keep the truth from California voters. There are solutions, but voters aren't being allowed to hear from independent candidates. Meg and Jerry will spend tens of millions of dollars in advertising but still won't address the problems plaguing us," said Ms. Wells, after being released on her own recognizance.

Ms. Wells, 62, a financial and business analyst, and political activist who resides in Oakland, polled more than 400,000 votes as a candidate for controller in 2002, the most ever polled by a Green Party partisan candidate in California.

With green gags covering their mouths, protestors from the Green Party of California picketed the Governor debate here Tuesday – upset that although billed as a "eco debate," the affair unfairly excludes ballot-qualified Green Party candidate Wells.

"The debate is a fraud. Limiting it to Whitman and Brown is not just anti-green, it is anti-democratic and anti-republican," said Ms. Wells, noting polls that would qualify a candidate to participate in the debate were invalid because they didn't even ask voters if they favored Laura Wells. The only choices given to those polled were Whitman or Brown.

Signs of progressive malaise

These are not good times for progressives in America. While we are almost always disappointed with the Democratic Party’s inability or unwillingness to deliver the progressive policies they promise us, we are even more discouraged, even depressed, today.

This gut feeling of mine is reflected in national polls. According to well-respected Gallup, only19% of American adults approved of the performance of the Democratic-controlled Congress last month, with disapproval a whopping 75%. But more telling is that its approval rating even among fellow Democrats is a mere 38%. Gallup’s most recent weekly generic ballot preference poll gave Republicans a 10-point advantage, the largest GOP edge in Gallup's history of tracking the midterm generic ballot for Congress. That’s even worse than reported by Rasmussen Reports, which critics regard as more Republican oriented.

But the statistic that zeroes in on progressive malaise is the “enthusiasm gap.” In Gallup’s June11-13 poll for USA Today, 35% of Democrats said they were more enthusiastic about voting while 56% were less enthusiastic, for a net score of -21%. In contrast, Republicans scored +14% (53%/39%). That 35-point gap is the largest relative party enthusiasm advantage Gallup has measured in any single midterm-election poll.

These measures of progressive malaise are not just short-term responses to disappointment of the so-called “recovery summer,” because signs appeared much earlier in the year. As early as last April, Gallup reported that Americans' favorable rating of the Democratic Party had dropped to the lowest point in the 18-year history of that measure. At 41%, Democrats actually trailed Republicans by a point. That compares to the 11-point lead that Democrats enjoyed a year ago. If that sentiment were measured today, Democrats would fare even worse.

More foreshadowing unfolded with the passing of filing deadlines (late March in Missouri and even earlier elsewhere). Democrats failed to contest 20 congressional seats this year (including Missouri’s 9th District), while Republicans defaulted in only five. This marks only the seventh time since 1920 that Democrats are contesting fewer congressional districts than Republicans. In contrast, in the past two congressional elections, Democratic general election candidates outnumbered Republicans by 34 in 2006 and by 28 in 2008, the two elections in which Democrats built their majorities that they seem to be trying to lose in this election. Here in Missouri, there are only 17 state senate seats on the ballot, but Democrats could find candidates for only 12 of them. There are more defaults on the Democratic ticket (five) than on the Republican ticket (three), a rarity in Missouri. The situation is even more pronounced in contests for the Missouri house, where Democrats were unable to recruit candidates in 42 districts (more than a quarter of the total), compared to only 29 defaults by Republicans. At least one uncontested district (the 3rd) is one that Democrats actually held earlier this decade.

A symptom of the malaise among local progressive activists is the absence of any left-of-Democrat parties on the Missouri ballot this year. The Progressive Party of Missouri was unable to collect enough signatures to place its candidates on the Missouri ballot. The Green Party of St. Louis filed no candidates for office in St. Louis, where it has ballot status, even though no petition signatures were required. The Greens had filed at least one candidate for citywide office in every even-numbered election since 2000. There is little incentive now for voters of the principled left to bother to vote.

Democrats are not so much losing to Republicans as they are beating themselves. In a recent Rasmussen poll that showed solid majorities of voters disapproving of both House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), their pitiful approval ratings were actually better than those of their Republican counterparts.