Goldy

Well, that was quick. Just a few minutes after the polls closed, NBC called the Michigan Republican primary for Mitt Romney. Of course Michigan, New Hampshire and Iowa are all moot, what with Guiliani’s brilliant Florida strategy about to catapult him back into frontrunner status.

Meanwhile, over in Bushistan…

Hmm. If that were Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or John Edwards posing, imagine the outrage. Baghdad Barack? Hegira Hillary? Jihad John?

UPDATE:
I’m watching the Nevada Democratic debate right now, and all I can say is… fuck Tim Russert. I mean really, fuck him. He has this great opportunity to ask the three leading Democratic candidates (one of which will likely be the next president of the United States) about important issues facing our nation, and all he wants to do is focus on race and gender in the hope of sparking a cat fight. It ain’t working.

UPDATE, UPDATE:
According to the Seattle Times, it’s very, very close in Michigan. Mitt Romney “edges” ahead, just “narrowly” leading John McCain in early returns.

Um… the headline and lede were supposedly updated at 6:12 PM, at which time Romney was leading McCain by 9 percentage points, and projected by all three networks to be the winner.

Not that I’m implying an intentional bias, but narrow lead my ass.

Hillary Clinton’s poll-defying victory in last week’s New Hampshire Democratic primary had pollsters, pundits and conspiracy theorists scrambling to explain the difference between Barack Obama’s 8-point average lead in the preceding surveys, versus Clinton’s 2-point victory on election night. Polls are often wrong, but rarely this wrong, and so not surprisingly, the post election narrative was as much dominated by the unexpected nature of the results as the results themselves. Whereas Obama left Iowa with a surge of positive press, Clinton came away from New Hampshire with a gigantic question mark.

Over on Daily Kos, DemFromCT has an exhaustive roundup of the latest thinking on what went wrong (or what went right, depending on your perspective,) and while I tend to agree with the conclusion that multiple factors led to the pollsters’ pratfall, I think there is one theory that deserves closer examination, not in spite of its lack of supporting evidence, but because of it. Of course, I’m talking about the supposed “Bradley Effect.”

The Bradley Effect (also referred to as the “Wilder Effect”) describes the observed phenomenon in which black candidates score significantly higher amongst white voters in public opinion polls than they ultimately do on election day. This is popularly represented as evidence of a degree of racism amongst white respondents, who apparently shy away from telling pollsters their true leanings, for fear of being perceived as racist. But as Pew Research Center president Andrew Kohut explains in the New York Times, the demographic underpinnings of the effect are actually much more subtle:

In 1989, as a Gallup pollster, I overestimated the support for David Dinkins in his first race for New York City mayor against Rudolph Giuliani; Mr. Dinkins was elected, but with a two percentage point margin of victory, not the 15 I had predicted. I concluded, eventually, that I got it wrong not so much because respondents were lying to our interviewers but because poorer, less well-educated voters were less likely to agree to answer our questions. That was a decisive factor in my miscall.

It is not so much that white voters generally lie to pollsters, Kohut argues, but that “poorer, less well-educated” white voters — who we’re told are less likely to support a black candidate — tend to be under sampled in the typical survey. But I wonder if, in the context of a presidential primary, the Bradley Effect might actually insinuate itself into voter behavior in an even more subtle way, spinning questions about electability into a self-fulfilling prophecy? The most widely cited examples of the Bradley Effect come from general elections, but all things being equal, primary voters, particularly in our currently polarized environment, tend to be focused on selecting the nominee they believe to be most capable of winning in November. No doubt race has always been a dominant theme this election season, hence the big story coming out of Iowa being the unprecedented victory of our nation’s first viable black presidential candidate. But if New Hampshire voters — black and white alike — remained unconvinced that our nation is ready to elect a black man to the White House, might they ultimately cast their ballot for a white candidate, despite their honestly stated intention to vote for Obama?

So, does the Bradley Effect at least partially explain the pollsters’ flop in New Hampshire? Probably not… but that doesn’t really matter, for the very discussion of the Bradley Effect has the potential to impact the behavior of Democratic voters in primaries down the line.

In reality, the much ballyhooed polling discrepancy involved Hillary Clinton’s numbers only; Obama received pretty much exactly the same percentage of the vote on election night as the pre-election polls had predicted, so it’s hard to argue that the polls oversampled Obama’s support when he largely performed as expected. The data doesn’t necessarily disprove a Bradley Effect, but it doesn’t particularly support it either.

