This past week Rep. Jim McDermott suggested that Congress participate in a nationally-televised Iran war game. The exercise would help Congress and the American people evaluate the consequences of an attack on Iran.

“We know the Pentagon has conducted war games to examine the casualties and consequences of a U.S. military strike against Iran….We should too.”

“Think what we would have learned if we had done it before Iraq.” It’s hard to argue with that!

(This and some 60 other media clips from the past week in politics are posted at Hominid Views.)

With a little over a year to the 2008 election, there have already been over 100 statewide polls that pit Hillary Clinton against Republican challengers in a general election match-up. These polls can be combined to give us an early glimpse of the national mood (albeit one likely soured by years of Bush administration’s military misadventurism).

I’ve been collecting these polls for awhile now, and finally got around to an analysis of the Clinton—Giuliani head-to-head state poll outcomes. My analyses differ from the typical national head-to-head polls because (1) I am concerned with estimating the electoral college results from the statewide polls, rather than estimating a national popular vote, (2) I make extensive use of Monte Carlo simulation methods to examine the probability that each candidate wins, and (3) by combining multiple polls the sample sizes are much larger.

For example, here is the result of 100,000 simulated elections using all the 2007 state poll data I’ve been able to find:

The red line is drawn at 269 electoral college votes—a tie. The area to the right of the red line are Clinton wins, those to the left are Giuliani wins. (There are a few ties. A tied election would almost certainly result in Clinton being elected since the House Democrats currently control 26 state delegations, and the Republicans control 20 state delegations. The 2008 election will probably increase the Democrat’s control of the House.)

These results suggest that Hillary Clinton would have a 73% probability of being elected President, but only if the 2007 polls in toto reflect the national mood for election day, 2008.

In reality, attitudes change with time, so it is helpful to restrict the analysis to the most recent polls whenever possible.

Here is what happens if we restrict the analysis to polls taken in October, 2007 (unless there are no polls in a state for this month, in which case we take the most recent poll, or, if there are no polls at all, we give the electoral college votes to the party that took the state in 2004):

After 10,000 simulated elections, Hillary wins 9,991 times and Giuliani wins 9 times. Clearly, over the course of the year, Hillary has become more acceptable, Rudy has become less acceptable, or some mixture of both has occurred. (In fact, further analyses reveal that Rudy has made a bit of a comeback from his worst showing in mid-summer.)

The polls to date put Clinton in an extremely strong position to win the 2008 election. Giuliani has a tough row to hoe just to become competitive. He’ll need a lot more than just fear-mongering over 11 Sep 2001 to pull off a win.

(I provide a more complete description of the methods and results here.)

Join us tonight for a fun-filled evening of politics under the influence at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. We meet at 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E.

We will have two special guests this evening: George Fearing, a Democrat running to replace (non)Doc Hastings in the 4th congressional district, and Jimmy McCabe of McCranium, who is running as a write-in candidate for Richland City Council Position 3.

Tonight’s theme song: I Ran (So Far Away) by A Flock of Seagulls.

Not in Seattle? Check out the Drinking Liberally web site for dates and times of a chapter near you.

Bill Maher offers some new rules for prioritizing things to fear:

(This and some 70 other media clips from the past week in politics are now posted at Hominid Views.)

Larry Mitchell
Redmond Prosecutor
P.O. Box 97010
Redmond, WA 98073-9710
c/o City Clerk
Cc: King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office

Dear Mr. Mitchell,

Is the City of Redmond picking up the tab by prosecuting Jane Hague for drunk driving?

I asked this question of someone who works in the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s office and he thought perhaps so—that normally this kind of thing is done as a professional courtesy. (He wasn’t privy to the details in the Jane Hague case.)

Now…I am a big believer in Redmond being a good governmental citizen and helping out King County when necessary. Cooperation among regional and local governments strikes me as a very positive thing. I don’t mind if my neighbors and I occasionally pick up the tab to ensure criminals are brought to justice and there is fairness in the process.

