Whatever the outcome in the Senate vote recount, one of the big winners is the Twin Cities local rag of record, the Star Tribune, which has provided impressively innovative coverage of the U.S. Senate Race recount.
Today, for example, the Star Trib has above-the-fold links on its front web page to: live streaming video from the canvassing board; a “place our recount widget on your site” link, a running tally (Franken +70 as we go to press), along with reports on the MN Supreme Court’s order to count rejected absentee ballots; a review of Thursday’s votes by the canvassing board; and an invitation to “take the Coleman-Franken ballot challenge” and make your own determination.
For those who want to skip the excruciating minutia of the recount, and cut to the chase, there’s also Paul Walsh’s continuously updated “Franken Passes Coleman in Recount, But …” noting that “the first rush of ballot rulings has unofficially put the challenger in the lead.”
The MN Supreme Court Order to count the improperly-rejected absentee ballots is a bit of a wash-out, since it requires Franken and Coleman to agree on which ballots should be recounted. That part of the ruling didn’t sit well with Associate Justice Alan Page, who complained that “the court’s order will arbitrarily disqualify enfranchised voters on the whim of the candidates and political parties.” (That would be former all-pro Viking defensive tackle Alan Page, who is also the “biggest vote-getter in MN history.”)
For Dems, the good news is that Franken has an excellent chance to win, although the outcome may not be decided before the new congress reconvenes in January.

Michael Tomasky, editor of Guardian America, has a provocative New York Review of Books article, “How Historic a Victory?,” synthesizing lessons from TDS co-editor Ruy Teixeira’s Red, Blue, and Purple America: The Future of Election Demographics and Larry M. Bartels’ Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age
Lots of anger among progressives about Pastor Rick Warren, a prosperity gospel, anti-choice opponent of Gay marriage, being selected for the Inaugural invocation. But one of America’s most fiery social gospel preachers, the Rev. Joseph Lowery, a supporter of same-sex marriage, will get the last word when he delivers his benediction, and dmac’s Firedoglake report puts it in perspective.
Eli Saslow’s WaPo article “Helping to Write History” offers a peek at Obama’s speechwriter Jon Favreau and his team of scribes as they prepare to craft the most important speech of their careers.
Will America’s 20-50 million pot-smokers (US government estimates) get any legal relief during the Obama Administration? Scott Thill has an Alternet riff on the possibility, with a focus on the role of Secretary of Commerce nominee Bill Richardson, an advocate of decriminalization.
Media Matters spanks Politico for complaining about Democrats’ “dynasty politics,” while ignoring Republican Lisa Murkowski’s appointment to the U.S. Senate by her father, Governor Frank Murkowski.
Hotline‘s Jennifer Skalka has a succinct wrap-up on the just-released study of voter turnout in the ’08 election by American University’s Center for the Study of the American Electorate, noting “sizeable gains in every region of the nation” for the Democratic Party.

Jonathan Chait’s “Minnesota Recount Update” in yesterday’s edition of TNR‘s The Plank takes an optimistic view of Al Franken’s prospects. Chait’s analysis concludes “All in all, Franken seems like a pretty strong bet to win.” Chait can get some encouragement from Pat Doyle’s article in today’s Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune, which reports,

The Star Tribune has performed its own analysis of the challenged ballots by relying on a virtual “canvassing board” of more than 26,000 readers who examined at least some of them. There appeared to be widespread consensus that Franken won slightly more disputes than Coleman, enough to theoretically erase the incumbent’s narrow lead by late Monday….According to the analysis, if all of the ballots on which challenges have been withdrawn were awarded to candidates as Ballot Challenge readers awarded them, Franken would hold a 246-vote lead heading into today’s Canvassing Board meeting. The Board will begin resolving some 2,260 remaining challenges at noon, with Franken’s challenges outnumbering Coleman’s by 224. The conclusion is consistent with an analysis done by the Associated Press, which showed that Franken netted enough votes from several thousand easily resolved disputes to erase Coleman’s lead.

It’s still a roller-coaster of a recount, but a little optimism seems justified going into the final phase.

Dear Fellow Democrats;
Greetings from The Democratic Strategist.
We are pleased to present the two TDS Strategy White Papers below. It is our hope that they spark some useful and energetic discussion among Democrats.

1. “Planning Ahead for Democratic Victory in 2010 – Setting Initial Goals and Objectives.”
2. “How Democrats Can Keep and Expand the Support of the Younger White Working-Class Voters who Voted for Obama in 2008.“

For some time we have felt that the Democratic community has needed an additional format for the discussion of political strategy, one that is longer than standard newspaper and magazine political commentary, makes direct use of empirical data and proposes specific strategies to accomplish some defined objective.
We see TDS Strategy White Papers as filling that role.
As a result, we are now making a call for proposals for Strategy White Papers. We are looking for Strategy Papers that address the following subjects:

1) Specific political strategies for 2010 and 2012
2) Strategies for strengthening and building upon the new geographic and demographic patterns of support that have emerged from the 2006 and 2008 earthquakes.
3) Analyses of key strategic choices facing the Dems and how they will impact our success in 2010 and 2012.