But it’s too late for pundits to take back their speculation, and it is unlikely that the specter of the Bradley Effect won’t continue to be raised in the days leading up to Nevada, South Carolina and beyond. On its surface the Bradley Effect, whatever its mechanism or evidence, appears to be a reasonable enough explanation for at least some of what we saw in New Hampshire, and if Democratic primary voters believe it to be true, it could influence their vote as well, not because they are racists, but because they perceive a substantial number of their fellow Americans to be racist themselves. If Obama subsequently underperforms pre-election polls in other contests, “evidence” of the Bradley Effect builds, as does its place in the public narrative. What results is a self-catalyzing recursive process in which Democratic primary voters, focused on electability, transform unsupported speculation of a Bradley Effect into a reality, withholding their genuine support for Obama because they believe he cannot win. It’s not racism per se that defeats Obama, but the perception of racism in others. (Which I suppose is racism, if only in a nuanced, institutional form.)

Of course, this is all just speculation. But speculation has an odd way of coming true, even when it’s not.

There’s a fascinating US Senate race going on in Oregon, where Republican incumbent Sen. Gordon Smith is viewed as eminently vulnerable, and two progressive Democrats are vying for the right to challenge him. Jeff Merkley is the Oregon Speaker of the House, an affordable housing advocate and former Congressional Budget Office analyst. Steve Novick is a successful environmental attorney, the US Justice Department’s lead counsel on the Love Canal cleanup settlement, a political consultant and activist, and a victorious opponent of Bill Sizemore, Oregon’s version of Tim Eyman. Both are passionate public advocates who rose from modest means to earn Ivy League educations and impeccable progressive credentials. Both appeal to Oregon’s netroots, for example, dividing my friends Carla and TJ over at Loaded Orygun. Both would surely serve the citizens of Oregon better than the Republican incumbent. I’ve had the opportunity to sit down and chat with both candidates, and find it really tough to take sides.

Forced to wager on the outcome, I’d guess the odds substantially favor Merkley, the more establishment candidate with better access to money and endorsements, but as always Novick is determined to make his perceived weaknesses his greatest strengths. Standing at four-foot-something, with a metal hook in place of a left hand, Novick’s promise to “fight for the little guy” is both ironically self-conscious, and, well, believable. No, Novick certainly doesn’t “look like the typical politician,” and in this anti-status quo year, it will be interesting to see if his promise not to “act like one” can catch on with voters enough to overcome Merkley’s inherent advantages.

I genuinely like both candidates, but I love this ad, which started airing today in Oregon. In the end, Oregon Democrats will likely make a decision as to which man is best able to beat Smith in November; if the Novick campaign continues in this theme, and manages to defeat the better financed Merkley, it will say a lot about the mood of this year’s electorate.

UPDATE:
Moments after posting I discovered an email notification that the Novick campaign had purchased an ad on HA. Just thought I’d mention it since I suppose the timing might look suspicious.

The Seahawks lost. I know, they lost back on Saturday, but apparently that’s still the big local story consuming half the front page of the Seattle Times. Also, police officers and city officials don’t see eye to eye when it comes to the disciplinary system, but anybody who’s ever watched a police show on TV knows that, and buying individual health insurance coverage sucks. Tell me something I don’t know.

Meanwhile, apart from a front page column from Nevada by Joel Connelly (apparently, not everything that happens in Vegas stays in Vegas,) this morning’s Seattle P-I looks more like a PSA than a newspaper, continuing its (laudable) campaign against artificial butter flavor, and issuing a dire warning to pedestrians not to get hit by cars.

Good advice, but does anybody actually work at the Times or the P-I over the weekend, or does nothing ever happen around here on our days off? Sheesh.

In other news, God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.

Tonight on “The David Goldstein Show”, 7PM to 10PM on News/Talk 710-KIRO:

7PM: Radio Kos: What really happened in New Hampshire?
Daily Kos contributing editors DemFromCT, DHinMI and MissLaura join me for a wrap up of Iowa and New Hampshire, and a look ahead to the remainder of the primary season. Did Clinton simply have a better ground game? Was Obama torpedoed by the “Bradley Effect”? Or were the pollsters just plain wrong? And what kind of bump will this give Clinton heading into the heart of season? Join the conversation.