The King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office turned the Hague case over to Redmond to avoid a conflict of interest in prosecuting King County Councilmember Hague. I mean, surely she has personal and political connections in the office. And I can sort-of buy that, even though Dan Satterberg, the Interim King County Prosecuting Attorney, claims to be non-partisan.

Here is what I don’t get. That very same Interim King County Prosecuting Attorney who handed the effort and expense of prosecuting Jane Hague over to us is jointly headlining a Republican fund raising event with Jane Hague this evening.

Yeah…suddenly I’m completely convinced that this is a genuine case with conflict of interest. At the same time, I can’t help feeling abused by it all. The City of Redmond is picking up the tab; so, instead of prosecuting Ms. Hague, Mr. Satterberg is joining Ms. Hague to raise money for Republicans!

It sure feels to me like the citizens of Redmond are, effectively, making a contribution to the King County Republican Party.

That is, unless, Mr. Satterberg’s office intends to fully reimburse Redmond for our expenses.

Yours,

Darryl

Last June, former Seattle U.S. Attorney John McKay went to Washington D.C. to provide eight hours of testimony to the Office of the Inspector General. The Inspector General was investigating the reasons why eight U.S. Attorneys were fired.

As with the Fitzgerald investigation, this investigation has been hampered by a (former) senior Bush administration official lying. And we may have another high-profile perjury and obstruction of justice case in the works:

An investigation might be finished as early as next month, and then the U.S. inspector general might recommend criminal prosecution of departed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the fired former U.S. attorney for Western Washington told a Spokane audience Friday.

[…] McKay said he believes he and seven other U.S. attorneys were fired last December by Gonzales for political reasons, perhaps with former White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove pulling strings.

Career prosecutors in his office and FBI agents agreed there was no reason to go forward with a federal investigation of the Gregoire-Rossi election, and issues associated with it were more properly addressed by state officials, McKay said.
[…]

Gonzales “lied about” reasons for the firings when questioned under oath in July by the Senate Judiciary Committee, McKay said.

The White House said McKay was fired for poor performance ratings of his office, but the former U.S. attorney said he and his office got exemplary reviews just three months before he was fired.

“The chief law enforcement officer for the United States should not lie under oath,” McKay told the bar association.

An interesting part of this story is the likely role played by the Washington State Republicans:

In the weeks following the 2004 gubernatorial race, [Washington State Republican Party Chair Chris] Vance said Republicans were “angry and frustrated.” Republican Dino Rossi held narrow leads after the initial count and the first recount, but Democrat Chris Gregoire won by 129 votes after a second recount. Vance wanted to deliver that message of frustration to McKay.
[…]

Vance said he talked about the governor’s race frequently with Glynda Becker, the western states’ contact in Karl Rove’s political office at the White House. Vance said he didn’t remember if McKay was discussed.

Democratic claims that Rove was running the Republican effort to ensure Rossi won weren’t true, Vance said, though he said the White House knew what was going on.

Becker recalled the phone calls from Vance and “every other Republican activist from Washington state” and said while McKay’s name might have come up she couldn’t remember the context.

Others who spoke to Becker about the governor’s race included Tony Williams, a one-time chief of staff to former Washington Republican Sen. Slade Gorton, who advised the Rossi campaign.

Following the 2004 election, frustrated and angry state Republicans complained to Karl Rove’s office that the U.S. Attorney wasn’t investigating—what they perceived to be—election fraud. They didn’t have evidence for election fraud, of course, but that didn’t stop them from claiming it…over and over and over again. In the world of politics, you can make somebody believe something by repeating it often enough; but, that dog don’t hunt when it comes to the world of evidence and logic in the justice system. Even so, the state Republicans launched a high-profile law suit in which, Dale Foreman opened the GOP case by claiming, “[t]his is a case of election fraud.” After six months of investigations and millions of dollars spent on each side, the lawsuit was dismissed. There was no election fraud.

One legacy of the GOP lawsuit is that the false allegations managed to shake voter confidence in our elections process. But the problem with exercising bad-faith political smears is that they can come back to bite you in the ass. So it is only fair to give the Washington state GOP a little bit of credit for the months of political mayhem surrounding Gonzogate.