More detailed editorial requirements are spelled out in the “Write for us” section of the TDS website. Accepted submissions will receive appropriate compensation and substantial electronic distribution.
Please send letters describing proposed strategy papers to editors@thedemocraticstrategist.org, and be sure to include your full contact information.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Bill Galston, Stan Greenberg, Ruy Teixeira

Nate Silver has an eyebrow-raiser, which makes for an interesting follow-up to J.P.Green’s post yesterday on appointing Republicans to the cabinet so their seats can be filled by Democrats. As Silver explains in his fivethirtyeight.com post, “Appointed Senators Rarely Win Re-Election“:

Over the past 25 Congresses, there have been, by my count, 49 senators who selected by gubernatorial appointment in midterm (this excludes cases where a senator-elect acceded to office a few days early to gain seniority on his colleagues, a once-common courtesy that is becoming less so.) Of those 49 senators, only 19 — fewer than 40 percent — won their subsequent special election. Meanwhile:
* 13 of the 49 (27%) ran for office, but were defeated in the general election;
* 7 of the 49 (14%) ran for office, but were defeated in the primary;
* 10 of the 49 (20%) chose not to seek a permanent term (including one who was prohibited by state law from doing so).
These numbers are far below the usual benchmarks for incumbent senators. Since 1990, about 81% of incumbent senators have sought re-election, and among those have sought it, 88% have won it. By contrast, among the 80% of gubernatorial appointees since 1956 who chose to seek re-election, only 49% survived both the primary and the general election.

Silver provides a well-researched chart covering the 49 appointees, their backgrounds and fate. He also provides some interesting analysis, noting the poor track record of appointments that could be characterized as based more on nepotism and cronyism, than merit and,

By contrast, appointees who had significant recent experience as legislators performed fairly well. In 7 of the 49 cases, the appointee was a sitting member of the House of Representatives; 6 of the 7 won re-election. Seven others were sitting members of their State Legislatures at the time of their appointment; 5 of those 7 won re-election.

He discusses possible reforms, such as a constitutional amendment and some state-enacted reforms you probably didn’t know about, unless you live there:

Alternatively, states can move to solve the problem themselves by passing a “fast” special elections law, as states like Oregon, Wisconsin and Massachusetts now have (and Illinois soon will). Other states have evolved other checks and balances; Utah and Wyoming require that the candidate be selected from among a list prepared by the state party apparatus, while Alaska, Hawaii and Arizona require appointees to be from the same party as the departing senator. Arkansas provides for gubernatorial appointments, but does not allow the appointee to run for re-election.

As Silver concludes, “…More states ought to consider reforms like these. A Senate seat is a [bleeping] valuable thing — too valuable to allow a governor to bypass the voters.”

As J. P. Green noted yesterday, the Georgia Senate run-off provides an instructive test of just how much negative advertising voters can tolerate. But it also provides a classic test of the power of money in politics. As Robbie Brown explains in the New York Times:

Although both parties have flooded Georgia with national strategists, speakers and volunteers, Republicans have outgunned Democrats in fund-raising and advertising….In the first 18 days of the runoff, the Chambliss campaign and the National Republican Senatorial Committee spent $2 million on television advertisements, according to CMAG, an advertising tracking firm. During the same period, the Martin campaign and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spent $1.8 million.
But outside donations skyrocketed, especially among Republican-supporting groups, according to the Federal Election Commission. Freedom’s Watch, a conservative lobbying group, has spent $600,000 on television spots for Mr. Chambliss, according to CMAG, and the National Rifle Association has spent more than $30,000.

And John Fritze adds in his USA Today article “‘Unbelievable’ sum of money in Ga. runoff“:

A USA TODAY analysis of reports filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) shows: Chambliss raised $1.6 million in large contributions — amounts of $1,000 or more — from Nov. 13 through Nov. 21 compared with $462,000 for Martin. The FEC requires candidates to report large contributions within 48 hours once the campaign is in the final days.
Independent groups such as the National Rifle Association’s political action committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee spent $2.5 million from Nov. 8 through Nov. 26 in support of Chambliss — more than twice what outside groups have spent for Martin.
• Conservative and pro-business organizations, such as Americans for Job Security, have spent $1.8 million on issue ads this month that stake out positions aligned with Chambliss.
“The amount of money coming into this (race) is unbelievable,” said Bill Bozarth, executive director of Common Cause Georgia, a non-partisan watchdog group. “It almost makes me nostalgic for the days when we were a backwater election state.”
…Martin spokesman Matt Canter said many of the Democratic campaign’s contributions fall under the $1,000 reporting threshold set by the FEC for last-minute contributions. He said Martin has raised about $2.5 million since the general election when those smaller donations are included, although that information won’t be available until the post-election campaign reports are filed.
“We are raising the resources we need to compete,” Canter said. “Jim Martin’s message is not getting drowned out.”
Chambliss, who first won his seat in 2002, held the financial advantage heading into the runoff. FEC reports show Chambliss had $1.46 million available in his account as of Nov. 12, compared with $617,000 for Martin.