8PM: Will Washington voters approve “Death With Dignity”?
Former Gov. Booth Gardner has filed a controversial initiative based on a similar Oregon law that would allow doctors to prescribe a fatal dose of barbiturates to terminally ill patients diagnosed with six months or less to live. Some oppose this measure as “assisted suicide.” Proponents call it “death with diginity.” Gov. Gardner joins us to discuss his initiative and take your calls.

9PM: Will Gov. Gregoire’s 520 bridge proposal float in Olympia?
Gov. Chris Gregoire has proposed early tolling on the 520 floating bridge to help pay for its replacement, touching off a debate on how we pay for our critical infrastructure.  Rep. Judy Clibborn, chair of the House Transportation Committee joins us to share her view of whether the proposal will float in the Legislature, and what else we might see on the transportation front in the coming legislative session.
Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).

Seahawks coverage is going late, so please tune in to an abbreviated “The David Goldstein Show” tonight, from 7:30PM to 10PM on News/Talk 710-KIRO:

7:30PM: TBA
The usual liberal propaganda

8PM: The Stranger Hour with Josh Fiet
The Stranger’s Josh Feit joins us for the hour for our regular look back at the week’s news, and a peek ahead toward what’s coming up. Did the “Bradley Effect” sink Barack Obama in New Hampshire? Will Gov. Gregoire’s 520 bridge proposal float? Can former Gov. Booth Gardner breath life into his death with dignity intiative? All that, plus a look ahead toward the coming legislative session.

9PM: Saturday night comedy with Julie Mains
If you enjoy my Saturday night chats with local comedians, you’ve got Julie Mains to thank for hooking me up with guests. Julie is the proprietor of the Mainstage Comedy & Music Club and an accomplished performer in her own right, an actress, singer and songwriter familiar to Seattle audiences. Julie joins me for the hour to make it full night of fast-talking, East Coast Jews.

Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).

I was listening to some music, when iTunes automatically played the next file in the cue: an old episode of Podcasting Liberally from June 6, 2006, with me, Molly, Will, Carl, Ed Murray, Dan Savage and Eli Sanders. It was kinda a blast, and I especially enjoyed listening to us make our presidential predictions. (Hey Will… how’d Mark Warner work out for you?) Feeling nostalgic? Tune in and enjoy the fun:

[audio:http://horsesass.org/wp-content/uploads/drinking-liberally-june-6-2006.mp3]

[FYI, I believe this was recorded the day before 710-KIRO offered me my show.]

Is the Oprah & Obama Show coming to Seattle in advance of WA’s February 9 caucus? That’s what the new blog Emerald City Scion wonders after gleaning this interesting little tidbit:

ECS has learned that talk-show queen Oprah Winfrey and Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barak Obama are on the guest list of VIPs invited to a post-swearing in reception for newly-appointed United States District Court (WD. Wash.) judge Hon. Richard A. Jones set for the end of this month. ECS has not been able to confirm whether either will attend the event.

I’ve joked (fantasized?) for some time that the race for the Democratic nomination will come down to WA’s caucus, but with the unsettled state of the race after Iowa and New Hampshire, that’s no longer so unrealistic. Coming just four days after Super-Duper Tuesday, WA could serve as the momentum setter in an otherwise split race. Under that scenario, an Oprah/Obama event in Seattle could pay off huge dividends.

Hmm.

I stopped by the open house at the Vance Building last night, where a bevy of progressive organizations have set up office, proving there’s camaraderie, if not necessarily safety in numbers. There was free food, always an attraction to starving bloggers, and the halls flowed liberally with booze and schmooze; it was kinda like a roaming, multistory Drinking Liberally, but with a less embarrassing ratio of men to women.

Wandering from office to office, each with their own special interests and their own particular agenda, a common theme arose in regard to expectations for the coming legislative session. It will be a busy two months the various activists and organizers told me, hopefully filled with some small victories on important issues. But the really ambitious agenda — the substantive legislation on issues ranging from tax reform to transportation to publicly financed campaigns and more — well, that would have to wait until 2009.

It was like a Passover seder (but with cheese on the crackers, and potable wine,) as a common prayer arose from the Vance Building last night: “Next year in Olympia.” Next year, I was repeatedly told, after Gov. Gregoire wins reelection, and the Democrats hold or expand their legislative majority, that’s when we can expect a truly progressive agenda. Next year, with the burden of electoral politics temporarily lifted from their shoulders, the Democrats would apparently be free to make progress on some of our most pressing issues.