An even bigger political flap will arise should Gonzales be prosecuted for lying. (And given that the trial could take years, I suspect George Bush will, before leaving office, simply pardon Gonzales.) This, too, will become part of the GOP legacy from the Washington state gubernatorial election contest.

Hey…karma is a bitch!

I suppose you could call it a Draft “Gore” movement…

(This and some sixty other media clips from the past week in politics are posted at Hominid Views.)

Dan Satterberg was recently quoted as saying “This office should be nonpartisan,” and that he considers entering the world of partisan politics a necessary evil.

Apparently, Mr. Satterberg found it so necessary to partake of that evil that he is jointly headlining a Republican fund raising event…with Jane Hague!

Uh-huh. When “evil partisanship” calls, Satterberg steps up to the plate! He sees no problem associating his good name with Jane Hague, a candidate who is deeply flawed and neck deep in scandal.

Call me cynical, but it sure looks to me like Dan Satterberg has become a Republican fund raising asset. And he hasn’t even been elected to office yet! Democrats who are tempted to vote for Dan because “he is a nice guy, and is really kind-of, sort-of non-partisan” are simply fooling themselves—Dan is now an official tool in the Republican fund-raising arsenal.

But maybe I am misreading this whole thing. Maybe Dan is appearing at the fund raiser in a “non-partisan” role. Maybe Satterberg and Hague will actually be doing some sort of public service announcement. You know, like a Good Cop bad Drunk routine, where Jane tosses back a few, Dan tries arresting her and Jane unleashes a verbal volley. But this version of the tragedy ends differently: Jane takes full responsibility for her abuse and her drunk driving.

Or maybe Dan and Jane will make a joint announcement that, in lieu of a drawn-out investigation and prolonged prosecution, Jane has voluntarily decided to refund portions of her past King County salary—you know, from the job she obtained after lying on her resume about having a college degree. It could happen, I suppose.

Yeah…maybe Dan really is non-partisan, in which case, any day now, I expect to see him headlining a fund raiser for Venus Velazquez.

From a KING 5-commissioned poll:

SurveyUSA polled 520 likely voters in King County; the poll has a margin of error of 4.4%:

Dan Satterberg (R): 43%
Bill Sherman (D): 49%
Undecided: 8%

Among males, Satterberg leads Sherman 51% to 40%. But among females, Sherman leads Satterberg 58% to 35%. Oh…and females make up 52% of voters.

Sherman leads in all age, generation and race groups except for the 65+ crowd who prefer Satterberg.

The crosstabs are available here.

Update: I want to preempt the inevitable right wing spin about the fact that the poll results are slightly “within the margin of error.”

Statistically, the meaning of these results is this: if the election were held today, Sherman would win with a 93% probability and Satterberg would win with a 7% probability.

James L at the Swing State Project noticed something interesting:

MO-06 and WA-08: So get this. Despite being the beneficiary of a high-profile fundraiser hosted by Republican Lord & Savior George W. Bush, Dave Reichert was out-hustled by Democrat Darcy Burner. Compare Reichert’s haul with the total posted by Sam Graves, a Missouri Republican who received a fundraising visit from Dick Cheney. Graves raised a very impressive $500K+ for the quarter. I guess the President’s star power isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be anymore.

Reichert’s fundraising last quarter was damn anemic for an incumbent, not to mention an incumbent who had the President come to town to help.

Looking more closely at the FEC paperwork reveals how truly anemic the Bush fundraiser was. The FEC rules require that joint fundraisers, like the event held for the Washington State Republicans and Reichert, be handled independently of either group. The Bellevue Bush fundraiser was handled by an entity known as The Reichert Washington Victory Committee.

This FEC form 3x documents the donations and disbursements from the Bush fundraiser. What the form clearly shows is that the event only raised $135,025! That was $127,025 from individual contributions and another $8,000 from a political action committee.