And, in today’s Wall St. Journal, Brody Mullins and Alex Roth explain in their article “Outsiders Look to Sway Georgia Race With Ads, Manpower“:

Since Republicans took a beating at the polls nationwide Nov. 4, business groups and conservative organizations have spent $4.2 million here on Sen. Chambliss, nearly four times as much as labor unions and liberal advocacy groups have spent on Mr. Martin since Election Day.
…The chamber is paying $750,000 to air television advertisements backing Sen. Chambliss. The National Republican Trust, an outside political group that ran ads against President-elect Barack Obama, has funded more than $1 million in advertisements for the Republican. Other groups funding television advertisements or political mailings on Sen. Chambliss’s behalf include the National Right to Life and the National Rifle Association.

It’s possible, as Green notes, that Chambliss’s harsh attack ads will turn off some voters. But Martin’s best hope may be that his campaign’s GOTV effort will trump the GOP millions. As Brown notes, quoting one expert on GA politics:

Experts say the winner will be the candidate who best rallies his base. “It’s not about changing anybody’s mind at this point,” said Merle Black, an expert in Southern politics at Emory University. “It’s all about turnout.”

Noam H. Levy reports in today’s L.A. Times on the emerging consensus for national health care reform. Levy says a ‘single-payer’ system is “off the table” for now, and, despite unresolved issues, there is growing agreement in Washington that the new system must preserve choice, contain costs, but not diminish existing coverage for anyone. He also cites growing support among Democratic members of congress for “a new system for those without insurance.”
AP’s Nedra Pickler has a preview report on President-elect Obama’s national security team, while MSNBC First Read has a comprehensive scorecard of Obama appointments and short-listers thus far, “The Obama Cabinet Speculation List.”
Politico‘s Roger Simon puts it all in perspective, noting that the big auto bailout is a bargain, compared to outlays for Iraq in his article, “$25 billion represents less than three months of the cost of the Iraq war.”
The Minneapolis Star-Tribune‘s ‘Politically Connected’ web page provides impressive coverage of the Franken-Coleman recount, with maps. Meanwhile the Princeton Election Consortium has a wonky post by a reader ‘RC’ explaining that the MN Senate race is “by any statistically reasonable standard, a perfect tie.”
As Georgia braces for the Sarah Palin show, James Oliphant of the Chicago Trib’s D.C. bureau has an update on the GA Senate run-off, “Ga. Election Holds Key to Democrats’ Senate Goals.” See also the McClatchy Newspapers’ report by David Lightman and Matt Barnwellon the Martin-Chambliss Senate race, “Battle for Georgia Senate Seat Waged on Two Levels.” Sean Quinn reports at fivethirtyeight.com that Martin may have an edge in on-the-ground organizers.
Don’t even think about running a political campaign in 2010 without checking out the New Tools Campaign web pages of The New Politics Institute.
Those interested in the challenges discussed in J.P. Green’s recent TDS post on ‘public diplomacy’ in the Obama era should also read a new Brookings Institution report, “Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century” by Kristin M. Lord, a Foreign Policy Fellow, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, specializing in U.S. Relations with the Islamic World.
How much damage could the lamest of lame ducks do in the interregnum? Quite a bit, as far as the environment is concerned, according to Mark Clayton’s Christian Science Monitor article ” Democrats brace for ‘midnight rules’ from Bush.” Clayton reviews environmentalists ‘worry list’ of Bush’s last minute initiatives to help polluters, and discusses how the Congressional Review Act of 1996 may enable Dems to prevent it.

For one of the more thoughtful takes on the topic yet written, check out ProgressiveSouth’s Daily Kos post “The REAL story about the South and the 2008 elections,” and the dozens of comments that follow.
Michael Scherer’s Time magazine article “Inside Obama’s Idea Factory in Washington” explains why the Center for American Progress is now “the most influential independent organization in Obama’s nascent Washington” and is called Podesta’s “think tank on sterioids.”
Jay Walljasper’s Alternet post “Good Thing Minnesota Has Someone in Charge Who Cares About Counting Every Vote” provides an interesting profile of MN’s Secretary of State, Mark Ritchie as he navigates the vote count for the closest — and one of the most important — state-wide races in MN history.
The Politico‘s Ben Smith reports on organized labor’s disappointment at not being included thus far in President-elect Obama’s economic policy team, after having provided so much money and manpower to elect Obama. Smith also names and discusses some of the presumptive front-runners for the DOL (Gephart, Sebelius, Maxwell, Hindery and Brainard).
Also at Alternet, David Sirota has a critical wrap-up on Obama’s appointments thus far, “Watch out for Obama’s Team Selling Conservative Policies as Progressive Politics,” while Salon‘s Joan Walsh makes the case for “trusting Obama” in her link-rich post “Who’s afraid of Obama’s overreaching?”
Atlanta Journal Constitution ‘Political Insider’ Jim Galloway quotes Jim Martin consultant Donna Brazile on whether the Prez-elect should come to GA to help Martin win his Senate race against Saxby Chambliss: “While I know and understand and appreciate the desire to see President-elect Obama down in Georgia, I think strategically, he should focus on the transition.” A vigorous debate follows in the more than 80 comments.