Of course, a lot of things can happen in a year that can lead to an awful lot of disappointment. Voters don’t always behave the way we expect them to behave, and candidates don’t always run the kind of campaign they should. And even if we manage to keep our unchallenged hold on Olympia, the Democratic leadership there has often proven more bold at maintaining and expanding its majority than actually using it. Finally, even if an emboldened Gov. Gregoire does attempt to leave her mark during a second term, her agenda will necessarily be limited; even the most successful legislative session will leave the halls of the Vance Building scattered with winners and losers.

Perhaps I’m wrong, but if I were tasked with pushing a bill, I’d be pushing it hard in 2008, with the Democratic governor and near legislative supermajority we have now, rather than waiting for some political heaven on earth next year in Olympia. But then, I’ve never been a man of faith.

There’s been a lot of talk about transportation “governance reform” in the wake of Prop 1’s failure this past November, and one of the main arguments repeatedly proffered is that a directly elected board of regional commissioners would be more responsive and accountable than, say, Sound Transit’s current makeup of officials appointed by other elected bodies. This is an assumption that has been left mostly unchallenged by editorialists and other members of our media and political elite.

So I thought it might be constructive to test this thesis by comparing the highly publicized recent audit of Sound Transit with its much maligned federated board ($5 million of potential savings out of a $2.5 billion budget), versus that of the Port of Seattle with it’s directly elected commissioners ($100 million wasted, and a criminal investigation.) Um… ouch.

As Seattle Transit Blog points out, “Sound Transit is ‘definitely’ in the ‘good camp’ when it comes to audits”… at least that’s what Evans Anglin, the Accountability Audit manager for the State Auditor’s office told Sound Transit at a Jan 3 presentation:

“I think that you can give yourselves a small pat on the back for doing a good year, and if I may just step outside my boundaries a little bit and just reflect on the fact that I believe your performance audit also came out pretty well, so I think that we’re all aware of maybe a performance audit that came out recently that maybe wasn’t quite so, um, didn’t go quite so well, so I think you can kind of compare and contrast yourselves between those two audits and maybe get a sense of you know, things are going fairly well here from the perspective of the State Auditor’s office. Obviously a large complex organization, there’s always things, but we’re not seeing the kind of systemic problems that perhaps might exist in an organization like this with the magnitude of construction activity that’s going on.”

“Systemic problems”…? Um… like those at the Port of Seattle, with it’s elected commissioners? Anglin goes on to thank Sound Transit for its cooperation:

“Very roughly you might be able to divide the world of the governments we audit into two camps […] this is definitely one of the entities that fall into the good camp. Our audits are always well received, the recommendations that we make are always taken seriously.”

You know, unlike the folks at the Port of Seattle.

Compare and contrast operations at the Port of Seattle and Sound Transit, and there is absolutely no evidence that a directly elected commission is inherently any more accountable than a federated board. Indeed, anecdotally, one might reasonably conclude just the opposite. And yet “accountability” continues to be a rallying cry of the anti-rail schemers who look to governance reform as a means of lopping the head off of Sound Transit, and with it, the pro-rail/pro-transit aspirations of the majority of Seattle voters.

The folks who really need to be held accountable are the so-called civic leaders and media mucky-mucks who relentlessly malign a well-run organization like Sound Transit in pursuit of their narrow-minded, backwards-thinking, roads only agenda.

When congressional candidates release their fundraising numbers ahead of the federal reporting deadline, it’s almost always good news, and that’s no exception for Darcy Burner, who just announced record numbers for the fourth quarter of 2007. Burner raised $339,494 — more than $290,000 (86-percent) coming from 1495 individuals. That’s the most ever for a Washington state challenger in any quarter of an off year, topping the $305,000 raised in the previous quarter when Burner benefited from an unprecedented $123,000 netroots fundraiser.

Burner’s 2008 campaign has now raised $858,125 total, finishing the year with an impressive $607,144 in the bank… more than half a million dollars more than at the same point during the last campaign. These results will put her in the top tier of Democratic challengers nationwide, and are a clear sign of a strong campaign and a thirst for change in WA’s 8th Congressional District.

No peep out of the Reichert camp yet on his 4Q numbers. I wonder why?

