Uh oh.

For all the joy some feel at the notion of legions of hitherto apolitical blacks energized to get out and vote for Obama, here's a wrinkle they might not have considered. Having gotten out to vote for their boy, will they also vote for homophobia and pass Prop. 8? One black lesbian activist has her fingers crossed they won't, as does an LA Times op-ed. But I'm not so sure. Remember Ohio in 2004? That's when black voters remained immune to the siren call of black hyper-religious/socially conservative GOP candidates but, since they were already in the booth, also helped kill gay marriage rights.

See that op-ed for an argument that blacks are not the leading purveyors of homophobia in America (something I thought true and will now have to investigate). A recent PEW study showing across the board declines in opposition to gay marriage backs them up.

According to PEW, Black opposition decreased by 6 percent: In 2004, 24 percent supported gay marriage while 56 percent opposed it. In 2008, the numbers are 26 percent and 56 percent. The study doesn't account for Hispanic (or Asian) opinion, a factor which will definitely matter with California's Proposition 8.

Also, hopefully, the wording of the Prop will make black knees jerk:

By invoking rights, the ballot's wording on Proposition 8—the title reads "Eliminates Right of Same-sex Couples to Marry"—could turn off black voters. Proposition supporters sought a different heading, "Limit on Marriage," but a judge dismissed their case last week.

Big Brother never tires of newspeak, does he?

I hadn't thought to worry about this before, but as (some) blacks make the argument that an Obama win is a win for equality, here's hoping they'll give a thought to equality for all.

We're not big on 'eliminating rights.'

In 2002, Republican Rep. Saxby Chambliss was running against Senator Max Cleland (D-Ga.), in one of the most bitter races of that election cycle. With 9/11 still fresh, Chambliss ran an attack ad featuring a photo of Osama bin Laden that accused Cleland, a Vietnam veteran and triple amputee, of not having the "courage to lead" on national security. The ad worked; Chambliss won. But even Republicans thought the attack on Cleland's patriotism was over the top: Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) called it "beyond offensive." This year, Democrats are looking to get their revenge by kicking Chambliss to the curb. And they think Jim Martin, a longtime state legislator and former candidate for lieutenant governor, is just the man to avenge Cleland.

Can Democrats really pick up a seat in deep-red Georgia? Until late September, it didn't look possible. Chambliss led by a 17-point margin in a poll released on September 16. But as the economy worsened, Chambliss suddenly appeared vulnerable. Now most polls have Martin within a few points. Martin has yet to show a lead in a major non-partisan poll, but Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com thinks the polls are "lowballing" Martin and the race is closer than it seems:

[Read more]

One of the duties of a campaign manager is to spin--that is, not tell the truth. I remember that on Election Day 1992, Mary Matalin, a top aide for President George H.W. Bush's reelection campaign, went on television throughout the day and said that the campaign was going to win. But its internal polls showed Bush I was heading toward a loss to Bill Clinton.

On Friday, Rick Davis, John McCain's campaign manager, offered a similar whistling-past-the-graveyard stretcher. In a conference call with reporters, he talked up Sarah Palin, claiming she was an asset to the GOP ticket. It was a tough day for doing so. The New York Times had front-paged a poll showing that 59 percent of voters believe that Palin is not prepared to be vice president--up 9 points since the beginning of October. A third of the voters polled said that her selection would be a major factor in picking a president--and those voters favored Obama. Can you say, "drag on the ticket"?

Davis couldn't. He told reporters:

Governor Palin's crowds are huge. In fact, she was in a location last night, the same general vicinity of Senator Biden. He had about 800 people at his event, she had 20,000. So, all the talk that we see on television and the newspapers about what a drag Governor Palin is on our ticket can't be further from the truth. She's electrifying crowds all across the battleground states, and we really appreciate the hard work she's putting in.

So Palin is helping McCain? Davis and the McCain crew seem to be alone among the politerati in believing this. No one should call the election before the votes are counted, but it does seem clear (assuming polls mean anything at all) that if McCain does manage to win it will be in spite of--not because of--Sarah Palin.

In 2006, the Democrats picked up 30 House seats. This year, they are slated to pick up anywhere from 15 to 30. Those numbers hold some pretty historic potential. Here's CQ:

The last time a party made a net gain of 15 House seats in consecutive elections was when the Republicans did it in 1978 (15 seat gain) and 1980 (34 seat gain). No party has made a net gain of 20 House seats in consecutive elections since the Republicans accomplished the feat in 1950 (28 seat gain) and 1952 (22 seat gain).

In the Senate, Democrats are poised to pick up anywhere from five to 10 seats. The last time the Senate saw movement like that was 1980, when Republicans picked up 12 seats and Ronald Reagan took the White House. CQ notes that the 19th century saw far more volatility in both chambers, but particularly the House. "It's less common today to see huge seat swings because of demographic shifts and a surgical precision in redrawing congressional district lines to create politically "safe" seats for both parties." Can you imagine what next Tuesday would look like if politicians couldn't gerrymander their way into near lifetime appointments?