A grand total of $127,025 in individual contributions at a Bush fundraiser in Bellevue, Washington??? That’s fucking pathetic! But…there you have it (maybe—see below).

Somehow or another, the media got the wrong estimate from this event. This KOMO report cites a slightly higher figure:

President Bush, deeply unpopular in Washington state, still raised more than $500,000 Monday for Republican U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert and the state GOP, just hours after the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Where would the media get a figure like one-half a million? Perhaps it came from Reichert’s spokesperson, Mike Shields, who is quoted as claiming:

“It’s a huge cash injection before the actual election cycle begins,” Shields said. “An event doesn’t get much bigger than this. This is a huge help.”

Yeah…nice spin, Mike. The truth is a little less “big.” The FEC form shows the loot was mostly split three ways. The Washington State Republican Party got $26,166.73, Friends of Reichert took $35,754.80, and the big winner was the Hyatt Regency, Bellevue that earned $63,146.88 for hosting the fundraiser.

While Reichert was busy raising $35,755, Darcy Burner raised $125,000 from over 3,200 donors. In other words, Darcy Burner kicked both Reichert’s and Bush’s asses.

But these figures are only as good as the accountant filling out the FEC paperwork. We learned yesterday that there was a strange $47,100 refund in the FEC filing for Friends of Dave Reichert this quarter. Mike Shields offered a perfectly opaque explanation to the AP:

Shields said the difference – some $47,000 in refunds to donors – was an accounting technicality that sprang from the Bush fundraiser.

Those refunds had to be issued because of mistakes in dividing the Bush money between Reichert’s re-election campaign and the state Republican Party, which shared the more than $500,000 raised by the president.

The refunded contributions will be repaid, so Reichert is counting those contributions toward his third quarter total, Shields said.

Putting two and two together, it appears that Friends of Dave Reichert illegally processed some of the contributions that were all supposed to be handled by The Reichert Washington Victory Committee. If so, and if the money goes back to The Reichert Washington Victory Committee, it means that the Bush fundraiser only brought in $182,125. That’s still a far cry from the half million being hawked to the press.

Oh…and if The Reichert Washington Victory Committee takes the refunded money and returns it in full, it means Dave Reichert only took in about $84,000 from the event.

Darcy Burner still kicked his ass!

(Thanks to N in Seattle and Daniel Kirkdorffer for their help in untangling Reichert’s mess)

Join us tonight for a fun-filled evening of politics under the influence at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. We meet at 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E.

One of tonight’s activity will include taking bets on when Rep. Dave Reichert’s spokesperson Mike Shields gets back to David Postman with an explanation for his incorrect claim that Reichert out-fund-raised Darcy Burner last quarter. (My prediction is 5:30 pm this Friday.)

Tonight’s theme song: Going Down by Jeff Beck, in honor of the recent deflation of Rep. Reichert’s already lackluster fundraising totals for the quarter. Oh…and in anticipation of his probable fate in 2008.

If you find yourself in the Tri-Cities area this evening, check out McCranium for the local Drinking Liberally. Otherwise, check out the Drinking Liberally web site for dates and times of a chapter near you.

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

7PM: The Stranger Hour
Erica C. Barnett and Josh Feit from The Stranger join Goldy to talk politics, Erica’s new iPhone, and maybe some sex.

8PM: Drinking Liberally
Justin Krebs, founder of Drinking Liberally, will join Goldy to talk about the liberal grassroots, drinking and being liberal. [Update: Nicholas Beaudrot, Seattle Chapter co-founder is there, too.]

9PM: Perfection, Ann Coulter style
Goldy discusses wacky topics like disenfranchising women and perfecting Jews.

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

The Bush administration announced this week that federal budget deficit declined this year, and for the third year in a row.

Jack Cafferty examines the claims and points out, “They’re lying!”

Bonus factoid:

There has been more debt accumulated during the administration of President Bush than during all of the previous presidents combined.

(This and some 70 other media clips from the past week are now posted at Hominid Views.)

Really…he isn’t.

Fred refines his message:

(This and some 70 other media clips from the past week are now posted at Hominid Views.)