Gov. Chris Gregoire released a statement late this afternoon, clarifying her position on former Gov. Booth Gardner’s assisted suicide initiative:

“The initiative filed today by Governor Gardner offers a very personal, individual decision for Washington voters to consider should it qualify for the November ballot. I want to clarify that I will not actively oppose this initiative. It is not my place to impose my morality on others.”

So I guess in the battle between me and Lee in parsing the governor’s words, I win. So there.

UPDATE [Lee]: Goldy, you win this round. But everyone here’s a winner when Crackpiper says things this dumb:

By stepping aside, she is imposing her ammorality.

We could probably train a monkey to keep us this entertained, but we’d still have to feed it. Thank you so much, Crackpiper. Everyone else, keep an eye on EffU this weekend.

What?! Lee voted for Dino Rossi?!!! I never knew. I guess that’s just one of those uncomfortable questions that never comes up in polite society… you know, like, “Do you find your sister sexy?” or “Who’s your favorite actor on the sit-com Two and a Half Men?”

As for his anti-Gregoire screed, Lee warned me last night that he had this particular post in the hopper, giving me the opportunity to edit or nix it in advance, but I chose not to even read it before it went live. Lee has the same deal here as the rest of my HA co-bloggers: he can write on whatever he wants whenever he wants, and in exchange, I can yank his posting privileges without warning. Nobody edits me, and I’m not about to edit them. I always knew Lee was one of those weird libertarianish kinda guys, and I never expected to agree with everything he posted, but he’s a sharp analyst and an entertaining writer, and that’s exactly what we shoot for here on HA.

But, you know, it is possible to go too far.

The impetus for Lee’s post is Gov. Gregoire’s comment on former Gov. Booth Gardner’s proposed assisted suicide initiative: “I find it on a personal level, very, very difficult to support assisted suicide.” To Lee, the governor’s position is hypocritical or worse:

I find it extremely difficult to understand how a person can see abortion as a fundamental right, but also see the right for a terminally ill individual to control their own death as being subject to other people’s moral qualms.

[…] As I was researching this post and looking for Gregoire’s past statements on abortion, you’ll find that it’s nearly impossible to find statements directly from her that affirm her support for a woman’s right to choose. In fact, this page reports that she told Archbishop Brunett in the meeting referenced above that as a Catholic, she was “against abortion.” At this point, I have no idea who’s really telling the truth. But what I do know is that if she really is pro-choice, her stance on assisted suicide clearly makes her a hypocrite. If I had to guess, I’d say her stance on assisted suicide is the real Gregoire and her pro-choice position is a pander.

I wholeheartedly agree with Lee in supporting assisted suicide legislation, but I think he jumps to conclusions regarding Gov. Gregoire’s position, and in general fails to display his usual sense of nuance. Gov. Gregoire told reporters that “on a personal level” she finds it difficult to support assisted suicide — but that doesn’t necessarily mean she would actively oppose Gov. Gardner’s initiative. Likewise, I find no hypocrisy in an elected official personally being “against abortion” yet fully supporting a woman’s legal right to choose. In fact, I’ve always assumed that as a practicing Catholic Gov. Gregoire accepts her church’s teaching that abortion under any circumstance is a sin. The significant difference between Rossi and Gregoire on this issue is that he would seek to impose his own morality through force of law, whereas she would not.

Without a doubt, the modern American politician I admire most is former Gov. Mario Cuomo of New York, a liberal icon and a devout Catholic who spoke thoughtfully and eloquently on this very issue. It has been well over a decade since I last read the text of the speech he gave at the University of Notre Dame on September 13, 1984 — “Religious Belief and Public Morality: A Catholic Governor’s Perspective” — but with the GOP having since transformed itself into the Pro-Life Party and the defender of a Christianist America, Gov. Cuomo’s remarks are more pertinent now than ever. In this speech the governor reveals himself to be profoundly reverent of unborn life, and yet he distinguishes between his private role as a Catholic and his role as a public official:

As Catholics, my wife and I were enjoined never to use abortion to destroy the life we created, and we never have. We thought Church doctrine was clear on this, and – more than that – both of us felt it in full agreement with what our hearts and our consciences told us. For me, life or fetal life in the womb should be protected, even if five of nine Justices of the Supreme Court and my neighbor disagree with me. A fetus is different from an appendix or a set of tonsils. At the very least, even if the argument is made by some scientists or some theologians that in the early stages of fetal development we can’t discern human life, the full potential of human life is indisputably there. That – to my less subtle mind – by itself should demand respect, caution, indeed…reverence.

But not everyone in our society agrees with me and Matilda.

[…]The Catholic public official lives the political truth most Catholics through most of American history have accepted and insisted on: the truth that to assure our freedom we must allow others the same freedom, even if occasionally it produces conduct by them which we would hold to be sinful.

I protect my right to be a Catholic by preserving your right to believe as a Jew, a Protestant, or non-believer, or as anything else you choose.

We know that the price of seeking to force our beliefs on others is that they might some day force theirs on us.

I do not ask Gov. Gregoire or any other politician to endorse my moral perspective or keep silent on their own, I only expect that they respect my right to act on my perspective freely. Likewise, I don’t expect Gov. Gregoire to hold the same legislative priorities as I do, and given the political reality, even a legislative attempt at codifying assisted suicide would not only be unlikely, it would almost certainly come back to voters in the form of a referendum. Gov. Gregoire was asked about assisted suicide and she honestly answered that “on a personal level” she would find it very difficult to support. I have no problems with that as long as she does not use the power and influence of her office to oppose the initiative.

As for Lee’s further critique, that Gov. Gregoire ran “a hollow campaign with no ideas,” and “nearly always reverts to the most authoritarian solutions”… well… I think he overstates the situation. She did not run a very compelling campaign in 2004 (hence Rossi’s near victory) and she’s not the kind of progressive champion most of us bloggers would prefer. But overall, within the pragmatic scheme of things, she’s been a good governor… and certainly far, far better than the alternative.

Lee voices regrets over his protest vote for Rossi, but says that at this point he can’t vote for Gregoire either. On this point and others, Lee is wrong. But as long as he doesn’t try to impose his beliefs on me, I’ll gladly permit him to continue posting his wrong beliefs here on HA.

With 24% 25% 26% of the precincts counted, Hillary Clinton is leading Barack Obama 40% 39% to 34% 35% 36%. I suppose it’s still early, and Obama could still squeak out a victory… but either way, Clinton wins. The polling over the past few days predicted a big win for Obama, but as Bill Clinton predicted early in the day, it’s gonna be a lot closer than expected. Nobody’s gonna count Clinton out after tonight.

I’ll be live blogging throughout the night, updating well, whenever I feel like it.

UPDATE 6:39 PM:
Clinton 39%, Obama 36% with 48% of the vote counted. Curiously, in checking for the most up to date results I’ve discovered that the TV network’s websites are lagging significantly behind the broadcasts. Hmm. Intentional?

UPDATE 7:32 PM:
NBC just called it for Clinton. So I guess I should replace the question mark in the headline with an exclamation point, huh?

UPDATE 7:34 PM:
Nick just took the remote away from Andrew.

UPDATE 7:45 PM:

Hillary Clinton	67,828
Barack Obama	62,736
John McCain	52,142
Mitt Romney	43,920
John Edwards	29,126
Mike Huckabee	16,233
Rudy Giuliani	12,146
Ron Paul	11,157
Bill Richardson	8,212
Dennis Kucinich	2,478
Fred Thompson	1,696
Duncan Hunter	723

With about 65% of precincts reporting, the big news tonight is in the race between candidates with hot, much younger wives, where Dennis Kucinich clearly kicks Fred Thompson’s ass.

New Hampshire election officials are predicting record turnout in today’s presidential primary; as of noon EST some districts were already concerned about running out of ballots.

“Turnout is absolutely huge and towns are starting to get concerned that they may not have enough ballots,” [Deputy Secretary of State Dave] Scanlan said. “We are working on those issues. Everything else seems to be going smoothly.”

[…] According to Scanlan, the ballot strain seems to be on Democratic ballots, which suggests that the undeclared voters are breaking for the Democratic primary.

It also suggests that energized Democrats are turning out in greater numbers than their Republican counterparts, following the same pattern we saw in Iowa. I know my righty trolls have long consoled themselves that the GOP’s fortunes bottomed out in 2006’s big blue wave, but if these trends continue through November, 2008 is gonna be an awfully bad year for Republicans up and down the ticket. Say what you want about Obama, but he clearly has the potential to unify his party while attracting independents nationwide. Which Republican candidate can do that?

FYI:
The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight as usual at the Montlake Ale House, and I expect a healthy contingent to show up early to watch the results come in.